Pete Buttigieg Says The Supreme Court Took LGBT Community Backward on a Hypothetical Ruling

{{Opinion from Adam Gonzalez, writer}}

You had no defendants and no Plaintiffs. Even the Name of the People in the case was straight. Why? 

It was a made-up case. This Ultra conservative group brought the lawsuit in the name of the people who did not have a case in court. These people did not know their names were being used. Is this legal?  They already ruled. I guess it is now. Is it right? NOPE. All the last three justices when interviewed in the senate would say multiple times "Oh that's hypothetical and I don't do hypotheticals/". Maybe you remember. Well, they had no problem ruling on this hypothetical that was taking rights away from a protected class and one in which these types of cases were already decided.

All political animals are so much like Trump. No wonder why they like him so much. Just like Trump, they say you have to obey the rule of law, but not me. These Republican justices take the money and put it in their back pocket without telling the government they represent. They take dinners airplane trips schooling money for nephews and all first class. From the same people that have business in the court.

But while this country decides to stay in the dark because they hate brown and black people together with the poor saying we give the poor too much food and money, Well with all the food and money they give to the poor in food stamps they out to be Billionaires by now. 

This is what is served for dinner. Wait for a dessert called January 6  Second edition. You can't have a nation that is constantly milked by the top class and the middle class is happy to get a .25 cent reduction on gasoline and for that, they ignore what the Republicans do because you know too many brown people walking around is bad for housing values., no matter what the likes of Clarence Thomas get quietly for himself and his family.

But why doesn't Clarence just doesn't go back and declared all he took. First is probably too much to remember, secondly because is against the law because there are maximums and caps of how much he can accept and thirdly not from someone who is doing business with the court.

Maybe we need a good Depression. That way everyone gets poor, except the top billionaires. They have laws change so that they don't have to pay interest and no income tax....well, they already don't pay income tax. Some barely.

CNN

 — 

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg on Sunday slammed the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of a Christian web designer in Colorado who refuses to create websites to celebrate same-sex weddings out of religious objections, saying the case was designed “for the clear purpose of chipping away” at LGBTQ equality.

“It’s very revealing that there’s no evidence that this web designer was ever even approached by anyone asking for a website for a same-sex wedding,” Buttigieg, the first out Cabinet secretary confirmed by the Senate, told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union.”

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority, in a 6-3 opinion, ruled Friday for Lorie Smith, the Colorado web designer, on free speech grounds, with Justice Neil Gorsuch writing, “All manner of speech – from ‘pictures, films, paintings, drawings, and engravings,’ to ‘oral utterance and the printed word’ – qualify for the First Amendment’s protections.”

Smith said in court filings that a man had inquired about her services for his same-sex wedding. But as CNN previously reported, the man in question says that he never reached out to Smith – and that he’s straight and married to a woman.

“There’s something in common between this Supreme Court ruling and what we’re seeing happening in state legislatures across the country, which is kind of a solution looking for a problem,” Buttigieg said Sunday. “In other words, sending these kinds of things to the courts and sending these kinds of things to state legislatures for the clear purpose of chipping away at the equality and the rights that have so recently been won in the LGBTQ+ community.”

Two contenders for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination took a different stance on the Supreme Court ruling in separate interviews Sunday on “State of the Union.”

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said the decision “protects all of our First Amendment rights,” adding that “the government doesn’t have the right to tell a business the nature of how they need to use their expressive abilities.”

Former Texas Rep. Will Hurd acknowledged that the ruling made him “uncomfortable because we’re protecting speech that I don’t agree with. And I don’t agree with an anti-LGBTQ sentiment.”

“But we have to be protecting the speech even if we don’t like or agree with the speech. That’s a foundational element in our country,” Hurd said.

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested that the court’s decision in the Colorado case would be more far-reaching.

“The decision’s logic cannot be limited to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity,” she wrote.

“The decision threatens to balkanize the market and to allow the exclusion of other groups from many services,” Sotomayor said, adding that “a website designer could equally refuse to create a wedding website for an interracial couple, for example.”

Christie pushed back Sunday on that characterization.

“What Sonia Sotomayor … was saying in her opinion was that … this decision could be used to deny people of LGBTQ backgrounds the ability to access this business. That’s simply not true,” he told Bash.

“They can access this business. They just can’t force the owner to do something that is against her personal religious beliefs. And so, if they want to come in and they want a web design for their business, they want a web design for a charity, they want a web design for anything else that they’re doing, they could certainly do that,” he added.