SCOTUS Rules 7:2 in favor of anti-faggotry baker

[vooke]

I think SCOTUS leans towards his actions being anything but legit;



But the elephant in the room whether custom design are protected speech as the baker argued

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I think SCOTUS leans towards his actions being anything but legit;



But the elephant in the room whether custom design are protected speech as the baker argued

Another favorite of the right-wingers.  I think the design if it is speech would be the gay couple's speech.  When Trump sends a deranged tweet early in the morning, twitter is not held responsible for the garbage.

[Kichwa]

I think the majority punted. I agree with the dissent of Justice Ginsburg that this court should have addressed the issue of religious discrimination vs. free speech instead of focusing too much on "a few stray remarks" by one of the commissioners to grant the baker a win.  The majority could have addressed those disparaging remarks in dicta.  The court therefore lost another opportunity to address real issues because it will take a long time for another case to come by. What a shame.

I think you are the one making wild claims.  The example I gave you was just to remind you that these cases are fact based

The "wild" claim was in fact the argument of this baker based on the facts of his situation and his real non-imaginary religion, which this court obviously did not rubbish. Very different from the weird car example you gave which is not analogous by any stretch of the imagination unless there is a faith that sees washing black people's cars specifically as sinful. Even in that case I explained my view before that in such a case, anti-discrimination should prevail over religious rights because it would be about the people as such, not even the event. I understand some people tried to make such claims in the 60s against Black people and the courts refused to accommodate that. Personally, I see a distinction, so I support both the courts in that case as well as in the case of the baker but I submit it is a very delicate matter and not clear cut or given to easy answers. Each case is determined by weighing all the rights involved which is fair. In this case for example, the guy actually serves gay people so the automatic assumption that he is refusing to serve them due to their orientation is too simplistic.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

This piece explains a possible rationale for why the two liberals sided with the majority opinion.

SCOTUS has traditionally tried to steer clear of what they generally feel is the state's lane.  At the end it seems like a Pyrrhic victory if not an outright loss for the nominal winners  .

By Kate Shaw
Ms. Shaw is a law professor who covers the Supreme Court for ABC News.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/opinion/liberal-justices-concurrence-masterpiece.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur

[Omollo]

SCOTUS cleverly avoided booby traps. It is a loss / win for both parties.

[vooke]

SCOTUS cleverly avoided booby traps. It is a loss / win for both parties.

Wassup my negro

[Omollo]

How is the Clergyman from The Mountains?

SCOTUS cleverly avoided booby traps. It is a loss / win for both parties.

Wassup my negro

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

vooke,

I know at the back of your mind you might be thinking this is about anti-Christian society.  But for many in America, especially minorities, it really is about race.  There is a large section of the white polity that has never made peace with the civil rights victories.  One could argue they have never made peace with the end of slavery where blacks were merely freed but not guaranteed the same rights as whites.  Christianity really is not under siege in the US.  If you've spent some time in the US, you can always pick up those latent vibes in these controversies.  You grant them rein to discriminate gays, and it's on to the main target, blacks.

In the story I have linked to, a GOP state representative accidentally lets the cat out of the bag by saying business should be free to discriminate against blacks.  Of course he frames it in a manner to suggest that he is for the freedom of the business owner, where this freedom is apparently curtailed by the need to treat customers with equality.

"It is his business," Clark wrote in a comment. "He should have the opportunity to run his business the way he wants. If he wants to turn away people of color, then [that's] his choice."

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/390874-sd-lawmaker-businesses-should-be-allowed-to-turn-away-people-of-color

[Dear Mami]

"It is his business," Clark wrote in a comment. "He should have the opportunity to run his business the way he wants. If he wants to turn away people of color, then [that's] his choice."

...Who is this Clark individual? Shindwe yeye. Why aren't they shaming him like Roseanne?

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

"It is his business," Clark wrote in a comment. "He should have the opportunity to run his business the way he wants. If he wants to turn away people of color, then [that's] his choice."

...Who is this Clark individual? Shindwe yeye. Why aren't they shaming him like Roseanne?

Some Dakota state representative(kind of like MCAs).  Sentiments like those are pretty common among advocates who push for tolerance of free speech(code for tolerance of intolerance).

[Kichwa]

Whenever Christians feel insecure they reach for the language of the first century when Christians were a minority and were being persecuted.  Its ridiculous in a country like the US where they are the majority and arguably one most Christian nations, however playing victims not only help them deal with their insecurities but is a whole money making industry and a powerful political interest group.

vooke,

I know at the back of your mind you might be thinking this is about anti-Christian society.  But for many in America, especially minorities, it really is about race.  There is a large section of the white polity that has never made peace with the civil rights victories.  One could argue they have never made peace with the end of slavery where blacks were merely freed but not guaranteed the same rights as whites.  Christianity really is not under siege in the US.  If you've spent some time in the US, you can always pick up those latent vibes in these controversies.  You grant them rein to discriminate gays, and it's on to the main target, blacks.

