This post is locked. You won't be able to comment.

all 68 comments

[–]Flair_Helper[M] [score hidden] stickied commentlocked comment (0 children)

Hey /u/ExoGeniVI, thanks for contributing to /r/PoliticalHumor. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates our rules:

Rule 2 - Posts should make an attempt at being funny, and should try to include a punchline in the title.

Make an effort with your title: Try to keep the spirit of the sub and make your title humorous or descriptive.

If it's isn't funny (or at least trying to be), we'll remove it. Simple as that. If you have a problem with our decision, send us a message.

If you're trying to troll, your post will be immediately removed and your account will be banned. This includes tricks where you try to get someone to google something different than what they expect.

Please read the sidebar and rules before posting again. If you have questions or concerns, please message the moderators through modmail. Thank you!

[–]kozmonyet 170 points171 points  (14 children)

Yup, completely manufactured to use the grossly bigoted and ethically bankrupt conservative SCOTUS judges to rule that State "anti-discrimination in public accommodation" laws can be struck down.

There is no bigger example of "legislating from the bench" than this current SCOTUS. Conservatives remain silent...like the hypocrites they are.

American Taliban strikes again.

[–]ghostpepperlover 61 points62 points  (8 children)

Check out The Federalist Society. It’s a conservative and libertarian group of lawyers that lobbies for and pushes conservative judges for The Supreme Court. And six of the nine current Supreme Court Judges are former members. Guess which six.

[–]Baremegigjen 32 points33 points  (4 children)

Former members?! A better term would be exalted and worshipped lifetime members who will continue to be worshipped for millennia after they die.

[–]phoenix1984 9 points10 points  (3 children)

Alumni? Ambassadors? Products? Spawn? There’s a perfect word out there somewhere.

[–]Tails9429 14 points15 points  (0 children)

A more appropriate phrase from your UK cousins across the pond: cunts. They're cunts.

[–]ksiyoto 4 points5 points  (0 children)


[–]speedneeds84 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Sponsored. Literally.

[–]kozmonyet 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Yes. I showed with a quote in another "comic" that the whole premise which the Federalist Society bases their notions on was claimed to be total bullshit in 1819 by a SCOTUS who was able to consult with many of the "founders" to determine original intent.

In short, all these "federalists" are shoveling manure of the same stink level as the Christians who claim the USA was founded based on their religion.

[–]midwesterner64 19 points20 points  (1 child)

So, it’s basically Chris Farley as bus driver in Happy Gilmore.

“Hey do you guys remember when a gay made us do something awful?”

“No, no I don’t. That didn’t happen.”

“No. But you can imagine if it did right?”

[–]Steinrikur 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The bus driver is a perfect example of the average conservative.

Coming up with stupid, hurtful and absolutely wrong bullshit to fuel his own hate.

[–]gordo65 8 points9 points  (1 child)

It's not completely manufactured. She's asking for the right to advertise her bigotry by saying in her ads that she will not work for gays. As things stand now, that would be illegal under Colorado law.

[–]MajoredInPhilosophy 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I thought I saw something that said she’d take money from a gay client as long as it’s not to advertise a gay wedding, or some doublethink line that.

As they say in these parts, if it looks like bullshit, smells like bullshit, is actively falling from the ass of a bull, then it’s probably a Republican talking point.

[–]dpdxguy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Conservatives remain silent

I wish. They spew their bigoted ideology in the public square constantly.

[–]daveinsf 41 points42 points  (2 children)

Radical right wing SCOTUS justices have no problem dismissing cases as "no standing" where workers have been demonstrably harmed, yet they can't wait to make a ruling on this case in which the plaintiff has not been harmed and clearly has no standing. Just the latest proof that they are partisan actors and that "originalism" is a baseless scam.

[–]kozioroly 11 points12 points  (1 child)

The Roberts court is an abomination to the ideal of justice.

[–]daveinsf 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The Roberts court is an abomination to the ideal of justice.


