-->
@Vegasgiants
And the court ruled in his favor
The plaintiff was a woman. Do you know what you are talking about?
Supreme Court allows certain businesses to discriminate who they will serve
Posts
Total:
135
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The point is the content.....not their color
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Did she win?
-->
@Vegasgiants
Did she win?
Why don’t you read the newspaper and find out all the details instead of being uninformed about the case?
Apparently you didn’t even know the web designer was a woman.
.
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
But did she win? Lol
IwantRooseveltagain,
You are NO legal scholar, so you do not KNOW SHIT about the law let alone how to read it, or SCOTUS decisions.
Go away. You're the boy who constantly cries wolf, err...TRUMP (or MAGA)!!!
You are NO legal scholar, so you do not KNOW SHIT about the law let alone how to read it, or SCOTUS decisions.
Right, you were a corporal in the army who had a tin badge that made you feel important before you were discharged after a couple years.
You are practically a Judge Advocate General
You are NO legal scholar, so you do not KNOW SHIT about the law let alone how to read it, or SCOTUS decisions.Right, you were a corporal in the army who had a tin badge that made you feel important before you were discharged after a couple years.You are practically a Judge Advocate General
WRONG!!!
Are you daft or what?
How many times do I have to tell you I have TWO legal degrees, and I worked under a DA and the courts.
I possess the requisite academic knowledge and professional that you so obviously lack...and acting like you know more than me just proves what a "clown" you are.
How many times do I have to tell you I have TWO legal degrees, and I worked under a DA and the courts.
Translation: you have two certificates of completion in some kind of correspondence training.
People with law degrees don’t say they have “legal degrees” genius.
You worked under a DA and the courts is suspiciously vague. How far under exactly?
I possess the requisite academic knowledge and professional that you so obviously lack.
And grammar skills
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
He is not a lawyer or clearly would have said so
-->
@Savant
They can't refuse to serve gay people, but they can refuse to endorse certain messages they disagree with. They can't refuse to sell gay people a design that they've sold before to someone else, but they don't have to make a custom design if it's not a design they'd make for anyone. I wouldn't be surprised if they've already made plenty of websites for gay people having to do with completely different topics.
Exactly. If we don’t have religious freedom in this sort of thing, a Christian could force a Jewish baker to bake a cake with a big cross that says “Christ is King” or a Muslim could force a Christian website developer to create a website that talks about how there is only Allah and Mohamed is his messenger. Pluralism requires freedom of association
-->
@thett3
a Christian could force a Jewish baker to bake a cake with a big cross that says “Christ is King”
So what.
@IwantRooseveltagain
He is not a lawyer or clearly would have said so
clearly. But that’s just too obvious for him to grasp.
How many times do I have to tell you I have TWO legal degrees, and I worked under a DA and the courts.Translation: you have two certificates of completion in some kind of correspondence training.
Don’t do “certificates of completion,” and I’ve never done a correspondence course.
People with law degrees don’t say they have “legal degrees” genius.
Sure they do.
You worked under a DA and the courts is suspiciously vague. How far under exactly?
Under means employed by…duh!
As I’ve disclosed several times across numerous threads in the forums…I supported two misdemeanor attorneys, two felony attorneys, the office manager, special projects for the DA, and backup grand jury coordinator. I’m working for the DA in various capacities as such, I had constant contact and communications with the court and various judges getting orders signed.
I possess the requisite academic knowledge and professional that you so obviously lack.And grammar skills
Yup.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Things get silly when trying to force interactions people don't want to have.
You mean they force you to not discriminate?
They also force people to pay taxes they don't want to pay.
Sucks.
TWS responds to my posts but has me on ignore. Lol
And he is far from a lawyer
TWS responds to my posts but has me on ignore. Lol
And you comment about me, respond to me albeit indirectly, and YOU have me on “block,” hypocrite statement on your part.
And he is far from a lawyer
Don’t need a piece of paper to do lawyerly things. I’ve bested high priced HOA attorneys when I lived I. An HOA. Five n fact, and an entire firm the HOA fired in response to my lawsuit.
I advocate for veterans and have taken my case before the Board of Veterans Appeals and won. I have a 90% success rate winning claims for veterans as far back as the Korean War.
Being an age yak lawyer ain’t all it’s cracked up to be when someone as educated as I am can beat them.
The ruling was way too vague, left it open to interpretation as to whether the service involves creativity or customization, is a barber doing creativity, how about a chef? Can a landscaper deny service to a gay couple, landscaping is a creative art, so is painting, can a house painter claim his artistic freedom is compromised if he must paint a trans person's home? It doesn't matter how we answer those questions, what matters is how the bigoted service provider that wants to discriminate answers those questions.
The simple fact is the ruling is going to allow people who want to discriminate to discriminate, almost any service provider can claim some degree of customization, creativity, or artistry, especially when it supports their bigotry.
TWS I only blocked you because you blocked me
I thought you did not want interaction but clearly you do
Lawyerly things?????
Thar is priceless. You are not a legal expert. Lol
-->
@Sidewalker
It's up to the court to answer those questions
-->
@Sidewalker
Things get silly when trying to force interactions people don't want to have.You mean they force you to not discriminate?
Well you could refrain from discriminating by not interacting with anybody.
No, I mean when they force an interaction because the interaction was offered in other cases.
It's an attempt to punish thought crime. The logical end point of this thinking is putting people in jail for refusing sex. How dare they discriminate based on a protected characteristic! If you can't discriminate there are only two options: sleep with everybody, or sleep with nobody.
They also force people to pay taxes they don't want to pay.
Yes, I've noticed.
You are not a legal expert. Lol
Far more than you and iwra again are. I have the academic and professional experience to accurately read, interpret, comprehend and accurately apply the law whereas you lay persons do not.
TWS
Prove it.
Im a Supreme Court Justice. Lol
Prove it.
Im a Supreme Court Justice. Lol
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
How is this an issue?
If you dont want to have a website with religious or non religious content, then that is your choice. This recent decision allows everyone to decide what they say. Can't force it either way.
Do we speak when we develope a website? Yes. Even the parts without words speak.
-->
@Vegasgiants
TWSProve it.Im a Supreme Court Justice. Lol
What evidence would you desire?
What evidence qualifies that does not expose personal information?
-->
@hey-yo
None
And you must accept I am a Supreme Court Justice. Lol
This is why claiming to be an expert on here is pointless
-->
@Sidewalker
I think the purpose to vagueness allows error and therefore correction for years to come. If we make a decision blal amd white, then it creates a line for everyone to split on. Although that clarity may be nice, in this decision the future generations need more say in a full decision, and evidence to make that decision.
Also, these decisions are not aimed solely at one demographic, it applies to everyone for everything. Cutting this black and white limits how things are applied to everyone. Instead we get a law that only affects one demographic and eveyone else may get shot in the dark.
-->
@Vegasgiants
Well I speak on my experience when it applies. I give evidence or supporting evidence to my knowledge/reason.
Im no lawyer or law expert but I know about parenting. I know about day programs for adults with learning disabilities. I know about coaching. I know these things.
However does this experience demonstrate a logic to follow? Perhaps no follows along your line of "pointless?"
-->
@hey-yo
You present evidence and I'll look at it. You tell me you are an expert and to just take your word then your claim is dismissed
-->
@Sidewalker
The simple fact is the ruling is going to allow people who want to discriminate to discriminate, almost any service provider can claim some degree of customization, creativity, or artistry, especially when it supports their bigotry.
Well stated.