Religious Liberty vs Sexual Orientation as a protected Class

[Dānu]

I stand by what I wrote.  That you feel the need to comment a second time on the matter strongly suggests you have some unmet need you're trying to fill.

Your original claim was that the court had found that the Colorado law had an animus toward religion, which wasn't true then or now, as the Masterpiece ruling turned on an animus of application, not the law itself.   The current ruling from what I understand from a brief skim of Gorsuch's opinion appears to render a verdict based upon freedom of speech grounds, not freedom of religion -- though to be sure will require a closer reading.  You then claimed the court had indicated an interest in moving in a certain direction.  At which point I noted that the court as such, had not ventured such an opinion.  That they have now rendered such an opinion doesn't make you correct at that time -- it wasn't true at the time and being true six months later doesn't count.  Your reply, which you quote here and to which I never responded simply shows that you don't understand the meaning of the word "essential" -- Thomas' indicia in a concurrence was not an essential step then or now.  

But do please keep us updated on who around here is a feeble troll.

 

This is about your willful refusal to accept correction or clarification and your stubborness. You were being a nudge. And, now you are doubling down.

Feel free to quote what I said that was incorrect. Otherwise, up yours. The problem isn't a wilful refusal but rather you being too stupid to understand where you were wrong.

[Vorpal]

D,

You were wrong about the irrelevance of commentary by concurring and dissenting justices in court decisions. We can use them to predict future rulings. Here, we see the court move in the predicted direction. They have included sincerely held religious beliefs to be pivotal in the right to discriminate in the public square.

Get over your bad self.

[Dānu]

D,

You were wrong about the irrelevance of commentary by concurring and dissenting justices in court decisions. We can use them to predict future rulings. Here, we see the court move in the predicted direction.  They have included sincerely held religious beliefs to be pivotal in the right to discriminate in the public square.

Get over your bad self.

You do know what a quote is, don't you? I guess not.

Now, fuck off, dumbass.

[Vorpal]

I don't have to abide by your rules. You know what you said. I gave you patient consideration before, and in turn you behaved like a twat.

[Dānu]

I don't have to abide by your rules.  You know what you said.  I gave you patient consideration before, and in turn you behaved like a twat.

In other words, no you're not going to quote what I said. Ever hear the phrase, "Put up or shut up?"

[Thumpalumpacus]

[Vorpal]

I don't have to abide by your rules.  You know what you said.  I gave you patient consideration before, and in turn you behaved like a twat.

In other words, no you're not going to quote what I said.  Ever hear the phrase, "Put up or shut up?"

Your focus on details to such an extent that the big picture is ignored and discourse is unproductive.  You may be able to point to minor areas where you hyperfocussed on minutia to be technically correct, but at the same time you lose focus on the main point.  

Stop trying to treat others as a chew toy when you are just being a tool.

[Dānu]