https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/12/303-creative-gay-rights-free-speech-supreme-court.html

“When you first hear the facts of 303 Creative v. Elenis, you may be stirred to sympathy toward the plaintiff. According to her lawyers at Alliance Defending Freedom, Lorie Smith is just a humble website designer trying to make a living in accordance with her Christian beliefs. That means she must respectfully decline to create a wedding website for any same-sex couple, as such unions contradict her faith. Intolerant bureaucrats in Colorado are threatening to punish her for these deeply held beliefs. And so she has reluctantly asked the Supreme Court to shield her from this persecution.”

Bigots want the right to discriminate against gays, by denying them service, and they use religion (Christianity, Islam and Mormonism) as a shield to protect them from suffering the consequences of being a bigot.

It will be a major victory for one side in the CULTure War, and we have no idea which side.

On the other hand, what if I’m a baker and someone asks me to decorate a cake with a Swastika on it?

I’d refuse to do it, not because I don’t like the kind of person asking, but because I’m against hate speech and a swastika is a hate symbol, about as hateful as you can get. I’m not ok with hate.

It seems like Christians just want the right to hate, without being hated for it and suffering zero consequences, like being boycotted.

I know how I'm voting!

"Intolerant bureaucrats in Colorado are threatening to punish her"

For her intolerance?

I think the court of public opinion can sort these things out without micromanagement from pencil pushers. Feeding the persecution complex of fundies just makes them paranoid and proves them right.

Perhaps because they obey the law.

FYI, the christian website designer is the petitioner (plaintiff). The respondent (defendant) is the State of Colorado. That's how it was in the baker case as well.

Do you not understand the difference between "defendant" and "plaintiff"?

...briefly ran a door shop in the 1980s, which he wound up selling at a loss. Many years later, after he had passed, my mom, who was doing his bookkeeping, told me about what happened. She said that he would spend evenings sending out blurbs to people in the carpentry business about his new venture. Trouble was, he was predetermining beforehand *which* friends in the carpentry business he was sending his promotional materials to and his criteria was based solely on whether or not he liked those people personally.

What I'm saying is that whether or not this lady wins her case (and I very much agree that it would be bad for all if she did win), I think she's going to learn the hard way what my dad had to learn; you cannot preselect your customers and expect your business to survive.

> you cannot preselect your customers
> and expect your business to survive.


But people do this all the time, despite all the evidence to the contrary!

And there are some areas of the country where it DOES work.

All through the 30s, 40s and 50s of the previous century, redlining was a natural part of the Southern California landscape: Blacks and Jews were not allowed to buy property in certain areas because of encumberments on the deeds.  Come the 1960s, and redlining was thrown out.  (But it's probably waiting in the wings, with a new outfit and nice make-up, ready to rejoin the ensemble.)


The case being cited annoys me; the plaintiff did not start her business; she is asking (and getting a court hearing on her question) "If I start a business, can I get away with telling gay people that I won't cater to them?"

The Supreme Court ONLY takes on cases it chooses to; why did they choose this one?

> The case being cited annoys me; the plaintiff did
> not start her business; she is asking (and getting
> a court hearing on her question) "If I start a
> business, can I get away with telling gay people
> that I won't cater to them?"

That's a critically important point.

The rules of jurisprudence say clearly that the courts do not hear cases about speculative injuries; jurisdiction only obtains when someone has actually been harmed, meaning in this case a conviction for violating the law. But there is no company to break the law and hence no actual conviction and no jurisdiction.

By taking a case that does not meet the minimal standards for jurisdiction, the supreme court is setting itself up as a star chamber that can make its own laws. This is a form of judicial activism that has never been undertaken before. This court does not feel bound by precedent nor by the jurisdictional laws.


--------------------
> The Supreme Court ONLY takes on cases it chooses
> to; why did they choose this one?

I think you and I know the answer.

Well that scared the you-know-what out of me.

They are supreme but the court part is a joke.

And there's nothing can be done about it, right?

When I was on a road trip with my parents we were refused service in a restaurant in Georgia. They said they didn’t serve Yankees there. It was in the late 70’s. So we left and someone else got our business. That’s life.

If she refuses to do business with someone someone else is going to get that business. It’s called the free market.

No, it's called total ignorance of the constitution and the law.

The post-Civil War amendments established special constitutional standing for certain groups, and additional groups have been added to that list by subsequent Congressional laws and supreme court precedents.

