Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

Yeah, I don't want to act as a definitive authority here but I just didn't see anywhere in her brief that the county had taken any action against her or that she was under pressure from a same-sex couple to perform a ceremony. It was more speculative than that. The law might be used against her one day. Under her reading of the law. I'm not sure she's right about that but it could be rewritten to make it more clear, like you say.

For the "injury" it doesn't have to be actual injury, it can be a "threatened" injury and if there is a law that would cause you injury that's probably enough to challenge on Constitutional grounds. What the plaintiff is seeking is probably (I haven't read it) declaratory relief stating that the law is unconstitutional and injunctive relief prohibiting the county from enforcing it against her.The county can acquiesece -- IF it really has no intention of enforcing in this situation and enter into some sort of consent decree. Or they can just amend the law.

As an analogy, this term's gun case re NYC. In that case, the law was clearly unconstitutional as written. But then the city said, "we didn't mean it, we won't enforice it." That wasn't enough. Or, to be more precise, they didn't think that was going to be enough for the Supreme Court. So, they amended the law to take out the offending provision.

Anyway, standing in this cases can get a little tricky. And in this types of cases, the statute usually has to be unconstitutional on its face (obviously unconstitutional). Courts don't want to waste resources adjudicating the constitutionality of statute that, if interpreted in a certain way, is constitutional or, for that matter, statues that are never enforced in an unconstitutional way. Further, if there's an ambiguity in the language courts general tend to presume the drafters intended the law to be constitutional so they resolve the ambiguity in favor of constitutionality.

So, in this case, if the statute is ambiguous or if there is a reasonable way to construe it as constitutional, the court will.

Thanks for taking the time to bring me up to speed on the facts and the quote the law at issue.

[iam416]

I don't understand the need for analogies her. The Amish are the Amish. Race-based discrimination is race-based discrimination. There are so many analogies one can draw that eventually get into polygamy, children, animals, etc. The facts are the facts here.

We're talking about gay weddings. The Supreme Court has made it crystal motherfucking clear that private businesses can refuse to provide services for gay weddings if it violates a sincerely held religous belief. That's the law. And it's correct. Period. End of story. You can analogize to the Amish or Black folks all you want. But it's stupid when you actually have a Supreme Court ruling that specifically addresses the issue at hand.

Now, I know there are numerous non-believers out there who feel the need to activiely tell religious folks what is or isn't part of therie religion and have the State tell them how they can practice their religion. I mean, that was the entire point of the Colorado case. Someone didn't like a Christian bake shop so they drummed up a lawsuit, used the power of the State and put them through hell. The bakers eventually won, but it was quite the pyrhhic victory. All because they were Christians who would bake any other kind of cake for gay folks except a wedding cake. The ultimate wokescold.

[iam416]

Finally, these battles over personal services change over time.

We generally rely on the market to resolve almost everything. Almost. However, there are times when the marketplace is monopolized. And in the case of the marketplace of ideas, monopolized by unconstitutional thought. So, in the South in the 1960s there was no market correction or alternatives for overt discrimination. The Federal governement, through Congress and the Supreme Court (tenuous reasoning, correct outcome), force corrected the market. Or regulated the market. Whatever.

In 2020 there is no marketplace issue. Wokeness IS the market. There is no shortage of bakers, priests, whomever to serve gay, trans, whatever people. None. There is absolutely zero need for a forced correction. In fact, one would think that the "christian bigots" would suffer market harm in this environment. And that's the whole point of the State actions and legal actions -- to stamp out them out -- not to procure services. In Colorado, Oregon and Indiana, the gay couple had multiple different options, but intentionally chose the christians to drum up a lawsuit and then use the power of the State to force them perform an act directly contra their sincerely held beliefs. I mean, fuck man, that's straight Stalin.

So, it's very different from the 1960s.

I think that's in the back of the minds of the Supreme Court, too. They have competing Constitutional rights and they're sort of trying to figure out whose rights are more likely to get mobbed. Where is the market most likely to fall short. And I think that in today's world it really is with the christian/religious folks.

[WingsFan]

Edsc003XgAAjbU7?format=jpg&name=small.jpg

Yikes! What a Metaphor

[WingsFan]

[iam416]

JFC. That's Fifty Cent bad.

[lineygoblue]

116233525_10217393908343713_3931661485437909519_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_sid=110474&_nc_ohc=unYfIO52sFEAX8J_6i_&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=9084ce3f73e9337f13142f94c74b5aad&oe=5F405AE8.jpg

Who needs a mask?....

... or social distancing?

[WingsFan]

That's Fifty Cent bad.

Oh yeah, forgot about that one lol

[lineygoblue]

I don't understand the need for analogies her. The Amish are the Amish. Race-based discrimination is race-based discrimination. There are so many analogies one can draw that eventually get into polygamy, children, animals, etc. The facts are the facts here.

We're talking about gay weddings. The Supreme Court has made it crystal motherfucking clear that private businesses can refuse to provide services for gay weddings if it violates a sincerely held religous belief. That's the law. And it's correct. Period. End of story. You can analogize to the Amish or Black folks all you want. But it's stupid when you actually have a Supreme Court ruling that specifically addresses the issue at hand.

Now, I know there are numerous non-believers out there who feel the need to activiely tell religious folks what is or isn't part of therie religion and have the State tell them how they can practice their religion. I mean, that was the entire point of the Colorado case. Someone didn't like a Christian bake shop so they drummed up a lawsuit, used the power of the State and put them through hell. The bakers eventually won, but it was quite the pyrhhic victory. All because they were Christians who would bake any other kind of cake for gay folks except a wedding cake. The ultimate wokescold.

This says it about as well as it can be said.

[Jeff Buchanan]

I tried to like talent's last te posts but I can't find the stupid symbol on my android to do it. These posts are golden. We mostly still hate him.....mostly.

[AlabamAlum]

You’re on an Android? Are you poor now, Jeff? What’s your Venmo. I’ll send you some cash.

[Dr. Strangelove]

You’re on an Android? Are you poor now, Jeff? What’s your Venmo. I’ll send you some cash.

Yeah, don't they hand those out with the government cheese?

[AlabamAlum]

Yeah, don't they hand those out with the government cheese?

Yes. You are also issued one when you qualify for Medicaid. With Medicare, you get a Jitterbug, which is what I assumed Jeff had.

[iam416]

Poor Buchanan. His heart and mind are indisputably in the correct place in his deep desire to express adulation for The Talent's posts, but he nonetheless still manages to justifiably fall prey to the relentlessly cutting mockery of Alabam"Alum" and "Dr." Strangelove.

[AlabamAlum]

This is what happens when you praise “Talent’s” drivel. “Talent” is the Angel Hernandez of posters.