So, the SCOTUS ruling saying that it's ok to discriminate and deny services to LGBTQ people is based on a woman who has suffered no harm because her company has created no websites, and the gay couple she did not want to build a wedding website for does not exist. This case has been making its way towards the Supreme Court for seven years. This article details how none of the events happened, the entire case was based on a "what if." Seth Abramson did a bang up tweet thread on the entire thing. Go HERE, and scroll down to read it all. It's too many words to cut and paste it all.
These are screen grabs on the subject that I wanted to save.
The point of the discussion about the facts that none of the events happened, is why did she have standing to bring the case? There was no harm.
Twitter had a rough day today. "Common knowledge" is saying Elon Musk refused to renew Twitters’ billion dollar contract
with Google to use their cloud servers which expired on the 30th June.
In other unrelated news, Twitter has run out of storage and is severely
limiting the amount of tweets users can see. By limiting the number of tweeps people can see, this also limits the amount of ads that can be served. Monday morning there may be disgruntled advertisers wanting their money back. CNN posted this. Now there is this from Business Insider.
In agricultural news, we have this on the kitchen counter.
That's it. That's all I've got.
I hadn't realized the case was based on a hypothetical. How can this be permitted? I assume, as it is the Supreme Court, the decision cannot be appealed.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court has lost all credibility it ever had. That case had no business ever getting past local courts. It angers me so much, I can't find the words.
ReplyDeleteas usual a billionaire refuses to pay his bills. I guess that's how they get to be billionaires. a lot of the people and groups I followed there now have accounts at Post. I wish the rest would. I was on Twitter mainy to keep abreast of politics and a lot of those accounts have not shown up on Post. As for the SC, you know my reaction to last weeks decisions. but here's a thing, the SC has no way to enforce its decisions, they just expect us to go forward accepting them but what if we all refused to abide by their decisions? What if universities just kept on selecting their students using the affirmative action guidelines, what if a gay couple challenged a creative company for refusing service since that case had no standing and no harm done. if we want to counter these decisions that the majority of Americans do not support that the far right court is imposing on us, there's needs to be a big wave civil disobedience.
ReplyDeletesince the rule of law means nothing to the justices, they think it doesn't apply to them when it comes to bribes, then why should their decisions apply to us.
DeleteAs you know, there are right-wing organizations, think tanks, law firms, etc whose entire raison d'etre is to cook up scenarios like this and push them through the courts. As you said, the SupCo had no business even taking the case -- but having said that, I don't think it's going to stand for long as a ruling, it's so patently ridiculous. A future decision will overturn it, just like Bowers vs. Hardwick was overturned by Lawrence. Justice will prevail in the long term.
ReplyDeleteA Fabricated Case shouldn't have even made it thru a Justice Court, let alone a Supreme Court decision, since, there was no Crime or harm committed and the whole premise was made up in order to push thru discriminatory legislation with a stacked and deeply corrupted Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has been hijacked just like the Republican Party was and now Extremists have infiltrated the Ranks of both and should no longer be given any leverage to push radical minority extremist values upon the majority of Americans, it's undemocratic.
ReplyDelete