For a lot of Christians, religious liberty means being able to use their religion as a cudgel to discriminate against others. They are also the first people who would go to out of their minds if any business began refusing to deal with Christians.
Me too. When we were married there was no websites around. Mosaic Cern was launched six years after that. Okay, WorldWideWeb and some more was in place, but not websites as we know it by now.
While the shenanigans of the Legislative and Executive branches have been numerous and egregious, the Judicial branch has been the worst. Top to bottom. I can understand when a nitwit gets elected to represent a district and then acts the fool, wasting time and fouling the process. But these people, these "Justices" are supposed to be deeply professional, widely experienced, deadly serious. And they too are just nitwits. Yeah, Thomas and Alito are in the news, but it's that Roberts....ooooo makes me angry, the kind of anger that would make the Pope kick a hole in a stained glass window of the Sistine, would make a shy, bald Buddhist reflect and plan a mass murder.
I don't know how long I'll be here. Some electrician. Last night and left us without a power point in the house – Well there is one in the laundry. Anyway I'm operating on a tiny laptop with an uncertain battery life. Can't get in touch with the bloody nongs at the electrician's until 8. Whereupon I shall give them a piece of my mind in a very polite way and ask them to fix it ASAP. Also have an eye appointment in a doctor's appointment today. I THINK the garage door still opens.
My questions here are simple: 1) Does the Supreme Court have ALL the facts, including those mentioned in this post and 2) DO THEY CARE???
That second is problematic as all hell. I mean, if they can rule in favor of the jerk kneeling in prayer at the 50-yard line (when that hardly tells the whole story), what are they going to do with THIS?
Considering what they just did with Affirmative Action, I think the answer is rather obvious.
Having just gotten finished last semester with a beginning class on web design, I can say that a quality website is a royal pain in the tushie to build. Building one for a wedding seems a bit over the top, the only reason I can think to do so is to have one place to direct gift-givers for whatever registries you're on. After the wedding, it's little more than an exercise in vanity. It seems to me that this is precisely the sort of thing one should just do a Facebook page for instead, and then shut it down six months after the ceremony. Building a professional website isn't cheap, and unless the couple are the sort that for whatever reason feels the 'need' to just throw money away there's no reason to have a professional page built.
That said, I can't say I'm surprised that this case has a number of dubious 'facts' associated with it. I am wondering just how much of the Ms. Smith's motivation is actually religious sentiment and how much is a desperate hope to get more business from the gullible Christian crowd, though. It'd be nice if SCOTUS would have had the good sense to send this back to lower courts, but it's clearly too late now; I fully expect them to make a bad decision based on bad information at this point.
The worst part here is this sort of decision may well undermine far more than just this SCOTUS's legitimacy in the long run. This is exactly the sort of BS that will undermine the US as a borrower in the future, and we will be paying for this decision for years to come. Good luck to the young people growing up today, it's going to be a rough ride and I'm sorry I couldn't do more about that for you.
Article III of the Constitution says quite clearly: "the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS AS THE CONGRESS SHALL MAKE." (emphasis added) Congress could quite simply create a regulation forbidding SCOTUS from ruling on civil rights. That would mean NO decisions on women's rights, LGBT rights, AA rights. Period. End of any possible discussion. But congress has NEVER been willing to exercise even that minimal degree of oversight (and that has been true regardless of which party has been in control).
And there we have it. Congress won't regulate the court (not even to the simple extent of imposing ethics standards). Biden won't expand the court, which is the only other measure than could safeguard the rights of citizens. Bottom line: We're fucked.
Actually, with the number of tools for template web-design a basic website shouldn't be that hard. AIUI several wedding planners offer them as part of the service. Not particularly fancy and look like thousands of other couple's sites with just different pictures, but no more cookie-cutter than the announcements. It would be no different than a Facebook page, but certainly nothing you would need to engage a professional designer for unless you were a wedding professional looking for a template.
It would only prove to them that only cis straight white christian white men white are innocent and fragile victims corrupted by about anything while being the supreme creation of their god.
* I wouldn't be surprised to know that they, secretly or overtly, treated the two rapists as the real victims.
"It would only prove to them that only cis straight white christian white men white are innocent and fragile victims corrupted by about anything while being the supreme creation of their god."
