You just eliminated all liberals from consideration.
Supreme Court Ruling, 7 to 2 decision for the Colorado Baker.
- Thread starter The Ugly Truth
- Start date
You just eliminated all liberals from consideration.
This is a correct assessment.
Yes, unless said merchant can show that he or she has a valid religious belief that forbids serving people dressed in KKK robes.
Yes, unless said merchant can show that he or she has a valid objection to said sale that wasn't race-based.
This is how pussies prevent liberals from kicking their ass:
Members banned from this thread: Cypress, The Wokest, Jarod, blackascoal, midcan5, evince, ZappasGuitar, , Phantasmal, Rune, Supposn, moon, Yoda, Mr.Badguy, Text Drivers are Killers, CFM, domer76, sear, archives, Nomad, TTQ64, crowonapost, Tomas Fabregas, mak2, floridafan, JqYaqui, ThatOwlWoman, Tranquillus in Exile, katzgar, DonaldvoTrumpovich, Jade Dragon, Nordberg, Crazy Cat Lady, Bourbon, Frank Apisa, Gotcha68, Centerleftfl, kudzu, The Derp, PoliTalker, rjhenn, guno, Oracle Of JPP 714, Rat Robbersson, Jack, DebraDoesDonald and Magellan
The Ugly Truth
Verified User
""Jack serves all customers; he simply declines to express messages or celebrate events that violate his deeply held beliefs," Waggoner said in a statement. "Creative professionals who serve all people should be free to create art consistent with their convictions without the threat of government punishment."
She further added that the case "will affect a number of cases for years to come in free exercise jurisprudence. That's how the court's decisions work."
They don't seem to consider the unintended consequences of their actions very often. Like children, they don't seem able to think things through.
They thought Hillary would win, so they thought it would be OK to spy on and the political opposition using federal agents, I believe. They didn't think she's lose, but they had a frame-up ready as an insurance policy in case he did. It's all in the texts.
They thought nobody would ever know.
They also haven't considered that what one party can do, the other can also do. It's called precedent.
Waggoner is not a Justice, nor is her language in the Court's decision.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
I wonder how liberals would react if someone would DEMAND that a business or organization support a cause or something they didn't agree with; because I guarantee that the liberals would be screaming 1st Amendment rights from the roof tops.
You are incorrect which isn't surprising in the least. The hearing was about the process and had nothing to do with your hatred of your fellow man.
signalmankenneth
Verified User
5 Things You Need to Know About the Supreme Court Ruling in the Anti-Gay Bakery Case
Many initial reactions from pro- and anti-gay observers and groups have been wrong.
The U.S. Supreme Court Monday morning handed down a ruling [3] in the case brought by a Colorado baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, citing his Christian beliefs.
Many initial reactions from pro- and anti-gay observers and groups have been wide-ranging, and many have been wrong. (Perhaps most of all, Donald Trump Jr.'s, but more on that later.)
Here are five of the most important things you need to know about the Supreme Court's ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., et al. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission et al:
1. The ruling does not allow discrimination against same-sex couples, LGBT people, or anyone else. It changes no laws and sets no precedents.
2. The ruling applies to one person only: Jack Phillips, the anti-gay Christian baker. Again, it does not set precedent, it cannot be used by others to discriminate against anyone. Period.
3. The only "person" the ruling is against is the Colorado commission that ruled against the baker – and not because of the commission's overall conclusion, that Phillips engaged in unlawful discrimination. The Supreme Court's 7-2 ruling says that the commission acted with "hostility," in this one case, against Phillips.
4. The Court's ruling calls for Americans to find a way to be tolerant towards each other, respecting the rights of gay people and the rights of people of faith. (It does not state those are two opposing groups.)
5. If anything, the Supreme Court's ruling is in part a win for the LGBT community and supporters of equality. Here's the key passage from the Court's majority opinion: "these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market."
You will no doubt see huge proclamations of victory from the anti-gay right. If they say anything other than what's above, chances are good they're false.
For more, read: "SUPREME COURT HANDS DOWN ANTI-GAY RULING – FOR ONE WEDDING CAKE BAKER [3]."
By David Badash
Many initial reactions from pro- and anti-gay observers and groups have been wrong.
The U.S. Supreme Court Monday morning handed down a ruling [3] in the case brought by a Colorado baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, citing his Christian beliefs.
Many initial reactions from pro- and anti-gay observers and groups have been wide-ranging, and many have been wrong. (Perhaps most of all, Donald Trump Jr.'s, but more on that later.)
Here are five of the most important things you need to know about the Supreme Court's ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., et al. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission et al:
1. The ruling does not allow discrimination against same-sex couples, LGBT people, or anyone else. It changes no laws and sets no precedents.
2. The ruling applies to one person only: Jack Phillips, the anti-gay Christian baker. Again, it does not set precedent, it cannot be used by others to discriminate against anyone. Period.
3. The only "person" the ruling is against is the Colorado commission that ruled against the baker – and not because of the commission's overall conclusion, that Phillips engaged in unlawful discrimination. The Supreme Court's 7-2 ruling says that the commission acted with "hostility," in this one case, against Phillips.
4. The Court's ruling calls for Americans to find a way to be tolerant towards each other, respecting the rights of gay people and the rights of people of faith. (It does not state those are two opposing groups.)
5. If anything, the Supreme Court's ruling is in part a win for the LGBT community and supporters of equality. Here's the key passage from the Court's majority opinion: "these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market."
You will no doubt see huge proclamations of victory from the anti-gay right. If they say anything other than what's above, chances are good they're false.
For more, read: "SUPREME COURT HANDS DOWN ANTI-GAY RULING – FOR ONE WEDDING CAKE BAKER [3]."
By David Badash
No they actually didn't do that
Cancel 2018.1
New member
How many bidnesses do you see that have a sign saying they have the right to refuse service for anyone?
I kick out customers for any number of reasons, sometimes even calling the police if they don't leave fast enuf.
I can't believe Ginsburg and Sotomayor actually voted the way they did. Shows how far out of touch they are.
Of course we all know that Ginsburg's an alchy.
I kick out customers for any number of reasons, sometimes even calling the police if they don't leave fast enuf.
I can't believe Ginsburg and Sotomayor actually voted the way they did. Shows how far out of touch they are.
Of course we all know that Ginsburg's an alchy.
They'd likely regard being asked to serve someone they don't like offensive and a hate crime. That way, the'd be the victim.
Those signs have no legal force.
Just as "Not responsible for personal items" signs have no legal force if a bailment exists.
Gotcha68
Verified User
Let them. We can weed out whom we want to give our business to as well.
No you cannot and this case was not about that at all.
I refuse to sell lobster to midgets...