Supreme Court allows certain businesses to discriminate who they will serve

Author: IwantRooseveltagain

Posts

Total: 135
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,916
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
It would be interesting what the legality would be for kicking a Supreme Court Justice out for being straight.

IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,137
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
which gives my stated positions more credibility than yours. 
This is that appeal to authority fallacy you are always applying inappropriately because you are NOT an authority on anything 

It’s rather banal, to be frank.
Always with the banal. Your greatest hits!


That’s nothing more than appeal to authority fallacy without credibility.
Unbelievable. You have no credibility yet you always claim to be some kind of legal expert.
Bill-0
Bill-0's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27
0
0
5
Bill-0's avatar
Bill-0
0
0
5
-->
@Sidewalker
Well religion is also a protected class though, so because of that i dont think they could be forced to make something against their religion
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,063
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@Bill-0
Well religion is also a protected class though, so because of that i dont think they could be forced to make something against their religion
So a Muslim webmaster can refuse to work for Christians?


Bill-0
Bill-0's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27
0
0
5
Bill-0's avatar
Bill-0
0
0
5
-->
@Sidewalker
Good point, Honestly i think that would be ok
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,916
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
Division, division, division.
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,063
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@Bill-0
Good point, Honestly i think that would be ok
Religion is an internal affair, so one could justify any discrimination on any basis by saying it is a religious belief, the KKK claims to be a Christian organization,

The Supremes have opened the floodates of discrimination. 
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,063
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
"To know a person's religion we need not listento his profession of faith but must find his brand of intolerance."  Eric Hoffer
Bill-0
Bill-0's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 27
0
0
5
Bill-0's avatar
Bill-0
0
0
5
-->
@Sidewalker
Again, i see where you are coming from and i definitely agree to a certain point,  however remember that the website they were asking for was ABOUT lgbtq, so if a Muslim webmaster was asked to make a christian website i dont think that anyone would be angry if they refused.

So while you cant be refused anything due to your sexual orientation, there will always be an exception if it directly has to with said sexual oreintation
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,063
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@Bill-0
Again, i see where you are coming from and i definitely agree to a certain point,  however remember that the website they were asking for was ABOUT lgbtq, so if a Muslim webmaster was asked to make a christian website i dont think that anyone would be angry if they refused.

So while you cant be refused anything due to your sexual orientation, there will always be an exception if it directly has to with said sexual oreintation
The ruling is nebulous at best, my original point stands, "The simple fact is the ruling is going to allow people who want to discriminate to discriminate".  Bigots always justify bigotry, the Supremes have allowed that.

Just look at TWS' posts, for him, racism is a religiously held belief.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,058
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Sidewalker
Do you think freedom of association should be abolished in modern society?
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,058
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Sidewalker
 "The simple fact is the ruling is going to allow people who want to discriminate to discriminate"
The critics say the exact same thing about the Affirmative Action SCOTUS decision, namely that Harvard can still continue to exclude Asians if they so want to. They just can't brag about doing it now under the pretense that it is legally justified.
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,106
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you think freedom of association should be abolished in modern society?
*crickets*

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,058
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@cristo71
Funny how scary the slippery slope is when you see what is at the bottom....
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,137
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
The critics say the exact same thing about the Affirmative Action SCOTUS decision, namely that Harvard can still continue to exclude Asians if they so want to. They just can't brag about doing it now under the pretense that it is legally justified.
Harvard doesn’t “exclude” Asians. They just don’t want to be like UC Irvine which is 36% Asian.