I find this completely bewildering. Mind-boggling, in fact. If there really is no gay couple "Stewart and Mike," why did no one uncover it before now? This case will have been heard by the state, a district court and the 10th circuit before reaching SCOTUS, and nobody ever bothered to check?! WTF is that?!
Eric R. Olson, Solicitor General, Denver, Colo, is representing the state in this case, with Brian H. Fletcher, Deputy Solicitor General, DOJ, Washington, D. C. for the United States as amicus curiae. How is it possible that neither of those attorneys (nor anyone in their offices) bothered to check the most basic, rudimentary facts in the case? That would appear to be the bare minimum of due diligence that should be expected of them. This would, on the face of it, seem to be the most appalling instance of professional incompetence on record, and as a result, by this time tomorrow every nondiscrimination law in the country will have been rendered moot. My sincerely held beliefs tell me so.
You know, it suddenly occurs to me that waaaayyy back when Perry Mason was on the air, this is why Paul Drake existed as a character. He was Mason's retained private investigator, his job was pretty much fact checking everything and everyone involved in whatever case was going on. Sure, okay, it's a fictional character on an old TV show, but apparently it was pretty common for attorneys at one time.
One would think that local law enforcement would have the time to handle that without hiring additional staff, too.....?
When I was in law school (before I came to my senses and realized I couldn't deal with lawyers my whole life and stay sane) we learned that the first, the very first thing a good lawyer does is establish the facts in his/her case before deciding how to proceed. How appalling is it that no one defending this case ever bothered to do that?
Stewart (of "Stewart and Mike") told the New Republic that when they contacted him it was the first time he even knew that his name was mentioned in the case! And there's the little fact that he lives in San Francisco. Even if he wasn't straight (and married, with a kid), why would a purportedly gay man in CA want to business with a web designer who's inexperienced at the kind of website he wanted, and who lives in another state? ADF's case smells worse than the air here in Pittsburgh today. But I'd wager SCOTUS will hand them a win.
Only those against LGBT people. We're the ones discriminating against them for their religion by our existence. It'll still be illegal to refuse to put the word God on a wedding website. Nice way to commemorate Stonewall.
Why is everyone asking me that question? (I swear, every Democratic candidate in the country has sent me a text or an email (or both) begging me for money. And that doesn't include the charities I donate to asking for a little more)
Let's remember that many states (like mine) use a "retain" measure to vote on state Supremes, and they are becoming a bulwark against the far right, as we've seen with the anti-trans legislation.
First, this says to me that the SCOTUS is more corrupt than we think. Second, it is woefully inept when it comes to gathering facts before their rulings. The thing about all orthodox religions is they do not care what rights people want, they want us all to be like their followers, bow to their god, just believe, have faith and be their good children and do as they say with questioning. Here in the USA the Christians are pining for *their* brand of a theocracy.
Signing off for now. Laptop battery already half gone. Don't feel like chatting from the laundry. Although come to think of it I could recharge the damn thing there couldn't I. Anyway – going to get my new glasses, hopefully the idiot that fucked up my power will be told to get his arse into gear and restore it.
For a lot of Christians, religious liberty means being able to use their religion as a cudgel to discriminate against others. They are also the first people who would go to out of their minds if any business began refusing to deal with Christians.
A wedding website? When I got married we didn't have a wedding website! We didn't have any websites at all! And that's the way we liked it!
Did you have to walk uphill to get to the ceremony?
Darn tootin'! Both ways! In the snow! Damnedest thing ever in St. Thomas!
Yes, but your marriage license was chiseled into a slab of granite.
Was there electricity even?
We had to stand outside with a kite in a thunderstorm.
Me too. When we were married there was no websites around. Mosaic Cern was launched six years after that. Okay, WorldWideWeb and some more was in place, but not websites as we know it by now.
wedding gopher site just doesn't sound the same does it? Usenet post?
"That's the way it was and we liked it!" - Grumpy old man, SNL
Nah. I'm a grumpy old woman. If possible back then we probably would have made our own weddingsite. With personal log in access.
1. Thou shalt not bear false witness. (don't lie)
2. The ends justify the means.
So, which is it? I am confused... do these people even have a moral compass?
It's more of a moral pinwheel.
Somebody stuck it in a rotating electromagnet.
Lying for Jesus is A-OK.
