This Blog Should Not Exist, Part 3.06: The Supreme Court Has Lost It's Mind Again

6-3, ideological split.

It is now legal for any company in the United States to refuse business on religious (or other constitutionally-protected) grounds.

It is also legal for the courts to make shit up as they go along to ensure the Supremes give them the result they want.

303 Creative LLC vs. Elenis now makes it legal for any business to refuse service to anyone for whom the business would materially disagree with their opinions or beliefs.

And, worse, it appears that the base case didn't exist at all -- it was made up so that this fascist Court could come to this decision, by which the Court (in the next 24 months) could strike down Obergefell, Lawrence, Loving v. Virginia, and any number of situations which could leave us even beyond Plessy v. Ferguson's "separate but equal" doctrine.

And, once again, Denninger conflates this to a free speech situation, when in fact he is wrong on several material points, when we get to a comment he made on a post on his Market Ticker blog thereto...

Thombradley said the following:

"KD I was a bit confused on the equal service law but I think I get it. The fact that I design websites doesn't mean you come in and are discriminating against gays because you refuse to incorporate content you find abhorrent. If your gay and want a site chock full of Christain content analogous to what I have done before but I refuse you I'm in violation. In retrospect that's a pretty clear distinction."

To which Denninger replied he was correct and said (and I'll insert comments where appropriate):

"I can't refuse service based on who you are or your personal identity. I CAN refuse to create or harbor expression in accordance with your demands, or alter MY expression in light of same."

Which means that you are wrong, Karl.  You CAN refuse service based on who you are or your personal identity.  In fact, more than a few people would like to do so.  There are, in fact, certain groups who do so a priori -- this just EXPANDS the legal definition and allowance of who can be refused service.

One of the reasons you are wrong is one of the reasons you are seeing death threats to LGBTQ's across the board in Pride Month, concluding tonight.  Not only as a function of religious beliefs (up to and possibly including that it is against beliefs to allow LGBTQ's to even exist) but the false equation to public safety, it is completely legal now (as of Friday) to put on the door that you will not serve LGBTQ's at all.  And it's already happening:  There's one rib place in California, for example, we would like to see shut down and have reported to the Attorney General of the state in such regards about a month ago.

But does 303 indicate that their conduct is now legal, on any number of grounds?  It would, sadly, appear so -- and many believe it will lead to "coloreds-only" counters at restaurants, etc.

(Of course, what it will also lead to is an increasing number of businesses who may actually refuse to serve the dominant and protected demographics, using the same criteria.  Heaven help you if you are of those demographics and end up needing gas in an inner-city gas station.  You could well be refused service, especially in states and with people who (as one reparations supporter in California stated) believe the dominant demographic is a threat to the inner city.)

Denninger continues:

"For example: You're a D&S [sexual kink, dominance and submission] couple. You come into my motel and ask that I provide you with a room equipped for your D&S activities, including bolt-points on the bed for your various accoutrements.

I absolutely CAN refuse that. I CANNOT refuse to rent you a room for the night, but I CAN insist that you not clang your chains and crack your whips at 2:00 AM, and that you not alter the furnishings to accommodate your chains and other various items necessary to "accommodate" your fetish."

And, again, you are wrong in the material point.  Because their desire is something you disagree with on it's face, you can absolutely deny them service and a room for the night simply on the basis they've stated what they want.  Because if you try to rent them a room which does not accommodate the fetish, they may try to "retrofit" the room so that it does.

And 303 absolutely can give you the authority to refuse them service on the basis you don't like the concept of the kink, not only as a function of what you state of the business, but that you simply disagree with the practice on the whole.

303, in fact of law, gives you legal cover to actually refuse to rent that room at all, and state that simply your belief system is enough they have to go elsewhere.

Another Denninger example:

"You want me to photograph your wedding.

Let's say I am a devout Muslim. My faith holds that two men or two women cannot kiss in a romantic way, nor engage in sexual expression or be married to one another. I can't stop you from doing any of that but you can't force me to photograph, edit and print said expression; I believe such acts are sinful and am not required to participate in your action which I believe is a sin."

And what of those who wish, as a belief system of their own eternal life, to prevent those actions from happening in the first place?  You remember the number of county clerks refusing to honor Obergefell (which now most intelligent law experts do believe is doomed, with this being the main precedent)?

Especially with devout Muslims (and, yes, the evangelical hardcore Satanists masquerading as "Christians"), this is going to happen.

In fact, there is an endgame -- and you are already seeing it in one state.

Yep, DeSatan's Florida.  

Republican Senator Rick Scott, on Tuesday:

I’m warning socialists and communists not to travel to Florida. They are not welcome in the Sunshine State.pic.twitter.com/ZB4RVz6XdK

— Rick Scott (@ScottforFlorida) June 27, 2023

It would be completely legal, under 303, for the state of Florida to refuse admission and refuse within it's borders all "socialists and communists" (read: Democrats).  And they need nothing more than the state's belief system or the concept of the "legitimate purpose" of persons within "The Free State of Florida".

That basically anyone who opposes "The Free State of Florida" cannot do business there of any kind and will be physically escorted to the border (if they are lucky, they'll get one free chance -- the second might get those shot who wouldn't get shot on sight the first time).

We are now headed for full-out segregation.  And anyone with intelligence knows the next step from there.