If a baker who lost a loved one to gun violence had a customer who wanted a cake that resembled a machine gun, should they have to make it? Or, what about an African-American baker whose customer wanted a confederate flag cake?
-
-
-
Would be their choice do decide !!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
SCOTUS ruled only that they didn't get a fair hearing, not that they...and others...could lawfully discriminate against same-sex couples. It specifically stated that was NOT the case. I suggest reading their decision in its entirety. I did.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Be sure to carry your white heterosexual Christian ID card when you shop.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Why didn’t those gays just go to a gay baker?
-
Because they wanted a federal case
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Management reserves the right of admission
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Your headline is so off target, it's almost like you are intentionally trying to misrepresent the real story.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Shite headline again from
@nytimes . The SC did not rule in baker’s favor, only that he was denied a fair proceeding. - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
That's smexy evidence
-
Is it restraint?
-
hell to the yea, shows adherence with the freedom of religion clause of first but calls into question whether in a modern society the bor can ever truly protect all citizens because in protecting one group they fail to protect another *painted nails emoji*
-
you could use it to argue for abandoning activism by the Roberts court if that comes up again as well because they (sort of) contradict state decisis for obergefell v hodges

-
love it, also-despite abandoning activism, it seems the court remains willing to make controversial decisions seen in caetano v Massachusetts , which in some ways means they are still 'activist' because they display overwhelmingly strict conservatism in a progressive era
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
A baker who has a business totally have the right to say yes and no based on his personal convictions. Unless he conveyed his convictions in an abusive way that he’s supposed to be reprimanded by a court. Freedom of speech. Freedom of expression. But total respect for all!
-
Just in same way I find it absurd if a man commends a woman from what she’s wearing or her hair. It only becomes offensive if there’s sexual undertone.
-
I wonder when woman started rejecting commendations on their beautiful looks. And I wonder why some men have degenerated to sexualize women without any sense of morality. Pls let’s not forget our upbringings!
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.