The fake case that the SC ruled on this week - 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) +--- Thread: The fake case that the SC ruled on this week (/Thread-The-fake-case-that-the-SC-ruled-on-this-week) Pages:
1
2
|
The fake case that the SC ruled on this week - GMDino - 07-02-2023 No thread on this one yet. https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-gay-rights-lgbtq-website-385ec911ce0ca2f415966078eddb66da?taid=64a0aecf7bcbb300015c49f5&utm_campaign=TrueAnthem&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter Quote:The man named in the Supreme Court’s gay rights ruling says he didn’t request a wedding websiteSo I guess we can just make up scenarios and the SC to rule on them? RE: The fake case that the SC ruled on this week - GMDino - 07-02-2023
RE: The fake case that the SC ruled on this week - Leon - 07-02-2023 the supreme court held to Gods law. if you gotta problem with that i dont know what to tell ya. aint no one gotta do anything that goes against God. try to force them and youll find out out this court is righteous. the days of forcing Christians to be sheep an stay quite are over. we are standing our ground and fighting back now. and the seculars hate it cause theyve had the power for way too long. RE: The fake case that the SC ruled on this week - pally - 07-02-2023 (07-02-2023, 09:12 PM)Leon Wrote: the supreme court held to Gods law. if you gotta problem with that i dont know what to tell ya. aint no one gotta do anything that goes against God. try to force them and youll find out out this court is righteous. the days of forcing Christians to be sheep an stay quite are over. we are standing our ground and fighting back now. and the seculars hate it cause theyve had the power for way too long. But this is a country of secular law not Christian law RE: The fake case that the SC ruled on this week - Leon - 07-02-2023 (07-02-2023, 10:45 PM)pally Wrote: But this is a country of secular law not Christian law you might wanna remember what this country was founded on RE: The fake case that the SC ruled on this week - pally - 07-02-2023 (07-02-2023, 10:47 PM)Leon Wrote: you might wanna remember what this country was founded on Show me in our Constitution where God or Christianity is mentioned even once? We are a country of secular laws. The last thing the majority of Americans want is the Christian Taliban taking over RE: The fake case that the SC ruled on this week - Leon - 07-02-2023 (07-02-2023, 10:57 PM)pally Wrote: Show me in our Constitution where God or Christianity is mentioned even once? We are a country of secular laws. The last thing the majority of Americans want is the Christian Taliban taking over the American people decided what they wanted the court to be. you might not like it but you need to accept it. RE: The fake case that the SC ruled on this week - pally - 07-02-2023 (07-02-2023, 11:07 PM)Leon Wrote: the American people decided what they wanted the court to be. you might not like it but you need to accept it. No we didn't....Mitch McConnell did. RE: The fake case that the SC ruled on this week - Leon - 07-02-2023 (07-02-2023, 11:24 PM)pally Wrote: No we didn't....Mitch McConnell did. the American people elected Donald Trump knowing he would appt conseritave judges, thats a big reason Trump won RE: The fake case that the SC ruled on this week - BengalYankee - 07-03-2023 RE: The fake case that the SC ruled on this week - BigPapaKain - 07-03-2023 (07-02-2023, 11:36 PM)Leon Wrote: the American people elected Donald Trump knowing he would appt conseritave judges, thats a big reason Trump won Trump lost the popular vote TWICE. The people didn't vote for him. RE: The fake case that the SC ruled on this week - pally - 07-03-2023 (07-02-2023, 11:36 PM)Leon Wrote: the American people elected Donald Trump knowing he would appt conseritave judges, thats a big reason Trump won Mitch McConnell blocked a vote on Obama’s nominee of Merrick Garland for almost a year claiming the 2016 election was already underway, even though there weren’t even official nominees yet, so they couldn’t vote to confirm. Then in 2020 crammed through Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation less than 2 weeks before Election Day itself because of some new bulls*** excuse. Trump. Got lucky…he got 3 justices because of Mitch McConnell not anything he did. Besides, the PEOPLE elected for Hillary Clinton…the electoral college elected Trump RE: The fake case that the SC ruled on this week - Mickeypoo - 07-03-2023 (07-03-2023, 08:28 AM)pally Wrote: Mitch McConnell blocked a vote on Obama’s nominee of Merrick Garland for almost a year claiming the 2016 election was already underway, even though there weren’t even official nominees yet, so they couldn’t vote to confirm. America dodged a huge bullet with Hillary losing and getting 3 non far left activists who uphold the constitution appointed