Political Meme's Only

Zeedox said:
I discussed your scenarios before, they are covered under hate laws
Click to expand...
Not in Colorado. The law there stated clearly that you couldn't refuse service. Period.

It was s stupid law with ridiculous overreach written by halfwitted activists. That's the entire reason the suit took place.


Zeedox said:
Filing papers to a court and saying they are real when they are faked, is called fraud. The original request she claims she got is made-up.
Click to expand...
No, it wasn't. The evidence was submitted to and verified by the court.

Once again, fanboy activist don't bother reading the actual news and start making shit up.

The guy whose name was used said he didn't file the request.

Activists once again knee jerked that into "she made it all up" without ever once considering that someone actually did file the request but they used his name to do it.

Even he admitted that was likely the case as his name is plastered all over the internet.

But people blindly believe what they want to believe. They have zero interest in the actual facts.
 
So you're arguing I could use your name to submit something that bothers someone enough to take it to the Supreme Court and you'd be okay with that?

btw:

www.newsweek.com

Josh Hawley's wife faces calls to be sanctioned over Supreme Court case

Erin Morrow Hawley litigated a case in which the Supreme Court ruled a Colorado web designer can refuse to design websites for same-sex weddings.
www.newsweek.com www.newsweek.com

Kaivan Shroff, an attorney, tweeted: "Zero surprise that it was insurrection supporter Josh Hawley's wife, Erin Hawley, who litigated the FAKE 303 Creative case in front of the Supreme Court. She's as dishonest as her husband. The Extreme Court used the totally made up case to illegitimately strip away LGBT+ rights."
Click to expand...
 
And quite frankly the existing law is shit. No business should be forced to provide a service.

But using duplicitous means to start the needed change is a slippery slope in evidence based proceedings.
 
Zeedox said:
So you're arguing I could use your name to submit something that bothers someone enough to take it to the Supreme Court and you'd be okay with that?
Click to expand...
In the end, yes.

The point of the exercise is that the Colorado law was unconstitutional. The better question to ask yourself is: are you OK with your province having a law on the books that is unconstitutional so long as it suits your agenda and doesn't effect you?

Because that is exactly what it was. Even if the "complaint" turns out to be fake, it doesn't matter as the situation would have eventually turned up and the same thing would have happened. If it wasn't a Christian, it would have been some other group.
Zeedox said:
And quite frankly the existing law is shit. No business should be forced to provide a service.
Click to expand...
Which is the reason the suit was filed and the law no longer exists. SCOTUS trashed it with that ruling.
 
The alternative is that an unconstitutional law remains on the books indefinitely and winds up being abused by someone for monetary gain and/or harassment until it gets removed.

It wouldn't be the first time that happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back