LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

SCOTUS Dumps Another Obama Effort

KeithD said:
How again was that an Obama effort? And the decision was made on a technicality that had nothing to do with the central issue, which the SC punted on for now. Try to actually pay attention to reality.

Incidentally, I agreed from the getgo that the baker had a right to decide what his businesses services would be and at the most it should have been made known publicly that he wouldn't provide services to gays, and then others had the right just not to give him business.


Obama, Hillary, Obama, Hillary (don't look at the venial man in the White House) Obama, Hillary, Obama, Hillary.
Click to expand...
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/CharmingUnsungCaracal-size_restricted.gif
 
Rightguide said:
They took a dump on the idea the state could make him bake a cake that violated his religious rights. That's all the baker sued to secure, dope.:D
Click to expand...

Actually, it wasn't baking the cake, which was not a problem, it was decorating it.
 
I have a small place in Turkish Cyprus too--in Bellapais.

I've always been fascinated with how interested you and others are in me. Sorry, I can't reciprocate. I don't really care who the hell you are. I just know that, on Literotica, you are one sad sack.
 
My goodness you are trying hard. I'm really flattered that you've had me so high on your radar that you had this in mind, tracked it down, and regurgitated it. Guess you really like. :D

Yep, I believe that LadyF was playing the hard black bitch persona on the board (and that it's a standard character persona) and I said so. So what? Whatever happened to her, by the way?

You're playing someone really scared at the moment--the "let's you and me bully someone who isn't cooperating" bully role. Guess you really want me to stumble off in that corner and go into a fetal position. Guess what.

Let's just blame it all on Obama and Hillary. :D
 
Last edited:
[Spamming, bumping multiple threads in order to flood the forum, posting same content to multiple locations, or screen-stretching to disrupt the forum is prohibited per our forum guidelines.]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You're doing a great job, TalkRadio. LadyF was the one using racism here--cashing in on it. I called her on it. And I'm calling you on your Swiftboating attempts. I can smell your fear from here. :)

Don't tell me. You must be a Republican, right?

How's this working for you so far, Bubba?

Isn't it time for you to try gay bashing again? (Don't mind me. I'll be over here in the corner in a fetal position.)
 
KeithD said:
You're doing a great job, TalkRadio. LadyF was the one using racism here--cashing in on it. I called her on it. And I'm calling you on your Swiftboating attempts. I can smell your fear from here. :)

Don't tell me. You must be a Republican, right?

How's this working for you so far, Bubba?

Isn't it time for you to try gay bashing again? (Don't mind me. I'll be over here in the corner in a fetal position.)
Click to expand...

Link her post.
 
Rightguide said:
Gorsuch concurs:

"Only one way forward now remains. Having failed to
afford Mr. Phillips’s religious objections neutral consideration
and without any compelling reason for its failure, the
Commission must afford him the same result it afforded
the bakers in Mr. Jack’s case. The Court recognizes this
by reversing the judgment below and holding that the
Commission’s order “must be set aside.” Ante, at 18.
Maybe in some future rulemaking or case the Commission
could adopt a new “knowing” standard for all refusals of
service and offer neutral reasons for doing so. But, as the
Court observes, “[h]owever later cases raising these or
similar concerns are resolved in the future, . . . the rulings
of the Commission and of the state court that enforced the
Commission’s order” in this case “must be invalidated.”
Ibid. Mr. Phillips has conclusively proven a First
Amendment violation and, after almost six years facing
unlawful civil charges, he is entitled to judgment."
Click to expand...

BAD mistake, RG. NEVER substitute the legal rationale in a concurrence for the actual rationale IN THE OPINION drafted by the justice writing for the majority. Ultimately, no matter what ELSE Gorsuch says, the ONLY thing that matters is his concurring with the main opinion Kennedy wrote. Same for Kagan. She wrote that essentially there is no need for a future "new 'knowing' standard" as advocated by Gorsuch. According to Kagan, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission could have easily and properly have held AGAINST Phillips on the very legal standards currently on the books WITHOUT having violated his First Amendment rights.

Now even though they are both on the same side in this case, they can't BOTH be right about how future cases would be decided if the CCRC in the future DOESN'T fuck up as it did here. That is ALL this case is about -- NOT a legal standard -- but rather a performance standard surrounding the current legal standard that exists and has IN NO WAY been invalidated.
 
Colonel Hogan said:
BAD mistake, RG. NEVER substitute the legal rationale in a concurrence for the actual rationale IN THE OPINION drafted by the justice writing for the majority. Ultimately, no matter what ELSE Gorsuch says, the ONLY thing that matters is his concurring with the main opinion Kennedy wrote. Same for Kagan. She wrote that essentially there is no need for a future "new 'knowing' standard" as advocated by Gorsuch. According to Kagan, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission could have easily and properly have held AGAINST Phillips on the very legal standards currently on the books WITHOUT having violated his First Amendment rights.

Now even though they are both on the same side in this case, they can't BOTH be right about how future cases would be decided if the CCRC in the future DOESN'T fuck up as it did here. That is ALL this case is about -- NOT a legal standard -- but rather a performance standard surrounding the current legal standard that exists and has IN NO WAY been invalidated.
Click to expand...

I quoted Kennedy as well, was he right?
 
Rightguide said:
I quoted Kennedy as well, was he right?
Click to expand...

Yeah, Gorsuch was quoting Kennedy, too. But Kennedy was only talking about the current case. Not a future standard necessary for resolving conflicts between the First Amendment rights of Christian bakers and the anti-discrimination rights of gay customers.

And the current case ONLY concerned the First Amendment rights of a Christian baker and the administrative law abuse of those rights by an Administrative body. The specific anti-discrimination claims by the customers which took their gripe TO the commission in the first place play no role in THIS decision.

Read the title of the case: Masterpiece Cakeshop v........who?

NOT the original defendants who were refused service. That's kind of a big deal.
 
I don't know the Bible verse that prohibits decorating cakes. Would that be a graven image?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rightguide
Could This Be The Next Shoe to Drop?
3 4 5
Replies
108
Views
5K
Rightguide
Rightguide
gotsnowgotslush
Intolerant Bigots seated in Supreme Court
Replies
17
Views
1K
YDB95
YDB95
T
Supreme Court overturns Obama effort to expand overtime pay
Replies
22
Views
898
BobaFetaCheese
BobaFetaCheese
Come_Hither1
Supreme Court declines to say whether flower shop can reject same-sex weddings
Replies
0
Views
968
Come_Hither1
Come_Hither1
sultrysandy
Supreme Court to hear major LGBT rights case day after election
Replies
4
Views
1K
coati
C
Back
Top