Mastodawn

Mmmmdonut Jul 11, 2023

This is exactly the kind of society the reactionary majority on the Supreme Court wants: Every business in the country gets to claim they are engaging in expressive behavior and then discriminate against whatever protected group they don’t like - because “free speech.”

https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article277196783.html

Thomas Zimmer Jul 11, 2023

This is going to get so much worse, and fast. There is absolutely no limiting principle in Gorsuch’s opinion: It just opens the door for discrimination in the public square based on identity - any identity, really.

Thomas Zimmer Jul 11, 2023

The case centered on gay people. But Gorsuch didn’t say “ah well, they are less deserving of protection than other groups.” Discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender nonconformity, race… It’s all on the table now. Equal access to the market place is no more.

Thomas Zimmer Jul 11, 2023

The Court obviously doesn’t care about the dignity of (formerly) protected groups. The only limit that still exists is the potential that reactionary justices might object to *some* forms of discrimination based on either their personal preferences or tactical considerations of political expediency.

June Casagrande Jul 11, 2023

@tzimmer_history Can't believe we're back here.

JaneGray Jul 11, 2023

@junecasagrande @tzimmer_history
Horrifying.

snacks Jul 11, 2023

@junecasagrande @tzimmer_history that’s disgusting. That’s nothing comparable to the discrimination based on race. Have some tact

Renée Jul 12, 2023

@snacks But this is exactly what the ruling allows. Do you disagree with that interpretation of the ruling? If so, why?

If you think it's disgusting, you're right. It is. But there is no force of law preventing it anymore.

@junecasagrande @tzimmer_history

snacks Jul 12, 2023

@reneestephen @junecasagrande @tzimmer_history
I don’t believe the government should be meddling in peoples personal affairs, whether your brown, black or trans.

I just don’t understand how the persecution of trans people is anyway comparable to what people like me faced.

We will support you. But have some tact.

Renée Jul 13, 2023

@snacks @junecasagrande @tzimmer_history I notice you don't answer the question, though -- it isn't about "comparing" persecutions. It's about what the ruling allows.

Do you disagree with the interpretation above that American law now lets businesses discriminate against *any* protected class? If so, what makes you think not? Why would the consequences be different this time?

snacks Jul 13, 2023

@reneestephen @junecasagrande @tzimmer_history oh I’m sorry, I understand what you mean now. Yes I do agree with you on that point. At this point, everyone is getting fucked.

Coach Pāṇini ®Jul 11, 2023

@tzimmer_history
the radical normie humanistic center must hold

Nonya Bidniss 🥥🌴Jul 11, 2023

@tzimmer_history Does this mean it's time for business owners and "creatives" to test discrimination against white right wing christians? Hard to tell who they are but simply putting up a sign would be enough of a test.

Arena Cops 🇺🇦✌Jul 11, 2023

@tzimmer_history The Committee on Codes of Conduct of the Judicial Conference of the United States' proposal to bar membership in the Federalist Society for members of the judiciary is definitely worth being thought about & recommended.

Gorsuch & the other 5 SCOTUS-majority agents of Leonard Leo are — to no one's surprise — also members of the Federalist Society, implanted by Federalist-Society puppeteer Leo into the Supreme Court of the United States.
It shouldn't have come so far, to the disadvantage of millions of pregnant women, voting rights & civil rights of Americans of color & millions of members of vulnerable minorities like the LGBTQ community.

#RuleOfLaw #CleanSCOTUS #DefendAmerica #DefendTheConstitution #ReconstructionAmendments #14thAmendment #EqualProtectionClause #ProsecuteALLRebels #DisqualifyALLRebels #BanTheFederalistSociety #DefraudingAmerica #Insurrection #JudicialInsurrection #JudicialIndependence #SeparationOfPowers #SeparationOfChurchAndState

ferricoxide Jul 12, 2023

@tzimmer_history

If these businesses are operating without any kind of limitations to the proprietors, then "whatever" then it's essentially a person to person transaction where "my beliefs" are of arguable relevance. But absent direct liability, it seems beyond suspect to say that personal beliefs are on the line: the business is conducting the transaction, not the person conducting the sale.

Lazarou Monkey Terror 🚀💙🌈Jul 11, 2023

@tzimmer_history they want erasure of Queer people or to die fighting a civil war over it.
The nazis are winning while people sigh and expect somebody else to deal with it.

