The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

#9,701
#9,701
zeppelin128 said:
I'm well aware that JD was gay, hence why I asked why even compare gay dudes to Dahmer? I should have elaborated further. The Dahmer comparison, "an actual pariah who deserves contempt and condemnation", is what the far right does to denigrate all LGBTQ+ folks. Not saying that you were doing that, since you didn't know about Dahmer's sexuality, or that you are far-right. Just that it is a trope that gets used by fundamentalist types to other and justify non-equal treatment under law.

Dare I say, I was triggered. lol
doge-meme-triggered.gif
Click to expand...
I wasn’t doing that zep I was purposely drawing an extreme example to an otherwise normal situation. Yes apparently Dahmer was gay. Not every gay is Dahmer. In fact not a one of them are.

Oh and actually it never dawned on me that Dahmer was gay until I was reminded of it or I’d probably have used a different example.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128
#9,703
#9,703
zeppelin128 said:
Segregation was justified by religion during Jim Crow. Still is, by some of the far-right crazies. So no, I don't think the situation is any different.
Click to expand...
You left out the most important part, conveniently I might add, that she is not denying them service, she does work for gay people now. She is specifically taking issue with being compelled to provide one very specific service by the state because it goes against her religious beliefs.

It's certainly a valid point and an issue that deserves debate, at least imo.
 
#9,704
#9,704
KB5252 said:
You left out the most important part, conveniently I might add, that she is not denying them service, she does work for gay people now. She is specifically taking issue with being compelled to provide one very specific service by the state because it goes against her religious beliefs.

It's certainly a valid point and an issue that deserves debate, at least imo.
Click to expand...

What is the debate? That someone has the right to your talent? Pfffttt,,,,, F THAT.
 
#9,706
#9,706
KB5252 said:
You left out the most important part, conveniently I might add, that she is not denying them service, she does work for gay people now. She is specifically taking issue with being compelled to provide one very specific service by the state because it goes against her religious beliefs.

It's certainly a valid point and an issue that deserves debate, at least imo.
Click to expand...
She is denying them service. Very specifically. Targeting them for denial of service, and hiding behind her religion to do so.

SCOTUS is going to side with this woman completely, I have no doubts; the floodgates will open from there for rampant, open discrimination in all sorts of things, from restaurants to health care to whatever else you can think of.
 
#9,707
#9,707
NorthDallas40 said:
I wasn’t doing that zep I was purposely drawing an extreme example to an otherwise normal situation. Yes apparently Dahmer was gay. Not every gay is Dahmer. In fact not a one of them are.

Oh and actually it never dawned on me that Dahmer was gay until I was reminded of it or I’d probably have used a different example.
Click to expand...
I know, you're alright ND.

giphy.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#9,708
#9,708
zeppelin128 said:
I've known several political consultants that worked for both Republicans and Democrats over the years. I don't think political party affiliation should be a "protected class", I guess we can call it, like race, ethnicity, etc.
Click to expand...

Why shouldn’t it be part of a “protected class”?
 
#9,709
#9,709
zeppelin128 said:
She is denying them service. Very specifically. Targeting them for denial of service, and hiding behind her religion to do so.

SCOTUS is going to side with this woman completely, I have no doubts; the floodgates will open from there for rampant, open discrimination in all sorts of things, from restaurants to health care to whatever else you can think of.
Click to expand...

1670556404390.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bassmaster_Vol
#9,710
#9,710
zeppelin128 said:
She is denying them service. Very specifically. Targeting them for denial of service, and hiding behind her religion to do so.

SCOTUS is going to side with this woman completely, I have no doubts; the floodgates will open from there for rampant, open discrimination in all sorts of things, from restaurants to health care to whatever else you can think of.
Click to expand...
I try not to worry about what the fringe will do, they are the fringe for a reason. She's asking for the liberty to deny a very specific service based on her beliefs, otherwise she gives them the same service she would give anyone else. She's asking for no more or no less.

Would you require a homosexual to design a website that says homosexuality is wrong for an anti homosexuality group?
 
