It was never in doubt to anybody who knows anything about the law.

(06-26-2018 02:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It was never in doubt to anybody who knows anything about the law.

And a few of us who don't and can read.

(06-26-2018 02:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It was never in doubt to anybody who knows anything about the law.

agreed, my comment is that Mitch gambled and it worked.

(06-26-2018 10:54 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Ok... So the US Supreme Court has now established that a CLEAR and DIRECT animus towards members of a religious group is irrelevant when deciding a case about clearly discriminatory actions targeting a religious group.

No idea how they square that with their ruling in Masterpiece, where the Court argued that because of some perceived hostility (BS really - just questions asked) towards evangelicals who discriminate against the public as the critical factor in the remanding of the ruling to the lower court, other than rank hypocrisy, but there ya go.

Serious question Tom... Do you believe the crap you post or are you just so intent on advancing a 'gay' agenda that you're willing to ignore truth?

1) The nations on Trump's list were also on Obama's. Trump went further than Obama did, but they BOTH targeted these people for scrutiny based on their nations of origin
2) Nation of origin and religion are not the same thing, even if 99.9% of people are. If they ARE, then where is your outrage over THAT? Aren't many of these nations 'not' gay friendly based on religion? If there ARE gays there, then clearly they're not part of the religion... other than as they're essentially required to be
3) complete misrepresentation of the ruling, which really only chastised the board for ignoring the rights of the baker... and not for their decision. Had they reached the same conclusion in a fair way, it probably wouldn't have been decided that way

I'm sure North Korea's inclusion on that list was just a red herring

(06-26-2018 03:08 PM)solohawks Wrote:  I'm sure North Korea's inclusion on that list was just a red herring

not to mention the number of Islamic nations NOT on the list

So it took how many months and how much money for the SC to agree with what most of us said from the very beginning???

Activist judges just got bitchslapped for trying to limit powers that are expressly given to the president. Hopefully this ruling will limit future judicial activism.

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using CSNbbs mobile app

I had no idea Venezuela and North Korea were Muslim countries. You learn something new everyday.

(06-26-2018 09:50 AM)TechRocks Wrote:  

LOL!!!! That is greatness!

+3 for you.

(06-26-2018 11:11 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 11:05 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 10:54 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Ok... So the US Supreme Court has now established that a CLEAR and DIRECT animus towards members of a religious group is irrelevant when deciding a case about clearly discriminatory actions targeting a religious group.

No idea how they square that with their ruling in Masterpiece, where the Court argued that because of some perceived hostility (BS really - just questions asked) towards evangelicals who discriminate against the public as the critical factor in the remanding of the ruling to the lower court, other than rank hypocrisy, but there ya go.

In the 5-4 opinion penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court found that Trump's immigration restriction fell "squarely" within the president's authority. The court rejected claims that the ban was motivated by religious hostility.

"The [order] is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices," Roberts wrote. "The text says nothing about religion."

So the lower court in Masterpiece should just remove all references to the Bakers religion and they can shut him down forever. Got it.

LOL. Keep telling yourselves that Trump doesn't hate Muslims. All Muslims. Wait - I forgot the Saudis...He likes those guys so long as they keep paying him.

Your side just keeps losing...

(06-26-2018 10:54 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Ok... So the US Supreme Court has now established that a CLEAR and DIRECT animus towards members of a religious group is irrelevant when deciding a case about clearly discriminatory actions targeting a religious group.

What clear and direct animus?
And what clearly discriminatory actions targeting a religious group?

Courts decide cases based upon facts and law, not unsupported allegations.

Agree with this guy. The 4 no votes are a bad sign for the Republic. Roberts shredded Sotomayor's dissent. Its TDS where they are disagreeing because of the person, not the law.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/06/27/the-...rous-sign/