So, hhmmmm, what's a new topic? Hunter Biden

[kalm]

So article 3 of the US constitution is a technicality?

Go on.

You went and dug yourself into a hole again and you're so desperate to get yourself out.

A technicality is anything that can dictate the outcome of a case without having anything to do with the merits of the case.

Back on topic now. It's been determined that the plaintiff had clear standing in this case. Now why are you such a big fan of compelled speech?

But first, do I need to explain to you what compelled speech means?

So the court knew it was a fake case and ruled on an hypothetical but procedural? Meh!

Did the court know it was a fake case? We can now sue based on hypotheticals? Are you a fan of pre-crime justice too?

And yes…please explain how being forced to serve POC is compelled speech.

[SeattleGriz]

Because you're okay with Biden running the WH like Barney Frank would. Hookers and cocaine in the West wing.

I’m not okay with it. I just find your outrage over Biden’s immoral shenanigans funny after you jump through hoops to defend and deflect for trumps’s immoral shenanigans. Let’s discuss that denial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You sure sound okay with Biden. It's all "but Trump" even when it doesn't apply.

[UNI88]

I’m not okay with it. I just find your outrage over Biden’s immoral shenanigans funny after you jump through hoops to defend and deflect for trumps’s immoral shenanigans. Let’s discuss that denial.

You sure sound okay with Biden. It's all "but Trump" even when it doesn't apply.

Are you saying pointing out the hypocrisy of a trump yahoo criticizing Biden's ethics doesn't apply?

I can't stand Biden. We've had two absolutely shitty Presidents in a row and it looks like we could get stuck with one of them for four more years. It sucks.

[Baldy]

You went and dug yourself into a hole again and you're so desperate to get yourself out.

A technicality is anything that can dictate the outcome of a case without having anything to do with the merits of the case.

Back on topic now. It's been determined that the plaintiff had clear standing in this case. Now why are you such a big fan of compelled speech?

But first, do I need to explain to you what compelled speech means?

So the court knew it was a fake case and ruled on an hypothetical but procedural? Meh!

Did the court know it was a fake case? We can now sue based on hypotheticals? Are you a fan of pre-crime justice too?

And yes…please explain how being forced to serve POC is compelled speech.

Was it a "fake" or hypothetical case? How do you know? Have you found proof that nobody has yet to find?
Please share.

What you and the people in your echo chamber refuse to realize is that when a citizen sues their state, the federal courts have jurisdiction. This isn't a hypothetical. It has been long established in the courts that litigants can sue based on potential future injuries because of an established law on the books where others have been prosecuted before. Pre-enforcement challenges are nothing new nor out of the ordinary.

[SeattleGriz]

You sure sound okay with Biden. It's all "but Trump" even when it doesn't apply.

Are you saying pointing out the hypocrisy of a trump yahoo criticizing Biden's ethics doesn't apply?

I can't stand Biden. We've had two absolutely shitty Presidents in a row and it looks like we could get stuck with one of them for four more years. It sucks.

You're giving Obama a pass on shitty Presidents? He was one of the worst for screwing America over, especially his use of the NSD/DOJ to do his bidding.

[UNI88]

Are you saying pointing out the hypocrisy of a trump yahoo criticizing Biden's ethics doesn't apply?

I can't stand Biden. We've had two absolutely shitty Presidents in a row and it looks like we could get stuck with one of them for four more years. It sucks.

You're giving Obama a pass on shitty Presidents? He was one of the worst for screwing America over, especially his use of the NSD/DOJ to do his bidding.

He was bad but not trump/Biden bad.

[SeattleGriz]

You're giving Obama a pass on shitty Presidents? He was one of the worst for screwing America over, especially his use of the NSD/DOJ to do his bidding.

He was bad but not trump/Biden bad.

He got caught spying on Trump. Nothing is worse than abusing government surveillance systems to illegally spy on a challenger.

Media gave him more passes than any recent President.

[UNI88]

He was bad but not trump/Biden bad.

He got caught spying on Trump. Nothing is worse than abusing government surveillance systems to illegally spy on a challenger.

Media gave him more passes than any recent President.

That's bad but a lot of people think that hoarding classified documents and putting American lives and interests at risk is worse.

[BDKJMU]

You went and dug yourself into a hole again and you're so desperate to get yourself out.

A technicality is anything that can dictate the outcome of a case without having anything to do with the merits of the case.

Back on topic now. It's been determined that the plaintiff had clear standing in this case. Now why are you such a big fan of compelled speech?

But first, do I need to explain to you what compelled speech means?

So the court knew it was a fake case and ruled on an hypothetical but procedural? Meh!

Did the court know it was a fake case? We can now sue based on hypotheticals? Are you a fan of pre-crime justice too?

And yes…please explain how being forced to serve POC is compelled speech.

WTF are you even talking about?

[SeattleGriz]

Wow. What a gigantic piece of shit. Are you seeing who you voted for, Biden voters? The most powerful man in the World denying his drug addict, grifting son had a baby.

