SCOTUS

[raison de arizona]

Are we at Burn It Down yet? Because it feels a lot like Burn It Down.

'Embarrassing': Sotomayor slams SCOTUS decision that marks 'gays and lesbians for second-class status'

Only on occasion do U.S. Supreme Court Justices read their opinions aloud from the bench. But on Friday Justice Sonia Sotomayor did just that, reading aloud her 38-page dissent to the majority’s 6-3 ruling in favor of a Christian anti-LGBTQ business owner, Lori Smith, who claimed Colorado’s anti-discrimination law prevented her from expanding her design business to include weddings because she refuses to provide that service to same-sex couples. The case is 303 Creative vs. Elenis.

The Court ruled that, “The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.”

In her dissent Justice Sotomayor exposed some of the many harms that ruling will cause, and called the “logic” in the majority opinion, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, “embarrassing.”

“The majority protests that Smith will gladly sell her goods and services to anyone, including same-sex couples,” she wrote. “She just will not sell websites for same-sex weddings. Apparently, a gay or lesbian couple might buy a wedding website for their straight friends. This logic would be amusing if it were not so embarrassing.”

Pointing to a separate legal case, she continues to mock the conservative justices, saying: “I suppose the Heart of Atlanta Motel could have argued that Black people may still rent rooms for their white friends.”

Her dissent also offered a great deal of support and acknowledgment of LGBTQ people and their struggles — past and current.

“Today is a sad day in American constitutional law and in the lives of LGBT people,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. Her dissent was joined by the remaining two liberals on the bench, Justices Elena Sagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

https://www.alternet.org/sotomayor-2662087621/

[raison de arizona]

https://twitter.com/ElieNYC/status/1674 ... 81792?s=20

You can't square John Roberts 2023 ruling that POTUS cannot authorize student debt relief with his 2018 ruling that POTUS can ban Muslims from entering the country, unless you account for the fact that Roberts is a partisan plant.
My latest in @thenation

The Supreme Court Just Told Student Debtors to Go to Hell
In a wildly incoherent opinion, John Roberts blocked Biden’s student debt relief plan—and reminded everyone that he only thinks Republican presidents are allowed to rule.

Today, the Supreme Court struck down President Joe Biden’s student debt relief program, wiping out over $400 billion in promised economic relief. As with so many recent rulings, this was a straight party-line vote: the six justices appointed by Republican presidents voted to take away the money, and the three justices appointed by Democratic presidents voted to allow the political branches to make policy.

The case is called Biden v. Nebraska. To give you a sense of just how unhinged the court’s opinion is, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the conservative majority, analogized the debt relief program to the French Revolution and the people violently dispossessing the Ancien Régime from its wealth and status. I’m not remotely making that up. Roberts wrote: “The Secretary’s plan has “modified” the [debt relief] provisions only in the same sense that “the French Revolution ‘modified’ the status of the French nobility”—it has abolished them and supplanted them with a new regime entirely.”

When Roberts sounds like he’s working towards a Bourbon Restoration, you know we’re in for a doozy of an opinion.

https://www.thenation.com/article/polit ... ebt-biden/

[raison de arizona]

Of course the whole thing was ginned up and an absolute lie, but that's par for the course these days.

303 Creative has never sold wedding websites. There was no gay couple looking for her services.
Still, she admits she entered the public market in order to discriminate against LGBT people, citing her faith and a "calling from God."

The fact this case was even heard... #SCOTUS

[Luke]

Abortion. Affirmative Action. Gay Rights. Student Loans.

Between this SCOTUS, outrageous GOP politicians, and a screaming, seething minority of RWNJs, they are handing 2024 to the Democrats. They have lost their minds.

[Volkonski]

Abortion. Affirmative Action. Gay Rights. Student Loans.

Between this SCOTUS, outrageous GOP politicians, and a screaming, seething minority of RWNJs, they are handing 2024 to the Democrats. They have lost their minds.

I hope you are right.

[sugar magnolia]

Abortion. Affirmative Action. Gay Rights. Student Loans.

And

Supreme Court won’t hear challenge to Jim Crow-era Mississippi bans blocking some felons from voting

https://www.wlbt.com/2023/06/30/supreme ... ns-voting/

[raison de arizona]

Abortion. Affirmative Action. Gay Rights. Student Loans.

