Supreme Court rejects appeal over gay bias case

Associated Press ^ | Apr 7, 2014 2:13 PM EDT | Jeri Clausing

[SpaceBar]

The Supremes, by their inaction, have upheld the notion that not entering into a contractual agreement is now a tort. Again, should scare the hell out of those with their eyes open.

[Jack Hydrazine]

Depends on who the ‘we’ is defined as.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Good! Once hell has been scared out, heaven can be embraced in.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Everyone living there in the body politic.

[cloudmountain]

As had been pointed out, nobody’d dare try this with Muslims. Not if they didn’t want to get jihaded.

When my husband and I lived in Saudi Arabia we saw what the Saudi women passports looked like: they were photographed with their VEILS ON! How stupid is that?

The Saudi women were veiled...and for the older gals, that was an EXCELLENT idea. The older Saudis looked MUCH older than they were. Also, they had many missing teeth and a smell that CANNOT be described in any other words than: the "middle easts."

I saw dark green and blue eyes too, dark but not always brown.
I also saw lots of dark skin in the wives...no faces, as they were veiled but the hands and feet were bare (wearing sandals) and the skin was black.

[Jack Hydrazine]

Again, it depends on how the elite define, “we.”

[HiTech RedNeck]

I’m curious, real curious, about the upshot if it began to impinge on Muslims. Christians can’t get the country’s oil suppliers to call us a Great Satan again, but Muslims could. Given enough pressure anything could yield.

[Amendment10]

I suspect that pro-gay activist justices know that they can get away with such actions because low-information voters, voters who don't know the Constitution, will probably just accept, even if reluctantly, what the Supreme Court decides.

Also, I wonder if Elaine Huguenin's legal council argued Section 1 of the 14th Amendment or the related case of Minor v. Happersett.

[HiTech RedNeck]

How about plain jane Constitution ballyhooers. It’s been made a do-it-yourself job. Take it seriously now.

[SpaceBar]

Sometimes it’s appropriate to take off the preacher collar and put on the powdered lawyer’s wig. This really isn’t a religious issue, that’s just the convenient “context” used to justify destruction of longstanding contract law.

[cloudmountain]

That’s not a reason; it’s only a vent. Way too general to be anything other than a vent.

[cuban leaf]

I’m dead serious here:

You know what I think when I read articles like this? I think, man, I gotta get that solar power going while I still can, and I wonder how much more ammo I need?

[SpaceBar]

Oops, meant that post for HiTech Redneck.

[HiTech RedNeck]

If they want an artist, let the artist use the art in an unflattering manner. There are more subjective ways than “out of focus.”

[who_would_fardels_bear]

African Americans have successfully sued restaurants just for not being seated in the order in which they arrived at the restaurant.

Providing shoddy work or differential pricing to some customers is not a strategy that will work long term.

My concern is that heterosexuals will want to get married in increasingly "creative" ways such as skydive weddings, scuba weddings, etc. This will bring the gay weddings issue to more and more company's doorsteps.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Hey if the case can be better argued more power to it, Portia.

[Jack Hydrazine]

i iz in disgize!

[HiTech RedNeck]

Photography is an art. It can always be argued that the artist is so disgusted that he cannot do a proper job with the art, that the muse leaves.

[hemogoblin]

Couldn’t the photogs just subcontract the job to someone willing?

[HiTech RedNeck]

My concern is that heterosexuals will want to get married in increasingly "creative" ways such as skydive weddings, scuba weddings, etc. This will bring the gay weddings issue to more and more company's doorsteps.

I think you mean homos, fardels?