Now with the Colorado ruling saying that religion can override public accommodation laws

[HikerGuy83]

While I agree with the ruling, the person bringing the case has been at it for a while.

It seems like this was pursued. The courts are not at fault. They ruled correctly.

This is how the constitution works. I just question picking this fight.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I agree with SCOTUS, but I think it's not gays but Coloraodo that is going to have to change some things.

If I knew a web designer didn't want to deal with me because I was straight, I would just move on.

Meh, it's all fabrication and designed

Want a fag cake find a fag to bake it.

 

[Rigby5]

Blah, blah, blah. Lumping blacks and women into this is an insult to those with those immutable traits.

It is well known in science that gays also have "immutable traits".
They do not choose to be gay for some reason.
There is a mismatch between fetal development before birth, and puberty 12 years later.
It can be caused by an illness, pesticides, etc.

 

[themirrorthief]

Right now, the TRUMPCourt is restricting its accepting religious intolerance only towards homosexuals.

But you are correct.
Their decisions have been open ended and there is nothing preventing someone claiming to be religious to refuse service to mixed race couples, adulterers, those of different faiths, atheists

looks like someone has run out of that tasty queer beer again

 

[frigidweirdo]

I agree with SCOTUS, but I think it's not gays but Coloraodo that is going to have to change some things.

If I knew a web designer didn't want to deal with me because I was straight, I would just move on.

Probably because you've never been treated like a third class citizen.

 

[HikerGuy83]

It's going to take a while, essentially some people need to think about it (read: people who are paid by the Koch brothers) then they'll start telling Rednecks what to think, then Rednecks will start doing, then they'll end up in court and then at some point the Supreme Court will have to decide on it again

This was round two or three as it was.

Maybe Colorado should just modify their laws to comply with the SCOTUS ruling

 

[themirrorthief]

Probably because you've never been treated like a third class citizen.

if you think you are third class....that may be the problem.....call big brother dear

 

[HikerGuy83]

Meh, it's all fabrication and designed

Want a fag cake find a fag to bake it.

Setting aside the perjoratives, I am sure they can find plenty of bakers who are not gay who will bake them a cake.

I believe that there are some people who really do have a religous stance on these things. I might not agree that it is the right way to approach it, but the SCOTUS says it needs to be protected.

I agree with them.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Probably because you've never been treated like a third class citizen.

Wonder how many kids would sue their parents if that was a criteria.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Setting aside the perjoratives, I am sure they can find plenty of bakers who are not gay who will bake them a cake.

I believe that there are some people who really do have a religous stance on these things. I might not agree that it is the right way to approach it, but the SCOTUS says it needs to be protected.

I agree with them.

You have to according to the constitution, I personally think it's all silliness and orchestrated but SCOTUS has been correct on rulings

 

[HikerGuy83]

The Trump cult is the one that’s been making the case. I’m just wondering about its logical conclusions.

YOU asked if YOU could claim religous beliefs as a basis for actions.

I simply pointed out that since you belong to a cult, you might have a case.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It is well known in science that gays also have "immutable traits".
They do not choose to be gay for some reason.
There is a mismatch between fetal development before birth, and puberty 12 years later.
It can be caused by an illness, pesticides, etc.

Or the simple fact that human bodies don't all develop the same.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

And that is the point, that seeking an injunction for something that never happened, is inherently illegal.
Right now her claim is theoretical.
It has no real people, there was no real action by the state, so he has nothing to take to the SCOTUS.
So the SCOTUS was not at all acting in accordance with the law as to how appeals are supposed to be filed.

Yeah it's illegal. To you. Not the court.

 

[scruffy]

Fuck off, moron.

Sure. Caught you in ANOTHER bald faced lie. You have no credibility.

 

[Rigby5]

Colorado lost the baker case in 2018. All this garbage was being spewed back then too.

You'll get over it.

The difference in the Colorado baker case is that he claimed he had to participate due to the artistic aspects of his creativeness, such as putting names on the cake.
I think the SCOTUS was obviously wrong even then, but it was just one exception, not a blanket denial of the entire law.
This is going much further since web sites are so generic and lack artistic expertise.

 

[frigidweirdo]

This was round two or three as it was.

Maybe Colorado should just modify their laws to comply with the SCOTUS ruling

Or perhaps SCOTUS has decided, fuck it, we're going full right now. And Civil War will ensue.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Wonder how many kids would sue their parents if that was a criteria.

That makes no sense....

 

[Rigby5]

Yeah it's illegal. To you. Not the court.

That is the whole point, that the current SCOTUS is not following the law.

 

[HikerGuy83]

looks like someone has run out of that tasty queer beer again

This is a replay of 2018.

 

[HikerGuy83]

That is the whole point, that the current SCOTUS is not following the law.

Oh no......

I'll call them right now and tell them you said so.

I am sure they'll be a press release in the morning telling us they changed their decision.