LGBTBBQ BTFO

YOU JUST HAD TO BAKE THE CAKE

Attached: 21780213.jpg (1000x1000, 118.36K)

this is the correct direct link
finance.yahoo.com/news/justices-side-colorado-baker-same-sex-wedding-cake-142744589–politics.html

Attached: Merchant Screeching.jpg (478x458, 33.5K)

OY VEY, this kind of rhetoric would mean that companies would be allowed to discriminate against hiring PoC!!!!!

Since OP is massive faggot himself I'm surprised he looks at this as good news.

The ruling is "narrow" in the legal sense of limited scope. SCOTUS actually didn't rule on whether or not you can discriminate against LGBTPILMNOP3BBC, rather they ruled that Colorado's State processed violated the religious freedom of the Baker, since they told him his religious views were irrelevant. SCOTUS is reluctant to rule on anything of consequence unless it is Marxist in nature and 100% approved by their (((Masters.))) This case could very well come back to the Supreme Court in a few years, to rule on the discrimination issue. Faggots on twitter think this means you can legally beat homos to death now, and cuckservatives think they now have the right to discriminate service based on sincere religious views. At best, this is a minor victory for freedom of religion, but good salt collection none the less.

Post the ruling you mess

Isn't that supposed to be covered under freedom of association?

Aye it's a judicial review of the procedure not the context of the cake refusal, Ginsberg was freaked though

How the fuck, aside from (((them))), are the first amendment and anti-racist/sexism/etc. allowed to exist together? Isn't it an inherent contradiction?
t.not burger

Attached: 1a6c929880eba31ae1ed14868547fa6502816d718848c7bc802100f682f04f74.png (841x700, 679.28K)

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

Is that right under the 4th amendment?

Attached: Supreme Court rules in favor of baker in same-sex cake case.webm (640x360, 2.92M)

That reminds me, what happened to that muslim vs tranny shitstorm that kicked up last week? Seems to have been mem-holed fast. Expected as much.

On these faggots "pride" month

Attached: 2fd072fa424b60f56c10e73a7f7e304770a30173fb19d25584cbfc1b754e1d92.mp4 (1280x720, 420.67K)

The early amendments were quite simply written. That is an absolute death sentence in law, it allows what you wrote to be distorted and warped AKA "interpreted differently".

Are you stupid? 1st amendment.

Phoneposting, sorry. Use your maginations.

Anything that gets her closer to a heart attack is good with me.

Today I laugh at faggots tomorrow I vote for Patrick Little and there's nothing these faggots and kikes can do about legally, if they try to Rockwell him there will be repercussions

Really makes you think.

yahjew article;
>The Supreme Court ruled narrowly Monday for a Colorado baker who wouldn't make…

A narrow ruling in the supreme court is when it's 4-1-4 split on justices and you get a 5-4 ruling. so yes, I agree it's fucking bonkers how it's being described

Describes how the ruling came to be, not what was ruled one.
The result came to be from a vote of 7-2. That is in no way narrow. That's a fucking landslide.

1. Not necessarily
2. My point was how modern Americans wipe their ass with rights that nobody cares about (e.g. Government surveillance making a mockery of the 4th amendment). Nobody cares about right to association (hence why you're forced to hire blacks and not allowed to start groups that reject blacks or women)

You are castrated, imkikey. We don’t have to do anything you say.

Are you stupid? All of you? Freedom of association is no where in any amendment.

...

...

Commit suicide, dipshit. The 1st amendment protects the right to freedom of association. Take your yiddish lies and get out.

(((CNN))) reacts.

Attached: Supreme Court rules for baker in same-sex wedding cake case.webm (640x360, 10.8M)

It does not.

Any good kvetching on twatter?

How wasn't this a 9-0?

The first amendment has been transformed over time to mean different things… it literally says freedom of religion, freedom to criticize your government, freedom of assembly. The constitution says NOTHING of discrimination, the only thing is an act that isn't absolute and can be overturned is the Civil Rights act of 1964 which prohibits RACIAL discrimination. Fags aren't a race.

NPR is pushing the "very narrow scope", doesnt change anything meme.
We all know if this went the other way they would be dancing in the streets and rubbing our faces in it.

Doesn't it say you can outright refuse anyone for any or no reason?

