how is religious beliefs not discriminatory? i’ve read alot of contracts, and i’m pretty certain, not 100% though that the US constitution says you cant discriminate based on religion either???????? nor can they discriminate based on sexual preference.
personally i could care less……..someone doesnt want my business i’ll go find someone that does!!!!!
how is religious beliefs not discriminatory?
Prior to this decision, it was. Now, its not. The Supreme Court now says you can discriminate (refuse service) based on your own personal religious beliefs.
You can chalk up these recent decisions in favor of the conservative majority as a win for former President Trump. He selected 3 conservative justices during his four year tenure and turned the high court’s decision making. Most presidents don’t even get to select one justice, and he picked three. You could argue it was his single biggest accomplishment as president.
The Supreme Court puts a stop to liberal dumbness once again. Hoorah!
Thank God for the constitution and good courts. Liberals HATE the constitution!
You could argue it was his single biggest accomplishment as president.
That was his biggest accomplishment. Many people voted for him for just that. They didn’t like him for president but knew the court seats were far more important. He picked great judges.
Biden picked his judge based solely on sex and race. Yep….that’s the current state of the Democratic Party.
Many people voted for him for just that.
While that may be true, no one really knows when the time will come to pick a new justice, since they are a lifetime term. It just happened to somewhat randomly occur during his tenure.
I am pretty sure that Ginsberg retired with intent when she did so that a Democractic president could replace her with a liberal justice. Would she have continued to stay on the court if Trump had won re-election? Probably, if she could from a health stand point. But her health was failing too, so maybe not.
I do agree that selecting supreme court justices are one of the most important items that any president can make. These decisions alter the way our society is run.
Big win for libertarians, I’m all for businesses being allowed to discriminate- let the market sort them out. Glad to see the SC reinforcing what is already true, congress needs to approve budgets and the president can’t just decide to give away free money to all democrat voters.
The US Supreme Court ruling against the president’s student loan forgiveness program still must prepare to pay their monthly payments again.
The highest court in the land on Friday struck down the up to $20,000 in debt cancellation that President Joe Biden announced last year. On top of that, an estimated 40 million borrowers who had their payments paused during the pandemic must get ready for those to restart in October.
While the decision is likely a disappointment for many borrowers, they should also be aware of other debt relief programs under the Biden administration that could get them closer to loan cancellation or help make their payments more affordable.
Biden signed the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 requiring student loan repayments resuming 60 days after enactment of the bill. He and the Dems knew this was dead in the water. Should not be a surprise to anyone.
-J.
what constitutes religious beliefs? Did the SC define this in their ruling? does a person need to be a part of a internationally recognized organization like Catholicism or Buddhism? What if i own my own department store and i belong to the religion called dipshits and one of our tenants is we hate Jews?
what if the service i provide is a lifesaving one? what if i have a private doctors practice or i own a private hospital and a patient comes to the hospital with life threatening injuries? does the owner of that private hospital get to turn them away for religious beliefs?
IDK seems like this decision will open a whole can of worms unless things are well defined
What if i own my own department store and i belong to the religion called dipshits and one of our tenants is we hate Jews?
I get your point but there is no established religion called the dipshits. As far as I know, there isn’t even a religion that opposes Jews either.
Some religions do in fact oppose same sex marriages in writing though, and that was the basis for this case.
Just yesterday a postal service worker won the right to not have to work on Sundays because his religion is opposed to it. I could see that filtering down into other businesses, especially in retail, to avoid having to work on a Sunday if they provide the proper documentation to their employer that proves it.
The ruling says you can’t be forced to perform a service against your beliefs. A doctor couldn’t be forced to treat a patient even before this ruling. The reason doesn’t matter.
A doctor couldn’t be forced to treat a patient even before this ruling.
If its a private practice, yes. If they work for an employer, the company’s policy supersedes their personal beliefs. They can and will be cited for malpractice should they decide to go against company policy. A pharmacist recently declined to fill an abortion prescription for a customer (here in MN, last year) and was removed from his position for refusing to fill it, citing it was against his personal beliefs.
In other words, if you work for Walgreens, you abide by their rules. If you work for yourself, you can make your own rules.
Right, it’s company policy in that scenario. You seem to know more than I do, wouldn’t the company’s final recourse be to terminate your employment if you failed to abide by their rules? My understanding of malpractice comes from TV and I’m not seeing where it applies to breaking company policy. I thought malpractice was about negligence.
Even if you go to the ER all they’re legally required to do is evaluate and stabilize you. Nobody is legally required to treat the patient after that, right? Ethically speaking, I would expect many, hopefully most, health care providers would consider it a requirement.
Even if you go to the ER all they’re legally required to do is evaluate and stabilize you. Nobody is legally required to treat the patient after that, right? Ethically speaking, I would expect many, hopefully most, health care providers would consider it a requirement.
That I’m not sure of. I just remember the pharmacist case last year here on that particular denial of an abortion prescription.
I’m sure we’ll hear more about this sort of thing down the road.
This has been tested several times in MN already. Those of Muslim faith, refusing to give cab rides to people with alcohol and gays. Also at the check outs at Target, not touching pork products to ring them up. This was almost 10 years ago already. Also, Christian based outfits, not wanting to provide healthcare that pays for contraceptives and abortions.
If you ask Cub bakery to make a penis cake. They say no. Inappropriate…. Who sues for that?
You know to have The Naughty Baker and Candy Maker make that cake because you are not an idiot.
If you are gay , you only go to the Catholic baker to cause a scene…
Many places would jump for joy to display their virtue and make your cake….
SCOTUS just ruled in the favor of common sense.
If you are gay , you only go to the Catholic baker to cause a scene…
Are you saying that’s what happened with this recent wedding website case?
I know where to have my cake made.
I knew Reef would pose a stimulating question suggesting my ignorance level is high.
I know this has zero to do with acute care in an ER…. But I knew the IDO resident social justice warriors would take it there..
Carry on….
I know where to have my cake made.
I knew Reef would pose a stimulating question suggesting my ignorance level is high.
I know this has zero to do with acute care in an ER…. But I knew the IDO resident social justice warriors would take it there..
Carry on….
I’m not sure if that is a yes or no but I trust you know where to get your penis cakes made 
The great news about this social tragedy is that it’s about a wedding cake at the heart of the story and not about things that really matter like it was back in the days when civil rights were really in need of change.
This was 2 parties who argue at soccer games and one thought them/they could flex their social justice warrior muscle to settle their differences.
SCOTUS smartly told them to go back to the soccer field and settle it.
The great news about this social tragedy is that it’s about a wedding cake at the heart of the story and not about things that really matter like it was back in the days when civil rights were really in need of change.
This was 2 parties who argue at soccer games and one thought them/they could flex their social justice warrior muscle to settle their differences.
SCOTUS smartly told them to go back to the soccer field and settle it.
The way it should be.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
