Turns out the gay wedding website case was faked

And we're back to "it's always someone else's fault with you tRumpers".

 

You do understand the guy you're talking to is gay and is no fan of Trump by any means right?

But I guess if someone disagrees with you that must make them whatever that child is way your spelling it out is.

 

Still wrong. I am neither liberal nor conservative. I am neither "tRumper" nor "woke".

 

Bi at best. I have two wives after all, along with our husband.

 

My bad. I knew at least that. I just find it funny that he's trying to label you a "Trumper"
Because you don't agree with him.

 

It's one of the disadvantages of being a libertarian is that conservatives treat you as a radical liberal, and liberals treat you as a radical conservative, if you say anything they disagree with. I've got one girl on my other forum who I'm usually agreeing with her on most topics, but as so as I disagree with her on certain points, not the whole topic, just points, suddenly I'm ranting and raving and opposing everything about the topic.

 

Didn't know and don't care. Don't wanna be treated like a tRumper?

Don't act like one.

 

And yet you're still playing a version of the "false flag" game.

 

And exactly what have I said is false? Do provide the evidence.

 

Ironic coming from someone who made the thread entitled, “Turns out the gay wedding website case was faked.”

 

False flag: a hostile or harmful action (such as an attack) that is designed to look like it was perpetrated by someone other than the person or group responsible for it.

You are trying to make like she wasn't lying, someone else lied to make her look bad, which is infinitely less likely.

 

You have no evidence of anyone lying so please stop fantasizing and stick to the facts.

 

But I do. Read the link.

 

There is only one solution to this tyranny of the minority, Dems must expand the court to dilute the conservative slant of the court.

Democrats are for progress, Republicans want to render LGBT to second class citizen status.

What's next, making blacks sit at the back of the bus? School Segregation?

They've already reversed a women's right to an abortion.

They've gutted the voting rights act.

They's corrupted politics with Citizen's United.

Cya at the voting booth in 2024.

 

No, all that is necessary is for the ruling to be stricken and the case nullified.

 

Refusing to render a service to a gay person is an act of bigotry.

Refusing to promote bigotry is NOT bigotry.

The bible says to stone prostitutes. So, if I stoned a prostitute because the Bible condones it, am I safe in assuming I'm protected by the First Amendment?

No, you can't use 'religion' to justify the commission of crimes or torts.

Yet, that is precisely what this conservative court has done.

 

If you use religion to justify bigotry then you are a bigot.

Just as if you use the bible to justify stoning prostitutes you are a murderer.

 

If what the baker felt was 'objectionable' resulted in the commission of a tort or a crime (the tort of bigotry, in this case, or at least, in my opinion if it is not a tort it should be), he or she has no right to feel 'objectionable'.

Now, the court has taken another view contrary to this, but this is my opinion on the matter.

THe court has ruled in favor of gay marriage (before Gorsuch arrived), and this court would have ruled against the baker, had Garland been on the court instead of Gorsuch.

In short, our freedoms are dictated by a handful of unelected persons.

There' something about this arrangement that stinks to high heaven, excuse the cliché.

 

I think we are in at least basic agreement, here. I had not understood what Darth had been trying to infer, in his throwing out the word "hypocrisy," without explanation. If you continue reading the thread, you will see that his intended meaning, later occurs to me, and so I address it, once more.

In short, I can see a restricted number of special cases, in which could apply, the principle which the Court is pushing, but I don't think it should apply, in this case. Perhaps I do not understand what a wedding website is, but my assumption is that it announces the intended wedding, its date, time, and location. It offers directions, for those attending; perhaps recommends accomodations. Then it tells gift givers where the couple is registered. If that is a roughly accurate idea, then it seems not to be expressing the "writer's" opinion, any more than a wire news report. It's basically facts: who, what, where, and when. So to see reporting of these as going against ones beliefs, seems far too great a stretch, especially in the knowledge that any Court standard is going to be applied to other plaintiffs, and the result will be, at least in some states, closed doors, at every turn, for gay couples (and perhaps interracial couples, and others) who wish to avail themselves of their "equal right," to get married.

 

I don't know of many children who attend college. 18 is an adult. A tax cut isn't a give away, people keeping more of THEIR money isn't a give away. But you have to love that mentality acting as if that money belongs to you, the government or anyone else. A give away would be forgiving a loan. Particularly since most of those forgiven never paid into it in the first place. Not to mention the millions who did pay and you and others are more than happy to screw over.

 

I keep hearing this tired argument that people being helped is screwing people that don’t need it which is about as absurd as any other argument you people have put forth.

Why should we subsidize billions to oil companies or medical medical companies to develop cures if it isn’t beneficial to everyone? The answer is because it benefits society as a whole — as would student loan forgiveness (or reducing the interest rates of the loans). Numerous economists have spoken what these resuming are about to do to the economy — a few have even said the pause may have help ward off a recession. Not that any of you people care.

 

how does forgiving loans for degrees that are so worthless that the recipients cannot pay off loans they agreed to pay-helping society?

 

Establishing the identities of the parties in a case is a matter for the trial court. The SCOTUS deals only with constitutional issues raised on appeal.

 

I'm reading that thinking am I the only one who picked up on this?

 

Do you really want me to explain how removing what amounts to a car payment each month from 43 million Americans over a “worthless” piece of paper does to the economy?

Because if you — as a legal expert and constitutional scholar — cannot figure it out I will be happy to explain.