Actor Michael Imperioli has something to say about the Supreme Court’s Friday ruling in favor of a Christian web designer who refuses to create websites to celebrate same-sex weddings.
rage baiting incredulous republicans to boost views, this dude is playing 5D chess lmfao
deleted by creator
You’re not really up to speed on this, are you?
Hey I made a joke, fuck me right!?
Careful, that’s Tony Soprano’s nephew.
Who?
Potential snitch in the Sopranos.
False equivalence, he’s not being forced to do anything.
Lady is a shit stain let’s be clear but she is well within her rights to refuse service to anyone on any grounds. in fact her being honest about her bigotry is a good thing as it allows others to avoid her.
her rights to refuse service to anyone on any grounds
Usually true, except when it comes to discrimination against people of protected class for being under that protected class, which is why this ruling is so concerning.
The reality is that this sort of discrimination happens all the time under the guise of other rationale and is hard to stamp out (see: real estate redlining, gerrymandering, employment and rental discrimination, etc.), but theoretically a disenfranchised person with documentation can still seek recourse under the law.
This ruling (as well as the general apprehension around queer people living publicly) has laid the groundwork for christofascism to further underclass those (and other marginalized) communities and makes the violent rhetoric coming from “family values” white supremacist extremists more palatable to the public.
It is incredibly dangerous and further damages whatever remains of SCOTUS’ credibility.
Being gay or trans isn’t a protected class. The First Amendment and US Constitution trumps a class of anything.
It is a protected class
The first amendment is the thing you’re missing with all of this. People can discriminate against gay people. But only if it takes away their first amendment. The courts ruled that art should not be forced. So they don’t have to serve gay people. But if someone is selling a car, that has nothing to do with art.
Do you think a resturant refusing to serve black people would be okay?
They literally just said they think that’s OK. You don’t need to ask. This person thinks it’s perfectly fine for a business to refuse service for any reason. They think it’s fine to refuse service for nationality, race, gender, religion, disability, social caste, physical attractiveness, or whatever.
I 100% disagree with the ruling, but this is apparently what the court had to say. They effectively sectioned out “expressive services” as able to discriminate, versus non-expressive services, like restaurants , which are still covered by the first amendment.
The decision suggests that artists, photographers, videographers and writers are among those who can refuse to offer what the court called expressive services if doing so would run contrary to their beliefs. But that’s different from other businesses not engaged in speech and therefore not covered by the First Amendment, such as restaurants and hotels.
That distinction is horsecrap. A hotel manager can be forced to offer their wedding package for a gay wedding and a chef can be forced to cook for a gay wedding because they run venues that have been declared “nonexpressive” by 6 people who don’t know the first thing about those professions. But a website designer cannot be forced to sell websites while running a website shop.
They don’t believe in that distinction. They’re just taking a step towards outright illegalizing queerness. They’ll tear down that separation as soon as doing so can result in more discrimination.
Nonsense. They legalized gay weddings a handful of years ago. Be queer all you want.
Here’s the thing. Her business isn’t real. There is no “wedding website” business model and the person she alleged asked her to make a website for his gay wedding is straight and has been married to a woman for 15 years. This entire sham business exists for the sole purpose to get the court to rule against Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws.
I am surprised that this is not being talked about more. It’s a fake case, the situation never happened, some cash changed hands and our sham of a court made this ruling to set a precedent.
The future is dark.
100% this. I read the article about the fake request for service a couple of days before I switched to kbin. it was really incomprehensible to me that the supreme Court would even hear the case given the false allegations. it was just to set the precedent.
she is well within her rights to refuse service to anyone on any grounds.
I’m glad to see there’s some common ground.
