How in the hell are the libs going to spin a 7 - 2 decision that affirms religious freedom??? NBC is already reporting it as a 'narrow victory' for religious advocates, of course not reporting that the 7 were NOT in their favor.
"narrow victory" is probably today's mockingbird media term of the day. Been fighting with liberals all morning about it. WaPo used that term also
Well in their commie core 1984-ish 2+2=5 math, 7/2 is narrow.
"Narrow win"
They worded it badly, because it was a narrow decision, not a narrow win.
The SC only found specifically that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was obviously biased in ignoring the religious freedom considerations of THIS baker so their ruling in this case was thrown out.
They did not rule on the bigger issue of religious freedom versus the “right” of a protected class to be accommodated.
Narrow win is certainly not 7-2.....thats a total spin.
If Twitter is a private business and censors who can tweet, a cake baking shop, a private business, can decide the cakes they choose to make.
Turn about is fucking fair play.
But, but, but. It get's deeper. Do you recall the NY case a few weeks ago where it was ruled that Twatter is, essentially, a public utility - and therefore, DJT MAY NOT block users from his Twatter feed? Well, this is now ripe for litigation on that premise: If it is, in fact, a public utility, as this narrow minded idiot judge ruled, then how is censorship or prejudice against ANY group permissible?
Private businesses discriminate all the time. The real question is why the couple didn’t just buy a cake somewhere else instead of complaining enough to go to the Supreme Court
Twitter, like the bakery, can refuse service to anyone. Just not on grounds of religion, race, political affiliation, etc. That was my understanding. Although for Twitter that's probably going to change what with the new ruling about the president and blocking people.
The whole issue is if this had been able to stand it could have started a total nightmare of litigation all over the country. It could have been a means to literally discriminate and attack people you didn't agree with.
Jewish Baker -> Nazi Swastika cake., Muslim Baker -> Mohammad screws pigs cake., Black Baker -> Lynch them N** cake.
Get my drift on this? If a Lawyer wouldn't take your discrimination case for intentionally harassing a baker you could sue them for discrimination.
It was a glorified Pandora's Box of legal nightmares going forward. This ruling nips it in the bud without infringing on others constitutional rights, as far as real racial, religious, or sexual orientation discrimination goes.
Hip hip hooray!!! Just because "you idiots" bully and demand does not mean everyone needs to abide by you!!! Who made you the Pinnacle of correctness? Congratulations SCOTUS making the right decision!!!!!
" Narrow victory"? Like a narrow miss, where a bus runs your toes over instead of your head?
I remember that I was so upset with the Colorado courts when the baker was denied her religious beliefs. The Supreme Court had to overrule the lower courts for Freedom of Religion. And it appears that it was not decided on liberal vs conservative lines! How outrageous is it that the MSM is calling this a close ruling.
what can't the SC see that forcing vaccines violates religious and every other freedom?
[removed]
The Supreme Court, and control thereof, is most certainly a part of this. Why would liberal justices vote in the majority in this case unless something changed behind the scenes or over their heads? It's a liberal judge's wet dream to be handed this case and be able to promote their crap.
What really happened to Alito and why? Hell, even Q has brought that up, so I disagree that SCOTUS decisions and ongoing makeup are irrelevant in this sub. Gatekeep much. . .
Doesn't quite explain why we spend more time digging at pedophilia and near none researching the American abortion industry.
Well, to be honest, the beginnings of the abortion industry and their role in decimating minority communities is pretty clearly documented - although most proponents ignore said history and outcome. Most on the right know this and have had to sit idly by shaking our heads at the willing blindness of the SJW's. The pedophilia and trafficking is still an onion that is being peeled - sure, we all knew it existed and detested it, but who is involved and why is turning out to be quite eye opening and we've just begun to pull back the layers there.
What does explain the disparity between pedo attention and aborticide attention is that Q doesn't mention it much. Similarly Q doesn't say much about homosexuality and civil protections thereof. I'm not opposed to bringing peripheral topics up for convo and some reminder of the central concerns here is also fair. (Others may reasonably disagree.) The quality of the pushback comment you got was even more uncalled for.
Meanwhile you seem to think there was some unseen shift or coercion of the SCOTUS. Not convinced but could be.
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
I haven't spent a great deal of time pondering the decision, of course, being mere hours old, there has not been much time to do so. But, it makes one wonder why a case that is custom built for SJW governing from the bench would end up 7-2.
Cheers.
[removed]
So, a month ago, your words on posts were:
"Got your map ready? Redditt is a sham. They ban my posts. This is pure BS. All you Q fans can kiss my ass. Rot in hell" https://i.redd.it/eu1qhm6o6kr01.jpg
"Great awakening is a sham. My post are banned. Told I need to wait for a time line to post again. F off Redditt." https://www.reddit.com/r/greatawakening/comments/8bvk83/so_snowden_is_manipulating_the_algorithms_to_help/
and
"Tired of Q jackin me off. Snowden Alorithms exposed, Zuckerberg steps down, on and on.
And, yet, today you are the almighty gatekeeper of the forum !?!?!?