All of this is important shit

Supporting documents attached
- Letter to Clarify Record from Colorado
- REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS
- Judges Decision
Docket -
supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-111.html
archive.is/Ex6bO
Judges Decision Direct Link:
supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

>(a) The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must,protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression. See Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. _, _. While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion. To Phillips, his claim that using his artisticskills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement inhis own voice and of his own creation, has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincerereligious beliefs. His dilemma was understandable in 2012, which was before Colorado recognized the validity of gay marriages performed in the State and before this Court issued United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. 744, or Obergefell. Given the State’s position at the time, there is some force to Phillips’ argument that he was notunreasonable in deeming his decision lawful. State law at the time also afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specificmessages they considered offensive. Indeed, while the instant enforcement proceedings were pending, the State Civil Rights Divisionconcluded in at least three cases that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons orgay marriages. Phillips too was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case. Pp. 9–12.

more…

Attached: Supreme Court Decision for Cake Boss16-111_j4el.pdf (20171122130523511_Petition….pdf)

...

I'll give you an example of how these kikes work.
Let's take that phrase as an example.
That just mentions the government, not companies or people.
Let's say there was a low that literally said "The government cannot kill people", all the government would need to do is privatize the killing of people to somebody else and the blood would be off their hands.
That's why legal documents are so insanely wordy, it's to prevent word trickery like that.

Sounds like open attacks on Christianity, eh schlomo?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (3000x2000, 7.62M)

OYYYYYYYYYYY VEEEEEYYYYYYYYYYYY

JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.

UNDERRATED

Aww shucks…

Modern Day Howard Roark

They had to do this because there is about to be a shitstorm over "social media" blocking and banning all non-leftists with tard-like fervor. They are going to point to the AIDS-cake case and say "HURR DURR WE CAN DO IT BECUZ PRIVUT BIZNIS DURR DURR"

Attached: smugjew-010.jpg (299x300, 29.16K)

wut? srsly? wtf?
KIKES - that 's why.
KIKES TRYING TO DE-LEGITIMIZE CHRISTIANITY AND TRYING TO MAKE CHRISTIANITY ILLEGAL
Don't believe me? Look at the docket

supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/16-111.html
Start looking at 'Names for Respondents' beginning at about halfway down, through the list, all the way at the bottom.

Fine -
But (((they))) are trying to dismantle the Constitution, piece by piece
(((They))) tried using the 14th Amendment to influence the 1st Amendment for Christ's sake!
Read It!
(unless of course, you have a room temperature IQ, then you can't even begin to understand what I am talking about)

Just a note here - - -

>United Nations General Assembly Resolution 46/86, adopted on 16 December 1991, revoked the determination in Resolution 3379, which had called Zionism a form of racism. Israel had made revocation of Resolution 3379 a condition of its participation in the Madrid Peace Conference, in progress in the last quarter of 1991.
BLACKMAILED

Wait, so your can't force others to give up their rights just so you can throw yours in their faces? What? The twats had to know their minor fagfest victory in courts filled with subversive faggots wouldn't last when it was put to the test at the highest level. kek
Too bad it took so long and the bakers had their business ruined in the meantime. They should file a civil suit for damages against every party involved including the orgs pushing the nonsense and their attorneys for the harassment.

Attached: So comfy.gif (500x211, 959.33K)

Difference being one forces a person to violate their own rights vs. someone expressing theirs as an individual. The social media crap is just that, if they stifle speech they are in for a world of hurt. No one is FORCING THEM to make nazi propaganda, but you sure as fuck won't stop anyone from bringing their own hitler cake-topper.

We have standards here you useless cunt. If you can't manage even the fucking basics, leave. You offer nothing but more cancer.

Judicial term in a judicial case, m8.

> journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0951629813502709?journalCode=jtpa

Don't be thick, bro.

People's opinions don't change simply because the law changes. When European countries outlawed holocaust denial, did you suddenly say, "Oh, well I guess it really happened. God bless Jews!"? No, of course not. That would be retarded.

1st actually:
While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama (1958) that freedom of association is an essential part of freedom of speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.
They fucked up when they defined it in 58.

I'm not talking about opinions and feelings cunt. Law says you don't get to step on the rights of others and the government can't step on yours. All of you faggots can do a header off a bridge. Express yourself.

God damn, you special snowflakes are defensive. You specifically mentioned the bakery being able to sue those whose opinions were contrary to the SCOTUS ruling. In light of that, read what I said again without being a defensive crying faggot.

GLORY TO OUR GOD JESUS CHRIST

SODOMITES BTFO
FORREST ANTI-CHRISTIAN LARPERS BTFO

Attached: jesus1514213832497.jpg (768x1024, 703.65K)

Now this is larping, baiting, d&c, derailment and hypocrisy in one post.

