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?
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
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.
It says right there you can't discriminate. The "prohibition against discrimination based on a person’s transgender status does not violate a proprietor’s right to freely exercise or express their religion." Doesn't matter what your religious beliefs are, the prohibition against discrimination doesn't violate it. Freedom of religion is not operable in this case as you're perfectly free to just not sell cakes. You have your right to religious freedom. That isn't a right to sell cakes.
That is 100% wrong according to many SCOTUS rulings. The constitution does not protect religous institutions. it only protects your right to religous beliefs and the freedom to religous practices. It is not an absolute statement thought. Only if those practices do not go against our laws. The only thing government cannot do is create a law that elevates one religion over another. The law against polygamy is a great example. It was a unamious decision that free exercise of religion has limits when it interferes with the law. They also ruled that it was legal to deny benefits for drug use even if a religion believed in its use. Reynolds vs US established that any part of religion can be banned if it violates health, safety, and morality. They said he was free to believe in polyagmy, just not allowed to practice it. The same goes for the civil rights and business. You are free to be a racist or bigot POS, just not allowed to openly practice it within a public business. Whether or not you agree with these ideas does not matter. SCOTUS has already ruled on it. And this was a long time ago, when the country was like 80% super stupid religous.
“To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.”
Meanwhile, in peaceful, gun free Canada . . .
Dude. Start a Cake thread. For God's sake.
No wonder Dion is such a communist. Dude has to be the worst worker ever. Sits and writes dozens of essay level posts on a freaking message board all day every day. 🙄
Well.....this is BS. What happened to the 'new' McCarthy? Didn't last long.
McCarthy: Officer Who Shot Babbit on Jan 6 'Did His Job'
McCarthy: Officer Who Shot Babbit on Jan 6 'Did His Job'
Normally I read/post on here with my laptop or a tablet. Earlier for whatever reason I used one of my phones. Not logged in. All my ignore buds were there.
Thank you for the IGNORE option.
Dr. Suess didn't actually write that! - Dion
Latest posts
-
-
College basketball's biggest NIL spender.... KENTUCKY- Latest: BlueSince92
-
-
-