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

[Rigby5]

Carving out exemptions from the law was never the intent of the First Amendment. If the law is a violation of our First Amendment rights (and I think that it is, and more), then it should be struck down and sent back to Congress. Let them rewrite the law to explicitly say " ... doesn't apply to religious people." We'll see if that passes muster.

Sounds right to me.
Just claiming "religion" is far too broad and open for abuse.

 

[SmokeALib]

I don't think so.
I think that historically the general public is superstitious, ignorant, and easily violent against anyone different.
That is why there have been witch burnings, lynchings, genocide, slavery, etc.
And it is only codified rule of law that prevents these abuses, with the use of blind justice.

I admit that's the case for leftists. But not for people with God-given common sense.

 

[dblack]

Sounds right to me.
Just claiming "religion" is far too broad and open for abuse.

It's also an obvious example of legislating from the bench. If Congress wants to pass a law that only applies to non-religious people, they should write that law, debate it and have a vote. Go on record with their actual intentions.

I don't think they did mean the law to include a religious exemption. I think if they'd written it that way, it wouldn't have passed. At the very least, it deserves to be debated in Congress, in public. Not just manufactured by a "creative" Court.

 

[scruffy]

I don't think so.
I think that historically the general public is superstitious, ignorant, and easily violent against anyone different.
That is why there have been witch burnings, lynchings, genocide, slavery, etc.
And it is only codified rule of law that prevents these abuses, with the use of blind justice.

Are you sure you're a commie?

You don't sound like a commie.

 

[Rigby5]

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

{...

Constitutional Right to Refuse Service​

Business owners have the right to refuse service or turn away a customer to protect their patrons and business. For example, “no shirt, no shoes, no service” and other dress codes are the types of requirements that private businesses can impose on potential customers as long as they are not discriminatory.

Anti-Discrimination Laws​

Anti-discrimination laws apply on the local, state and federal levels. The Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that no business (public or private) serving the public can discriminate based on a customer’s national origin, sex, religion, color or race. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act maintains no business is allowed to turn away a customer based on the person being a member of the following protected status:

• Race or color
• National origin or citizenship status
• Religious beliefs
• Sex
• Age
• Veteran status
• Disability or pregnancy
• Sexual orientation
• Gender identity

...}

 

[Rigby5]

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

It is not a human right to deliberately harm another for no valid defensive reason.

 

[JustAGuy1]

Tell us more about why it's just fine to discriminate. Christianity is as good a reason as any!

Force seems to be the Prog way.

 

[Rigby5]

Are you sure you're a commie?

You don't sound like a commie.

Socialist really.
Communism is more extreme in saying "all means of production have to be owned publicly".
A socialist just allows some means of production to be publicly owned if that is what the majority want.

 

[Donald H]

Socialist really.
Communism is more extreme in saying "all means of production have to be owned publicly".
A socialist just allows some means of production to be publicly owned if that is what the majority want.

Excellent reply!

Surprisingly this simple fact isn't commonly known and appreciated by Americans. Most would think you're a crazed commie if you told them that socialism forms a very large and necessary part of all capitalist systems!

 

[2aguy]

I don't think so.
I think that historically the general public is superstitious, ignorant, and easily violent against anyone different.
That is why there have been witch burnings, lynchings, genocide, slavery, etc.
And it is only codified rule of law that prevents these abuses, with the use of blind justice.

Who do you think codified the rule of law that prevents these abuses? The general public......because without majorities, the representatives don't create those laws......

You are looking at early humans, not people as we have grown in knowledge and experience...are we all the way there yet? No.....but we are constantly working to get there......good people, doing good works...in the face of horrible evil at times...in particular fighting the democrat party...

 

[2aguy]

Socialist really.
Communism is more extreme in saying "all means of production have to be owned publicly".
A socialist just allows some means of production to be publicly owned if that is what the majority want.

Socialism is AIDS....the disease that weakens the immune system of a society that allows leftists to come in and destroy it...

 

[scruffy]

Socialist really.
Communism is more extreme in saying "all means of production have to be owned publicly".
A socialist just allows some means of production to be publicly owned if that is what the majority want.

Well, you have a much better understanding of human nature than most of the self professed lefties on this board. A leftie you may be, but a leftard you're not.

My rightie friends may jump down my throat for saying this, but I'd be comfortable voting for you. Even if I didn't agree with some of your policies. Because you seem to have a brain and a conscience, which is about the most we can ask of any elected official.

