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

[Billo_Really]

You don't believe that. Stop pretending.

This ruling legalized racism

 

[Soupnazi630]

I said Jim Crow times, asshole! This ruling legalized racism.

Wrong stupid drooling idiot

It did not legalize racism because racism WAS ALREADY legal.

What defined jim crow era was the jim crow laws you simpleton

 

[Soupnazi630]

This ruling legalized racism

Wrong you fucking MORON it was already legal

 

[BS Filter]

A private business does not have to allow political speech on their private property.

That's not the case here. The business owner didn't want to do something that violated her beliefs.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Yes they do and should.
When you are open for business to the public, then you can not legally deny service to anyone based on religion, race, age, political affiliation, etc.
If you could, that would result in well deserved riots, deaths, civil wars, etc.

Wrong you fucking FOOL.

No one who opens a business accomadates the public and no denial of service for any reason would reult in unjust riots.

 

[Rigby5]

Protecting the rights of racists does not make one a racist dumbass

Jim crow was not an era of personal discrimination which is a human right. It was an era of laws MANDATING discrimination which is also a violation of human rights.

Clearly your school was a fucking failure

There is no requirement to be racist, and it is only a desire.
So it is not a protected right.
If you want to isolate from other races, then you can't be open to the public and apply for a business license to do so.
It does not matter to the one discriminated against if it is personal or mandated.
It still can cause them a great deal of harm, so is illegal.

 

[tahuyaman]

Liberals always use cartoons to prove a point

 

[tahuyaman]

This ruling legalized racism

Wrong.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong.

That baker lied about nothing and had no ability to cause harm

The baker claimed to be open to the whole public when they applied for a business license, so then they lied on the application if they always intended to refuse gay customers.
And they did cause harm, because the customers had to move on and keep looking further away, for a baker.
What if all bakers were homophobic?
Obviously very harmful, and clearly illegal.
There was no right or need for the baker to deny their business at all.

 

[Soupnazi630]

There is no requirement to be racist, and it is only a desire.
So it is not a protected right.
If you want to isolate from other races, then you can't be open to the public and apply for a business license to do so.
It does not matter to the one discriminated against if it is personal or mandated.
It still can cause them a great deal of harm, so is illegal.

Wrong moron there is no requirement to follow a religion but it is still a protected right as is racism.

Yes you can isolate from other races and open a business.

NO business is open to the public and a business owner has a much right to refuse service as a customer has the right to refuse patronage
Discrimination harms NO ONE whatsoever

I may discriminate against anyone for any reason and it causes no harm

For example NO marxist vermin is permited in my business

 

[scruffy]

Where does it end? Should someone be able to get the Govt to force Hooters to make their waitstaff wear less more clothing if they closely held religious views were in favor of opposed to such displays of skin?

Fixed it for you.

 

[Soupnazi630]

The baker claimed to be open to the whole public when they applied for a business license, so then they lied on the application if they always intended to refuse gay customers.
And they did cause harm, because the customers had to move on and keep looking further away, for a baker.
What if all bakers were homophobic?
Obviously very harmful, and clearly illegal.
There was no right or need for the baker to deny their business at all.No they did not

No trhey did not they ckaimed to be availabel to customers which are select individuals.

They caused no harm whatsoever, looking for the best business to purchase from is called shopping and is harmless.
No harm was commited of any kind and the law violated was a twisted marxist abomination

They had every right to dseny service and any law vi0olating that right is a fascist kaw which needs to be repealed or ignored

 

[Harpy Eagle]

That's not the case here. The business owner didn't want to do something that violated her beliefs.

And they should not be forced to.

Just as that same business owner should not be forced to give an employee time off as an accommodation for the employees religious activities

 

[Rigby5]

That's not the case here. The business owner didn't want to do something that violated her beliefs.

That's not the case here. The business owner didn't want to do something that violated her beliefs.

Wrong.
Nothing the customer wanted would have caused anyone else to violate their beliefs.
Baking cakes and designing web sites does NOT require participating in gay sex.
So the customers were NOT violating any religious beliefs at all, in any way.

 

[scruffy]

For example NO marxist vermin is permited in my business

Um... you sure about that?

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong you fucking FOOL.

No one who opens a business accomadates the public and no denial of service for any reason would reult in unjust riots.

Everyone who files for a business permit pledges to accommodate all customers.
You obviously have never opened a business then.

And yes, illegal denial of service justified a violent response.

 

[rightwinger]

Speculate. What do you think?

Do you mean that just because Republicans mock and ridicule them……
that makes them Democrats?

That must mean all White Supremacists are Republicans

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
Nothing the customer wanted would have caused anyone else to violate their beliefs.
Baking cakes and designing web sites does NOT require participating in gay sex.
So the customers were NOT violating any religious beliefs at all, in any way.

Yes it could. Indeed.

You do not define the religious beliefs of others.

 

[Smokin' OP]

In general I am anti-Trump since I am very left wing, progressive, liberal.
However, Trump was legal and correct on the impeachments, Ukraine war, covid, classified docs, etc.
The dems in DC have shown themselves to be even worse than Trump.
You do NOT illegally abuse impeachment, indictments, etc. for political gain.
Jack Smith is a traitor.

YOU...... are in "general" ......................a LIAR.