Embed Notice

HTML Code

<blockquote style="position: relative; padding-left: 55px;"><section><a href="https://journa.host/users/chrisgeidner/statuses/110708580533958522">Chris Geidner (chrisgeidner@journa.host)'s status on Friday, 14-Jul-2023 06:04:07 JST</a><a href="https://journa.host/@chrisgeidner" title="chrisgeidner@journa.host"><img src="https://gnusocial.jp/avatar/75697-48-20240516135537.webp" width="48" height="48" alt="Chris Geidner" style="position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0;">Chris Geidner</a></section><article><p>There are a fair number of non-extremists defending 303 Creative as a narrow and necessary <a href="https://journa.host/tags/SCOTUS" rel="tag">#SCOTUS</a> free speech ruling. I see how they can make that argument.</p><p>My problem with that, ultimately, is three-fold. </p><p>Today, at Law Dork: <a href="https://www.lawdork.com/i/134614078/where-does-all-of-that-leave-us" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.lawdork.com/i/134614078/where-does-all-of-that-leave-us</a></p></article><footer><a rel="bookmark" href="https://gnusocial.jp/conversation/1789317#notice-3510779">In conversation</a><time datetime="2023-07-14T06:04:07+09:00" title="Friday, 14-Jul-2023 06:04:07 JST">Friday, 14-Jul-2023 06:04:07 JST</time> <span>from <span><a href="https://journa.host/@chrisgeidner/110708580533958522" rel="external" title="Sent from journa.host via ActivityPub">journa.host</a></span></span><a href="https://journa.host/@chrisgeidner/110708580533958522">permalink</a><h4>Attachments</h4><ol><li><label><a rel="external" href="https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/1254914">First, we don’t allow the beliefs of business owners to trump nondiscrimination laws. See Sotomayor, J., dissenting. Second, it ignores the goals of the organization behind the case. Alliance Defending Freedom is not a free speech organization. In this sphere, they are an organization that wants to marginalize LGBTQ people. ... Sure, their clients are not them, and the case must be decided on its own terms (which, of course, is also in question here, stipulations notwithstanding). That does not, however, mean analysis of the case, decision, and effects must be considered the same isolated way.Third, this defense ultimately ignores 2023 — both in terms of the growing anti-LGBTQ sentiment in public and in government and in light of the federal judiciary right now. Yes, the Supreme Court might ultimately rein in the most extreme outlier decisions that follow 303 Creative, but, again, look at the mifepristone case. It’s still not resolved .... This is a real, not hypothetical, cost.</a></label><br><a href="https://cdn.masto.host/journahost/media_attachments/files/110/708/580/240/447/838/original/5d846d56e08729b7.png" rel="external">https://cdn.masto.host/journahost/media_attachments/files/110/708/580/240/447/838/original/5d846d56e08729b7.png</a></li><li><label><a rel="external" href="https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/1254915">Untitled attachment</a></label><br></li><li><article><header><div>Domain not in remote thumbnail source whitelist: substackcdn.com</div><h5><a href="https://www.lawdork.com/p/303-creative-what-about-the-fallout#%C2%A7where-does-all-of-that-leave-us">303 Creative, or what happens when an arguably narrow Supreme Court decision meets 2023</a></h5><div> from <span>Chris Geidner</span></div></header><div>Part II: While some legal scholars have spent the past two weeks explaining how narrow the First Amendment decision is, people who want to discriminate are ... discriminating.</div><footer></footer></article></li></ol></footer></blockquote>

Corresponding Notice

Embed this notice
Chris Geidner (chrisgeidner@journa.host)'s status on Friday, 14-Jul-2023 06:04:07 JST Chris Geidner
There are a fair number of non-extremists defending 303 Creative as a narrow and necessary #SCOTUS free speech ruling. I see how they can make that argument.
My problem with that, ultimately, is three-fold.
Today, at Law Dork: https://www.lawdork.com/i/134614078/where-does-all-of-that-leave-us
In conversationFriday, 14-Jul-2023 06:04:07 JST from journa.hostpermalink
Attachments
1. First, we don’t allow the beliefs of business owners to trump nondiscrimination laws. See Sotomayor, J., dissenting. Second, it ignores the goals of the organization behind the case. Alliance Defending Freedom is not a free speech organization. In this sphere, they are an organization that wants to marginalize LGBTQ people. ... Sure, their clients are not them, and the case must be decided on its own terms (which, of course, is also in question here, stipulations notwithstanding). That does not, however, mean analysis of the case, decision, and effects must be considered the same isolated way. Third, this defense ultimately ignores 2023 — both in terms of the growing anti-LGBTQ sentiment in public and in government and in light of the federal judiciary right now. Yes, the Supreme Court might ultimately rein in the most extreme outlier decisions that follow 303 Creative, but, again, look at the mifepristone case. It’s still not resolved .... This is a real, not hypothetical, cost.
  https://cdn.masto.host/journahost/media_attachments/files/110/708/580/240/447/838/original/5d846d56e08729b7.png
2. Untitled attachment
3. Domain not in remote thumbnail source whitelist: substackcdn.com
  303 Creative, or what happens when an arguably narrow Supreme Court decision meets 2023
  from Chris Geidner
  Part II: While some legal scholars have spent the past two weeks explaining how narrow the First Amendment decision is, people who want to discriminate are ... discriminating.

Public

Embed Notice

HTML Code

Corresponding Notice