The cake goes to SCOTUS
- Thread starter Younggun
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
.png)
Let them eat cake . . .
This is my view to the extreme. I don't believe anyone should have to serve anyone else for any reason even if it's for reasons I disagree with.
The courts have not agreed with me for some time now.
It's a socialist way to government control to bring down the constitution and freedom. Hive mentality.
Yep... The sophistic twister the petitioning lawyers and SCOTUS are playing display their cowardice.
NavyVet1959
Curmudgeon Extraordinaire
I think that a business should be able to discriminate against ANY class of people that they want to. We already allow businesses here in Texas to discriminate against those of us who believe and practice our 2nd Amendment rights, they just have to post certain signs on/by their doors in a certain wording and format to do so. We as consumers can then choose whether we want to do business with companies that choose to discriminate against our 2nd Amendment rights. The same should go for any other group of people. If a business wants to not do business with old white guys (like myself), blacks, people wearing droopy pants, or Pastafarians wearing plastic colanders on their heads, they should be allowed, as long as they publish the required notice on/by their front door. The rest of the consumers can *choose* whether to do business with a company that discriminates as such. Maybe consumers will agree with it and give the company more business or maybe the consumers will not agree with it and the company will go out of business. Either way, it is the market that is deciding, not the government.
Lunyfringe
Well-Known
The wedding was over when they ordered the cake- they went to some state back East where they could legally get married/unionized since it wasn't allowed in CO at the time... they were just allegedly having a reception in Colorado after the fact.
This whole thing was a publicity stunt, and maybe they even had judges lined up to decide they way they wanted from the get-go (the 9th circuit is a no-brainer on which way they'll decide- literally)
FIFY.
seeker_two
My posts don't count....
If SCOTUS upholds the lower courts' decision, then we should hire the ACLU to handle a few pro-2A cases.
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
https://www.aclu.org/other/second-amendment
ACLU position
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.
In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition, or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions.
NavyVet1959
Curmudgeon Extraordinaire
Having the ACLU handle 2A cases would be like hiring an attorney that was a pedophile to handle your child custody battle. 
Lunyfringe
Well-Known
If the attorney was filing for custody, too!Having the ACLU handle 2A cases would be like hiring an attorney that was a pedophile to handle your child custody battle.
seeker_two
My posts don't count....
But the ACLU would have to provide competent representation to avoid malfeasance. Watching them cringe as they do so would be watch-worthy.....
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
Affirmed the right of a Christian bakery not to be forced to design a homo cake....also threw out Biden's attempt to write off 4B in student debt.
Thanks to Trump and to a lesser extnt McConnell for delaying the last appointment.
Thanks to Trump and to a lesser extnt McConnell for delaying the last appointment.
Staff online
-
VaqueroMoving stuff to the gas prices thread.....
Members online
- Orbie
- ggiovanni
- Nocash247
- Maverick44
- Wmb556
- jamespres2001
- Tex62
- no2gates
- brashears9567
- blueangel64
- servis
- Gorp2007
- Brass & Barrel Gun Works
- D0ntTr3@d0nM3
- Big Green
- zackmars
- Cool 'Horn Luke
- 007FJ
- Fullretard
- Wataman
- Darkpriest667
- Younggun
- DubiousDan
- CentexGunner82
- vmax
- Member2
- Hoji
- RevolverGuy
- EZ-E
- Vaquero
- taddius000
- SIG_Fiend
- crzy_one
- Brains
- gasgas
- Wiliamr
- striker55
- Stoneez
- TwentyFive
- Coon
- paknheat
- DWDM_In_DFW
- BeatTheTunaUp
- Txhighlander
- CodyK
- plasman
- ULEWZ
- and503
- country_boy
- McCrapper
