The official thread of SCOTUS cementing the US as a theocractic fascist state.

[SuperSpreader]

2 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

If you owned something like a print shop, and some Catholics came in wanting to print up anti-abortion pamphlets and to hand out at a clinic, would you do it despite your personal convictions on the matter?

 

And to be clear, I’m not asking what the legal standard should be, I am asking you people as individuals with your own moral and ethical thoughts on where you fall. 

 

This is easy. Everyone must keep everything personal to themselves including orientation. I want your children hidden away, I don't want to see it. No touching of any kind are allowed. 

[SuperSpreader]

Gayness is banned, so is straighteness! We are all now androgynous!

 

[CitizenVectron]

24 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I am curious as to where you guys see the boundaries. For example, @CitizenVectron, as a semi-pro photog, are there events you would refuse to shoot? How do you determine where your conscience is burdened to the point you wouldn’t be OK doing it even if the underlying event were something legal?

 

Me, I have zero boundaries in regards to whose money I’ll take for my services and will do anything that is otherwise legal (like, I wouldn’t play kiddie porn during a private event just because some pedos were willing to pay to rent the theater).

 

18 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

Much like pornography, I'll know my boundary when I see it and it could very well be far short of the legal one.

For example, if I operated a store and someone came in wearing something that was pro-Trump/pro-Republican, not only would I refuse to serve them, but I'd insult them, their family, etc. on the way out.

 

15 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

No discrimination based upon a protected class it isn’t difficult a concept. There’s your line. 

 

I would never refuse on any protected class (or equivalent, in Canada), but I would refuse for things that are chosen (such as a Nazi wedding) or for certain types of behaviour (such as photographing an anti-abortion rally) as the behaviour isn't exclusive to being of that religion. I shoot Catholic weddings all the time (though they are a giant hassle with how far most priests have their heads up their ass), but I wouldn't shoot a Catholic anti-abortion rally. 

[SuperSpreader]

 

Every business meeting with our standard issue uniform. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

7 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

If you owned something like a print shop, and some Catholics came in wanting to print up anti-abortion pamphlets and to hand out at a clinic, would you do it despite your personal convictions on the matter?

 

And to be clear, I’m not asking what the legal standard should be, I am asking you people as individuals with your own moral and ethical thoughts on where you fall. 

I would not serve them because of the content but not because they’re catholic. Being anti abortion is not an inherently catholic trait. It only gets murky when the anti abortion nonsense comes up against a recruiting pamphlet. In which case I’d have to balance the content provided if it is majority anti abortion or pro join their group/church

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

No, I would not only would I refuse to serve them, but I'd insult them, their family, etc. on the way out.

I think this is actually what most people believe, but won’t admit it. Both freedoms and restrictions will always lead to uncomfortable situations where your morals and ethics are challenged. 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

I would never refuse on any protected class (or equivalent, in Canada), but I would refuse for things that are chosen (such as a Nazi wedding) or for certain types of behaviour (such as photographing an anti-abortion rally) as the behaviour isn't exclusive to being of that religion. I shoot Catholic weddings all the time (though they are a giant hassle with how far most priests have their heads up their ass), but I wouldn't shoot a Catholic anti-abortion rally. 

Getting married is also not an exclusive thing to LGBT couples, but presumably you oppose individuals and businesses refusing to provide services for LGBT weddings. I am curious how you view that as different from a religious person or organization exercising their religious belief by opposing abortion and something like a rally?

 

Just so you know, I’m not suggesting you are wrong for your position here. I am just curious how you think about the issue and weigh these concepts that do come into conflict with each other.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

I would not serve them because of the content but not because they’re catholic. Being anti abortion is not an inherently catholic trait. It only gets murky when the anti abortion nonsense comes up against a recruiting pamphlet. In which case I’d have to balance the content provided if it is majority anti abortion or pro join their group/church

The content in this case would just be a statement of the Catholic position on abortion, as is the most common in the stuff handed out at clinics. 

