US Politics/2016 Election Pick Your Poison Master Thread

[elit]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-colorado-baker-who-refused-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple-for-religious-reasons.html

[ChaimMoskowitz]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-colorado-baker-who-refused-to-make-wedding-cake-for-gay-couple-for-religious-reasons.html

So you can use religious beliefs to deny someone service. So many possibilities!!! 

[ChaimMoskowitz]

About the Russian collusion meeting at Trump tower.

First - Trump says he had nothing to do with the letter.
Then - He might have had some input but didn't dictate the letter.
Now - Trump dictated the letter.

I guess if I was him I wouldn't speak to Mueller either. ROFLMAO!!!

Rudy Giuliani explains this as shifting recollection and that is why Trump should not speak to Mueller. No Rudy that is called lying and that is why Trump should not speak to Mueller.

[aygart]

This is the nutcase you support?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1003616210922147841

He may or may not technically be able to do that and I think it is a debate among legal scholars. Either way it does not help him since a pardon only precludes criminal prosecution not impeachment. Pardoning himself would likely trigger impeachment.

[aygart]

So you can use religious beliefs to deny someone service. So many possibilities!!! 

Not really, and you are smart enough to know that.

[elit]

Not really, and you are smart enough to know that.

it's fascinating how you take his bait time after time

[aygart]

https://twitter.com/OfficeOfMike/status/1001978095098884103

[springles]

So you can use religious beliefs to deny someone service. So many possibilities!!! 

They wanted a cake that represented something that the bakery did not agree with, its not like they just wanted a plain wedding cake. If I was a baker and someone wanted me to bake a cake with a swastika I should have the right to say no. not a perfect analogy but does a good enough job

[elit]

https://twitter.com/OfficeOfMike/status/1001978095098884103

meltdown?

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Not really, and you are smart enough to know that.

Only glanced over it. It seems they can deny making them a cake based on their religious beliefs. They didn't rule if they could deny them service on being gay. I fail to see the difference.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

it's fascinating how you take his bait time after time

You mean like how you swallow hook line and sinker Trumps bait? Here throw them a few crumbs and I have their votes for life. 

[aygart]

Only glanced over it. It seems they can deny making them a cake based on their religious beliefs. They didn't rule if they could deny them service on being gay. I fail to see the difference.

https://reason.com/volokh/2018/06/04/the-masterpiece-cakeshop-decision-leaves

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Now it is as clear as mud! 

[aygart]

Now it is as clear as mud! 

Com'on, you are capable.

They did not rule on the actual case but rather on the process behind the laws and regs. Technically they can pass the same laws and regs without the anti-religious animosity and it would have no SCOTUS ruling against it.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Com'on, you are capable.

They did not rule on the actual case but rather on the process behind the laws and regs. Technically they can pass the same laws and regs without the anti-religious animosity and it would have no SCOTUS ruling against it.

I hope none of the SCOTUS join here. I will be yelling ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!

[aygart]

I hope none of the SCOTUS join here. I will be yelling ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!

They are lawyers. What do you expect?

[ChaimMoskowitz]

They are lawyers. What do you expect?

So you are a lawyer? 

[aygart]

So you are a lawyer? 

I thought maybe you are with the irrelevant questions.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

I thought maybe you are with the irrelevant questions.

As I thought:

ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!

[yuneeq]

Com'on, you are capable.

They did not rule on the actual case but rather on the process behind the laws and regs. Technically they can pass the same laws and regs without the anti-religious animosity and it would have no SCOTUS ruling against it.

If I'm understanding correctly, the anti-discrimination law was not upheld because it is discriminatory?
Pretty ironic, if so.

Also, not sure how they can make anti-discrimination laws non-discriminatory. Why can one owner reject a customer without shoes or a shirt, while another cannot avoid making a gay wedding cake for something against their belief? The difference between those examples is that we as a society decided that something like sexual orientation discrimination is not okay but other forms of discrimination are. If it's it's subjective morality, how can we create laws to protect that subjective morality while protecting the 1st amendment?