Michael Imperioli forbids 'bigots and homophobes' from watching his work following Supreme Court ruling
Michael Imperioli forbids 'bigots and homophobes' from watching his work following Supreme Court ruling
Actor Michael Imperioli has something to say about the Supreme Court’s Friday ruling in favor of a Christian web designer who refuses to create websites to celebrate same-sex weddings.
Actor Michael Imperioli has something to say about the Supreme Court’s Friday ruling in favor of a Christian web designer who refuses to create websites to celebrate same-sex weddings.
You're viewing a single thread.
False equivalence, he's not being forced to do anything.
Lady is a shit stain let's be clear but she is well within her rights to refuse service to anyone on any grounds. in fact her being honest about her bigotry is a good thing as it allows others to avoid her.
her rights to refuse service to anyone on any grounds
Usually true, except when it comes to discrimination against people of protected class for being under that protected class, which is why this ruling is so concerning.
The reality is that this sort of discrimination happens all the time under the guise of other rationale and is hard to stamp out (see: real estate redlining, gerrymandering, employment and rental discrimination, etc.), but theoretically a disenfranchised person with documentation can still seek recourse under the law.
This ruling (as well as the general apprehension around queer people living publicly) has laid the groundwork for christofascism to further underclass those (and other marginalized) communities and makes the violent rhetoric coming from "family values" white supremacist extremists more palatable to the public.
It is incredibly dangerous and further damages whatever remains of SCOTUS' credibility.
Being gay or trans isn't a protected class. The First Amendment and US Constitution trumps a class of anything.
It is a protected class
The first amendment is the thing you're missing with all of this. People can discriminate against gay people. But only if it takes away their first amendment. The courts ruled that art should not be forced. So they don't have to serve gay people. But if someone is selling a car, that has nothing to do with art.
It is not a protected class at the federal level. It is in many states.
However, part of the argument in favor of making same sex marriage a right, as ordered in Obergefell, so that no state can refuse to marry same sex couples, is that the only difference between an opposite sex couple and a same sex couple is the sex of one of the people. Hence, the discrimination is on the basis of sex, which is a protected class federally.
Why that same argument wouldn't apply to the more recent web designer case is beyond me.
Why that same argument wouldn’t apply to the more recent web designer case is beyond me.
Ahh, about that, well… welcome to the new Robert’s Court, where the facts are made up and the precedent doesn’t matter.
From courtroom to Congress, it seems these days conservatives only look at getting things their way, with consequences & the nation at large be damned. At times there’s startlingly little ideological consistency being proffered to justify their actions, and sometimes they even punish other conservatives to force getting their way (see recent rejection of a multitude of bills in Texas because the governor didn’t get his favored legislation through, for instance). I don’t see how this can be kept up long term… it’s like venture capitalism has infected the government and we’re working on burning out all the assets still.
and being a lying pos doesnt give you standing. but here we are commenting on a case where someone lied to have standing and now rights are being eroded away.
Homophobes hate gay people because of their sex. Not them having sex, but that they are the same sex and Ina relationships ship.
Sex is a protected class in the US, so logically sexuality would be covered by any common sense reading of the law.
Also the SCOTUS decision is pure bullshit as any creative work I causing commercial business is creative work and the free speech justification is bullshit.
Sex is a protected class. There's no discrimination against gay or trans people that is not inherently discrimination based on sex. So no, it is absolutely a protected class.
Conservatives just allow their hatred of queer people to easily, easily, easily overcome their desire to appear to respect the law.
Exactly.
Say a person has sex with a man. Is that person homosexual?
Depends on the sex of the person having sex with the man. Sexual orientation requires a person's sex to be considered.
You literally can't determine sexuality without looking at a person's sex, so sexual orientation is covered by sex itself being a protected class.
Do you think a resturant refusing to serve black people would be okay?
They literally just said they think that's OK. You don't need to ask. This person thinks it's perfectly fine for a business to refuse service for any reason. They think it's fine to refuse service for nationality, race, gender, religion, disability, social caste, physical attractiveness, or whatever.
Which in the US us explicitly illegal as clearly outlined in civil rights legislation, but the current court would probably throw that out too as long as the person discriminating is a white Christian.
Just look at the kind of stuff getting passed in Florida. I fully expect that level of legal bullshit as a normal.
I 100% disagree with the ruling, but this is apparently what the court had to say. They effectively sectioned out "expressive services" as able to discriminate, versus non-expressive services, like restaurants , which are still covered by the first amendment.
The decision suggests that artists, photographers, videographers and writers are among those who can refuse to offer what the court called expressive services if doing so would run contrary to their beliefs. But that’s different from other businesses not engaged in speech and therefore not covered by the First Amendment, such as restaurants and hotels.
That distinction is horsecrap. A hotel manager can be forced to offer their wedding package for a gay wedding and a chef can be forced to cook for a gay wedding because they run venues that have been declared "nonexpressive" by 6 people who don't know the first thing about those professions. But a website designer cannot be forced to sell websites while running a website shop.
They don't believe in that distinction. They're just taking a step towards outright illegalizing queerness. They'll tear down that separation as soon as doing so can result in more discrimination.
Nonsense. They legalized gay weddings a handful of years ago. Be queer all you want.
You sweet summer child, how can you possibly think Obergefell isn't going to get challenged and killed by these same anti-queer justices?
Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas wrote the dissent to it. Gay marriage would still be federally unprotected if they had their way, and they have since netted 2 more allies to their cause to make it happen.
Apparently you can be too queer for this lady to make your website, bit the cake decorator, DJ, caterer, wedding planner, dress designer and everyone else involved aren't real artists.
The conservative justices declaring which jobs do and don't show human creativity and expression was not on my Christofascist dystopia bingo card, but probably should've been.
I mean a DJ just plays other peoples music right?
how is cooking not expressive? This distinction is meaningless. Any work product can be and is expressive.
Here's the thing. Her business isn't real. There is no "wedding website" business model and the person she alleged asked her to make a website for his gay wedding is straight and has been married to a woman for 15 years. This entire sham business exists for the sole purpose to get the court to rule against Colorado's anti-discrimination laws.
I am surprised that this is not being talked about more. It's a fake case, the situation never happened, some cash changed hands and our sham of a court made this ruling to set a precedent.
The future is dark.
100% this. I read the article about the fake request for service a couple of days before I switched to kbin. it was really incomprehensible to me that the supreme Court would even hear the case given the false allegations. it was just to set the precedent.
Also he is a web designer.
she is well within her rights to refuse service to anyone on any grounds.
I'm glad to see there's some common ground.
Except for the fact that nobody was actually asking her to do a website for gay couple. The client she named in the suit isn't gay and is already marries and is a web designer.
It was a bullshit case put in front of the supreme court just so they can attack gay people again. The supreme court wants to disenfranchise gays, trans, women and other minorities.