Search Results: public opinion

For example, when women meet a man, they need confirmation that other women want said man in order to want him. While men can give 2 shits if other men don't want his women (except if it's because she is a major slut) and only care about if he finds her attractive.

Men need to pass a girl's friends approving of him before she even considers him. And when in a relationship, women constantly need to show off to other girls how perfect her man is and often drags him along to take staged photos of the perfect relationship. When we look at how women talk about their partners on social media, it's often to brag about what they do or how much gifts said man gives them rather than just appreciate him as a person. And when in a relationship, a woman weighs heavily on her friend's opinion of said man when determining to stay or not.

This is further reinforce when we see how women spend thousands on hair, makeup and shoes and then parade around on social media or in public and only acknowledging praises from other women; men only get a response if they are hot and/or rich.

https://www.axios.com/2023/06/30/supreme-court-lgbtq-wedding-website
Supreme Court rules businesses can refuse service to LGBTQ+ customers

Businesses can refuse to serve same-sex couples if doing so would violate the owners' religious beliefs, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday.

Why it matters: The court has significantly expanded LGBTQ rights over the past several years, but is now carving out some exceptions.

Driving the news: The case concerns Lorie Smith, a Colorado web designer who wanted to create and sell wedding websites, but not to same-sex couples.

Colorado's civil rights law prohibited her, or any business that serves the general public, from turning away customers because of their sexual orientation. She said complying with that law would force her to espouse views she does not agree with.
"The artwork that I create is speech," Smith told Colorado Public Radio in December, adding that, "those messages must be consistent with my convictions."
The big picture: The conservative-majority Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Smith, saying she has a First Amendment right to refuse to design custom wedding websites for same-sex couples.

"The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Colorado cannot deny that promise consistent with the First Amendment," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/opinion-pledge-of-allegiance_n_64a2eca3e4b0dcb22c46c8dc
The Freedom NOT To Recite The Pledge Of Allegiance

Forgive me, dear reader, if I implore you to refrain from engaging in overly demonstrative platitudes about love of God or country when discussing the Pledge of Allegiance.
On this day of independence, when we celebrate America’s birthdate, I decided to embark on a cursory and perhaps ill-advised review of this invocation, long recited in classrooms nationwide. To my surprise, it remains a source of controversy, at the root of which are the most fundamental principles of our democracy: the First Amendment rights to free speech and religious liberty.

We may have been taught as pliable and vulnerable children that the pledge was all about love of God and country, but the pledge’s origins belie such dogma.

Some historical context is particularly instructive given our pitiable grasp of civics, including, it seems, among some educators.
I chose to return to this subject having covered it nearly a decade ago when so-called “pledge controversies” — more precisely, over the words “under God” — erupted at public schools in two California locales: Tracy and San Jacinto.

The San Jacinto Unified School District agreed in late October 2014 to apologize to a Monte Vista Middle School student after a teacher admonished an 11-year-old boy for not standing during the pledge.

But at West High School in Tracy, 17-year-old Derek Giardina received detention and a reduced grade in his speech class for omitting the “under God” in his required recitation. The school district, which claimed to respect everyone’s religious beliefs or lack thereof, supported the punishment because, it explained, it was part of an assignment to lead the Pledge of Allegiance, and, as district spokesperson Sam Strube put it, “If you’re going to lead the school in the pledge, you better say it in the traditional way.”

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-affirmative-action-unconstitutional_n_64789e10e4b0047ed77f8fd4
Supreme Court Declares Affirmative Action In Education Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court declared affirmative action programs at public and private colleges and universities unconstitutional on Thursday in a decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts.

The decision puts an end to most systems designed to help Black and Latino students access higher education after centuries of racial discrimination. Colleges and universities will no longer be allowed to seek greater diversity of their student bodies by preferencing race, although student applicants will not be precluded from discussing their race during the application process as it relates to their individual experience. The most immediate effect will be a decrease in the number of Black and Latino students admitted to the most selective schools, studies show.

In his opinion, Roberts stated that schools are not permitted to judge candidates for admissions based on their race.

“Many universities have for too long done just the opposite,” Roberts wrote. “And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”

I'll explain what particular case I'm talking about in an update.