Author Topic: Supreme Court of the United States Recent Rulings  (Read 85913 times)

Online CountValentine

  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Posts: 17350
  • Total likes: 7864
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips -1
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
  • Location: Poland - Exiled
  • Programs: DAOTYA, DDF Level 3, 5K Lounge
Re: Supreme Court of the United States Recent Rulings
« Reply #740 on: February 25, 2023, 02:47:46 PM »
But 36% seems way too high to me. My understanding was that the surgery numbers for minors were lower and I'd hope they're lower at other medical centers, will look into it more later.
36% of 177 over three years. That seems rare to me.
How many trans/non-binary kids we talking about? 100k, 500k, 1mm, more or less?
« Last Edit: February 25, 2023, 02:51:43 PM by CountValentine »
Only on DDF does 24/6 mean 24/5/half/half
Dow Jones Industrial Average Tops 40000 for the First Time

Offline Welder

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Jul 2014
  • Posts: 1194
  • Total likes: 77
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 13
    • View Profile
  • Location: NYC
Re: Supreme Court of the United States Recent Rulings
« Reply #741 on: February 25, 2023, 08:22:08 PM »
36% of 177 over three years. That seems rare to me.
How many trans/non-binary kids we talking about? 100k, 500k, 1mm, more or less?

Oh I see, good point. It's 36% of total surgeries, not of total treatments of minors.
"We need more welders and less philosophers" — Marco Rubio

Offline EliJelly

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: Jan 2019
  • Posts: 3403
  • Total likes: 3914
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 1
    • View Profile
Re: Supreme Court of the United States Recent Rulings
« Reply #742 on: February 25, 2023, 08:31:30 PM »

How many trans/non-binary kids we talking about? 100k, 500k, 1mm, more or less?

Like 2.43 billion, some 84.6% of today's kids are trans/non-binary. Just make sure to ask them twice per day as soon as they start talking, otherwise we'll risk another couple of billion innocent kid's souls to be trapped in the opposite gender body.

You're one lucky person to witness humanity's giant leap in this area, it's a huge step towards medically freeing our kids from the human body to become the primate of choice they desire, and with the advances of medical sophistication, to be the mammal of choice they always wished for. All species are created equal, and we won't let the religious fanatics and cult adherers to force upon us some old fashioned ideas of human superiority over other species. 

Offline bochur22

  • Dansdeals Silver Elite
  • **
  • Join Date: Nov 2022
  • Posts: 50
  • Total likes: 166
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Location: Lakewood
Re: Supreme Court of the United States Recent Rulings
« Reply #743 on: February 26, 2023, 04:52:44 AM »
Oh I see, good point. It's 36% of total surgeries, not of total treatments of minors.
Of total Transition surgeries

Offline bochur22

  • Dansdeals Silver Elite
  • **
  • Join Date: Nov 2022
  • Posts: 50
  • Total likes: 166
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Location: Lakewood
Re: Supreme Court of the United States Recent Rulings
« Reply #744 on: February 26, 2023, 04:53:38 AM »
How many trans/non-binary kids we talking about? 100k, 500k, 1mm, more or less?
In terms of surgery numbers, there are no wide-spread statistics. However, this is the stats of one hospital only.
In terms of official prevalence in the wide-scale population, the DSM-5 says: For natal adult males, prevalence ranges from 0.005% to 0.014%, and for natal females,
from 0.002% to 0.003%.  Since not all adults seeking hormone treatment and surgical reassignment attend specialty clinics, these rates are likely modest underestimates.
In children, sex ratios of
natal boys to girls range from 2:1 to 4.5:1. In adolescents, the sex ratio is close to parity; in adults, the sex ratio favors natal males, with ratios ranging from 1:1 to 6.1:1. In two countries, the sex ratio appears to favor natal females (Japan: 2.2:1; Poland: 3.4:1)

So, according to the statistics, we should be talking about a practically non-existent minority.
There are 26.2 Million children in the US. If we take the high-line estimate, (0.014% of born males, 0.003% of females) we should have about 4,454 kids with gender dysphoria in the whole country.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2023, 05:12:34 AM by bochur22 »

Offline bochur22

  • Dansdeals Silver Elite
  • **
  • Join Date: Nov 2022
  • Posts: 50
  • Total likes: 166
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Location: Lakewood
Re: Supreme Court of the United States Recent Rulings
« Reply #745 on: February 26, 2023, 05:41:53 AM »
From the latest DSM-5 TR (Revised Edition 2022):
Studies show increasing numbers of children and adolescents presenting to specialty
clinics, presentation at younger ages, more frequent early social transition, and a shift to a greater
number of individuals assigned female at birth in adolescents and young adults than individuals
assigned male at birth.

