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

[BlackSand]

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

.

They can ... But they might get fired.
However ... The owner doesn't have to stock or sell condoms ...

.​

 

[JoeB131]

.

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.

.​

Actually, that's not really true, at least in the case of Sweet Cakes by Melissa. Melissa Klien specifically invited the lesbian couple to use her shop when they wanted to buy a cake for their commitment ceremony. Then when they went in for a tasting, her lunatic of a husband started screaming Bible Verses at them.

Overcharging someone for a service is also a violation of Public Accommodation laws.

 

[JoeB131]

.

They can ... But they might get fired.
However ... The owner doesn't have to stock or sell condoms ...

.​

You are missing the point entirely.... and it's not your fault, you are working off of Marty's poorly reasoned arguments.

If you really believe that the first Amendment is a protection from having to obey any rules or laws, by logic, a store clerk should be able to refuse to sell a condom or a ham or a birthday card or whatever their religion deems offensive or sinful. For instance, there was a recent ruling that Muslim Truck drivers were wrongly fired for refusing to drive the beer truck.

Jury Awards $240,000 to Muslim Truck Drivers In EEOC Religious Discrimination Suit

A federal jury in Peoria, Ill., has awarded $240,000 to two Somalian-American Muslims who were fired from their jobs as truck drivers at Star Transport, an over-the-road trucking company, when they refused to transport alcohol because it violated their religious beliefs, according to the U.S...

www.eeoc.gov

 

[DStar777]

He had entered into a nonprosecution agreement.

Statement of Special Prosecutor Dan K. Webb Regarding Illinois Supreme Court’s Reversal of Convictions and Sentence of Jussie Smollett

Chicago – November 21, 2024 – Special Prosecutor Dan K. Webb issued the statement below following the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision today overturning the convictions and sentence of Jussie…

www.winston.com

“Make no mistake—today’s ruling has nothing to do with Mr. Smollett’s innocence. The Illinois Supreme Court did not find any error with the overwhelming evidence presented at trial that Mr. Smollett orchestrated a fake hate crime and reported it to the Chicago Police Department as a real hate crime, or the jury’s unanimous verdict that Mr. Smollett was guilty of five counts of felony disorderly conduct. In fact, Mr. Smollett did not even challenge the sufficiency of the evidence against him in his appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.”

In the end, he was convicted. His reputation as a faker doesn't change.

 

[BlackSand]

Actually, that's not really true, at least in the case of Sweet Cakes by Melissa. Melissa Klien specifically invited the lesbian couple to use her shop when they wanted to buy a cake for their commitment ceremony. Then when they went in for a tasting, her lunatic of a husband started screaming Bible Verses at them.

Overcharging someone for a service is also a violation of Public Accommodation laws.

.

I didn't say it was true in the case of Sweet Cakes ...
I said the owner didn't have to deny them service if he had taken care of it in a different way ... Which he didn't.

I only know these things ... Because I have dealt with "prohibitive pricing" ...
And it is used specifically to tailor the clientele you want to deal with ... And slam the door on those you don't.

Wouldn't work at McDonalds ... Oh well ...


.​

 

[BlackSand]

You are missing the point entirely.... and it's not your fault, you are working off of Marty's poorly reasoned arguments.

.

I'm not missing the point ... It's reality and not an argument ... And it doesn't matter if you agree.

I understand what you are saying ...
And don't care your Authoritarian Fascist ass wants to tell people what they can or cannot do.

However ... I am all for people standing their ground and saying what they will or won't do ...
They call that Liberty and Freedom ...


.​

 

[JoeB131]

I didn't say it was true in the case of Sweet Cakes ...
I said the owner didn't have to deny them service if he had taken care of it in a different way ... Which he didn't.

I only know these things ... Because I have dealt with "prohibitive pricing" ...
And it is used specifically to tailor the clientele you want to deal with ... And slam the door on those you don't.

Again, you probalby just haven't had a customer who considers it worth the trouble of reporting you.

Look up the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936.

I'm not missing the point ... It's reality and not an argument ... And it doesn't matter if you agree.

I understand what you are saying ...
And don't care your Authoritarian Fascist ass wants to tell people what they can or cannot do.

However ... I am all for people standing their ground and saying what they will or won't do ...
They call that Liberty and Freedom ...

So by your logic, the customer you just discriminated against should have the 'Freedom" to punch you in your filthy mouth, then?

You know, because "Freedom".

We have laws to have a civil society. Those laws should be fair and protect everyone.

 

[martybegan]

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?

No I said PA laws don't automatically dismiss free exercise.

And your hatred of religion doesn't mean it's not protected. Government mandated atheism is just as prohibited as government mandated religion.

The bakers in question don't deny non custom point of sale services to anyone, they just don't want to do Same sex weddings. One of them doesn't even do Halloween cakes.

What is the actual harm of a couple having to go to another baker?

