Trump's Second and Third year in office
Quote: petroglyphFBI agent in bar late at night accidentally shoots another bar patron. "Langley's finest"
I saw that!!! LOLOL
This was terrible.Quote: aceofspadesQuote: petroglyphFBI agent in bar late at night accidentally shoots another bar patron. "Langley's finest"
I saw that!!! LOLOL
I'm talking, about his funny looking dance moves.
Quote: AxelWolfThis was terrible.
I'm talking, about his funny looking dance moves.
It wasn't too bad. At least he went out with a bang.
Whaddya think, righties? Does the president (any president) have the right to PARDON himself?
Quote: gamerfreakIn a 6-2 ruling, Supreme Court rules in favor of baker in same-sex wedding case.
Too bad it did not go further, but 6-2 shows that the baker was clearly within his rights. Why do so few stories say which justices voted which way anymore?
Quote: AZDuffmanToo bad it did not go further, but 6-2 shows that the baker was clearly within his rights. Why do so few stories say which justices voted which way anymore?
My fault, I think it was 7-2. But they did not give an opinion on whether or not the baker was within his rights, they only struck down Colorado ruling against the baker, saying it was bias against the Baker’s religious beliefs.
Via Bloomberg:
"A seven-justice majority said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission finding was tainted by animus toward religion. The Supreme Court ruling was a narrow one that didn’t reach the broad free-speech and religious-rights issues that had prompted the justices to take up the case" "Justice Anthony Kennedy says in his majority opinion that "the outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.""
Quote: ams288Based on what I've seen, it was a very limited decision that only applies to this case. That's why they were able to get a 7-2 decision. So who cares?
I think we all know YOU care and that you are upset over it.
It is limited, not blanket. But what is important is that they found in favor of free association and against special rights for special groups.
Shows yet again how important it is to have strict constructionists on court and not justices who "fight" for one side or the other.
Quote: ams288Based on what I've seen, it was a very limited decision that only applies to this case. That's why they were able to get a 7-2 decision. So who cares?
No doubt we would be hearing a different tune from you if it went the other way. It certainly wouldn’t be “Who cares”. With a Trump bashing throwing in for good measure.
Quote: AZDuffmanI think we all know YOU care and that you are upset over it.
It is limited, not blanket. But what is important is that they found in favor of free association and against special rights for special groups.
Shows yet again how important it is to have strict constructionists on court and not justices who "fight" for one side or the other.
Really, it doesn't. The ruling was on the merits of the commission's decision, not the merits of the argument either way.
They didn't overturn or declare the Colorado law unconstitutional. They didn't rule on whether making a cake was an artistic expression. They specifically DID NOT EXPRESS A VIEW on whether businesses can refuse service based on religious views.
It's analogous to throwing out the results in a murder case that found the murder weapon with the accused's prints on it, because the search was conducted illegally. Doesn't rule on the facts of the case.
The gay couple did not lose. The baker did not win. The process was flawed, so THAT decision was negated.
Quote: AZDuffmanI think we all know YOU care and that you are upset over it.
It is limited, not blanket. But what is important is that they found in favor of free association and against special rights for special groups.
Shows yet again how important it is to have strict constructionists on court and not justices who "fight" for one side or the other.
I fully agree with you here
And clearly some of the liberal judges sided with the baker
I hope in future cases where the conservative justices side against you, you maintain the same position
Quote: darkoz
I hope in future cases where the conservative justices side against you, you maintain the same position
I read the law by the law, not as liberal or conservative. I will and always have taken cases on a case by case basis. On what the law and Constitution say.
Quote: beachbumbabsReally, it doesn't. The ruling was on the merits of the commission's decision, not the merits of the argument either way.
They didn't overturn or declare the Colorado law unconstitutional. They didn't rule on whether making a cake was an artistic expression. They specifically DID NOT EXPRESS A VIEW on whether businesses can refuse service based on religious views.
It's analogous to throwing out the results in a murder case that found the murder weapon with the accused's prints on it, because the search was conducted illegally. Doesn't rule on the facts of the case.
The gay couple did not lose. The baker did not win. The process was flawed, so THAT decision was negated.
Uh, cases are supposed to be on merits of a law or decision. By not expressing a view, they express that a business might be able to refuse service to someone. Local law will handle that. The baker did win as the gay couple was trying to make a shakedown case where the baker could have lost his store and livelyhood because they wanted to make some kind of statement.
From what I read of the decision, SCOTUS said to quit being so hostile to religious beliefs, and being gay does not automatically trump said beliefs. IOW, back at least a little ways to some balance.
Quote: AZDuffmanUh, cases are supposed to be on merits of a law or decision. By not expressing a view, they express that a business might be able to refuse service to someone. Local law will handle that. The baker did win as the gay couple was trying to make a shakedown case where the baker could have lost his store and livelyhood because they wanted to make some kind of statement.
