If that’s the bar then you can’t trust anything you didn’t see, hear, touch, taste, or feel and record yourself because someone else wrote it down.
Burn all of the textbooks.
Actually no he wouldn’t. If he refuses to bake a cake for any wedding, he’s acting within the law.
No they didn’t. Nice strawman though.
a wedding cake baker who doesn’t do wedding.
sounds like a profitable business plan.
You don’t have to be a “wedding cake” Baker to be a successful Baker. Nice try though.
Yet no law can require him to bake cakes for every wedding.
Gay is mentioned no where in our constitution nor in the civil rights acts.
They are protected by State PA law which get their power from the 10th
Gays are protected in 21 states.
don’t like it change the law or live in another state.
ToT
699
The “IMO” part of that post should have clued you into what a dumb idea/position it is.
Not according to the courts, and it’s unlikely to be overturned in the SCOTUS. Especially when the defendants openly admit to violating the letter of the law. But thanks for trying to clarify a point I wasn’t making, I guess.
I’m just playing off of your ball Wiley.
They can’t be forced to cater all weddings so if there are couples they choose not to serve, they just need to be a bit more creative about how they go about it.
One, maybe two more SCOTUS seats and these travesties can be undone for good.
What’s wrong with gay people? Does it gross you out? Do lesbians gross you out equally?
don’t need the SCOTUS you can just repeal the bills.
The mistake they’re making is trying to use the religious beliefs defense, imo, when all they really had to say was “we were full up that week.” I still have to wonder if some of these companies weren’t being specifically targeted. They have plenty of competition that doesn’t care about the orientation of their customers. But hey, when even the media is clamoring about a potential SCOTUS ruling on the matter “setting back the LQBT movement” something doesn’t smell right. This isn’t like the civil Rights movement where Blacks were barred from every establishment. Why not simply move on? The plaintiffs in the Oregon case publicly said they were making a statement with their lawsuit. It wasn’t really about damages they personally incurred. Their wedding still happened despite the Baker refusing to provide a service for them. The courts awarded them money for “emotional distress” anyway.
No, we just need one ruling from the SCOTUS stating that No portion of the US constitution, anything under federal law, nor any amendment supersedes the 1st Amendment’s religious protections, nor can they unless and until the 1st is itself repealed or amended.
You have a better chance of simply repealing state law.
seeing how I doubt the Supreme Court isnt going to take another case on the subject seeing how the law has been settled. the Court rarely repeat review their own passed rulings.
These really are the ideal types of cases to use to reaffirm the 1st Amendments Religious Protections once and for all.
The plaintiff’s sufficiently proved that in these cases their clients were discriminated on based on their sexuality/or gender and that their same is of higher precedence than the baker’s religious beliefs.
We’re getting to the point that the entire BOR is becoming entirely meaningless and it’s time to correct that before it is completely rendered null and void one ruling at a time.
Well like I pointed out earlier, some doctors refusing prescriptions under the “right to die law” in Oregon due to their religious beliefs. Not a peep. Some bakers in Oregon refuse to bake a cake due to their religious beliefs. All sorts of bad press. Funny how that works.
different laws they are not similar cases.
a Doctor isn’t legally required to prescribe you anything for any reason.
a Business is legally required to serve protected classes.
It hasn’t been settled law for even one decade and the constitution is always worth fighting for.
The court will take up whatever cases meet their criteria as agreed to by a vote of four of the justices. Replace one or two of the hard left activist judges on the court and it is all but certain the court would take up another such case.