#9,711
#9,711
KB5252 said:
I try not to worry about what the fringe will do, they are the fringe for a reason. She's asking for the liberty to deny a very specific service based on her beliefs, otherwise she gives them the same service she would give anyone else. She's asking for no more or no less.

Would you require a homosexual to design a website that says homosexuality is wrong for an anti homosexuality group?
Click to expand...
The fringe make the laws while everyone else is quiet and distracted.

No I would not, because that would be political speech, and I don't think that should be protected like race, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, etc. That doesn't mean speech is not protected by 1A.
 
#9,712
#9,712
zeppelin128 said:
The fringe make the laws while everyone else is quiet and distracted.

No I would not, because that would be political speech, and I don't think that should be protected like race, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, etc. That doesn't mean speech is not protected by 1A.
Click to expand...


Glad you get to decide what’s protected and what isn’t. Kind of convenient.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bassmaster_Vol
#9,714
#9,714
zeppelin128 said:
Kind of like you, right? Difference is I leave people I disagree with alone. You on the other hand, do not. You ask for a larger boot.
Click to expand...

Lol. Who have I not left alone? I don’t celebrate mental illness but I don’t lose sleep over any of it even if I disagree with it. The “leaving people alone” bs could easily be reversed.
 
#9,715
#9,715
C-south said:
Lol. Who have I not left alone? I don’t celebrate mental illness but I don’t lose sleep over any of it even if I disagree with it. The “leaving people alone” bs could easily be reversed.
Click to expand...
"Leaving people alone" bs, you have never, never done that. You are one of the most hateful bigots on this board. You would put your boot on the throat of everyone that disagrees with you if given the chance.
 
#9,716
#9,716
zeppelin128 said:
The fringe make the laws while everyone else is quiet and distracted.

No I would not, because that would be political speech, and I don't think that should be protected like race, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, etc. That doesn't mean speech is not protected by 1A.
Click to expand...
The fringe doesn't make the laws.

I think you're being a little dramatic. Even gay friends I know think it a little much for the state to compel someone to do something they have religious objections to. Differences of opinion can be had while respecting the viewpoints of others. Personally I don't care, but if a religious person is in this line of work and the state mandates they do this or else goes against some very basic tenants this country was founded on.
 
#9,717
#9,717
zeppelin128 said:
Well as long as it is cool for someone to say "nope" to a group of Christians trying to eat at a restaurant.
Click to expand...
Why shouldn't it be though? As I've said before, I want to know what people believe or think. I want to know, that way I can vote with my patronidge which businesses I support or not. The fringe will whither if we allow them to say what they really think.
 
#9,718
#9,718
KB5252 said:
The fringe doesn't make the laws.

I think you're being a little dramatic. Even gay friends I know think it a little much for the state to compel someone to do something they have religious objections to. Differences of opinion can be had while respecting the viewpoints of others. Personally I don't care, but if a religious person is in this line of work and the state mandates they do this or else goes against some very basic tenants this country was founded on.
Click to expand...
The fringe absolutely makes the laws. That is why a random ass woman that despises gay folks so much she took it to the Supreme Court to be sure she could still treat them as less than before she even provided the service. I don't think I'm being dramatic at all. When SCOTUS rules in favor of this, it will absolutely open up all sorts of discrimination against LGBTQ+ folks, and every other minority in the US.
 
#9,719
#9,719
zeppelin128 said:
"Leaving people alone" bs, you have never, never done that. You are one of the most hateful bigots on this board. You would put your boot on the throat of everyone that disagrees with you if given the chance.
Click to expand...

I can have beliefs without stopping anyone from doing what they want to do. As loosely as you use the word “bigot” it would probably fit you more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bassmaster_Vol
#9,720
#9,720
C-south said:
I can have beliefs without stopping anyone from doing what they want to do. As loosely as you use the word “bigot” it would probably fit you more.
Click to expand...
I've never said you should be silenced, or that you can't talk about aspects of your hatred. Never said you were mentally ill. Because you aren't mentally ill. You are just a hateful bigoted *******.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top