Jump to content
Check your account email address ×

3 Supreme Court decisions that should make everyone patriotic this Independence Day.


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Skidooski said:

So far the sock puppets on here from the left are quiet  :snack: Waiting for DU / Twitter to tell them what to say?   

Oh for sure.  They have no response as this holds up the constitution rather than liberal ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cake one is stupid on both sides.  
you're not going to pay anyone who doesn’t want your business to do anything for you and pretty sure baking a cake for gays isn’t going to keep you out of heaven. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Cold War said:

The cake one is stupid on both sides.  
you're not going to pay anyone who doesn’t want your business to do anything for you and pretty sure baking a cake for gays isn’t going to keep you out of heaven. 

Of course.  These people wanted to FORCE something on them and take away their right to refuse business.  If they were asked to back a cake in the form of a penis or vagina, you can say NO I don't want to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, racer254 said:

Of course.  These people wanted to FORCE something on them and take away their right to refuse business.  If they were asked to back a cake in the form of a penis or vagina, you can say NO I don't want to do that.

Yeah, it’s all for show.  If I knew a business said I don’t want your kind here. Fuck em!   I wouldn’t be suing to spend my money there. 🙄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole cake thing is just stupid - why the fuck would you take your money to a business that doesn’t want it??  Pretty simple.  
 

As usual, the “Look at me” part of society just wants more attention.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
15 minutes ago, Cold War said:

Yeah, it’s all for show.  If I knew a business said I don’t want your kind here. Fuck em!   I wouldn’t be suing to spend my money there. 🙄

I think the same about people suing to get their job back. Why the fuck do you want to work for someone who dosnt want you working for them ?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, steve from amherst said:

I think the same about people suing to get their job back. Why the fuck do you want to work for someone who dosnt want you working for them ?

I agree.  Just had a customer in with classic car.  Told him what I thought.  He disagreed.  
Well,  thank you for stopping in.. have a great day. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
6 hours ago, Skidooski said:

So far the sock puppets on here from the left are quiet  :snack: Waiting for DU / Twitter to tell them what to say?   

Well here is their hero explaining it…😂😂

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Platinum Contributing Member
8 minutes ago, Jimmy Snacks said:

Well here is their hero explaining it…😂😂

 

 

The Supreme Court misinterpreted the constitution??? What a fucking idiot 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DriftBusta said:

She sure is turning out to be a predictably racist piece of shit. Justice Thomas slapped her down pretty good though.

Well, she was a diversity hire, so.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of this stuff makes sense and some seems almost dangerous.  I do like to say "Be careful what you wish for". 

It's interesting to cheer about two laws that essentially contradict each other in terms of measuring people.  One says you can discriminate and the other says that discrimination is a problem.

The cake law ruling has potential for things to go down a path that could create a real mess.  I don't like your beard, those pants are ugly, and the bald head is a dead giveaway.  That could create a real problem if some doofus decides it's against their belief to only do business with "pretty" people.  I'd probably go hungry. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, favoritos said:

Some of this stuff makes sense and some seems almost dangerous.  I do like to say "Be careful what you wish for". 

It's interesting to cheer about two laws that essentially contradict each other in terms of measuring people.  One says you can discriminate and the other says that discrimination is a problem.

The cake law ruling has potential for things to go down a path that could create a real mess.  I don't like your beard, those pants are ugly, and the bald head is a dead giveaway.  That could create a real problem if some doofus decides it's against their belief to only do business with "pretty" people.  I'd probably go hungry. 

 

 

It has to do with religious liberty, as the Constitution protects. Dirty pants don't fall under those guidlines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, X2700 said:

Not sure I’d eat a cake I forced someone to make for me?

might get something extra in that frosting!!😂

 

And that is how you know it was never about the cake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Snake said:

It has to do with religious liberty, as the Constitution protects. Dirty pants don't fall under those guidlines.

I get that part.  This country was founded with main principles, one of which is the principle of freedom and included religious freedom.  The basis for our founding is on the escape from control and tyranny.  The early founders didn't come zipping across the pond because life was so great on the other side.  Their writing and execution of those principle is something to be admired.

It wouldn't hurt anyone to read and relearn the principles of our founding.  There is a lot about individual rights.  Those are easy to accept.  The harder part is that we have responsibility as individuals for our choices.  As we move away from responsibility, we move toward the things we tried to leave behind.

The cake eaters had a choice and a responsibility for their choice.  The bakers wanted a choice as well.  If both parties made a responsible choice, there would have been no need for intervention.  I also get the point of turning it into a religious choice.  That allows the issue to be pushed and tested against interpretation under constitutional law.

The problem is how religion continues to evolve.  It is entirely possible to create a religion of pretty people.

As our definition of religion evolves, we step back to the government to argue our freedom.   This issue I have with that method is how we essentially are forcing others to accept our choice by using law.  We create more government oversight and reduce freedom of choice.  It's a dirty cycle and it gets supported by both sides when it agrees with their views.

Again,

Be careful what you wish for.

Edited by favoritos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Trying to pay the bills, lol

×
×
  • Create New...