Florist Sued for Refusing Service to Gay Couple Pens Defiant Letter Rejecting Gov’t Settlement Offer

Discussion in 'Politics' started by SassyIrishLass, Feb 23, 2015.

  1. Skylar
    Offline

    Skylar Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    27,763
    Thanks Received:
    3,959
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +10,455
    Says you. The USSC on the other hand cited 4 different race based cases between the Romer and Windsor ruling when describing why the rights of gays couldn't be violated.

    You insist that citing race based cases is legally irrelevant. The USSC cited race based cases 4 times.

    I'm gonna have to with the USSC on what's legally relevant.
     
  2. emilynghiem
    Online

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    18,297
    Thanks Received:
    2,419
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +6,093
    Indiana House panel OKs religious freedom bill

    About the Indiana Bill on religious freedom:

    What does Senate Bill 101 actually say?

    Senate Bill 101 would prohibit state or local governments from substantially burdening a person's ability to exercise their religion — unless the government can show that it has a compelling interest and that the action is the least-restrictive means of achieving that interest.

    For more background, check out the actual bill or read letters from legal experts whosupport or oppose the legislation.
     
  3. Silhouette
    Online

    Silhouette Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    21,369
    Thanks Received:
    1,446
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +7,021
    Is Hobby Lobby legally relevent?
     
  4. dblack
    Offline

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    22,669
    Thanks Received:
    2,180
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +4,746
    This just sounds like a re-statement of previous Court decisions. But I can't help but see it as a mistake. This is not how we should interpret the First Amendment.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

christians sued for not supporting gay marriage

,

gay florists muslim pork

,

muslim pork gay florist

,

people who were sued for not servcing gay couples