Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes tells U.S. Supreme Court to shove it

[In It to Win It]

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes tells U.S. Supreme Court to shove it

Colorado has a law on the books that says, in simple terms, a business open to the public can’t discriminate against gay people.

The radical right-wing majority of the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling last week saying that, yes, it can.

The court took the side of a web designer in Colorado who said it was her First Amendment right to refuse to design wedding websites for same-sex couples.

Arizona has a law much like Colorado’s.

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes announced in no uncertain terms that her office is determined to enforce it.

The Supreme Court be damned.

She will 'continue to enforce' Arizona's law

She said in her statement, “Despite today’s ruling, Arizona law prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation, including discrimination because of sexual orientation and gender identity.

“If any Arizonan believes that they have been the victim of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), national origin, or ancestry in a place of public accommodation, they should file a complaint with my office. I will continue to enforce Arizona’s public accommodation law to its fullest extent.”

[The Unmitigated Gall]

1. "States Rights" to perpetuate racist laws.

Federal Power to nullify progressive laws.

[intheflow]

8. Though in this case, AZ is using States Rights to continue protecting

marginalized communities and individuals. So suck it, SCOTUS!

[NowISeetheLight]

33. Hard to Believe

The state that gave us Kari Lake also gives us politicians with courage like this AG.

[Mr.Bill]

38. Actually, Arizona told

Keri Lake to hit the road.

[NowISeetheLight]

39. Glad to See

I lived there almost twenty years. Glad to see it!

[Trueblue Texan]

58. And this is what happens when SCOTUS pounds it's political agenda...

...instead of upholding the constitution: the Court has lost credibility and instead of adhering to the rulings, they are ignored. In this case, it doesn't sound so terrible. But consider the result of states ignoring other rulings. Would Harper V Moore even matter then? Would the 14th amendment, the 20th, or even the 1st matter then? Scary times.

[stopdiggin]

64. yep. the (much) larger issue here is

the citizenry actually starting to believe that state statute trumps federal ruling, legislation and regulation.

That does not end well.

------ --- ----------- -------- ---

[KPN]

17. The Rs in a nutshell.

[BComplex]

2. Let the billionaires funding these supreme court decisions go broke taking EVERY

case to the supreme court. After states start enforcing these laws against assholes who want to discriminate, let each case go all the way up to the supreme court. They are an arbitrary body, anyway, not following any laws already on the books, themselves.

[Effete Snob]

4. The legal system has ways of dealing with that

First, there is no way to let "each case go all the way up to the supreme court" since the Supreme Court doesn't have to take them.

Eventually, what happens is that if someone keeps filing suits on a discredited basis, is that the courts start imposing sanctions on the people that file them.

[BComplex]

5. If the discriminators have sanctions imposed on them for taking their crap suits to court,

that's all the better. When attorney generals in a state refuse to enforce supreme court's arbitrary decisions, then maybe these racist, homophobic, misogynistic will quit bringing phony cases like this website designer that, well, wasn't one, and probably wasn't a baker, either.

Attorneys General in blue states need to just shut down businesses that discriminate, and let them all go to the supreme court, one by one.

[JudyM]

48. What's the discredited basis, though? Lower courts are bound by the 303creative decision.

They can do their best to try to distinguish it in their rulings, but the deep pocket christofascist funders just have to find an expressive speech artist client in any given circuit and model the language of the pleadings on the extreme court’s wording.

[erronis]

16. I bet that most of the billionaires' expenditures cycles back into fat-cat pockets

Assuming they are spending on lobbyists, advertising, T.V. and cable, false-news pundits, expensive restaurants, etc.
All owned by other (or the same) RW rich.

Don't want none of that trickle down here - unless it's piss.

[wryter2000]

3. This was inevitable

The Court has no way to enforce it's bogus decisions, and I doubt the DOJ will do it for them.

[Lonestarblue]

6. I'm glad she has given notice to those who seek to practice their bigotry in the public sphere.

When enough people get fed up with the SC ruling in favor of everything right-wing evangelicals want, we will see more such resistance to following their mandates. We risk having a Supreme Court with no effective power and no respect for their interpretations of Constitutional law, especially now that they are clearly violating the First Amendment stating that they state shall make no law establishing a religion. If that happens, we are truly on the verge of anarchy.