On the other hand, you couldn't pay me enough to vote for a Neo-Lib or a Neo-Con. And I'm not much enthusiastic about Trump either, I just stand up for him because he's being so abused by both sides. I would like a "statesman", in the traditional sense, but there aren't many of those around anymore. Tom Lantos was the last one I remember, and he happened to be a Democrat but he had all the right stuff.

I'd vote for a Democrat if they'd let me, but not today's Democrats. Today's Democrats are completely fucked up, I hope to God they're an aberration, otherwise our future looks bleak indeed.

 

[Soupnazi630]

The fact the protestors were arrested and abused on Jan 6, was illegal.
They had a right to be heard, and should have been allowed into the visitors area and given time to express their beliefs.

Your reading skills are lacking.
I said that presidents in general are the author of almost all classified doc LAW, not the classified docs themselves.
Obviously presidents and ex-presidents, are explicitly exempt from all classified doc laws, which presidents get to create as they wish, with EOs.

As for Biden's crimes, they are infinitely higher.
Biden illegally withheld congressional funds to the Ukraine for the illegal purpose of getting Shokin fired, so he could illegally protect Hunter Biden in Burisma Holdings.
Biden not only was involved in turning the Ukraine to a puppet dictatorship, but illegally sending weapons to known war criminals, who were engaged in treaty violations, attempted genocide against native ethnic Russians, etc.
Trying to expand NATO is criminal, in violation of promises and treaties with Gorbachev.

BIden had nothing to do with the installingthe dictator of Ukrain.

Firing shokin was absolurely legal.

Ukraine violated no treay whatsoever motherfucker.

Expanding NATO is legal and violates no treaty you lying windbag

 

[Soupnazi630]

Silent praying in public has passed legal review, but loud chanting has not.

It never has passed legal review dumbass

 

[Soupnazi630]

It is not a human right to deliberately harm another for no valid defensive reason.

Refusing service is not doing harm
It is an absolute right to associate with whom ever you choose or choose not to

 

[Soupnazi630]

{...

Constitutional Right to Refuse Service​

Business owners have the right to refuse service or turn away a customer to protect their patrons and business. For example, “no shirt, no shoes, no service” and other dress codes are the types of requirements that private businesses can impose on potential customers as long as they are not discriminatory.

Anti-Discrimination Laws​

Anti-discrimination laws apply on the local, state and federal levels. The Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that no business (public or private) serving the public can discriminate based on a customer’s national origin, sex, religion, color or race. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act maintains no business is allowed to turn away a customer based on the person being a member of the following protected status:

• Race or color
• National origin or citizenship status
• Religious beliefs
• Sex
• Age
• Veteran status
• Disability or pregnancy
• Sexual orientation
• Gender identity

...}

And those laws are immoral discriminatory and an abomination

 

[tahuyaman]

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

What lies you moron?

 

[BS Filter]

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.

The Supreme Court disagreed with you.

 

[BS Filter]

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.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

 

[lantern2814]

Colorado web designer told Supreme Court a man sought her services for his same-sex wedding. He says he didn’t – and he’s straight​

The Colorado web designer who wanted to refuse LGBTQ customers and just won her case at the Supreme Court had claimed in court filings that a man inquired about her services for his same-sex wedding.

But the man says he never reached out to Lorie Smith, the web designer who argued at the Supreme Court that she shouldn’t be forced to create same-sex wedding websites because of her religious objections. In fact, the man says he’s straight and married to a woman.

The man was identified as “Stewart” in court filings and as someone who requested graphic designs for invitations and other materials for a same-sex wedding with his fiancé, Mike. CNN contacted Stewart through information in court filings. He asked for his last name, which is not in the filing, not to be used.


In an interview with CNN Friday, Stewart said that he “did not submit a request” to the company, 303 Creative, and is a “happily married man to a woman of 15 years.”

“I don’t know Mike,” Stewart said. “I’ve never asked anybody to design a website for me, so it’s all very strange. I certainly didn’t contact her, and whatever the information in that request is, is fake.”

Stewart, who previously worked for CNN, said that he is a web designer himself, and that “it would make zero sense to hire a web designer when I can do that for myself.”

Stewart said he was unaware of his information being a part of the court record until he was contacted by media outlet The New Republic on Wednesday.

Poor little gullible lemming. Seems you don’t know that cases don’t start at SCOTUS. There had to be a process followed. Which this goof would have been fully aware of. Another loss in your long string of them.