Making choices...

[GeoHorn]

…

Honesty really is the best policy. Unless you're dealing with a liberal then they expect you to lie to em and if you tell em the truth, you're going to get sued,….

The rest of your post makes a lot of sense….but this part shows you’re being prejudicial without basis.

 

[motionclone]

You keep posting stoopid childish stuff like this…but you don’t have any legitimate response.

Hey i was just keeping it short, sweet and accurate. You very matter of factly post a bunch of inaccurate garbage as if its true or correct.

BTW you have posted the word "stoopid" many times here and other threads, is that not a childish way to communicate?

 

[hagrid]

The fruit cocktail is ready.

We'll need more apples to oranges comparisons if yinz want seconds.

 

[GeoHorn]

Hey i was just keeping it short, sweet and accurate. You very matter of factly post a bunch of inaccurate garbage as if its true or correct.

BTW you have posted the word "stoopid" many times here and other threads, is that not a childish way to communicate?

I felt it threw a bit of humor into it….but again..you attack my comment without showing any factual disagreement.

 

[Henro]

I'm happy I started such a fun thread.

Or am I?

Nice to hear all the opinions! Or is it? I guess it is...

Now I have to go back and see if I am the OP to begin with. Guess my head is spinning a bit!

 

[motionclone]

Since there is so much disinformation (Russian Bots?) getting thrown around here about "rights" Here is a pretty easy read from the BAR ASSOCIATION as it relates to Henros original question and the Cake Guy:

Not a Masterpiece: The Supreme Court’s Decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

The recent decision in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case allowed a business to discriminate based on its owner’s beliefs, which goes against many established federal, state, and local civil rights laws.

www.americanbar.org

The question of whether or not a business can discriminate was unresolved in the cake case but there is a new case at the supreme court right now which will hopefully resolve or further clarify it.
Heres a "news" article about the current case.

Supreme Court leans toward web designer over refusal to work on same-sex weddings

The justices are considering whether web designer Lorie Smith, a conservative evangelical Christian, has a free-speech right that trumps Colorado's antidiscrimination law.

www.nbcnews.com

Also this may help people understand the first amendment and who and what it applies to.

First Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[DustyRusty]

Since there is so much disinformation (Russions Bots?) getting thrown around here about "rights" Here is a pretty easy read from the BAR ASSOCIATION as it relates to Henros original question and the Cake Guy:

Not a Masterpiece: The Supreme Court’s Decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

The recent decision in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case allowed a business to discriminate based on its owner’s beliefs, which goes against many established federal, state, and local civil rights laws.

www.americanbar.org

The question of whether or not a business can discriminate was unresolved in the cake case but there is a new case at the supreme court right now which will hopefully resolve or further clarify it.
Heres a "news" article about the current case.

Supreme Court leans toward web designer over refusal to work on same-sex weddings

The justices are considering whether web designer Lorie Smith, a conservative evangelical Christian, has a free-speech right that trumps Colorado's antidiscrimination law.

www.nbcnews.com

Also this may help people understand the first amendment and who and what it applies to.

First Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

Great!!! You are really going to be muddying the waters by giving good, concise. and factual information. Not quite sure what the other combatants in this discussion are going to do with this new information, but it will be interesting to hear how they will toss and turn it.

 

[motionclone]

I felt it threw a bit of humor into it….but again..you attack my comment without showing any factual disagreement.

Post number 106 has links to factual information from legal experts in it. You should read them and get up to speed.

 

[skeets]

Now what do you suppose Archie Bunker would have to say about this ?

 

[GreensvilleJay]

hmmmm court says catholics don't have to treat transgenders using ombahahahcare

 

[motionclone]

hmmmm court says catholics don't have to treat transgenders using ombahahahcare

From the winning parties lawyer:
“Today’s victory sets an important precedent that religious healthcare professionals are free to practice medicine in accordance with their consciences and experienced professional judgment,”
“The government’s attempt to force doctors to go against their consciences was bad for patients, bad for doctors, and bad for religious liberty.”

Catholic Groups Secure Block on Transgender Care Mandate (1)

Enforcement of a federal requirement that health-care and insurance groups perform or pay for gender-transition care would violate the religious rights of several Catholic organizations, the Eighth Circuit affirmed Friday.

news.bloomberglaw.com

 

[lugbolt]

The rest of your post makes a lot of sense….but this part shows you’re being prejudicial without basis.

cause I've never met one that leans in that direction that didn't turn truth around to mean whatever they want it to--which may or may not be actually true

 

[North Idaho Wolfman]

Several members have show poor posting choices, thread done.