[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by DennisDee

Root cause is excessively high college cost. There would be less or no issue if college was priced fairly. Elites (politicians) protect this scheme. Think about it!

The problem is that colleges will raise the tuition to match the students' borrowing ability. The solution is to eliminate the Federal student loan program completely. Then, you would see tuitions decrease dramatically.

[CODYCAT]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Yet, some people think they shouldn't need to pay it back, including three Supreme Court justices. What a country.

If people can’t figure out simple things like what a woman is how are they going to do the the complicated math that comes with paying your bills?

[Regorp]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

Thank God.

We paid ours back, I should not pay yours back with my taxpayer dollars. Stop whining and pay it back.

[Normal]

The Constitution comes first, and was applied correctly to the rule of law. Congress controls the purse strings, not a royal el presidente. The president needs to fall in line, now! He’s an executive, not an emperor.

[mtdjed]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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.

It does not appear that you are addressing the issue that the Supreme Court was deciding.
They were not addressing any change in selling standard items.
If I sell BBQ, bicycles, lawn service, etc, then I cannot discriminate against anyone who wants to buy those items.

They were addressing sellers creates something unique, and are saying that I cannot be forced to create something that is against my beliefs. If I plan to sell basic Website creation software, then I should sell it to all buyers. If I specialize using my skills, I am allowed to specialize under conditions of my personal beliefs.

Some say that the Supreme Court should not have considered this case because there was no standing. The "standing" was the law that Colorado created.

[Rainger99]

These facts were stipulated to by the state of Colorado and the plaintiff.

1. Ms. Smith is “willing to work with all people regardless of classifications such as race, creed, sexual orientation, and gender,” and she “will gladly create custom graphics and websites” for clients of any sexual orientation.

2. She will not produce content that “contradicts biblical truth” regardless of who orders it.

3. Her belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman is a sincerely held religious conviction.

4. All of the graphic and website design services Ms. Smith provides are “expressive.”

5. The websites and graphics Ms. Smith designs are “original, customized” creations that “contribut[e] to the overall messages” her business conveys “through
the websites” it creates.

6. Just like the other services she provides, the wedding websites Ms. Smith plans to create “will be expressive in nature.”

7. Those wedding websites will be “customized and tailored” through close collaboration with individual couples, and they will “express Ms. Smith’s and 303
Creative’s message celebrating and promoting” her view of marriage.

8. Viewers of Ms. Smith’s websites “will know that the websites are [Ms. Smith’s and 303 Creative’s] original artwork.”

9. To the extent Ms. Smith may not be able to provide certain services to a potential customer, “[t]here are numerous companies in the State of Colorado and across the nation that offer custom website design services.”

[mtdjed]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Wrong logic. We'll use your example:

Someone gets a loan for a new home build in the Villages. They get the mortgage for the lot and the home design, the money is handed over to the Developer. A month after the house is built, the government sends you a notification that the entire property, and the six blocks around it, is condemned due to hazardous waste that the Developer knew about, but conveniently forgot to mention to you.

Now you owe $300,000 on a mortgage for a property that was sold to you fraudulently and deceptively. You owe $300,000, AND you still have no home, because you can't live there. You'll now have to buy ANOTHER home - but what lender will loan you money while you're already $300k in debt, with no collateral to secure it?

The Villages should be paying that loan back. They're the ones who cheated both you and the bank. The bank only lent the money because they were ALSO deceived into believing it as a sound business decision to lend the money.

To use a quote from a previous post - The entire "case" was based on a hypothetical and should never have made it to the Supreme Court.

Although your stated case above is hypothetical, it does not relate directly to the government unless you build more hypothetical conditions.
First, the loan was an agreement between you and a bank. As a buyer you would likely have paid for a Title Search and Home inspection to assure the property was clear to sell. In the agreement to buy, your lawyer would ensure that words were included ensure the seller properly described the conditions for sale.

Sale made. Now you find notice from government about property condemnation. Not likely, since those hazardous waste issues are not instantaneous. But 6 block radii? You are not alone. Starts to sound ridiculous. That is why hypothetical is not acceptable.