Attached: 1e4a04f6f8c2277fc66053d1787b3fa41445d52441a8f042ddd06899e1931f5e.jpg (750x732, 51.75K)

THEIR RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED WITH JUDICIARY POWER KIKE

This faggot again. He's a legal analyst like I'm an underwater welder. It was pretty neat to see (((Alan Dershowitz))) turn him into a sputtering mess on CNN once. Wish I could remember which particular clip it was.

What do you expect from the kikes that brought the cringewave faggotry to push their media and marketing?

Look at the difference in coverage between these two outlets. FOX immediately beelined to the statement in the opinion saying, with surprise, that the decision was made based at least partially in the fact that the commission that initially ruled on the case did so with a clear and intolerant bias against the Christian, and thus the decision was simply nullified. CNN, on the other hand, harped repeatedly on the fact that Justice Kennedy, to their surprise, was the majority opinion writer, since he was the majority opinion writer for the gay marriage case, while they all but glaze over the fact that the Christian was treated with nothing but hostility in this case.

I know it's all a dog and pony show, but it sure shows the caliber of the reporting at (((CNN))). FOX isn't any fucking better. They can still eat a dick.

I think it is really important to note, however, what sort of precedent this sets in our modern times. This sets the precedent that, even in the face of controversial decisions and (((potentially illegal discrimination))), that an arbitrator MUST be fair and impartial to mediate a case. This is important, because as we all know, conservative, Christian, and right-wing causes are regularly beset by hostile forces masquerading as (((impartial judges))) all the time; this precedent does far more damage to the Progressive™ cause all the same, even in the face of the wowitsfuckingnothing.jpg retardation.

The 1960s civil rights movement basically eliminated our freedom of association in America. You no longer have the right to not live around niggers, for any reason.
However they didn't eliminate our freedom of expression, or artistic freedom (this includes the freedom NOT to create a work of art).
The reason this went to the supreme court is because
1. The bakery, a business, didn't want to associate with fags (now illegal cos freedom of association no longer exists, thanks jews)
2. Cake decorating, performed by an artist, is still artistic expression, so you can still refuse to know create art that doesn't align with your beliefs.
With this ruling, I'd say the creative fields are open to being taken over by pro-whites since we are now protected by law. Yes, it's full of leftist faggots, but that's because the jews know how important art is for a culture.

And yes, non-burger, the Jews are trying to eliminate the first amendment entirely, down to having the freedom to refuse to create art for people you hate.

Attached: 1527499253839.jpg (500x747, 101.52K)

We're lucky that this ruling was in favor of the bakery, otherwise if you are an artist in any sense of the word, jews could have you jailed for not wanting to paint homosexual negro orgies on the basis of discrimination.

The civil rights movement is an attack on civil right from the state.

IMNAL in the USA, but general acknowledged is, that constitutions provide protections against infringements of civil rights by the state.

So what this civil rights movement and their lawyer backers did, they turned around this defensive rights of the citizen against government overreach and turned it against the citizen. Now suddenly the defensive rights in the constitution gave the government carte blanche to harass citizen.

How can we impeach the other 2 "judges"/activists. Its what Thomas Jefferson would have wanted. Just start with one.

Attached: 1512285042348s.jpg (550x684, 50.32K)

Need a very large group to camp out in front of the court buildings and not leave until the fuckers step down.

True, they do cave to any activist group that stands at the steps. Americans are usually too busy working.

Fuck that. It ought to be because of your right of association. That is the right to not associate with niggers, faggots and kikes.

All men should go out and get a YWCA membership and start applying for their housing etc. sue when they try and deny you because you're a man.

The best thing about this court decision is that this sets the precedent that government and mediators cannot hold any bias towards one side or another. Anyone paying attention can see very clear hostility the Left has towards anything conservative, heterosexual, white, or Christian, so this ruling is exceptionally damaging to that when properly applied.

No shit, the civil rights movement was a jewish coup.

(((CNN))) at it again.

Attached: CNN LIVE INSIDE POLITICS W_John King 06_04_2018.webm (640x360, 14.22M)

wew

Fucking CNN.

And it's fag month too.
You know there's a mountain of salt about this

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…"
- American Constitution

Siding with either the fags or the Abrahamists would seem to violate the spirit of the Law.

What they mean by "narrow" is that it's based on minute details that have nothing to do with constitutional rights, but rather that the case had no right to proceed specifically because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was biased towards Christianity in the first place. It was on narrow legal grounds, not by a narrow vote margin.

I think "narrow" is a really stupid word to use in this situation; it's only being used for propaganda purposes, and CNN is in full fucking damage control trying to make this seem like it's not a big deal here; all of their reporting is putting focus on the fact that this was not a Constitutional win for the baker, but a procedural violation that allowed a minor win for a "bigot" in the face of the broader scope of his discrimination.