In the story I have linked to, a GOP state representative accidentally lets the cat out of the bag by saying business should be free to discriminate against blacks.  Of course he frames it in a manner to suggest that he is for the freedom of the business owner, where this freedom is apparently curtailed by the need to treat customers with equality.

"It is his business," Clark wrote in a comment. "He should have the opportunity to run his business the way he wants. If he wants to turn away people of color, then [that's] his choice."

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/390874-sd-lawmaker-businesses-should-be-allowed-to-turn-away-people-of-color

[vooke]

vooke,

I know at the back of your mind you might be thinking this is about anti-Christian society.  But for many in America, especially minorities, it really is about race.  There is a large section of the white polity that has never made peace with the civil rights victories.  One could argue they have never made peace with the end of slavery where blacks were merely freed but not guaranteed the same rights as whites.  Christianity really is not under siege in the US.  If you've spent some time in the US, you can always pick up those latent vibes in these controversies.  You grant them rein to discriminate gays, and it's on to the main target, blacks.

In the story I have linked to, a GOP state representative accidentally lets the cat out of the bag by saying business should be free to discriminate against blacks.  Of course he frames it in a manner to suggest that he is for the freedom of the business owner, where this freedom is apparently curtailed by the need to treat customers with equality.

"It is his business," Clark wrote in a comment. "He should have the opportunity to run his business the way he wants. If he wants to turn away people of color, then [that's] his choice."

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/390874-sd-lawmaker-businesses-should-be-allowed-to-turn-away-people-of-color

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

vooke,

I know at the back of your mind you might be thinking this is about anti-Christian society.  But for many in America, especially minorities, it really is about race.  There is a large section of the white polity that has never made peace with the civil rights victories.  One could argue they have never made peace with the end of slavery where blacks were merely freed but not guaranteed the same rights as whites.  Christianity really is not under siege in the US.  If you've spent some time in the US, you can always pick up those latent vibes in these controversies.  You grant them rein to discriminate gays, and it's on to the main target, blacks.

In the story I have linked to, a GOP state representative accidentally lets the cat out of the bag by saying business should be free to discriminate against blacks.  Of course he frames it in a manner to suggest that he is for the freedom of the business owner, where this freedom is apparently curtailed by the need to treat customers with equality.

"It is his business," Clark wrote in a comment. "He should have the opportunity to run his business the way he wants. If he wants to turn away people of color, then [that's] his choice."

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/390874-sd-lawmaker-businesses-should-be-allowed-to-turn-away-people-of-color

I wish it was a stretch.  There is a decent overlap between the purveyors of anti-otherism and racists.  Prejudices seem to come in a package.  The people who teach you one, also teach you the other. 

That's why blacks ultimately tend to take the side of inclusion of out-groups, even when they are contrary to their religious(very strong by the way) persuasions.

[vooke]

vooke,

I know at the back of your mind you might be thinking this is about anti-Christian society.  But for many in America, especially minorities, it really is about race.  There is a large section of the white polity that has never made peace with the civil rights victories.  One could argue they have never made peace with the end of slavery where blacks were merely freed but not guaranteed the same rights as whites.  Christianity really is not under siege in the US.  If you've spent some time in the US, you can always pick up those latent vibes in these controversies.  You grant them rein to discriminate gays, and it's on to the main target, blacks.

In the story I have linked to, a GOP state representative accidentally lets the cat out of the bag by saying business should be free to discriminate against blacks.  Of course he frames it in a manner to suggest that he is for the freedom of the business owner, where this freedom is apparently curtailed by the need to treat customers with equality.

"It is his business," Clark wrote in a comment. "He should have the opportunity to run his business the way he wants. If he wants to turn away people of color, then [that's] his choice."

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/390874-sd-lawmaker-businesses-should-be-allowed-to-turn-away-people-of-color

I wish it was a stretch.  There is a decent overlap between the purveyors of anti-otherism and racists.  Prejudices seem to come in a package.  The people who teach you one, also teach you the other. 

That's why blacks ultimately tend to take the side of inclusion of out-groups, even when they are contrary to their religious(very strong by the way) persuasions.

To me it seems like gays employ sentimentalism associated with negro woes to advance their agenda. So gays riding on negro and not the other way. Negroes who support them just fell for that. Blackmailed negroes

[Nefertiti]

I wish it was a stretch.  There is a decent overlap between the purveyors of anti-otherism and racists.  Prejudices seem to come in a package.  The people who teach you one, also teach you the other. 

That's why blacks ultimately tend to take the side of inclusion of out-groups, even when they are contrary to their religious(very strong by the way) persuasions.

This is my beef with Rethugs and conservatives in general. Whereas they have a more pragmatic approach to economics, security, etc. I think Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats are some of the very few reasonable right wingers around - basically no "Everyone-for-himself, I-own-this-place-you-alien" mentality. Trump, rather than focus on the bigger conservative picture, quickly reverses common decency like antiracism and LGBT rights. You'd think in 2017 these are long closed items but noo. In the end I'm much rather a Democrat/liberal than a conservative. The latter are way too abhorrent.