Supreme Court rules businesses can refuse service to LGBTQ+ customers

Into the Night said:
The did not change the meaning at all. The simply finally conformed to what the Constitution has always said.

The Supreme Court has no authority to change the Constitution, or 'change the meaning' of any part of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Where does the Constitution say free speech includes creative artistic expression or that affirmative action is legal for the military academies?
 
Into the Night said:
The Supreme Court does NOT determine what the law is. Congress does that. Only Congress can do that (for the federal layer). The Supreme Court has no authority to interpret or change the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Yet, many changes were just made in constitutional law and they were made by the Supreme Court which varied from previous court interpretations.
 
Into the Night said:
ANY decision by the Supreme Court that is not in compliance with the Constitution of the United States is unconstitutional. It is wrong.

The Supreme Court operates UNDER the authority of the Constitution. They have NO power over it.
Click to expand...

How do we know if the new decisions are in compliance with the Constitution or the previous decisions. Your opinion is based on your interpretation of the document which often varies with the court's opinions. But, the point is that it is a constitutional interpretation.

Where does the Constitution permit race based admissions for military academies but not other universities? That is pure interpretation and not in the document.
 
Nomad said:
Yet another spoiled little drama queen crybaby ^^^ who can't get over the notion he/she/it was raised to believe, that all you have to do is want something and the rest of the world has to bend over backwards to make sure you get it.



Then you get a regular fucking cake and go about your sad, queer life.

Get one of your queer friends to decorate it with pictures of dicks or whatever it is these two sausage smokers were asking for.

Just stop trying to force people to conform to your Queer Gestapo Mafia demands





The alphabet freaks should have never been granted "protected class" status to begin with.

How does one prove that one is really an L, or a G, or a B, or a T, or a Q or one of any of the other ever expanding list of bullshit categories?

Anyone can claim to be one of them then use it to create issues for someone else.

The real underlying point here that neither these fruitcakes nor their cheerleaders seem to understand is that the harder they try to force the rest of society to go along with their silliness, the harder the rest of society is going to push back.

Before all this alphabet, pronoun, gay "education" (indoctrination) in school curriculum, forcing artisans to create pro-queer content, etc, etc began, I was a fairly solid supporter of gay (etc, etc) rights and looked upon them as a group, as friendly, civilized, gentle people who just wanted to be left alone to live their lives without harassment and to be able to live and shop and dine etc, wherever they wanted.

Over the past couple of few years, I have come to change my opinion of them. Now I see them as just another bunch of obnoxious, pushy opportunistic power grabbers with an agenda they want to beat the rest of us over the head with.

I'm almost to the point where I will start voting for candidates who vow to fight them, no matter how much I might detest that candidate for all other purposes.

Yes, that's how disgusted you people are making me with your attitudes and behaviors.

And it has nothing to do with who or what you have relationships with.
Click to expand...

What I want, you insufferable idiot, is equality. Your ignorant posts drip with the unearned privilege of a sheltered, old fool who has never experienced the world and has never been the victim of meaningful discrimination. Yet you want to sit behind your computer screen and pontificate on the select cases when you grant certain minorities your permission to feel offended. Seriously, fuck you.
 
zymurgy said:
the request is a matter of fact. who sent it is irrelevant. it was sent through an official site.

And yes, she was creating websites.

you morons with your tin foil hats are hilarious
Click to expand...

I didn't claim that she didn't have a business. There is no doubt on the planet that the man she claimed requested a website never did any such thing. For real, no MAGA moron may ever point the tin foil hat finger at anyone. You people don't believe in science and medicine and get your news from Twitter.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
No one wants details of your sexual proclivities, Damsel.
Click to expand...

You know the only people who have ever said a word about my sex life on this site are repressed men who outwardly identify as straight but are not. It's tedious listening to you closet cases.
 
Diesel said:
I didn't claim that she didn't have a business. There is no doubt on the planet that the man she claimed requested a website never did any such thing. For real, no MAGA moron may ever point the tin foil hat finger at anyone. You people don't believe in science and medicine and get your news from Twitter.
Click to expand...

