re: Ketanji Brown Jackson “It’s a Wonderful Life” is Fodder For White Supremacists in Oral Arg

quote:

---

No, it doesn't.

---

I mean, it does. Definitionally speaking, how the court rules on this matter gives clarity to the legal interpretation of the principles being discussed in this case.

quote:

---

Freedom of speech includes the right to NOT speak, and to selectively speak, and not to be compelled to speak in a fashion you object to or disagree with.

---

Cool. And I happen to agree. Still, this has nothing to do with the post you quoted. The poster wasn't making an argument either way, just clarifying Jackson's statement since the majority here were unable to understand.

quote:

---

The Court fricked up when it only took up the free speech part of this and not the freedom of religion part of this this. The latter is cleaner, and is imminently easier to support.

---

Source?

Everyone who has every worked in corporate america has worked with an african-american female like this. And now one is on the surpreme court.

quote:

---

You said she's making arguments. Not sure how that is hers to make.

---

Here's the timeline.

Jackson made an argument using "It's a Wonderful Life".

Someone posted a summary of it on this forum.

Most members didn't understand her argument.

Stormchaser clarified her argument without stating his own opinion on the matter.

Knuckle daggers assumed his clarification of her argument was a reflection of his own despite him being explicitly neutral in his post.

Jimmy the leg said stormchasers take was moronic.

I told Jimmy that clarification isn't a "take".

You jump in not knowing what's being discussed and won't bother yourself in figuring it out.

quote:

---

Either way, she failed to persuade almost anyone.

---

Except black women and fawning Karen who were prepared to agree with her the moment she said I have a vagina and I am black.

quote:

---

it declined to hear Smith’s claim that Colorado’s law violates her religious freedom.

---

Had they already rendered a ruling on that sort of thing before?

quote:

---

quote:
it declined to hear Smith’s claim that Colorado’s law violates her religious freedom.


Had they already rendered a ruling on that sort of thing before?

---

in a very limited case, and since you have someone from the same state under the same law facing the same sanction (and being blessed by the district and appellate courts), you'd think that IF their prior ruling controlled, they would have reversed per curiam w/out briefing and oral argument.

There is some sensationalism going on here with this headline, and you don't have to be a fan of Justice Jackson to see that. The 11th Circuit decision was based in part on the idea that a business cannot refuse to sell to LGBTQ folks. Jackson is clumsily playing off that, but I don't think it's fair to say she said the classic movie is "fodder for white supremacists.

But Jackson's analogy is nowhere close to what is going on with the website designer. The article quotes Gorsuch who frames the issue perfectly. The case is not about "who" is being sold to, it is about "what" the designer will be forced to engage in terms of her speech/expression. Example: Designer has a premade "wedding website kit" that sells for the low, low price of 49.95 and is available for couples to purchase and plug in names and dates to design their own wedding website. Designer must sell that product to Steve & Todd who are getting married in Boulder. No constitutional problem there. This does NOT mean that Steve & Todd can force the designer to create a tailor-made website for them because, as even the 11th Circuit recognized, doing so involves the designer's "pure speech" (and, I would argue, her exercise of religion). The state statute must yield to the First Amendment. This should be an easy case, and I hope that Kagan (the most principled of the the Court's three liberals) provides the vote to make it 7-2.

KFC needs to understand that anti-discrimination laws are not viable. It's every American's right to discriminate, and we do it dozens of times a day, the vast majority of which are legal, and based on numerous criteria.

quote:

---

I'm almost ok with limited scope public accomodation, food and shelter. I understand that thinking. This is retarded.

---

It's abused to violate our rights of association, speech, etc. No one complains when black people say to keep the money in the "community". No one is checking to make sure that only 13% of their haircuts are done with black barbers, 13% with Latino barbers, 63% with white, 50% with women, 6% with homos, 0.4% with trannies, etc. In other words, when we "hire" someone to cut our hair, are we free to use race and sex as determinants? Of course we are. Why should it be any different elsewhere? And why should it always seem to only work in one direction? I think if someone would refuse business to a black person because they're black and they hate black people, they're morally wrong, but that should be their right. We have the right to do all kinds of things that most would say are a-hole behaviors. That's why we need rights: no one needs the "right" to do something that everyone agrees with.

quote:

---

I'm almost ok with limited scope public accomodation, food and shelter. I understand that thinking.

---

Screw that. We should have freedom of association and there should be no special snowflake protected classes.