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

[Soupnazi630]

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.

No they do not.

They may pick and reject customers at will

No it does not justify a violent response.


There is NO illegal denial of service there is mandated service which is slavery

 

[Rigby5]

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They had every right to dseny service and any law vi0olating that right is a fascist kaw which needs to be repealed or ignored

Wrong.
When you are open to the public, you sign a contract to not discriminate against anyone based on religion, sex, sexual preference, race, age, etc.
What if it is a small town and there is no other baker or web designer?

Denial of service can not be arbitrary according to law.
It has to be well documented ahead of time on a sign, and not be illegally discriminatory.

 

[Smokin' OP]

Liberals always use cartoons to prove a point

Sure beats the lies, teabaggers use.
Cartoons proved it PERFECTLY.
PROJECTION.

 

[Unkotare]

Speculate. What do you think?

.

 

[Unkotare]

This ruling legalized racism

Wrong.

 

[Rigby5]

For example NO marxist vermin is permited in my business

Wrong.
You do not get any option over building inspectors, assessors, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

Yes it could. Indeed.

You do not define the religious beliefs of others.

You claim "yes it could", but then give me an example.
Because clearly the baker or web site designer had no excuse to not provide their service, just because the customer were gay.
If the product they wanted them to work on was sexually provocative, that might be a point of consideration, but I have not heard that was the case.

 

[scruffy]

Wrong.
You do not get any option over building inspectors, assessors, etc.

lol

You claim city officials are Marxist vermin?

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
When you are open to the public, you sign a contract to not discriminate against anyone based on religion, sex, sexual preference, race, age, etc.
What if it is a small town and there is no other baker or web designer?

Denial of service can not be arbitrary according to law.
It has to be well documented ahead of time on a sign, and not be illegally discriminatory.

Wrong there is no such contract whatsoever.

What ifs are ireelevant. It causes no harm. If there si no baker at all in a small town you are int he same fix and no one has harmed you

It may be for any reason whatsoever and no documetation is required

 

[Soupnazi630]

Yes

Wrong.
You do not get any option over building inspectors, assessors, etc.

They are not customers

 

[Soupnazi630]

You claim "yes it could", but then give me an example.
Because clearly the baker or web site designer had no excuse to not provide their service, just because the customer were gay.
If the product they wanted them to work on was sexually provocative, that might be a point of consideration, but I have not heard that was the case.

The bakery WAS exactly such an example

They had every excuse and moral justification

 

[Rigby5]

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

Wrong.
Law is based on the inherent delegated authority from the defense of the right of others.
The impeachments and indictments of Trump were not based on the protection of anyone's rights from harm.
Burisma Holdings is required to be investigated by law, and it is illegal to not investigate Burisma Holdings.
The Jan 6 protests were protected political expression based on beliefs, so were legal even though the beliefs were wrong.
It is absolutely clear that presidents are above and the author of almost all classified doc laws, and are explicitly exempt from them. Which includes ex-presidents as well.
That makes Jack Smith a criminal for trying to illegally bias the upcoming election.

 

[Rigby5]

Yes it could. Indeed.

You do not define the religious beliefs of others.

Yes we DO define the legal religious beliefs of others.
For example, we do not allow human sacrifice, slavery, murdering infidels, murdering apostates, under are sex, etc.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
Law is based on the inherent delegated authority from the defense of the right of others.
The impeachments and indictments of Trump were not based on the protection of anyone's rights from harm.
Burisma Holdings is required to be investigated by law, and it is illegal to not investigate Burisma Holdings.
The Jan 6 protests were protected political expression based on beliefs, so were legal even though the beliefs were wrong.
It is absolutely clear that presidents are above and the author of almost all classified doc laws, and are explicitly exempt from them. Which includes ex-presidents as well.
That makes Jack Smith a criminal for trying to illegally bias the upcoming election.

you are wrong not the person you were responding to.

You are a consistent proven liar

You dream up lies and garbage on every thread to mask your ignorant stupidity and that has been repeatedly proven

 

[Soupnazi630]

Yes we DO define the legal religious beliefs of others.
For example, we do not allow human sacrifice, slavery, murdering infidels, murdering apostates, under are sex, etc.

No we do not

That is not defining legal religious beliefs it is defining illegal practices masked by religion.

 

[Rigby5]

Yes

They are not customers

Good point.
However, the fact you are illegally discriminating against customers, does not mean its legal.

 

[Rigby5]

The bakery WAS exactly such an example

They had every excuse and moral justification

How so?
I have read both the Old and New Testament, and neither requires shunning gays.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Good point.
However, the fact you are illegally discriminating against customers, does not mean its legal.

It means the law is a violation of human rights which you love and support

 

[Soupnazi630]

How so?
I have read both the Old and New Testament, and neither requires shunning gays.

That is irrelevant.

Religious beliefs may be and usually are made up by the individual and are still legally protected

 

[SmokeALib]

No sexual perverts allowed! Good news for our children and grandchildren.