VeteranXX Contributor
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cael
yes, it has no bearing on oregon law unless they're specifically challenging the constitutionality of the law in federal court jfc
|
Next level retard reached here folks
|
|
|
VeteranXX
|
i love it when u maga tards double down on stupid
the us supreme court oversees the federal court system which implements federal law
the oregon state supreme court oversees the oregon state court system which implements state law
these are 2 different court systems with 2 different sets of laws
something that is illegal under federal law, is not necessarily illegal under state law and vice versa
this case is about oregon state law where they have been found guilty
the supreme court is not going to rule on oregon state law and the outcome of the federal case is not going to change anything for this case in state court
|
|
|
VeteranXX Contributor
|
This guy just gets dumber. You seriously don't understand what's happening. Holy ****.
SCOTUS will hear cases from State courts if they involve the Constitution you ****ing piece of ****. jfc
|
|
|
VeteranXV
|
You should probably bow out of this one amRam. cael is exactly right...
|
|
|
VeteranXX Contributor
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by phaytal
You should probably bow out of this one amRam. cael is exactly right...
|
Oh yeah he's totally right. That's why the SCOTUS is deciding on a state ruling as we speak lmao... newsflash retards: the state can't trample on your constitutional rights.
|
|
|
VeteranXV
|
I don't think you understand how our court system works.
The SCOTUS is not ruling on an existing Colorado case. They are hearing arguments from a brand new federal case challenging the state ruling.
I'm not sure how it works in Canuckistan.
|
|
|
VeteranXX Contributor
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by phaytal
I don't think you understand how our court system works.
The SCOTUS is not ruling on an existing Colorado case. They are hearing arguments from a brand new federal case challenging the state ruling.
I'm not sure how it works in Canuckistan.
|
Ugh. Duh. Big picture, boys. Big picture.
|
|
|
VeteranXV
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by amRam
SCOTUS will hear cases from State courts...
|
|
|
|
VeteranXX Contributor
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by phaytal
|
Now we're gonna argue semantics I guess...when all else fails?
This issue isn't resolved, and it's not black and white. And it's not clear cut. Sorry buddy. Top court has yet to decide.
|
|
|
VeteranXX
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by phaytal
Well it's pretty ****ing cut and dry here. Oregon law prohibits business owners from discriminating based on sexual orientation, among other things such as race and religion.
Perhaps these uppity Christians should have kept their mouth shut as to why they were denying service to these particular people instead of campaigning on social media against the big bad gays that wanted a cake.
|
or perhaps a $500 fine would be sufficient, rather than a $135k award
|
|
|
VeteranXV
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeLiaL
or perhaps a $500 fine would be sufficient, rather than a $135k award
|
Wait...
So now it's just the amount of money they had to shell out?
|
|
|
VeteranXV
|
look @ all these constitutional scholars
The law that applies to situations where state and federal laws disagree is called the supremacy clause, which is part of article VI of the Constitution. The supremacy clause contains what's known as the doctrine of pre-emption, which says that the federal government wins in the case of conflicting legislation.
lmagayo
|
|
|
VeteranXX Contributor
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by naptown
look @ all these constitutional scholars
The law that applies to situations where state and federal laws disagree is called the supremacy clause, which is part of article VI of the Constitution. The supremacy clause contains what's known as the doctrine of pre-emption, which says that the federal government wins in the case of conflicting legislation.
lmagayo
|
Impossible. SCOTUS has no bearing on states. States can do whatever they want.
|
|
|
VeteranXX
|
p cut and dry tbh
if the cake tastes legit, u must acquit
|
|
|
VeteranXX Contributor
|
I think the SCOTUS will rule differently.
If the top opposing arguments are discrimination v. religious freedom, religion would have to win out. IMHO. The cakemakers didn't harm anyone. The couple could have just gone to any of dozens of other establishments. But NOOOOOOO. They had to be whiny *****es.
|
|
|
VeteranXV
|
punishing ppl for their retarded religious beliefs is ridiculous
simply put
capitalism is color blind, it doesn't give a **** about race, ethnicity, ******ry, etc
it only cares about str8 cash homie
instead of fining the company allow the free market to take their business
|
|
|
VeteranXX Contributor
|
What would happen if I started a business and gave it the fictitious name No ******s Allowed LLC.
|
|
|
VeteranXV
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Dawg
I think the SCOTUS will rule differently.
If the top opposing arguments are discrimination v. religious freedom, religion would have to win out. IMHO. The cakemakers didn't harm anyone. The couple could have just gone to any of dozens of other establishments. But NOOOOOOO. They had to be whiny *****es.
|
So would you be ok with the cake makers hanging a sign in their window that says 'We don't serve ******s or fags'?
Because it's the same thing.
I was under the impression we got past this 70 years ago.
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
AGENT: claudebot / Y
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:04.
|