Thank God for DJT, SCOTUS and the Constitution of the United States of America:...

Truth Seeker Loc: High Mountains of the Western US

https://www.theepochtimes.com/supreme-court-rules-for-christian-web-designer-in-forced-speech-case_5365914.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&src_src=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2023-07-01&src_cmp=mb-2023-07-01&utm_medium=email

Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona

The complaining party has the right to seek services from other entities. IMO, it is the correct decision.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

T***h Seeker wrote:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/supreme-court-rules-for-christian-web-designer-in-forced-speech-case_5365914.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&src_src=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2023-07-01&src_cmp=mb-2023-07-01&utm_medium=email

Dennis

FrumCA

T***h Seeker wrote:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/supreme-court-rules-for-christian-web-designer-in-forced-speech-case_5365914.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&src_src=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2023-07-01&src_cmp=mb-2023-07-01&utm_medium=email

The court got this one right!!

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

FrumCA wrote:

The court got this one right!!

Actually, the Court got it totally wrong. In this case, there was no case. It was a hypothetical situation brought by the plaintiff saying that he had a website and didn't want any L***Q people as customers, and was looking for protection when he turned them down.
The t***h is that the Supreme Court should not be ruling on hypotheticals. Either there is a complainant or there is not.
What's next with this court? Where will these miscreants go next if we allow them to decide on cases that haven't happened?

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Frank T wrote:

Actually, the Court got it totally wrong. In this... (show quote)

You need to pay attention more to the world around you. This has happened before as in the case of a baker who when asked to create a wedding cake for a gay couple who then refused to do that because of religious grounds. Yes the gay couple has a right to their beliefs but they do not/should not expect everyone else on the planet to agree with their ideas or what they hold as being right for them. Others have a right to their opinions and should be able to freely disagree with someone else. Who is to say ONLY the rights of the L***Q groups should be adhered to? Don't those with dissenting opinions have rights too? Of course you on the Left want ONLY those rights that go along with your perverted misguided opinions to be valid. Sorry Bucko but thanks to President Trump installing SCOTUS Justices with a mind toward Freedom and the Constitution that ain't happening. Nothing in the Constitution gives the right to dominate me or others with only their freedoms in mind. I have rights too.

Dennis

FrumCA

Frank T wrote:

Actually, the Court got it totally wrong. In this... (show quote)

You should read this again. You might understand it better then. BTW, it was a woman who brought the suit.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

FrumCA wrote:

You should read this again. You might understand it better then. BTW, it was a woman who brought the suit.

"A woman who brought the suit". All the more reason for misogynist francine to not understand.

Dennis

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

dennis2146 wrote:

You need to pay attention more to the world around... (show quote)

Dennis,
Once again my post has gone over your little head.
The cases are not the same. In the Gay Wedding Cake case, there was a complainant and an actual occurrence, making it a real case.
In the Gay Website Case, there was never an incident. It was hypothetical, or "made up" for you high-school dropouts.
Do you understand that now?
She brought a case to court before it existed. It was a bulls**t case by a h********c twit.
You know. Like you.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Frank T wrote:

Dennis,
Once again my post has gone over your little head.
The cases are not the same. In the Gay Wedding Cake case, there was a complainant and an actual occurrence, making it a real case.
In the Gay Website Case, there was never an incident. It was hypothetical, or "made up" for you high-school dropouts.
Do you understand that now?
She brought a case to court before it existed. It was a bulls**t case by a h********c twit.
You know. Like you.

francine long before you opened your Yapper I completely understood. As I recall in the gay wedding cake case the court found against the bakery shop owner. I do not recall if there was another case law decision or not and don't much care at this point. But the point IS just because L***Q people think they have a Constitutional right to have people agree with them the real life Constitutional law means I do not have to go along with someone else's beliefs. Their RIGHTS end at the tip of my nose. They are entitled to their opinion as am I. YOU too for that matter. No, REALLY.

Now IF you are trying to make a point of stating the woman in the case did not have grounds for her suit because
she may not have been directly involved in any case that is something the court would have to decide. I doubt the SCOTUS would make a mistake on those grounds. Anybody who has a minimum of common sense would agree the court's decision is valid. You disagree because you are a lying corrupt Left Winger. Sorry Bucko but those grounds don't count either.

Dennis

jcs Loc: USA

Frank T wrote:

Actually, the Court got it totally wrong. In this... (show quote)

Considering all the lower Court's this had to go thru to get all the way to the Supreme Court ...

what you're really saying is that ALL the "LAW EXPERTS" working for the Democrats are MORONS .

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

dennis2146 wrote:

francine long before you opened your Yapper I comp... (show quote)

No twit face, I'm neither lying nor corrupt.
The t***h of the matter is the complainant had no standing in this hypothetical case.
Regardless of how the court ruled is inconsequential as it should never have gotten to any court.
If you don't believe me, try suing someone you've never met and never had interactions with, but you think that in the future they might harm you, based only upon your made-up fear.
MGYS

FrumCA

Frank T wrote:

No twit face, I'm neither lying nor corrupt.
The t***h of the matter is the complainant had no standing in this hypothetical case.
Regardless of how the court ruled is inconsequential as it should never have gotten to any court.
If you don't believe me, try suing someone you've never met and never had interactions with, but you think that in the future they might harm you, based only upon your made-up fear.
MGYS

It's good to know that you know more about "standing" as this case worked it's way through the courts to the SCOTUS. Evidently those lawyers and judges know nothing about it. There is NOTHING hypothetical about this. She challenged an existing law, not a hypothetical one, she didn't agree with. You could easily serve as a poster child representing the idiocy of the left on this.

FrumCA

Frank T wrote:

Coming from an i***t like you I take that as a compliment.
Quick, go hide. There's a gay couple moving next door to you.
Oh the horror!

This moronic comment validates YOUR idiocy and complete lack of cognitive function.
.

gorgehiker Loc: Lexington, Ky

T***h Seeker wrote:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/supreme-court-rules-for-christian-web-designer-in-forced-speech-case_5365914.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&src_src=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2023-07-01&src_cmp=mb-2023-07-01&utm_medium=email

Would that be the same constitution that leading Republican canndidate Donald Trump wanted to terminate?

WASHINGTON (AP) — Former President Donald Trump faced rebuke Sunday from officials in both parties after calling for the “termination” of parts of the Constitution over his lie that the 2020 e******n was s****n. Dec 4, 2022.