[Sabella]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Yes. Businesses that are open to the public should not be allowed to discriminate.

It’s very simple if a business doesn’t want to perform a service for you just go somewhere else. Remember this used to be a free country. That is the basis of our republic. PS there are three female judges on the Supreme Court who don’t understand the constitution and what their job actually is what is disgrace.

[Doc Akron]

The rich get richer.

[Joe C.]

How about getting the legislature to enact a law that allows all those poor college graduates with these opressive loans to WORK OFF THEIR DEBTS.

On the other hand, once you've gotten what you want (diploma) why do you need to pay for it?

Then again, I like the idea of debtor's prison. That would really teach them a lesson that they didn't learn in college.

[Ponygirl]

A better fix would be to reform the way the loan companies collect on the loans Since they were privatized the interest rates are over 9 percent and the way they calculate the payments are criminal. Navient was forced out for unjust practices. Why are we allowing these companies to make so much money off the people who are working hard to pay back the loans

I am still paying on a parents plus loan and have been paying for over 12 years My records show I paid it off 6 years ago When I print out the spreadsheet and calculate what I have paid it is well over the original loan. Some months the interest payment is 40% of the monthly payment and some months it is 80% and some months 100%. No rhyme or reason. I have asked many time for an audit and am not able to get one

Also the addition to the balance with something called capitalized interest which they can never explain

So sorry for the long note but a reform of how college loan debt is collected would be an important fix. Why allow companies to get rich which is not fair to the college borrows

BTW previous loans were federally secured at abt 3 % before privatized and todays loans have no comparison to those that many of us took out all those years ago

[Ponygirl]

Forgot to add the the allure of public loan forgiveness is nearly impossible to achieve.
It is supposed to be a program where say a doctor worked in an underserved area can get some of their loans forgiven

Applies to public health and other fields

With lots and lots of paperwork and changing requirements little more than 1% have gotten any parts of the loans forgiven

[oneclickplus]

Originally Posted by Sabella

It’s very simple if a business doesn’t want to perform a service for you just go somewhere else. Remember this used to be a free country. That is the basis of our republic. PS there are three female judges on the Supreme Court who don’t understand the constitution and what their job actually is what is disgrace.

Exactly!! What if you ran a bakery (open to the public) that specializes in cupcakes ... or donuts and a prospective customer comes in asking for a birthday cake. Your normal business reply would be "we don't make cakes - try another baker". And no one would question that. Just because you are a baker and run a baking business and have the skills to bake a cake does not obligate you to bake a cake just because you are "open to the public".

Well, we have a web designer that bakes websites with moral themes. She does not bake gay websites, porn websites, websites depicting violence or websites that depict other objectionable material (as defined by HER religion). And, as far as I'm concerned, her religion should not be an issue. It's just her choice for any reason at all that she doesn't bake gay wedding websites.

No one asks Dunkin' Donuts to uphold the fact that their product line does not include cakes by insisting that they evidence their religious beliefs that cakes are objectionable. It's just their business decision. And I totally agree with the SC that her business decision stands.

[NoMo50]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

If you got a loan for a major in Etruscan dance therapy, and when you look for a job in the field all the employers tell you "we don't honor degrees from THAT school anymore because that school no longer has accreditation with any educational organization and have been deemed fraudulent" - then you should not have to pay back the loan. The school should have to pay back the loan. They're the ones who have the money, who committed fraud, and cheated both the student and the lending group.

So, to replicate your logic...if a person buys a new home, finances the home with a mortgage, and the home builder subsequently goes bankrupt. Should the mortgage then be forgiven?

When one signs a loan contract, he/she is legally obligating him/her self to repay the loan. Period. The vast majority in our generation did just that, with never a thought of trying to somehow weasel out of it.

[bigeasy]

You nailed it. The loan amount is not the problem. It’s the predatory interest rates that make it difficult to ever pay off the debt.

[Lindsyburnsy]

Why did the SCOTUS even weigh in? This woman was not even asked yet to provide any service, so there was no damage to be settled. The SCOTUS is way out of line and also drunk with power, were never voted in and won't even disclose thousands of dollars from billionaire "dear friends" they never had BEFORE becoming justices. Corruption at its best.

[Tonydivo]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

Thank God.

Just printing money

[NoMo50]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Yes. Businesses that are open to the public should not be allowed to discriminate.

Businesses that are open to the public discriminate all the time. Motorcycle shops discriminate against non-riders. BBQ joints discriminate against vegans. Hairdressers discriminate against bald people. You get the idea. It is discrimination against protected classes of people, based solely on their protected status, that is unlawful.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by oneclickplus

Exactly!! What if you ran a bakery (open to the public) that specializes in cupcakes ... or donuts and a prospective customer comes in asking for a birthday cake. Your normal business reply would be "we don't make cakes - try another baker". And no one would question that. Just because you are a baker and run a baking business and have the skills to bake a cake does not obligate you to bake a cake just because you are "open to the public".

Well, we have a web designer that bakes websites with moral themes. She does not bake gay websites, porn websites, websites depicting violence or websites that depict other objectionable material (as defined by HER religion). And, as far as I'm concerned, her religion should not be an issue. It's just her choice for any reason at all that she doesn't bake gay wedding websites.

No one asks Dunkin' Donuts to uphold the fact that their product line does not include cakes by insisting that they evidence their religious beliefs that cakes are objectionable. It's just their business decision. And I totally agree with the SC that her business decision stands.

Except her argument wasn't that she was being asked to make a cake. Her argument was that she wanted to create websites for weddings but the Colorado law said that if she wanted to run a public business creating websites for weddings then she could not discriminate against "those people" and would have to create a website for their wedding too. Even if the website looked exactly like her mock-up (she wasn't/isn't in that business yet) she objected so using it for a wedding for "those people."

If she only wanted to create websites for her friend's weddings or perhaps weddings in her church that would be one thing. She wanted to create wedding websites for everyone except "those people" and that is illegal discrimination.

Some of the arguments in the dissent are worth reading.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by NoMo50

Businesses that are open to the public discriminate all the time. Motorcycle shops discriminate against non-riders. BBQ joints discriminate against vegans. Hairdressers discriminate against bald people. You get the idea. It is discrimination against protected classes of people, based solely on their protected status, that is unlawful.

None of those are examples of discrimination. Discrimination is not telling a customer you don't sell vegan BBQ. Discrimination is telling a customer you won't sell your product/service to them while you continue to sell it to the person standing next to them. That type of discrimination is wrong but yes, it is only when a protected status is used that it becomes illegal.

[DonnaNi4os]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

Thank God.

I paid for four years of college for four children as a single parent. Not one of them
graduated with a student loan hanging over their head. I don’t want to pay for any body else’s, although I would consider helping my 8 grandchildren go to college if I could. Considering we recently came very close to a government shutdown because we didn’t have the money to run it, how will the government pay for all of those “forgiven student loans”? Oh yes, WE TAXPAYERS will foot the bill. It ludicrous!

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by oneclickplus

Well, we have a web designer that bakes websites with moral themes. She does not bake gay websites, porn websites, websites depicting violence or websites that depict other objectionable material (as defined by HER religion). And, as far as I'm concerned, her religion should not be an issue. It's just her choice for any reason at all that she doesn't bake gay wedding websites.

Actually, we don't have that. She is an amateur web designer and has never designed any wedding website at all. She hasn't ever refused to create one for someone in the LGBTQ++ crowd, because no one from the crowd has ever asked her to make one for them.

The entire "case" was based on a hypothetical and should never have made it to the Supreme Court.