Sexual identity is one of the specially protected categories. Being a yankee is not.

I get people not wanting to do some things. I'm not sure where I stand on this. I especially don't think health care should allow for people who don't like someone's choices to deny services. An artist is not the same thing to me. Protected groups are not the same as preferences about other various things.
It will be interesting to see what the opinions say from the more sane Supreme Justices. I don't have any confidence that the current SCOTUS will rule anything but extreme right views at this time.

Usually what goes around comes around.

Be careful who you exclude because the that's an invitation for people to exclude you for something they don't like about you too.

It is an ‘unalienable’ right to not be forced to have to deal with icky clientele!

This is the second time the supreme court has done this--both times when there was a conservative majority.

The last time was in the 1930s, when conservatives decided there was a "free market" guarantee in the penumbra of the constitution. Under that rationale, the court reversed laws prohibiting child labor. Later the court recognized the fatuity of that approach both on the grounds that there is no "unrestrained capitalism" article in the constitution and because there had been 140 years of precedents allowing regulation of business.

What is happening now is the second round of extreme judicial activism insofar as the current kangaroos are doing things that Republican justices since the 1930s have refused to do: to wit, whatever they want without regard to the constitution and precedent.

As I have said before, both the Roe decision and the Planned Parenthood decision reaffirming it were not only supported but written by conservative justices. What the court is doing today is not conservative jurisprudence: it is conservative cultural activism, which has no foundation in the law.

Interesting...and frightening.

No less a conservative thinker than Robert Bork called the decisions of the Lochner era an "abomination. . . indeed, the quintessence of judicial usurpation of power" from the political branches of government.

But today's right-wingers are not judicial conservatives like Bork. They are cultural conservative activists using their powers to "usurp" power from, in the case of Creative v. Elenis, Congress.

Bork, The Judge's Role in Law and Culture, Ave Maria Law Journal, 2003

Bork, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law, Touchstone Books, 1990, p.44.

Sigh. Thanks for your insight on this.

I am not thrilled about the state legislature - voting case they took. That could destroy fair voting (what we have left of it). I have no doubt this court would be fine with disallowing governors and and state courts to challenge state legislatures. As long as there are enough red states to control who wins, they all would be happy to fix it so they can never be out of power. It's dangerous and depressing.

Bork was a piece of work. He's the reasonable one now by comparison? Lawd help us.

One of the justices (I want to say it was Elena Kagan) was asking some very good questions, i.e., what if a similar business denied service to mixed race couples (a clear shot at Clarence Thomas,) or disabled couples, for personal or religious reasons? You could add a lot of different cultural, ethnic, or religious groups to the mix.

What if they want a Diwali cake. It's an ancient holiday that uses the swastika for a different peaceful meaning, older than Hitler's use. Would you make it?

There should be a tax break for having to take icky money to do icky things!

They could name it the Icky Break, after Lance Icky, former special counsel to Brace Lattimore, the Kentucky cocktail inventor.

Yeah Hitler killing 9million innocent people kinda ruined that symbol. Might be time to look around for a symbol that doesn’t represent hate for Jews Kanye.

Kanye feel the love tonight

I am reminded of the relatively common sign one encounters when visiting some restaurants: "No (shirt, no shoes), no service."
Of course, logically (as opposed to legally) one could complete the parenthetical in any number of ways, in a variety of forms, identifying whatever group one does not want to provide whatever service. On the surface, it seems that whatever group one wants to exclude is just a matter of personal freedom of choice.

Enter the Supreme Court. For sound, and well-articulated, social, political, and Constitutional reasons, the Court has over the years identified 'protected classes' where such discrimination is prohibited. Race and religion are two such protected classes. A gay lifestyle is currently not such a federally protected class. As such, *absent some other law*, one might decide to discriminate against gays *for whatever reason, or no reason. *

A state, like Colorado, however, may decide that such discrimination is inappropriate, and pass a law to prohibit it.
Now, the question is turned on its head. We are no longer talking about the rights of gays, since such rights are now already established (in Colorado in this context), but the rights of the discriminating person who objects to such protections of gay rights. Now, such a person needs a Constitutional handle from which to base such an objection. Otherwise, state law prevails. Enter the 'free exercise of religion' clause of the First Amendment.

