Father and Son

[image deleted]

lol

The ruling was not narrow, but the decision was. It's just more deceptive language from the discredited, fundamentally dishonest news media that still can't figure out why we don't trust them anymore.

"Narrow" in legal terms means that the decision cannot be used as precedent in other cases, and that the judges' decision in this case applies only to this specific case. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how many voted for/against the judgement, so your blaming the media for being biased in this case is misplaced.

See here - https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/narrow

It doesn't have to set a precedent for other cases. As a stand alone case it is meaningful for the small business owner involved . I personally would have no problem baking a cake for a gay wedding, and a Christian I am not, but I do have a problem with social warriors that would take away the right of refusal from a small business owner. I don't expect to walk into a Christian, Muslim or Jewish bakery and expect them to decorate me a pagan May Day cake, and then threaten to bring a lawsuit when the owner says no. That kind of demanding behavior is childish, whether you are gay, straight, liberal, conservative or otherwise. So yes, many of us do point to the biased media for downplaying the importance of this single case. It represents that even in this overly partisan age, once in a while the Supreme Court actually does show the balls to defend the little guy (whether we agree with the little guy or not)!

You should post this to every comment here. These reactionary legal scholars are sure to try to bury it, because it interupts the flow of their astute postering.

Talk about being reactionary, you have it down to an art form, jack_henoff.

G-G-Golly gee, I must commend you on that excellent rebuttal. Couldn't have come up with a better one myself.

- Oh, that's right, I already did.

Well when you are a god, the rest of us can only hope to emulate your every divine move, right?

Yes, I am a God.

You catch on quick, don'tcha?

Would you like to copy that as well?

Honey, I'm not in the obsessive habit of copying people's remarks. We'll leave that skill to gods like yourself.

"jack_henoff 0 ups, 1 reply
You should post this to every comment here. These reactionary legal scholars are sure to try to bury it, because it interupts the flow of their astute postering."

"norsegreen0 ups, 1 reply
Talk about being reactionary, you have it down to an art form, jack_henoff."

Learn to cook :)

I can cook. But maybe I want a bacon burger from a Muslim joint.

Do you go to a baseball game and demand to see a tennis match?

That's a great point. What if I did that?

or what if he went to a christian bakery and asked for a gay wedding cake? woaaaah

I can see him saying that, lol!

I may have missed a headline there. Was it the guy with the wedding cake?

Either way, upvote - as always. :-)

Thank-you :) And yes, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop. The SCOTUS sided with him 7-to-1, but of course fake media has tried to downplay his victory by calling it a "narrow" win.

Wasn't there another bakery a year or so ago? I think two gals wanted a cake.

Didn't that other bakery lose, though? I forget.

same case.
bakery Jack Phillips lost to Colorado Court in 2017
they appealed and brougth it to Supreme Court.
imgflip.com/i/2brvqh

Thanks for the link!

I don't remember; will have to look that uo!

There was a Christian couple who refused to cater a gay wedding and they ended up having to pay the gay couple over 200 thousand dollars.

Sad

They should have just said "Sorry, all booked up." Problems solved.

I'm not saying it would have been right, but he would have spared himself a lot of grief of he had just been booked. Personally, I have my convictions and if I was a baker I don't think I would have a problem with making a his and his cake. Not my thing and I don't have to answer for it. But a cake is a cake and business is business.