138
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2023
138 points (97.3% liked)
politics
19159 readers
4573 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Well, the supreme court recently decided on a case where the plaintiff had absolutely no standing. This was the case where the website developer didn't want to make a website for a gay couple, even though she had never developed a website before and there was no gay couple. So sure, this person can probably sue successfully. All rules are out the window at this point.
Are you implying that this case, where businesses are in clear violation of the ADA (aka "the law", and were undoubtedly approached and asked to correct this before it escalated to a law suit) has as little standing as, is as frivolous as, or is comparable in any way at all, to a case where a bigot literally made up shit to try and game the system to set a bigoted precedent?
Eh?
I'm saying you can now sue even if you're not disabled. Just go for it.
No, don't, because frivolous law suits like the one you were comparing this to will only harm people making legit claims, who already have a hard enough time being taken seriously.
What case was this?
https://www.npr.org/2023/06/30/1182121291/colorado-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-decision#:~:text=By%20a%206%2Dto%2D3,creating%20a%20message%20she%20opposes.
And where does it say she was not a web developer at the time?
Ms. Smith, who has not begun the wedding business or posted the proposed statement for fear of running afoul of the law, sued to challenge it, saying it violated her rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion.
So she was previously selling "design" services, just not specifically for weddings.