The Official SCOTUS Thread

[Ol’ Qwerty Bastard]

imagine being gay and giving your money to a homophobic piece of garbage for a service that plenty of decent people could do

**** that guy for being a homophobic prick, at least now it's out in the open.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by elphenor

case by case but probably yes if the grounds for denying are discriminatory

if the guy painted portraits for weddings for whatever reason it'd be clearly yes

most wedding cakes worth anything are made on demand, that's not a good defense, but like I said he doesn't have to put a penis on it

Look beyond the context since that's how the law will be applied: can we compel artists to create things that they don't want to?

[Frownland]

How would discriminatory intentions be established? At what point do we declare that someone's art is for money? Do those who profit off of art have different rights than those who practice art out of passion?

I don't disagree with you tbh, just trying to hammer out the case before I send my write up to Notorious RBG.

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by elphenor

sorry you can't sit at the counter of my sandwich shop as it's the stage to my theater

Food Network

+

Viewing versus ownership

[Frownland]

Carpenter v. United States

This case will determine whether or not big data can be appropriated as a government tracking tool.

The Supreme Court has agreed to review an important case concerning the use of cell-phone location records by law enforcement. The Fourth Amendment guarantees the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures." However, the Supreme Court has not previously had an opportunity to address the application of the Fourth Amendment to many types of modern data, including cell phone location data. Justice Sotomayor famously remarked in her concurring opinion in the 2012 decision in United States v. Jones that it "may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties," an approach that she described as "ill-suited to the digital age." This case provides an opportunity to reconsider that very question.

In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court will decide whether the seizure and search of 127 days' worth of an individual's cell phone location data is a "search" under the Fourth Amendment. In the criminal case below, the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied Defendant’s motion to suppress the location data, and later denied post-trial motion for acquittal, and motion for new trial. Carpenter appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the district court's decision. The government obtained the Defendant's location data under the Stored Communications Act, which requires phone companies to disclose certain historical call records when the government provides “specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe” that records at issue “are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.”

[Frownland]

^Nice outcome

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/22/60500...n-from-cell-to

Also
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/u...-merchants.htm