Zing! you wanna see my Pride and Joy?

Six weeks?!

I like how leftists are allowed to refuse service to cops and people on the right, yet if a christian baker refuses to make a fag cake they get sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The courts upheld the right of the baker, chucklehead, no one is stopping sanders from suing this place and all the people who wouldnt serve cops got fired.

they had to spend 100k at least of their own money (maybe got back 75% of it last i read) and we're dragged through the mud by the media. meanwhile the red hen gets praised by the same media for rejecting someone they dont like (which i thought no humans were illegal...)

Yeah, so? There's due process to follow and it costs a shitload of money if you're trying to not make a gay cake or trying to legalize gay marriage. They dont only charge conservatives to go to court.

There's plenty of media shitting on the red hen, including multiple official government streams. The president of the country is saying the place is dirty inside, he's trying to torpedo a business. Dont act like some wounded victim crybaby, pumpkinhead gives as good as she gets.

The fact that it had to go to court is a travesty. People have the right to be as hateful, bigoted, And stupid as they want as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.

Thats why they went to court, to prove that. Thats why we have the courts, to interpret the laws. Laws need to be tested in the court, to set precedence.

You understand that it went through multiple levels of courts. He was ruled against in state court. And, the supreme court's ruling stated that it was because of his sincere religious objection. This case is a warning. It will happen again, and the court will force someone into baking a cake, making a flower arrangement, etc. That they do not want to make. It is sickening

Yes, going through multiple courts is due process. It's why we have more than one tier in the judicial system.

This case, as decided by the supreme court in favor of the baker, is a warning? How do you figure that one?

There is a law there which states that businesses must not discriminate for a variety of reasons, sexuality is one. The state court found him guilty based on that. That law is on the books and enforced. It also violates constitutional rights. I don't want business owners discriminating against people, but they do have the right to do so. And in that instance I can cease to be a customer, and so can anyone else. What we don't want is a government that tells us what we must do. Wording the decision as one of the justices did implies that they found in his favor because of his sincere religious beliefs, and seemed to be almost apologetic for the ruling. And if that wasn't his reason for refusal they wouldn't have even heard the case. That, in my view, is dangerous.

All law is essentially dictating what people must and must not do.

Yeeeaaahhh maaaaahhhhhnnnnn

Nice try, Dave.

You are right. But what you are forgetting is that laws are to protect our rights as outlined by the constitution. It was that baker's right to not do what he didn't want to do. Through his actions he was not infringing upon the customer's rights. They could pursue happiness, at a baker who didn't have prejudice against them.

Ex. The government can tell me that I can't kill my neighbor. Because that infringes upon his right to life.

They can't (shouldn't) have the power to tell me that I must embrace and facilitate my neighbors enjoyment of adolescent saliva.

And it would be great and simple living if laws and situation were that cut and dry. Murder is illegal but there is extensive legal examination of what defines murder and in what ways it is justifiable to take someones life.

"the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought" Pretty simple. If it is justifiable it isn't murder. Each law must be simple, though interpretation is often complicated.

Thats not simple at all and thats a pretty clear cut law. We're not even talking about esoteric laws.

Sir, you have abandoned sense. It is very simple. I shan't enter into the argument which you are trying to lead me.

Give an example of one of these esoteric laws, please

https://www.copyright.gov/title17/

No one is saying the study of law is simple. But the basic tenets of u.s laws are. No person should be able to infringe upon the rights of others. That is what each case must uphold. The baker's rights we're clearly infringed upon. And that was upheld by a state court. If I lived there I would vote for new judges. The couple's weren't because they were free to go anywhere else.

There is no difference between the study of law and the application of law. Regardless of what you feel about it you cannot reasonably deny that this situation you have two protected groups coming into conflict who both have a valid claim to your tenant. Either the baker can deny service based on religious objection or the gay couple can expect protection from discrimination based on sexuality. They're both entitled to protection and they're both infringing on the rights of others.

The gay couple is not entitled to protection here. He is not infringing upon their rights. He is not saying that they can't have a cake. He is saying that he will not make it. Someone else can, but he won't. He has the right to be homophobic, intolerant.

There is a state law in colorado that prohibits a business from discriminating on the basis of sexuality. To circle back because we're getting far away from it- this is all in support of it not being a crystal clear, slam dunk case that never should've been contested. I understand why it has gone through multiple judgments.

I understand why it went through multiple judgements as well, that law is unconstitutional. I am saying that we have progressed very far towards increased governmental control and it is scary.

The Court's job is to uphold the constitution, which the state law and court didn't, not to eliminate hate.

The lower courts interpreted the law in a different way and the higher court agreed to hear and rule on it. They didn't find him guilty of being mean. You have conflicting laws and law is not written in such a way that it sets parameters on every single way it will be tested.

The law in that state was unconstitutional when passed, and unconstitutional when tested. They didn't find him guilty of being mean. They said that he would have to bake a cake, despite his beliefs, or face punishment. That is unconstitutional.

And the supreme court reviewed it and reversed the decision. This has happened through the entire existence of the country in any range of subjects. The system was conceived to allow decisions to be reviewed to account for these disagreements of interpretation.

They can ever enter contracts.

Thank you.

The gays apparently targeted the bakery specifically so they could be publicly shocked that a guy whose values were established in ancient times thought the way he did

The court didn't uphold the rights of anything dummy, they ruled that the investigation into the incident violated the baker's civil rights, they made no judgment on the issue at hand.

I said they upheld the right of the baker, dum dum, not that they ruled that on the issue flatly. They decided that the state overstepped in their ruling on the case. Thats upholding his right to refuse making the cake.

Exactly. Bunch of faggots if you ask me.

Those faggots provoked that incident on purpose. One of them could've just gone to the bakery to buy the cake and not say a word about their faggotry.

how can i vote for this guy

It is fucking hilarious that President Faggot is personally shitting on some local diner like a peeved elderly yelp reviewer.

[removed]

Doddering old grandma

Are we sure Sarah’s linebacker shoulders weren’t simply too wide to fit through the door?

I love him so fucking much.