Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 41

Thread: Bake me a cake!!!!

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    23,678
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortybox View Post
    Yeah, it was a "narrow" decision...

    7-2, lol.

    Keep reasoning. Your tears are delicious.
    They actually said it is a narrow "ruling".
    Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

  2. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardCranium View Post
    She's right. It is worded specifically to set no precedent at all.
    Translation: it's a Kennedy decision. The few times I found myself agreeing with Scalia were mostly cases of him lambasting a Kennedy decision. I loathe reading his decisions.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    With your mom
    Posts
    2,592

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by time4fun View Post
    LOL You should just stick to memes and echoing the insults of the other trolls.

    This case has no bearing on subsequent cases because it didn't establish anything new. They intentionally side-stepped the entire issue and went with well-established precedent and the specific fact patterns of this case. Kagan even pointed out that this ruling wouldn't apply to other cake makers in Colorado, let alone anyone else. Kennedy went as far as to explicitly state that the 1st amendment isn't a shield against anti-discrimination laws.

    I see why you rarely bother with substance. You have no idea what you're talking about.
    BTW - don't discriminate against people who post memes. How rude!


  4. #34
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    With your mom
    Posts
    2,592

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelston View Post
    They actually said it is a narrow "ruling".
    In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/u...ay-couple.html

    Writing for the majority in the 7-to-2 decision, he said the Civil Rights Commission’s ruling against the baker, Jack Phillips, had been infected by religious animus. He cited what he said were “inappropriate and dismissive comments” from one commissioner in saying that the panel had acted inappropriately and that its decision should be overturned.
    Last edited by Fortybox; 06-04-2018 at 09:17 PM.

  5. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortybox View Post
    Yeah, it was a "narrow" decision...

    7-2, lol.

    Keep reasoning. Your tears are delicious.
    ROFL

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    23,678
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortybox View Post
    In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/u...ay-couple.html
    I've typically been seeing ruling or grounds. That is just the NY Times being retarded and trying to change up some words so it doesn't look like they copied someone else's homework. And again, the DECISION was narrow. The VOTE was not.

    "The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory on narrow grounds to a Colorado Christian baker who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, stopping short of setting a major precedent allowing people to claim exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on religious beliefs."
    Last edited by Gelston; 06-04-2018 at 09:18 PM.
    Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

  7. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fortybox View Post
    In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/u...ay-couple.html
    Thank god you're too stupid to realize how embarrassing that was.

  8. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelston View Post
    I've typically been seeing ruling or grounds. That is just the NY Times being retarded and trying to change up some words so it doesn't look like they copied someone else's homework. And again, the DECISION was narrow. The VOTE was not.

    "The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory on narrow grounds to a Colorado Christian baker who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, stopping short of setting a major precedent allowing people to claim exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on religious beliefs."
    It's a clickbait title. The comments on their Twitter were funny though.

  9. #39

    Default




    Um, we don't call him a "baker." We always refer to him as a "cake artist."

  10. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tgo01 View Post
    There's a distinction here that you are either purposefully not understanding or are too dumb to understand.

    The baker didn't discriminate against PEOPLE, they discriminated against the idea of gay marriage.

    The baker didn't say I won't serve you because you're gay so no birthday cakes, anniversary cakes, congratulation cakes, graduation cakes, or any other cakes for you, cause you're gay!

    The baker said he doesn't want to be forced to make a gay wedding cake, presumably he would tell a straight person he won't make a gay wedding cake for his friend's wedding as well, meaning he's discriminating against making cakes for gay weddings, NOT gay people.

    If you want to argue that this rationale still shouldn't fly in the good ol' US of A, then fine, make that argument. But don't make the situation something it isn't so you have an easier time to win the gold in your oppression Olympics.


    Quote Originally Posted by Androidpk View Post
    look who decided to stop lurking cause of some gay cake
    www.twitch.tv/3piecesofbread
    Quote Originally Posted by time4fun
    No, actually, Back is not an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by Back
    I am a retard. I'm disabled. I'm poor. I'm black. I'm gay. I'm transgender. I'm a woman.


    Quote Originally Posted by Androidpk View Post
    And feel free to get me banned, not going to stop my lawyer from sending Kranar a subpoena for IP information on a couple of people.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •