And someone would start a GoFundMe page for the bakery, and they’d raise a million dollars like that pizza shop did. Never underestimate the ability of bigots to back bigots.
Employment Division v. Smith suggests otherwise.
In that case, the plaintiff was punished by the state for taking part in an actual religious ritual.
At least I don’t rape underage retards. You’ve no place to judge anybody, fucko.
That is quite a high standard you’ve set. We shall all endeavor to live up to it.
Sure. But not the most important part by far, imo.
Personally, I’d be happy with that so long as they had a big sign at the door saying, “No faggots allowed!” (or niggers, jew-boys or whatever else their stunted little hearts can’t abide) Then I could avoid putting any money into their pockets. The only problem arises is if they are the only bakery, barbershop, or whatever for miles around or, as in Kim Davis’ case, it is a government service being denied.
Shut up, hypocrite. By your logic you couldn’t judge anyone, either. But here you are. While also using a slur against the mentally handicapped, showing how little you actually care about them. They are not a prop for you to use to attack other people.
Also, because you’re besmirching his name: He was 18 and she was actually 16,. He also never actually had sex with her, as her mom warned him off by telling him she had mental issues. So neither rape nor underage.
No, I didn’t know that off the top of my head. But there’s this thing called Google that can make it fucking easy to get your facts straight. It’s the least you can do if you’re going to reference shit from 5 years ago.
Instead, it’s just more Lying Steophan.
Why don’t you fuck off and white knight for Roy Moore or whoever as well? But yeah, if you want to believe that she wasn’t underage, or that he didn’t take advantage of her, because he changed his story after he was called out on it, that’s up to you. But you’d be a hypocrite to do so, given your habit of considering people guilty of crimes just because you don’t like them, regardless of the evidence.
Tl;Dr fuck off, BigTard
Yay! It’s the Steophan show! Seriously, people, unless he or one of you were attempting to buy a wedding cake, why the fuck are you squabbling about it here?
Also, I *really *don’t want a viral campaign involving videos people having sex with cakes.
More to the point, I doubt SCOTUS would make a ruling with such an obvious loophole in it. Allowing the baker to discriminate by dismissing **every **cake as “too gay” would make a mockery of the law. The onus would be on the baker to demonstrate that he would not make that design for anyone.
And in that case, the most liberal justices ruled for freedom of religion, and Congress passed the RFRA to make sure that strict scrutiny was applied to religious freedom cases.
Well, I would hope that the baker meant what he said when he said he would sell them a premade cake. He could simply “custom” make them a cake that he always made anyway.
He could. But he refused to do even that, for reasons that had nothing to do with the cake itself.
It’s a fair OP, but both sides believe in statism and Libertarianism, as long as it matches their values. So I don’t know if it’ll ever happen.
Conservatives aren’t going to celebrate killing babies anymore than liberals will celebrate plutocracy and mistreating minorities.
I don’t really have an issue with Roe, so long as the court remains pro-liberty and doesn’t start undoing everything BUT Roe, which I get the impression many liberal judges would like to do.
Of course, liberals also like to make it really hard to convict criminals, so at least it will be easier to get away with exercising your liberties against the will of the state anyway.
Besides gun control, what do you consider “everything BUT Roe”?
I want to make a quikc observation here, regarding freedom of religion and cakes and shit.
You can believe anything you want. You can pray to Zeus, Satan, or Cthulhu if you like. You can have an altar to Eric Cartman if that’s your thing.
But when you start imposing it on other people, a line has been crossed. When you do that, you are imposing on their freedom of religion (which may not be your religion) and /or their simple freedom FROM YOUR religion.
Believe what you want, but don’t impose or enforce it on anyone else.
I think liberals believe in law and order, we just believe in societal causes and individual reform.
Removing lead from gasoline and paint supposedly led to a 70% reduction in violent crime. Easy abortion access supposedly reduces crime. Access to middle class jobs reduces crime, as does reducing discrimination so minorities can more easily integrate into society. It is now coming out that head injuries are a major issue among people in prison (a far higher % of people in prison have a history of head injuries compared to control groups), I’m sure some liberals will push for societal reforms to reduce the # of head injuries among people. Safer sports, safer jobs, etc.
When someone does break the law, liberals more promote the Swedish model, which attempts to build the life skills an offender needs to reintegrate into society.
So I don’t think liberals are anti-law and order, we just have a different attitude on how to approach it.
I’ve found that very few right-wingers who complain about liberals “making it harder to convict criminals” voice that complaint when it’s THEM wrongfully in the dock. Liberals at least have the foresight to think “What if it’s me up there someday?”
Does that matter for that case or this one? Has anyone successfully avoided prosecution under drug statutes due to the drug’s use in a religious ceremony?
If drug laws can pass strict scrutiny, then can’t public accommodation laws?
These are sincere questions, not rhetorical ones.