Wait, Soros is a left-wing boogeyman in Israel too?
She sincerely believes that other people donât deserve things. Thatâs still sincerity! Technically!
Obviously. Netanyahu has done everything the Republican do just 10 years earlier.
Heâs a smarter Trump :((
Every single Israeli right wing moron on Facebook was explaining how Proud Boys arenât antisemitic so fake news trump is great. The alliance of the Jewish right wing and the neo-nazis alt right is amazing
2 Likes
So if I start the White Supremacy Religion, say I even build a church and everything, and one of my congregants works in a Medicaid office and has a âsincerely held beliefâ in eugenics, causing her to deny health care to black people, thatâs all good?
6 Likes
Of course.
But if you were brown it would be terrorism.
1 Like
The gay marriage thing is a nothingburger because Roberts + either Kav or Gorsuch (or both) would decline to overturn Obergfell citing stare decisis. It completely delegitimizes the Court if they overturn such a popular decision and they would rather keep power to be able to overturn Roe, etc.
Impeaching is impossible, yes you need 2/3. Packing is easy if the will is there and Dems win both houses.
So, in reality, impeachment is easier.
1 Like
Semi-serious answer (which youâre probably not even really looking for) from non lawbro.
Your example is not all good because they are discriminating based on race (which is protected).
Discriminating based on sexual orientation is not explicitly protected. Majority made argument that discriminating based on sexual orientation is same as discrimination based on sex (which is protected). Obviously Alito and Thomas argue that while they may sound similar, theyâre not the same. And if discriminating based on sexual orientation is not explicitly prohibited, then 1st amendment should take precedence.
Iâm pretty sure that is their argument. Or something similar.
My non-lawbro understanding is that race is considered a suspect classification so that something that discriminates on race has to pass a strict scrutiny test to be allowed (which means you need a really, really good reason and no other good options). Gender is a quasi-suspect classification, so the standard isnât as high. The conservatives on the court donât want to treat sexual orientation as a class that deserves the same level of protection as gender and they definitely donât want sexual orientation or gender to have the same protection as things like race, religion, or national origin.
So, how do we go about elevating sexual orientation so that it is protected just like race and ethnicity? A conservative might say that it requires an act of Congress or a change to the Constitution to do so. The non-lawbro liberal argument is probably along the lines of âldo, sexual orientation is practically the same as race, why are we arguing, you racist homophobeâ which I donât find super-compelling reasoning. I personally might seek to come up with a more lawbro-ish argument that reaches the same endpoint, but some people lack the patience to put up with building that argument.
Didnât Gorsuch already concur with this definition in another case? Effectively stating that discrimination based on sexual orientation is dependent on the personâs sex so it is discrimination based on sex. Seems like there are still enough members of the court who would protect this definition. But relying on Roberts and Gorsuch for this certainly doesnât feel good.
Hereâs the relevant decision. 5 of the current SCOTUS judges were on the right side of this decision. Kav, Alito, and Thomas dissented. SCOTUS precedent, if that matters, currently states very clearly that discrimination based on sexual orientation = discrimination based on sex. As written and defined by one of the conservative members of the court.
Cue @Narrator
1 Like
Yeah, thatâs not precedent for the religious liberty thing though.
The principle the morons want to stand on is that you cannot force a religious conservative baker to make a cake for a gay coupleâs wedding. To them, thatâs discrimination against the baker, NOT the gay couple.
I know why people always use the baker example, since it was a real thing, but itâs such a terrible example. Itâs obviously discrimination but the response from anyone not deep into politics is âso what, just go to another bakerâ
The example needs to be something like getting into a car accident and the only attending physician refuses to treat you because he is Christian and you are gay.
It is subtle, but Nazi Barbie clearly doesnât believe the bullshit sheâs spewing. She always looks scared and ashamed, making it clear she knows its all nonsense.
Huckabeast appeared to have genuine contempt for the press. It was obviously completely manufactured, and you read all kinds of stories about her being different in private, but as she took the questions she didnât have that blank stare Nazi Barbie has, she had a scowl. And she didnât have to search for answers, she had every single lie right on the tip of her tongue, always.
7 Likes
The thing is though is that your example would never happen, while the baker thing actually did.
Agree with this â McEnany clearly has visions of making millions of Fox and knows this is just a means to that end.
Wow, I take it back. I figured any medical personnel (especially doctors) who refused to treat patients like that would immediately lose their license and so they would never do that.
1 Like
This was the height of that weirdness imo
On Saturday the 26-year-old posted a cartoon on his Facebook account depicting the American-Hungarian investor George Soros dangling the world in front of a reptilian creature, as well as a figure highly reminiscent of the antisemitic âhappy merchantâ image.
âNon-Likud Jews will not replace us!â
1 Like