And

Supreme Court won’t hear challenge to Jim Crow-era Mississippi bans blocking some felons from voting

https://www.wlbt.com/2023/06/30/supreme ... ns-voting/

Finally! I thought we'd never come across a law this court would uphold and not trounce all over!

Wait. It's a Jim Crow era voter ban?

Par for the course.

[bill_g]

Of course the whole thing was ginned up and an absolute lie, but that's par for the course these days.
https:// twitter.com/Chasten/status/1674861340542763008?s=20

303 Creative has never sold wedding websites. There was no gay couple looking for her services.
Still, she admits she entered the public market in order to discriminate against LGBT people, citing her faith and a "calling from God."

The fact this case was even heard... #SCOTUS

Since when are cases before a court at any level about hypothetical issues? Her 1A Rights *might* be restricted by Colorado Law based on her religious beliefs, but she was never actually harmed or denied her rights.

[raison de arizona]

Of course the whole thing was ginned up and an absolute lie, but that's par for the course these days.
https:// twitter.com/Chasten/status/1674861340542763008?s=20

303 Creative has never sold wedding websites. There was no gay couple looking for her services.
Still, she admits she entered the public market in order to discriminate against LGBT people, citing her faith and a "calling from God."

The fact this case was even heard... #SCOTUS

Since when are cases before a court at any level about hypothetical issues? Her 1A Rights *might* be restricted by Colorado Law based on her religious beliefs, but she was never actually harmed or denied her rights.

It's almost like...she doesn't have any standing. But I must be missing something, because she had standing enough to make it to the Supreme Court. I do wonder, however, if there can/will be any punishment for whoever made up the gay couple's letter, since that was a complete lie.

[bob]

It's almost like...she doesn't have any standing. But I must be missing something, because she had standing enough to make it to the Supreme Court.

Which has been a secondary criticism of today's ruling: Standing seems to be whatever five justices want to decide on the merits.

I do wonder, however, if there can/will be any punishment for whoever made up the gay couple's letter, since that was a complete lie.

Possible but not probable.

[raison de arizona]

Thanks bob!

The Onion, bringing back the greatest hits!

Brett Kavanaugh Rules Against Loan Forgiveness Plan Citing Precedent That All Debts Mysteriously Vanish

https://www.theonion.com/brett-kavanaug ... 1850596312

(There is no text to the story.)

[June bug]

Abortion. Affirmative Action. Gay Rights. Student Loans.

Between this SCOTUS, outrageous GOP politicians, and a screaming, seething minority of RWNJs, they are handing 2024 to the Democrats. They have lost their minds.

I hope you are right.

I do too, but I’m getting more and more worried we’re in for 2016, Part Deux.

[realist]

It's almost like...she doesn't have any standing. But I must be missing something, because she had standing enough to make it to the Supreme Court.

Which has been a secondary criticism of today's ruling: Standing seems to be whatever five justices want to decide on the merits.

I do wonder, however, if there can/will be any punishment for whoever made up the gay couple's letter, since that was a complete lie.

Possible but not probable.

Mind-boggling how a purely hypothetical case gets past a lower court, much less all the way to SCOTUS. Can you even begin to imagine the slippery slope that sends us down?

I can see this court wanting to make a ruling like this that actually promotes discrimination, but through a hypothetical case? Insanity.

[bob]

Mind-boggling how a purely hypothetical case gets past a lower court, much less all the way to SCOTUS. Can you even begin to imagine the slippery slope that sends us down?

To be fair, both the district court and the 10th ruled there was standing ... on rather narrow grounds.

From D. Utah:

Plaintiff Lorie Smith, through her wholly-owned company 303 Creative, LLC ("303"), is engaged generally in the fields of graphic design, website design, social media management and consultation, marketing, branding strategy, and website management training. This case concerns Ms. Smith's intention to expand 303's business into the design of custom websites for customers planning weddings - that is, websites to keep a couple's friends and family informed about the upcoming wedding.

* * *

Ms. Smith has prepared a proposed statement ("the Statement") that she intends to post on 303's website to explain 303's policies: It reads:

► Show Spoiler

I love weddings.

