Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Baker

#51
#51
hog88 said:
Correct ruling, nobody should be forced to associate with anyone they do not choose to.
Click to expand...



Sigh.

That's not the ruling. In fact, the Court specifically said it was not ruling on the merits. It was reversed on a procedural issue.

It resolves nothing about the ultimate question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#52
#52
TN Ribs said:
Straw man? Not even close. If you followed along I was simply commenting on what the reaction would be from the propaganda outlet known as Fox News. How's that War on Christmas coming?
Click to expand...

The fact that you are allowed to procreate is proof there is a war on Christianity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#53
#53
TennTom said:
Certainly not me. I've made my concise clear points. Carry on with your babbling though.
Click to expand...

The only point you make is the one on the top of your head. You have shown the only ability that you have is to stretch a statement so thin you can see through it to try and turn it against freedom loving people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#55
#55
82_VOL_83 said:
The only discrimination here was requiring someone to do something in violation of their religious beliefs. As a private business owner, he should be allowed to sell to whomever he wishes.

I guess the corollary to your bull**** argument is that Dick's should be required to sell AR's and they should make them available to anyone 18 years and older per Federal Law.
Click to expand...
There were state and local laws on the books that says you're wrong.

If Dick's wants to eliminate a product from their inventory that's controversial, who are you to say what they should do? Speaking of stepping on freedoms.
 
#56
#56
T-TownVol said:
I must have the wrong person, when you said "former" pastor, I thought you were the one that posted what I asked above.....my bad........FTR, I would have baked the cake for them and taken the opportunity to talk to them.....
Click to expand...

I don't post here often. Wasn't me.
 
#58
#58
lawgator1 said:
Sigh.

That's not the ruling. In fact, the Court specifically said it was not ruling on the merits. It was reversed on a procedural issue.

It resolves nothing about the ultimate question.
Click to expand...

I tried to tell them this, but they too busy celebrating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#59
#59
TennTom said:
There were state and local laws on the books that says you're wrong.

If Dick's wants to eliminate a product from their inventory that's controversial, who are you to say what they should do? Speaking of stepping on freedoms.
Click to expand...

Comprehension isn't your strong point. Go back and read what I wrote....read it slowly, take your time, and then make another remark that you can't back up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BUBear, AM64, Behr and 4 others
#60
#60
TennTom said:
There were state and local laws on the books that says you're wrong.

If Dick's wants to eliminate a product from their inventory that's controversial, who are you to say what they should do? Speaking of stepping on freedoms.
Click to expand...

Oh the irony......
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#62
#62
82_VOL_83 said:
He is so spun up about this that he can't stop blathering for 2 seconds to read and absorb what is being posted.

"They" still think this is about discrimination against sexual preference. "They" don't understand that this is a ruling on basic personal freedoms.
Click to expand...




For the second time, no, it is not. It was reversed on a procedural issue. The Court specifically said it is not resolving the case on the merits of who is right and who is wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
#64
#64
TennTom said:
If Dick's wants to eliminate a product from their inventory that's controversial, who are you to say what they should do? Speaking of stepping on freedoms.
Click to expand...


This is actually a great example...if Dick's wants to drop guns (or certain guns) that's their call. If people want to take their business elsewhere as a result that's those consumers call.



If a satanist refuses to make a Jesus Saves cake it's the same thing in my eyes. I deeply distrust the idea of the government inserting itself in this type of scenario and really don't care who the players are regarding the winners and losers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#71
#71
TennTom said:
There were state and local laws on the books that says you're wrong.

If Dick's wants to eliminate a product from their inventory that's controversial, who are you to say what they should do? Speaking of stepping on freedoms.
Click to expand...
:lolabove::lolabove: You agreed with his point Cletus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#73
#73
lawgator1 said:
For the second time, no, it is not. It was reversed on a procedural issue. The Court specifically said it is not resolving the case on the merits of who is right and who is wrong.
Click to expand...
So once again, a legal case is resolved and has nothing to do with real justice. Cigars lit in DC law offices. More billable hours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BUBear, AM64, hog88 and 1 other person
#74
#74
T-TownVol said:
Shhhhh.....he is "concise" AND "clear" on his points.......
Click to expand...


BYIi.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#75
#75
SpaceCoastVol said:
So once again, a legal case is resolved and has nothing to do with real justice. Cigars lit in DC law offices. More billable hours.
Click to expand...


If their conclusion was that the case was procedurally flawed, they are going to reverse on that ground, and that ground alone, every time.



It is a maxim of the Supreme Court that it does not go out of its way to rule on the merits unless the merits are properly before them. In fact, the Court often turns down cases which squarely raises a merits issue because it simply does not want to deal with the issue at that point. They may, for example, want to see what other courts do in similar situations, first.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top