politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Can someone TLDR the LGBT case? I heard something about legal business discrimination but that’s all I know.
A Christian website designer sued so she wouldn’t have to make sites for LGBTQ+ weddings. The court said she can refuse, citing religious freedom. It was a 6-3 vote.
Also, it seems the web designer that sued basically made it all up. The designer didn’t have any same-sex clients. She didn’t receive any requests from gay couples to work on their wedding websites. But it doesn’t matter the court ruled that she can legally discriminate anyway.
She was also not a web designer lol. Insane ruling by the SCOTUS, totally ignoring standing. Same issue with the student debt relief overturning. This court does not care about standing at all and is willing to throw out that most basic principle of law for the purpose of their judicial activism.
This may create a sort of pseudoreligious legal arms race. One group will arbitrarily take away rights based on “their religion,” as has happened today, and another will attempt to recreate those rights under their own “religious” banner, as the church of satan has attempted. “Religion” will end up a focal point, regardless of the outcome, and fundamentalists win.
I have a feeling that if the church of Satan or whatever tried pushing a case under the banner of religious freedom, this court would just introduce some litmus test for which religions and believers qualify for protection under law and which do not (using originalism as a shield). And if that were to happen, I think we can confidently say that they’d find some way to implement a test that discriminated against minority beliefs in the US (e.g Islam, Hindu, atheism, indigenous faiths, etc.), further codifying the erosion of constitutional protections. I dunno, I’m obviously not a legal scholar, but I think this court is getting pretty easy to predict at this point.
True, I don't think the church of satan is that strong. The satanic temple on the other hand is a power house of fucking states over adding moses and some statue. Say a city builds a statue of jesus, they must allow a statue of satan since they are opening a religious form. If satan is rejected well, under the constitution they are violating religious freedom and they either must accept the state of satan or take down the statue of jesus.
Which confirms that states can pose Jim Crow style laws against LGBTQ.
A website designer refused to make a website for a gay wedding couple, citing that homosexual relationship are against their religious beliefs. The state had laws forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexuality and in a lawsuit tried to force the designer to make the website. The Supreme Court decided 6-3 that religious beliefs are more important and the state can’t force someone do do business against their religious beliefs and that doing so would be a violation of free speech by forcing someone to make speech.
It's important to point out that the entire story behind the case was fabricated. There was no gay couple asking for anything. It was all garbage used to erode LGBTQ+ rights.
And the web designer doesn't even make websites for wedding. The whole thing was fake and designed to reach the supreme court and to just this.
That’s news to me, do you know where I can read more?
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-designer-supreme-court-gay-couples
This whole case has me asking questions- who hires a web designer to build them a website for their wedding? People with an extra few grand sitting around on top of the costs of having a wedding? I'm going with: nobody. Nobody makes a website for their wedding when they could just post about it on social media for free.
This is the stupidest timeline.
I’ve been to at least 3 weddings with a website. They have an RSVP page, a registry, a guestbook, and photo albums and friends/family can add to the album.