Each wedding is a story in itself, the story of a couple and their special love for each other.

I have the privilege of telling the story of your love and commitment by designing a stunning website that promotes your special day and communicates a unique story about your wedding - from the tale of the engagement, to the excitement of the wedding day, to the beautiful life you are building together.

I firmly believe that God is calling me to this work. Why? I am personally convicted that He wants me - during these uncertain times for those who believe in biblical marriage - to shine His light and not stay silent. He is calling me to stand up for my faith, to explain His true story about marriage, and to use the talents and business He gave me to publicly proclaim and celebrate His design for marriage as a life-long union between one man and one woman.

These same religious convictions that motivate me also prevent me from creating websites promoting and celebrating ideas or messages that violate my beliefs. So I will not be able to create websites for same-sex marriages or any other marriage that is not between one man and one woman. Doing that would compromise my Christian witness and tell a story about marriage that contradicts God's true story of marriage-the very story He is calling me to promote.

* * *

Ms. Smith acknowledges that her intended website activities conflict with Colorado law, specifically C.R.S. § 24-34-601(2).* That statute provides:

It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person ... directly or indirectly, to publish . . . any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of . . . sexual orientation. (Hereafter, the "Communication Clause")

* An earlier iteration of Ms. Smith's claims also challenged a separate provision of C.R.S. § 24-34-601(2), insofar as that statute prohibits persons from refusing to provide services to an individual or group because of, among other things, sexual orientation (the "Accommodation Clause"). Claims relating to the Accommodation Clause were dismissed by this Court on standing grounds.

The district court found no standing for her challenge to the Accommodation Clause, presumably because it was too speculative. But did find standing to the challenge to Communication Clause, because all she had to do was post the statement to be liable.

SCOTUS, however, looked at the Accommodation Clause because Colorado conceded it the power to enforce the Communication Clause came from the Accommodation Clause.

And the SCOTUS dissents notes the cases rests on Smith's intent, but also focuses on Accommodation Clause (and not standing).

"For completeness": The 10th's affirmance.

[realist]

Mind-boggling how a purely hypothetical case gets past a lower court, much less all the way to SCOTUS. Can you even begin to imagine the slippery slope that sends us down?

To be fair, both the district court and the 10th ruled there was standing ... on rather narrow grounds.

From D. Utah:

Plaintiff Lorie Smith, through her wholly-owned company 303 Creative, LLC ("303"), is engaged generally in the fields of graphic design, website design, social media management and consultation, marketing, branding strategy, and website management training. This case concerns Ms. Smith's intention to expand 303's business into the design of custom websites for customers planning weddings - that is, websites to keep a couple's friends and family informed about the upcoming wedding.

* * *

Ms. Smith has prepared a proposed statement ("the Statement") that she intends to post on 303's website to explain 303's policies: It reads:

► Show Spoiler

I love weddings.

Each wedding is a story in itself, the story of a couple and their special love for each other.

I have the privilege of telling the story of your love and commitment by designing a stunning website that promotes your special day and communicates a unique story about your wedding - from the tale of the engagement, to the excitement of the wedding day, to the beautiful life you are building together.

I firmly believe that God is calling me to this work. Why? I am personally convicted that He wants me - during these uncertain times for those who believe in biblical marriage - to shine His light and not stay silent. He is calling me to stand up for my faith, to explain His true story about marriage, and to use the talents and business He gave me to publicly proclaim and celebrate His design for marriage as a life-long union between one man and one woman.

These same religious convictions that motivate me also prevent me from creating websites promoting and celebrating ideas or messages that violate my beliefs. So I will not be able to create websites for same-sex marriages or any other marriage that is not between one man and one woman. Doing that would compromise my Christian witness and tell a story about marriage that contradicts God's true story of marriage-the very story He is calling me to promote.

* * *

Ms. Smith acknowledges that her intended website activities conflict with Colorado law, specifically C.R.S. § 24-34-601(2).* That statute provides:

It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person ... directly or indirectly, to publish . . . any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement that indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual's patronage or presence at a place of public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable because of . . . sexual orientation. (Hereafter, the "Communication Clause")

* An earlier iteration of Ms. Smith's claims also challenged a separate provision of C.R.S. § 24-34-601(2), insofar as that statute prohibits persons from refusing to provide services to an individual or group because of, among other things, sexual orientation (the "Accommodation Clause"). Claims relating to the Accommodation Clause were dismissed by this Court on standing grounds.

