SCOTUS Rules in favor of Colorado Bakers

Timshel said:
Oh sorry, i did not realize you were insane.

Their meaning was obvious immediately. It was well expected that Kennedy might deliver a narrow (on legal issues) victory for the baker.
Click to expand...

If you want to apologize, it should be for your illiteracy and ineptitude.
 
I am so brilliant, they ruled the way I hoped they would, if you want to sell a generic cake, you can’t discriminate. If you make a specific cake for a specific wedding, you may choose who you make that cake for I am so brilliant, they ruled the way I hoped they would, if you want to sell a generic cake, you can’t discriminate. If you make a specific cake for a specific wedding, you may.
 
Darth Omar said:
Still makes no sense.

The headline is misleading. You don’t bury the lead in the 4th paragraph.

Many people get their news from scanning headlines.

And they will be misled into thinking it was a narrow vote; when, in fact, it was closer to a blowout and a smack down of the lower court and the CO authorities.
Click to expand...

It isn't misleading. A narrow ruling doesn't mean the percentage of judges voting one way or another. It means that this case does not apply to any other situation that may arise. As the Court stated, it is a specific ruling based on the merits of this particular situation in which the board mistreated the baker.
 
Jarod said:
I am so brilliant, they ruled the way I hoped they would, if you want to sell a generic cake, you can’t discriminate. If you make a specific cake for a specific wedding, you may choose who you make that cake for I am so brilliant, they ruled the way I hoped they would, if you want to sell a generic cake, you can’t discriminate. If you make a specific cake for a specific wedding, you may.
Click to expand...

The rambling moron is babbling again.
 
Jarod said:
I am so brilliant, they ruled the way I hoped they would, if you want to sell a generic cake, you can’t discriminate. If you make a specific cake for a specific wedding, you may choose who you make that cake for I am so brilliant, they ruled the way I hoped they would, if you want to sell a generic cake, you can’t discriminate. If you make a specific cake for a specific wedding, you may.
Click to expand...

Really? Can you show us your threads/posts with this "hope"/"prediction"?
 
“The neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “The Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection.”

The Supreme Court’s decision, which turned on the commission’s asserted hostility to religion, strongly reaffirmed protections for gay rights and left open the possibility that other cases raising similar issues could be decided differently.
Click to expand...
govenment openly hostile to religious tolerance
 
JarredHead said:
I am so brilliant, they ruled the way I hoped they would, if you want to sell a generic cake, you can’t discriminate. If you make a specific cake for a specific wedding, you may choose who you make that cake for I am so brilliant, they ruled the way I hoped they would, if you want to sell a generic cake, you can’t discriminate. If you make a specific cake for a specific wedding, you may.
Click to expand...

Poor JarredHead; he thinks the bakers had refused the generic cake to the gay couple. NO JarredHead, they did not. They refused to do a custom cake which caused the Fascist leftist Nazi's to take this all the way to the Supreme Court only to lose. :rofl2:

It was NEVER about refusing service or refusing to sell a generic cake. You even suck at lying.
 
zymurgy said:
you certainly could. It is apples and oranges

comparing a bakery, in which tens of thousands exist - to one of the four monopoly granted government approved airwaves is quite the stretch.
Click to expand...


I appreciate you jumping in, but the question was HAS anyone argued that ABC didn't have the right to fire Roseanne? I have seen people argue maybe they shouldn't have, but I have not seen anyone of prominence argue that they didn't have the right. I am sure that there is some fringe thinker out there who think that, but I haven't seen anyone on JPP argue it. Have you?
 
Superfreak said:
It isn't misleading. A narrow ruling doesn't mean the percentage of judges voting one way or another. It means that this case does not apply to any other situation that may arise. As the Court stated, it is a specific ruling based on the merits of this particular situation in which the board mistreated the baker.
Click to expand...

Most readers are going to interpret ‘narrow ruling’ as a narrow vote.

If they meant to say ‘narrow holding’ then change the headline. It’s a misleading headline as it reads.
 
What a shit ruling. Much was based on the "indignity" the baker would suffer if he made a cake for gays. How about the indignity of people walking into a shop and being told "we don't serve your kind". What a slap in the face that is? However, if they want to spare that to all, store owners should place large signs in their windows listing the people they refuse to sell to. Perhaps their religious beliefs rejects Scientologists, Muslims, Sikhs and perhaps they translate the bible into refusing blacks. They should have a huge sign in the window to protect them from the indignity? We could have a pink triangle. It worked for Nazis.
 
Nordberg said:
What a shit ruling. Much was based on the "indignity" the baker would suffer if he made a cake for gays. How about the indignity of people walking into a shop and being told "we don't serve your kind". What a slap in the face that is? However, if they want to spare that to all, store owners should place large signs in their windows listing the people they refuse to sell to. Perhaps their religious beliefs rejects Scientologists, Muslims, Sikhs and perhaps they translate the bible into refusing blacks. They should have a huge sign in the window to protect them from the indignity? We could have a pink triangle. It worked for Nazis.
Click to expand...

It was decided on there having been a Colorado law at the time of the incident that allowed bakers not to make cakes with messages they found offensive and the civil rights commission basically just ignored that when whacking the baker.
 
Nordberg said:
What a shit ruling. Much was based on the "indignity" the baker would suffer if he made a cake for gays. How about the indignity of people walking into a shop and being told "we don't serve your kind". What a slap in the face that is? However, if they want to spare that to all, store owners should place large signs in their windows listing the people they refuse to sell to. Perhaps their religious beliefs rejects Scientologists, Muslims, Sikhs and perhaps they translate the bible into refusing blacks. They should have a huge sign in the window to protect them from the indignity? We could have a pink triangle. It worked for Nazis.
Click to expand...

It was a proper ruling. Kagan and Breyer even voted with the majority. Do you think Kagan and Breyer are homophobes? Not many people are speaking about that.
 
Nordberg said:
What a shit ruling. Much was based on the "indignity" the baker would suffer if he made a cake for gays. How about the indignity of people walking into a shop and being told "we don't serve your kind". What a slap in the face that is? However, if they want to spare that to all, store owners should place large signs in their windows listing the people they refuse to sell to. Perhaps their religious beliefs rejects Scientologists, Muslims, Sikhs and perhaps they translate the bible into refusing blacks. They should have a huge sign in the window to protect them from the indignity? We could have a pink triangle. It worked for Nazis.
Click to expand...

So, your culture war victory was something less than absolute.

Go pound sand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top