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

[tahuyaman]

You cannot prove that at all.

These rulings reveal that we have a White Privilege court. Women and people of color suffer far more than whites as a whole.

The response by liberals to this ruling proves that people like you are as dumb as a bag of hammers.


Eliminating race as a criteria for admissions is eliminating a racist concept.


If you want to bitch about something, bitch about legacy admissions policies where lower achievers are given preferential treatment over others.

 

[tahuyaman]

It is a most accurate position in that the ruling favors whites specifically and disfavors women and peoples of color.

You know that, I know that, we all know that.

The decision won't stand for long.

It favors no one based on race. The decision will stand. Period.


Do you believe “people of color” are inferior?

 

[SaxonJackson]

Sotomayor wrote the dissent that boils down to the ruling allows people to discriminate against LGBTQX+ etc.

But no, it does not. Gays or anybody else can still walk into any place of business and expect to buy anything the proprietor has for sale.

What it does is protect the proprietor from having to offer products for sale or provide services that are against his/her religious/moral beliefs and he/she does not wish to provide. And hopefully it means that nobody is required to provide products and services that are deeply offensive to them or immoral or improper to them.

Proves how incompetent and stupid Sotomayor is.

I sell welding supplies. According to Sotomayor, I should be forced to sell dildos to whomever demands them and if I don't I'm discriminating. That's the most idiotic argument I've ever heard. I would expect a Kindergartner to come up with that.

 

[tahuyaman]

It’s been clearly established that liberals really believe black people are an interior race and do not have the ability to succeed based on individual merit. And they think that’s not a racist position.

 

[Unkotare]

It is a most accurate position in that the ruling favors whites specifically and disfavors women and peoples of color.

You know that, I know that, we all know that.

The decision won't stand for long.

Bullshit.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

No BS, Unkotare. There are workarounds and will be used.

 

[Soupnazi630]

No, they could not!

Sure they could there is no rule against asking such questions

 

[Soupnazi630]

It is a most accurate position in that the ruling favors whites specifically and disfavors women and peoples of color.

You know that, I know that, we all know that.

The decision won't stand for long.

Wrong

no one knows it

The claim is a bullshit ideological claim and is rooted in racism.


YOU KNOW THIS

Your claim is a bald faced lie

 

[Soupnazi630]

You said it was OK to be racist. I bet you are anti-feminist and a sexist as well.

Being anti feminist does not make one a sexist.

I never said it was ok to be racist.

You are a liar

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Yep, Soup Nazi, implied it is ok to be sexist, racist, etc.

That's fine, he can have any opinion he wants.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Yep, Soup Nazi, implied it is ok to be sexist, racist, etc.

That's fine, he can have any opinion he wants.

You are a liar

If you are going to make accusations back it up with a quote you coward

 

[Foxfyre]

Proves how incompetent and stupid Sotomayor is.

I sell welding supplies. According to Sotomayor, I should be forced to sell dildos to whomever demands them and if I don't I'm discriminating. That's the most idiotic argument I've ever heard. I would expect a Kindergartner to come up with that.

I'm not sure it's quite that bad LOL, but for sure the court intended for a Christian to be able to turn down a job that he/she felt would be morally wrong, unethical etc. for him/her to do.

I wish they had gone further and said all customers should be entitled to buy whatever a proprietor has for sale but the proprietor has a constitutional right to accept or reject whatever jobs he/she is required to contribute to (via his/her expertise) or participate in that he/she chooses not to accept.

Stores tell me all the time that they don't carry this or that product, and many a contractor or service company has told me they don't have time to accept a job I I need done or can't do it for the price I can pay or they just aren't interested in the job. It never occurred to me that I was being discriminated against because they wouldn't accommodate whatever it was I was looking for.

And just like nobody should have to apply a label to not to eat the wrapper the food is sold in, nobody should have to advertise what products they will carry, what they don't carry, or specify what jobs they will do and what jobs they will not do. There are far too many products and circumstances to list them all.

 

[SaxonJackson]

I'm not sure it's quite that bad LOL, but for sure the court intended for a Christian to be able to turn down a job that he/she felt would be morally wrong, unethical etc. for him/her to do.

I wish they had gone further and said all customers should be entitled to buy whatever a proprietor has for sale but the proprietor has a constitutional right to accept or reject whatever jobs he/she is required to contribute to (via his/her expertise) or participate in that he/she chooses not to accept.

Stores tell me all the time that they don't carry this or that product, and many a contractor or service company has told me they don't have time to accept a job I I need done or can't do it for the price I can pay or they just aren't interested in the job. It never occurred to me that I was being discriminated against because they wouldn't accommodate whatever it was I was looking for.

And just like nobody should have to apply a label to not to eat the wrapper the food is sold in, nobody should have to advertise what products they will carry, what they don't carry, or specify what jobs they will do and what jobs they will not do. There are far too many products and circumstances to list them all.

I've been to many places of business that post: “no shirt, no shoes, no business or no entry.”

Personally, I don't like a government telling me who I can or can't do business with at all. I still believe in freedom of choice.

 

[Foxfyre]

I've been to many places of business that post: “no shirt, no shoes, no business or no entry.”

Personally, I don't like a government telling me who I can or can't do business with at all. I still believe in freedom of choice.

Of course. I only wish the High Court had made it secular as well as religious. Nobody should have to violate their conscience or sense of right and wrong by providing a product or service they believe to be wrong or immoral or unethical whether they are religious or not.

 

[sartre play]

Whole deal was dumb to start with, AS long as the message is Clear from the start what you wont do, or who you wont work for.
My self think it would be nice too know the kind of person am dealing with. people with locked brains are not much fun to work with
Still think there will be problems.

 

[scruffy]

And what happens when a black restaurant owner says his religion opposes white "supremacy", and he bars any white from his restaurant.

Slippery slope.

Got any more delusional fantasies?

 

[scruffy]

None of these decisions affect white people as it does people of color and women.

You dumb fucking leftard, are you even listening to yourself?

This is a White Privilege Supreme Court.

Reversing decades of institutionalized racism.

Apparently you only care when you're on the butt end of it.

Dumbshit.

 

[scruffy]

Leftards are liars and hypocrites.

They don't WANT a color blind society, that's the last thing in the world they want.

Their schtick depends on victims. Without victims they're dead in the water, they'll never win an election EVER without victims.

 

[scruffy]

No BS, Unkotare. There are workarounds and will be used.

You dumb fucktards simply refuse to play by the rules.

You're dangerous. You need to be controlled.

 

[Moonglow]

Discrimination between right and wrong has always been assumed as a Consitutional right.

If you are a graphic designer, you should not have a design a website for the KKK or for the Trump re-election campaign or the flat Earth society or a pro-life, anti-abortion group or a tiddlywinks club if such is offensive or seems harmful or morally wrong to you.

That does not discriminate against anybody. It discriminates against things you consider wrong, harmful, offensive whether anybody else agrees with you that something is wrong, harmful, offensive.

Any proprietor should have the right to accept the jobs they want to do and decline others.

It doesn't mean that you don't sell the muffin you have for sale to a Klansman or the guy in MAGA hat or the Hari Krishna in full religious regalia or anybody else who walks into your place of business to buy a muffin you have for sale.

Unless I sell klan brand muffins only.