To the issue. You take out a loan and you are responsible to pay. If you have valid complaint, call a lawyer. Don't expect government rescue.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Colorado wasn't taking away anyone's free speech. Smith was always free to say she didn't approve of same-sex marriage. What Colorado law did was tell Smith she could not discriminate against gay people in the marketplace. She could say, "I don't agree with you," or she could say, "I don't like you," and she could also choose to not give her best effort on a project. What she could not do was say, "I do not accept gays as customers," as that is illegal discrimination.

What the Supreme Court essentially decided is that if you want to discriminate against a protected class then what you need to do is find a way to incorporate the phrase "free speech."

We really can't go much further with this since this was all a hypothetical case anyway. Smith did not (and does not as far as I know) design wedding websites. No one asked her to and in particular, no same-sex couple asked her to. It is reported that in her complaint she named an individual who is already married to someone who is clearly not the same sex but I haven't read the complaint to confirm that. This case is all about would-have, could-have, or should--have but with no basis in any actual event.

I do not see why anyone would have standing if no harm was involved to any party.

Lawyers should have any easy time distinguishing this from their cases.

[Rainger99]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

I do not see why anyone would have standing if no harm was involved to any party.

The court found that she did have standing.

For its part, the Tenth Circuit held that Ms. Smith had standing to sue. In that court’s judgment, she had established a credible threat that, if she follows through on her plans to offer wedding website services, Colorado will invoke CADA to force her to create speech she does not believe or endorse. The court pointed to the fact that “Colorado has a history of past enforcement against nearly identical conduct—i.e., Masterpiece Cakeshop”; that anyone in the State may file a complaint against Ms. Smith and initiate “a potentially burdensome administrative hearing” process; and that “Colorado [has] decline[d] to disavow future enforcement” proceedings against her. Before us, no party challenges these conclusions.

[Kelevision]

Originally Posted by Caymus

And why is that? Have colleges drastically increased costs by adding useless courses and overpaid faculty?

capitalized interest on student loans perhaps?

[Kelevision]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

Not sure if the BBC provides real news.

Richard Sharp, who was chairman of the BBC, admitted that the broadcaster “does have a liberal bias.”

And I watched the BBC this morning. They had a Democratic congressman, a reporter from Politico, and a law professor who worked in the Biden administration. Not one guest defended the decisions.

As for Reuters, this is the headline for yesterday’s story.

US Supreme Court deals blow to LGBT rights in web designer case.

The term “Deals blow” to LGBT rights appears to show a political slant. A more objective headline would say

US Supreme Court rules in LGBT case.

I agree that Fox has a conservative bias but they will frequently put a liberal on the panel to present the liberal argument. I have never seen that on MSNBC.

Richard Sharp? The Richard Sharp who got fired for helping Boris Johnson get over 800 million in donations? I wonder why he’d say that. Lol BBC has also been accused of right leaning.
As for the headline “deals blow” it’s absolutely correct. Couldn’t have said it better.

I would never ever ever ever watch fox or msnbc. My brain might melt. Fox is lie after lie, hence the millions they had to fork over due to the lies they told and msnbc is just so left leaning it’s annoying.

[Rainger99]

Originally Posted by Kelevision

As for the headline “deals blow” it’s absolutely correct. Couldn’t have said it better.

Or it could have said that the decision helps the LGBTQ community.

[Bay Kid]

If you borrow money, you pay it back or get foreclosed on. Doesn't matter if you borrowed too much, paid too much interest. Even though you couldn't afford the payments, YOU borrowed the money.

Hopefully you enjoyed the party at college while the rest of us worked.

[LuvNH]

My Granddaughter and her parents paid for her college. When she wanted to go on for her Masters she worked and paid for that. So what are they doing for someone like her who paid her own way, are they going to refund her payments?

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by LuvNH

My Granddaughter and her parents paid for her college. When she wanted to go on for her Masters she worked and paid for that. So what are they doing for someone like her who paid her own way, are they going to refund her payments?

No, but the secret to becoming wealthy is to pay your own way and stay out of debt. Most people who depend on debt, never become wealthy.