So, what we have is not a dispute between gay rights as a protected class and those wishing to discriminate against gays, since gays do not legally qualify to claim such status. Rather, we have a case as to whether a state can impose restrictions on the exercise of religious freedom as related to a group of people who do not (as yet) have a Constitutionally protected status. In a sense, the fact that the objective of the Colorado law is protection of gays is totally irrelevant--unless Colorado has a legitimate state interest in protecting gays per se over and above the Constitutional mandate of religious freedom. As long as gays are not a Constitutionally protected class, and religious freedom *is* Constitutionally protected, it is hard to see how Colorado will win this argument, at least in the current SC.

As such, the SC can legitimately hold that federally protected exercise of religious freedom trumps any Colorado law attempting to protect gays who do not enjoy Constitutional class protection. If instead of gays, we were talking about a Colorado law that protected Blacks, or women, or the elderly, the issue would be entirely different, because these are federally protected classes, and it would be far more doubtful that some religious preference would override such status.

Okay, with this clarification, you can dismiss all of the rhetorical "cultural activism" nonsense that has plagued this thread and social media generally, so far. If the SC does--as expected--rule against Colorado in this case, it will be for well-established legal arguments and precedence, coupled with a refusal to expand Constitutionally protected status to gays. In other words, it will be from conservative principles, not activist ones.

That said, I admit that I find some of the comments and questions of some of the justices disturbing--and unnecessary. They do not need to be constantly laying bare their ideological preferences in and out of the Court setting. When they do, it makes people think that they *are* necessarily placing such preferences over Constitutional mandates, and engaging in 'cultural activism,' when they really are just legitimately interpreting the Constitution in a way that is consistent with such preferences.

The fact that gay marriage is legal may have a bearing. Can a business discriminate against some married (or soon to be married) people but not others?

Lot's Wife did make a good point that without an actual injured party, one could argue that there has been judicial activism.

"Lot's Wife did make a good point that without an actual injured party, one could argue that there has been judicial activism."

COMMENT: No, that was not a good point! There are instances where a civil action can be brought in the absence of actual harm or injury. In the general civil law, this is called "Declaratory Relief." In the current Constitutional case before the SC, there were two challenges based upon the First Amendment as related to 'Accommodation' provisions of CADA, and the Communication provisions. In neither instance was there actual harm, nor does there have to be. All that is required is an intention to act in such a manner as to create protentional harm. The District Court found that standing was only allowable for the Communication component of the argument. However, the Court of Appeals determined standing for both.

Notice that in both courts the ruling was in favor of Colorado. Thus, if lack of standing was a meritorious claim, they could easily have dismissed the case for standing issues alone, without getting to the merits of the case.

In short, lack of standing in the absence of actual harm is not an issue and has no bearing whatsoever on any claim that any Court has been disingenuous or engaged in judicial activism.

You are confusing a lower-court power with supreme court procedure. A cease-and-desist letter can lead to declaratory relief, so too a case where a hospital refuses to give needed medical care for the simple reason that actual injury becomes inevitable.

But I ask you to provide us with a few examples of when the supreme court has issued declaratory relief regarding any constitutional principle. You can do that, right?

Oh, you can't?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/07/2022 03:32PM by Lot's Wife.

No answer yet, Henry? Having trouble finding any instance in which the supremes do what you say they do?

Henry Bemis wrote in part:

"That said, I admit that I find some of the comments and questions of some of the justices disturbing--and unnecessary. They do not need to be constantly laying bare their ideological preferences in and out of the Court setting. When they do, it makes people think that they *are* necessarily placing such preferences over Constitutional mandates, and engaging in 'cultural activism,' when they really are just legitimately interpreting the Constitution in a way that is consistent with such preferences."

Aah! But that is the point! The people who backed the Justices doing this--particularly Alido--specifically wanted the Justices to signal which way they view the decisions before the decisions are made. I've heard reports now, for example, that Justice Alido may have leaked his own decision on the abortion issue as a looked-for signal to abortion opponents. His questions in this case suggest to me that he is sending a signal to this woman's supporters.

And LW is right about the courts not accepting what-if cases. When I was in business law class back in the 1980s, the professor who had worked as a lawyer told us that while what-if cases were common in France and other parts of western Europe, the U.S. founders had opted for a different court system that required for a transgression to occur before a case could be filed. The only reason then for the Justices to accept this case is to make it clear that, at least with regard to LBGTQ people, fundamentalist Protestant theology shall rule, regardless of the laws of the individual state.

