- 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: SCOTUS Says You Don't Have To Bake That Gay Cake
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:47 am to Lsujacket66
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:47 am to Lsujacket66
quote:
Also... it was 7-2.
Really?
CNBC said it was a "narrow" victory. I thought that meant it was 5-4.
0
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:47 am to SDVTiger
quote:
Ginsberg and Soto the 2?
That's like betting that water is wet.
And yes, they were the dissents.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:47 am to LewDawg
I think they know they are purposefully misleading, but can go back and explain that it was “narrow,” because they are not extending the rights to photographers, makeup artists, etc etc.
The filth that is our liberal media. Just a shame.
The filth that is our liberal media. Just a shame.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:47 am to Salmon
quote:I know
they are not describing the voting as narrow, but the ruling
quote:I know.
the ruling DOES NOT say that you can deny service to gays now
It simply says that you can do EXACTLY what people asked for the right to do that the left didn't wish to allow.
Like I said though. The left portrays ALL non-favorable rulings as narrow.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:48 am to Salmon
quote:
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
Ya, that's what they are saying.
They ruled 7-2 that the commission violated the first amendment and acted unconstitutionally in how they handled the baker's case.
That is different than holding that what the baker did is allowed.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:48 am to Salmon
quote:Total bullshite. You're parsing words to suit your agenda. Tell it to the trees.
they are not describing the voting as narrow, but the ruling
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:48 am to Salmon
If the holding is that you can’t compel people to take part in the ceremony, then this likely will extend to that family who denied use of their farm to a gay couple wanting to get married somewhere on the Atlantic seaboard.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:49 am to tigerpawl
quote:
Total bullshite. You're parsing words to suit your agenda. Tell it to the trees.
read the ruling
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:49 am to SDVTiger
quote:
Ginsberg and Soto the 2?
Yup confirmed
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:50 am to Salmon
quote:
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
That's a really weird way to word that, and you have to believe they are acting I good faith instead of trying to set the tone for the idiot liberals to believe it.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:52 am to SDVTiger
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:52 am to 88Wildcat
List of sites who use the word narrowly in describing the SC decision.
Politco
CNN
CNBC
(Holy hell) Fox News
NPR
NBC News
Washington Post
USA Today used divided to describe the decision (technically correct but to a degree still misleading)
The only major sources I've seen so far that did not use narrowly (other than USA Today) are the New York Times and the New York Post.
Politco
CNN
CNBC
(Holy hell) Fox News
NPR
NBC News
Washington Post
USA Today used divided to describe the decision (technically correct but to a degree still misleading)
The only major sources I've seen so far that did not use narrowly (other than USA Today) are the New York Times and the New York Post.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:53 am to FooManChoo
Yup, sounds like it was a narrow ruling. The commission violated the baker's rights when it treated his case differently than other similarly situated cases before it.
It is still undecided if you can or cannot refuse service in this manner.
No side won that point.
It is still undecided if you can or cannot refuse service in this manner.
No side won that point.
This post was edited on 6/4/18 at 9:55 am
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:53 am to 88Wildcat
quote:
List of sites who use the word narrowly in describing the SC decision.
seriously people
"narrow" perfectly describes the ruling
stop melting over this
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:54 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.
Even when Obama got ruled against 9-0 by the SC? I think there were a handful of those rulings against him and his pen and paper rulings.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:55 am to crazycubes
I see that Affirmative Action Justice Sotomayor voted as expected. She's such a Wise Latina.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 9:55 am to crazycubes
The melt from the left and anyone who want to squash freedom of religion, or just freedom of choice in general.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:00 am to Kracka
It looks like the vote was just that the previous court violated something and the ruling was on "that", not actually on the ability of the baker to refuse service. Which sucks. I want to see libs crying today.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:00 am to crazycubes
USA Today headline: 3 years after same-sex marriage ruling, protections for LGBT families undermined
The wording here is deplorable. "Protection" is an absolutely ridiculous term to use in this instance.
The wording here is deplorable. "Protection" is an absolutely ridiculous term to use in this instance.
Page 3 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News