nedboy7

I can understand that criticism. Do you understand the whole cake thing? You dont have to make a cake that offends you. You just cant deny making any cake cause someone is a sinner in your opinion. You ok with incestt then I take it. And rape. And under age girls being forced to carry babies for whatever sick religious cult they belong to. See how I can make nonsense arguments like you?

You can deny that request. But you cant deny making the same cake you did for a straight person. You seem to have a really hard time understanding this concept. Not sure what @Chef Jim is knocking down.

I don't see a 14 year old girl aborting her uncles baby as murder. But you carry on. Not sure how they relate to each other.

I sense you are trying to make an argument to justify discrimination. You do not understand the case I think. You do not have the right to deny service to someone based on certain things. But you do not have to put ***** blood on the cake. The woman can deny making a cake that offends her freedom of speech. But she cant deny making a cake she would make for anyone else. For example she can deny to make a cake that has a giant penis on it. But she cant deny making an ordinary cake just cause they are gay.

Yeah great argument! You can't seem to have opinions one a subject without making a logical salad of multiple things to make an absurd point. These inmates are doing life. They were not released.

Do you guys just need to B word about everything? How about some perspective. By the end of 2021, a total of 108 countries had abolished the use of the death penalty, more than two thirds of the world; nevertheless, 55 countries still have the death penalty in their penal toolbox. Most notable are the USA, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Somalia, South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo. It's not like those inmates got released. They are doing life.

I don't know if Satan worshipers are recognized as a legitimate group? It's a slippery slope, I agree. But to have a working society you need laws that might sometimes be uncomfortable? My thinking is if I open a business, I know the laws. And while it would suck to serve someone you do not agree with, that is what you sign up for as long as they are respectful and law abiding. Am I wrong on this?

It is not punitive action to demand people to respect laws concerning discrimination. It is one of the fundamental requirements of having a civilized society imo. I am like you. I would never let a person's orientations effect how I serve them at my business. I have had a few so called "tolerant non-racist" liberals that ask me how I can provide services to Trumpers. I am really taken back by this question and I always tell them I take pride in serving everyone, especially people I do not agree with with or maybe find odd. I have no problem with religion or sexual orientation. I think this woman is an exception. I do not know a single person of faith that would discriminate against a homosexual.

It will be fun to see the demented and coddled Trump take down the party he supposedly loves.

Two features of the law make clear that Colorado’s law does not coerce artists to express a message with which they disagree. First, no artist has to open a business to the public in the first place. Most writers, painters and other artists never do; they pick their subjects and leave it at that. The photographer Annie Leibovitz, for example, does not offer to take photographs of anyone who offers to pay her fee but chooses her subjects. She is perfectly free to photograph only white people or only Buddhists. But if Ms. Leibovitz were to open a portrait photography business that offered to take portraits on a first-come, first-served basis to the public at large, as many corporate photography studios do, she could not turn away subjects just because they were Black or Christian. Her photographic work would be just as expressive. But the choice to benefit from the public marketplace comes with the legal obligation to equally serve members of the public. And requiring businesses that offer expressive services in the public marketplace to follow the same rules as all other businesses does not violate the First Amendment. Second, even businesses open to the public are free to define the content of what they sell. A Christmas store can sell only Christmas items without running afoul of public accommodations laws. It need not stock Hanukkah candles or Kwanzaa cards. But it cannot put a sign on its doors saying, “We don’t serve Jews” or “No Blacks allowed.” 303 Creative argues that it is not turning away same-sex couples because they are gay, but because it objects to the message that making a wedding website for them would convey. The company has, however, asked the court to declare its right to refuse to make any website for a same-sex couple’s wedding, even if its content is identical to one it would design for a straight couple. According to this line of argument, the company could refuse a gay couple even a site that merely announced the time and location of the wedding and recommended places to stay. Colorado’s law doesn’t dictate the content of what a business sells. 303 Creative is free to post on all the websites it designs, “The Bible condemns gay marriage.” And by the same token, it could refuse to design a site that says, “The Bible blesses gay marriage,” if it would not design that website for anyone. In that case, the decision would not be discrimination based on the customer’s identity, but a permissible decision to define the product it sells. 303 Creative has plenty of freedom to speak or not speak as it wishes. It need not serve the public and it need not design wedding websites featuring content it would not sell to anyone. But the First Amendment does not give it an exemption from laws requiring equal treatment of customers simply because its service is “expressive.” Otherwise, interior decorators, landscape architects, tattoo parlors, sign painters and beauty salons, among countless other businesses whose services contain some expressive element, would all be free to hang out signs refusing to serve Muslims, women, the disabled, African Americans or any other group. The First Amendment protects the right to have and express bigoted views, but it doesn’t give businesses a license to discriminate.