[PortTack]

22. There are rumors that Thomas is considering retirement. I'll believe it when I see it, but

He may find this illegitimate court of his making has no power after all and retire.

[SouthernDem4ever]

51. I'll believe it when I see it

IF he no longer holds sway on the court his big benefactors won't keep funding his expensive play time.

[wryter2000]

26. They've also rejected precedent

Plus, in these two cases, there were no real plaintiffs. No one had asked that woman to make a same sex wedding website for them. No Asian students had sued Harvard because they weren't admitted. There's supposed to be an active, real case involved to get a court at any level to intervene. In the case of Roe, there had to be a special allowance made for the fact that a pregnant woman couldn't get relief before her baby was born. Once the pregnancy had ended, so would the active case.

These decisions are abominations on many levels. I hope anarchy isn't the result but just that Supreme Court decisions have no effect on what actually happens. In other words, the ruling at the state level would stand and be enforced by local authorities.

As far as the marriage equality, I hope that woman is publicly shamed to the extent that it hurts her business. That might act as a lesson to others who want to discriminate.

[onlyadream]

59. I even wonder if she really has a business. Not

[MLAA]

7. It is so wonderful to be able to be proud of government actions in Arizona for a change!

[KPN]

18. THIS. Been a long long time -- so long, I can't remember

when.

[MLAA]

40. Me either! I moved to Az right after college and have kept a home here though spent about 10

Years in other countries for my work. Now retired and back and so, so happy with our newly installed women.

[wryter2000]

27. I'm so glad for Arizona

My brother lives there.

[MLAA]

41. Northern or Southern AZ?

I’m in Southern and pleased as can be. Now we need to see the crazy Lake get nailed with defamation charges.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/23/politics/kari-lake-defamation-lawsuit-republican-arizona/index.html

[wryter2000]

61. Near Prescott

He’s surrounded by Trumpanzees

[MLAA]

63. Fortunately I'm in a Blue southern town.

It’s beautiful 3/4ths of the year but scorching hot during the summer.

[wryter2000]

75. That's where he used to live

In a Del Webb development. Then it got too developed for his taste. I don’t know why that surprised him. Now he lives at higher altitudes where it’s cooler.

I’m a climate wimp, so I have to live in Oakland no matter how insanely expensive it is.

[MLAA]

77. My favorite restaurant moved from SF some years ago to Oakland.

I lived in SF in 2013 for my work and loved the area. The condo we rented looked right onto the Oakland Bridge with the cool lights display. Beautiful view.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwivm4rBvfX_AhWJEEQIHTSyCVkQ_Bd6BAhlEAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumrestaurant.com%2F&usg=AOvVaw12QG_7gwK5mju9KsyFhcA_&opi=89978449

[wryter2000]

80. I used to live in the hills

It is gorgeous. People are discovering what a joy Oakland is. I hardly recognize downtown now.

[wryter2000]

78. You know

AZ is going to get like NY state where everyone else hates the Big City and all the libruls there but can’t do a damned thing about it.

[MLAA]

79. Works for me! I'm in Tucson, quite a bit smaller than Phoenix area, but even so it's grown

a lot in the last few years. It’s quite affordable so that’s been attractive to a lot of Californians.

[liberalla]

31. Yes! and so happy it is women in these power positions!

[MLAA]

42. Me too!

And looking forward to see the crazy woman Lake held accountable on defamation charges and have to pay out millions.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/23/politics/kari-lake-defamation-lawsuit-republican-arizona/index.html

[roamer65]

9. ...

[iluvtennis]

10. Right on! 🤜🤛n/t

[Snackshack]

11. Of course

It’s a state law and with states rights being a big piece of gop QQ it will be easier to defend. l

Ambition is strong with this one. 😀


How weird to see Az w/ Dems in the place they are in after the virtual lock the gop had in that state for years.

[roamer65]

12. My prediction.

Michigan AG Dana Nessel will concur and have her back.

[PortTack]

23. I can see governor Pritzker and the Dems in IL taking similar action

[wryter2000]

28. Hmmm

I'll bet Gavin Newsom will join in. He was the first government official to start same sex weddings when he was mayor of San Francisco.

[roamer65]

52. I bet he or CA AG does as well.

[wryter2000]

60. That used to be Kamala

I voted for the Dem who won but can’t remember who it is LOL. All statewide offices are Dems

[LiberalFighter]

13. Even if sex was not defined including sexual orientation and gender identity

I would still consider it a violation since it is based on gender.