[UNI88]

Wow. What a gigantic piece of shit. Are you seeing who you voted for, Biden voters? The most powerful man in the World denying his drug addict, grifting son had a baby.

The irony.

[kalm]

So the court knew it was a fake case and ruled on an hypothetical but procedural? Meh!

Did the court know it was a fake case? We can now sue based on hypotheticals? Are you a fan of pre-crime justice too?

And yes…please explain how being forced to serve POC is compelled speech.

WTF are you even talking about?

Compelled speech doctrine. Or does it only apply to LGBTQ?

[houndawg]

You're giving Obama a pass on shitty Presidents? He was one of the worst for screwing America over, especially his use of the NSD/DOJ to do his bidding.

He was bad but not trump/Biden bad.

And not even Biden is trump bad

[houndawg]

He was bad but not trump/Biden bad.

He got caught spying on Trump. Nothing is worse than abusing government surveillance systems to illegally spy on a challenger.

Media gave him more passes than any recent President.

Nobody needs to spy on Trump, he can't keep his mouth shut

[kalm]

He got caught spying on Trump. Nothing is worse than abusing government surveillance systems to illegally spy on a challenger.

Media gave him more passes than any recent President.

Nobody needs to spy on Trump, he can't keep his mouth shut

When they speak…believe their own words.

[BDKJMU]

WTF are you even talking about?

Compelled speech doctrine. Or does it only apply to LGBTQ?

What recent case involves someone denying service to a ‘POC’

[kalm]

Compelled speech doctrine. Or does it only apply to LGBTQ?

What recent case involves someone denying service to a ‘POC’

Don’t know. Just trying to apply the majority’s logic here.

[BDKJMU]

What recent case involves someone denying service to a ‘POC’

Don’t know. Just trying to apply the majority’s logic here.

Yeah, by making an apples to oranges comparison- inherent characteristic vs lifestyle choice..

[UNI88]

Don’t know. Just trying to apply the majority’s logic here.

Yeah, by making an apples to oranges comparison- inherent characteristic vs lifestyle choice..

I don't think that being LGBTQ+ is a lifestyle choice. There's been a lot of grief and suffering that has come with being LGBTQ+, it's a not a choice many would voluntarily make.

kalm's failure comes in not wanting to acknowledge or respect potential religious objections to providing certain services to the LGBTQ+ community. Being forced to bake a custom cake or build a website for an LGBTQ+ couple with language that you morally object to isn't the same as baking a custom cake or building a website for a heterosexual POC couple. However, that baker should not be able to refuse service to an LGBTQ+ couple that just wants to buy a standard cake off the shelf.

[BDKJMU]

Why was the White House lying earlier? What are they trying to hide? Where was Hunter?

[kalm]

Yeah, by making an apples to oranges comparison- inherent characteristic vs lifestyle choice..

I don't think that being LGBTQ+ is a lifestyle choice. There's been a lot of grief and suffering that has come with being LGBTQ+, it's a not a choice many would voluntarily make.

kalm's failure comes in not wanting to acknowledge or respect potential religious objections to providing certain services to the LGBTQ+ community. Being forced to bake a custom cake or build a website for an LGBTQ+ couple with language that you morally object to isn't the same as baking a custom cake or building a website for a heterosexual POC couple. However, that baker should not be able to refuse service to an LGBTQ+ couple that just wants to buy a standard cake off the shelf.

I will begrudgingly acknowledge this to be a fair argument.

It’s the right to refuse service idea. But we both know how it has and can be abused.

[kalm]

Don’t know. Just trying to apply the majority’s logic here.

Yeah, by making an apples to oranges comparison- inherent characteristic vs lifestyle choice..

I don’t know how often you need to hear this but gay dogs exist.

[UNI88]

Yeah, by making an apples to oranges comparison- inherent characteristic vs lifestyle choice..

I don’t know how often you need to hear this but gay dogs exist.

Case in point ...

[kalm]

I don’t know how often you need to hear this but gay dogs exist.

Case in point ...

Oh I wasn’t going to go there…but you just went there.

[UNI88]

I don't think that being LGBTQ+ is a lifestyle choice. There's been a lot of grief and suffering that has come with being LGBTQ+, it's a not a choice many would voluntarily make.

kalm's failure comes in not wanting to acknowledge or respect potential religious objections to providing certain services to the LGBTQ+ community. Being forced to bake a custom cake or build a website for an LGBTQ+ couple with language that you morally object to isn't the same as baking a custom cake or building a website for a heterosexual POC couple. However, that baker should not be able to refuse service to an LGBTQ+ couple that just wants to buy a standard cake off the shelf.

I will begrudgingly acknowledge this to be a fair argument.

It’s the right to refuse service idea. But we both know how it has and can be abused.

It can definitely be abused but it's not the Supreme Court's role to rule based on potential abuse. They rule based on constitutional law. It's up to Congress to pass and the President to sign legislation that both meets constitutional muster and prevents/limits abuse.