01 Feb 23
@wildgrass saidIt all depends on who the government is beating up on at any given time. For mott and jj et al the government cannot shoot to many folks for being in possession of black skin and curly hair but whoa there if some effete baker is pulled up for discriminating against a fellow citizen for doing something an imaginary creature doesn’t approve of.
Right. Even application of laws requires some acceptance of laws that individual citizens disagree with. Depending on the situation, we seem to go round and round in this forum from "just obey the government" (borders, traffic stops, taxes) to "the government is corrupt and untrustworthy".
It sounds like this particular law is one you disagree with?
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 142480
01 Feb 23
@kevcvs57 said“imaginary”? LMFAO
It all depends on who the government is beating up on at any given time. For mott and jj et al the government cannot shoot to many folks for being in possession of black skin and curly hair but whoa there if some effete baker is pulled up for discriminating against a fellow citizen for doing something an imaginary creature doesn’t approve of.
bad choice of words…we are talking about a man pretending to be a woman here…😂
01 Feb 23
@mott-the-hoople saidhttps://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2016/title-24/principal-departments/article-34/part-6/section-24-34-601
I asked what law? no one can tell me
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 142480
01 Feb 23
@no1marauder saidscotus has ruled on this before, no law was violated. want to try again?
https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2016/title-24/principal-departments/article-34/part-6/section-24-34-601
01 Feb 23
@mott-the-hoople saidNo, they haven't.
scotus has ruled on this before, no law was violated. want to try again?
As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.
01 Feb 23
@mott-the-hoople saidI was referring to any given God 🙄
“imaginary”? LMFAO
bad choice of words…we are talking about a man pretending to be a woman here…😂
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 142480
01 Feb 23
@no1marauder saidyou are looking stupid again…same sex…transgender…no difference as far as law is concerned.
No, they haven't.
As usual, you don't know what you are talking about.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-rules-narrowly-for-baker-in-same-sex-wedding-cake-case/
01 Feb 23
@mott-the-hoople saidStop trying to play lawyer; SCOTUS didn't invalidate the law only sent the case back to the State courts because what it claimed were errors in the decision by the administrative board.
you are looking stupid again…same sex…transgender…no difference as far as law is concerned.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/opinion-analysis-court-rules-narrowly-for-baker-in-same-sex-wedding-cake-case/
That's why the title of your article uses the term "narrowly".
01 Feb 23
@jj-adams saidLose your business due to poor health standards. End up a million in debt to the client. Cry about how the left ruined your life.
Make the cake for them.
Piss in the batter.
You could have just pocketed the 300 bucks and went on with your life but you had to be a disgusting criminal and throw it all away…
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 142480
01 Feb 23
@no1marauder saidscotus did not send the case back, they ruled in favor of the baker
Stop trying to play lawyer; SCOTUS didn't invalidate the law only sent the case back to the State courts because what it claimed were errors in the decision by the administrative board.
That's why the title of your article uses the term "narrowly".
just cant tell the truth can you?
01 Feb 23
1 edit
@mott-the-hoople saidRead it, you pathetic moron.
scotus did not send the case back, they ruled in favor of the baker
just cant tell the truth can you?
It most certainly did not throw out the law as you keep claiming.
01 Feb 23
1 edit
@mott-the-hoople saidSo, did the SCOTUS invalidate the law as you claimed?
I did, and it is exactly as I say.
keep digging
Nope, it's still in effect.