Thom O'Connor Jul 11, 2023

@tzimmer_history we must create a network of tolerance to fight back - only buy from businesses who commit to the social contract of tolerance

https://mas.to/@thomoco/110690074227243166

Thom O'Connor (@[email protected])

Attached: 1 image given the discrimination allowed for private businesses in the 303 CREATIVE LLC v. ELENIS decision [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf], this activism can be played both ways businesses can align themselves with a social tolerance contract, "all who are tolerant welcome here" I personally would choose to try to shop only at businesses displaying such a logo #Act #Equality #Tolerance #SocialContract

mas.to

Miles 🚲🌈🏳‍⚧🚉Jul 11, 2023

@tzimmer_history oof. It's just a matter of time until these accounts become more and more common, especially in red states.

Darryl R Scott Jul 11, 2023

@tzimmer_history A permanent White Supremacist Patriarchy is the endgame.

Chris B Jul 11, 2023

@tzimmer_history Business should start banning anyone wearing red hats and who appears to be a Trump supporter. Fight fire with fire. Fuck them.

Joe Heafner Jul 11, 2023

@tzimmer_history Time to start refusing to serve people who run these businesses. Turnabout is fair play.

Beeks Jul 11, 2023

@tzimmer_history this is great because my religion's most sacred ritual involves molotov cocktails....

Wendy Lady Jul 11, 2023

@tzimmer_history I'm pretty sure the original case was saying that the government can't compell you to create art against your beliefs. I have sorta complicated feelings about that. But these dipshits are trying to blur the line between a service and art and they're gunna end up behind some serious legal complications there.

But it's ok, Karen's Salon...no one wants that tacky "chic" chunky highlights haircut anyway. I'm sure all those homogeneous soccer moms are into that, though.

Louis Ingenthron Jul 11, 2023

@NerdRage42 These idiots aren't even blurring that line. If they were, they'd ban "trans haircuts". But they didn't. They banned trans people. Which is blatant discrimination, protected against by 14A.

Wendy Lady Jul 11, 2023

@LouisIngenthron yeah. We know what they're trying to do. And these bozos will bring it all the way to the supreme court in order to do it.

Louis Ingenthron Jul 11, 2023

@tzimmer_history You sure about that? The decision seemed pretty narrowly tailored to prevent compelled speech. Banning trans people from a salon is about banning people, not speech. Seems to me that the 303 precedent doesn't cover these folks at all and they are ripe for a civil rights act suit.

Nathan Simmons Jul 11, 2023

@tzimmer_history

Noticed that she managed to the slip the word ‘groomer’ in - even though referring to pets.

Also - her positioning attempts to divide the LGB from TQ+

Always seems to be the people crying the loudest about their own imaginary losses of ‘Freedom’ doing their utmost to impose their own authoritarian governance on others… they never seem to suspect this will ultimately be deployed to control THEM too…

Hans van Zijst Jul 11, 2023

@Thomas Zimmer Next step: signs on shops like "no blacks" or "no jews"...

Jaime Robertson Jul 11, 2023

@tzimmer_history I’m having flashbacks to Colorado’s Amendment 2 from 1992, preventing anti-discrimination laws for LGBT+. Took 4 years to be ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS. I’ve a bad feeling that today’s court would let it stand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Colorado_Amendment_2

1992 Colorado Amendment 2 - Wikipedia

Frank Shinneman Jul 11, 2023

@tzimmer_history Refuse all services to SCOTUS members for starters

Starraven Jul 11, 2023

@tzimmer_history
I'm waiting for it to be turned around. I'm sure I could create a business that could not only survive but thrive with a "No Christian" policy.

NiciHW🦋Jul 12, 2023

@tzimmer_history these discriminating places need to be put out of business

NoctisEqui 🇺🇦🇵🇸🇪🇹🏳️‍🌈Jul 12, 2023

@tzimmer_history

Too bad I don’t have any kind of a paying skill. I could refuse to serve MAGAts, Neo-Nazis, M4L, ProudBoys and all the rest.

I wonder if I could be forced to serve ‘open carry’ people? Don’t let SCOTUS know I said this: they might make a Federal Case out of it!

Rhodie114 Jul 12, 2023

@tzimmer_history big mistake. The skinhead clientele she’s courting don’t go to salons too often.

DougGlassArt Jul 13, 2023

@tzimmer_history We are all humans first. Whatever happened to the golden rule, humanity is no longer humane. 😔🙏🫂