While the shenanigans of the Legislative and Executive branches have been numerous and egregious, the Judicial branch has been the worst. Top to bottom. I can understand when a nitwit gets elected to represent a district and then acts the fool, wasting time and fouling the process. But these people, these "Justices" are supposed to be deeply professional, widely experienced, deadly serious. And they too are just nitwits. Yeah, Thomas and Alito are in the news, but it's that Roberts....ooooo makes me angry, the kind of anger that would make the Pope kick a hole in a stained glass window of the Sistine, would make a shy, bald Buddhist reflect and plan a mass murder.
https://www.gocomics.com/mikeluckovich/2023/06/25
Niiiiiiiiiiice!
I don't know how long I'll be here. Some electrician. Last night and left us without a power point in the house – Well there is one in the laundry. Anyway I'm operating on a tiny laptop with an uncertain battery life. Can't get in touch with the bloody nongs at the electrician's until 8. Whereupon I shall give them a piece of my mind in a very polite way and ask them to fix it ASAP. Also have an eye appointment in a doctor's appointment today. I THINK the garage door still opens.
I would like to add this link: https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/06/30/scotus-takeover-continues/
to demonstrate that I, silly man of the street, have other well trained individuals that reinforce my uneducated, unconscious distaste for the man.
Is anyone else wondering where she got that private information from? I highly doubt it was done legally.
My questions here are simple: 1) Does the Supreme Court have ALL the facts, including those mentioned in this post and 2) DO THEY CARE???
That second is problematic as all hell. I mean, if they can rule in favor of the jerk kneeling in prayer at the 50-yard line (when that hardly tells the whole story), what are they going to do with THIS?
Considering what they just did with Affirmative Action, I think the answer is rather obvious.
Shouldn’t this be thrown out immediately? I mean lying to the courts is still a crime.
Unless you're Christian. Or a cop. Then it's fine.
Not if you're lying for Jesus, it isn't.
"Because reality doesn’t overlap with the <s>Christian Persecution Complex.</s> christianity"
FIFY..
Umm.. edit tags not work? Well, Im sure everybody knows what I mean.
Try this:
https://yaytext.com/
Having just gotten finished last semester with a beginning class on web design, I can say that a quality website is a royal pain in the tushie to build. Building one for a wedding seems a bit over the top, the only reason I can think to do so is to have one place to direct gift-givers for whatever registries you're on. After the wedding, it's little more than an exercise in vanity. It seems to me that this is precisely the sort of thing one should just do a Facebook page for instead, and then shut it down six months after the ceremony. Building a professional website isn't cheap, and unless the couple are the sort that for whatever reason feels the 'need' to just throw money away there's no reason to have a professional page built.
That said, I can't say I'm surprised that this case has a number of dubious 'facts' associated with it. I am wondering just how much of the Ms. Smith's motivation is actually religious sentiment and how much is a desperate hope to get more business from the gullible Christian crowd, though. It'd be nice if SCOTUS would have had the good sense to send this back to lower courts, but it's clearly too late now; I fully expect them to make a bad decision based on bad information at this point.
The worst part here is this sort of decision may well undermine far more than just this SCOTUS's legitimacy in the long run. This is exactly the sort of BS that will undermine the US as a borrower in the future, and we will be paying for this decision for years to come. Good luck to the young people growing up today, it's going to be a rough ride and I'm sorry I couldn't do more about that for you.
Keep in mind, the Alliance Defending F̸r̸e̸e̸d̸o̸m̸ Christofascism is a hate group.
Article III of the Constitution says quite clearly: "the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS AS THE CONGRESS SHALL MAKE." (emphasis added) Congress could quite simply create a regulation forbidding SCOTUS from ruling on civil rights. That would mean NO decisions on women's rights, LGBT rights, AA rights. Period. End of any possible discussion. But congress has NEVER been willing to exercise even that minimal degree of oversight (and that has been true regardless of which party has been in control).
And there we have it. Congress won't regulate the court (not even to the simple extent of imposing ethics standards). Biden won't expand the court, which is the only other measure than could safeguard the rights of citizens. Bottom line: We're fucked.
This article was about 3 hours late. I saw my therapist at 8 this morning. It'll be two weeks before she can talk me off this ledge.
There's a movie about an atheist on a ledge. Not the greatest film, but not at all bad. And Charlie Hunnam is always easy on the eye. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1535970/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_2_tt_8_nm_0_q_the%2520ledge
And it has the local boy who done did good, Patrick Wilson.
