Michael Imperioli forbids 'bigots and homophobes' from watching his work following Supreme Court ruling

3 years ago by demvoter to c/politics

Actor Michael Imperioli has something to say about the Supreme Court’s Friday ruling in favor of a Christian web designer who refuses to create websites to celebrate same-sex weddings.

mutant 14 points 3 years ago

rage baiting incredulous republicans to boost views, this dude is playing 5D chess lmfao

save

path: 0 755651, hotness: undefined, score: 14, children: 0

BettyWhiteInHD 5 points 3 years ago

save

path: 0 753959, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 3

demvoter 12 points 3 years ago

You're not really up to speed on this, are you?

save

path: 0 753959 755574, hotness: undefined, score: 12, children: 1

InLikeClint 1 point 3 years ago

Hey I made a joke, fuck me right!?

save

path: 0 753959 755574 757247, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

InLikeClint 6 points 3 years ago

Careful, that's Tony Soprano's nephew.

save

path: 0 753959 755493, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 0

rebul 4 points 3 years ago

Who?

save

path: 0 755909, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 1

Hyperreality 2 points 3 years ago

Potential snitch in the Sopranos.

save

path: 0 755909 756111, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

metaStatic 3 points 3 years ago

False equivalence, he's not being forced to do anything.

Lady is a shit stain let's be clear but she is well within her rights to refuse service to anyone on any grounds. in fact her being honest about her bigotry is a good thing as it allows others to avoid her.

save

path: 0 755793, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 27

slightgeist 26 points 3 years ago

her rights to refuse service to anyone on any grounds

Usually true, except when it comes to discrimination against people of protected class for being under that protected class, which is why this ruling is so concerning.

The reality is that this sort of discrimination happens all the time under the guise of other rationale and is hard to stamp out (see: real estate redlining, gerrymandering, employment and rental discrimination, etc.), but theoretically a disenfranchised person with documentation can still seek recourse under the law.

This ruling (as well as the general apprehension around queer people living publicly) has laid the groundwork for christofascism to further underclass those (and other marginalized) communities and makes the violent rhetoric coming from "family values" white supremacist extremists more palatable to the public.

It is incredibly dangerous and further damages whatever remains of SCOTUS' credibility.

save

path: 0 755793 756408, hotness: undefined, score: 26, children: 8

zd 1 point 3 years ago

Being gay or trans isn't a protected class. The First Amendment and US Constitution trumps a class of anything.

save

path: 0 755793 756408 757712, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 7

HipHoboHarold 2 points 3 years ago

It is a protected class

The first amendment is the thing you're missing with all of this. People can discriminate against gay people. But only if it takes away their first amendment. The courts ruled that art should not be forced. So they don't have to serve gay people. But if someone is selling a car, that has nothing to do with art.

save

path: 0 755793 756408 757712 769740, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 2

Nougat 3 points 3 years ago

It is not a protected class at the federal level. It is in many states.

However, part of the argument in favor of making same sex marriage a right, as ordered in Obergefell, so that no state can refuse to marry same sex couples, is that the only difference between an opposite sex couple and a same sex couple is the sex of one of the people. Hence, the discrimination is on the basis of sex, which is a protected class federally.

Why that same argument wouldn't apply to the more recent web designer case is beyond me.

save

path: 0 755793 756408 757712 769740 770971, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 1

keeb420 2 points 3 years ago

and being a lying pos doesnt give you standing. but here we are commenting on a case where someone lied to have standing and now rights are being eroded away.

save

path: 0 755793 756408 757712 772348, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

admiralteal 1 point 3 years ago

Sex is a protected class. There's no discrimination against gay or trans people that is not inherently discrimination based on sex. So no, it is absolutely a protected class.

Conservatives just allow their hatred of queer people to easily, easily, easily overcome their desire to appear to respect the law.

save

path: 0 755793 756408 757712 772338, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 1

YouShutYoMouf 2 points 3 years ago

Exactly.

Say a person has sex with a man. Is that person homosexual?

Depends on the sex of the person having sex with the man. Sexual orientation requires a person's sex to be considered.

You literally can't determine sexuality without looking at a person's sex, so sexual orientation is covered by sex itself being a protected class.

save

path: 0 755793 756408 757712 772338 781129, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0

snooggums 1 point 3 years ago

Homophobes hate gay people because of their sex. Not them having sex, but that they are the same sex and Ina relationships ship.

