SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Recently, oral arguments were heard regarding a case about license plates and the first amendment. The Texas division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans has challenged a rejection of their proposed plate that had images of the Confederate flag.
The Texas solicitor general argued that, "Messages on Texas license plates are government speech ... [because] Texas etches its name onto each license plate and Texas law gives the state sole control and final approval authority over everything that appears on a license plate.”
Please share your ideas/comments on this case or your views on vanity plates in general.
Story: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-supreme-court-confederate-license-plates-20150323-story.html
Case: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2014/2014_14_144
What a vanity plate is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_plate
(Score: 4, Interesting) by frojack on Sunday April 05 2015, @05:47PM
If someone owns a printing business, are they obligated to print pretty color brochures for the KKK? Of course not; they're allowed to turn them away,
Apparently not any more.
Maybe you weren't playing attention to the whole Indiana brouhaha. Objections on purely religious (and by extension, political) grounds are no longer sufficient to allow your printing company to refuse specific requests.
Don't get me wrong, this isn't necessarily all bad. If religious preferences are to be kicked to the curb, we no longer need pretend that religious expression is deserving of government protection any more.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by mr_mischief on Sunday April 05 2015, @05:54PM
IANAL but I'm not so sure it's that black and white. The complaints so far have been over whether a business will sell to a particular party. None of it AFAICT has gone into the specifics of making a business sell specifically offense items. There's a big difference between a printer having to take on business from a gay couple to make wedding invitations and the specific request of a brochure or flyer for a dominatrix's dungeon of sexual torture.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday April 05 2015, @06:17PM
Who says there is a difference between the two examples you offer? They are different, because YOU SAY SO? Well - my opinion is worth as much as yours is, and I say there is no difference.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Monday April 06 2015, @12:11AM
In Indiana, there might not legally be a difference, but in many other states, sexual orientation is a protected class, and you're not allowed to discriminate based on that alone. So they're different because *the government says so*, and yes, their opinion is worth more than yours.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @02:48AM
Their opinion is merely backed up by force, so expect their wishes to come true far more often. Actual value (the worth of an opinion) is subjective.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday April 05 2015, @06:22PM
The complaints so far have been over whether a business will sell to a particular party.
Actually the complaint was over the refusal to put two groom figurines on the cake.
The cases were all "bait cases". Bride and groom, or groom and groom, never show up to buy their own cake these days. The wedding planner or does that stuff.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Touché) by FakeBeldin on Monday April 06 2015, @02:56PM
I showed up to buy my own wedding cake.
As a matter of fact, I showed up twice (there were three cakes, and I could only manage two in one go).
I guess two wrongs make a right, so you're still in the clear?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 08 2015, @03:46PM
I showed up to buy my wedding cake too, so we're back to the GP being wrong on that :p.
(although I don't actually remember the figures on the cake, I do remember it tasting pretty good!)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @06:49PM
Nobody is trying to use their religion as an excuse to discriminate against the KKK. They are trying to use it as an excuse to discriminate against homosexuals. You can't "choose" to be homosexual (or to be heterosexual, or to not be hetero/homosexual), so that necessarily falls into the classes that must be protected against discrimination; being in the KKK, however, is a willful choice. Holding your choices against you is not discrimination. Choice is what makes the difference here.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday April 05 2015, @07:30PM
Even if you could choose to be a homosexual or heterosexual, it would still be utterly irrational to discriminate since it would be a completely harmless choice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @08:28PM
> Nobody is trying to use their religion as an excuse to discriminate against the KKK.
Hence the insertion of the totally bogus "and by extension political grounds." Without that specious extension his entire argument falls apart.
BTW, religious justifications [aclu.org] were used to deny mixed race marriages back in the day.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 05 2015, @07:36PM
> Objections on purely religious (and by extension, political)
What do you mean "by extension?" The bill said nothing about political reasons.
Also, the bill was passed.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Grishnakh on Monday April 06 2015, @12:07AM
I was paying attention, but I (caution: IANAL) don't think the KKK case is the same. For one thing, in many places, homosexuals are a protected class, so you're not allowed to just discriminate against them based on that. The whole "religious freedom" thing was about Christians trying to justify disciminating against homosexuals only because supposedly homosexuality is against their religion (then again, so is being of a different religion, but they don't seem to discriminate against other Christian sects...).
With the KKK, for one thing that's not a protected class at all. Secondly, being a KKK member isn't involuntary like being homosexual or female or black: it's a voluntary organization. Finally, discriminating against them isn't a religious matter at all; I don't dislike the KKK because of any religious values, but based on purely humanist values I abhor them and their positions and actions. My understanding is that businesses are allowed to discriminate against customers, as long as it isn't just because of them being part of some protected class. They can't say "no blacks served here", but if you're black and you're being disruptive or rude to other customers, they can force you to leave, for example.
Any lawyers have any input here?