- Joined
- Aug 15, 2015
- Messages
- 26,650
- Reaction score
- 10
Can you actually cite the first one?
Regarding Phillips, you know this was a state level case that had zero to do with Obama right? The case dealt with public accommodations and denying protected classes on the basis of a 1sr amendment claim. The court gave an extremely narrow decision where Co civ rights comm fucked up by not treating every bakery who was in violation of those laws as they did Jack Phillips .
If Co had tteated all the same, my guess is the court would rule correctly in that you can't be a place of public accommodation and discriminate . That's any religion .If you wanted to discriminate then you'd have to be private entity who doesn't afford itself to the advantages of operating in the public domain . Pretty straightforward this is nothing to do with religious freedoms . Those protections don't apply when you place yourself as a public accommodation. That goes for any religion
The other points I'll assume you're conceeding
Don't expect @Ripskater to even try to answer your questions beside repeating empty talking points. Even as those points are proven wrong or if he is asked to substantiate them he will simply then disappear to only repeat the same wrong points again and again in trolling other threads.
He is avoiding this issue below with me like the plague because it exposes his immense hypocrisy and lack of morals and penchant for lying.
Once again you show your hypocrisy knows no bounds and that your morals are vacant as I am quite sure you were one who complained about 'un-elected judges' in the past when it came to them over ruling issues you agreed with and now you embrace using them the other way.