• ATDA@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    1 year ago

    Pretty sure that would apply to personal business and not you know, elected officials.

    Resign.

    • zeppo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      The court also said the decision only applied to a narrow selection of businesses that were related to creative expression… you’d think a judge would have noticed that.

      • Granite@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        They are well aware of this, but they don’t care about hypocrisy or reasonableness. They’re doing this to see how far they can go.

      • ChrisLicht@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I tend to suspect she is trying to get up to the SC on the back of 303, to then offer the Psycho Six the opportunity to either extend 303, or, in the alternative, certify an even juicier basis for discrimination, in the form of the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

      • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, officiating a wedding is acting on behalf of the state to certify a marriage, it’s not expressive content and forcing an official to do isn’t compelled speech. Creative LLC doesn’t apply here, at all.