ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
So ... if she kept her mouth shut then she would've had the cake?

How did she tell him? Was it in a way as to rub it in his face?
Which illustrates his refusal was based on identity, not content.

She mentioned on the phone being excited to get the cake for her party. Nothing contentious or insulting.
 
That's a nonsense contradiction you pseudo-sophisticates complete morons have created to further your agenda.
Some Christians say acknowledging gay marriages is against their religion. Kim Davis maintained that. So there is a clear conflict when the law requires you to acknowledge that marriage and your religion requires you do not, with both their sex and your religion being protected.

This is just one example directly related to the subject matter at hand. You can formulate any number of others where religious and other rights come into friction. This must be litigated. Religious freedom is not blanket amnesty to do whatever you want ‘for meh religion!”
 
So, which is it? Putin, or the greedy oil companies? Putin, or the greedy baby formula companies? Putin, or the greedy eggs farmers? Putin, or the greedy (...)

You're a clown.

The fact you allegedly 'educated' children is a national travesty.
It's not an "or" issue. It's an "and" issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dionysus444
For us pure bloods...I know that includes the currently and unjustly banned Mr. Knowls.

FnqiutXXoAALLS-






 
Last edited:
Some Christians say acknowledging gay marriages is against their religion. Kim Davis maintained that. So there is a clear conflict when the law requires you to acknowledge that marriage and your religion requires you do not, with both their sex and your religion being protected.

This is just one example directly related to the subject matter at hand. You can formulate any number of others where religious and other rights come into friction. This must be litigated. Religious freedom is not blanket amnesty to do whatever you want ‘for meh religion!”

Kim Davis was a public official whose job was to enforce and execute laws.

This guy is a private baker who makes cakes.

There was no other county clerk. Bigoted leftists can go to hundreds of other bakers. Not comparable at all.
 
Kim Davis was a public official whose job was to enforce and execute laws.

This guy is a private baker who makes cakes.

There was no other county clerk. Bigoted leftists can go to hundreds of other bakers. Not comparable at all.
You can argue he should be allowed to discriminate, as several here have, but that isn't the law. If you want it to be you can endeavor to change it, but right now that isn't relevant.
 
Maybe if Big Oil wasn't raping every American and charging triple what they should for gas... We'd all have a few more bucks in our pocket. But the Pubs just love to scream FJB instead of looking at the insane greed going on.
They should be making big profits. No sense in investing in future production wells with Dims in charge.
 
It is the law. His freedom to religion via First Amendment supersedes a CO state law. And SCOTUS will 100% rule in his favor if it has to go that far.
It isn't a CO state law. It's the Civil Rights Act. If you want to overturn it, like I said, you're welcome to try. Don't think you'll find much support for that in the populace though.
 
And since I know you're going to say he agreed to make it, the. Wouldn't, and no one would make a cake in my hypothetical, say a phone call comes in asking for the white cake, with dimensions required. Baker makes the cake, obviously nazi guy comes in to buy it, baker refuses to sell it to him.

Discrimination based on race, or nah?

Or, how about, leave the guy alone, and order a cake from someone else who will.make it, you despicable liberal nut job.
Cake.

One of the most delicious foods available... and liberals find a way to screw that up lol.
 
Sex is an immutable characteristic. Being gay or trans is not a choice. The cake is a pink cake with blue frosting. That is not speech. It’s a pink cake with blue frosting. Phillips is free to hate gay and trans people as much as he wants, but if he also wants to run a business he has to serve them. That’s the law. The trans person is just trying to buy a cake from a cake shop, not deny service to Phillips because he’s Christian.
Where is your evidence that he hates anyone? The hate seems to be flowing toward him, because he will not behave as you commanded. It’s a narrow view of humanity to purposefully misuse the words the way you do. Hate, racism, etc. Stop being so narrow-minded and judgmental.

If the trans person was merely walking into a bakery and buying something off the shelf, it would likely not be a service. But, the trans person is demanding a unique product not sold off the shelf. That is a service.

I think you struggle with the English language. You once contended having a history degree made you a historian.
 
It isn't a CO state law. It's the Civil Rights Act. If you want to overturn it, like I said, you're welcome to try. Don't think you'll find much support for that in the populace though.

My mistake. I knew his previous case ran afoul of CO law hence a state commission is who he had issues with.

Having said that, my point still remains. His religious rights via the First Amendment supersede any federal law. You know this.
 
Which is why it has to be litigated. The fundamental issue here is does religious belief give you the right to discriminate against others who are protected by the same legal mechanism your religious belief is. It’s a contradiction in our system that must be resolved.
It’s a statutory right vs a constitutional right. A statute cannot be written or applied in a way that violates the constitution.
 
Where is your evidence that he hates anyone? The hate seems to be flowing toward him, because he will not behave as you commanded. It’s a narrow view of humanity to purposefully misuse the words the way you do. Hate, racism, etc. Stop being so narrow-minded and judgmental.

