GatewayRedbirds.com

A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
It is currently March 18 19, 5:28 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 946 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 95  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: SCOTUS thread
PostPosted: May 15 18, 6:52 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: April 18 06, 9:40 pm
Posts: 23794
This didn't get a lot of attention

The dissenters were Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito



Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS thread
PostPosted: June 4 18, 8:47 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: October 12 06, 2:21 pm
Posts: 15989
Location: Baseball Ref Bullpen
SCOTUS sides with Colorado baker who refused gay wedding business. The vote was 7-2. Since this was a private business, I think I'd vote the same way. There are plenty of bakeries and not all are run by Christians. Let the market figure it out.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS thread
PostPosted: June 4 18, 9:01 am 
Offline
99% conan clips
User avatar

Joined: April 18 06, 5:14 pm
Posts: 53633
Joe Shlabotnik wrote:
SCOTUS sides with Colorado baker who refused gay wedding business. The vote was 7-2. Since this was a private business, I think I'd vote the same way. There are plenty of bakeries and not all are run by Christians. Let the market figure it out.

i would agree i think. although to me, it's another reminder of how greasy religion is, can use it to explain your biases and thus you can't be judged by your peers, etc, because you know, god. i would hope religious freedom wouldn't extend to racism like...if the bakery said "i won't bake a cake for a black family" because of religious beliefs. then what?

that said, obviously there's got to be another bakery that will accept the transaction. i do wonder why people who are in the interest of making money allow their biases to prevent them from making money. i would think a capitalist would accept monies from anyone (on the surface at least). weird barrier to install as a business owner, to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS thread
PostPosted: June 4 18, 9:17 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: April 18 06, 9:40 pm
Posts: 23794
Decision seems very specific to this case and not a final word on this issue

Quote:
The U.S. Supreme court dodged a major ruling on the question of whether business owners can refuse services to gay individuals based on their religious objections.

In a case brought by a Colorado baker, the court ruled by a 7-2 vote that he did not get a fair hearing on his complaint because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission demonstrated a hostility to religion in its treatment of his case.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS thread
PostPosted: June 4 18, 10:03 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: April 18 06, 9:40 pm
Posts: 23794


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS thread
PostPosted: June 4 18, 10:45 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Posts: 18888
Location: Low A Minors
Jocephus wrote:
Joe Shlabotnik wrote:
SCOTUS sides with Colorado baker who refused gay wedding business. The vote was 7-2. Since this was a private business, I think I'd vote the same way. There are plenty of bakeries and not all are run by Christians. Let the market figure it out.

i would agree i think. although to me, it's another reminder of how greasy religion is, can use it to explain your biases and thus you can't be judged by your peers, etc, because you know, god. i would hope religious freedom wouldn't extend to racism like...if the bakery said "i won't bake a cake for a black family" because of religious beliefs. then what?

that said, obviously there's got to be another bakery that will accept the transaction. i do wonder why people who are in the interest of making money allow their biases to prevent them from making money. i would think a capitalist would accept monies from anyone (on the surface at least). weird barrier to install as a business owner, to me.


The wedding cake is a really weird and dumb example since the stakes are so low. It's mind blowing and infuriating that the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to settle a squabble about a dang wedding cake. But discrimination happens all the time in places where there is a lot more at stake than dessert. It's like: why would a mortgage lender turn down an applicant just because they are black or latino? I think it's because these folks know that there are winners and losers in capitalism, and they want the winners to look more like their own racial/religious/ethnic group...The fear is, if they don't discriminate, then someday their own group may end up on the losing end more often.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS thread
PostPosted: June 27 18, 8:19 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Posts: 18888
Location: Low A Minors


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS thread
PostPosted: June 27 18, 8:23 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Posts: 18888
Location: Low A Minors
The entire public sector is now "right to work". We're so [expletive].


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS thread
PostPosted: June 27 18, 8:26 am 
Offline
Everday Unicorn
User avatar

Joined: April 21 06, 10:14 am
Posts: 33796
Location: Austin, TX
I'll never for the life of me understand why the Democrats did not file a legal challenge to McConnell's refusal to hold confirmation hearings on Garland, in clear violation of the Constitutional requirement to do so.

That decision results in profound, transformative consequences for our country.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SCOTUS thread
PostPosted: June 27 18, 8:29 am 
Offline
bronoun enthusiast
User avatar

Joined: April 14 06, 10:45 pm
Posts: 28043
Location: extremely online
heyzeus wrote:
I'll never for the life of me understand why the Democrats did not file a legal challenge to McConnell's refusal to hold confirmation hearings on Garland, in clear violation of the Constitutional requirement to do so.

Because for some reason they still believe in the lie of centrist compromise and decorum. The republicans must think stuff like this from yesterday is hilarious:




In reality I think Obama handled the end of his administration about as bad as he possibly could have, including assuming that Mitch couldn't sandbag for another 8 years of Hillary.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 946 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 95  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: doe_boy, Google [Bot] and 19 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group