to the SCOTUS. Phew! It's funny the 3 far left activists actually were pretty mad that racial discrimination was ended. Weird. You'd think that would be an easy 9-0. RE: The fake case that the SC ruled on this week - pally - 07-03-2023 (07-03-2023, 09:39 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: America dodged a huge bullet with Hillary losing and getting 3 non far left activists who uphold the constitution appointed to the SCOTUS. Phew! If McConnell held a vote on the Garland nomination as he should have and then Hillary won the election, no one could have predicted what would have happened with the Court other than Ginsberg dying. RE: The fake case that the SC ruled on this week - Dill - 07-03-2023 (07-03-2023, 09:39 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: America dodged a huge bullet with Hillary losing and getting 3 non far left activists who uphold the constitution appointed to the SCOTUS. Phew! Instead of Hilary we got a guy who mismanaged a pandemic, whose party abused the nomination process to nominate three justices chosen for him by a right wing organization which had been planning how to overturn Roe and AA for decades, and then attempted to stay in power via a coup. If you are pro-democracy, that means you didn't dodge a bullet, you caught one. RE: The fake case that the SC ruled on this week - Dill - 07-03-2023 (07-02-2023, 10:47 PM)Leon Wrote: you might wanna remember what this country was founded on A secular Constitution? A theory of contractual, democratic government? RE: The fake case that the SC ruled on this week - Dill - 07-03-2023 (07-02-2023, 11:38 AM)GMDino Wrote: No thread on this one yet. Clarence Thomas, who hates "activist judges" warned us that Dobbs wasn't the end. This and AA has been struck down too. RE: The fake case that the SC ruled on this week - GMDino - 07-03-2023 (07-02-2023, 09:12 PM)Leon Wrote: the supreme court held to Gods law. if you gotta problem with that i dont know what to tell ya. aint no one gotta do anything that goes against God. try to force them and youll find out out this court is righteous. the days of forcing Christians to be sheep an stay quite are over. we are standing our ground and fighting back now. and the seculars hate it cause theyve had the power for way too long. Tell me you're not a Christian without telling me you're not a Christian. RE: The fake case that the SC ruled on this week - Belsnickel - 07-03-2023 So, I obviously have some issues with this case. I feel like it shouldn't have had standing to begin with as it was adjudicating a hypothetical. There was no injury that occurred and that has historically meant the courts would not take it up. I need to look a little further into this, but I really feel like that in-and-of-itself sets this case as an unusual one. I also disagree with the ruling itself in the way it looked at expression. The majority of the court took an interesting view in saying that a product created for a person is the speech of the person that created it rather than the speech of the person who contracted the service. That is what the opinion boils down to and I just have a hard time with that. I think this case did ask some hard questions and when you listen to the oral arguments that occurred in this case you can tell that this was a question the justices wrestled with as well. This was a case where the political sympathies guided the opinion rather than the logic and law, but that is simply because there is no good logical or legal answer which is why they tried to write the opinion in a way that narrowed the decision so tightly. The issue is that while the ruling itself is very narrow, the logic presented in the opinion can be applied to many other situations of discrimination. They would still need to be litigated for it to apply, but I am expecting cases of racial and religious discrimination to be brought and citing this case as their logic and it isn't a stretch. It is interesting that they decided to essentially ignore the religious angle in the case as well. This really was just an odd case all around. RE: The fake case that the SC ruled on this week - Leon - 07-03-2023 (07-03-2023, 11:08 AM)GMDino Wrote: Tell me you're not a Christian without telling me you're not a Christian. says someone who is obvious dont know nothing about righteous anger , standing up to things that go against God. remember Jesus had righteous anger in the temple and the lame and blind came to him. they were cured. in our day there are many lame and blind but in differnet ways. believers must use righteous anger to stand up against things the go against God. and hopefully we can cure some of the sickness in the process by turning them to rightousness. dont accuse someone of not being Christian if you dont even understand righteous anger and why its important or why we need to turn folks to God before its to late |