• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

THis decision will decide if the SCOTUS will be known for just overturning Roe or for also allowing discrimination

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
14,607
Reaction score
9,305
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I suspect it will be for both as the right wingers on this court are for allowing any kind of discrimination you want and you do not even have to have a case, just a cause to bring it before this right wing controlled SCOTUS. This Cause/case is about discriminating about gays, but it will not be the end there. Next it will be about people of color and even Jews. THere is always someone who wants to discriminate against someone else, and when this court is finished, you will be able to do so. I can remember a time when signs read no colored or Catholics served here. That time will be returning soon.
 
Yep, we might even reach the point where someone can legally say that they will only consider a woman of color for a given job opening. ;)
Actually they will be able to say that we do not hire blacks of any sex. This court will put us back to the era when there were white only water bubblers in the south, but of course that is what those who espouse white supremacy wish, or you one of those? Just writing what you have in your message says a lot about your leaning.
 
From the link:

Smith’s case has long been a focus for some of us. I have written in favor of taking a free-speech approach to these cases rather than treating them as conflicts under the Constitution’s religion clauses. For that reason, one aspect of this grant of review was immediately notable. The court agreed to consider only one question: “Whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

Does anyone think this is not a free speech issue?
 
Actually they will be able to say that we do not hire blacks of any sex. This court will put us back to the era when there were white only water bubblers in the south, but of course that is what those who espouse white supremacy wish, or you one of those? Just writing what you have in your message says a lot about your leaning.
Your post is a fantasy, while his example actually happened.

I would see why you'd not want to address it.
 
If the CO law is upheld, then I will look forward to forcing a gay baker to bake me a "GOD HATES FAGS" cake.
 
Yep, we might even reach the point where someone can legally say that they will only consider a woman of color for a given job opening. ;)
Surely you see the difference.
 
Your post is a fantasy, while his example actually happened.

I would see why you'd not want to address it.
Because this should not have to be explained to a functioning adult.
 
Actually they will be able to say that we do not hire blacks of any sex. This court will put us back to the era when there were white only water bubblers in the south, but of course that is what those who espouse white supremacy wish, or you one of those? Just writing what you have in your message says a lot about your leaning.

OK, so your position is that there is ‘good’ discrimination and ‘bad’ discrimination and somehow only ‘bad’ discrimination should be illegal and nobody is permitted to complain about ‘good’ discrimination. ;)
 
There is no explanation that doesn't admit to discrimination.
*That you are able to puzzle put for yourself. Someone else might easily see the difference between advocacy and discrimination, in the case of, say, a scotus judge.
 
Your post is a fantasy, while his example actually happened.

I would see why you'd not want to address it.
Link proving it has actually happened and not some right wing rag.
 
My
OK, so your position is that there is ‘good’ discrimination and ‘bad’ discrimination and somehow only ‘bad’ discrimination should be illegal and nobody is permitted to complain about ‘good’ discrimination. ;)
My position is there should be no discrimination, but whites, and I am one, often/never believe that if a person of color is chosen over them, it must be discrimination. I have lived in both the south and the north and can tell you that is the truth. I have also seen it in both the military and business.
 
Last edited:
My

My position is there should be no discrimination, but whites, and I am one, often/never believe that if a person of color is chosen over them, it must be discrimination. I have lived in both the south and the north and can tell you that is the truth.
“If I’m elected president, my Cabinet, my administration will look like the country, and I commit that I will, in fact, appoint a, pick a woman to be vice president,” Biden said at the CNN-Univision debate in Washington, DC.
 
“If I’m elected president, my Cabinet, my administration will look like the country, and I commit that I will, in fact, appoint a, pick a woman to be vice president,” Biden said at the CNN-Univision debate in Washington, DC.
Sounds good. Context matters.
 
Someone else? You mean you are having a hard time parsing the fact that those words are from President Biden?
I had the article wrong.
 
Give context a try. Go ahead, this ought to be amusing.
Historical context of systemic racism, resulting in advocacy in a specific case. Thanks for the softball.
 
Back
Top Bottom