Has it all changed suddenly? Or is it more social contagion?

Online CountValentine

  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Posts: 17350
  • Total likes: 7864
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips -1
  • Gender: Female
    • View Profile
  • Location: Poland - Exiled
  • Programs: DAOTYA, DDF Level 3, 5K Lounge
Re: Supreme Court of the United States Recent Rulings
« Reply #746 on: February 26, 2023, 09:03:14 AM »
From the latest DSM-5 TR (Revised Edition 2022):
Studies show increasing numbers of children and adolescents presenting to specialty
clinics, presentation at younger ages, more frequent early social transition, and a shift to a greater
number of individuals assigned female at birth in adolescents and young adults than individuals
assigned male at birth.

Has it all changed suddenly? Or is it more social contagion?
Please continue discussing it here if you wish as it no longer is about SCOTUS.
https://forums.dansdeals.com/index.php?topic=132487.0
Only on DDF does 24/6 mean 24/5/half/half
Dow Jones Industrial Average Tops 40000 for the First Time

Offline aygart

  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 19166
  • Total likes: 15319
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 14
    • View Profile
    • Lower Watt Energy Brokers
  • Programs: www.lowerwatt.com
Feelings don't care about your facts

Offline imayid2

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: Jun 2022
  • Posts: 2535
  • Total likes: 2379
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Location: NJ

Offline Yehuda57

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Jan 2014
  • Posts: 5433
  • Total likes: 15403
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 6
    • View Profile
    • Squilled
  • Location: Brooklyn
  • Programs: Official Dansdeals salad correspondent

Offline imayid2

  • Dansdeals Presidential Platinum Elite
  • ********
  • Join Date: Jun 2022
  • Posts: 2535
  • Total likes: 2379
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 0
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
  • Location: NJ
Re: Supreme Court of the United States Recent Rulings
« Reply #750 on: July 07, 2023, 01:44:25 PM »
https://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/a-win-for-people-of-faith/2023/07/06/
Quote
The United States Supreme Court struck a blow last week not only in support of free speech and religious liberty but also, perhaps more importantly given the extreme polarization in American society, for the virtue of tolerance. The Court ruled 6-3 that a Colorado businesswoman need not fear state retribution if she refuses to design web sites (her specialty) for same sex weddings which she opposes on religious grounds. Coercing her to violate her religious beliefs – she is a Christian evangelical – would be tantamount to compelling her to articulate views that infringe on her First Amendment right of freedom of speech. That, the Court opined, is now unconstitutional. The implications are profound.

It is important to note that the Court did not directly implicate the First Amendment’s freedom of worship clause. Indeed, the Court rooted her refusal to accommodate such weddings in the Bible’s conclusion that same sex marriages are deemed by G-d to be “false,” a curious formulation apparently drawn from the appellant’s own filings. The word “sin” does not appear anywhere in the decision; yet it would be incorrect to suggest that this decision does not impact on our freedom to learn Torah, observe mitzvot, and propagate our values to our families and the general community. It is a stunning, if not unexpected victory for people of faith and reverses decades of sustained attacks on individual conscience.

This should put to rest the protracted battles waged against private business owners – bakers, florists, photographers, caterers, printers, etc. – whose religious beliefs preclude them from facilitating same sex marriages. The principle is obvious: no person should be forced to use his or her creative abilities to promote something they deem abhorrent. This distinguishes a baker refusing to sell a cake from his showcase to a same-sex couple, or to someone who is Black, Asian or Jewish (such would be wrong and repugnant) from the baker who declines to bake a special cake with a message that violates his conscience, a printer who refuses to print invitations to a same sex wedding, or a caterer or catering hall that declines to service an intermarriage. It is the difference between servicing an individual consumer who comes to a business seeking a neutral product and the consumer who wants to use someone else’s talents to promote causes to which the business owner has moral objections.

Why has this obvious principle been so difficult to implement – and why does its reasonableness continue to elude Justice Sonia Sotomayor as is evident in her dissent? It is because the objectives of most of the LGBT community have long exceeded a desire for hospital visits, shared insurance coverage, civil unions, and marriage; it is that their goal for almost the last decade has been the eradication of any dissenting voice to their lifestyle, any reminder that the actions which they celebrate are prohibited by the Torah and considered anathema in all bible-believing religions. They no longer seek equality; they seek legitimacy and feel no hesitation in trampling on the rights of people of faith, essentially demanding that their cause be embraced by everyone without exception with civil, social and even criminal penalties applied to those religious people who remain recalcitrant.

It is a breathtaking form of bullying and it has worked – until now.

