This country gets more frustrating when you realize that most of the issues we face right now are (at their root) because most americans have no ability to self reflect on themselves.

Why do I hate X people? Why am I afraid of this? Should I be afraid of this? Why do I feel like I should trust this person instead of that person? Why does this person's views make me uncomfortable. ...why do I feel like I need to have the biggest truck?

If Americans could self reflect on any of those we would be a very different country.

Personally I am increasingly uncomfortable feeling the “need” to apologize to regressive people about feeling hurt or insulted. They are entirely responsible for their actions.

The "I'm so sorry your feelings are hurt" non-apology is always an option. It sounds like an apology, but it basically means "I'm sorry you suck" rather than apologising for doing something wrong. In most contexts, it's an asshole thing to do because it's a refusal to acknowledge that someone has a good reason to be hurt. When dealing with bigots, "I'm sorry you suck" is perhaps the most appropriate response.

Yeah, fuck ‘em. Don’t apologize.

In addition to what you’ve mentioned, don’t forget it’s the same groups of people who want to give guns more rights than women/people of color/LGBTQ+. After reading things like this… you realize you shouldn’t be apologizing because these people don’t give a shit.

It seems like you just negated your own point though? If the justices believe black people do not have rights, and make rulings based on that, then they have ignored the letter of the law. On the other hand, ruling in favor of black people's rights is actually making a judgement that follows the constitution (which makes no mention of race, religion, sexual preference, or anything else). Saying that all people are equal does not just apply to the people that you personally find equal, it means ALL. Making a judgement that same-sex couples have the same rights to marriage does not mean that a judge overcame their bigotry, it simply means that a judge ruled in favor of the letter of the law and did not let their personal feelings get in the way -- they dd the job they were hired for rather than becoming a vindictive dictator.

It's not a matter of science vs belief, it's a matter of law versus dogma.

Law is a consensus that, at least in a democracy, aims to set some rule and the consequences of it in advance so that whenever a case applies it is at least relatively predictable and applied equally in each case.

If you pass judgement based on the things you like, or in the religious beliefs you profess you're not following the law, your imparting dogma. Imposing it, in fact, over others.

You can absolutely make unjust laws, but at least those are the result of a process. In a democracy you can at least understands what steps lead to rectifying an unjust law.

If a person with power decides they don't like you and they apply that belief inconsistently, irrationally and without following consistent rules there is no recourse or path for society to correct itself (beyond violent revolt, presumably).

Judges don't need to listen to their heart. Judges need to apply laws generated in a functional system that captures the will of an informed people in a predictable, equitable manner. Judges ruling based on personal beliefs, whether you agree with them or not, are a tyranical manifestation and a very scary thing.

I don't know you but I think I love you.

This is what I'm scared of. I don't want to sit at home and do nothing, but whenever there are riots, it feels like people get killed and the causes they died for are just buried in the news cycle.

I keep saying we gotta fight these laws through the power of malicious compliance.

Get a job as a clerk with the department of marriages. Say "I'm an atheist, and I don't believe in marriage as in my mind it has a religious character." Sue the state for 10 years salary for firing you.

It's the same as those Florida laws. Sue your kids' school for referring to your child with a gendered pronoun. Sue the library for stocking the Bible. Establish precedent that these laws go both ways. It's the same stuff the Satanic Temple has been doing for years.

The dems haven't had a supermajority trifecta in over a decade and even that was just a few months and included a few independents. They passed massive legislation in this short time too. So it's time to get over it and learn how our government has worked at every other moment in time.

Holy shit, I didn't draw up the situation of travelling while married as a problem but you're absolutely right. It's already getting extremely tricky to figure out what places are OK or no-go for trans and NB people, this is just going to make things so much more fucking worse.

Atlanta for example is a massive air travel hub. What if Georgia doesn't uphold same-sex marriage? What about international travellers who are married abroad?

JFC. These idiots.

What an excellent scheme to keep talents away from entering the red states for a job.

Current federal law requires states to recognize all marriages, including same-sex marriages, from other states but does not require them to issue licenses within their state. The previous Supreme Court had determined the constitution required states to do so, but that could be overturned. They could also decide the federal law is unconstitutional, but that is less likely.