Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yeah... and?
The white or Asian kids who lost their spots to unequal treatment solely based on their race don't count?The idea that opportunity must be equal to all has been rolled back by the intolerant TRUMPCourt
Not really what I would call real Justices. All three of those dizzy bitches were affirmative action hires by stupid confused Democrats.The bad news is that we have three black robes who would throw the First Amendment over for other goals.
What makes you think those AA spots will go to middle class whites or Asians rather than the children of alumni or donors?The white or Asian kids who lost their spots to unequal treatment solely based on their race don't count?
Gorsuch ends with this: “the First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.” He said Colorado sought to “deny that promise.”
Yeah... and?
This has what to do with upholding the constitution against a President trying to give himself powers he doesn't have?
Or the Supreme Court voting to uphold the 1st Amendment?
Pretty sure that black person wasn't trying to force someone to make a website that went against his religion explicitly.
Is serving blacks or interracial couples expressive goods within the meaning of this ruling? Should a Jewish architect be required to design a building in the shape of a swastika?Okay, so what if a person says for religious reasons, they won't serve blacks, or they think that the mixing of the races is against God's Law?
For that matter, what if I as a Catholic (well, I used to be) decide that I won't serve Mormons because they are a deranged cult?
You see the problem of allowing people to ignore a law because their sky fairy told them they could?
Well, you probably won't.
No one under any circumstances should be compelled to support diversity or same sex parents. No one under any circumstances should be compelled to express that support.Except when it comes to talking about race or racism, or talking about families with same sex parents, or promoting diversity.
No it doesn't.The TRUMPCourt has a twisted view of the First Amendment
One where your religious views take precedence over others rights to be treated equally.
Individuals should have religious freedom…….NOT Business open to the public
Wrong question…Is serving blacks or interracial couples expressive goods within the meaning of this ruling? Should a Jewish architect be required to design a building in the shape of a swastika?
That is exactly what this ruling says. An individual providing expressive goods has religious freedom. Not even all individuals.The TRUMPCourt has a twisted view of the First Amendment
One where your religious views take precedence over others rights to be treated equally.
Individuals should have religious freedom…….NOT Business open to the public
That may be the issue to you. Read the ruling.Wrong question…
The issue is if you provide a good or service can you deny it based on race or sexuality while you provide to others.
If that Jewish Architect routinely builds swastika shaped buildings but denies it to others based on race or religion….he is in violation.
Same Sex Marriage is legal in this country (for now)No it doesn't.
It upholds the original amendment that is very clear. That prevents the government to make a law that interferes or prevents a person from exercising their religious beliefs.
In the example made by others... well then this allows a business to not sell to a black person.
No it doesn't. Not at all.
If that black person came in demanding the business owner to put a BLM poster up while he ate or he is leaving - then yes that business can refuse service.
This all stems from activist trying to FORCE someone to perform a service they KNOW they disagree with. That is bullshit. They have 1000s of other places to go to, but OBVIOUSLY chose this person so they could cause problems.
Gorsuch is spot on......
But isn't that exactly what our government is doing ? And doing so (more than just CO) by proxy of corporate toadies ?
~S~
Are you saying its just fine to discriminate against the white or Asian student?What makes you think those AA spots will go to middle class whites or Asians rather than the children of alumni or donors?
It is just fine to offer admittance to those who are underrepresentedAre you saying its just fine to discriminate against the white or Asian student?
It's not time off, it's his day off, which everyone gets. That employee wanted it on Sunday as it has always been since his employment began. The USPS changed their terms many years into his employment and demanded he work on Sunday.They have essentially said that the Govt cannot force a baker to make a cake they do not which to make, but they can force that same baker to give his employee time off due to some religious views.
You didn't answer the question. Is it just fine to discriminate against white and Asian students?It is just fine to offer admittance to those who are underrepresented
It's not time off, it's his day off, which everyone gets. That employee wanted it on Sunday as it has always been since his employment began. The USPS changed their terms many years into his employment and demanded he work on Sunday.
And the employer only has to accomadate the employee if it does not cause substantial harm to the employer. The USPS was certainly not caused substantial harm by allowing an employee to refuse work on Sunday that he never agreed to from the beginning of his employment. I think the employee quit rather than work on Sunday and proceeded with the lawsuit.
In my view it is not the job of the Govt to force anyone to accommodate someone else's religion.
