One hit wonder Molly Seidel lacks class

If a trans dude finished third in Sapporo to grab the final podium spot, would she be singing a different tune?

Come back to reality.

It was a made up case and, as someone who has been a lawyer for 45 years, I think it makes a mockery of the judicial system.

This is like a troll thread starter kit. Like the chemistry sets kids used to get for their 8th birthday. Lolz

Molly is a freedom fighter!

While my many posts/past threads indicate that I am no Molly Seidel fan. I don't really see an issue with her venting about some court ruling. Atleast she has guts to speak of something political and outside of running compared to the formality many runners choose to have out of fear of being blackballed by the Running Establishment. It's her freedom of speech, that's the only thing I'll comment on Molly.

Crazily, that reply was supposed to go in the satellite thread. What the Jesus!?

This is like a troll thread starter kit. Like the chemistry sets kids used to get for their 8th birthday. Lolz

This place is fked up. Again I was trying to reply to the other thread.

No respect for you...

Molly does not come across, from her previous actions, as a strong woman. She is the epitome of a young, privileged, self entitled white woman.

Hmmm, the downvotes seem to suggest otherwise.

I dont think she is being obscene. I think she is telling us her IQ is 2. What she says is exactly NOT what the ruling said. It is still illegal, as it should be, to deny service to anyone based on a protected class (sex, race, color, creed, religion) under the public accommodations doctrine. The question was, " can the government COMPELL SPEECH?"

The answer was a resounding no (save for the three justices that dissented based on feeling, not law).

Why Molly "2IQ" Seidel fails to grasp, is the ruling works the other way. I anti-alphabet person can't compel a gay company to produce content supporting traditional marriage.

I don't know Molly. Everyone has a right to an opinion. She looks childish in her post. She needs a burger or two. My observation means nothing. A reminder to those that run fast.....stick to that.

You must not have any experience with constitutional litigation. There’s a reason none of the dissenters had an issue with standing. This was a straightforward pre enforcement challenge. You can always sue to establish your rights before violating a statute and risking prosecution, except in rare cases such as where statutes are moribund and the state has disavowed intent enforcement. The state here affirmed that it intended to enforce against the designer if she did what she wants to do. That’s always enough for Article III standing. Even more in the 1A context which has relaxed standing requirements to avoid chilling speech.

Don’t forget good looking

No one would know how I feel about any election or SCOTUS rulling because I don't feel the need to broadcast it. That is the best way to be.

SCOTUS reaffirmed a religious freedom in this case. Colleges aren't applying a religious belief to their admission policy. It was a very narrow ruling and trying to equate it to slavery or other discrimination shows a lack of intelligence.

303 Creative had nothing to do with religious liberty. It was a speech case.