The district court found no standing for her challenge to the Accommodation Clause, presumably because it was too speculative. But did find standing to the challenge to Communication Clause, because all she had to do was post the statement to be liable.

SCOTUS, however, looked at the Accommodation Clause because Colorado conceded it the power to enforce the Communication Clause came from the Accommodation Clause.

And the SCOTUS dissents notes the cases rests on Smith's intent, but also focuses on Accommodation Clause (and not standing).

"For completeness": The 10th's affirmance.

Thanks bob, as always.

Still, really flimsy and at least for me, total BS

Maybe the birthers should file a case based on a statement statement in a website that Joe Blow intends to run for President and is not NBC. Doesn’t matter whether Joe actually intends to or does run. That should get them to SCOTUS.

[Gregg]

Unbelievable.

That is just the tip of the iceberg. She didn't actually have a business for designing wedding websites, she was just considering opening one, and she was Susan Collins Concerned about maybe possibly might have been asked to design a website for one of them people she would catch the Gay from even if she just exchanged emails. In the end the one person she did almost get Gay cooties from who wanted her to design a website for "Stewart and Mike's" wedding was A) already married B) to a woman and C) was a web developer in San Francisco who hardly needed a web designer and certainly not one in Colorado. In a just world the lawyers who didn't bother to even check this shit before going all the way to the Supreme Court ought to be sanctioned with the kind of things Henry VIII used to do to sanction lawyers and priests he wasn't happy with.

And the Court which has fucked 15 things up by denying standing in other cases allowed that, as well as the other case which you thought was about giving poor folks money for student debt relief. If you read the case, States managed to convince the same "you don't have standing" court that they had standing because...

I had to sit down for this part....

the companies that are making bank by being abusive lenders doing things most lenders cannot get away with would lose revenue, and that loss of revenue would impact the State's corporate income tax. As if the companies involved paid any income tax, which I'll bet dollars to Biscuit's donuts are involved in all kinds of shady crap to evade taxes on the money they get by beating it out of kids.

I am just done....

[bill_g]

Rut-roh! 303creative is 408. My oh my. Why, it's like it was never there. Poof.

[Suranis]

Rut-roh! 303creative is 408. My oh my. Why, it's like it was never there. Poof.

It works for me. Sorry, the conspiracy that the company does not really exist seems to be a false conspiracy. Maybe they were being DDOSed in revenge by de gud giys.

https://303creative.com/

Personally, I don't see why affirming a basic freedom to chose what work you are willing to take on is so horrifying. It's not like finding a web design service is a massive hardship, and people got married without websites for at least a few months in history.

[Kriselda Gray]

Rut-roh! 303creative is 408. My oh my. Why, it's like it was never there. Poof.

It works for me. Sorry, the conspiracy that the company does not really exist seems to be a false conspiracy. Maybe they were being DDOSed in revenge by de gud giys.

https://303creative.com/

Personally, I don't see why affirming a basic freedom to chose what work you are willing to take on is so horrifying. It's not like finding a web design service is a massive hardship, and people got married without websites for at least a few months in history.

The biggest problem with the case is that 1) At the time the suit was filed, she wasn't actually soliciting customers for WEDDING websites. She said she was thinking about it. EVEN if she had been soliciting customers for WEDDING websites, 2) NO GAY COUPLE ever asked her to make one. She was concerned that a gay couple *might* ask her to make one. 3) The supposed E-mail from "Stewart" about making a site for his and "Mike's" wedding was fake. SHE MADE IT UP. One of the reputable magazines (I forget which one at the moment) contacted "Stewart" who said that yes, the name used in the email is his name and yes it listed his real email account, BUT HE NEVER SENT HER any email, HE DIDN'T NEED a wedding website as he's been married TO A WOMAN for 15 years - and he's able to make websites himself, so he wouldn't need to hire a designer. So the alleged email supposedly asking her to make a type of site she wasn't actually in the business of making WAS A LIE.

