this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2023
348 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2116 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 105 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This is standard operating procedure for them. From the article:

Earlier this year, the Court decided 303 Creative v. Elenis, holding that the First Amendment prohibited Colorado, which has a broad anti-discrimination statute that protects LGBTQ people, from requiring a website designer to make a wedding website for a gay couple. The plaintiff, Lorie Smith, said in court filings that she had been contacted by “Stewart,” one half of a gay couple named Stewart and Mike, about making invites, placemats, and a website for their upcoming same-sex nuptials. Stewart sent Smith his contact information through her website, and this is what ostensibly caused Smith to take a case all the way to the Supreme Court — the mere inquiry from a gay man. Except even that never happened.

Melissa Gira Grant, a writer at the New Republic, decided to call Stewart, as his contact information was submitted to the court in Smith’s filings. Stewart was very surprised by the call, telling Grant he is straight, has been married to a woman for 15 years, and certainly didn’t ask anyone to make him a wedding website.

The fact that this scenario literally never happened didn't stop the Supreme Court from ruling to strip protections away from the LGBTQ community.

[–] deadsenator@lemmy.ca 57 points 11 months ago

The fact that this scenario literally never happened didn’t stop the Supreme Court from ruling to strip protections away from the LGBTQ community.

They did the same thing with the praying football coach. Ruling on the lies as facts in the case even after they were refuted. Actions suited for a kangaroo court. How shameful.

https://www.vox.com/2022/6/27/23184848/supreme-court-kennedy-bremerton-school-football-coach-prayer-neil-gorsuch

"Under the real facts of Kennedy’s case, Kennedy violated the Constitution.

The Lemon case, which the Court overruled in Kennedy, held that the government’s actions “must have a secular legislative purpose,” that their “principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion,” and that the government may not “foster ‘an excessive government entanglement with religion.’”

A public school official conducting a very public prayer during the course of his official duties as a government employee clearly violates this Lemon test."