![]() |
T-Shirt Company Sued - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums) +--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0) +---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive) +---- Thread: T-Shirt Company Sued (/Thread-T-Shirt-Company-Sued) |
RE: T-Shirt Company Sued - fredtoast - 11-05-2019 (11-05-2019, 12:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So we have both the SC and the Appeals court ruling against the plaintiff, but we're still rolling with someone was discriminated against. I am rolling with the SC opinion since they are the superior court, and they said that perhaps someone was discriminated against. You calling them liars? BTW the Court of Appeals had a split decision. One judge said that the shop owner was allowed to discriminate based on his religious beliefs. One judge said the shop owner was wrong to discriminate, but ruled in his favor because the local ordinance was not the "least restrictive" way to deal with the discrimination (based on the Hobby Lobby case), and the third judge ruled against the shop owner finding that he did discriminate and should not have been allowed to. RE: T-Shirt Company Sued - bfine32 - 11-05-2019 (11-05-2019, 04:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I am rolling with the SC opinion since they are the superior court, and they said that perhaps someone was discriminated against. Perhaps this is why the said it was possible: Quote:At no point did any Hands On representative inquire and they followed with this: Quote:Importantly, the record is clear that but they worded it in the one little phrase you are clinging to because of this: Quote:If so, then No matter how hard you try you cannot find where the courts determined someone was discriminated against aka.. no one was discriminated against this case. Pretty sure everyone here knows how a split decision works. But feel free to cling tight to "perhaps" counselor. RE: T-Shirt Company Sued - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 11-05-2019 (11-05-2019, 12:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We all know what a protected class is; hell the term individuals may even be used in describing it. A protected class is a group. Some might even refer to it as a community. Groups do file discrimination suits, but apparently not in Kentucky. RE: T-Shirt Company Sued - bfine32 - 11-05-2019 (11-05-2019, 05:17 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: A protected class is a group. Some might even refer to it as a community. Groups do file discrimination suits, but apparently not in Kentucky. In the SC's ruling on this case the word "individual" was used 28 times. Do you know why it was? RE: T-Shirt Company Sued - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 11-05-2019 (11-05-2019, 05:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: In the SC's ruling on this case the word "individual" was used 28 times. Do you know why it was? Because of an oxymoron called Kentucky law. RE: T-Shirt Company Sued - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 11-05-2019 (11-05-2019, 01:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There was a sexist attitude exhibited, but neither of us were discriminated against. Now IF a woman went in there and the same scenario played out we'd have a different case and one that would require additional facts. What is his basis for not supporting women's causes. He'd have a hard time selling that based on religion unless he was Muslim. This hypothetical scenario has nothing to do with religion, it's not a trick question, it's not a "gotcha" you dread so much. It's just good ol' fashioned sexual discrimination. If a person exhibits a sexists attitude (prejudice) they are a sexist. If they act on their sexists attitude then they discriminated based upon sex. This situation is reminiscent of Sovereign Nation who was blatantly racist. Guy advocated creating safe zones for whites only (which is racist) which you deemed not racist, but merely an "extreme opinion." Either you aren't capable of recognizing discrimination or you're unwilling to admit it when you do. As I was leaving lunch today, a 60-something, possibly homeless man with a cigarette hanging out of his mouth asked me, "Hey, you got a light, bro?" I stopped, turned back, looked him in the eyes, "No, sorry I do not." Turned back around to walk to my truck when I hear, "Well, **** you then." Do you know what my reaction was? Nothing. Just kept on walking. Completely ignored the guy. That's honestly where I'm at with you. It was like a little epiphany sent from god telling me, "You know some people just aren't worth the effort." From Sovereign Nation to Lucie to Tommy to Sloppy, I've never considered adding anyone to the ignore list. But, I guess old dogs can learn new tricks. Bu-bye. RE: T-Shirt Company Sued - fredtoast - 11-05-2019 (11-05-2019, 04:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No matter how hard you try you cannot find where the courts determined someone was discriminated against aka.. no one was discriminated against this case. And again you had to type "no one was discriminated against in this case" because there is nowhere in the opinion you could pull that quote. I can repost the quote where they said "perhaps someone was discriminated against" again if you want to deny they said ti. "Perhaps someone was" is completely different from "No one was" and you know that. RE: T-Shirt Company Sued - bfine32 - 11-05-2019 (11-05-2019, 06:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And no where in your quotes did it say that no one was discriminated against. It just said that a group can't file as an individual. OK, how about this: Perhaps is not a definitive, but we can roll with perhaps someone was, but the courts did not find where anyone was. Is that fair? Perhaps someone also said something about someone's mama. Getting your unbiased opinion on a court finding is enlightening. I found this from what appears to be an earlier SC ruling on the matter