The term employed in the jurisdiction cases is "ripe." A case is not ripe for review until someone has suffered an actual injury. That's been the standard for centuries.

And yet for some reason this case is now before the supreme court.

Aah! But that is the point! The people who backed the Justices doing this--particularly Alido--specifically wanted the Justices to signal which way they view the decisions before the decisions are made. I've heard reports now, for example, that Justice Alido may have leaked his own decision on the abortion issue as a looked-for signal to abortion opponents. His questions in this case suggest to me that he is sending a signal to this woman's supporters.

COMMENT: Yes, I quite agree.
__________________________________________

And LW is right about the courts not accepting what-if cases. When I was in business law class back in the 1980s, the professor who had worked as a lawyer told us that while what-if cases were common in France and other parts of western Europe, the U.S. founders had opted for a different court system that required for a transgression to occur before a case could be filed. The only reason then for the Justices to accept this case is to make it clear that, at least with regard to LBGTQ people, fundamentalist Protestant theology shall rule, regardless of the laws of the individual state.

COMMENT: No. See comments above.

Again, prove your point by adducing examples of when the supreme court has revised a constitutional right through declaratory relief rather than through the normal jurisdictional rules.

Otherwise, it's time to go back to chasing ambulances.

> Enter the Supreme Court. For sound, and
> well-articulated, social, political, and
> Constitutional reasons, the Court has over the
> years identified 'protected classes' where such
> discrimination is prohibited. Race and religion
> are two such protected classes. A gay lifestyle is
> currently not such a federally protected class.

Uh, yes it is. Gender and sexual orientation are both protected classes under national law and that law has been upheld many times by the courts, including the supreme court.

Moreover "a gay lifestyle" is absolutely protected. See Lawrence v Texas, 2003, which said that anti-sodomy laws were unconstitutional.

"Uh, yes it is. Gender and sexual orientation are both protected classes under national law and that law has been upheld many times by the courts, including the supreme court."

COMMENT: The issue is not whether such protections exist under some state or federal statute. A protected class is a class protected under the Constitution.
____________________________________________

"Moreover "a gay lifestyle" is absolutely protected. See Lawrence v Texas, 2003, which said that anti-sodomy laws were unconstitutional."

COMMENT: That is not the same issue. A law can be unconstitutional for a variety of reasons, without involving a protected class.

If you look really closely you may find that I introduced the issue by reference to "protected category" rather than "protected class" to avoid the precise issue you have now latched on to. The question isn't whether gay rights are mentioned in the post-Civil War amendments but whether gay people have in any way become a protected category of people.

They have. It happened through the privacy cases--specifically Obergefell--and, in Lawrence, through the explicit inclusion of gender identity under the equal protection clauses of the constitution.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/07/2022 03:51PM by Lot's Wife.

Would it help to have the sign posted: We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone?

We had this in our businesses and occasionally would refuse some people.

Sometimes you need to fire a customer for any number of reasons, i.e. the customer is abusive to staff.

Such signs are usually just warnings to customers that they will be expelled if they misbehave.

But no business can use such a sign to discriminate against people who fall within the constitutionally protected groups. A condominium or apartment complex may not ban people on ethnic grounds; a store cannot refuse to serve Catholics or Jews; and, at least until now, a restaurant may not decline to seat gay people.

You can discriminate against people who won't wear shoes in your convenience store or who scream at your waitress, but not for innate characteristics as recognized by the constitution, the law, and the courts.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can discriminate against people who won't wear
> shoes in your convenience store or who scream at
> your waitress

Is this really discrimination or just following health and safety guidelines?

I've seen an increase in signs in shops these days that state Be Courteous and even Be Patient, Be Kind.

It makes you wonder what retail staff is having to put up with these days.

It's not like there are mandates in place any more that people can object to.

But yeah, people seem to generally be more cranky. It's very poor self control though if you're going to take your frustrations out on workers in any arena.

Retail workers have been putting up with a lot of abusive behavior, which is a huge part of the reason why retail businesses are having a hard time keeping staff.