Undoubtedly, the original sin – so to speak – was the conflation of conduct or orientation (LGBT) with immutable categories such as race and even religion (one is born into religion; even a non-practicing Catholic will refer to himself as a lapsed Catholic) in terms of civil rights. In a perfect world, none of us would sin, but even in an imperfect but somewhat normal world, private behavior would remain private and beyond the realm of public knowledge or state interest. But in a society lacking in decorum, decency, and a modicum of modesty, many people yearn to disseminate globally their most intimate experiences. We were expected to abandon our consciences and religious obligations to join in the merriment of reprobate behavior. The Court repudiated that notion and declared that religious people are not second class citizens and they cannot be forced to grit their teeth and use their talents in ways that betray what is most precious to them.

The Court unequivocally affirmed that every person has freedom of conscience – and can even hold and express views that some find unpleasant and challenging. So be it. No citizen has the right to demand that a Muslim publisher print a picture of Mohammed, a Christian cannot be compelled to mock their icons, and even an atheist cannot be ordered to circulate the Bible. Those patrons can and should go elsewhere. That is mutual tolerance, truly a lost virtue that needs to be recovered. In the short term, we would do well to restore “live and let live,” and not as the LGBT activists have recently asserted “we will live as we please and you will support us wholeheartedly or we will crush you, sue you, cancel you, shame you, harass you, get you fired, and attempt to drive you out of our enlightened society.”

Certainly this struggle has not ended. The recent boycott announced by a New Jersey Federation (since retracted) of a religious baker who declined to bake a rainbow cake is one example of a tactic that is legal but misguided, and will only further inflame society. And when proposed by Jews against Jews can only encourage our enemies to do the same against all Jews. The United States still has many social and political problems but this latest win in the Supreme Court – the “303 Creative” decision – recalibrated the protections of individual freedom. Even a brief era of mutual tolerance would be a welcome respite from the anger and strife that have become part of daily life. It is not often that one Supreme Court ruling has the potential to have such far-reaching consequences.

Offline Yehuda57

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Jan 2014
  • Posts: 5433
  • Total likes: 15403
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 6
    • View Profile
    • Squilled
  • Location: Brooklyn
  • Programs: Official Dansdeals salad correspondent
Re: Supreme Court of the United States Recent Rulings
« Reply #751 on: July 07, 2023, 07:04:46 PM »
https://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/a-win-for-people-of-faith/2023/07/06/

Quote


This should put to rest the protracted battles waged against private business owners – bakers, florists, photographers, caterers, printers, etc. – whose religious beliefs preclude them from facilitating same sex marriages.



That is not what this case was about. This case was about compelled speech, not providing service. A florist would still need to provide flowers for a same sex marriage, but they would not have to make a bouquet that said "wedding of John and Jason"

Online S209

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Jun 2016
  • Posts: 7583
  • Total likes: 4034
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 1
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Gowns By Shevy
  • Location: Lakewood
  • Programs: Marriott Gold, Star Alliance Gold, Hyatt Explorist, Hertz PC, National EE, Rock Royalty Wild Card, Wyndham Diamond, MLife Gold, Caesars Diamond, Hilton Diamond, Uber VIP, IHG Platinum Elite, ANA Platinum, DDF Lifetime Prez Platinum Elite, AmEx Platinum
Re: Supreme Court of the United States Recent Rulings
« Reply #752 on: July 09, 2023, 10:12:47 AM »


That is not what this case was about. This case was about compelled speech, not providing service. A florist would still need to provide flowers for a same sex marriage, but they would not have to make a bouquet that said "wedding of John and Jason"
According to the dissent this ruling allows the florist to refuse services as well.
Quote from: YitzyS
Quotes in a signature is annoying, as it comes across as an independent post.

Offline Yehuda57

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Jan 2014
  • Posts: 5433
  • Total likes: 15403
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 6
    • View Profile
    • Squilled
  • Location: Brooklyn
  • Programs: Official Dansdeals salad correspondent
Re: Supreme Court of the United States Recent Rulings
« Reply #753 on: July 09, 2023, 10:23:49 AM »
According to the dissent this ruling allows the florist to refuse services as well.
And they were blatantly wrong, the majority opinion outlines it clearly. That point was already conceded by Colorado. The designer had agreed to service same sex couples. That point was not before the court.


Online S209

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Jun 2016
  • Posts: 7583
  • Total likes: 4034
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 1
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Gowns By Shevy
  • Location: Lakewood
  • Programs: Marriott Gold, Star Alliance Gold, Hyatt Explorist, Hertz PC, National EE, Rock Royalty Wild Card, Wyndham Diamond, MLife Gold, Caesars Diamond, Hilton Diamond, Uber VIP, IHG Platinum Elite, ANA Platinum, DDF Lifetime Prez Platinum Elite, AmEx Platinum
Re: Supreme Court of the United States Recent Rulings
« Reply #754 on: July 09, 2023, 10:27:07 AM »
And they were blatantly wrong, the majority opinion outlines it clearly. That point was already conceded by Colorado. The designer had agreed to service same sex couples. That point was not before the court.
So is the question of whether a florist must service a same-sex *wedding* (not person) still up in the air?
Quote from: YitzyS
Quotes in a signature is annoying, as it comes across as an independent post.

