Far-right lawyers created a phony “victim” in made-up case — and the justice with the stolen seat wrote the opinion
The right/bigots is always talking about the gay agenda. We don’t have one. We just want to live our lives. Its the right who has an agenda. They worked hard to rig the court and are now making up lies to take to the court so the LGBTQ rights can be taken away. They want us back in the closet. And it’s not just the LGBTQ community that they are looking to strip rights from. Non-christians, women, minorities, and workers to name a few.
Stop voting for Repulicans.
the only ones shoving any agenda down anyone elses throats are the gop.
There is and only ever has been a straight agenda.
No one tries to force people to be gay. But there’s a concerted effort of trying to force people and society to be more straight.
Every accusation seems to be a projection from the right wing. They claim an agenda from their targets so that when they are accused of an agenda they can point to their own claims and say “We are just responding”
It also seems that their imagination is so limited; that when they are pressed to create something their opponents would do, they use one of their own actions or desires.Also if their own actions or desires are so awful when projected onto their opponents; what does that say about them.
The right/bigots is always talking about the gay agenda. We don’t have one.
Okay, but you can tell me what the gay agenda really is. Is it like the Jew agenda? Seems like that one came up a lot before people switched to talking about the gay agenda.
That article seems pretty biased.
What’s really cool is that if you look at any of the landmark decisions of this court, you will find olympic level mental gymnastics to justify those decisions. Like, sure, you can be a regular person and look at the decisions and go “well that’s unjust” but what’s really rad is that when you look at the “logic” they used to arrive at those decisions, it’ll just piss you off more! Strict Scrutiny podcast does a great job of highlighting just how this court does not give a fuck about a century or two of history.
You people live in an alternate fucking reality.
From the article:
Melissa Gira Grant of the New Republic contacted Stewart, using the email and phone number included in the lawsuit. He denies having sent that request, pointing out that he is already married, to a woman.
Person whose name and phone number appears in lawsuit is contacted, denies making a request, is married to woman.
Yeah, super crazy fucking reality here.
On kbin, if you hover over the user name, you can easily block them forever. Super cool! 👍
As an American, I look around today and realize that a polite insistence on “don’t feed the trolls” is in large part how we got where we’re at today.
That could very well be rewritten as “don’t challenge the ideas espoused by trolls.”
So I think I’m going to continue to correct blatant misinformation, and if you don’t like that, you can feel free to hover over my name and block me forever. AWESOME! 👍
What do you mean, “You people?”
Can you expand on that?
Care to elaborate more on that?
I mean this case according to some who have a law background have called into question the standing on which this case was even brought forward. The initial request of the so called web developer does not even seem to exist as stated. It was an intial inquiry by a straight individual who did not even request a web page designed for a homosexual wedding. Nor has the individual who may or may not have made the offending request been a party to the case other than in name. The so called web developer also seems to have a questionable existence as they seem so deeply intermeshed with a religious conservative activist group that they seem part of the same entity. And could at a slightly closer look seen to be just a front entity for such activist group to trigger such a lawsuit.
The court should have passed on this case and it should have gone back down to a lower court and standing should have been better established. This case was just put together to create this type of ruling in a favorable court. Not a pursuit of justice or a clarifying of rights.
I am not a lawyer, and I know next to nothing about the law but this case stinks to high heaven.
