Justice Samuel Alito Under Fire for KKK Joke During Oral Argument

New York Post ^ | December 6, 2022 | Snejana Farberov

[NorthMountain]

Absolutely nothing "stupid" about it. He's raising a legitimate question regarding the boundaries of "free speech".

Too bad people on this forum jerk their knees before engaging their brains.

[Dead Corpse]

Considering some of the hypotheticals both sides were throwing back and forth? It may well have been.

They are trying to find a spot to draw an arbitrary line between Religion and Free Speech.

From what I’m reading of Alito’s statement... He thinks that idea is dumb too. Freedom is Freedom and included the right to say NO.

If the Left wins this one, they will be able to FORCE us to say that 2+2=5.

[gloryblaze]

Yes. Such examples use KKK all the time. What if I order a cake decorated with KKK? What if I dress up as a KKK’er at the company party? Etc.

[RoosterRedux]

Are the public accomodation laws fundamental to this kind of case (i.e., are gays a protected group in Colorado and is that why they must be served)?

I don't know the backstory on Allito's comment/question, but it might be a serious question and not a joke. Justices aren't known for their senses of humor.

[NorthMountain]

Maybe the best course of action on the former, is to ignore the whiners.

That, or tell them once, in plain language, to bugger off.

[laweeks]

KKK was a Democrat founded group, so I don’t see what they’re complaining about.

[NorthMountain]

What if I dress up as a KKK’er at the company party?

Ralph Northam??? Dat you???

[Swordmaker]

I do not see a “joke” here but rather taking their argument home to them by exposing their hypocrisy! Why is it OK for them to refuse to do something that offends them, but then force someone to do something they like that offends that person but moreover offends that person’s protected civil right to the free exercise of his/her Religious belief?

Alito merely couched the argument in terms they often use themselves and asked them how they would feel if they were in that situation. What would they do? Would they be required to suck up their offended feelings and allow that offense to continue, or reject that act and refuse to participate?

No, there is no JOKE here… it is entirely seriously getting to the heart of this issue and their specious argument.

[traderrob6]

Firstly, it wasn’t a “joke”. It was a modestly facetious retort to an imbecilic question.

Secondly, it was spot on correct.

[j.havenfarm]

Your position would be surprising to the justices in the 23 appellate cases in which I’ve represented parties, and quite a large number of judges before whom I’ve argued motions in the trial courts

[DoodleBob]

The problem with "bugger off" is that, it acknowledges the existence of the whiner.

They aren't offended. They're provocateurs. They WANT attention.

Attention is to a whiner, what oxygen is to a fire.

[Mr. K]

how is that outrageous?

[djstex]

I think Alito made a valid point, I don't see this as a joke as the NY Post wrote it as.

[Mr. K]

Did that offend you?

We can provide a *safe space* for you HERE

[gloryblaze]

Shhh. I’m in disguise.

[Mr. K]

you fell for the media narrative about a VALID QUESTION

[ConservativeMind]

They can’t do it forever—just the three or so hours involved in this overview meeting.

[aspasia]

“Under fire”—ha! By proust?

[DesertRhino]

No, it was a pointed argument that forced the Colorado lawyer to admit an absurdity.

[greenishness]

Who said it was a joke?

If it was a joke then that’s saying a gay couple walking into a bakery owned by a religious person and asking them to bake
a wedding cake is a joke too.