Jussie Smollett’s conviction tossed by Illinois Supreme Court on technicality

[BackAgain]

Um, okay. So what?

Just noting that you were wrong yet again.

If it is meaningless, you could finally try to at least be honest in a post. We will all wait.

 

[JoeB131]

And all laws have to follow the Constitution.

Please show me where people lose their rights automatically when they run a business.

These are almost always privately owned businesses, not a publicly traded corporation. They are extensions of the people that own them.

No one is infringing on their rights.

Your argument would make sense if a business could have a religion. Or if they were forcing the Kleins to accept homosexuality in their personal lives. (Then again, that might be good for Mr. Klein, as rabid homophobes are often latent homosexuals)

If someone argued that their religion prevented them from serving blacks, or maybe even an interracial couple, no one would be championing their "religious rights".

 

[JoeB131]

Just noting that you were wrong yet again.

If it is meaningless, you could finally try to at least be honest in a post. We will all wait.

Um, no. It's totally meaningless that he was guilty of the prank.

The point here, the Prank wasn't worth a prosecution.

 

[BlackSand]

.​

If someone argued that their religion prevented them from serving blacks, or maybe even an interracial couple, no one would be championing their "religious rights".

.

.​

 

[BackAgain]

Um, no. It's totally meaningless that he was guilty of the prank.

The point here, the Prank wasn't worth a prosecution.

Not what ou asked or suggested earlier.

And no. It was wel worth a prosecution.

Shitbags like you just didn’t like the fact that it was directed against one of your fellow scammers.

 

[martybegan]

No one is infringing on their rights.

Your argument would make sense if a business could have a religion. Or if they were forcing the Kleins to accept homosexuality in their personal lives. (Then again, that might be good for Mr. Klein, as rabid homophobes are often latent homosexuals)

If someone argued that their religion prevented them from serving blacks, or maybe even an interracial couple, no one would be championing their "religious rights".

People are involved, you try to pretend like businesses owned by people are some sort of field that removes said people's rights.

And yet that isn't happening, because race and sexuality are two different things despite the left's attempt to equate them.

 

[American Eagle]

Actually, the total spent by the Special Prosecutor's office was five million.

baloney

 

[American Eagle]

He had two weeks of people taking his prank seriously,

Not a prank. You said so yourself.

 

[22lcidw]

Um, no. It's totally meaningless that he was guilty of the prank.

The point here, the Prank wasn't worth a prosecution.

The "prank" cost the taxpayers millions of dollars.

 

[American Eagle]

...as rabid homophobes...

There is no such thing as a "homophobe." No one is scared of fudge packers.

 

[American Eagle]

No one was hammering religious people. The fine was against the business, not the Kleins as people.

Your business cannot have a religion. In fact, most companies have "No proselyting" rules for that one employee who wants to tell everyone about Jesus. .

People run businesses. The homos lost. Stop begging for someone to take your business. Stop using government. Stop being pitiful.

 

[justoffal]

Our courts are so corrupt:

Jussie Smollett conviction overturned by Illinois Supreme Court

Jussie Smollett's hate crime hoax conviction was overturned by the Illinois Supreme Court on Thursday. The actor had been convicted of five felony counts in December 2021.

www.foxnews.com

They claim his rights were violated because the original DA dropped charges, and a special prosecutor later then charged him.

Well they shouldn't have any trouble rationalizing it when New York finally gets rid of its phony charges against Trump then should they?

 

[JoeB131]

Not what ou asked or suggested earlier.

And no. It was wel worth a prosecution.

Shitbags like you just didn’t like the fact that it was directed against one of your fellow scammers.

No, it really wasn't. Five million dollars for a case that had already been resolved because some white people were butthurt.

A case that the people running it SHOULD have known would have exactly this legal problem. Particularly Dan Webb, who prosecuted Admiral Poindexter and had his conviction thrown out because Poindexter already had immunity.

The "prank" cost the taxpayers millions of dollars.

Not really. The CPD claimed their investigation cost $130,000. I kind of even doubt this number or anything the lying, racist, corrupt CPD has to say, but even taking them at this number, it wasn't worth spending another 5 million dollars litigating this case that was already problematic in that Jeopardy had attached.

"I'll take Butthurt MAGAts for $600 Alex!"

People are involved, you try to pretend like businesses owned by people are some sort of field that removes said people's rights.

And yet that isn't happening, because race and sexuality are two different things despite the left's attempt to equate them.

We've been over this, buddy. If this should apply to business owners, it should also apply to employees.

It isn't happening because everyone knows how utterly ridiculous it is to use religion to justify racism. This wasn't always the case. For instance, before Loving v. Virginia, racists cited the bible to support the ban on interracial marriages.

 

[JoeB131]

Well they shouldn't have any trouble rationalizing it when New York finally gets rid of its phony charges against Trump then should they?

They won't. Those will be waiting for him when his Fellow Republicans throw him out under Amendment 25. The good news is he can claim mental incapacity and try to get them thrown out that way.

 

[JoeB131]

There is no such thing as a "homophobe." No one is scared of fudge packers.

Ever notice that homophobes can describe gay sex in lurid detail?


It's like a supposed vegetarian who just can't stop describing steak... dripping with juices, sauted with mushrooms and onions.

 

[BlackSand]

We've been over this, buddy. If this should apply to business owners, it should also apply to employees.

View attachment 1045583

It isn't happening because everyone knows how utterly ridiculous it is to use religion to justify racism. This wasn't always the case. For instance, before Loving v. Virginia, racists cited the bible to support the ban on interracial marriages.

.

.​

 

[martybegan]

No, it really wasn't. Five million dollars for a case that had already been resolved because some white people were butthurt.

A case that the people running it SHOULD have known would have exactly this legal problem. Particularly Dan Webb, who prosecuted Admiral Poindexter and had his conviction thrown out because Poindexter already had immunity.



Not really. The CPD claimed their investigation cost $130,000. I kind of even doubt this number or anything the lying, racist, corrupt CPD has to say, but even taking them at this number, it wasn't worth spending another 5 million dollars litigating this case that was already problematic in that Jeopardy had attached.

View attachment 1045582

"I'll take Butthurt MAGAts for $600 Alex!"




We've been over this, buddy. If this should apply to business owners, it should also apply to employees.

View attachment 1045583

It isn't happening because everyone knows how utterly ridiculous it is to use religion to justify racism. This wasn't always the case. For instance, before Loving v. Virginia, racists cited the bible to support the ban on interracial marriages.

No, because there is a difference between owning a business, and working at one.

And you are talking point of sale transactions, which these people don't deny.

 

[JoeB131]

.

.​

Are you fucking stupid?

That wasn't the issue here at all.

An owner was ALREADY supplying the service. They just wouldn't supply it to gay people.

 

[JoeB131]

No, because there is a difference between owning a business, and working at one.

And you are talking point of sale transactions, which these people don't deny.

But that isn't the argument you made. The argument you made was that the First Amendment trumps any public accommodation law, because your imaginary sky friend says something is bad.

So why can't that devoutly Catholic clerk refuse to sell someone a rubber?

 

[BlackSand]

Are you fucking stupid?

That wasn't the issue here at all.

An owner was ALREADY supplying the service. They just wouldn't supply it to gay people.

.

The owner never agreed to make a gay wedding cake ...

However ... The owner could have offered 'custom cakes' ... Making each cake a contract job.
That would allow them to charge whatever they wanted for each cake.

If the couple was stupid enough to pay $50k for the cake ...
The owner could donate the proceeds to a Religious Conversion Camp ...
Then claim the donation as a tax deduction for forcing the owner to make the cake.

.​