It's an interesting read. One I agree with. I do not see the Bible or Jesus being against gay people. This is a view held by many religious scholars and leaders. And I find it gross that a so called loving christian would have a problem with baking a ***** cake for a loving couple. They are not participating in the wedding. They are making a cake. And when you open a business it would be constitutional and respectful to follow the state law about discrimination. Don't forget other courts have ruled against this woman despite the new joke of a supreme court weighing in on it.

December 6, 2002 Perfect Fit By Seth Wickersham ESPN The Magazine To make it in the modern-day offense of the NFL, a receiver needs a perfect score on a multiple-choice exam. Smarts? A must. Link it with the speed to get open deep, the discipline to run crisp routes, the blocking to spring the ground game and the strength to break tackles. Top it off with the explosion to go all the way after the catch. There's one guy with a check in every box: Eric Moulds. No one else in the NFL can do it all like Moulds. Terrell Owens can catch with Moulds but blocks once a month. Rod Smith brings it in his blocks but isn't as fast. Randy Moss is faster than Moulds, but he's, well, Randy Moss. "Eric's big, physical and fast," says Miami corner Sam Madison. "Every time I see Buffalo on the schedule, I know I'm going to have to bring my A-game, because Eric brings his." 😈

As New Testament Scholar Daniel Kirk has pointed out, Christians today would do well by the tradition of the apostles and our current witness in the world to recognize that theological abstractions aside, God has already clearly embraced LGBTQ+ people into full communion, and it is now the church’s responsibility to simply honor that reality and rejoice (Luke 15). https://www.patheos.com/blogs/storiedtheology/2016/01/30/embracing-the-gentiles/

I believe it had a strong effect on the election. How is that related to gender politics.

I am not. I dont know a single liberal who is not sick of gender politics. Seems like it is way hyped than people care for other than a small group of screaming idiots.

Hard to tell after one game but it sure seems like there are some decent backup QBs in the league. Way better than we have had.

Liberal obsession. I think this is how you try to lose an election. By playing non stop gender politics where literally 90% of the people do not care.

Who is our ankle quality control coach?

Our D is bend dont break. Until this team wins a SB they are all trash. Actually even then they are will be trash cause JA carries the team. I have a right to find something negative at all times cause otherwise I get a participation trophy. McD is good at bromances but not Xs and Os. Weather doesn't effect the play on the field. I digress....

Remember when that was the issue? Bills can't win close games. Now we are. Now that's an issue.

Lot's of opinions on here. All of them deserving of being discusses. I found this article by the ABA interesting from a strict legal standpoint. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/not-a-masterpiece/ As to the former, the Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division v. Smith (1990) seemingly answers the question. That case involved Native Americans in Oregon who argued that a state law prohibiting consumption of peyote infringed their free exercise of religion. They said that their religion required use of peyote in religious rituals. The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, ruled against the Native Americans and concluded that there was no violation of free exercise of religion because the Oregon law was neutral in that it was not motivated by a desire to interfere with religion and because it applied to everyone in the state. The Court held that the free exercise clause cannot be used to challenge such a neutral law of general applicability. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, rejected the claim that free exercise of religion required an exemption from an otherwise valid law. Scalia said that “[w]e have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.” Scalia thus declared “that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).”

Staying positive!! Not sure why.

This is disturbing.

This win is giving me an ulcer.

Rousseau. Thats about it.