POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
As this case shows the constitutional concerns at play here are at the forefront of politics like it or not. Just like abortion. These are uncomfortable topics but laws are being passed and cases are being decided that affect us all. Just as much as the tax code, foreign policy, or domestic regulations and bureaucracy.
They're always so generous and virtuous with someone else's money and neighborhoods.
It's our taxes too. The tax code affects us all. (Not equally, as the more you can afford to spend on not paying the more you can dodge. But that issue isn't partisan.)
It's actually your incessant use of hypotheticals, and 'well, what if' scenarios, which are typical argumentative tactics of someone who doesn't have a good argument about the fact pattern that does exist.
That’s why you need great tax lawyers 🍺 praise Jesus !
It is interesting how you so respect the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but not the supreme law of the land. You just don’t like to mention the First Amendment at all. Article VI of the constitution makes the constitution the supreme law of the land. It’s not just a hurdle to your desire to force the baker, it is the hurdle. You don’t like to address it, but any law formed by congress is subject to the constitution.
You may pay more taxes today. Please do.
Well my hypotheticals are mostly to explain the court's ruling that the majority here seems to disagree with. So do you think the CO Supreme Court will overturn it on the appeal? @Caveman Catfan is already on record, care to join him?
NO CHANCE Bill Hicks (RIP) could do this today (heck, this recording was banned for 17 years on Letterman).
The real fun begins at 2:30 or so...
The real fun begins at 2:30 or so...
Biggest issue is that religion and politics have become intertwined to the point that I don't think they can be untangled.
Because I don't think it's applicable here. The courts have ruled the pink cake with blue frosting isn't compelled speech so there isn't a free speech issue, which just leaves religion. He's perfectly free to practice his religion. His Christianity doesn't compel him to own a bakery. If he feels it compels him to not sell pink cakes with blue frosting to a trans person then ok, he's free not to. He just can't then turn around and sell to other people. That side of the equation is what the Civil Rights Act covers and what's operative here. Not the First Amendment.
This is a key distinction; hell, I wouldn't care if someone refused me ANY service based on ANY reason in modern America... I'd just go elsewhere, someone else gets my business and you can get pumped!
But that's not even what's at issue here. They can have their cake, they just can't force the proprietor to make a specific cake in violation of common and justified sincerely held religious conviction.
They can be, we just have to be vigilant across the many forms of encroachment. We are a secular state. This is one such battle. If we start losing them we could go the way of Turkey.
Marxism, according to Marx himself, is a religion.
So can I chalk this up as another prediction of overturn on appeal? I may keep a tally.
No. I said the Supreme Court. Not the Supreme Court of Colorado. I even clarified that I have made no predictions about the appellate process in Colorado. Please attempt to demonstrate a bit of character here and quit with the silly gamesmanship.
Dude, quit with the redundant claim that the government can force him out of business if he wants to respect his sincere religious beliefs. How many times are you going to post the same post? Everyone here knows that you don’t believe that freedom means having your religious beliefs AND being able to pursue your own business.
You believe the first amendment means a person of faith must hide from the government control of religion to express religion. That is not what the constitution says. It does not say you can freely express so long as you stay out of government oversight. Quite the opposite.
Holy shit did you really not get the joke? He's slamming y'all calling the male homosexuality "disgusting, grotesque, and evil" while totally being fine with the chicks kissing. It's a classic bait-and-switch. Even got the guy in the crowd to cheer.
Well that's fine but you didn't specify which Supreme Court and CO's is the next step in the process. Your prediction is for SCOTUS, heard.
Thanks for posting this, when I posted about her earlier I tried to find that bottom video to show more of her craziness, but couldn't find it.
Such grandstanding for Taliban to get tossed from a Trump event, I’m sure she hopped on her magic carpet and flew back 🍺
And the other half are crazy.
From the appellate court decision itself: "Additionally, the division concludes that CADA’s prohibition against discrimination based on a person’s transgender status does not violate a proprietor’s right to freely exercise or express their religion." That's directly in reference to the First Amendment freedom of religion claim.
Those who are so gung ho about raising taxes can lead by example. Hey libs, why not send in an extra thousand or two to the IRS every month over and beyond what they will take from you.
Lead by example libs.
The rest are trans or cross dressers. Nice move Joe. I give it to you, you do have one queer cabinet.
This event provided a lot of great stuff, not just that half the women in his administration are women:
Here he says a dozen words as one word...haha
Kamala is going to be pissed...he has called her the president a dozen times last couple of years.
Here he says a dozen words as one word...haha
Kamala is going to be pissed...he has called her the president a dozen times last couple of years.
In fact, 303Creative v. Elenis may be the case to watch, rather than the cake case. It may not be the exact same issue, but deals with the same Colorado law, I believe. SCOTUS has accepted review of the 10th Circuit’s rejection of the graphic design company’s claim that the state law infringes on religious beliefs. There is a standing question in the case, but I doubt the Court would accept certiorari for a standing issue if it agreed with the Circuit Court. Time will tell.
Dion, I expressly rejected your false claim that I predicted the Colorado court’s decision and informed you that I made no predictions about the state court action.
Who is the racist that chose the shortest month of the year for Black History Month?
But they DO get an extra day every four years!
I said I got it you meant SCOTUS, no reason to be pedantic. But if you're going to be then I'd have to point out that you posted there about the CO state appellate court, not the state Supreme Court. Different courts.
Similar threads