From what I read of the decision, SCOTUS said to quit being so hostile to religious beliefs, and being gay does not automatically trump said beliefs. IOW, back at least a little ways to some balance.
Juuuust a bit of spin, there.
SCOTUS ruled on a technicality, which was that the Commission did not consider with sufficient weight (based on the records provided) the religious protection under the 1st in determining their (adverse to the baker) decision. They did NOT uphold his objection, or his right to selectively deny service, while holding a public business license in that community. They simply negated the decision based on how it was reached.
Housing, he would probably have lost. Lots of precedents in that specifically, race, religion, sexual orientation, pretty much settled law. Hiya, Trump.
Not issuing marriage licenses to gays: now illegal to deny, many cases still being fought, very recently legal to deny but the laws changed. Hiya, Kimmy.
Goods and services, still developing law.
Quote: AZDuffmanI think we all know YOU care and that you are upset over it.
Nope, you're wrong. I'm not upset at all.
Sorry to disappoint you righties!
Quote: beachbumbabs
Housing, he would probably have lost. Lots of precedents in that specifically, race, religion, sexual orientation, pretty much settled law. Hiya, Trump.
Not issuing marriage licenses to gays: now illegal to deny, many cases still being fought, very recently legal to deny but the laws changed. Hiya, Kimmy.
Goods and services, still developing law.
Housing yes, mostly settled. I think you have some but not a ton of wiggle room when you rent. Seattle is trying to pass a law saying you have to rent to the first person who qualifies. It was struck down, so that tells me there is wiggle room. I doubt you could just refuse a gay, but if something looked like they were say going to set up a call-boy ring from the basement and you had other prospective tenants you could.
I would say look to see how specialized it is and if it is a "contract" service vs. public accommodation. IOW, if they want a "Congrats Adam and Steve" cake that must be customized, a baker can refuse. They want a basic cake from the rack, cannot refuse. They want to rent a hotel room, no refuse. They want me to work a casino night for their wedding, I can refuse.
Quote: AZDuffmanI read the law by the law, not as liberal or conservative. I will and always have taken cases on a case by case basis. On what the law and Constitution say.
Based on the expertise you have garnered how? Are you a other self proclaimed expert on the Constitution?
Quote: billryanBased on the expertise you have garnered how? Are you a other self proclaimed expert on the Constitution?
I was not aware I needed your approval to form my own opinions.
Quote: billryanBased on the expertise you have garnered how? Are you a other self proclaimed expert on the Constitution?
AZ is always going on about what a waste college is, so I'm gonna go out on a limb and say he didn't go to law school.
Quote: AZDuffmanI was not aware I needed your approval to form my own opinions.
Just trying to determine what weight to put to them. I recall a so called Constitutional Expert who wasn't able to recite an amendment when asked about it in a debate.
Quote:...sincere religious beliefs
Not sure where the cut-off is for sincere.
I believe my sincere non-religious beliefs are not one iota less important than a religious belief. Also, not sure why any right requires sincerity before it can be enforced.
Quote: rxwineNot sure where the cut-off is for sincere.
I believe my sincere non-religious beliefs are not one iota less important than a religious belief. Also, not sure why any right requires sincerity before it can be enforced.
I don't see why it has to be religious at all. IMHO all you need to say is, "I prefer not to do that type of business." That should be the end of it.
Quote: rxwineMaybe someone should try to get the same Christian baker to bake a strong atheist themed cake.
I'd be curious to see what an atheist themed cake even looks like.
Quote: ams288Nope, you're wrong. I'm not upset at all.Sorry to disappoint you righties!
LOLOLOL!!!
If it had gone the other way, with
the court slapping down the baker,
you would have been out dancing
in the streets. And everybody here
knows it.
Quote: ams288I'd be curious to see what an atheist themed cake even looks like.
Atheists have no beliefs. If it was
a Xtion baker doing an atheist
cake, Jesus would be chasing
the atheist around waving a
Bible over his head.
Quote: AZDuffmanI don't see why it has to be religious at all. IMHO all you need to say is, "I prefer not to do that type of business." That should be the end of it.
I prefer not to do business with bigots.
I prefer not to do business with Muslims
I prefer not to do business with Jews.
I prefer not to do business with white folk.
No problem, right?
Quote: ams288I'd be curious to see what an atheist themed cake even looks like.
Not sure how many people would even get this one.
This next one, I'm not even sure what that means. Looks kinda scary though.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rockbeyondbelief/2012/01/21/atheist-birthday-cake/
Quote: rxwineNot sure how many people would even get this one.