[CitizenVectron]

1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

Getting married is also not an exclusive thing to LGBT couples, but presumably you oppose individuals and businesses refusing to provide services for LGBT weddings. I am curious how you view that as different from a religious person or organization exercising their religious belief by opposing abortion and something like a rally?

 

 

That's easy: I will shoot weddings for any type of protected group, but I won't shoot anti-abortion rallies for any type of group. It's not contradictory at all. If I was an event photographer and refused an LGBTQ+ wedding on the grounds that I never shoot weddings, that would also be fine (as it's the event/content that is the issue, not the people doing it).

 

 

[CitizenVectron]

4 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

The content in this case would just be a statement of the Catholic position on abortion, as is the most common in the stuff handed out at clinics. 

 

It's fine and legal to be against positions of a group without discriminating against the group itself. And before you say that being anti-abortion is a key part of being Catholic...it isn't, but also, it's not exclusive to Catholics. I've taken photos of Catholic weddings, but I won't take photos of a priest ordination. I don't do Church stuff of any kind, I do wedding stuff.

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

8 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

The content in this case would just be a statement of the Catholic position on abortion, as is the most common in the stuff handed out at clinics. 

If that’s it then no. If they wanted to print something about how a cracker and a cup of wine are literally transformed into the body and blood of Christ by all means I’d do it. If they wanted something comprehensive and anti abortion is a part of it even, fine. But they don’t have a right to use services that I would provide for a political agenda with the facade of religiosity. I don’t care how sincerely held the belief is when it comes to restricting the rights of others. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

22 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I think this is actually what most people believe, but won’t admit it. Both freedoms and restrictions will always lead to uncomfortable situations where your morals and ethics are challenged. 

 

You can always count on me for my horrifying honesty!

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

4 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

If that’s it then no. If they wanted to print something about how a cracker and a cup of wine are literally transformed into the body and blood of Christ by all means I’d do it. If they wanted something comprehensive and anti abortion is a part of it even, fine. But they don’t have a right to use services that I would provide for a political agenda with the facade of religiosity. I don’t care how sincerely held the belief is when it comes to restricting the rights of others. 

It’s worth noting here that there are some conservatives who think that being conservative is or should be a protected class, and this is in part because of the cultural identifiers they use (guns, machismo, “traditional values” or whatever) are intrinsic rather than mutable traits

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

That's easy: I will shoot weddings for any type of protected group, but I won't shoot anti-abortion rallies for any type of group. It's not contradictory at all. If I was an event photographer and refused an LGBTQ+ wedding on the grounds that I never shoot weddings, that would also be fine (as it's the event/content that is the issue, not the people doing it).

 

 

Is there a notable anti-abortion contingent that isn’t religious in nature? I can’t think of any, and in fact any group that I’ve ever seen try and speak in secular terms for their opposition are always simply obfuscating their religious core of their position.

 

Anyway, thanks for answering my questions.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Just now, sblfilms said:

Is there a notable anti-abortion contingent that isn’t religious in nature? I can’t think of any, and in fact any group that I’ve ever seen try and speak in secular terms for their opposition are always simply obfuscating their religious core of their position.

 

Anyway, thanks for answering my questions.

“It’s not religion, it’s religion backed by SCIENCE”

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Worth noting that there’s a sizable contingent of the GOP that is not religious (because the country writ large is becoming less religious!) 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

 

I didn’t even think of this, but scotus is giving corporations the right to discriminate. It’s one thing for an individual or even a sole proprietorship to be able to discriminate but wholly another to allow a corporation to do so. (It’s worth noting as an aside that as of late the way that civil rights groups go after hate groups is through civil litigation)
 

but again it is entirely on point for the conservative court to conflate individual rights with those of a corporation; allowing for the right of this for profit legal entity to discriminate against a protected class under the guise of a supposedly closely held and sincere belief of the owner(s)  

[CitizenVectron]

So soon enough we're going to see headlines like "The artist known as ExxonMobil has decided to no longer hire Hispanic employees."