If that's not troublesome enough, only cases that cover an ACTUAL case or controversy, where someone has ACTUALLY been harmed are supposed to be able to go through the courts. Lorrie Smith was NEVER INJURED IN ANY WAY by Colorado's law. There was no ACTUAL case or controversy here, just a hypothetical one, and HYPOTHETICAL CASES aren't allowed in the courts.

So, a woman who wasn't in the business of making wedding websites, but was worried if she wanted to do so she might have to make one for a gay couple decided to invent a nonexistent gay couple that she lied about wanting her to do work and her not wanting to do it JUST so she could file this suit and get the rights of gays to be treated like all other cutomers taken away.

I know you don't care about gays losing their rights, but you should keep in mind that once we start saying that certain groups don't deserve to have their rights protected, it's not that hard to keep expanding who's rights can be taking away. Right now, the Civil Rights Act allows the government to force people to provide business services to all races, religions, national origins, creeds and so on, but the way this court goes, it won't surprise me at all if they gut that law, too, and then people can sue to start chipping away at the rights of any group they don't like. I know Evangelical Christians, who are the most likely bunch to file these kinds of suits, don't like Catholics very much, and I can easily see some website designer saying they don't want to have to make websites for Catholic couples and being able to get the courts to agree.

The problem is, it's not just WEBSITES that this affects. Lorrie Smith basically claimed it would be forcing her to do artistic work, which is a form of speech, to make this non-existent couple a website. Now ANYONE who can find a way to portray their work as being "artistic expression" can turn away gays. Or, if my example above came to pass, anyone who could convince someone their were an "artist" could deny service to Catholics. And the way this court is going, it won't surprise me in the least to see if happen

[Slim Cognito]

We have a winner.

[Suranis]

Rut-roh! 303creative is 408. My oh my. Why, it's like it was never there. Poof.

It works for me. Sorry, the conspiracy that the company does not really exist seems to be a false conspiracy. Maybe they were being DDOSed in revenge by de gud giys.

https://303creative.com/

Personally, I don't see why affirming a basic freedom to chose what work you are willing to take on is so horrifying. It's not like finding a web design service is a massive hardship, and people got married without websites for at least a few months in history.

The biggest problem with the case is that 1) At the time the suit was filed, she wasn't actually soliciting customers for WEDDING websites. She said she was thinking about it. EVEN if she had been soliciting customers for WEDDING websites, 2) NO GAY COUPLE ever asked her to make one. She was concerned that a gay couple *might* ask her to make one. 3) The supposed E-mail from "Stewart" about making a site for his and "Mike's" wedding was fake. SHE MADE IT UP. One of the reputable magazines (I forget which one at the moment) contacted "Stewart" who said that yes, the name used in the email is his name and yes it listed his real email account, BUT HE NEVER SENT HER any email, HE DIDN'T NEED a wedding website as he's been married TO A WOMAN for 15 years - and he's able to make websites himself, so he wouldn't need to hire a designer. So the alleged email supposedly asking her to make a type of site she wasn't actually in the business of making WAS A LIE.

If that's not troublesome enough, only cases that cover an ACTUAL case or controversy, where someone has ACTUALLY been harmed are supposed to be able to go through the courts. Lorrie Smith was NEVER INJURED IN ANY WAY by Colorado's law. There was no ACTUAL case or controversy here, just a hypothetical one, and HYPOTHETICAL CASES aren't allowed in the courts.

So, a woman who wasn't in the business of making wedding websites, but was worried if she wanted to do so she might have to make one for a gay couple decided to invent a nonexistent gay couple that she lied about wanting her to do work and her not wanting to do it JUST so she could file this suit and get the rights of gays to be treated like all other cutomers taken away.

I know you don't care about gays losing their rights, but you should keep in mind that once we start saying that certain groups don't deserve to have their rights protected, it's not that hard to keep expanding who's rights can be taking away. Right now, the Civil Rights Act allows the government to force people to provide business services to all races, religions, national origins, creeds and so on, but the way this court goes, it won't surprise me at all if they gut that law, too, and then people can sue to start chipping away at the rights of any group they don't like. I know Evangelical Christians, who are the most likely bunch to file these kinds of suits, don't like Catholics very much, and I can easily see some website designer saying they don't want to have to make websites for Catholic couples and being able to get the courts to agree.