Actually, with the number of tools for template web-design a basic website shouldn't be that hard. AIUI several wedding planners offer them as part of the service. Not particularly fancy and look like thousands of other couple's sites with just different pictures, but no more cookie-cutter than the announcements. It would be no different than a Facebook page, but certainly nothing you would need to engage a professional designer for unless you were a wedding professional looking for a template.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alliance_Defending_Freedom
Check out "Moment of Supreme Irony."
It would only prove to them that only cis straight white christian white men white are innocent and fragile victims corrupted by about anything while being the supreme creation of their god.
* I wouldn't be surprised to know that they, secretly or overtly, treated the two rapists as the real victims.
"It would only prove to them that only cis straight white christian white men white are innocent and fragile victims corrupted by about anything while being the supreme creation of their god."
In other words, another Christian lie.
Nothing says boundless faith and confidence more than lying to the legal system you think your god is weak enough to require the protection of.
I find this completely bewildering. Mind-boggling, in fact. If there really is no gay couple "Stewart and Mike," why did no one uncover it before now? This case will have been heard by the state, a district court and the 10th circuit before reaching SCOTUS, and nobody ever bothered to check?! WTF is that?!
Eric R. Olson, Solicitor General, Denver, Colo, is representing the state in this case, with Brian H. Fletcher, Deputy Solicitor General, DOJ, Washington, D. C. for the United States as amicus curiae. How is it possible that neither of those attorneys (nor anyone in their offices) bothered to check the most basic, rudimentary facts in the case? That would appear to be the bare minimum of due diligence that should be expected of them. This would, on the face of it, seem to be the most appalling instance of professional incompetence on record, and as a result, by this time tomorrow every nondiscrimination law in the country will have been rendered moot. My sincerely held beliefs tell me so.
You know, it suddenly occurs to me that waaaayyy back when Perry Mason was on the air, this is why Paul Drake existed as a character. He was Mason's retained private investigator, his job was pretty much fact checking everything and everyone involved in whatever case was going on. Sure, okay, it's a fictional character on an old TV show, but apparently it was pretty common for attorneys at one time.
One would think that local law enforcement would have the time to handle that without hiring additional staff, too.....?
When I was in law school (before I came to my senses and realized I couldn't deal with lawyers my whole life and stay sane) we learned that the first, the very first thing a good lawyer does is establish the facts in his/her case before deciding how to proceed. How appalling is it that no one defending this case ever bothered to do that?
Stewart (of "Stewart and Mike") told the New Republic that when they contacted him it was the first time he even knew that his name was mentioned in the case! And there's the little fact that he lives in San Francisco. Even if he wasn't straight (and married, with a kid), why would a purportedly gay man in CA want to business with a web designer who's inexperienced at the kind of website he wanted, and who lives in another state? ADF's case smells worse than the air here in Pittsburgh today. But I'd wager SCOTUS will hand them a win.
Never take a sucker bet.
Too busy killing people for breathing.
Only those against LGBT people. We're the ones discriminating against them for their religion by our existence. It'll still be illegal to refuse to put the word God on a wedding website. Nice way to commemorate Stonewall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMHCw3RqulY
I said it earlier, guillotine is the way 😁
"Won't you give generously?" :)
Why is everyone asking me that question? (I swear, every Democratic candidate in the country has sent me a text or an email (or both) begging me for money. And that doesn't include the charities I donate to asking for a little more)
It was a gag.
This video is a spoof of the We Are the World-type of fundraisers. I was riffing off of that. :)
Let's remember that many states (like mine) use a "retain" measure to vote on state Supremes, and they are becoming a bulwark against the far right, as we've seen with the anti-trans legislation.
Pay attention to the courts!
First, this says to me that the SCOTUS is more corrupt than we think. Second, it is woefully inept when it comes to gathering facts before their rulings. The thing about all orthodox religions is they do not care what rights people want, they want us all to be like their followers, bow to their god, just believe, have faith and be their good children and do as they say with questioning. Here in the USA the Christians are pining for *their* brand of a theocracy.
OT: no more affirmative action
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-affirmative-action-college-race-f83d6318017ec9b9029b12ee2256e744
Expected, but UGH.
Signing off for now. Laptop battery already half gone. Don't feel like chatting from the laundry. Although come to think of it I could recharge the damn thing there couldn't I. Anyway – going to get my new glasses, hopefully the idiot that fucked up my power will be told to get his arse into gear and restore it.