Mastodawn

Dave Goldberg Jun 30, 2023

Let's be clear: nothing happened to the plaintiff in 303 Creative, the whole "case" was a hypothetical exercise, and the GOP Justices used it as a vehicle to undermine every single federal, state, county, and city anti-discrimination law in the country.

There's now a special exemption for any bigot who wants to claim their work is "expressive," even if the work they do doesn't express any message at all.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf

Blake C. Stacey Jun 30, 2023

@maxkennerly I guess there was no doubt we'd end up here.

Michael Gemar Jun 30, 2023

@maxkennerly I didn't think the courts would typically rule pre-emptively, and required an actual harm.

Paul Botts Jun 30, 2023

@michaelgemar @maxkennerly That's true, in fact it's in the Constitution regarding the SCOTUS. In this situation the "actual harm" is a state law preventing someone from doing something, on (the plaintiffs argued) a constitutionally-illegitimate basis.

Imagine if a state passed a law saying "no new business licenses for people of Chinese descent". That would obviously violate the federal constitution, and Asian-Americans could bring federal suit over that actual pre-emptive harm.

Michael Gemar Jun 30, 2023

@PaultheFossil @maxkennerly So I don’t even have to be doing the activity, merely claim that I *want* to do the activity, and so at some point in future *might* be harmed? All other significant SC cases that I know involved individuals who were claiming actual harm (E.g., Loving, Obergefell, Masterpiece Cake Shop). Is there precedent for no person claiming *actual* harm? What are some examples?

Paul Botts Jun 30, 2023

@michaelgemar @maxkennerly In order to get the case heard you have to show that you were actively trying to do the activity and the unconstitutional (in your argument) state law is preventing you.

Michael Gemar Jun 30, 2023

@PaultheFossil @maxkennerly And those criteria were not met here — she didn’t actually do the activity, and there was no actual customer she was required to serve under the law.

antipode77 Jun 30, 2023

@michaelgemar @maxkennerly

Requiring actual harm is a sensible requirememt.

You drop that and the Courts could be swamped with any number of hypothetical cases drowning out actual cases.

xian Jun 30, 2023

@maxkennerly all webmasters are now artists, per the Court

@maxkennerly regardless of whether she actually had a potential client or not, she's a homophobic ass. It'd be a shame if people would spam her business's contact form with junk...

https://303creative.com/contact/

contact

303 Creative

Gabriel N Jun 30, 2023

@maxkennerly we wanted to go to the US on vacation, and lately we’ve been thinking hard about it: does it even makes sense given what is happening over there? “No sir: we don’t serve tourist from your nationality. It’s against our white supremacist credo”

Ragnell the Mildly Unpleasant Jun 30, 2023

@wtrmt @maxkennerly I'd suggest NYC, but the air quality there is pretty bad right now.

Blake C. Stacey Jun 30, 2023

@maxkennerly And there goes student-debt forgiveness too...

David Gerstein Jun 30, 2023

@maxkennerly Yes, but no one drives a stretch limo with the same panache as I do.

Shawn Jun 30, 2023

@maxkennerly it also solidifies that the US deems LGBTQ+ identity as something a moral judgment needs to be made about. That it is understandable to accuse LGBTQ+ people of immoral behavior just by existing.

Replace LGBTQ+ with any other physical or psychological trait and the actual problem shows up: the US has not yet done its job to state unequivocally that LGBTQ+ is in no way immoral and claiming that it is is like saying blondes are immoral.

antipode77 Jun 30, 2023

@muzikant @maxkennerly

It is >segregation<
. By gender
. By sexuality
. By color
. By racial attributes

Using a get out of jail card 'my religion does not allow me to serve people of .....'

This is in violation of your CIVIL RIGHTS

#Democracy #Segregation #CivilRights

@maxkennerly The nuclear fallout of this will be HOAs declaring their work as "expressive" and putting signs "no colored people allowed here".

(((Cindy Weinstein)))Jun 30, 2023

@maxkennerly. Could #JackSmith please look into this?

(((Cindy Weinstein)))Jun 30, 2023

@maxkennerly. Actually, I'd like him to look into everything.

@maxkennerly And if the defense had provided EVEN MORE ironclad legal reasoning showing the absurdity of this “expressive” malarkey, the court would have ginned up some other reason to rule the way they wanted to. The reasoning doesn’t matter (which must make actual constitutional law scholars wince). This is why the court is illegitimate—they aren’t even trying to pursue equal justice under law.

James Glueck Jul 1, 2023

@maxkennerly just a simple case of following the facts and the law

@maxkennerly so why is shit like that even legal?

Like literally??

One can't just waste the legal systems' resources woth some hypothetical shit like that...

Or can they?

@maxkennerly An abomination, and abandonment of American ideals. And right before the 4th, no less.

Alexander Karn Jul 1, 2023

Jurisprudence in the age of competitive authoritarianism.

Big Head Tales Jul 1, 2023

@maxkennerly
And the bigoted #MAGANazi is now protected from making gay wedding websites that she’s never been asked to make as part of her business where she doesn’t make web sites by people she made up in her head and then lied about to the #Republican puppet #SCOTUS.
#CorruptSCOTUS
#FascismOnTheRise