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

[dblack]

Nonsense. The first amendment says ... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Read it again. There's no mention of exemptions or loopholes for religious people. It's just a restriction on Congress.

In any case, I've read the decision, and despite misleading headlines to the contrary, there was no religious exemption granted in this case. The Court decided the issue as a matter of compelled speech. All these laws should be struck down in totality, but at least they're recognizing some limits on state power.

 

[dblack]

So you believe that the states have a right to take away our Constitutional rights. The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Never said that dipshit. Maybe take an English class. I assume it's not your first language.

 

[BS Filter]

Never said that dipshit. Maybe take an English class. I assume it's not your first language.

Yes, you did say that.

 

[dblack]

Yes, you did say that.

Quote it. Or admit that you're a lying little shitstain.

 

[BS Filter]

Quote it. Or admit that you're a lying little shitstain.

Why, Did you forget what you said? Boo hoo.

 

[dblack]

Why, Did you forget what you said? Boo hoo.

Yup. Shitstain.

 

[JoeB131]

We've always had exemptions for religious reasons. We're just taking our country back and some people don't like it. Tough shit.

Taking it back from whom, the majority?

IF these issues were put to a vote, your side would lose and you know it.

Nope. This is a war.

Seems to me that if you are going to go to war, you should to war over important issues, not "Oh, I have to bake a cake for people I think are icky!"

So in order to right wrongs from the past we must discriminate?

Works on the assumption that giving something to group A takes away from group B.

I once lost a job to someone who was a clear Affirmative Action hire (race or gender or both). Less qualified, less competent, and I had already been doing the job as a contractor for nearly a year.

You know what, at the end of the day, I was able to get something better because I have the massive advantage of being a white male.

 

[BS Filter]

Taking it back from whom, the majority?

IF these issues were put to a vote, your side would lose and you know it.



Seems to me that if you are going to go to war, you should to war over important issues, not "Oh, I have to bake a cake for people I think are icky!"



Works on the assumption that giving something to group A takes away from group B.

I once lost a job to someone who was a clear Affirmative Action hire (race or gender or both). Less qualified, less competent, and I had already been doing the job as a contractor for nearly a year.

You know what, at the end of the day, I was able to get something better because I have the massive advantage of being a white male.

Same-sex marriage was put to a vote in many states and the majority of states voted it down, even California. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[BS Filter]

Taking it back from whom, the majority?

IF these issues were put to a vote, your side would lose and you know it.



Seems to me that if you are going to go to war, you should to war over important issues, not "Oh, I have to bake a cake for people I think are icky!"



Works on the assumption that giving something to group A takes away from group B.

I once lost a job to someone who was a clear Affirmative Action hire (race or gender or both). Less qualified, less competent, and I had already been doing the job as a contractor for nearly a year.

You know what, at the end of the day, I was able to get something better because I have the massive advantage of being a white male.

That's nice, but not a legal point.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Wrong motherfucker I made no accusation YOU DID

You have the burden of proof and since you run away like a coward it IS proof that you ARDE a cowardly dishonest person

That is fact and how this works

The proof I have is YOU run away

Stop being foul. You made an assertion. I rebutted it. You demanded evidence when it was your burden. You are a loser.

 

[dblack]

Seems to me that if you are going to go to war, you should to war over important issues, not "Oh, I have to bake a cake for people I think are icky!"

Couldn't agree more. But to the culture warriors, these are the issues that matter.

Bake the cake! And don't mind all those Chinese soldiers ... we have important work to do!

 

[Soupnazi630]

Stop being foul. You made an assertion. I rebutted it. You demanded evidence when it was your burden. You are a loser.

I stated fact you did not rebut it.

Wrong boy it was YOUR burden not mine

You made the accusation and it was a lie the fact that you keep dodging any effort to back it up IS EVIDENCE

 

[Magnus]

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?

Yes, if this is limited to non-essential services like making cakes or graphic designs.

How about healthcare? Is it ok for physicians to refuse to treat gay patients?

 

[Soupnazi630]

Yes, if this is limited to non-essential services like making cakes or graphic designs.

How about healthcare? Is it ok for physicians to refuse to treat gay patients?

Not ok but they should have the same rights as anyone

But do you really see that happening?

Does a patient not have the right to reject a doctor who is gay?

 

[dblack]

Yes, if this is limited to non-essential services like making cakes or graphic designs.

How about healthcare? Is it ok for physicians to refuse to treat gay patients?

Unless it's an emergency, and the doctor is under contract to provide emergency services for the community, why not? I'd avoid such a doctor, and encourage others to do likewise, but it should be their right to refuse service. That just seems so fundamental to me that I can't believe it's open to discussion. Everyone has the right to say no.

 

[mak2]

Not ok but they should have the same rights as anyone

But do you really see that happening?

Does a patient not have the right to reject a doctor who is gay?

Patients can refuse treatment from anyone they want.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Patients can refuse treatment from anyone they want.

That was exactly my point

 

[Billo_Really]

Wow. OK. Don't take offense as I slowly back out the room.

Have a blessed day.

I wasn't talking the literal 'you', just the figurative one. I am sorry! Please come back to the room. I am lonely!

 

[Rawley]

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.

?? The decision is secular - it's based on the first amendment freedom of speech clause, not based on freedom of religion.

 

[Rawley]

I wasn't talking the literal 'you', just the figurative one. I am sorry! Please come back to the room. I am lonely!

LOL Apology accepted, I could care less about your rant. It's your profound misunderstanding in the law that is frightening.

"Affirmative Action made it illegal to deny someone based on race. SCOTUS took that away."

180 degrees the opposite - places like Harvard thought the express, open racial discrimination they practiced was protected because they called it Affirmative Action or DEI or whatever.

Bottom line - they were discriminating on the basis of race, and that is illegal under the 14th amendment equal protection clause.