Reminder: this precedent will linger over the heads of Progressive™ causes. There is a lot of animosity towards conservative stances, and this is going to be a very strong argument used against the Left. This is a much bigger win than anyone is giving them credit for.

They still got that ruling that twatter is a public space and Trump can't block.

"Narrow" is their asshurt damage control buzzword.
Fags BTFO

True, but it also opens the door for a bakery to refuse to bake a cake for white people on the basis of their religious belief that "white people are the devil". It is a fascinating can of worms.

Still not tired of winning

Attached: clf3Bm4.png (211x170, 28.63K)

Who fucking cares? White people have never demanded access to non-white space. It's always the reverse.
If a store owner hates whites I will gladly leave. Problem is, non-whites and degenerates absolutely need to leech off whitey. They need us, we don't need them.

If non-whites can refuse service to whites then I sure as hell can too. Segregation is better, we'd be going back to the good ol' days. All we have to do is come up with our own white-only religion.

There was one, mormonism. The government pressured them into accepting niggers back int he eighties.

Fuck year KKKAKE

Normal people are not versed on judiciary definitions. They did on propose.

What still gets me is that he has a freedom of religion, (((they))) even fucking say it, and yet they still brought this all the way to Supreme, what retarded faggots fill that state. It's also a freedom of speech issue, which is why we have the 1st amendment, YET it is completely ignored when it fits (((their))) interests. I'm glad the faggots didn't win this case, I'd of lost a lot hope for my country it they had.

Oh, absolutely. These faggots are trying their hardest to deflect and defend on the grounds that "Oh, well it's not a CONSTITUTIONAL decision like everyone was hoping for, so it doesn't matter. We'll just have to wait on another case to come down the pike to get that, and that means this isn't a big deal."

In the meantime, this is really fucking huge because, as I've mentioned, it sets precedent that mediators are effectively required to be unbiased and fair at all times in these cases. Anyone paying attention knows that's nearly fucking impossible for them to keep a level head; one of the defining personality characteristics of a leftist faggot is their absolute intolerance against anyone or anything that does not kowtow to their dogma and very specific subset of demands in that particular case, no matter how hypocritical it may be given their religious zealotry of Progressive™ causes.

Hostile hypocrisy is their fucking game. It's the #1 rule in their book, and they will not stop until they get everything they want, shut down everybody that remotely disagrees with them, and institute rules that allow them to control the field in every possible way.

Daily reminder that it's okay when (((they))) do it!

They will not stop. Even laws directly striking them down will not stop them unless they are strictly enforced.

wrong
The Presidents twatter is public space says the decision.

Like this decision only said that this christian is allowed to decline to bake a cake if it colliding with his religious beliefs.

Attached: 41qEMn1EySL.jpg (300x300, 20.47K)

Scanning the MSM radio and TV today and I have heard this "Narrow decision" wording on multiple media outlets today. The networks, npr, CNN, etc etc all have this exact wording. Its clear the masters pushed the talking points out to their puppets to spin this hard.

Attached: roadrag.jpg (450x320, 36.63K)

wrong

The decision was narrow and applies only to that case and very similar cases.

Its not spinning int his case. Read what it meant in JUDGE-SPEECH, YO! You'll found out.

I remember, and they caved because they wanted gibs. We, however, could simply not sell out to ZOG.
Although, government kikes seem to only take Abrahamist religions seriously. Mormons are probably accepted since they are zionists. If we started a paganist/traditionalist religion for whites only the kikes would throw a fit.

Reading the majority opinion is very important here as the ruling is fairly narrow. This ruling only appears to cover artistic expression, as the baker was compelled to make a custom cake for a gay wedding. This ruling does not affirm private property rights or the right of businesses to discriminate on arbitrary grounds, which had been castrated in the 60's and will likely not return. This would, however, likely cover other services where your services are commissioned to create something to celebrate the wedding. Wedding planners would probably be covered, as their services are creative in nature.

I wonder if the right for a catering company to refuse service (meals from a pre-determined menu) to a gay wedding would be covered by this decision. This does not cover refusing a gay couple a cake you already made and I don't think the court will ever uphold that ever again, so I wonder if the same would apply to catering if the meals are not tailored to specific occasions. The meals are created for the express purpose of a gay wedding, thus making it a creative act, but I'm not sure if it's considered artistic expression unless you're paid to put two candy grooms on your meat loaf.

Religious CLAIMS vs LGBT RIGHTS

more weasel wording