I have a client that does Insurance Adjustment Hearings, who has had to spend $100k ea to retrofit all of their reception areas with bullet proof glass, walls and doors to keep angry plaintiffs from assaulting their receptionists and they’re having a tough time finding receptionists who want to sit in a $100k bulletproof locked cage with irate plaintiffs hurling insults at them all day.
Civility has gone right out the window.
Any wonder why?

schrodingerscat Wrote:
----------------------------
>
> I have a client that does
> Insurance Adjustment Hearings,
> who has had to spend $100k ea
> to retrofit all of their
> reception areas with bullet
> proof glass, walls and doors
> to keep angry plaintiffs from
> assaulting their receptionists
>


I asked Google what an Insurance Adjustment Hearing is.  Google didn't know.  I specified the state of Washington, and it still didn't know.  I'm really curious because I would like an Insurance Adjustment Hearing the next time my insurance is adjusted.

Each word, along with 'plaintiff', means something to me but put together like that, I get nothing!

Can you link me to an explanation?

Amber alert!

Keep talking like that and soon you two will be in a plain tiff!

Nightingale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lot's Wife Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You can discriminate against people who won't
> wear
> > shoes in your convenience store or who scream
> at
> > your waitress
>
> Is this really discrimination or just following
> health and safety guidelines?

All "discrimination" means is treating different people or things differently. A discriminating person chooses good wine over bad; a woman who prefers tall, dark and handsome Latinos chooses Jesus over Swedes; insurance companies discriminate between people when they charge more to cover teenage drivers; and airlines discriminate between long-term planners and last-minute passengers when setting fares.

The point is that some forms of discrimination are legal and some are not.

Oh yes, I realized later that there is more than one connotation.

I've become so accustomed to the most negative meaning of the word that's all I was thinking of when reading this thread.

One can be a discriminating tea-drinker, of course. I prefer Yorkshire tea, for instance, while my sister goes for Twinings.

Thanks for the additional commentary.

Quick question: Is a woman who goes for tall, dark and handsome in addition to blondes (as long as they're tanned) discriminating, or discriminatory in any way?


PS: You can also have judges whose judgements can be seen (or at least perceived) to be discriminatory rather than discriminating. So they're not much help to man nor beast at that point.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/07/2022 06:55PM by Nightingale.

It's going to take me a while to figure out just how much I've been insulted by you and Gladys . . .

Luckily I recover quickly.

"But no business can use such a sign to discriminate against people who fall within the constitutionally protected groups."

To play devil's advocate, although I am no Al Pacino, where in the US constitution does it say homosexuals (not gays, 'gay' meant something completely different in 1789) are a protected group?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/08/2022 04:04AM by bradley.

The constitution does not mention radio or television either, but they have been grafted in under freedom of the press. There are scores of other instances in which the supremes have accommodated reality in that way.

Regarding gender and gender identity, the answer is Obergefell and Lawrence.

1. Aww, you have to do business with people you don't like? Welcome to the free market!

2. The petitioner is trying to say she should be able to discriminate against designing a website for a gay wedding. How many people have wedding websites and how would making one be participating in the ceremony? And the petitioner hasn't even started this business?! What the fuck?!

3. For the Christians: It's been a while since I last read the Bible, but I remember parts about a Samaritan, the other cheek, and loving one another. Wouldn't discriminating against others go against these teachings? Or is it just being an asshole and hiding behind God? Because I suspect the latter and I'm sure it's why your numbers are declining too!

4. If these people want a world where they can discriminate against LGBTQ folks, they should prepare to face "We have the right to refuse service to shitbags" policies. Or is it that they want to dish it out but not take it?

5. As a bi guy, would someone mind explaining why straights have a problem with people who aren't? Shouldn't being in a loving relationship be the important part? And if you answer, "They're grooming kids!" your Certificate of Gullibility is in the mail!

6. Despite the petitioner, Henry Bemis (sorry, bradley, he put in more effort on this thread), and a packed Supreme Court's attempts to prove otherwise, I see no reason to be discriminatory against folks in the "straight lifestyle." I just ask they leave folks alone for being different.

I accept all kinds, having gays in the family, but I understand the feeling. LGBTetc get treated the way Mormons treat non-Mormons. They "love" them because they are "supposed to" and everyone is a child of God but also feel sorry for the stiffnecked unbeliever so tragically destined for Hell. You are broken, they are going to the CK. The right to believe that, as dumb as it is, is constitutionally protected.

As Terence McKenna said, the cost of sanity in our society is a certain degree of alienation. I personally would not want business owners to be legally compelled to act against their beliefs on my behalf. I want them to have the right to offend me because sometimes I unwittingly offend.

Since this case is in Colorado, it could be grandstanding as a means of promoting a new business to an anti-woke clientele.

