Supreme Court Gay Website Case was made up by plaintiff (Page 2): Frank, there has been a lot of reporting on this, her attorney asserts that she did indeed receive a service request...

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Frank T wrote:

Why do you assume she received any request when it's obvious she didn't receive it from the person she alleges.
I would bet you'd be screaming if SCOTUS ruled against her.
In this case the Supreme Court made a ruling on something that never happened, but your okay with it.
Guess you really don't believe in law and order, honesty or the Constitution.
Pretty sad

Frank, there has been a lot of reporting on this, her attorney asserts that she did indeed receive a service request, the media is on it so maybe we will see an investigation. I actually do believe in law and order as well as the constitution much more so than most I see posting here. Part of what I really find distasteful about the democrat party is its expectation that the courts can mold our constitution as if it were made of playdough.

Give it time Frank and see if anything comes of it. No matter how the case was started the SCOTUS ruled on a constitutional principle, that is why I am not as worked up as you are because the impetus of the case is not as important as the guiding principle found in the constitution.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Frank T wrote:

Why do you assume she received any request when it's obvious she didn't receive it from the person she alleges.
I would bet you'd be screaming if SCOTUS ruled against her.
In this case the Supreme Court made a ruling on something that never happened, but your okay with it.
Guess you really don't believe in law and order, honesty or the Constitution.
Pretty sad

Why do you assume that she didn’t receive any requests? It goes both ways.

LinksUp

Frank T wrote:

https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-designer-supreme-court-gay-couples

NPR??? Bwahhhhhhhhh! As you leftards are so fond of saying, come back when you have an UNBIASED source for this garbage. Until then, you have a big fat nothing burger.

If you are quoting NPR, you might as well throw in the YT's as unbiased sources.

Truth Seeker Loc: High Mountains of the Western US

Blurryeyed wrote:

Frank, there has been a lot of reporting on this, ... (show quote)

Why do you people attempt to reason with these dolts? Jus askin.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

Truth Seeker wrote:

Why do you people attempt to reason with these dolts? Jus askin.

I try to to reason with a frankfurter

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

Frank T wrote:

This thread is NOT about Biden.
If the case wound it's way through the state and federal court systems based upon false information, the case should be voided and started over again with truthful information.
If she knowingly perjured herself, she should be prosecuted.
Why is that so difficult for your right-wing demented mind to understand?

I've always wondered why the "sit in" at Woolworths in 1960. There must have been somewhere they could have eaten, even if it may have been in another state. If they wanted to sit at a lunch counter, they should have opened their own.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

thom w wrote:

I've always wondered why the "sit in" at Woolworths in 1960. There must have been somewhere they could have eaten, even if it may have been in another state. If they wanted to sit at a lunch counter, they should have opened their own.

The state can not compel speech, how hard is that for you to understand Thom? There is such a thing as the first amendment.

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

LinksUp wrote:

NPR??? Bwahhhhhhhhh! As you leftards are so fond of saying, come back when you have an UNBIASED source for this garbage. Until then, you have a big fat nothing burger.

If you are quoting NPR, you might as well throw in the YT's as unbiased sources.

Then read AP

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-gay-rights-lgbtq-website-385ec911ce0ca2f415966078eddb66da

Truth Seeker Loc: High Mountains of the Western US

DennyT wrote:

Then read AP

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-gay-rights-lgbtq-website-385ec911ce0ca2f415966078eddb66da

Same thing

Triple G

Blurryeyed wrote:

The state can not compel speech, how hard is that for you to understand Thom? There is such a thing as the first amendment.

You would be screaming about "procedural proprieties" if the outcome wasn't your end goal. Means does not justify end. I hate seeing SCOTUS cheapened and diminished by lack of ethics and standards.

Frank T Loc: New York, NY

The Supreme Court is no longer credible.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told his law clerks in the '90s that he wanted to serve for 43 years to make liberals' lives 'miserable'
That statement alone should disqualify him as he obviously has an agenda and that agenda does not include ruling in accordance with the Constitution, but rather ruling to forward his conservative agenda.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Triple G wrote:

You would be screaming about "procedural proprieties" if the outcome wasn't your end goal. Means does not justify end. I hate seeing SCOTUS cheapened and diminished by lack of ethics and standards.

If she lied to the court then go after her, I have never heard of a SCOTUS decision being vacated through any means other than a future ruling on the issue such as Dredge Scot or the Roe decisions.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Frank T wrote:

The Supreme Court is no longer credible.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told his law clerks in the '90s that he wanted to serve for 43 years to make liberals' lives 'miserable'
That statement alone should disqualify him as he obviously has an agenda and that agenda does not include ruling in accordance with the Constitution, but rather ruling to forward his conservative agenda.

What BS, you are nuts Frank, just because the court rules on constitutional principles rather than the aspirational ideals of the left you say that they are no longer credible.... It is you Frank who lacks credibility when you post crap like this. I suppose that someone has video evidence of Thomas making this comment and certainly you can prove that he did not say it in jest.... Kinda like the Trump statement about Russia and Hillary's emails made at a campaign rally you nincompoops took that and tried to make it an impeachable offense when it was said in jest.

DennyT Loc: Central Missouri woods

Blurryeyed wrote:

If she lied to the court then go after her, I have never heard of a SCOTUS decision being vacated through any means other than a future ruling on the issue such as Dredge Scot or the Roe decisions.

Me either and it won’t happen here. The court is to cock sure it itself.
That said it should be investigated starting with the lawyer

letmedance Loc: Walnut, Ca.

Frank T wrote:

The Supreme Court is no longer credible.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told his law clerks in the '90s that he wanted to serve for 43 years to make liberals' lives 'miserable'
That statement alone should disqualify him as he obviously has an agenda and that agenda does not include ruling in accordance with the Constitution, but rather ruling to forward his conservative agenda.

After what the Liberals did to him I can understand his feelings.