Offline Yehuda57

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Jan 2014
  • Posts: 5433
  • Total likes: 15403
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 6
    • View Profile
    • Squilled
  • Location: Brooklyn
  • Programs: Official Dansdeals salad correspondent
Re: Supreme Court of the United States Recent Rulings
« Reply #755 on: July 09, 2023, 10:38:00 AM »
So is the question of whether a florist must service a same-sex *wedding* (not person) still up in the air?
The question is where to draw the line between compelled speech and service. And I don't think it's possible to make a rule that is universally applicable, and there would always be shine gray area.

To borrow am example from the Honestly podcast, painting someone's nails is a service, painting a swastika on the nail is speech.

I would think a florist would have to provide flowers for a gay wedding but they could not be compelled to use their own creative expression in making the bouquets.

Offline aygart

  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 19166
  • Total likes: 15319
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 14
    • View Profile
    • Lower Watt Energy Brokers
  • Programs: www.lowerwatt.com
Re: Supreme Court of the United States Recent Rulings
« Reply #756 on: July 09, 2023, 11:06:52 AM »
According to the dissent this ruling allows the florist to refuse services as well.
Dissenting opinions include straw man arguments all the time
Feelings don't care about your facts

Online S209

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Jun 2016
  • Posts: 7583
  • Total likes: 4034
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 1
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Gowns By Shevy
  • Location: Lakewood
  • Programs: Marriott Gold, Star Alliance Gold, Hyatt Explorist, Hertz PC, National EE, Rock Royalty Wild Card, Wyndham Diamond, MLife Gold, Caesars Diamond, Hilton Diamond, Uber VIP, IHG Platinum Elite, ANA Platinum, DDF Lifetime Prez Platinum Elite, AmEx Platinum
Re: Supreme Court of the United States Recent Rulings
« Reply #757 on: July 09, 2023, 01:24:42 PM »
Dissenting opinions include straw man arguments all the time
But shouldn’t it carry legal weight? It is apparently Sotomayor’s interpretation of the Supreme Court decision. (I don’t have a legal background so I may be wrong).
Quote from: YitzyS
Quotes in a signature is annoying, as it comes across as an independent post.

Online S209

  • Dansdeals Lifetime Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *********
  • Join Date: Jun 2016
  • Posts: 7583
  • Total likes: 4034
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 1
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Gowns By Shevy
  • Location: Lakewood
  • Programs: Marriott Gold, Star Alliance Gold, Hyatt Explorist, Hertz PC, National EE, Rock Royalty Wild Card, Wyndham Diamond, MLife Gold, Caesars Diamond, Hilton Diamond, Uber VIP, IHG Platinum Elite, ANA Platinum, DDF Lifetime Prez Platinum Elite, AmEx Platinum
Re: Supreme Court of the United States Recent Rulings
« Reply #758 on: July 09, 2023, 01:26:28 PM »
The question is where to draw the line between compelled speech and service. And I don't think it's possible to make a rule that is universally applicable, and there would always be shine gray area.

To borrow am example from the Honestly podcast, painting someone's nails is a service, painting a swastika on the nail is speech.

I would think a florist would have to provide flowers for a gay wedding but they could not be compelled to use their own creative expression in making the bouquets.
So are you saying even after this opinion a florist would have to supply flowers to a gay wedding even if it goes against their deeply held religious beliefs? They would have to provide their usual (non-creative) services including attending the wedding to deliver the flowers (if that is part of their usual package)? (I understand they would definitely have to supply flowers to a gay *person*.)
Quote from: YitzyS
Quotes in a signature is annoying, as it comes across as an independent post.

Offline aygart

  • Dansdeals Lifetime 10K Presidential Platinum Elite
  • *******
  • Join Date: May 2008
  • Posts: 19166
  • Total likes: 15319
  • DansDeals.com Hat Tips 14
    • View Profile
    • Lower Watt Energy Brokers
  • Programs: www.lowerwatt.com
Re: Supreme Court of the United States Recent Rulings
« Reply #759 on: July 09, 2023, 02:04:33 PM »
But shouldn’t it carry legal weight? It is apparently Sotomayor’s interpretation of the Supreme Court decision. (I don’t have a legal background so I may be wrong).

FWIU, it does carry legal weight in that you can show that something has a majority consensus even if ti is not the Majority Opinion.
Feelings don't care about your facts