[LPBBEAR]

14. Every state...

should pass a law that requires non discrimination as a requisite to obtaining a business license and running a business in that state. You want to run a business you must have a business license. If you discriminate you lose that license to do business. Simple as that. Fuck the Supreme Court.

[wryter2000]

29. I love it!

:applause.

[PortTack]

15. Kudos to them..hope other states follow. The SC is supposedly all about states rights

seems the AZ AG has every right to ignore such a unjust federal law. The RWNJs are always going on about states rights…be careful what you wish for idiots!

The court now seen pretty much as illegitimate, they may find out how just little power they do have trying to enforce these arcane laws.

[JudyM]

49. When the extreme court interprets the Constitution (which is what that case involved), states

can’t ignore that, though. That’s why they had to integrate schools, for example, when they were too ignorant to come to that conclusion themselves.

[The Magistrate]

54. 'Extreme Court', Ma'am? I Like That, I Like It A lot

[JudyM]

55. I read it here first. Same as Robbers' Court and, just today, Supremacist Court.

[multigraincracker]

19. Two ways to reform the court.

1. Ignore.
2. Defund.

[In It to Win It]

20. 3. Keep winning elections

[multigraincracker]

21. GOTV is the best way.

Might take along time, until then……

[In It to Win It]

24. I don't disagree

But the only way we appoint Clarence Thomas’s replacement when he croaks or leaves is to win, and same with Alito. That’s a long game.

The only way we’ll appoint district judges in red states is to win more senate seats and the presidency. Red state district court vacancies are stacking up.

The best way to reform the court is to win, and keep the batshit crazy partisan hacks off the bench.

[onenote]

25. That will be effective unless an identical situation arises

In which case Arizona would lose.

Keep in mind that the decision on the constitutionality of the Colorado anti-discrimination law was decided on an "as applied" basis -- in other words, even the Colorado statute remains effective in situations that don't essentially replicate the facts of the case it decided.

[Elessar Zappa]

36. Arizona could still ignore any ruling against them.

Let the Supreme Court’s enforcement arm deal with it.

[maspaha]

30. The longer Kris Mayes is in office...

The more proud I am to live and vote in Arizona!
And the same with Katie Hobbs!

[liberalla]

32. Exactly!

Me too!

[republianmushroom]

34. like her attitude.

[slightlv]

35. How appropriate this "shove it" comes from a woman.

Statistically a woman will be more for equality than a male, and feel the empathy needed to do just what she did. It comes from a very deep understanding within the woman. That's why you don't see it normally from a republican female. They have no understanding, only memes to follow from the men (like their religion tells them to do).

I salute this Attorney General, and wish we could have 50 more just like her. Unfortunately, I doubt I'll ever be represented by someone as brave and honor-bound as Kris Mayes. Feeling much the poorer for it, too.

[JonAndKatePlusABird]

57. +1

Well said. To me, it’s in keeping with the notion that justice is an active pursuit that must be aggressively fought for; it is NOT a state of nature where we mustn’t rock the boat.

[Mr.Bill]

37. Individual states refusing to enforce Supreme Court decisions when the shoe is on the other foot

will not be a good idea. While I agree in principle with Arizona here, if the tables were turned in a very conservative state on an issue such as, say, inter-racial marriage, then what?

[Red Mountain]

43. Then every corporation in America

pulls out. Military bases are moved.

They are ostracized.

[Elessar Zappa]

46. I see where you're coming from but

what if the Supreme Court re-legalized segregation. Or slavery. Should the states recognize that ruling? I’d say no.

[Mr.Bill]

47. I think in those circiumstances something more

than states not following it would happen. Although I have heard my entire adult life that if Roe v Wade was overturned, there would be a civil war. So far, other tactics are being played out.

[stopdiggin]

66. you're correct. this is bad precident

(coming from both directions)

If you (we) don't believe in rule of law - then exactly what do you believe in?
(hint: you're pretty soon off in the weeds)

[Red Mountain]

44. The Supreme Court

will have to clarify their ruling some.

Lots of states have laws against discrimination. Are we seriously going to have to wait for each and every legally protected class to be ruled 'open to discrimination' under each and every possible scenario?

It's a chaotic way to run a society.

Maybe it's more clear to just not discriminate.

