The Supreme Court rules for a designer who doesn’t want to make wedding websites for gay couples

I answered exactly that. If you can't (or more likely won't) understand it, I can't do anything about that.

 

Without mentioning "artistic" or "creative" in any kind of way, you did not show me how the bakery was being artistic. You just dancing around it, a dance I am making you do.

 

Nah.. I think it is pretty clear that the ruling was against democrats and their endless meddling. Yall want to discriminate against folks you don't like, and push BS laws like this to make sure that everyone has to follow your authoritarianism...

 

Of which we can already dismissed the notion. Take that logic out to the end and one participates in things they don't agree with through the paying of their taxes. Or in being part of an insurance through their work that offers services that they don't agree with such as birth control. The limit has to be at the creative point of the product, not at its ultimate end use.

 

Sounds like a choice to me. Niche market yourself into whatever hole you want... Or did you think government should force you?

 

Well I do have a link to it.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kake-kake-kake/
But I think we all already know your response to this.

 

So if making a website for same sex marriages is "participating in the marriage" how is selling a gun to a shooter not participating in murder?

How does that work?

 

If this lori smith wants to expand her business does the SCOTUS decision mean that advertisers/social media can reject her ads because they don't want to be forced to support homophobia?

 

Well, if we follow that logic, then you don't have a problem with businesses discriminating on things like race either.

 

It is all about power. Straight dumb political power.
Gays have bribed justice Kennedy to vote for gay marriage (special privilege for homosexuals), in response people fought back and elected Donald Trump who had installed good people in the Supreme Court.
At least some of the special gay privileges has been stripped away.

 

You basically call it creative because it's made by hand. I already responded to such nonsense and you got still got zero to counter it. And I be adding: according to your utterly retarded definition, even a hamburger at McDonald's is creative.

The hell it is.

 

Well I would like for you to prove that!

 

According to you "any generic product with a customization" would do.... so it would include a quarter pounder without a pickle at Mcd's... on the request of the customer no less. So if you're going with that: happy days to you. But we all know it's just utter BS. Thanks for the laughs though.

 

Well as we all know, I'm not on the Supreme Court (or am I? Great anon account if so...) so how did the court define it in their decision?

 

You previously asked me to prove something. I gave a reply and I note: you did not prove your own initial point how that business is creative. While I am not interested in your question(s). Go make your own argument.

 

I don't have to prove it, the court did, which is why I asked you how the court defined it.

 

This case is about speech. You'd have to prove to a judge that making a Big Mac is an "expressive activity." There was no doubt in this case as even the liberal judges that went against Smith agreed that her websites were expressive activity. But, even the majority admitted there could be cases in the future where it wouldn't be so easy for them to conclude.

 

you do know that a gun retailer can refuse to sell a firearm to someone

 

Can they?

Show us an example.

 

How many firearms have you bought at retail? I was general counsel for two major dealers in the Cincinnati area. One night-as the place was about to close, a woman came in-this was before the Brady BG checks were required and wanted to buy a gun. In addition to being the attorney for the place, I was on its shooting team and practicing. The woman gave me bad vibes. I told the owner not to sell her a gun. He told her on advice of counsel, he would not sell her a gun. She started blubbering and finally said "how am I going to deal with the "A**hole who beat me up. That's when I noticed her face had the sort of look one has after a beating before the bruising shows. we called the police. a lady officer showed up. the woman complained my client wouldn't sell her a gun and the officer said something I already knew-he had the absolute right not to. Ultimately, the guy who beat up this woman was arrested and jailed.

NOW if dealer consistently refuses to sell to blacks, Jews, whites etc, then perhaps, a violation will have taken place

but remember-AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE-a dealer can refuse to sell for a good reason, a BAD reason, no reason at all, just not an illegal reason

 

That makes sense.

 

Everyone should go through the process of buying a gun so they can see what's it like. Gun dealers can effectively refuse to sell a gun to anyone with very little consequences. It's set up that way so that if a gun dealer has a bad feeling about a buyer who passed the background check they can be the last line of defense.

https://www.usnews.com/news/article...ce-gun-store-owners-can-deny-anyone-they-want

 

HUndreds. What does that have to do with anything?

And none of that answers my original question which was "if setting up a website is participating in the wedding why isn't sell the gun participating in the murder".

 

that's such a silly question it's not worth answering because even you know it's ridiculous.

 

Dude, I've bought guns from single to bulk purchase.

All you kids are doing is deflecting.