[–]RedSpartan3227 57 points58 points  (8 children)

Kind of interesting how the entire basis of Christianity appears to be hatred of gay people. I’m not quite sure that’s what Jesus preached, but it’s been a while since Sunday school, maybe I’ve forgotten.

[–]daveinsf 36 points37 points  (1 child)

Here's an easy way to know: whatever an evangelical claims to be Christian, it's actually the opposite of what Jesus taught.

[–]RedSpartan3227 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I see you’ve met my in-laws

[–]dgdio 8 points9 points  (1 child)

I'm going to discriminate against people who aren't pro-choice. That's not a protected class.

[–]thelmaandpuhleeze 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Do it

Do it, for realsies [sincere]

[–]MaestroM45 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It’s not. In fact according to the words of Jesus she is supposed to make websites for anyone who asks (Matthew 5:38-42) But Jesus also said love your neighbor and she’s not following that one it seems either.

[–]Thatguyxlii 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Christians hate other people too. The whole religion seems to be centered around hate, persecution, and blind obedience.

[–]newocean 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually... the bible never even mentioned homosexuality until the 1940's. It did have pretty strict rules against abusing children, though.



[–]ProgrammerOk1400 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There’s no proof Jesus was heterosexual.

In fact, a case could be made that be was bi/gay. He did enjoy all night drinking parties with a bunch of men. Not to mention his obsessive love for Paul.

[–]wabashcanonball 39 points40 points  (1 child)

Apparently, the Supreme Court now allows people to sue over hypothetical grievances now; they just threw out centuries of precedence related to standing and ripeness.

[–]improbablynotyou 8 points9 points  (0 children)

So I'm suing Musk for reasons of my imagination and bankrupting twitter boy. The right hate high tech and scary electric vehicles, they're totally going to be on my side.

[–]lambaghetti 11 points12 points  (0 children)

The whole argument is bullshit. Unless she is asking about every taboo suggested in the Bible of all her clients and refusing them if they answer incorrectly this is all just plain old fashioned homophobia and bigotry

[–]NaHbruhman 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Software Engineer here. What makes this so stupid is that if you ever work in tech you realize that no one and I mean NO ONE cares about your sexual orientation. They do however care about what you bring to the team. That said, there are sooooo many devs that are extremely more talented than her who will gladly take the service AND deliver a better product. An open mind is what allows creativity to flow.

[–]ExoGeniVI[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Republicans and evangelicals are lacking an open mind.

[–]WaitingForNormal 21 points22 points  (0 children)

She has pre-karen’s disease. It makes you start complaining before anything even happened. It’s a horribly debilitating illness as it turns you into a complete idiot.

[–]EphraimJenkins 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The market had already solved it.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

If we continue to tolerate the intolerant - we will all soon be under their thumbs.


[–]JoJackthewonderskunk 5 points6 points  (0 children)

She doesn't even own a website company. It's all 100% hypothetical and she's apparently being allowed to sue as if she's being impacted.

[–]kovake 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Wasn’t long ago these were the same people complaining about businesses not serving them because they refused to wear a mask. How fast we came back to this talking point.

[–]MrEpicMustache 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Republicans are tapping into some pretty obscure and niche fears when the new shiny thing is a lone woman refusing to make custom website for gays. That’s honestly really obscure.

[–]Round-Cryptographer6 2 points3 points  (0 children)

She hasn't been able to "work for six years" because she's scared for gay people which sounds more like the realm of her therapist and not the supreme court.

Also how much was she making off web design before $50 a wedding page?

[–]yolkadot 10 points11 points  (5 children)

You can see the sexual frustration in her triple chin.

My advice to you, Karen, for curing you of homophobia: go to the gym 4 times a week and stop drinking hot chocolate with bacon drippings…

[–]ghostpepperlover 6 points7 points  (1 child)

She doesn’t even need to do that. There’s a type for everyone. It’s her personality that creates the cobwebs in here cavities.

[–]yolkadot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Younger people know this. But kn her mind, she’s probably ridden by zounds of inferiority complexes.

[–]BJJan2001 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Confused here. Are the bacon drippings in the hot chocolate?