The problem is, it's not just WEBSITES that this affects. Lorrie Smith basically claimed it would be forcing her to do artistic work, which is a form of speech, to make this non-existent couple a website. Now ANYONE who can find a way to portray their work as being "artistic expression" can turn away gays. Or, if my example above came to pass, anyone who could convince someone their were an "artist" could deny service to Catholics. And the way this court is going, it won't surprise me in the least to see if happen

First of all, thank you for bieng respectful.

The thing is I've read what you said and I have a couple of problems with it.

Firstly, we live in a world where people actively seek out places to attack for discrimination. Remember that pizza place that was driven out of business by attacks for refusing to supply a homosexual wedding? They had never done weddings nor had never been asked to do weddings. But once they said no to the resuest they became a national center of rage and had to shut down.

Another example was in Northern Ireland it also happened that a Cake maker had been sued and was the center of rage for refusing to do a Homosexual wedding. The Cake make won his case becausue he simply recommended another cake make that would be willing to do the event. In short he made a reasonable accomidation for the person so he was not put under any hardship. In an interview after wards he said he had served the man before and had no idea that the man was Homosexual, and he was more than willing to serve him even after the case.

So someone being cautious and checking out whether it was possible to refuse to do certain weddings in an environment where people are actively checking companies out for "purity" sounds like a very sensible precaution to me.

No defense on the lying about the other guy. dont know what was going on there.

The US Constitution guarantees freedom of Religion but it does not FORCE people to do things if there has been a reasonable accomidation made to avoid inconviencing the other person - such as recomending another web design company to do the job.

As for the rest, it's a fine example of the "slippery slope" logical fallacy. which is ironically used a lot by the people you are against = Morality police.

https://www.snopes.com/articles/419980/ ... l-fallacy/

As its name suggests, the slippery slope fallacy leads an argument through a chain of events that the arguer suggests will lead to an undesirable outcome with little or no evidence to back it up. Often with this logical fallacy, a person will accept that a proposed chain of events — in other words, the slippery slope — will happen without verifying such a likelihood.

Example of the slippery slope fallacy:

The enactment of gun control measures in any capacity directly threatens the Second Amendment. Ultimately, the government will take away our guns and we won’t be able to protect ourselves. Therefore, gun control laws threaten and strip away our constitutional protections, and the sovereignty and freedom of Americans.

The slippery slope argument is generally used to discourage someone from affirming or taking a specific course of action on the grounds that it will lead to a worst-case-scenario outcome. In the example above, this would mean that implementing gun control measures would lead to the worst-case scenario that Americans would lose constitutional freedoms.

According to the Canadian Journal of Philosophy, there are three types of slippery slope fallacies most commonly used:

Causal slopes posit that one action will lead to a chain of reactions with increasingly more extreme outcomes. A minor action now will cause a major action later.
For example, if I allow my child to stay up past their bedtime tonight then they will never learn to go to bed at a reasonable hour.

Conceptual slopes blur the lines between related issues, and posit that if there is no discernible difference between two topics then reasoning allows us to make leaps in judgment between different arguments -- i.e., we can respond to two different claims or scenarios as if they're the same. It begs the question of where does one draw the line?
A study published by the National Library of Medicine used legal euthanasia as an example of this type of slippery slope, arguing that some "make the claim that if some specific kind of action (such as euthanasia) is permitted, then society will be inexorably led (“down the slippery slope”) to permitting other actions that are morally wrong."

Precedential slopes argue that if we treat a certain issue in one way, we will also respond to a seemingly related issue in that same manner. In this case, it's about setting a precedent that slowly begins to degrade over time.
For example, if abortion is allowed only in the event of a medical emergency, then it will be expected that all unwanted pregnancies will inevitably be terminated via abortion.

Snopes Says: In a nutshell, a slippery slope starts with a seemingly small action (or inaction) that will supposedly lead to an extreme, worst-case result.

► Show Spoiler

To combat this fallacy, we must first start at the first point in this chain of events. The first step in combating a slippery slope argument is to map out the chain of events and determine how likely such results are to occur. The psychology and philosophy educational website Effectiviology offers these pointers:

Point out the missing pieces of the slope. Slippery slope arguments often leave out important events that connect between the start and end points of the slope, and pointing these out can help illustrate the issues with the proposed slope.

