- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Apparently LGBTQ rights take a backseat to “religious freedom.”
Interesting theory. There will be precedent to use this tactic of creating strawman cases for future things rightwing do not like.
Unpopular opinion:
This is not bad. Why support anti-lgbtq losers when you can better spend your money on services from people in your communities?
Because if it’s legal to discriminate against minorities, people will and you arrive in “separate but equal” territory.
Since this was allowed, what’s to stop others from coming up with theoretical problems and suing the state to oppress us?
The woman hadn’t made a single wedding website before she sued CO over the theoretical possi ility that an LGBT couple could ask her to help with their wedding.
The fact that this case was not only heard, but ruled on is very scary for the family. I’m in TX, a state where the anti-sodomy laws are still on the books and the attorney General has said he would uphold and defend such laws if Lawrence v TX is overturned.
Is it good knowing businesses that don’t really want you as a client? Yes, but this was not the way to go about it and provides an avenue for those that want us to go back to 2003 and start jailing us again.
This was already incredibly stupid, because the entire case was fake. The court isn’t even pretending to take cases seriously and are just legislating from the bench.
Yep, the entire purpose of this was to curtail LGBTQ rights and basically nothing else.
“Make up a guy to get mad at” but as a supreme court case.