I had already seen the quote and source before seeing AA’s post. The fact that it was in the “Republicans Say…” thread should have eliminated most pre-schoolers.
1 Like
I haven’t followed the particulars of the case…but one thing that I’m confused about is why is this case different from the “Colorado baker objects to making wedding cakes for same-sex marriages” case a few years ago.
In that earlier case, the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the baker 7-2.
What’s different with this case? Or do the conservative justices simply want another chance to publicly bash the gays and make their masters happy?
3 Likes
Good Lord, those Trump quotes… 
“There should be no time limit for change.”
While not everyone would agree that the 2020 election involved OPEN and BLATANT FRAUD, it is hard to understand what change could be contemplated after 2024. Asterisks in the record books, maybe.
1 Like
In the CO baker case:
Kennedy’s opinion stated that the Commission’s review of Phillips’s case exhibited hostility towards his religious views. … Kennedy’s opinion noted that he may have been inclined to rule in favor of the Commission if they had remained religiously neutral in their evaluation.
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Wikipedia.
That case was narrowed by the perception that the CO Civil Rights commission did not apply the law “fairly”. According to the Wikipedia article, the state eventually dropped its complaint against the baker, there have been following private suits, and the SC has not gotten to them.
1 Like
Thanks for the reminder… that’s all vaguely familiar, but I’d forgotten the details.
We should probably redo the 2016 election, then, without all the “Russian interference.”
The Truth: Trump called my dad for months DEMANDING that he run. Everyone with a brain begged him: “PLEASE DON’T DO THIS. This is too dirty, you have an insane past… PLEASE DONT DO THIS.”
We got the middle finger. He ran.
Republicans, we say we don’t play “identity politics” and then you ran this man mainly because he was the same skin color as his opponent with no background other than football. A boring old Republican could have won.
https://twitter.com/ChristianWalk1r/status/1600332798967001088?t=yIU3s-uKe3-eoI_OFgiw-g&s=19
1 Like
Probably true, given how close it was / is.
Tough choice between this thread and Funny and SFW, but since we may not have Walker to kick around much longer, here.
Haha, got it right on the nose. Second guess was Trump.
Tangle covered the case today.
The key passage of Isaac’s opinion:
My understanding from NPR is the web designer has a business doing web design for certain kinds of projects, but has self-limited to not doing wedding design do to fear of impact of Colorado law.
1 Like
That’s why SC justices like to talk about hypotheticals. They understand that they aren’t just ruling on this one case. They want to draw lines that lower courts can use to rule on other cases with facts that are slightly different than this one.
1 Like
Yeah, but the web designer has not been hurt yet. They are making a choice based on the law.
“I want to drive over the speed limit so I can get somewhere in time, but I can’t cuz speed limit. I need to take my case all the way to the Supreme Court.”
“I want to sit at the Woolworth counter and get served a meal, but I might get arrested. USSC, please void the law for me kthxbi.”
USSC usually requires someone to break a law in order to void the law.
Web designer needs to stop being such a pussy, and break the law.
1 Like
As I mentioned above, we’ve had many lawsuits blocking anti-abortion laws before those laws were used to arrest anyone.
1 Like
