ADVERTISEMENT

POLITICAL THREAD

How will they rule ??!

  • YES - Qualified

    Votes: 41 82.0%
  • NO - Disqualified

    Votes: 9 18.0%

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
Fn-n0a5WQAMsRs7
 
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.
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.
I have never commented on how the Colorado state appellate court would rule.
 
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.
 
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.
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.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dionysus444
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.

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. 🙄
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.
 
I would like to clarify that @phunterd was correct when we he said this earlier:
My mistake. I knew his previous case ran afoul of CO law hence a state commission is who he had issues with.
We were conflating lots of cases at the time and Kim Davis was being referenced when talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Bostock v. Clayton County expanding sex discrimination to include sexual orientation and gender identity, but this specific case is over CO law like he said. Specifically the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, or CADA, that specifically mentions sexual orientation and transgender.

I say this because @Caveman Catfan brings up a good point about the constitutionality of CADA already being on SCOTUS's docket with 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. But you have to be precise when discussing these things because what he failed to mention is that SCOTUS took up 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis on the free speech clause of the First Amendment and specifically refused to take up the free exercise of religion clause which was also being contended. So the ruling in that case won't matter to this cake case we've been discussing unless it strikes the entirety of CADA down as unconstitutional by the free speech clause. Which still wouldn't address the freedom of religion clause.
 
Last edited:
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. 🙄
The bigger lab shifts are at night where the coal gets mined, hauled, and loaded during the day and tested overnight. Day is my time off.
 
I would like to clarify that @phunterd was correct when we he said this earlier:

We were conflating lots of cases at the time and Kim Davis was being referenced when talking about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Bostock v. Clayton County expanding sex discrimination to include sexual orientation and gender identity, but this specific case is over CO law like he said. Specifically the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, or CADA, that specifically mentions sexual orientation and transgender.

I say this because @Caveman Catfan brings up a good point about the constitutionality of CADA already being on SCOTUS's docket with 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. But you have to be precise when discussing these things because what he failed to mention is that SCOTUS took up 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis on the free speech clause of the First Amendment and specifically refused to take up the free exercise of religion clause which was also being contended.
Religion is the foundation of the refusal in 303 Creative. If the Court reverses, it will apply to the Baker. The appellant in 303 from a speech perspective is no different than the baker. Again, time will tell.
 
This is what the US needs to do:

"El Salvador has doubled its prison capacity after opening a 40,000-person facility this week in an effort to further crack down on the country's gang violence problem.

"All those home boys, those terrorists in the organization that made our beloved Salvadoran people suffer, will be housed and subjected to a severe regimen," El Salvador’s Prisons Director Osiris Luna said on state television. "
 
  • Love
Reactions: bertfan31
Religion is the foundation of the refusal in 303 Creative. If the Court reverses, it will apply to the Baker. The appellant in 303 from a speech perspective is no different than the baker. Again, time will tell.
People should have helped him out by ordering all kinds of cakes he wouldn't make. I'm sure if we put our heads to it, each of us could think of a cake design this guy would hesitate to make. Perhaps he doesn't want to get his name out as the kind of bakery where anything goes. Who decides what the artist paints and doesn't paint? Doesn't the baker have an inalienable right to his own persona and style?

He is not removing their right to have a cake made as they like. This is not a destination case for these people. Just another rung on the ladder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sawnee Cat
People should have helped him out by ordering all kinds of cakes he wouldn't make. I'm sure if we put our heads to it, each of us could think of a cake design this guy would hesitate to make. Perhaps he doesn't want to get his name out as the kind of bakery where anything goes. Who decides what the artist paints and doesn't paint? Doesn't the baker have an inalienable right to his own persona and style?

He is not removing their right to have a cake made as they like. This is not a destination case for these people. Just another rung on the ladder.
It's a pink cake with blue frosting. Not the Mona Lisa or a manifesto. Regardless, he initially agreed to make the cake. It wasn't a cake that he objected to in any way until he found out who it was for.
 
LOL. A little comedy relief. Whether you like him or not you have admit that Lindell is fearless in his own way.
First 5,6 minutes....

 
  • Like
Reactions: Sawnee Cat
Some pretty impressive numbers. Makes you wonder...when/if DeSantis becomes President he's going to have an awful high bar of expectations (by most) based on how things are going in Florida.

 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT