Supreme Court rules businesses can refuse service to LGBTQ+ customers

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...

Bitch, please. I have been a minority -- in more ways than one -- for my entire life. Have you ever been to another state? Left the country? Lived abroad for an extended period of time? The only people who end up with fucked up opinions like yours are white, "straight" people who have the incomprehensible and annoying bad habit of telling everyone else how they're allowed to feel. You're a whiny, bitchy princess who lives endlessly in the privilege you never earned.

I put "straight" in quotes because I'm sure that you're not. Post some more about fisting, you self-hating closet case.
 
Diesel said:
Bitch, please. I have been a minority -- in more ways than one -- for my entire life. Have you ever been to another state? Left the country? Lived abroad for an extended period of time? The only people who end up with fucked up opinions like yours are white, "straight" people who have the incomprehensible and annoying bad habit of telling everyone else how they're allowed to feel. You're a whiny, bitchy princess who lives endlessly in the privilege you never earned.

I put "straight" in quotes because I'm sure that you're not. Post some more about fisting, you self-hating closet case.
Click to expand...

the biggest minority is the individual

quit your crying or someone will give you something to cry about
 
Nomad said:
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.
Click to expand...

Now you're flailing. Queer mental disease? The case is over. You're missing the bigger picture because you're not a smart person. This Court is intentionally, directly dismantling decades of civil rights progress. It is openly attacking minorities, including women, LGBTQ individuals, and racial minorities. This Court is dangerous, regressive, and is going to do as much damage as it can.
 
zymurgy said:
paywall from a shitstain socialist network - do better

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/preview_home/303-creative-v-elenis/

Enis argued the facts of the law, not standing
Click to expand...

My bad. I didn't know you're poor. And also unable to Google.

Lawrence Pacheco, a spokesman for Phil Weiser, the state’s attorney general, said Colorado’s brief had noted that the request was problematic. “We raised the fact it was not a real request,” he said.

In an interview last year, Mr. Weiser focused on what he said was the larger question in the case: a lack of a meaningful record.
 
zymurgy said:
the biggest minority is the individual

quit your crying or someone will give you something to cry about
Click to expand...

That is the dumbest fucking thing that could ever be said about discrimination. So dumb that only a white person -- or Clarence Thomas -- could say it.
 
Diesel said:
My bad. I didn't know you're poor. And also unable to Google.

Lawrence Pacheco, a spokesman for Phil Weiser, the state’s attorney general, said Colorado’s brief had noted that the request was problematic. “We raised the fact it was not a real request,” he said.

In an interview last year, Mr. Weiser focused on what he said was the larger question in the case: a lack of a meaningful record.
Click to expand...

I'm not poor you retardo

I refuse to give money to shit stain corporations

https://www.nationalreview.com/benc...ents-against-standing-in-303-creative-part-1/
https://www.nationalreview.com/benc...ents-against-standing-in-303-creative-part-2/
 
Diesel said:
Bitch, please. I have been a minority -- in more ways than one -- for my entire life.
Click to expand...

Bitchy drama queen!!!! :rofl2:

Did it ever occur to you that the supposed "inequality" and "discrimination" you claim to have endured in your pathetic, miserable life, was merely the perfectly natural negative reactions to your asshole personality??

Diesel said:
The only people who end up with fucked up opinions like yours are white, "straight" people who have the incomprehensible and annoying bad habit of telling everyone else how they're allowed to feel. You're a whiny, bitchy princess who lives endlessly in the privilege you never earned.
Click to expand...

Says the poor, stupid little hypocrite drama queen who DOES THE EXACT SAME THING!!!!

Hard to believe you're too dim-witted to see that for yourself, yet here we are.

Diesel said:
I put "straight" in quotes because I'm sure that you're not. Post some more about fisting, you self-hating closet case.
Click to expand...

Dude.... You're the one who uses a picture of a guy, maybe you, maybe not, simulating the act of ramming his fist up a rectum.

Don't get all pissy-panties with me when I reference it.

It must have some meaning to you.

I just assume it's something you enjoy. :dunno:
 
Diesel said:
The New York Times is more factual than the National Review. It is as left-leaning as the National Review is right-leaning. Your brain has been rotted by your echo chamber and your political hatred.
Click to expand...

the New York Times has a pay wall.

And it is a shit stained piece of trash.

cry some more that I don't pay that bullshit corporation for access.. what an idiot you are :laugh:

nobody will ever doubt you are gay though. fucking drama queen big time
 
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...

This Supreme Court is a broken activist court and deliberately so, via the Federalist Society plan.

This SC is put in place to reverse much of the past 100 years of progress and MAGA by returning us to times when what white men thought was all that can and should be considered. They are not hiding that and admit when they say they are now reading the Constitution with the original intent of the Framers and deciding cases based on that.

Understand that their position is that what a bunch of old white men, in a time when PoC were property and women had the rights of children only, input into their views of the law is now what they are saying will be the guide posts they use to judge all issues.

That is why you now see courts ruling that 'men guilty of spousal abuse cannot be denied guns anymore' and they reviersed saying 'that was not contemplated as a reason to deny a person a gun by the framers'. Again at a time when women had very few rights.

Clarence Thomas has made it clear too SOLICITING cases to be brought to the SC for them to reverse. No proper SC solicites cases eager to end prior precedent. They are arbiters of the cases in the system and not advocated of what needs to be brought to courts.

They have also made a mockery of 'standing' and 'Stare decisis' , which were two foundational elements of prior SC.

They granted status for the States to sue over Student loan forgiveness despite them demonstrating no justified standing. They granted status to this women who was concerned that maybe, one day, kind of sorta, she MIGHT want to sell web sites and she MIGHT end up sued and they did so with a fake person on the other end.

None of any of this matters if there is a case they want to hear so they can overturn it.

The good news is that if Joe Biden does stack the court, as he should with a big win in 2024, then the same republicans certainly will not cry about 'standing' or 'stare decisis' if that new court goes about changing, for the better, the entire recent history of the court and even much of the past.

This SC has turned into a completely political body that will just look to implement partisan positions depending on who has power at the time.
 
QP! said:
This Supreme Court is a broken activist court and deliberately so, via the Federalist Society plan.

This SC is put in place to reverse much of the past 100 years of progress and MAGA by returning us to times when what white men thought was all that can and should be considered. They are not hiding that and admit when they say they are now reading the Constitution with the original intent of the Framers and deciding cases based on that.

Understand that their position is that what a bunch of old white men, in a time when PoC were property and women had the rights of children only, input into their views of the law is now what they are saying will be the guide posts they use to judge all issues.

That is why you now see courts ruling that 'men guilty of spousal abuse cannot be denied guns anymore' and they reviersed saying 'that was not contemplated as a reason to deny a person a gun by the framers'. Again at a time when women had very few rights.

Clarence Thomas has made it clear too SOLICITING cases to be brought to the SC for them to reverse. No proper SC solicites cases eager to end prior precedent. They are arbiters of the cases in the system and not advocated of what needs to be brought to courts.

They have also made a mockery of 'standing' and 'Stare decisis' , which were two foundational elements of prior SC.

They granted status for the States to sue over Student loan forgiveness despite them demonstrating no justified standing. They granted status to this women who was concerned that maybe, one day, kind of sorta, she MIGHT want to sell web sites and she MIGHT end up sued and they did so with a fake person on the other end.

None of any of this matters if there is a case they want to hear so they can overturn it.

The good news is that if Joe Biden does stack the court, as he should with a big win in 2024, then the same republicans certainly will not cry about 'standing' or 'stare decisis' if that new court goes about changing, for the better, the entire recent history of the court and even much of the past.

This SC has turned into a completely political body that will just look to implement partisan positions depending on who has power at the time.
Click to expand...

not a single retarded liberal SCOTUS justice argued against standing

some dipshits on twitter do, that's it though
 
Diesel said:
Now you're flailing. Queer mental disease? The case is over. You're missing the bigger picture because you're not a smart person. This Court is intentionally, directly dismantling decades of civil rights progress. It is openly attacking minorities, including women, LGBTQ individuals, and racial minorities. This Court is dangerous, regressive, and is going to do as much damage as it can.
Click to expand...

That's all just your flaming, uninformed, extremist left-wing partisan opinion.

While I don't agree with some of their rulings, particularly on abortion, it's clear that they haven't proven themselves to be the extremist far right ideologue puppets it was feared they'd be.

The recent North Carolina voting rights case where conservative justices sided with the liberals on denying state's ability to control elections threw a big monkey wrench into the plans of Trump's red state ass-kissers.

There were a couple of other instances where Roberts and Kavanaugh crossed over and handed down opinions that sided with Kagen, Sotomayor and Jackson.

But telling colleges they can no longer use race as a biased determining factor, and the Gay Gestapo Mafia that they can't force people to create products that express agreement with their lifestyle, is hardly attacking anyone or dismantling civil rights progress or any of the other breathless, hyperbolic nonsense you panted about.

You are obviously a mindless simpleton who hears your own prejudiced beliefs mirrored by partisan news outlets, then parrots their words because you can't think for yourself.

You're no better or different in essence, than a rabid Trump cultist.

Opposite side of the same coin.
 
zymurgy said:
not a single retarded liberal SCOTUS justice argued against standing

some dipshits on twitter do, that's it though
Click to expand...

Herp derp, herp derp.

...Justice Elena Kagan on Friday slammed her conservative colleagues' decision to invalidate President Joe Biden’s student loan debt relief plan, suggesting they had put politics ahead of case law on a matter they had "no business deciding."

"The Court’s first overreach in this case is deciding it at all," Kagan wrote in her dissent from the 6-3 ruling, where she said the states that challenged the policy did not have legal standing to do so....

cite
Click to expand...

And understand Justice Alito has been spitting mad since other conservatives would not destroy the principle of 'standing' when some of his conservative fellow Justices refused standing to States trying to sue over Obama care. If you read his dissent it reads as pure garbage. A complete destruction of the prior history of standing and opening the door for any State to sue the Federal gov't based on ideology and not 'harm'.


...Justice Alito’s Fierce Dissent Endorsed a Liberal Application of Article III Standing Doctrine to Call for Obamacare’s Destruction...


...In a lengthy dissent exactly twice as many pages long as the comparatively brief and tidy majority opinion, conservative Justice Samuel Alito — joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch — said that his peers have essentially ignored decades of precedent to issue a “remarkable” and “contrary” holding that is “based on a fundamental distortion of our standing jurisprudence.”

“The States have clearly shown that they suffer concrete and particularized financial injuries that are traceable to conduct of the Federal Government,” the dissent argues, endorsing a liberal interpretation of standing. “The ACA saddles them with expensive and burdensome obligations, and those obligations are enforced by the Federal Government. That is sufficient to establish standing.”

Not so, says the majority.

“Unsurprisingly, the States have not demonstrated that an unenforceable mandate will cause their residents to enroll in valuable benefits programs that they would otherwise forgo,” liberal Justice Stephen Breyer writes. “It would require far stronger evidence than the States have offered here to support their counterintuitive theory of standing, which rests on a ‘highly attenuated chain of possibilities.'”

The majority’s basic premise is that the unenforceable mandate cannot be traced to “an injury in fact” unless several leaps are made from the law to the alleged injury. This is a basic application of standing doctrine as it has existed for quite a while....
Click to expand...
 
Nomad said:
Bitchy drama queen!!!! :rofl2:

Did it ever occur to you that the supposed "inequality" and "discrimination" you claim to have endured in your pathetic, miserable life, was merely the perfectly natural negative reactions to your asshole personality??



Says the poor, stupid little hypocrite drama queen who DOES THE EXACT SAME THING!!!!

Hard to believe you're too dim-witted to see that for yourself, yet here we are.



Dude.... You're the one who uses a picture of a guy, maybe you, maybe not, simulating the act of ramming his fist up a rectum.

Don't get all pissy-panties with me when I reference it.

It must have some meaning to you.

I just assume it's something you enjoy. :dunno:
Click to expand...

I don't care what you think. I don't care what fake xtians who have bastardized Christ's message beyond comprehension think. There will always be stupid, hateful people; and my goal is not to help any of you deplorables evolve.

I do care about the way government makes decisions about how people interact with each other. I care when government sanctions discrimination by "religious" people against LGBTQ people. I care when government forces women to carry pregnancies they don't want. I care when government says that two consenting adults are not allowed to get married or have whatever sex they want to have with each other in private. The fact that people go to court for permission to be shitty people to fellow citizens -- and the even more unbelievable fact that there are courts that will grant it -- means that whatever advancements we've made in the past 60 years are fragile and can be reversed in a moment.
 
zymurgy said:
the New York Times has a pay wall.

And it is a shit stained piece of trash.

cry some more that I don't pay that bullshit corporation for access.. what an idiot you are :laugh:

nobody will ever doubt you are gay though. fucking drama queen big time
Click to expand...

I'm not gay, but you are a flaming moron. How would you know that the Times is a "shit stained piece of trash" if you don't read it? Oh, someone told you to think that. I promise I'm surprised. As I pointed out, the National Review is just as biased and less factual. You prefer it because you agree with it. That's called confirmation bias and explains why you understand about 1% of the world.

That applies to the fact that you didn't know Colorado argued standing. Then you wouldn't look at the information when I spoon fed it to you. Then you wouldn't do your own research either. You are a lazy liar and the problem with the world. You think you're entitled to opinions, but your opinions are fact-free and printed onto your shriveled brain by monied interests that own you.
 
Diesel said:
I'm not gay, but you are a flaming moron. How would you know that the Times is a "shit stained piece of trash" if you don't read it? Oh, someone told you to think that. I promise I'm surprised. As I pointed out, the National Review is just as biased and less factual. You prefer it because you agree with it. That's called confirmation bias and explains why you understand about 1% of the world.

That applies to the fact that you didn't know Colorado argued standing. Then you wouldn't look at the information when I spoon fed it to you. Then you wouldn't do your own research either. You are a lazy liar and the problem with the world. You think you're entitled to opinions, but your opinions are fact-free and printed onto your shriveled brain by monied interests that own you.
Click to expand...
you sure are going on a long time about why I don't give the NYT money.

feel free to waste more of your time, but I read very little of what you are saying now, since you can't actually debate the subject and act like a child
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top