Guy, I don't know whether to be concerned that you believe that bullshit or insulted you think I'm stupid enough to buy it. You claim to accept all kinds, but you want to let people discriminate while claiming "religious freedom?!" You and Henry Bevis didn't use the exact wording, but your posts still have the message of "Fuck you! It's not my problem!"

You want to know how you're witlessly offensive? You want LGBTQ folks, including members of your own family, to have their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness restricted while supporting the assholes doing the restricting and hiding behind your family when people call you out for it. Grow. The. Fuck. Up. Bradley.

Okay, I apologize for this threadjack because your point is an important one. But your reference to Bemis poses an irresistible temptation.

When I saw someone had posted something new in this thread, I thought "Oh, Bemis must have tried to defend his assertion that the supreme court issues constitutional rules through declaratory relief rather than waiting for issues to 'ripen' in the normal way." Of course, I was wrong. He's up against the wall again, having asserted with his usual arrogance a legal principle for which there is no evidentiary support and then slunk away to hide in some corner.

Back to your topic.

It would be nice if people recognized that while, in bradley's words, "the right to believe . . .is constitutionally protected," there is no constitutional right to act illegally in accordance with that belief. No one can stop a person from thinking gay Latinos will be damned, but the moment you raise a hand against that person because he is gay or Latino you are a criminal and nothing more.

These things aren't that hard to understand.

I used to think those things weren't hard to understand. But assholes keep showing that they either can't or don't want to. And responses of "not my problem" disgust me.

I've got a personal stake in this SNAFU, too. Do you remember when I mentioned a date with a transwoman? We met up again in the fall and been going steady since. Last time I was with her, she told me she loved me. And I have given some thought to whether I'd marry her, the conclusion being "if I had the money, I would." And even if things don't work out between us, I'd still want her to live where she doesn't have to worry about someone hurting her because they think she's evil or degenerate. The worst thing she'd do is talk people's ears off about Pokemon (she's a huge nerd. One of the reasons I love her).

ookami, your post brings me joy.

As a straight person I have the luxury of truly not caring who sleeps with whom, just hoping that people are happy. And you sound happy.

Thank you for brightening my day!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/08/2022 06:38PM by Lot's Wife.

ookami Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I just
> ask they leave folks alone for being different.

Surely that is not too much to ask of society.

It seems like such a simple concept.

Freedom is the freedom for you to be you and for me to be me. And if on Sundays one or the other of us wants to show up in a chapel somewhere fair enough. And if the other chooses to go for a hike so be it.

Not. All. The. Same.

How much time did Jesus spend sitting passively listening to organ music?

I've never had that thought before - it just sprang up - but I'm going to guess it's less than the time it takes the MoTab to sing Hallelujah or the hours some folks spend studying the life and times of Zachariah.

That's their choice. What is the imperative to force everybody to show up for Bible study - and not just anywhere - but in *their* particular building of choice? Or to seek to enforce some personal choices over others?

It's funny how two proselytizing religions (JWs & Mos) attracted my involvement for a brief moment in time when actually I figured out early on that there's no way they're going to convert everybody or even mostly all and that seems normal and logical and OK to me.

Different strokes for different folks as the old song goes.

I don't see a downside to accepting that as a reality of human life.

If the Angry Ones could just take a breath and then go about their own business, leaving others to do the same.

Honestly, I don't get the appeal of a world where everyone is all the same. It sounds boring.

Plus, I've noticed folks who claim to be the greatest champions of morality and freedom tend to be the worst examples. How is banning books "liberty?" And who appoints the moral guardians?

Your attitude is admirable, Nightingale. Though you might disagree with my reasoning: life is too short and miserable to go around making it worse. Might as well do some good while living.

"folks who claim to be the greatest champions of morality and freedom tend to be the worst examples"

Like this one!

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lawmaker-floridas-dont-say-gay-law-accused-covid-relief-fraud-rcna60676

"The Florida legislator who sponsored legislation critics dubbed the "Don't Say Gay' bill was accused of illegally obtaining tens of thousands of dollars in Covid-relief funds, authorities said Wednesday."

"Joseph Harding, 35, was indicted on six counts of wire fraud, money laundering, making false statements and other crimes, the U.S. attorney's office for Northern Florida said in a release."

As a comedian once said:

"Homosexuality is unnatural! It says to in this book wehre snakes talk, people come back from the dead, a guy walks on water and a virgin has a baby."

It's no joke though.