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

The odds of large corporations doing that are fairly slim. It’s the parochial American gentry that is the most likely to participate in this type of discrimination by hand waiving

[Guest]

An LLC is not a corporation  It is in essence a sole proprietorship (if single member) or a partnership (if multimember) that has some limiters on the personal liability of the members.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

36 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

An LLC is not a corporation  It is in essence a sole proprietorship (if single member) or a partnership (if multimember) that has some limiters on the personal liability of the members.

Distinction without a difference. A legal entity should not be treated like a person

[Jason]

2 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Distinction without a difference. A legal entity should not be treated like a person

 

40 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Distinction without a difference. A legal entity should not be treated like a person

You gave a carve out for sole proprietors, which a single member LLC is simply a sole proprietorship for which only the investment of the member is on the line. That isn’t a distinction without a difference and maybe learn about business structures prior to your follow up response.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

32 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

You gave a carve out for sole proprietors, which a single member LLC is simply a sole proprietorship for which only the investment of the member is on the line. That isn’t a distinction without a difference and maybe learn about business structures prior to your follow up response.

My disinterest in the structure of business notwithstanding it’s a legal entity and not a person. Who and how the business protects whatever investor isn’t relevant when it comes to discrimination. I could see an argument that a sole prop or single owner/operator might be a different case but I’ve changed my opinion after thinking it over. 
 

by shielding your liability in some way in my mind you should be obligated to do certain things that you wouldn’t otherwise have to do as an individual. That is, Bob smith can be a bigot but Bob smiths Widget Emporium, LLC has different rights, responsibilities, and limitations. It probably isn’t the law but it should be. 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

by shielding your liability in some way in my mind you should be obligated to do certain things that you wouldn’t otherwise have to do as an individual. 

To me this is actually the most compelling argument, as there are always trade offs. If you want to limit your personal assets from liability beyond whatever you put in to create the business, you may have to expect a reduction in your personal freedoms as well.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

2 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

To me this is actually the most compelling argument, as there are always trade offs. If you want to limit your personal assets from liability beyond whatever you put in to create the business, you may have to expect a reduction in your personal freedoms as well.

An analogy (imperfect, sure) is it is similar to money that the Feds give to states or individuals (highway block grants, PPP loans, tax credits, etc). You want that money you have to play by uncle sams rules. 

[Jason]

16 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

An analogy (imperfect, sure) is it is similar to money that the Feds give to states or individuals (highway block grants, PPP loans, tax credits, etc). You want that money you have to play by uncle sams rules. 

 

lol rules are only for Democrats and poor people 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

cool cool fun day

[Jason]

1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

cool cool fun day

 

How far in advance do they write these decisions? Is there still time for them to slip giving Alaska back to Putin into one of these decisions? 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

17 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

How far in advance do they write these decisions? Is there still time for them to slip giving Alaska back to Putin into one of these decisions? 

I dunno. The only ruling  of today is zzzzz

 

[CitizenVectron]

18 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

I dunno. The only ruling  of today is zzzzz

 

 

The majority ruled that H&M is "sick," while the minority wrote in its dissent that it is actually "#beugy."

[Brian]

Not surprising. What a shit hole country

[SuperSpreader]

Fucking Manchin

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

If it guts roe? It’s when

[Keyser_Soze]

On 2/22/2022 at 12:13 PM, sblfilms said:

If you owned something like a print shop, and some Catholics came in wanting to print up anti-abortion pamphlets and to hand out at a clinic, would you do it despite your personal convictions on the matter?

 

And to be clear, I’m not asking what the legal standard should be, I am asking you people as individuals with your own moral and ethical thoughts on where you fall. 

 

Showing child porn and printing out an anti abortion pamphlet are not the same thing, and an excellent question dodge from you.

What you should have asked, "If you owned a print shop and some pedos wanted to print up some kiddie porn pictures, would you do it despite your personal convictions on the matter?"