> doesn't this smell like fascism?

Not really. Religion and race are protected classes. The analogue would be a police force in the South refusing to provide names of officers with a track record of racial discrimination complaints.

Whether this is authoritarian depends on what comes next.

▲

a day ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

fzeroracer 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

>Not really. Religion and race are protected classes.

Which conveniently, isn't what the Supreme Court seems to actually believe given that they signed off on racial discrimination being A-OK as long as it's by the feds. So I think it's more than fair to say that this is authoritarian before we even see what comes next given that the feds and the Supreme Court are moving in lockstep.

▲

JumpCrisscross 2 days ago | parent [-]

> given that they signed off on racial discrimination being A-OK as long as it's by the feds

Nope. They lifted a stay. In the short run, the practical effect is similar. In the long run, different. If one can’t grasp the difference, one cannot argue for the rule of law.

> it's more than fair to say that this is authoritarian before we even see what comes next given that the feds and the Supreme Court are moving in lockstep

Yes, if the executive acts as an authoritarian and the courts sign off on it, it will be authoritarian.

	▲	fzeroracer 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> Nope. They lifted a stay. In the short run, the practical effect is similar. In the long run, different. If one can’t grasp the difference, one cannot argue for the rule of law. They're the same thing. Multiple lawyers have argued it's the same thing. The supreme court itself in their explanation has argued that it's OK to racially discriminate against some people. The dissent explicitly calls this as taking away constitutional rights.