T-Shirt Company Sued

[fredtoast]

(11-05-2019, 12:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  So we have both the SC and the Appeals court ruling against the plaintiff, but we're still rolling with someone was discriminated against. 

I am rolling with the SC opinion since they are the superior court, and they said that perhaps someone was discriminated against.

You calling them liars?

BTW the Court of Appeals had a split decision.  One judge said that the shop owner was allowed to discriminate based on his religious beliefs.  One judge said the shop owner was wrong to discriminate, but ruled in his favor because the local ordinance was not the "least restrictive" way to deal with the discrimination (based on the Hobby Lobby case), and the third judge ruled against the shop owner finding that he did discriminate and should not have been allowed to.

[*bfine32*]

(11-05-2019, 04:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am rolling with the SC opinion since they are the superior court, and they said that perhaps someone was discriminated against.

You calling them liars?

BTW the Court of Appeals had a split decision.  One judge said that the shop owner was allowed to discriminate based on his religious beliefs.  One judge said the shop owner was wrong to discriminate, but ruled in his favor because the local ordinance was not the "least restrictive" way to deal with the discrimination (based on the Hobby Lobby case), and the third judge ruled against the shop owner finding that he did discriminate and should not have been allowed to.

Perhaps this is why the said it was possible:

Quote:At no point did any Hands On representative inquire

into the GLSO representatives’ sexual orientation, and the GLSO
representatives did not disclose such information.

and they followed with this:

Quote:Importantly, the record is clear that

no individual claimed Hands On had discriminated.

 

but they worded it in the one little phrase you are clinging to because of this:

Quote:If so, then

the determination would have to follow whether the reason for denial of
service constitutes discrimination under the ordinance, and then
whether the local government was attempting to compel expression, had
infringed on religious liberty, or had failed to carry its burden under KRS
446.350. But without an individual, as required by Section 2-32(2)(a),
this analysis cannot be conducted. Our decision, based on lack of
10
standing, is necessary because without a proper complainant, no
determination can be made as to whether the ordinance was violated.

We do not know the sexual orientation of the representative.

No matter how hard you try you cannot find where the courts determined someone was discriminated against aka.. no one was discriminated against this case.

Pretty sure everyone here knows how a split decision works. 

But feel free to cling tight to "perhaps" counselor. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-05-2019, 12:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We all know what a protected class is; hell the term individuals may even be used in describing it. 

And what was the court's (Appellate and Supreme) in this case?

A protected class is a group.  Some might even refer to it as a community.  Groups do file discrimination suits, but apparently not in Kentucky.  

[*bfine32*]

(11-05-2019, 05:17 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: A protected class is a group.  Some might even refer to it as a community.  Groups do file discrimination suits, but apparently not in Kentucky.  

In the SC's ruling on this case the word "individual" was used 28 times. Do you know why it was? 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-05-2019, 05:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: In the SC's ruling on this case the word "individual" was used 28 times. Do you know why it was? 

Because of an oxymoron called Kentucky law.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-05-2019, 01:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There was a sexist attitude exhibited, but neither of us were discriminated against. Now IF a woman went in there and the same scenario played out we'd have a different case and one that would require additional facts. What is his basis for not supporting women's causes. He'd have a hard time selling that based on religion unless he was Muslim. 

This hypothetical scenario has nothing to do with religion, it's not a trick question, it's not a "gotcha" you dread so much.  It's just good ol' fashioned sexual discrimination.

If a person exhibits a sexists attitude (prejudice) they are a sexist.  If they act on their sexists attitude then they discriminated based upon sex.  This situation is reminiscent of Sovereign Nation who was blatantly racist.  Guy advocated creating safe zones for whites only (which is racist) which you deemed not racist, but merely an "extreme opinion." Either you aren't capable of recognizing discrimination or you're unwilling to admit it when you do. 

As I was leaving lunch today, a 60-something, possibly homeless man with a cigarette hanging out of his mouth asked me, "Hey, you got a light, bro?"

I stopped, turned back, looked him in the eyes, "No, sorry I do not."  Turned back around to walk to my truck when I hear, "Well, **** you then."  Do you know what my reaction was?  Nothing.  Just kept on walking.  Completely ignored the guy.  That's honestly where I'm at with you. It was like a little epiphany sent from god telling me, "You know some people just aren't worth the effort." From Sovereign Nation to Lucie to Tommy to Sloppy, I've never considered adding anyone to the ignore list. But, I guess old dogs can learn new tricks.  Bu-bye.

[fredtoast]

(11-05-2019, 04:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No matter how hard you try you cannot find where the courts determined someone was discriminated against aka.. no one was discriminated against this case.

And again you had to type "no one was discriminated against in this case" because there is nowhere in the opinion you could pull that quote. 

I can repost the quote where they said "perhaps someone was discriminated against" again if you want to deny they said ti.

 "Perhaps someone was" is completely different from "No one was"  and you know that.

[*bfine32*]

(11-05-2019, 06:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And no where in your quotes did it say that no one was discriminated against.  It just said that a group can't file as an individual.

I can repost the quote where they said "perhaps someone was discriminated against" again if you want to deny they said ti.

And "perhaps someone was" is completely different from "No one was"  and you know that.

OK, how about this:

Perhaps is not a definitive, but we can roll with perhaps someone was, but the courts did not find where anyone was. Is that fair? Perhaps someone also said something about someone's mama. 

Getting your unbiased opinion on a court finding is enlightening. 