If the trans person was merely walking into a bakery and buying something off the shelf, it would likely not be a service. But, the trans person is demanding a unique product not sold off the shelf. That is a service.

I think you struggle with the English language. You once contended having a history degree made you a historian.
How does it feel to be wrong? Especially when it’s your entire career and you’re being schooled by a layman. Thought about dragging up your old posts now that the verdict’s come down but figured you’d be unable to stay quiet anyway. So here to eat your crow?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: jameslee32
Some Christians say acknowledging gay marriages is against their religion. Kim Davis maintained that. So there is a clear conflict when the law requires you to acknowledge that marriage and your religion requires you do not, with both their sex and your religion being protected.

This is just one example directly related to the subject matter at hand. You can formulate any number of others where religious and other rights come into friction. This must be litigated. Religious freedom is not blanket amnesty to do whatever you want ‘for meh religion!”
Kim Davis was a public servant charged to abide by the law. The baker is a private citizen. Surely you see the distinction without more explanation.
 
They should be making big profits. No sense in investing in future production wells with Dims in charge.
Pubs have had control of the House for 5 of the last 7 terms, the Senate for 3 of the last 5 terms, have split with the Dems on the last 4 Presidential terms and have held a conservative majority on the Supreme Court for the last 53 years.
You really think Big Oil is basing it's future decision making processes on who is running the government? That makes very little sense given the constant swings in political leadership in America.
 
Stopped reading your response when you asserted that oil companies have no incentive or money available for investment. Oil will always be necessary until it runs out and they made RECORD profits last year.
They are playing the gullible fools like always. Blame Biden as the oil flows at the same rate as under Trump and rake in record breaking profits.



Your oil production chart doesn't say what you think it says.
 
'SCIENCE', says SCIENCE DUDE!

Literally maybe the dumbest poster on the board, from either side of the aisle!

Hahahahahahs
My science trumps your illogical reasoning on just about every topic but sports. My sports takes are admittedly based entirely on raw emotion and fanaticism.
 
Pubs have had control of the House for 5 of the last 7 terms, the Senate for 3 of the last 5 terms, have split with the Dems on the last 4 Presidential terms and have held a conservative majority on the Supreme Court for the last 53 years.
You really think Big Oil is basing it's future decision making processes on who is running the government? That makes very little sense given the constant swings in political leadership in America.

Tell me you don't understand who is currently in charge, without telling me you don't understand who is currently in charge.

No new investments in new drills, rigs, exploration, etc for last 2 years= greater net profits for last 2 years. Good lord, it ain't hard to understand.
 
My mistake. I knew his previous case ran afoul of CO law hence a state commission is who he had issues with.

Having said that, my point still remains. His religious rights via the First Amendment supersede any federal law. You know this.
This is why the issue is so important and must be litigated. If one can claim religious exception to any law we have anarchy. If my religion says I must kill all infidels clearly that’s incompatible with all of our other freedoms and the rule of law. Religious freedom is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.
 
This is why the issue is so important and must be litigated. If one can claim religious exception to any law we have anarchy. If my religion says I must kill all infidels clearly that’s incompatible with all of our other freedoms and the rule of law. Religious freedom is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.

It’s quite a stretch to say that forcing someone to affirm others’ personal choices is comparable to killing infidels.

Here’s a simple solution - leftists that hate Christians should leave their businesses alone.

Problem solved.
 
The libs and the one 'conservative' that have started 20 plus accounts are f-cking losers...one reason is they deny they ever had any previous accounts when it's beyond obvious they have. They usually have completely embarrassed themselves under previous accounts so they keep starting new ones and their account is almost always less than a year old. We have had idiots with a 3 day old account show up on the political thread of sports site and act like they have never been here before.

Knowls has had to start new accounts because of run ins with the mods, when he posts there is no denying who it is, everyone knows regardless what name it is under. He is probably the most popular poster here by far...it's a completely different situation than the losers who start account after account because they have embarrassed themselves. If the other posters that have had to start other accounts went missing no one would care, we probably wouldn't notice if they went missing. If your account vanished, no one would give a sh-t.
Big difference between losers whose life and identity are tied to an internet forum posting prolly 50 plus times a day and someone who’s posted a few hundred times in ten plus years. I wouldn’t give a $hit myself if my account vanished and sure as hell wouldn’t take a second of my day to open another account. Y’all are all up-in-arms about a missing keyboard warrior who has to switch accounts to be fulfilled.
 
How does it feel to be wrong? Especially when it’s your entire career and you’re being schooled by a layman. Thought about dragging up your old posts now that the verdict’s come down but figured you’d be unable to stay quiet anyway. So here to eat your crow?
I don’t think you understand the judicial process or jurisdiction. I have never commented on how the Colorado state appellate court would rule. And, I am sorry you are not the historian you thought you were.
 
It’s a statutory right vs a constitutional right. A statute cannot be written or applied in a way that violates the constitution.
So now you think the Civil Rights Act will be found unconstitutional? Would be a pretty monumental shift in American politics. Think SCOTUS is willing to go that far?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT