Good morning gamers I am doing my first year of artfight
emperor-ing-deactivated20191108
“Won’t” is the boldest fucking contraction like it really Did That. Just went for it, no shame.
war-lesbian
Will Not took one look at Don’t and thought yeah baby need me some of that
Do you want us to say Wiln’t
war-lesbian
no mr bond i expect you to die
Rehabilitation (former Apple user remembering to actually shut down their windows computer)
It’s really funny when your cat takes a deep breath and exhales
You don’t have a job what are you so tired from? Slept 8 hours instead of 10?
i think your cat and my cat could be friends
I'm sorry to the redditors who won't understand this.
If you think about it, Shakespeare pioneered the genre of real-person fiction, paving the way for works such as Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Hamilton. Therefore, Shakespeare is directly responsible for Miku binder Thomas Jefferson. In this essay, I will
Hey man don’t do this to me. Come on man. Let’s talk this out. Like mature people. Please please please don’t do this.
can 151 of yall unfollow me rq it's important
everyone hates me
we did it everyone, funny number
also no
you want me to like fall over dead and have vultures just fucking feast on me like we're in a cartoon or what
Homer! The simpson.
this chain of posts started like 20 minutes ago and im already confused
Today's court ruling weakening discrimination protections for LGBTQ people stands out as extraordinarily strange to me for the simple fact that there was no case. The web designer in question never received a request to create a website for a gay wedding, but instead argued that a hypothetical situation in which she did would violate her rights. I've never really heard of anything like this before— how does she even have standing to sue? Can @radiofreederry or someone with more knowledge of legalese than me elaborate on this?
Melissa Gira Grant, "The Christian Right Is Making Up Wedding Websites to Attack LGBTQ People," The New Republic, 28 June 2023:
In this latest case, there is no website and no wedding—just an argument from an anti-LGBTQ group in search of the court’s favor... No person has hired Smith to create a wedding website. In fact, Smith has never designed a wedding website, according to her petition to the court. As such, there is no client Smith has told she is rejecting due to her stated religious beliefs that marriage is only allowed between one man and one woman. In the absence of all that, ADF has, instead, fashioned Smith as the victim of an injury that has never occurred. So who has hypothetically victimized Smith? A Colorado anti-discrimination law, which, since 2008, has included protections from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. ADF claims Smith’s desire “to bring glory to God by creating unique expression that shares her religious beliefs of creating wedding websites” is thwarted by this law “because she only wants to make websites that comport with her values that same-sex marriage is illegitimate.” Were Smith to get into the wedding website business, the anti-discrimination law “would force me to say things about marriage I disagree with,” Smith wrote in an opinion piece for The Washington Times, when her case was argued at the Supreme Court last December...
Can the court rule on thought experiments?
The "Case and Controversy" clause of the Constitution requires that, for a suit to proceed in court, there must be an actual controversy for which the court can rule.
Because SCOTUS is made up of unelected, unaccountable ideologues, however, they do whatever they want with impunity because neither Congress nor the President have any power over them.
SCOTUS said they ruled on this case "to clarify the [nonexistent web designer's] rights."
This is not a healthy, functioning state.
