- 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 10:13 am to Salmon
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:13 am to Salmon
quote:
That preserves the possibility that a State could enact a law prohibiting discrimination against homosexual couples and constitutionally apply it to a baker who refused service to a gay couple.
Would require spectacular contortion
0
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:13 am to NaturalBeam
Uphill climb trying to explain this to the peanut gallery.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:13 am to Salmon
quote:The MSM makes fools of well making Americans every day with word parsing and innuendo. It's not the responsibility of the average Joe to decipher corkscrewed language. It's the responsibility of the writers to lay it out in clear and unambiguous tones. Find a different word to describe a landmark ruling supported by a landslide vote.
You are making a fool of yourself right now.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:14 am to crazycubes
Right decision by SCOTUS.
I still think the guy's moral stance doesn't make sense. His morals are that he won't knowingly make and sell a cake specifically for a same sex wedding but will knowingly make and sell a cake that can be used for any purpose (including same sex wedding). But whatever. He can do what he wants and most places will sell a cake to this couple, so I don't see the problem.
I still think the guy's moral stance doesn't make sense. His morals are that he won't knowingly make and sell a cake specifically for a same sex wedding but will knowingly make and sell a cake that can be used for any purpose (including same sex wedding). But whatever. He can do what he wants and most places will sell a cake to this couple, so I don't see the problem.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:14 am to Roll Tide Ravens
quote:After I reread it, I realized it seemed that I was implying you weren't a law student--which was not my intent. I just meant to say that digesting random opinions on here is on another level.
Nah, I went and skimmed through the actual opinion and read analysis from lawyers. Ya know, like a law student would do.
This post was edited on 6/4/18 at 10:17 am
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:14 am to Teddy Ruxpin
quote:
Uphill climb trying to explain this to the peanut gallery.
I understand the ruling.
But, those who seem to think you can construct the ability to prevent people from doing what this baker did WITHOUT violating his 1st Amendment rights are being silly.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:15 am to tigerpawl
quote:
Find a different word to describe a landmark ruling supported by a landslide vote.
"Narrow" perfectly describes the ruling
It is isn't the responsibility of the media to cater to your fragile, emotional mind
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:15 am to tigerpawl
quote:
landslide vote.
It was this.
quote:
landmark ruling
It wasn't this. That case is still working its way up. That vote will be closer for sure too.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:15 am to Teddy Ruxpin
Having now read the decision, I honestly don't think it is as narrow as people are making it out to be.
Yes, they don't directly address the issue, but I think this paints States into a big corner in terms of the wording of their "protection" statutes and the process by which they decide these matters.
It is going to be very tricky for them, if not impossible, to make it work. Their statute and process has to be completely neutral.
Yes, they don't directly address the issue, but I think this paints States into a big corner in terms of the wording of their "protection" statutes and the process by which they decide these matters.
It is going to be very tricky for them, if not impossible, to make it work. Their statute and process has to be completely neutral.
This post was edited on 6/4/18 at 10:17 am
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:16 am to SUB
It’s funny it’s was a 7-2 vote. So the left can’t melt about Trump and the conservatives ruining their lives over not being able to eat cake any more. Even though they’ll try to.
We really live in amazing times. Trump is going to change the Supreme Court for the Right for a generation. Get ready win bigly.
We really live in amazing times. Trump is going to change the Supreme Court for the Right for a generation. Get ready win bigly.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:17 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
After I reread it, I realized it seemed that I was implying you weren't a law student--which was not my intent. I just meant to say that digesting random opinions on here is on another level.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:18 am to Teddy Ruxpin
quote:
Uphill climb trying to explain this to the peanut gallery.
Oh Teddy. I was next to Beam during law school graduation...a long time ago....it's possible for a decision to be interpreted differently. Motions to have courts clarify much smaller issues happen all of the time at the state court level. Differing interpretations of a Supreme Court ruling after one reading the day of the release makes those with a different interpretation than you somehow deficient? Salmon and Beam thoughtfully articulated their points. And they are good ones. Your post, however, was silly.
This post was edited on 6/4/18 at 10:20 am
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:18 am to Teddy Ruxpin
I still think that the most annoying thing about this issue to me is that literally NO ONE actually believes the counter argument.
100% of people agree with me regarding one's right to say no. They just carve out an absurd, with zero rationale, exception for gays.
The very same people who want the exception would happily support a gay baker saying "no" to just fricking baking a single color cake for Westboro with no commentary on it.
The very same people would happily support a Jew saying no to Nazis.........a black saying no to David Duke..........hell...........a liberal saying no to Trump.
They would literally support 10s of thousands of examples of such "nos".
No one alive disagrees with the principle.
Which makes their support of ruining bakers, and photographers, and other creative people all the more evil.
100% of people agree with me regarding one's right to say no. They just carve out an absurd, with zero rationale, exception for gays.
The very same people who want the exception would happily support a gay baker saying "no" to just fricking baking a single color cake for Westboro with no commentary on it.
The very same people would happily support a Jew saying no to Nazis.........a black saying no to David Duke..........hell...........a liberal saying no to Trump.
They would literally support 10s of thousands of examples of such "nos".
No one alive disagrees with the principle.
Which makes their support of ruining bakers, and photographers, and other creative people all the more evil.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:20 am to crazycubes
Its almost like our local libtards dont understand the constitution.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:22 am to ShortyRob
quote:
100% of people agree with me regarding one's right to say no. They just carve out an absurd, with zero rationale, exception for gays.
The very same people who want the exception would happily support a gay baker saying "no" to just fricking baking a single color cake for Westboro with no commentary on it.
SCOTUS essentially addresses this in the decision, saying that the commission had no problem saying that a baker could refuse to bake something "offensive" but then automatically ruled against the religious and were openly hostile to their position.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:22 am to crazycubes
quote:
SCOTUS Says You Don't Have To Bake That Gay Cake
SCOTUS has just been knocking it out of the park with their opinions on cases since DJT became POTUS and Gorsuch was confirmed, this absolutely was the right decision: kept it narrow to avoid opening a big can of worms but held the EVIDENCE dictated the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the FEC in its application of the anti-discrimination law. Best legal system in the galaxy.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:22 am to Salmon
quote:
"Narrow" perfectly describes the ruling
It is isn't the responsibility of the media to cater to your fragile, emotional mind
I feel much better about the game now. Geaux Tigers.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:24 am to tigerpawl
Wow. You really don't get it.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:24 am to Fun Bunch
quote:Which is why i said "good friggin luck" constructing something after this ruling that avoids this problem.
SCOTUS essentially addresses this in the decision, saying that the commission had no problem saying that a baker could refuse to bake something "offensive" but then automatically ruled against the religious and were openly hostile to their position.
Posted on 6/4/18 at 10:25 am to mtntiger
quote:
quote: BREAKING NEWS: Supreme Court rules narrowly in favor of Colorado baker in same-sex wedding case
I agree with the decision, but your quote is wrong. Politico doesn't say it was a narrow decision. It says that the court ruled on narrow grounds. Big difference.
Page 6 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News