this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2023
54 points (98.2% liked)
Politics
1025 readers
1 users here now
@politics on kbin.social is a magazine to share and discuss current events news, opinion/analysis, videos, or other informative content related to politicians, politics, or policy-making at all levels of governance (federal, state, local), both domestic and international. Members of all political perspectives are welcome here, though we run a tight ship. Community guidelines and submission rules were co-created between the Mod Team and early members of @politics. Please read all community guidelines and submission rules carefully before engaging our magazine.
founded 2 years ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
To start, your confusing the cake case with the one from last week that had to do with a website for gay marriage (cake happened years ago). In both, they ruled that the 1st amendment rights of free expression and freedom of religion supersedes state nondiscriminatory laws.
For the record, I’m completely opposed to the rulings. But what you claim to be “pure fantasy of religion” is not something a large portion of the population would not agree with as they believe is some sort of faith, and the right to believe that faith is something that is protected by our 1st amendment whether you like it or not. I mean, it’s something that makes our country great is it not?
In regards to affirmative action, it was bound to be overturned due to its own discriminatory nature. Are there massive discrepancies in access to quality education, funding, wealth, and opportunities on a socio-economic and racial basis that is widespread all throughout society? Of course! But affirmative action is NOT the answer or solution to this, again due to its own discriminatory nature (and therefore, unconstitutional).
The whole bribery thing with Roberts and Thomas is a separate issue, and there needs to be severe consequences for such actions. Does SCOTUS have massive problems currently? Yes! But the faster we realize that it was meant to be a non-partisan institution with the sole purpose of interpreting the constitution and not ruling based on what the majority of people want, the faster we’ll realize that the institution is currently broken and we need to be very careful with what solutions are implemented (and no, packing the court is not a solution. It’ll make the whole situation exponentially worse)