I found this from what appears to be an earlier SC ruling on the matter
https://s3.amazonaws.com/becketnewsite/Becket-Hands-On-Originals-Brief.pdf:

Quote:Appellee Hands On Originals (Hands On) is a small, closely-held printing business. The owner

of Hands On willingly hires and serves LGBT individuals, and he has never declined to hire or
serve anyone because of that person’s race, sex, or sexual orientation. But, in accordance with
standard industry practice, the owner of Hands On will not print messages that contradict his core
beliefs. So, for example, just as pro-choice printers have declined to print pro-life messages, and
LGBT printers have declined to print anti-gay messages, the owner of Hands On has declined to
print shirts promoting a strip club, pens promoting sexually explicit videos, and shirts endorsing
violence.

So by your logic they not only discriminate against gays, the also discriminate against folks who like to go to strip clubs. 

[fredtoast]

(11-05-2019, 04:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: but they worded it in the one little phrase you are clinging to because of this:


the


determination would have to follow whether the reason for denial of service constitutes discrimination under the ordinance

and then whether the local government was attempting to compel expression, had
infringed on religious liberty, or had failed to carry its burden under KRS
446.350. But without an individual, as required by Section 2-32(2)(a),
this analysis cannot be conducted. Our decision, based on lack of
standing,is necessary because without a proper complainant,
no determination can be made as to whether the ordinance was violated.

 

So tell me again what the court said about whether or not anyone was discriminated against.  Specifically pull out the quote where they MADE THE DETERMINATION that no one was discriminated against.

[*bfine32*]

(11-05-2019, 06:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So tell me again what the court said about whether or not anyone was discriminated against.  Specifically pull out the quote where they MADE THE DETERMINATION that no one was discriminated against.

You bolded it yourself. They said no determination can be made. 

[fredtoast]

(11-05-2019, 06:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So by your logic they not only discriminate against gays, the also discriminate against folks who like to go to strip clubs. 

Yes.  They do so on the basis of their religious beliefs.  I think that is pretty clear.

That is what is so dangerous about letting people discriminate based on religious beliefs.  Religious beliefs can pretty much cover anyone at anytime.  Anti-gay, Anti-Muslim, Anti-gambling, Anti-interracial marriage, Anti-strip club, anti-women working outside the home, anti-divorce, etc etc.

Since you are privileged to be a straight white Christian male you can't grasp this concept, but in conservative backwoods areas like where I live some of these people might have to travel hundreds of miles to find the goods and services they need.

[fredtoast]

(11-05-2019, 06:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You bolded it yourself. They said no determination can be made. 

Exactly.  That means they CAN'T say "No one was discriminated against".  It is impossible for them to make that determination.


Get it now?

You just made that shit up.

[*bfine32*]

(11-05-2019, 06:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Exactly.  That means they CAN'T say "No one was discriminated against".  It is impossible for them to make that determination.


Get it now?

You just made that shit up.

So they didn't find that anyone was discriminated against. I should have started with that............wait a minute...

[fredtoast]

(11-05-2019, 06:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So they didn't find that anyone was discriminated against. I should have started with that............wait a minute...

Yes.  That is exactly what you should have started with.  In fact that is what you started with when you said it was a ruling based on a technicality.  But then for some reason you started making up crazy shit about how the court found that no one was discriminated against.  And when everyone proved you wrong you doubled down on being wrong instead of admitting that you just made that up.

[*bfine32*]

(11-05-2019, 06:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes.  That is exactly what you should have started with.  In fact that is what you started with when you said it was a ruling based on a technicality.  But then for some reason you started making up crazy shit about how the court found that no one was discriminated against.  And when everyone proved you wrong you doubled down on being wrong instead of admitting that you just made that up.

Nah, I "changed" no body to an individual. if that's considered a change. 

But all this aside. What is this:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/becketnewsite/Becket-Hands-On-Originals-Brief.pdf:

It looks like a previous SC ruling on the same case. 

[fredtoast]

(11-05-2019, 06:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nah, I "changed" no body to an individual. if that's considered a change. 

But all this aside. What is this:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/becketnewsite/Becket-Hands-On-Originals-Brief.pdf:

It looks like a previous SC ruling on the same case. 

When a case reaches an appellate court each side files its argument in the form of a "brief".  Sometimes outside parties also file briefs if they are interested in the outcome.  This is a brief filed by the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty.  They strongly support the right to discriminate based on religious beliefs by re-naming "discrimination" as "religious freedom".

[BmorePat87]

(11-05-2019, 07:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: When a case reaches an appellate court each side files its argument in the form of a "brief".  Sometimes outside parties also file briefs if they are interested in the outcome.  This is a brief filed by the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty.  They strongly support the right to discriminate based on religious beliefs by re-naming "discrimination" as "religious freedom".

Did he just try to call an amicus brief a supreme court ruling?

[*bfine32*]

(11-05-2019, 07:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: When a case reaches an appellate court each side files its argument in the form of a "brief".  Sometimes outside parties also file briefs if they are interested in the outcome.  This is a brief filed by the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty.  They strongly support the right to discriminate based on religious beliefs by re-naming "discrimination" as "religious freedom".

Thanks and that makes sense. I was just curious as the Letterhead of the document stated supreme court and upon closer look I see that. 

[*bfine32*]

(11-05-2019, 07:42 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Did he just try to call an amicus brief a supreme court ruling?

Nah, I asked what it was. Fred was kind enough to provide an answer. But you do you.