https://s3.amazonaws.com/becketnewsite/Becket-Hands-On-Originals-Brief.pdf: Quote:Appellee Hands On Originals (Hands On) is a small, closely-held printing business. The owner So by your logic they not only discriminate against gays, the also discriminate against folks who like to go to strip clubs. RE: T-Shirt Company Sued - fredtoast - 11-05-2019 (11-05-2019, 04:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: but they worded it in the one little phrase you are clinging to because of this: So tell me again what the court said about whether or not anyone was discriminated against. Specifically pull out the quote where they MADE THE DETERMINATION that no one was discriminated against. RE: T-Shirt Company Sued - bfine32 - 11-05-2019 (11-05-2019, 06:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So tell me again what the court said about whether or not anyone was discriminated against. Specifically pull out the quote where they MADE THE DETERMINATION that no one was discriminated against. You bolded it yourself. They said no determination can be made. RE: T-Shirt Company Sued - fredtoast - 11-05-2019 (11-05-2019, 06:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So by your logic they not only discriminate against gays, the also discriminate against folks who like to go to strip clubs. Yes. They do so on the basis of their religious beliefs. I think that is pretty clear. That is what is so dangerous about letting people discriminate based on religious beliefs. Religious beliefs can pretty much cover anyone at anytime. Anti-gay, Anti-Muslim, Anti-gambling, Anti-interracial marriage, Anti-strip club, anti-women working outside the home, anti-divorce, etc etc. Since you are privileged to be a straight white Christian male you can't grasp this concept, but in conservative backwoods areas like where I live some of these people might have to travel hundreds of miles to find the goods and services they need. RE: T-Shirt Company Sued - fredtoast - 11-05-2019 (11-05-2019, 06:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You bolded it yourself. They said no determination can be made. Exactly. That means they CAN'T say "No one was discriminated against". It is impossible for them to make that determination. Get it now? You just made that shit up. RE: T-Shirt Company Sued - bfine32 - 11-05-2019 (11-05-2019, 06:27 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Exactly. That means they CAN'T say "No one was discriminated against". It is impossible for them to make that determination. So they didn't find that anyone was discriminated against. I should have started with that............wait a minute... RE: T-Shirt Company Sued - fredtoast - 11-05-2019 (11-05-2019, 06:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So they didn't find that anyone was discriminated against. I should have started with that............wait a minute... Yes. That is exactly what you should have started with. In fact that is what you started with when you said it was a ruling based on a technicality. But then for some reason you started making up crazy shit about how the court found that no one was discriminated against. And when everyone proved you wrong you doubled down on being wrong instead of admitting that you just made that up. RE: T-Shirt Company Sued - bfine32 - 11-05-2019 (11-05-2019, 06:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes. That is exactly what you should have started with. In fact that is what you started with when you said it was a ruling based on a technicality. But then for some reason you started making up crazy shit about how the court found that no one was discriminated against. And when everyone proved you wrong you doubled down on being wrong instead of admitting that you just made that up. Nah, I "changed" no body to an individual. if that's considered a change. But all this aside. What is this: https://s3.amazonaws.com/becketnewsite/Becket-Hands-On-Originals-Brief.pdf: It looks like a previous SC ruling on the same case. RE: T-Shirt Company Sued - fredtoast - 11-05-2019 (11-05-2019, 06:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nah, I "changed" no body to an individual. if that's considered a change. When a case reaches an appellate court each side files its argument in the form of a "brief". Sometimes outside parties also file briefs if they are interested in the outcome. This is a brief filed by the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty. They strongly support the right to discriminate based on religious beliefs by re-naming "discrimination" as "religious freedom". RE: T-Shirt Company Sued - BmorePat87 - 11-05-2019 (11-05-2019, 07:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: When a case reaches an appellate court each side files its argument in the form of a "brief". Sometimes outside parties also file briefs if they are interested in the outcome. This is a brief filed by the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty. They strongly support the right to discriminate based on religious beliefs by re-naming "discrimination" as "religious freedom". Did he just try to call an amicus brief a supreme court ruling? RE: T-Shirt Company Sued - bfine32 - 11-05-2019 (11-05-2019, 07:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: When a case reaches an appellate court each side files its argument in the form of a "brief". Sometimes outside parties also file briefs if they are interested in the outcome. This is a brief filed by the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty. They strongly support the right to discriminate based on religious beliefs by re-naming "discrimination" as "religious freedom". Thanks and that makes sense. I was just curious as the Letterhead of the document stated supreme court and upon closer look I see that. RE: T-Shirt Company Sued - bfine32 - 11-05-2019 (11-05-2019, 07:42 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Did he just try to call an amicus brief a supreme court ruling? Nah, I asked what it was. Fred was kind enough to provide an answer. But you do you. |