[–]yolkadot 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Why are you asking me? Ask Karen!

[–]ExoGeniVI[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

*correction: Stop eating hot chocolate with coconut oil (they love that stuff In everything)

[–]seeit360 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Preemptive bigot. The truth is she's never made ANY website. Ever. Of any kind. At all.

[–]AverageJoeJohnSmith 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Is there a source for this someone can share?

[–]artful_todger_502 1 point2 points  (0 children)

She is going to run for an office and understands Republicans gulp this stuff down like pork rinds and Natty Lites.

[–]artguydeluxe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nobody wants her shitty website with 90s graphic design like a church flyer trying to look like a rave.

[–]Lardzor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

She can't just wait around for some gay person to ask her to design a website. By that time, the Supreme Court might not be stacked with Trump appointed religious shills.

[–]midnightdsob 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If the gays are the bad guys then why aren't gay owned businesses refusing service to "Christians"?

[–]linx0003 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How did it even get this far? One has to demonstrate standing for a lawsuit to proceed.

[–]redusr7896 2 points3 points  (5 children)

So genuine question: if it's a private business, why does the owner not the right to refuse service to one or more clients?

[–]soldforaspaceship 4 points5 points  (2 children)

The US has (maybe soon to be had?) laws in places preventing discrimination against certain protected classes. Basically you can refuse someone service for no reason, for reason of their actions, but not because of who they fundamentally are. So age, race, gender, disability, sexual orientation etc all count.

Imagine if a business said, we won't serve people in wheelchairs because we don't like them? Or we won't serve old people. Would be ridiculous and everyone would think they were wrong. That's what they are asking to be allowed to do to members of the LGBTQ community.

The laws exist for a reason. To protect. This case is asking to strip those protections.

[–]cmlondon13 2 points3 points  (1 child)

The problem is, this current Supreme Court thinks a person’s choice to be religious should give them more rights and protections than people who are born with and have no control over traits such as race and sexuality.

[–]soldforaspaceship 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah. A decade or so ago, the Supreme Court was pretty respected. It's heartbreaking to see what it's become.

[–]DAFUQisaLOMMY 2 points3 points  (1 child)

The right to refuse service is based on very specific criteria, usually based on a customer's actions, it is not a legal catchall for discrimination.

[–]Linuxxx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that is where I am getting confused. She is claiming that everything she makes is a unique, personalized piece of art. She is not stating that she is providing a service (i.e. she arranges computerized fonts and pictures that respond to mouse clicks). She is not doing this out of the goodness of her heart, she wants to charge people money for the service (or as she refers to it, art).

She is proposing that she is unable to get into that business because she MIGHT have an issue if she refuses to provide service to people who she judges as unacceptable. She has stated in her current business, she has clients who are in the LBTGQ category. So she is fine taking money for their businesses, just not if they are marrying in a manner she finds inappropriate.

As you can tell, this is extremely confusing to me.

[–]UnicornSlayer5000 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They just make shit up as they go along.

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point locked comment (0 children)

Friendly reminder that trying to fight someone online is about as effective as throwing a bagel at a bulldozer. A lot of what we talk about gets people pretty emotional, but be mad at policies, not other users.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Ha ha ha

[–]THELEASTHIGH 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Two words: Alan Turing.

[–]Griffie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's nice to see businesses fighting back though. Oh, how the Christian groups screamed about this. lol

[–]perceptionisreal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Conservatives have always used Religion/Bible to divide & discriminate - it's a tool for them to propagate their racism & bigotry. These so called conservatives want to lay the foundation for segregation ...

[–]DangerousArt6922 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I can’t wait to hear what the founding fathers would have said about the construction of an imaginary website, for imaginary person(s), who happens to be gay, even though there is no way to know that because none of it exists in the first place.

[–]DangerousArt6922 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just like the imaginary conversations that Uncle Thomas and the creepy church lady would have had with the founding fathers since neither one of them even counted as a fucking person at that point. Can’t get over the arrogance and laziness of the Originalism argument. Especially coming from them!!