Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: K Frame on February 07, 2018, 06:52:51 AM
-
Interesting, especially coming out of California.
Still waiting on the Diana and the Supremes to rule on the Colorado case.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/article198654304.html
-
An interesting distinction, and I guess I find it reasonable. But this case is under state law, and only at the county level -- the other case is under Federal law. It makes for a curious dichotomy.
-
An interesting distinction, and I guess I find it reasonable. But this case is under statelaw, and only at the county level -- the other case is under Federal law. It makes for a curious dichotomy.
Also, FWIW, Kern County is one of the most conservative counties in the state. I'm not sure there are other areas of the state where this would have played out in the same way.
-
"But this case is under statelaw, and only at the county level -- the other case is under Federal law. It makes for a curious dichotomy."
That's why I specifically mentioned California AND the Supremes in the same sentence.
If the high court upholds Colorado's law it will (or likely will) invalidate the California ruling because they were brought with the same argument.
-
It's all Donald Trump's fault that two LGBTINGTANGWALLAWALLABINGBANG will have no sugary carbs at their wedding. They will die of malnutrition. It's a hate crime.
-
Well, anyone else think a higher court will overturn this rapidly?
-
Well, anyone else think a higher court will overturn this rapidly?
Well, seeing it happened in CA, so it would escalate to the 9th, so, yeah. Unless Trump keeps doing what he's doing with the under the radar getting young conservative judges into circuit court positions. >:D
-
It would go to the California Supreme Court first, wouldn't it? Or the appellate court before the state supreme court?
-
It would go to the California Supreme Court first, wouldn't it?
Well, yeah, but then how am I going to get my circuit court comment in? :laugh:
-
I actually like this ruling: reads as actually fair and reasonable. Scary
-
I actually like this ruling: reads as actually fair and reasonable. Scary
Which is why it won't stand appeal in Commifornia.
-
I never checked it out super-legally, but when I had my store, my impression was I could 86 anybody for any reason, or no reason whatsoever, excepting for purely racial reasons, of course.
That whole case bothered me on that basis... right or wrong on my part.
-
I never checked it out super-legally, but when I had my store, my impression was I could 86 anybody for any reason, or no reason whatsoever, excepting for purely racial reasons, of course.
That whole case bothered me on that basis... right or wrong on my part.
The problem is... business owners should be able to 86 people for any reason, no matter if the reason is good or bad... when the courts declared businesses don't have freedom of association to be racist aholes, they opened the floodgates to all this stuff.
If you can violate the freedom of association of a person bigoted against black people, you can violate the freedom of association of a person "bigoted" against homosexuals.
Now people have the idea that they have the "right" to force a person to do business with them.... they have a "right" to force a person to offer them the same wage as another person and so on.
-
The problem is... business owners should be able to 86 people for any reason, no matter if the reason is good or bad... when the courts declared businesses don't have freedom of association to be racist aholes, they opened the floodgates to all this stuff.
If you can violate the freedom of association of a person bigoted against black people, you can violate the freedom of association of a person "bigoted" against homosexuals.
Now people have the idea that they have the "right" to force a person to do business with them.... they have a "right" to force a person to offer them the same wage as another person and so on.
True. Freedom is too scary.