This next one, I'm not even sure what that means. Looks kinda scary though.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rockbeyondbelief/2012/01/21/atheist-birthday-cake/
Asia Carrera approves
"The left is scared to death over this, and they’re out there saying, “Don’t worry. It’s very, very narrow, so don’t worry about it.” But they can’t stop worrying about it. CNN hasn’t stopped analyzing it, hasn’t stopped talking about it."
He said if the Left had won they be
out trying to close every religious
based business they could find.
Remember, the Left called this baker
a Nazi and a Holocaust denier in
court. Don't let anybody kid you,
this is a huge defeat for the Left
and a huge win for religious freedom.
Quote: billryanI prefer not to do business with bigots.
I prefer not to do business with Muslims
I prefer not to do business with Jews.
I prefer not to do business with white folk.
No problem, right?
Why should there be a problem in a free society?
Quote: AZDuffmanWhy should there be a problem in a free society?
Because bigots, Muslims, Jews and white folks have to eat, drink and live.
Abdul, Seth and Joe come in to your place of business. Do you have the right to seat Joe and not the others?
Quote: billryanBecause bigots, Muslims, Jews and white folks have to eat, drink and live.
Abdul, Seth and Joe come in to your place of business. Do you have the right to seat Joe and not the others?
I have already answered this. Public accommodation/common carrier must take all comers. Specialized/custom service free to say they do not want to do business.
Quote: AZDuffmanWhy should there be a problem in a free society?
Why stop there, add blind people, mentally retarded, wheelchair bound, etc., to people you can refuse service then.
Quote: rxwineWhy stop there, add blind people, mentally retarded, wheelchair bound, etc., to people you can refuse service then.
Let me make it simple for you. Except for the business types I said before, you should be able to refuse to do business with ANYONE for ANY REASON or NO REASON!
Get it?
Then we will see if his religion is god or money
Quote: AZDuffmanLet me make it simple for you. Except for the business types I said before, you should be able to refuse to do business with ANYONE for ANY REASON or NO REASON!
Get it?
So you have no problem if a moderator bans you for any or no reason, right?
Quote: darkozBest way to deal with this is gentrify the area with gay men so the cake baker has no business in the neighborhood except baking cakes for gays
Then we will see if his religion is god or money
Chick a fils religious beliefs seem to have taken a backseat to having a spot on the strip. Shocking, no?
Quote: billryanSo you have no problem if a moderator bans you for any or no reason, right?
Been suspended. Life went on.
What are you getting at?
Like Jules said to Vincent, if you cannot handle the answers, you should cease asking difficult questions.
Quote: AZDuffmanLet me make it simple for you. Except for the business types I said before, you should be able to refuse to do business with ANYONE for ANY REASON or NO REASON!
Get it?
You never disappoint. It's always as bad as you make it out to be.
Much of the problem with the idea is if you don't have the numbers. For instance it's pretty hard to deny services to divorced people, or unmarried singles living together by a motel service, unless you live in a strongly conservative church going area which doesn't have to depend on too much business by those folks (or more likely they're hiding it). So you can refuse service, say if an unmarried couple living in sin shows up to rent the room..
Basically, any group which doesn't have big numbers can get stepped on.
It's a great idea for bigots who think they'll always be in the majority.
It's must be that dragon blood.
Quote: rxwine
Much of the problem with the idea is if you don't have the numbers. For instance it's pretty hard to deny services to divorced people, or unmarried singles living together by a motel service, unless you live in a strongly conservative church going area which doesn't have to depend on too much business by those folks (or more likely they're hiding it). So you can refuse service, say if an unmarried couple living in sin shows up to rent the room.
I really do not care about the numbers since I am not the one owning the business to make the choice. Each and every business owner can do that. And your hotel example is moot as per my explanation earlier. Although I might amend that a little to say a bar should be able to take measures to prevent his bar from becoming a gay bar.
Quote:It's a great idea for bigots who think they'll always be in the majority.
Why do you care? Just patronize another business if you have a problem with the owners of a business.
Let me ask you:
Should a black baker be forced to make a Confederate Flag cake?
Should a Jewish diamond merchant have to make a ring in the form of a swastika?
Should a Mexican sign maker have to make a sign saying "BUILD THE WALL!"????
By your standards it appears they should, at least as I am reading it.
Quote: rxwine
It's a great idea for bigots who think they'll always be in the majority.
There's a great scene in Downton Abby where
a druggist won't sell a contraceptive device
to an unmarried woman. And gives a lecture
of it's evils to all married women who buy one.
There is all kinds of bigotry. So what.
Quote: EvenBobLOLOLOL!!!
If it had gone the other way, with
the court slapping down the baker,
you would have been out dancing
in the streets. And everybody here
knows it.
Everybody here who "knows it" is wrong.
I couldn't care less.
Man, you righties are really triggered by my indifference.
Again, sorry to let you down! Maybe Rush will help you get over the disappointment....
