Does anybody actually agree with this? by Flash - Page 7 - TribalWar Forums
Click Here to find great hosting deals from Branzone.com


Go Back   TribalWar Forums > TribalWar Community > General Discussion
Reload this Page Does anybody actually agree with this?
Page 7 of 24
Thread Tools
amRam
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
121 - 12-30-2017, 20:51
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by cael View Post
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
 
amRam is offline
 
Sponsored Links
cael
VeteranX
Old
122 - 12-30-2017, 20:58
Reply With Quote
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
 
cael is offline
 
amRam
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
123 - 12-30-2017, 20:59
Reply With Quote
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
 
amRam is offline
 
cael
VeteranX
Old
124 - 12-30-2017, 21:00
Reply With Quote
lmao omg
 
cael is offline
 
phaytal
VeteranX
Contributor
Old
125 - 12-30-2017, 21:01
Reply With Quote
You should probably bow out of this one amRam. cael is exactly right...
 
phaytal is offline
 
amRam
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
126 - 12-30-2017, 21:05
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by phaytal View Post
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.
 
amRam is offline
 
phaytal
VeteranX
Contributor
Old
127 - 12-30-2017, 21:14
Reply With Quote
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.
 
phaytal is offline
 
amRam
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
128 - 12-30-2017, 21:17
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by phaytal View Post
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.
 
amRam is offline
 
phaytal
VeteranX
Contributor
Old
129 - 12-30-2017, 21:38
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by amRam View Post
SCOTUS will hear cases from State courts...
 
phaytal is offline
 
amRam
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
130 - 12-30-2017, 21:39
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by phaytal View Post
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.
 
amRam is offline
 
cael
VeteranX
Old
131 - 12-30-2017, 21:40
Reply With Quote
 
cael is offline
 
BeLiaL
VeteranXV
Old
132 - 12-30-2017, 21:41
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by phaytal View Post
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
 
BeLiaL is offline
 
phaytal
VeteranX
Contributor
Old
133 - 12-30-2017, 21:54
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeLiaL View Post
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?
 
phaytal is offline
 
naptown
VeteranXV
Old
134 - 12-30-2017, 21:58
Reply With Quote
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
 
naptown is online now
 
amRam
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
135 - 12-30-2017, 21:59
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by naptown View Post
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.
 
amRam is offline
 
Edofnor
VeteranXV
Old
136 - 12-30-2017, 21:59
Reply With Quote
p cut and dry tbh

if the cake tastes legit, u must acquit
 
Edofnor is online now
 
T-Dawg
VeteranX
Old
137 - 12-30-2017, 22:02
Reply With Quote
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.
 
T-Dawg is offline
 
naptown
VeteranXV
Old
138 - 12-30-2017, 22:04
Reply With Quote
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
 
naptown is online now
 
T-Dawg
VeteranX
Old
139 - 12-30-2017, 22:15
Reply With Quote
What would happen if I started a business and gave it the fictitious name No ******s Allowed LLC.
 
T-Dawg is offline
 
phaytal
VeteranX
Contributor
Old
140 - 12-30-2017, 22:24
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Dawg View Post
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.
 
phaytal is offline
 
Page 7 of 24
Reply


Go Back   TribalWar Forums > TribalWar Community > General Discussion
Reload this Page Does anybody actually agree with this?

Social Website Bullshit

Tags
serial rapist of chicago


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


AGENT: CCBot/2.0 (http://commoncrawl.org/faq/) / Y
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:02.