Highlight the disconnect between the different pieces of the slope. The more disconnected the pieces of the slope are from one another, the less reasonable the slope is; this can be an issue, for example, if there is a low likelihood that a certain event will lead to the one that’s supposed to follow it.

Point out the distance between the start and end points of the slope. Demonstrating the distance between the start and end points of the slope helps illustrate why one is unlikely to lead to the other, and why it’s possible to justify treating the two in different ways.

Show that it’s possible to stop the transition between the start and end points. Explain the ways in which it’s possible to actively prevent the initial event from leading to the end event, and possibly support this by using examples of previous cases where a similar method was used.

Call out the problematic premises of the slippery slope argument. In some cases, one or more of the premises behind the slippery slope may be wrong, in which case you might benefit more from attacking the flawed premise directly, instead of addressing the issues with the slippery slope.

Provide a relevant example that illustrates the issue with slippery slope arguments in general. This approach involves attacking the concept of slippery slope arguments in general, for example by showing that they can be made in a fallacious manner with regard to nearly any possible topic, though the way you do this should preferably be related to the topic of the slippery slope argument which is being discussed.

Ask your opponent to justify the slope. If your opponent suggested a possible slope but didn’t provide any evidence which supports its validity, then you can remind them that the burden of proof rests with them, and ask them to justify why they believe that the slippery slope that they presented is reasonable.

Under the spoiler is the counters to that Logical Fallacy, which I let stand as my answers to your slipper slope argument. HOW??

Basically, you are saying if you allow this it will lead to gas chambers. So, just because it MIGHT allow people bieng shoved into Gas Chambers, you MUST allow everything and FORCE people to allow everything. No matter the distress caused.

As Snopes says, this is a nonsense. HOW will this lead to chipping away at (nice example) Catholic Rights? Give a concrete example of stuff that happeend after people were allowed to refuse to so a specific type of website?

Any more than, just picking a random example, a Catholic Health Centers getting driven out of business because they offer excellent women's health services but don't offer Abortion services and therefore are bad? And therefore the overall number of Places offering Womens Health Care goes down, therefore Women's health care does down. And yes I've read about things like that happening in the USA. How is that not a "Slippery slope?" Albeit one that is actually happening as opposed to your theoretical Slippery slope.

And which is used by "Progressives" to show how women's health care is declining in America and therefore how the other side is bad. Gosh.

But that's a digression. so, ya, basically, no I don't see how this is a slippery slope to anything and you have not shown how it will be other than simply stating it. Every step along the chain to Gas chambers will be resisted. Without Balancing the rights of the Homosexuals AND the rights of religious people there is no freedom, and there will be nothing but violence.

In short, in an environment where so called marginalized people have companies pandering to them and having their symbol draped off embassies for a month, it makes sense for people to do some research before dipping their toes into the water where the "marginalized guys" devour people. Doing so does NOT mean that everyone has their rights eroded, and you have shown nothing that suggests it would.

The fact that logical Fallacy is constantly paraded around online to justify stuff, without being challenged as a Logical Fallacy, does not change the fact that it is, in fact, a Logical Fallacy.

[neeneko]

Any more than, just picking a random example, a Catholic Health Centers getting driven out of business because they offer excellent women's health services but don't offer Abortion services and therefore are bad? And therefore the overall number of Places offering Womens Health Care goes down, therefore Women's health care does down. And yes I've read about things like that happening in the USA. How is that not a "Slippery slope?" Albeit one that is actually happening as opposed to your theoretical Slippery slope.

In the US, the Cahotlic Health system is one of the most politically powerful groups in the country, often able to get laws and exceptions tailored to them including laws like RLUIPA. I am highly skeptical that any 'progressive' group had the political power to drive a Catholic hospital out of business.

Though even if they could, that is a terrible example. Arguing that being prevented from discrimination by a powerful organization is a 'real' slippery slope, while actual discrimination against vulnerable people is 'theoretical'. Typical 'making the world safe for oppression' thinking.

[Suranis]

How typical that you focus on the irrelevant paragraph rather than the substance of what I said. How very like a Birther.