Sex is a protected class in the US, so logically sexuality would be covered by any common sense reading of the law.

Also the SCOTUS decision is pure bullshit as any creative work I causing commercial business is creative work and the free speech justification is bullshit.

save

path: 0 755793 756408 757712 772342, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

TipRing 17 points 3 years ago

Here's the thing. Her business isn't real. There is no "wedding website" business model and the person she alleged asked her to make a website for his gay wedding is straight and has been married to a woman for 15 years. This entire sham business exists for the sole purpose to get the court to rule against Colorado's anti-discrimination laws.

save

path: 0 755793 756884, hotness: undefined, score: 17, children: 3

Kill_joy 13 points 3 years ago

I am surprised that this is not being talked about more. It's a fake case, the situation never happened, some cash changed hands and our sham of a court made this ruling to set a precedent.

The future is dark.

save

path: 0 755793 756884 757134, hotness: undefined, score: 13, children: 0

delirium 6 points 3 years ago

100% this. I read the article about the fake request for service a couple of days before I switched to kbin. it was really incomprehensible to me that the supreme Court would even hear the case given the false allegations. it was just to set the precedent.

save

path: 0 755793 756884 757198, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 0

Generic-Disposable 1 point 3 years ago

Also he is a web designer.

save

path: 0 755793 756884 778808, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

Geometric7792 17 points 3 years ago

Do you think a resturant refusing to serve black people would be okay?

save

path: 0 755793 756643, hotness: undefined, score: 17, children: 11

admiralteal 12 points 3 years ago

They literally just said they think that's OK. You don't need to ask. This person thinks it's perfectly fine for a business to refuse service for any reason. They think it's fine to refuse service for nationality, race, gender, religion, disability, social caste, physical attractiveness, or whatever.

save

path: 0 755793 756643 756748, hotness: undefined, score: 12, children: 2

snooggums 1 point 3 years ago

Which in the US us explicitly illegal as clearly outlined in civil rights legislation, but the current court would probably throw that out too as long as the person discriminating is a white Christian.

save

path: 0 755793 756643 756748 781140, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 1

Hellsadvocate 3 points 3 years ago

Just look at the kind of stuff getting passed in Florida. I fully expect that level of legal bullshit as a normal.

save

path: 0 755793 756643 756748 781140 781142, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0

Parallax 4 points 3 years ago

I 100% disagree with the ruling, but this is apparently what the court had to say. They effectively sectioned out "expressive services" as able to discriminate, versus non-expressive services, like restaurants , which are still covered by the first amendment.

The decision suggests that artists, photographers, videographers and writers are among those who can refuse to offer what the court called expressive services if doing so would run contrary to their beliefs. But that’s different from other businesses not engaged in speech and therefore not covered by the First Amendment, such as restaurants and hotels.

https://apnews.com/...

save

path: 0 755793 756643 756850, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 7

admiralteal 4 points 3 years ago

That distinction is horsecrap. A hotel manager can be forced to offer their wedding package for a gay wedding and a chef can be forced to cook for a gay wedding because they run venues that have been declared "nonexpressive" by 6 people who don't know the first thing about those professions. But a website designer cannot be forced to sell websites while running a website shop.

They don't believe in that distinction. They're just taking a step towards outright illegalizing queerness. They'll tear down that separation as soon as doing so can result in more discrimination.

save

path: 0 755793 756643 756850 757277, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 5

zd 0 points 3 years ago

Nonsense. They legalized gay weddings a handful of years ago. Be queer all you want.

save

path: 0 755793 756643 756850 757277 772298, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 4

Generic-Disposable 1 point 3 years ago

how is cooking not expressive? This distinction is meaningless. Any work product can be and is expressive.

save

path: 0 755793 756643 756850 773487, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

ihavenopeopleskills 5 points 3 years ago

she is well within her rights to refuse service to anyone on any grounds.

I'm glad to see there's some common ground.

save

path: 0 755793 755892, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 0

Generic-Disposable 0 points 3 years ago

Except for the fact that nobody was actually asking her to do a website for gay couple. The client she named in the suit isn't gay and is already marries and is a web designer.

It was a bullshit case put in front of the supreme court just so they can attack gay people again. The supreme court wants to disenfranchise gays, trans, women and other minorities.

save

path: 0 755793 769762, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 0

misterundercoat 1 point 3 years ago

Michael Imperioli also want to talk to you about a new superior video format called HD DVD.

save

path: 0 767549, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0