Finally! Supreme Court rules in favor of First Amendment rights for Christians etc.

[Billiejeens]

A gas station is an actual PA, and actually covered under FEDERAL PA laws due to the interstate implications of fueling.

Where is anyone saying actual PA laws are being overturned? The issue is extending them to transactions that are not PA's, not timely, not exclusive, and ignoring any 1st amendment implications.

Progressives are retarded.

 

[Donald H]

Sotomayor has her head where it doesn't belong. Using her logic, I should be able to hire Hilarity to speak at an event and then have her read a Trump speech.

There's no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to hire Hilary and she would read a Trump speech if she was paid enough.

You see Concerned, it's not about political ideals, nearly as much as making a dollar!

I think we can finally find some common ground on this my friend.

 

[MagicMike]

Just in. The Supreme Court just ruled that a Christian graphic artist was not required to work with same sex couples for a wedding website. Does that mean the baker no longer has to bake a wedding cake with designs for a same sex couple?

I agree with this decision.
I think this is the kind of issue the free maket should be allowed to sort out.
If a private business operates with deplorable policies let the customers/consumers decide....by maybe not doing business there.
Even boycotting the business.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Lorie Smith, the web designer, was the plaintiff challenging a lower court ruling. Apparently as the harmed party, she did have standing.

If she was the plaintiff, who was the defendent?

What was the standing?

Sorry, I keep getting my lines crossed.

 

[Foxfyre]

I still think the baker should have posted a policy that said he would write a Bible verse on every cake he sold, verse to be chosen by him. It would have been legal and applied to everyone equally, and the gay couple would never have walked into his store.

That puts an unreasonable burden on the baker though. And the gay couple didn't give a damn about a wedding cake that they could have gotten a dozen other places. The intent was to hurt a Christian baker. I don't think a Bible verse would have deterred them from that in the least.

Bottom line, a proprietor should have full ability, with no issues from anybody, to choose what legal products he/she will sell, what creative content he will provide, and should have complete ability to refuse to carry any other products or provide any other creative content.

I loved Task's analogy, i.e. forcing a Christian baker to accommodate a gay wedding is no different than requiring Hillary Clinton to give a pro-Trump speech at a conservative Christian or gay gathering.

I doubt any leftist here would suggest she is discriminating against gays or blacks or denying them their rights if she turned down that invitation.

 

[Concerned American]

There's no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to hire Hilary and she would read a Trump speech if she was paid enough.

You see Concerned, it's not about political ideals, nearly as much as making a dollar!

I think we can finally find some common ground on this my friend.

Only you, in your own mind maze could come up with that logic, duck. LMAO, demonstrates how unqualified you are to participate in the conversation duck. STFU and stick to fucking up your own country--God knows you're doing a fine job of that.

 

[Foxfyre]

What was the harm if there is no plaintiff?

Reading disability dear? Try reading the post you responded to again.

 

[Foxfyre]

Only you, in your own mind maze could come up with that logic. LMAO, demonstrates how unqualified you are to participate in the conversation duck. STFU and stick to fucking up your own country--God knows you're doing a fine job of that.

For a lot of them, reading comprehension doesn't seem to be their strong suit.

 

[Billiejeens]

I agree with this decision.
I think this is the kind of issue the free maket should be allowed to sort out.
If a private business operates with deplorable policies let the customers/consumers decide....by maybe not doing business there.
Even boycotting the business.

Those can be effective
See Bud light.


However if you looked you would find that a supermajority agree with the decision.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Reading disability dear? Try reading the post you responded to again.

Yeah, I know. I have corrected my statement.

 

[elektra]

Legalized discrimination makes you happy?

It makes Harvard happy,

 

[Foxfyre]

I agree with this decision.
I think this is the kind of issue the free maket should be allowed to sort out.
If a private business operates with deplorable policies let the customers/consumers decide....by maybe not doing business there.
Even boycotting the business.

Exactly. Those who resent the decisions made by a proprietor will choose to buy elsewhere. Everybody who does business competently is conscious of public image and considers that in business decisions and practices. But it is the proprietor's choice and if he/she feels strongly enough to offend a large number of his/her customers, it should be his prerogative to do.

 

[Foxfyre]

Lori Smith was the defendant, not the plaintiff?

If she was the defendent, who was the plaintiff?

OMG you really can't read can you. Sorry. I wasn't allowing for that disability. Lori Smith is the plaintiff which I clearly stated.

 

[Catsnmeters]

OMG you really can't read can you. Sorry. I wasn't allowing for that disability. Lori Smith is the plaintiff which I clearly stated.

Lol, you are correct. I apologize for my confusion. Trying to do to many things at once.

I think I have made my final correction.

 

[Foxfyre]

Lol, you are correct. I apologize for my confusion. Trying to do to many things at once.

I think I have made my final correction.

Okay. I'll accept that. (I admit I sometimes misread something too.)

 

[Concerned American]

OMG you really can't read can you. Sorry. I wasn't allowing for that disability. Lori Smith is the plaintiff which I clearly stated.

I went round and round with that moron for an extended period. She presented no debate, no logic so I gave up and put her on ignore. You can't fix stupid.

 

[hadit]

That puts an unreasonable burden on the baker though. And the gay couple didn't give a damn about a wedding cake that they could have gotten a dozen other places. The intent was to hurt a Christian baker. I don't think a Bible verse would have deterred them from that in the least.

Bottom line, a proprietor should have full ability, with no issues from anybody, to choose what legal products he/she will sell, what creative content he will provide, and should have complete ability to refuse to carry any other products or provide any other creative content.

I loved Task's analogy, i.e. forcing a Christian baker to accommodate a gay wedding is no different than requiring Hillary Clinton to give a pro-Trump speech at a conservative Christian or gay gathering.

I doubt any leftist here would suggest she is discriminating against gays or blacks or denying them their rights if she turned down that invitation.

In all seriousness, if an artist (and a wedding cake decorator is an artist) can be forced to create art he hates for events he doesn't want to be associated with, wait until:

1. Comedians are forced to make and tell jokes praising their usual targets.
2. Portrait painters are forced to paint glowing portraits of politicians they hate, ala TRUMP!.
3. Musicians are forced to allow Republicans to use their music on the campaign trail (when paid the appropriate royalties, of course).
4. Movie and TV producers are forced to cast fathers in a positive light and show strong nuclear families as a good thing.

Heads would spin, screams at the sky would erupt, and liberals would be spinning in circles on the sidewalk, unable to reconcile their stances on the matter.

 

[Foxfyre]

I went round and round with that moron for an extended period. She presented no debate, no logic so I gave up and put her on ignore. You can't fix stupid.

She owned up to the error and corrected it. I give credit where credit is due.

 

[Donald H]

Only you, in your own mind maze could come up with that logic, duck. LMAO, demonstrates how unqualified you are to participate in the conversation duck. STFU and stick to fucking up your own country--God knows you're doing a fine job of that.

Why would you think you couldn't hire hilary to read a Trump speech my friend.

No matter what you don't want to think, it's still true- doh.

 

[Concerned American]

liberals would be spinning in circles on the sidewalk, unable to reconcile their stances on the matter.

Similar to Sotomayor's current quandary.