Posted on 06/04/2018 2:09:37 PM PDT by davikkm
On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled via a 7-2 vote in favor of “Gay biased” Christian baker Jack Phillips. The ruling states that Philips had the right to refuse service to a gay couple who asked him to bake them a wedding cake. The owner of the bakery was lynch-mobbed back in 2012 by LGBG/leftist activist for refusing to do business with the gay couple on religious grounds, and he even faced charges for discrimination. It’s funny that the mainstream fake news media called the 7-2 vote of the SCOTUS a narrow win.
7-2 is a blowout in baseball or hockey. It’s the same for the Supreme Court as well. That’s Public School Progressive Math at its best, if you ask me. Here’s the guts of the decision: previously, the Colorado Supreme Court had ruled against the bakery and so did the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The US Supreme Court determined that the Colorado Court’s treatment of the bakers elevated one view of what is offensive over another view and, in doing so, sent a signal of official disapproval of the baker’s religious beliefs which violates the US Constitution. Furthermore, the US Supreme Court determined that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s hostility to the baker’s religious viewpoint violated the baker’s First Amendment rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at investmentwatchblog.com ...
GGggrrrr....it’s “normalcy”!
If I were that poster I would not reply. If someone questions my motives in a case of an obvious [to me, anyway] typo I would just give it a pass. I extend the benefit of the doubt to my fellow conservatives here on FR. I don’t believe that expecting the same in return is asking too much.
Not exactly satisfactory but I will take it for now.
In addition your obvious conclusion, may be incorrect. I prefer to know exactly whom I am talking to. I could care less if the person is an atheist, but knowing who you are talking to and their motivations are important.
Decision scope is always limited when conservatives win. It is instant, universal, and written on Mount Rushmore
forever when the libs win, as in Roe vs Wade or the gay marriage crap.
I’m sorry, but if I were the baker, I would have made them the most beautiful cake in history .and make it taste Extra delicious! Oh and lace it with salt peter for laughs! Honor the day, wreak the honeymoon!
Why are you the only person who ferreted out an obscure word from Urban Dictionary in order to interrogate the poster? You do realize that many words in the Urban Dictionary are so obscure that most people know nothing about them and they will never be included in a standard dictionary?
You have made a mountain out of a molehill. I wouldn’t be proud of it.
Winning! Much more of this kind of winning, please.
JoMa
Again you are wrong. You have made a major issue with me asking the poster if the urban usage of that word, that appears in no standard dictionary, was his intentional usage.
You know nothing and without his responding I know nothing. I was merely giving him the opportunity to confirm or deny that his was his intentional usage.
Want to try more and make more guesses? So far they have been worthless as this conversation.
It should not matter to you one way or the other if I ask the person for clarification.
Three words: obsessive compulsive disorder.
Now can you be a man, and just let it be? After all, I really wasn't seeking your useless input. All you have offered is your opinion. Opinion noted and quite frankly ignored.
And just how many 7-2 decisions has the Supreme Court made in it’s history that the liberal media thinks they can blow it off?
Some good news for a change.
Projection.
Indeed. 7-2 is a rather firm majority, I’d say.
LOL. You get the last word. Happy now?
OCD.
The typo maker also left the “R” out of brought, making it bought. Odd that the obsessive compulsive didn’t note that but chose to zero down on a truly obscure word! Perhaps there is a touch of anger at the faggotry being rejected?
That’s a possibility. My perspective is that between typos and auto correct, I’ve posted some real bloopers in my day. Most of the time people understand; it’s happened to the majority of us at one time or another. Occasionally somebody tries to blow it out of proportion. Those are not the best times.
On the cake ruling, it’s a good one but it could have been more robust. I will be glad when, God willing, Trump gets to name a second SC Justice. The makeup of the present court is too close for comfort.
The intent was merely political: with a uselessly narrow decision, avoid agitating the right before the midterms.
LOL, you;re a fraud who doesn't even practice what he preaches. Instead, you make snap judgements. I have doubts about you being a reformed liberal too, as you have used a classical liberal tactic. I have told you explicitly why I posed the question I did to the person, and you refused to accept my reason. So instead you resort to diagnosing me as your immature responses back to me, while offering your useless opinion as to why the poster said what he said. Yep, you are a class A fraud. You are nothing but a poser.
Grow up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.