Anyway, I cant directly quote where I read it as I read it several years ago and I cant even remember where it was that I read it. It was an interview with a small Catholic Women's croup who ran a women's support group and small health center got women, but because they argued against abortion (and most likely were a nice soft easy target) they were forced to shut down. I remember the comment "this is happening all over the country and catholic health care has been driven out of several states."

But hey, I cant prove I read it so feel free to disregard or say I'm full of shit. That's cool.

I'm sure the organization you mention is powerful IN HOSPITALS, but the Smaller stuff that deals with day to day women's health care? The other has pretty much forced everyone else out of the system, leaving women little or no choice.

Anyway, that one paragraph does not change the fact that the argument used was flawed. But as I said, its used all the time online without anyone pointing out its a bullshit argument. People even go so far as to pretend that the slippery slope arguments are happening when they are not. Such as people screaming last year that Planned Parenthood clinics were closing all over the country since the Repeal of the Roe decision. Naturally, that was not true. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... -abortion/

And I was NOT talking in a way that was making the world save for oppression. You would have to make a triple somersault leap of logic to get anything like that out of what I said. Pointing out that what someone said was wrong is NOT making the world safe for Oppression. May I suggest you take a big long look in the mirror before accusing other people of that.

I;m sorry that the line of thinking you have been fed and clung to for years is a logical fallacy. I'm sorry that the arguments you have made for years is a logical fallacy. Pointing out that it is a logical fallacy is NOT making the world safe for oppression. I would guess you are afraid I am taking one of your weapons away by pointing out its bullshit and therefore that action is making the world safe for oppression.

Sorry not sorry. A solid counter argument is not enabling genocide. It's telling you to form better arguments, or maybe alter your thinking if you cant defend it without relying on bullshit. Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

[sad-cafe]

How typical that you focus on the irrelevant paragraph rather than the substance of what I said. How very like a Birther.

Anyway, I cant directly quote where I read it as I read it several years ago and I cant even remember where it was that I read it. It was an interview with a small Catholic Women's croup who ran a women's support group and small health center got women, but because they argued against abortion (and most likely were a nice soft easy target) they were forced to shut down. I remember the comment "this is happening all over the country and catholic health care has been driven out of several states."

But hey, I cant prove I read it so feel free to disregard or say I'm full of shit. That's cool.

I'm sure the organization you mention is powerful IN HOSPITALS, but the Smaller stuff that deals with day to day women's health care? The other has pretty much forced everyone else out of the system, leaving women little or no choice.

Anyway, that one paragraph does not change the fact that the argument used was flawed. But as I said, its used all the time online without anyone pointing out its a bullshit argument. People even go so far as to pretend that the slippery slope arguments are happening when they are not. Such as people screaming last year that Planned Parenthood clinics were closing all over the country since the Repeal of the Roe decision. Naturally, that was not true. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... -abortion/

And I was NOT talking in a way that was making the world save for oppression. You would have to make a triple somersault leap of logic to get anything like that out of what I said. Pointing out that what someone said was wrong is NOT making the world safe for Oppression. May I suggest you take a big long look in the mirror before accusing other people of that.

I;m sorry that the line of thinking you have been fed and clung to for years is a logical fallacy. I'm sorry that the arguments you have made for years is a logical fallacy. Pointing out that it is a logical fallacy is NOT making the world safe for oppression. I would guess you are afraid I am taking one of your weapons away by pointing out its bullshit and therefore that action is making the world safe for oppression.

Sorry not sorry. A solid counter argument is not enabling genocide. It's telling you to form better arguments, or maybe alter your thinking if you cant defend it without relying on bullshit. Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

We are not in the habbit of talking down to others here on the Fogbow

[neeneko]

We are not in the habbit of talking down to others here on the Fogbow

Yeah, sorry. I admit I was being a bit acidic there. I just get really tired of people speaking about pushback against their power over others as the 'real oppression' while marginalized people are just using 'slippery slope'. It is frustrating because it is a backwards response for an attempt to build empathy, to point out to people 'hey, this thing you are ok with because you benefit, here is a version where you are the subject and wouldn't that feel terrible?'.. and getting a response that shows such a callous and self centre disregard for others.

If your general response to addressing the priorities of marginalized people is to flip it around and talk about how your people are under assault for wanting to marginalize them.. I get a bit snarky.