- 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: Is there a running list of Trump wins, that we can add the cake ruling to?
Posted on 6/4/18 at 3:18 pm to League Champs
Posted on 6/4/18 at 3:18 pm to League Champs
I like the outcome but how is it a Trump win?
0
Posted on 6/4/18 at 3:18 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
To pass muster, if you read Kennedy........you can't be playing "good for you........but not for you" games with the religious.
So cool. You set a policy and someone tries to get the catering company for a gay wedding. Great. The local authorities will be all over that.
But NOW, the path is laid. What we'll see is some enterprising conservatives doing exactly what the gays have done.
They'll seek to get known gay companies to support events they know the companies will find objectionable.
And viola. Local authorities will do the same stupid shite they did here and only go after the religious.
And, if per chance they actually try and shoot fair.........the fricking gays will lose their goddamned minds!
Didn't realize you hated gay people so much
pathetic tbh. There's a reason LGBTQ groups are celebrating the ruling. Creative design is protected speech but delivering italian food to a wedding certainly is not.
This post was edited on 6/4/18 at 3:20 pm
Posted on 6/4/18 at 3:22 pm to League Champs
quote:
And Kennedy is about to be replaced by a much more conservative justice. Expect the fence riding to end. No more cakes for you.
I doubt a low IQ "conservative" like you will be nominated so gay people have nothing to worry over
Posted on 6/4/18 at 3:24 pm to MSMHater
quote:
were a personal expression of art and his beliefs.
I think anyone in the wedding business can claim this
Posted on 6/4/18 at 3:24 pm to bmy
quote:
Creative design is protected speech but delivering italian food to a wedding certainly is not.
Which begs the question: what if the business owner has no problem with it but the employees do?
We have an employee that has work schedule restrictions because he is a 7th day adventist. We work with him and don't force him to work because we respect his religious beliefs.
What if the employees at the catering company refuse to work? That would put the business owner in a rather precarious position.
Sort of wonder how that would play out.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 3:31 pm to League Champs
quote:
I think anyone in the wedding business can claim this
Possibly. But wedding venue owners have a few suits against them of the same nature, and they can't use that defense. Catering probably couldn't unless everything is unique and created just for that occasion. Transportation too. But you're right about florist, photo, video, cakes, dress designers, etc...
I think most industries wouldn't/couldn't be covered by such a defense.
This post was edited on 6/4/18 at 3:33 pm
Posted on 6/4/18 at 3:32 pm to Powerman
quote:
What if the employees at the catering company refuse to work? That would put the business owner in a rather precarious position.
Sort of wonder how that would play out
Me too.. employee loses the job every time in that scenario
Posted on 6/4/18 at 3:33 pm to MSMHater
quote:It'll work for the all of the ones that got sued.......
Awfully presumptuous with such a narrow ruling. The baker successfully claimed his special order cakes were a personal expression of art and his beliefs.
That won't work for most goods and services.
Literally every case was........as I pointed out above.......required one of the following.
1. Production of product specific to gay event
2. Required the presence of the the artist(photographer) at said gay event.
The ONLY way local authorities are going to avoid the problem the commission had here is to also force gay artisans to perform shite they don't want to perform.
Otherwise, they'll run afoul of the whole "you can't treat religion differently" which is the point of the "hostile" problem the commission had.
They were "hostile" to the religious guy's view vs those of others.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 3:36 pm to MSMHater
quote:
But wedding venue owners have a few suits against them of the same nature
And they will win. Especially if the venue only does weddings.
A general venue that rents out to dances, conventions, graduations, etc is out of luck
Posted on 6/4/18 at 3:37 pm to bmy
quote:
Didn't realize you hated gay people so much pathetic tbh.
I don't hate gays at all.
I would oppose refusing service to someone simply because they're gay.
But, I do support freedom.
quote:Good luck with that view. It's going to lose.
There's a reason LGBTQ groups are celebrating the ruling. Creative design is protected speech but delivering italian food to a wedding certainly is not.
Because someone will try to get a gay company to deliver Italian to something they object to.........and they'll object...........and viola', same problem.
The bottom line is, no matter what..........any authorities trying to walk the fence are going to run in to this problem and, the road map has been drawn.
In every single community where they go after some religious guy.........some conservative group is going to come right in behind and set up some gay group for failure.
THAT by the way will only work precisely because gays want to be able to discriminate without being discriminated against.
It wouldn't work if they weren't so easy to troll.
But screw your "hate" shite. Personally, I'd serve gays regardless. And I'm a musician on the side who occasionally does weddings!
But, I believe people should have the right to say no. And, while Kennedy didn't say he agrees with me........he IS saying........"if A can't say no, then neither can B".
So good luck
This post was edited on 6/4/18 at 3:38 pm
Posted on 6/4/18 at 3:40 pm to Powerman
quote:
Which begs the question: what if the business owner has no problem with it but the employees do?
The employee has the same right the business owner has. To not work for the owner! Yes, I said the owner.
quote:
What if the employees at the catering company refuse to work? That would put the business owner in a rather precarious position.
Well yes, they would. That would be on the owner to figure out if he, in fact, wanted to support the event.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 3:41 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Literally every case was........as I pointed out above.......required one of the following.
1. Production of product specific to gay event
2. Required the presence of the the artist(photographer) at said gay event.
The ONLY way local authorities are going to avoid the problem the commission had here is to also force gay artisans to perform shite they don't want to perform.
Absolutely. But the USSC confirming that this protection extends only towards creative acts is a big win for gay people. One of the major concerns has been that a ruling in favor of the baker would embolden dumb religious people to discriminate against them.. and thats not likely now
Posted on 6/4/18 at 3:42 pm to League Champs
quote:Yep
And they will win. Especially if the venue only does weddings.
quote:
A general venue that rents out to dances, conventions, graduations, etc is out of luck
Nah.
General venue still has a right to not rent to the local swinger parties. Or, a whole variety of things he finds objectionable. He also can refuse the KKK, or Trump rally, or Shapiro rally, or just a meeting of Pat Robertson types.
ALL of these type cases will run into the same issue.
The local authorities wanting to keep them from saying "no" are STILL going to allow others to say "no".
And viola'. Same problem.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 3:44 pm to bmy
quote:
Absolutely. But the USSC confirming that this protection extends only towards creative acts is a big win for gay people
How? Was there a rash of "no gays allowed" signs?
They SPECIFICALLY sought out these type cases. And, now we know they're going to lose them. ALL.
quote:Well. They could have solved that ages ago without trying to force people like me to support their events.
One of the major concerns has been that a ruling in favor of the baker would embolden dumb religious people to discriminate against them.. and thats not likely now
I'd venture to say that 80% of conservatives would oppose a "no gays allowed" sign at the local bar.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 4:00 pm to Alt26
quote:
Not sure how this is a "Trump win"?
Evidently you don't know that Trump believes that individuals should get to decide how to run their own business. If you think his winning is because he appointed a Supreme Court justice you are mistaken.
This is a rebuke of the government telling individual business owners how to run their own business. He basically campaigned on American citizens having the right to decide what they do instead of having the government dictate everything.
This is a slam dunk win for Trump because it aligns perfectly with the views he espoused on the campaign trail.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 5:52 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
I'd venture to say that 80% of conservatives would oppose a "no gays allowed" sign at the local
And what % of Trump voters? Or % of registered republicans?
20% of "conservatives" approving of a "no gays allowed" sign might even be on the high end of estimates.. I tend to think most people are all talk and trying to fit in
This post was edited on 6/4/18 at 9:12 pm
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News