 

[martybegan]

Again, you probalby just haven't had a customer who considers it worth the trouble of reporting you.

Look up the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936.



So by your logic, the customer you just discriminated against should have the 'Freedom" to punch you in your filthy mouth, then?

You know, because "Freedom".

We have laws to have a civil society. Those laws should be fair and protect everyone.

Assaulting someone is an actual crime. Again all you have is argumentum ad absurdum.

Sorry, but deciding to ruin a baker over one service isn't a civil society. You want a compliant society, compliant to your bigoted anti-religious viewpoints.

 

[martybegan]

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.

They don't believe same sex marriage exists.

 

[Zincwarrior]

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.

There is law for us, and there is law for the wealthy.

 

[BlackSand]

Again, you probalby just haven't had a customer who considers it worth the trouble of reporting you.
Look up the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936.

So by your logic, the customer you just discriminated against should have the 'Freedom" to punch you in your filthy mouth, then?
You know, because "Freedom".
We have laws to have a civil society. Those laws should be fair and protect everyone.

.

You're still trying to present an argument that really isn't an argument.

An owner can most certainly discriminate against possible clients.
The owner may not know how to when they start ...
Or they are going to get in trouble if they view the Law as caring for or protecting them.

Frederic Bastiat ... Law begets Law and will eventually erode everyone's Rights, Personal Liberties, and Property.
(paraphrased)

The customer I may discriminate against most likely won't cross the threshold of my establishment ... I know how to keep them out.
You're just trying to pretend there is a Law you could write that could stop that ...
When in reality any Law written would just be a minor obstacle for me to conquer.

That's because your ideology is based in how you can restrict the Rights of Individuals ... In order to create your Perfect Society ...
And what makes you an Authoritarian Fascist.

As a business owner ... It's better if you care about your business and your clients ... Leave Society to the Fascists ...
You will provide better products and services as a necessity ... If that's actually what you are interested in.

.​

.

 

[JoeB131]

No I said PA laws don't automatically dismiss free exercise.

And your hatred of religion doesn't mean it's not protected. Government mandated atheism is just as prohibited as government mandated religion.

Except no one was mandating atheism. They were stating you can't use religion as an excuse to discriminate.

Quick question, you always want to avoid. Would it be okay to refuse someone a cake because you think the butt-sex is icky? No religious bullshit, just being straight up honest about your homophobia.

Then it should be equally okay to be a racist, because you think blacks/Asians are icky.

Should I be able to refuse service to Mormons because I think they are a deranged cult started by a child molester?

Of course not.

The bakers in question don't deny non custom point of sale services to anyone, they just don't want to do Same sex weddings. One of them doesn't even do Halloween cakes.

But they do wedding cakes. So the argument fails.

What is the actual harm of a couple having to go to another baker?

What is the harm of baking the damned cake?

Sorry, but deciding to ruin a baker over one service isn't a civil society. You want a compliant society, compliant to your bigoted anti-religious viewpoints.

Except no one was ruining the baker. The Baker ruined himself by being a homophobic twat-noodle. Oh, yeah, and Doxxing the people who reported him.

They don't believe same sex marriage exists.

The law says it does

 

[martybegan]

Except no one was mandating atheism. They were stating you can't use religion as an excuse to discriminate.

Quick question, you always want to avoid. Would it be okay to refuse someone a cake because you think the butt-sex is icky? No religious bullshit, just being straight up honest about your homophobia.

Then it should be equally okay to be a racist, because you think blacks/Asians are icky.

Should I be able to refuse service to Mormons because I think they are a deranged cult started by a child molester?

Of course not.



But they do wedding cakes. So the argument fails.



What is the harm of baking the damned cake?



Except no one was ruining the baker. The Baker ruined himself by being a homophobic twat-noodle. Oh, yeah, and Doxxing the people who reported him.


The law says it does

Why is it wrong to think it's icky?

 

[BackAgain]

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.

 

[JoeB131]

Why is it wrong to think it's icky?

Nothing at all wrong with that.

I think eating broccoli is icky. I don't try to ban broccoli for everyone. I realize my dislike for broccoli is my own issue.

I don't pretend a magic sky pixie demands that I try to eradicate broccoli and scream Bible verses at someone who just came in to shop.

Now, answer the question, do you think that someone who simply hates gays or Mormons or Blacks should have a right to refuse them service?

 

[Freedomisneverfree]

 

[Missourian]

What kind of stonehearted, cruel person cares about that? For shame.

 

[Moonglow]

Jesse is what you would call above the law

View attachment 1044736

 

[BlackSand]

Now, answer the question, do you think that someone who simply hates gays or Mormons or Blacks should have a right to refuse them service?

.

I am just glad I can still refuse service ... And don't even have to hate the person I am refusing.

"It's really not about whether or not you did it ... It all depends on how well you articulate your reason for doing it."
It doesn't matter if you are refusing service ... Or shooting someone on your front porch ...
That rule stands ...

.​