She didn't have a business. The wing nut justices picked up the case on purpose just to drive America further back in history. trump's SCOTUS picks was one of the things that harmed America the most. I blame the Bernie Bros for this shitstorm - these "never Hilldabeast" fucknuts were too short-sighted to see this coming. Hillary wasn't anyone's first pick, but at least she wouldn't have broken SCOTUS like trump did.
 
Diesel said:
I didn't claim that she didn't have a business. There is no doubt on the planet that the man she claimed requested a website never did any such thing. For real, no MAGA moron may ever point the tin foil hat finger at anyone. You people don't believe in science and medicine and get your news from Twitter.
Click to expand...

it also is a point of fact that a request came in

Who sent it was completely irrelevant to her concerns on Colorado's overreach.
 
LurchAddams said:
She didn't have a business. The wing nut justices picked up the case on purpose just to drive America further back in history. trump's SCOTUS picks was one of the things that harmed America the most. I blame the Bernie Bros for this shitstorm - these "never Hilldabeast" fucknuts were too short-sighted to see this coming. Hillary wasn't anyone's first pick, but at least she wouldn't have broken SCOTUS like trump did.
Click to expand...

Hindsight is a miracle. No one thought Trump could win. Given the indescribable fuckery that Trump unleashed on the world, I would take 10 Hillary terms. But she was a product of a broken political system. She didn't give us Trump. The DNC did.
 
zymurgy said:
it also is a point of fact that a request came in

Who sent it was completely irrelevant to her concerns on Colorado's overreach.
Click to expand...

No, it is not "irrelevant". I still don't understand how the woman got standing. She was never harmed and the "point of fact" is that the man she claims asked for a website never did. The entire case is bullshit, but the Republican appointees on the Court are utterly corrupt.
 
Into the Night said:
No court has authority to change any constitution.

Nothing in Marbury is capable of changing anything in any constitution.
The 2nd amendment has always applied to the States as well as the federal government.
Click to expand...

No one said anything about changing the Constitution. The legally ratified 14th Amendment is what changed the Constitution. The courts are interpreting the Amendment to apply them to actual cases of law.
 
Diesel said:
No, it is not "irrelevant". I still don't understand how the woman got standing. She was never harmed and the "point of fact" is that the man she claims asked for a website never did. The entire case is bullshit, but the Republican appointees on the Court are utterly corrupt.
Click to expand...

The State of Colorado never attempted to fight her standing.
 
Diesel said:
What I want, you insufferable idiot, is equality. Your ignorant posts drip with the unearned privilege of a sheltered, old fool who has never experienced the world and has never been the victim of meaningful discrimination. Yet you want to sit behind your computer screen and pontificate on the select cases when you grant certain minorities your permission to feel offended. Seriously, fuck you.
Click to expand...

I just love it when queers get all drama queen bitchy!!! :laugh:

You've never suffered discrimination or inequality in your miserable faggot life, you lying blabbering crybaby.

Go perform on yourself, the sex act which your avatar suggests your preference for.....

diesellikesthis.jpg


Seriously... go fist fuck yourself. :fu:
 
Nomad said:
I just love it when queers get all drama queen bitchy!!! :laugh:

You've never suffered discrimination or inequality in your miserable faggot life, you lying blabbering crybaby.

Go perform on yourself, the sex act which your avatar suggests your preference for.....

diesellikesthis.jpg


Seriously... go fist fuck yourself. :fu:
Click to expand...

you sound like a nutjob :laugh:
 
Diesel said:
No, it is not "irrelevant". I still don't understand how the woman got standing. She was never harmed and the "point of fact" is that the man she claims asked for a website never did. The entire case is bullshit, but the Republican appointees on the Court are utterly corrupt.
Click to expand...

I explained that to your thick-skulled ass already.

Legal standing does not require one have a personal stake in the case.

You should learn how to accept reality.

Maybe you wouldn't be so miserable.

Maybe it would even cure you of your queer mental disease.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top