Not going to argue — American law NOW stands in direct contrast to California values.
See for yourself.Citations below
FEDERAL LAW NOW SAYS:
· IT IS OKAY TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST MUSLIM IMMIGRATION BECAUSE THEY ARE MUSLIM
· WOMEN DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THEIR ACCESS TO AN ABORTION
· UNIONS CAN DIE — THEY CAN NO LONGER COLLECT DUES AND HAVE TO ASK PERMISSION FOR FUNDING, WHICH WILL RUIN THEIR ABILITY TO BE EFFECTIVE
· FEDERAL LAW NOW SAYS — YOU CAN DISCRIMINATE AGAINST LGBTQ CUSTOMERS IF YOU CAN CITE RELIGIOUS REASONS
· FEDERAL LAW NOW SAYS — WOMEN AND MINORITIES DO NOT DESERVE THE RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO EFFECTIVELY FIGHT CORPORATIONS ON SEXUAL OR RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
· FEDERAL LAW NOW SAYS — YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH ON THE INTERNET
FEDERAL LAW NOW SAYS — IT IS OKAY TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST MUSLIM IMMIGRATION BECAUSE THEY ARE MUSLIM
“A sharply divided Supreme Court upheld President Donald Trump’s ban on travel from several mostly Muslim countries Tuesday, the conservative majority taking his side”
“The 5–4 decision was a big victory for Trump in the court’s first substantive ruling on one of his administration’s policies.”
https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/politics/Supreme-Court-Upholds-Trump-Travel-Ban-486569141.html
FEDERAL LAW NOW SAYS — WOMEN DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THEIR ACCESS TO AN ABORTION
“The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked a California law requiring clinics that counsel women against abortion to notify clients of the availability of abortions paid for by the state, finding that it violated the free speech rights of these Christian-based facilities.”
“The court’s five conservative justices were in the majority”
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/supreme-court-crisis-pregnancy-centers_us_5b324796e4b0cb56051c48b8
FEDERAL LAW NOW SAYS — UNIONS CAN DIE — THEY CAN NO LONGER COLLECT DUES AND HAVE TO ASK PERMISSION FOR FUNDING, WHICH WILL RUIN THEIR ABILITY TO BE EFFECTIVE
“California’s pubic employee unions were handed a serious blow in a Supreme Court ruling Wednesday that forbids them from collecting fees from workers who benefit from their representation but do not want to join them.”
“In a 5 to 4 ruling”
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-worker/article213580054.html
“The Supreme Court decision gutting public sector unions, explained”
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/14/17437832/janus-afscme-supreme-court-union-teacher-police-public-sector
“The Supreme Court just stuck a knife in public sector unions
The system is rigged.”
https://thinkprogress.org/gorsuch-knifes-unions-a8769c908b29/
FEDERAL LAW NOW SAYS — WOMEN AND MINORITIES DO NOT DESERVE THE RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO EFFECTIVELY FIGHT CORPORATIONS ON SEXUAL OR RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
“the Supreme Court basically barred workers nationwide from launching class-action lawsuits against employers…The class action, on the other hand, is one of the key legal mechanisms workers have to raise their collective voice on issues of wage theft, discrimination, sexual abuse”
““striking at the heart of workers’ ability to act collectively, which makes it all the more difficult for them to access not only wage-and-hour protections but, obviously, discrimination protections across the board.”
“ So the Epic Systems ruling renders workers virtually defenseless, as long as they are barred from banding together on a claim.”
“five justices made it that much harder”
https://www.thenation.com/article/supreme-courts-war-class-action-lawsuits/
“this case could strip foundational safeguards in place for over 80 years, essential to ensuring millions of low-wage and non-union workers of their right to fair pay, job security, workplace safety, nondiscrimination”
http://prospect.org/article/supreme-court-case-could-%E2%80%98overturn-heart-new-deal%E2%80%99
This was literally the thing that allows minority women to sue a major company recently for gender and racial discrimination.
https://nypost.com/2017/10/27/women-sue-uber-for-racial-gender-discrimination/
FEDERAL LAW NOW SAYS — YOU CAN DISCRIMINATE AGAINST LGBTQ CUSTOMERS IF YOU CAN CITE RELIGIOUS REASONS
WHEN YOU CONSIDER THAT TRUMPS’ STATEMENTS ABOUT MUSLIMS DID NOT CONSTITUTE BIAS — BUT STATEMENTS BY 2 OF 7 PEOPLE AT 1 OF 3 RULINGS ABOUT RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION MEANS AN ENTIRE DECISION IS BIASED — DOES MEAN THAT THE COURT (EFFECTIVELY) IS SAYING IT IS OKAY TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST LGBTQ CUSTOMERS — IF YOU CAN CITE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
“All five justices who voted to uphold the travel ban were also in the majority in Masterpiece Cakeshop. This contradiction can’t be justified.” “Only two of seven members of the Civil Rights Commission expressed hostility towards the baker’s beliefs religious beliefs; there was no indication of hostility on the part of the other three bodies that considered the case.”
“By contrast, where the travel ban is concerned, there was only one ultimate decision-maker: Trump. His motives are the ones that matter.”
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/6/27/17509248/travel-ban-religious-discrimination-christian-muslim-double-standard
“The Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of a Christian baker in Colorado who refused to make a custom cake for a same-sex couple”
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/04/supreme-court-rules-narrowly-in-favor-of-colorado-baker-in-same-sex-wedding-case-620661
“However, the ruling itself is narrow and applies largely only to the facts of this particular case rather than establishing any kind of general rule for such claims going forward”
https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/in-narrow-ruling-supreme-court-sides-with-baker-in-same-sex-wedding-discrimination-case/
“If you’re a religious baker in a different jurisdiction and you feel a conscientious objection to doing a cake for a gay wedding, you don’t know what will happen — you might held be liable, maybe you won’t”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/06/04/supreme-court-baker-cake-ruling/669673002/
“If the Court can accept claims of government “hostility” on the tepid evidence on offer in Masterpiece, it will embolden other Jack Phillipses to refuse to serve LGBTQ customers, and to hope for a “slip-up” by a public official as uncontroversial as “religion should not be used as an excuse to discriminate.” “What will be the evidence of such supposed animus in the next case? A question from a judge at oral arguments? Deposition questions by government attorneys?”
https://www.thenation.com/article/masterpiece-cakeshop-decision-not-harmless-think/
“If the Court ruled in favor of the Colorado baker, it would allow discrimination even in states where anti-LGBTQ discrimination is banned — as long as someone offers a religious reason to justify such prejudice.”
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/6/26/15873044/supreme-court-masterpiece-cakeshop
“We can expect that the Masterpiece decision will have a practical chilling effect when it comes to the willingness of victims of discrimination to report it. Further, it will likely also discourage the efforts of local entities like the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in communities across the country to protect everyone’s civil rights.”
https://equalrightscenter.org/beyond-wedding-cake/
FEDERAL LAW NOW SAYS — THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH ON THE INTERNET
“As of June 11th, the legal protections against content discrimination on the internet are gone. As far as the FCC is concerned, net neutrality is dead.”
https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/11/17439456/net-neutrality-dead-ajit-pai-fcc-internet
