@no1marauder said
So, did the SCOTUS invalidate the law as you claimed?

Nope, it's still in effect.

@mott-the-hoople said
show me where I said any law was invalidated …oh thats right, I didnt . you are 💩weaseling again.

are you backing off claiming the case was sent back to the state? 😂

@no1marauder said
You're such a pathetic liar; you repeatedly claimed there was "no law" and based that on the SCOTUS' decision.

You were wrong; the SCOTUS has never overturned a State anti-discrimination law.

True, I was thinking about an Oregon case which got returned to State courts by the SCOTUS under similar facts, but even though the SCOTUS ruled for the baker in Colorado on th ...[text shortened]... f: https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/supreme-court-lgbtq-religious-liberties-oregon/index.html

@no1marauder said
You're such a pathetic liar; you repeatedly claimed there was "no law" and based that on the SCOTUS' decision.

You were wrong; the SCOTUS has never overturned a State anti-discrimination law.

True, I was thinking about an Oregon case which got returned to State courts by the SCOTUS under similar facts, but even though the SCOTUS ruled for the baker in Colorado on th ...[text shortened]... f: https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/supreme-court-lgbtq-religious-liberties-oregon/index.html

@no1marauder said
You're such a pathetic liar; you repeatedly claimed there was "no law" and based that on the SCOTUS' decision.

You were wrong; the SCOTUS has never overturned a State anti-discrimination law.

True, I was thinking about an Oregon case which got returned to State courts by the SCOTUS under similar facts, but even though the SCOTUS ruled for the baker in Colorado on th ...[text shortened]... f: https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/supreme-court-lgbtq-religious-liberties-oregon/index.html

@no1marauder said
You're such a pathetic liar; you repeatedly claimed there was "no law" and based that on the SCOTUS' decision.

You were wrong; the SCOTUS has never overturned a State anti-discrimination law.

True, I was thinking about an Oregon case which got returned to State courts by the SCOTUS under similar facts, but even though the SCOTUS ruled for the baker in Colorado on th ...[text shortened]... f: https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/17/politics/supreme-court-lgbtq-religious-liberties-oregon/index.html

looks like 💩weasel tucked his tail between his legs and slinked away.

@mott-the-hoople said
looks like 💩weasel tucked his tail between his legs and slinked away.

@mott-the-hoople said
“You're such a pathetic liar; you repeatedly claimed there was "no law" and based that on the SCOTUS' decision. “

show it you liar

@no1marauder said
Mott: scotus has ruled on this before, no law was violated. want to try again?

Looks like you were caught, for about the 1000th time, of baselessly calling someone else a "liar" on this board.

@mott-the-hoople said
LOL… when the scotus rules no law was violated…ummm that means no law was violated 😂

@mott-the-hoople said
LOL… when the scotus rules no law was violated…ummm that means no law was violated 😂

@no1marauder said
State laws are in effect unless and until a binding court decision renders them void. No court decision has ever rendered a State anti-discrimination statute void, so you are completely wrong.

As usual.

@no1marauder said
LMAO! "Literally make them a slave"? Do you even know what a "slave" is?

I think the best way to assure that customers aren't discriminated against by those who are allowed to operate in the economic system by the society that created it is to ban such unethical and immoral conduct.

@wajoma said
Forced labor, not to mention the stolen ingredients. If the baker refuses they'll demand money if he refuses to pay they'll confiscate his property, if he defends his property (including land) men with guns will confiscate his life. Slavery.

Customers discriminate all day everyday, they're just the other half of the trade, they discriminate on the basis of race and religio ...[text shortened]... usand other irrational baseis and that's just how it should be because they're the ones missing out.