Rubio: "We are called to ignore" SCOTUS rulings that go against God

[BULLDOG]

A business serving the public who refuses service based solely on their bigoted beliefs does have a quantifiable impact on society. Shut up and bake the fucking cake.

How about you fucking make them yourself, tough guy.

Oh i forget, pussies like you need someone else to do their dirty work. You go running to government to be the big meanie. What a twat.

And one baker does not have an impact, short of hurt feelings.

If I owned a bakery, I would. Unfortunately, I can't boil water without burning it. I'm not a cook. One baker probably wouldn't have an impact, and if it was the only one in the country who would deny service, there probably wouldn't be a problem. We both know that is not the case.

Only one in the country isn't the standard one looks for. One looks for systemic discrimination. THAT impacts commerce, and the ability of people to get the products they want. In these cases there is no majority of bakers denying people cakes, and no actual harm, only a few minutes of a person's time, and hurt feelings.

Let the market handle this, not government.

We both know it wasn't the only one in the country. If the ruling had been different, there would be a lot.

So? How does a baker not wanting to make a cake for a gay wedding in one area impact the rights of someone in another?

Systemic discrimination is local in nature, even if endorsed at a higher level. You are not grasping the concept.

I would say you were grasping, but it's obvious you aren't even trying to make a reasonable argument.

 

[martybegan]

How about you fucking make them yourself, tough guy.

Oh i forget, pussies like you need someone else to do their dirty work. You go running to government to be the big meanie. What a twat.

And one baker does not have an impact, short of hurt feelings.

If I owned a bakery, I would. Unfortunately, I can't boil water without burning it. I'm not a cook. One baker probably wouldn't have an impact, and if it was the only one in the country who would deny service, there probably wouldn't be a problem. We both know that is not the case.

Only one in the country isn't the standard one looks for. One looks for systemic discrimination. THAT impacts commerce, and the ability of people to get the products they want. In these cases there is no majority of bakers denying people cakes, and no actual harm, only a few minutes of a person's time, and hurt feelings.

Let the market handle this, not government.

We both know it wasn't the only one in the country. If the ruling had been different, there would be a lot.

So? How does a baker not wanting to make a cake for a gay wedding in one area impact the rights of someone in another?

Systemic discrimination is local in nature, even if endorsed at a higher level. You are not grasping the concept.

I would say you were grasping, but it's obvious you aren't even trying to make a reasonable argument.

You are the one who set up the "only baker in the country" idiocy.

And you don't answer any of my statements, So I can only assume you don't have an answer for them.

Good day/Fuck off.

 

[BULLDOG]

If I owned a bakery, I would. Unfortunately, I can't boil water without burning it. I'm not a cook. One baker probably wouldn't have an impact, and if it was the only one in the country who would deny service, there probably wouldn't be a problem. We both know that is not the case.

Only one in the country isn't the standard one looks for. One looks for systemic discrimination. THAT impacts commerce, and the ability of people to get the products they want. In these cases there is no majority of bakers denying people cakes, and no actual harm, only a few minutes of a person's time, and hurt feelings.

Let the market handle this, not government.

We both know it wasn't the only one in the country. If the ruling had been different, there would be a lot.

So? How does a baker not wanting to make a cake for a gay wedding in one area impact the rights of someone in another?

Systemic discrimination is local in nature, even if endorsed at a higher level. You are not grasping the concept.

I would say you were grasping, but it's obvious you aren't even trying to make a reasonable argument.

You are the one who set up the "only baker in the country" idiocy.

And you don't answer any of my statements, So I can only assume you don't have an answer for them.

Good day/Fuck off.

And fuck you too. You are the one who claimed it was about one baker.

And one baker does not have an impact, short of hurt feelings

 

[mdk]

Rubio is pandering and nothing more.

 

[martybegan]

Only one in the country isn't the standard one looks for. One looks for systemic discrimination. THAT impacts commerce, and the ability of people to get the products they want. In these cases there is no majority of bakers denying people cakes, and no actual harm, only a few minutes of a person's time, and hurt feelings.

Let the market handle this, not government.

We both know it wasn't the only one in the country. If the ruling had been different, there would be a lot.

So? How does a baker not wanting to make a cake for a gay wedding in one area impact the rights of someone in another?

Systemic discrimination is local in nature, even if endorsed at a higher level. You are not grasping the concept.

I would say you were grasping, but it's obvious you aren't even trying to make a reasonable argument.

You are the one who set up the "only baker in the country" idiocy.

And you don't answer any of my statements, So I can only assume you don't have an answer for them.

Good day/Fuck off.

And fuck you too. You are the one who claimed it was about one baker.

And one baker does not have an impact, short of hurt feelings

Yes, one baker in an area with plenty of other bakers. Again, where is the harm besides hurt feelings?

 

[ogibillm]

Rubio is pandering and nothing more.

He could be a bit more responsible in his phrasing but it's pretty clear he was just throwing out some red meat

 

[ABikerSailor]

If the country was to ignore SCOTUS rulings that go against what some people think God stands for, then we are going to become a theocracy.

Hmmm.................know who else has a theocracy? Islam.

 

[DGS49]

The instances where someone would act "illegally" due to a moral dispute with a USSC decision are extremely rare. In most cases, the action or refusal to act would constitute the violation of a law, in an act of civil disobedience.

And it may be shocking to today's "everybody-gets-a-a-trophy" snowflakes, but when you commit an act of civil disobedience you are implicitly ACCEPTING THE CONSEQUENCES OF BREAKING THE LAW. That is, you accept the fact that you may be convicted of a crime or misdemeanor for your actions/non-actions.

 

[basquebromance]

how dare AL FRANKENSTEIN defend liberal judicial activism?!