Really? Who was the defendant?i’m it was an actual court case
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Really? Who was the defendant?i’m it was an actual court case
the state of colorado,,,Really? Who was the defendant?
The State of ColoradoReally? Who was the defendant?
Indeed...What theoretical?
1. Designer wanted to expand business to designing wedding sites.
2. Designer asked Colorado Civil Rights Board if they did wedding sites, do they have to do SSM wedding sites?
3. Board said yes
4. Designer said I don't want to do those, but I want to do traditional wedding sites, so I am going to sue to make you not able to fine/ruin me if I deny a SSM wedding site request.
The State of Colorado asked her to design a website. Who was the State of Colorado marrying?the state of colorado,,,
who said they were marrying people??The State of Colorado asked her to design a website. Who was the State of Colorado marrying?
false comparison,,,Indeed...
What theoretical?
1. Designer wanted to expand business to designing wedding sites.
2. Designer asked Colorado Civil Rights Board if they did wedding sites, do they have to doSSM wedding sites?Interracial wedding sites.
3. Board said yes
4. Designer said I don't want to do those, but I want to do traditional wedding sites, so I am going to sue to make you not able to fine/ruin me if I deny aSSM weddinginterracial wedding site request.
and in a few years...
- Student chef graduates and wants to open a restaurant.
- Chef asks regulators if he has to server non-white people
- Regulators say yes
- Regualations say "I don't want to serve those, I want to only serve white people and I'm going to sue to make you not be able to fine/ruin me if I deny service to anyone who isn't white.
The website designer had a problem with Same Sex Marriage.who said they were marrying people??
Sure... What you really mean is inconvenient comparison because it highlights where you guys want to go with this court.false comparison,,,
And?Indeed...
What theoretical?
1. Designer wanted to expand business to designing wedding sites.
2. Designer asked Colorado Civil Rights Board if they did wedding sites, do they have to doSSM wedding sites?Interracial wedding sites.
3. Board said yes
4. Designer said I don't want to do those, but I want to do traditional wedding sites, so I am going to sue to make you not able to fine/ruin me if I deny aSSM weddinginterracial wedding site request.
and in a few years...
- Student chef graduates and wants to open a restaurant.
- Chef asks regulators if he has to server non-white people
- Regulators say yes
- Regualations say "I don't want to serve those, I want to only serve white people and I'm going to sue to make you not be able to fine/ruin me if I deny service to anyone who isn't white.
OK,, who said anyone was marrying anyone??The website designer had a problem with Same Sex Marriage.
Thanks for confirming its true. The court legalized discrimination and you guys are okay with that.And?
no,, what I mean is thats a false comparison,,,Sure... What you really mean is inconvenient comparison because it highlights where you guys want to go with this court.
of course we are in favor of discrimination,, otherwise you have fascism where people are forced against their will,,Thanks for confirming its true. The court legalized discrimination and you guys are okay with that.
Thanks for confirming its true. The court legalized discrimination and you guys are okay with that.
Indeed...
What theoretical?
1. Designer wanted to expand business to designing wedding sites.
2. Designer asked Colorado Civil Rights Board if they did wedding sites, do they have to doSSM wedding sites?Interracial wedding sites.
3. Board said yes
4. Designer said I don't want to do those, but I want to do traditional wedding sites, so I am going to sue to make you not able to fine/ruin me if I deny aSSM weddinginterracial wedding site request.
and in a few years...
- Student chef graduates and wants to open a restaurant.
- Chef asks regulators if he has to server non-white people
- Regulators say yes
- Regualations say "I don't want to serve those, I want to only serve white people and I'm going to sue to make you not be able to fine/ruin me if I deny service to anyone who isn't white.
Moral context? LOL. SCOTUS just legalized discrimination.Race isn't the same as sexuality, stop trying to equate the two in a moral context.
And of course, everyone who must bow to what the "mainstream" wants. right?This is about a specific ceremony celebrating something most of the mainstream religious find morally wrong or even morally non-existent.
Someone will invent a religion based on excluding someone based on skin color and if the court uses previous rulings as precedent, they will have to honor that religion's preferences.And your example is an ACTUAL PA, something none of these people want to deny anyone.
When the only argument you have is hyperbole, you have no argument.
they decriminalized forced compliance,,Moral context? LOL. SCOTUS just legalized discrimination.
Meanwhile back in reality the entire "case" of the website designer was based on a theoretical question; not on an actual court case. The Supreme Court--back when it was legitimate--would seldom if ever take up cases that were based on, "Suppose X happened...." That is what we have now.
So nobody should be forced to serve a black man a hamburger?they decriminalized forced compliance,,