- 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
1
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:38 am to crazycubes
Gays always wanted to be treated as "normal". Careful what you wish for. Can't have your... oh never mind...
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:39 am to crazycubes
We don't like our gay cakes, do we folks?
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:39 am to tigerpawl
quote:
Can't have your... oh never mind...
Corny, but I lol'd.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:40 am to mtntiger
quote:
Bias? What bias?
Perhaps the wording of the judgment was "narrow"? Hard to see even CNN describing the vote as narrow.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:41 am to crazycubes
quote:
Toddy
Suicide watch alert!!!
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:41 am to narddogg81
quote:
Oh man, that Portland bakery that the state of oregon kept attacking and drove out of business is going to sue the frick out of Oregon and the attorney general and own the state.
The same thought occurred to me...
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:42 am to demtigers73
"But the Trump administration backed Phillips, who was represented in court by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian nonprofit. He had lost at every step in the legal appeals process, bringing the case down to the Supreme Court."
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:43 am to CarrolltonTiger
quote:
Perhaps the wording of the judgment was "narrow"? Hard to see even CNN describing the vote as narrow
CNN and USAToday have the same headline with the word narrow in it right now
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:44 am to teke184
quote:
I guess they have a new definition of “narrow.”
It looks like they aren't talking about the vote tally itself as narrow, but that the holding is narrow.
Ie the decision is stating the commission that ruled against the baker violated the first amendment, which is different than allowing bakers generally to refuse service.
Haven't read opinion yet to confirm that.
This post was edited on 6/4/18 at 9:45 am
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:44 am to FrenchToast
Legal fees, actual damages (fees and interest charged), puntative damages...
And Oregon won’t settle this quickly.
I figure this gets litigated for years and the state’s taxpayers end up having to pay tens of millions between actual damages, puntative damages, and interest on the damages due to time between verdict and the end of appeals.
And Oregon won’t settle this quickly.
I figure this gets litigated for years and the state’s taxpayers end up having to pay tens of millions between actual damages, puntative damages, and interest on the damages due to time between verdict and the end of appeals.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:44 am to Teddy Ruxpin
quote:
It looks like they aren't talking about the vote tally itself as narrow, but that the holding is narrow.
I cannot think of a single case in my adult lifetime that did not go the way of liberals where the media didn't call it a "narrow" ruling.
Not one.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:44 am to geauxtigers87
Is that article trying to say that the ruling on the scope was narrow? Like it was just that one case? I might be trying to give that site too much credit though 
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:45 am to tigerpawl
Doesn’t matter if you lose some early skirmishes as long as you win the war.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:45 am to tigerpawl
I never understood the dispute from both sides.
Gays: If you don't want my money then I will take my business somewhere else.
Business owners: Turning down money is never a good sign of a successful long term business.
Gays: If you don't want my money then I will take my business somewhere else.
Business owners: Turning down money is never a good sign of a successful long term business.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:45 am to teke184
Literally the first words from the story on CNN's website.
Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court ruled narrowly in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake to celebrate the marriage of a same sex couple because of a religious objection.
The ruling was 7-2.
Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court ruled narrowly in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake to celebrate the marriage of a same sex couple because of a religious objection.
The ruling was 7-2.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:45 am to GumboPot
quote:Wonder how the left feels about the popular vote now?
7-2 decision:
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:46 am to mtntiger
I had to see how CNN reacted to this. Of course the progressive talking points have already gone out....
Since when was a 7-2 SCOTUS ruling ever been considered “narrow”?!? Do they honestly beleive anyone still buys their complete horseshite?
quote:
Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court ruled narrowly in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake to celebrate the marriage of a same sex couple because of a religious objection.
The ruling was 7-2.
The court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed hostility toward the baker based on his religious beliefs.
Since when was a 7-2 SCOTUS ruling ever been considered “narrow”?!? Do they honestly beleive anyone still buys their complete horseshite?
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:46 am to ShortyRob
quote:
I cannot think of a single case in my adult lifetime that did not go the way of liberals where the media didn't call it a "narrow" ruling.
Not one.
they are not describing the voting as narrow, but the ruling
the ruling DOES NOT say that you can deny service to gays now
meaning it is a narrow ruling pertaining to this particular case
This post was edited on 6/4/18 at 9:47 am
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:46 am to crazycubes
Wow this gives me goosebumps
A win for truth and sanity!!!!
A win for truth and sanity!!!!
Page 2 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News