General Discussion

TimeSnowDemos

(476 posts)

36. America

Reply to brooklynite (Original post)

Mon Jun 4, 2018, 11:46 AM

Jun 2018

Is crumbling before our very eyes.

Unbelievable.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

66 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

BREAKING: SCOTUS reverses Masterpiece Bake Shop (gay wedding discrimination) ruling [View all] brooklynite Jun 2018 OP

But her emails..... NT Adrahil Jun 2018 #1

If Garland had been appointed to the Court, the outcome would have been the same... brooklynite Jun 2018 #4

Yes, but had the SCOTUS not thrown the election to Bush in 2000, the outcome might not have. LisaM Jun 2018 #51

I don't think so...this is what happens when we have spoiler candidates like Stein...kids ripped Demsrule86 Jun 2018 #64

The was a 7-2 vote with Kagan and Breyer brooklynite Jun 2018 #65

And even if they had voted with us , we still lose. Demsrule86 Jun 2018 #66

This Court sucks. OliverQ Jun 2018 #2

I'm starting to be alarmed on where they'll be on gerrymandering. Hugin Jun 2018 #7

This was a ruling JUST about the actions of the Colorado Commission. Cuthbert Allgood Jun 2018 #56

So Public Accommodation is out the window? underpants Jun 2018 #3

No, it is not. n/t quartz007 Jun 2018 #52

Yes. I've read further analysis of this ruling. underpants Jun 2018 #54

No prob...been there, done that. quartz007 Jun 2018 #55

SCOTUSblog: Live blog of orders and opinions mahatmakanejeeves Jun 2018 #5

From Scotusblog... brooklynite Jun 2018 #8

Robert Barnes of WaPo hasn't gotten to this decision yet. mahatmakanejeeves Jun 2018 #11

7-2 DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2018 #6

I am guessing 7 on SCOTUS are religious? quartz007 Jun 2018 #53

There is nothing ever sincere about blatant public bigotry and hatred Johonny Jun 2018 #9

They didn't... brooklynite Jun 2018 #12

The result may be the same Johonny Jun 2018 #50

Terrifying! Zoonart Jun 2018 #10

Read the decision. It isn't what you think. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #35

And once again, make believe (ie: Christian religious beliefs) trumps the real lives stopbush Jun 2018 #13

Read the decision. It was decided on procedural grounds, The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #29

What would happen if a cake maker refused to bake a cake for a couple from different religions ? DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2018 #14

Hmmmm ... that's what I was thinking in post #16. n/t RKP5637 Jun 2018 #18

You can find a justification for that in the Bible too. DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2018 #21

Yep!!! n/t RKP5637 Jun 2018 #22

Economic anxiety, folks. RandySF Jun 2018 #15

Maybe they can just put plaques on their entrances of who can enter. I wonder RKP5637 Jun 2018 #16

"sincere religious beliefs and convictions" TCJ70 Jun 2018 #17

So, if my religion says no christian can rent an apartment in my building it must RKP5637 Jun 2018 #20

Nope, Court didn't say that brooklynite Jun 2018 #23

Thanks, I also read your post on clarification. Thanks!!! n/t RKP5637 Jun 2018 #24

The court didn't decide the case on the basis of "sincerely held religious beliefs." The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #28

This. EffieBlack Jun 2018 #38

I get that. I'm just making a general statement on "sincere religious beliefs". Thanks! n/t TCJ70 Jun 2018 #44

You're trying really hard. EllieBC Jun 2018 #45

Yeah, I'm about to give up. The knees are jerking too fast for me to keep up with them. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #46

There is nothing in this ruling that stops Colorado from challenging the Bakery again... brooklynite Jun 2018 #19

Thanks. Didn't have time to read it. underpants Jun 2018 #25

our next move is to put this guy out of business samnsara Jun 2018 #26

Why? The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #27

Why would you support his business? NCTraveler Jun 2018 #31

I don't. But I'm not in favor of targeting someone to destroy their livelihood, either. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #32

" the free market will take care of it." NCTraveler Jun 2018 #34

He already went out of business fallout87 Jun 2018 #62

This means you can legally discriminate against fundies. roamer65 Jun 2018 #30

It doesn't mean anything of the kind. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #33

Thanks for pointing this out! Glimmer of Hope Jun 2018 #40

No, the ruling basically exempts religious beliefs from the process. Read the first part of page 2. roamer65 Jun 2018 #58

America TimeSnowDemos Jun 2018 #36

No, it isn't. At least not on account of this case, which was decided on The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #42

As long as freedom TimeSnowDemos Jun 2018 #43

Nobody's freedom got squashed. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #47

Elections have consequences. nt Alethia Merritt Jun 2018 #37

Not in this case EffieBlack Jun 2018 #39

Also, Kagan, who concurred, was an Obama appointee. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2018 #41

This message was self-deleted by its author redstatebluegirl Jun 2018 #48

The ruling was 7-2 RhodeIslandOne Jun 2018 #49

2 more SCJ could retire in his term highmindedhavi Jun 2018 #57

Statement from NY AG on this ruling Gothmog Jun 2018 #59

2 different scenarios manicdem Jun 2018 #60

Baseless magical thinking trumps human rights and common decency. Garrett78 Jun 2018 #61

SCOTUSblog: Tuesday round-up mahatmakanejeeves Jun 2018 #63