[BlueIdaho]

45. The Supreme Court has power

Right up until a Majority of Americans decide they don’t. That is the problem with abusing their position in a participatory democracy.

I call Bullshit on the Supremacist Court.

[Amishman]

50. This applies to all aspects of the federal government

The Supremacy Clause is only words without enforcement. State and local government can nullify federal action as long as the federal government is unwilling to take drastic action.

Sounds great when it is done in defiance of what we see as unfair or unjust decisions by the supreme court - but the shoe will inevitably be on the other foot as well.

[BlueIdaho]

56. Without a doubt.

Democracies rise and fall on the agreed social contract between the governed and those who govern. Anytime the system is gamed, society is put at risk.

[stopdiggin]

67. +1. you said it far better ...

----- ----------- --- ------

[ripcord]

53. So everyone is going to be fine when republican AGs ignore SCOTUS decisions?

[stopdiggin]

68. +1. it pays to think things through just a bit -(nt)-

[irisblue]

82. I agree with your point ripcord, it will happen that a GOP AG will ignore a SCOTUS ruling

[FBaggins]

83. But it only works in one scenario

That's when there's a new court at the top that you expect will overturn the previous ruling.

Actually ignoring (not imagining that your current case is different in some substantial way) a recent SCOTUS ruling doesn't end well for state AGs.

[bucolic_frolic]

62. We are expected to obey the law, and they aren't, so this is an idea whose time has come

Ignoring the law sounds like a radical idea. But people do it everyday .... speeding for example. Just don't get caught.

[samnsara]

65. i think more of us should tell SCOTUS to shove it

[FBaggins]

69. She did no such thing

This is yet another example in the general public's ignorance of how court rulings work.

This was not a "facial" challenge. The court didn't overturn CO's law, and thus AZ's law is not threatened. Both AZ and CO AG's can continue to advertise that the laws are on the books and anyone who is discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity can and should contact their AG's office and we can expect them to continue to enforce state law. That isn't giving the finger to the court... because in the overwhelming majority of cases it wouldn't contradict the court's ruling.

All that has changed is that if the claimed discrimination involves clearly expressive conduct on the part of the business and if the business will provide to that customer all other services that they offer - then the state won't win when it gets to federal court.

And no... the lack of an enforcement arm or SCOTUS won't change anything. This isn't a Jackson parallel. The lower courts (include AZ state courts) will now rule the same way unless they can show that something is different in that case in a relevant way.

[uponit7771]

76. Could allowing a protected people to sit at a bar be "expressive conduct"? thx in advance ...

... for any response.

I'm a little torn on the specifics of expressive conduct, it looks like that is wide open

[FBaggins]

81. Not even close

The cakeshop case was in a way the threshold for “expressive” because artistic expression was considered.

If the same fictional couple came to 303 and asked for a cell phone repair website to be built… there’s no possible way to deny them unless they want to add “we’re a gay couple and everyone knows that gays are better at electronics”. That would contain expression that perhaps she could associate with protected beliefs - but I doubt that even that would fly.

[The Magistrate]

70. I've Mixed Feelings On This One, But It Cheers Me A Bit

There's scant love for 'Old Hickory' in these parts, but his (perhaps apocryphal) reply to Marshall has a certain charm in these times.

If the Arizona AG's declaration is viewed in the light of whether or not this course is conducive to the maintenance of a stable government operating as it was designed to function in order to produce and maintain itself as a representative democracy, then it is a poor precedent.

If the Arizona AG's declaration is viewed in the light of necessities forced on a free citizenry by a tyrant's menace to their rights, it seems the sort of thing that becomes necessary when the functioning of government has gone so astray as to produce the judicial tyranny presently exercised by a half dozen corrupt and triumphant creatures better suited to digging ditches than to seats on the High Court, well, then it is good news, and better news if it proves commencement of a trend....


"The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

[lees1975]

71. These women in Arizona know what they're doing and they're getting support.

She's turning out to be a great team with Governor Hobbs, and they're gaining support.

[AntivaxHunters]

72. This truly made me smile

Thank you for sharing this ❤️

[Prairie_Seagull]

73. Can a lop sided supreme court be tyrannical? nt

To me this is a clear example of tyranny of the minority.

[ShazamIam]

74. These aren't the kind of policies the, "Stare Rights," people consider to be a State's Right. nt

edit, this to these, isn't to aren't.