- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: US Supreme Court decides business owner can cater to who he/she wants
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:17 pm to magildachunks
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:17 pm to magildachunks
It should be for virtually anything. But no, it's not currently.
0
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:18 pm to fallguy_1978
It didn't decide whether this was protected by the first amendment, it made a decision that the government's action can't be affected by religious hostility or an anti-religious bias when considering whether or not something violates the first amendment (or state law).
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:27 pm to tLSU
quote:
it made a decision that the government's action can't be affected by religious hostility or an anti-religious bias when considering whether or not something violates the first amendment (or state law).
This guy reads.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 11:34 pm to magildachunks
Smokers aren't banned from patronizing businesses.
They just aren't allowed to smoke while inside the business, in many cases due to a state or local law.
Your attempt at a gotcha thread failed miserably.
They just aren't allowed to smoke while inside the business, in many cases due to a state or local law.
Your attempt at a gotcha thread failed miserably.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 11:41 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Smokers aren't banned from patronizing businesses.
They just aren't allowed to smoke while inside the business, in many cases due to a state or local law.
Your attempt at a gotcha thread failed miserably.
But the owners are banned from deciding who to cater to.
And this decision is about the owner's choice, not the customer.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 11:43 pm to magildachunks
A guy is Jackson said he is a Christian and threw a Jew out of his restaurant.
Can he do dat?
Can he do dat?
Posted on 6/4/18 at 11:48 pm to matthew25
quote:
A guy is Jackson said he is a Christian and threw a Jew out of his restaurant.
Can he do dat?
Depends on why
Posted on 6/5/18 at 4:02 am to magildachunks
quote:No, they are not.
But the owners are banned from deciding who to cater to.
Posted on 6/5/18 at 4:15 am to magildachunks
There is a Muslim baker in NY, who has told gheys he wouldn't make them a cake, blah blah. But he never seems to make CNN,MSNBC, or any of the WokeCenters
Not a peep from libtards about this guy
Not a peep from libtards about this guy
Posted on 6/5/18 at 6:32 am to SeeeeK
Can you link that? Don’t think I’ve heard about that.
Posted on 6/5/18 at 11:01 am to magildachunks
quote:
And this decision is about the owner's choice, not the customer.
It's not about the owner's choice though. Please read the decision.
Posted on 6/5/18 at 11:15 am to tLSU
This case will be cited more for what constitutes bias by a governmental commission/official than anything else.
Posted on 6/5/18 at 11:19 am to CorporateTiger
quote:
This case will be cited more for what constitutes bias by a governmental commission/official than anything else.
Yeah, but I have been beating the drum that this decision is NOT as narrow as people are making it out to be.
I think it gives government a pretty hard time in crafting laws that attempt to "force a baker to bake a gay wedding cake" for lack of better terminology.
The neutrality issues are going to be interesting.
Posted on 6/5/18 at 11:54 am to magildachunks
quote:
Like seat belt laws. The government has no right to tell you what to do with your body.
In the case of seat belt laws, there is a public interest being protected. It isn't just you.
Posted on 6/5/18 at 1:04 pm to Fun Bunch
I think Kagan and Breyer were pretty clear they can see a religion neutral law on this point. At that point it’s 5-4. Kennedy certainly left a lot of room in that decision for him to vote with the liberals on a future case.
Posted on 6/5/18 at 1:07 pm to CorporateTiger
Didn't a black dude in New Orleans have an eatery and claimed Whites could not eat there(at least for that day), and people were ok with this.
So?
So?
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News