Louis Ingenthron @LouisIngenthron@social.cleverlibre.org

In thirty years, the only remaining evidence that #Twitter ever existed will be when people refer to "subtweeting" without knowing why it's called that.

@collectedoverspread It's not about religion at all. It's about expressive content. The 1st Amendment says the government cannot compel you to express content you do not agree with. Since website design is well-established expressive content, you can reject any client you want on the basis of the message they want you to build a website for, but not on the basis of who they are.

So, in other words, you can say "I won't build religious websites", but you cannot say "I won't build websites for religious people".

@rbreich Funny, I seem to remember people being mad at all three of those.

@Susan_Larson_TN Correct. And *that* is the playbook. Overturn entirely. Chipping away does nothing but create GOTV talking points for their opponents; it's a hollow victory.
And that's before you consider that this same precedent can protect the LGBTQ community the same way it protects the religious communities. Afaik, there's nothing about the decision that limits it to just one protected class.

@Susan_Larson_TN And most of them were shot down by federal courts prior to Roe.

Nothing you're describing here supports your argument that SCOTUS is following a playbook to "chip away at rights", which was what your original reply was about.

@Susan_Larson_TN That's a pretty shitty assumption to make about a person you've never met.

@Susan_Larson_TN ...that wasn't the playbook for abortion at all, though. They overturned Roe in one fell swoop, not by nibbling.

@Heimdall @TonyStark So long as the work you want to do is expressive, and the message they want you to produce violates your values, yes, that does appear to be the case now...

I gotta say, although this puts me at odds with most of the community, but from what I've read, I don't really see that much of a problem with the #SCOTUS decision about the marriage websites.

In the issue at question, the business owner was rejecting a message, not a class of people. If a #gay person wanted to buy a wedding website for their straight couple friend, it would have presumably been no problem.

That's a right that owners of expressive businesses *should* have, and it should apply equally to everyone.

For example, an #LGBTQ designer should be free to reject any clients who want them to build religion-aligned anti-gay websites.

So long as we can apply the jurisprudence equally (I know, I know), this seems like the right decision for everyone.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/06/30/303-creative-elenis-supreme-court-decision-lgbtq-rights/

@boeckli@mastodon.social Yes. You always could. State of residence isn't a protected category under 14A or the Civil Rights Act.

That said, though, we aren't all bad.

@NickGates @supernovae@universeodon.com Sure, our ancestors expected "free elections"... if they were white and male. Our elections today are *still* more free than the average election in our nation's history. Have we taken a few small steps back? Sure, but that still doesn't compare to the great leaps forward in our past. The pendulum will keep swinging, but over a long enough perspective, things keep getting better and better.

This is your periodic reminder to never pre-order games.

I bet future generations will look at our weight loss practices much like we view bloodletting with leaches.

"They used to do what?!?"

In 50-100 years, there'll probably be over-the-counter pills you can take to cause your body to remetabolize 10 lbs of fat. Getting your beach body won't even involve weeks of fasting and endless exercise... It'll just require you to set aside one day for chemically-induced purging.