@no1marauder saidshow me where I said any law was invalidated …oh thats right, I didnt . you are 💩weaseling again.
So, did the SCOTUS invalidate the law as you claimed?
Nope, it's still in effect.
are you backing off claiming the case was sent back to the state? 😂
@mott-the-hoople saidYou're such a pathetic liar; you repeatedly claimed there was "no law" and based that on the SCOTUS' decision.
show me where I said any law was invalidated …oh thats right, I didnt . you are 💩weaseling again.
are you backing off claiming the case was sent back to the state? 😂
You were wrong; the SCOTUS has never overturned a State anti-discrimination law.
True, I was thinking about an Oregon case which got returned to State courts by the SCOTUS under similar facts, but even though the SCOTUS ruled for the baker in Colorado on the narrow grounds that the specific language in the Civil Rights Commission's decision showed hostility to religion, it specifically refused to overturn the law.
EDIT: Here's an article about the Oregon case I was thinking of: https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/supreme-court-lgbtq-religious-liberties-oregon/index.html
@no1marauder saidyou are losing it…You are just straight making up things and claiming I said it. You are lying.
You're such a pathetic liar; you repeatedly claimed there was "no law" and based that on the SCOTUS' decision.
You were wrong; the SCOTUS has never overturned a State anti-discrimination law.
True, I was thinking about an Oregon case which got returned to State courts by the SCOTUS under similar facts, but even though the SCOTUS ruled for the baker in Colorado on th ...[text shortened]... f: https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/supreme-court-lgbtq-religious-liberties-oregon/index.html
You know how to copy and paste…show these things you claim or slink away in lying shame.
@no1marauder said“You're such a pathetic liar; you repeatedly claimed there was "no law" and based that on the SCOTUS' decision. “
You're such a pathetic liar; you repeatedly claimed there was "no law" and based that on the SCOTUS' decision.
You were wrong; the SCOTUS has never overturned a State anti-discrimination law.
True, I was thinking about an Oregon case which got returned to State courts by the SCOTUS under similar facts, but even though the SCOTUS ruled for the baker in Colorado on th ...[text shortened]... f: https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/supreme-court-lgbtq-religious-liberties-oregon/index.html
show it you liar
@no1marauder said“You were wrong; the SCOTUS has never overturned a State anti-discrimination law.”
You're such a pathetic liar; you repeatedly claimed there was "no law" and based that on the SCOTUS' decision.
You were wrong; the SCOTUS has never overturned a State anti-discrimination law.
True, I was thinking about an Oregon case which got returned to State courts by the SCOTUS under similar facts, but even though the SCOTUS ruled for the baker in Colorado on th ...[text shortened]... f: https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/supreme-court-lgbtq-religious-liberties-oregon/index.html
show it you liar
@no1marauder said“True, I was thinking about an Oregon case which got returned to State courts by the SCOTUS under similar facts, but even though the SCOTUS ruled for the baker in Colorado on the narrow grounds that the specific language in the Civil Rights Commission's decision showed hostility to religion, it specifically refused to overturn the law.
You're such a pathetic liar; you repeatedly claimed there was "no law" and based that on the SCOTUS' decision.
You were wrong; the SCOTUS has never overturned a State anti-discrimination law.
True, I was thinking about an Oregon case which got returned to State courts by the SCOTUS under similar facts, but even though the SCOTUS ruled for the baker in Colorado on th ...[text shortened]... f: https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/supreme-court-lgbtq-religious-liberties-oregon/index.html
EDIT: Here's an article about the Oregon case I was thinking of: https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/supreme-court-lgbtq-religious-liberties-oregon/index.html”
yet you accuse me of being uninformed
@mott-the-hoople saidUnlike the right wing morons here, I don't spend my entire life on this board.
looks like 💩weasel tucked his tail between his legs and slinked away.
Mott: I asked what law? no one can tell me
So I told you.
@mott-the-hoople saidMott: scotus has ruled on this before, no law was violated. want to try again?
“You're such a pathetic liar; you repeatedly claimed there was "no law" and based that on the SCOTUS' decision. “
show it you liar
Looks like you were caught, for about the 1000th time, of baselessly calling someone else a "liar" on this board.
@no1marauder saidLOL… when the scotus rules no law was violated…ummm that means no law was violated 😂
Mott: scotus has ruled on this before, no law was violated. want to try again?
Looks like you were caught, for about the 1000th time, of baselessly calling someone else a "liar" on this board.
@mott-the-hoople saidPathetic.
LOL… when the scotus rules no law was violated…ummm that means no law was violated 😂
MOTT: what law requires this baker to furnish anything?
@mott-the-hoople saidState laws are in effect unless and until a binding court decision renders them void. No court decision has ever rendered a State anti-discrimination statute void, so you are completely wrong.
LOL… when the scotus rules no law was violated…ummm that means no law was violated 😂
As usual.
@no1marauder saidI never said they wasnt in effect.
State laws are in effect unless and until a binding court decision renders them void. No court decision has ever rendered a State anti-discrimination statute void, so you are completely wrong.
As usual.
I said the scotus ruled he did not violate any law.
no amount of word twisting will change that.
@no1marauder saidForced labor, not to mention the stolen ingredients. If the baker refuses they'll demand money if he refuses to pay they'll confiscate his property, if he defends his property (including land) men with guns will confiscate his life. Slavery.
LMAO! "Literally make them a slave"? Do you even know what a "slave" is?
I think the best way to assure that customers aren't discriminated against by those who are allowed to operate in the economic system by the society that created it is to ban such unethical and immoral conduct.
Customers discriminate all day everyday, they're just the other half of the trade, they discriminate on the basis of race and religion and a thousand other irrational baseis and that's just how it should be because they're the ones missing out.
@wajoma saidSo, a cookie store baker is accosted by these quasi-gendered people to bake a huge wedding cake, with no in-your-face statements to be made about sexuality and gender on this cake. Just a 5-tier wedding cake. Just like I would go in and order a wedding cake.
Forced labor, not to mention the stolen ingredients. If the baker refuses they'll demand money if he refuses to pay they'll confiscate his property, if he defends his property (including land) men with guns will confiscate his life. Slavery.
Customers discriminate all day everyday, they're just the other half of the trade, they discriminate on the basis of race and religio ...[text shortened]... usand other irrational baseis and that's just how it should be because they're the ones missing out.
But Marauder et al miss the point as usual. This cookie baker does indeed have all of the ingredients to make a wedding cake, but he does not make wedding cakes.
Should SCOTUS make baker create a wedding cake in his cookie shop? He only makes cookies. The sign in his shop says 'No Political Cookies'. The baker was traumatized by 9/11 and renounced politics from his life.