Court rules for baker in same-sex-wedding-cake case

[psiberzerker]

I'd add that the difference here being that it's okay when Christians do it, (Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an Institute of Religion) but not all right when people tolerate LGBT people.  So, it's not just bias, it's Religious Intolerance.

[joan1984]

A private business is just that. The business makes decisions about refusal of service, and may expect to face consequences as they may arise. Has nothing to do with Gay or not Gay, nothing. Has to do with the business owner and her/his decision about refusal of service, or in this case, requesting she leave.

Uncivil behavior, for whatever reason, will result in a public reaction that could impact who else patronizes, or choose not to patronize any private business.

I'd add that the difference here being that it's okay when Christians do it, (Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an Institute of Religion) but not all right when people tolerate LGBT people.  So, it's not just bias, it's Religious Intolerance.

[psiberzerker]

A private business is just that. The business makes decisions about refusal of service, and may expect to face consequences as they may arise. Has nothing to do with Gay or not Gay, nothing. Has to do with the business owner and her/his decision about refusal of service, or in this case, requesting she leave.

Uncivil behavior, for whatever reason, will result in a public reaction that could impact who else patronizes, or choose not to patronize any private business.

Yes, that was exactly my point.  However, being gay is not uncivil behavior.  Being a professional liar for a Nazi sympathizer is.

[Lois]

We have the right to protest the government, including those people who carry out policies we object to.

[Jed_]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-high-risk-and-low-reward-of-harassing-trump-officials/ar-AAzb3ui

While I do think there’s a difference between using your religion to justify your bigotry and showing disapproval of abhorrent policies of the current administration, I still say show your disapproval with rational arguments and civility.  It’s fine to make your point that you even find these people personally objectionable, but do do politely without screaming and name calling (not that Sanders herself was called names in the denial of service but others were).  Acting badly only helps Trump.

Hey, I think this is post #1000 for me.

[Jed_]

Exactly my point, why help Trump.

[psiberzerker]

We have the right to protest the government, including those people who carry out policies we object to.

Okay, but denying a spokesperson a sandwich is an empty protest, not an effective defense.  Besides, it's not as if SHS needs that sandwich all that badly.  Denying Ivanka a sandwich.  That might be a little more affective.  (She seems to have the most influence in that house, anyway.)

[Jed_]

OK, maybe at least one loathsome person in the Trump Administration deserves any amount of abuse.  Go ahead and spit on Stephen Miller if you like.

[joan1984]

  I like Stephen Miller a lot, have seen him defend the President, and defend or explain Policy in a clear, and not glossed over manner, which is important. Plain English, plain speaking, so the people fully grasp the intention, history of whatever he is asked about.

  Speeches he writes seem well tuned to the President's speaking pace/style, and generally Mr. Miller seems to believe, and be able to effectively speak in media digestible bites. He does not wilt, or suffer fools much at all.

  Maybe I am missing something, and I am confident some here can offer a bite or two for me to ponder the justifies the hatred shown Mr. Miller, for his being effective in representing views expressed by President Trump, when he has been challenged by MSM on live TV.

[Jed_]

  I like Stephen Miller a lot,

Now there’s a shocker.

While I expect Sanders has frequent stomach turning moments doing her job, and her conscience probably doesn’t allow her to sleep all that well, but I’m sure Miller sleeps like a baby conscience-free.  I’m sure you sleep fine too.

I dislike when the term racist is applied as a blanket statement towards all Trump personnel, but it is aptly applied to the dirtbag Miller and been true about him since his school days.

[joan1984]

I saw the Third Grade snitch report. What evidence is there about Stephen Miller himself being a racist, or advocating racists in any way? I appreciate the info, as all I know about him is what I have seen since the 2016 Campaign, and I know he worked for the Attorney General at some point.

Know Trump Haters will call anyone, for any reason, racist, when in fact they simply disagree about some situation that happens to have a racial component as well as other components which weigh in favor of existing law, or proposed laws and policy.

Thank you.

I will ignore Athos comments regarding Trump or Stephen Miller, or virtually anything as being biased and bizarre generally, and welcome others replies.

  I like Stephen Miller a lot,

Now there’s a shocker.

While I expect Sanders has frequent stomach turning moments doing her job, and her conscience probably doesn’t allow her to sleep all that well, but I’m sure Miller sleeps like a baby conscience-free.  I’m sure you sleep fine too.

I dislike when the term racist is applied as a blanket statement towards all Trump personnel, but it is aptly applied to the dirtbag Miller and been true about him since his school days.

[psiberzerker]

What evidence is there about Stephen Miller himself being a racist, or advocating racists in any way? I appreciate the info, as all I know about him is what I have seen since the 2016 Campaign, and I know he worked for the Attorney General at some point.

Thank you.

Thank you for asking.  Sincerely, that takes a lot, to admit your ignorance (Which Socrates allegedly said is the greatest wisdom, but the provenance is sketchy on that quote)

So anyway, props.  Also, here's a start:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/05/stephen-miller-duke-donald-trump

[joan1984]

  Thank you for the Vanity Fair link, and I can see why some single out Miller, where basically he was correct regarding his stance about the Duke case being a invalid attack on the University and it's LaCrosse Coach, Players, which has been dismissed by the State Attorney General.

  Seems he was early to tack against the prevailing "news" coverage, and turns out he was on the correct side, if there was a correct side, giving support to his fellow Students in the drawn out failed case. OK. This is the first I knew he was a campus reporter a all, let alone stood nearly alone, and prevailed in the end.

  Seems he was outspoken, and beyond the Duke critique of his support for the Lacrosse Team members, I don't see any valid reason for 'racism charges' as are freely weighed against him lately. His opinion as a campus reporter, or in the campus newspaper, and by extension some radio opinions given on the same matter, are interesting, and just that, his opinions... and the case was eventually dismissed.

  He met Mr. Spencer at Duke, and has been tarred in this article for being in the same school with Spencer, with Spencer's views or statements used as the Tar. The article shows that he rejected association with Spencer's views as his own, and was not mincing words about his feelings in that regard.

  Where is this 'racist' claim? What has he actually said or done in his public role(s) to earn such a charge? I saw 'quotes' by some who are not supporters, of statements or things he said to them, as they recall, printed as facts by VF.

  Again, what has this got to do with his current position. Some bluster in his early exposure from the White House, criticism by Joe Scarborough... a failed former Congressman who generally had nothing positive to say about anyone associated with the Trump Administration, who forecast the disruption brought by liberal judges to this President's Orders... now being tossed by SCOTUS, at least in part... not defending the Policy but stating clearly the President's rights to make such Policy... so smacking down the various Judges who delayed for well over a year the effective implementation.. and rejecting Joe Scarborough's thinking nearly entirely in the process.

  Seems Mr. Miller is doing the job he is tasked to perform, and doing it well.

  I don't see where 'racist' is a valid expletive to heap his way. Has he ventured where many would not go, and invited a critique of his positions.. sure... and were there some racial, or supposedly racial components to the issues he chose to support, yes... and his opinion does not conform with Liberals, or the folks who make a living race baiting Nationally in the U.S., true enough.

  I recognize that, and your information helps me understand where the invective comes from, and I do not come away believing Miller is racist at all, but he is strong in presenting himself, and his opinions, and I enjoy the way he debates "news" people when the opportunity is presented.

  Provocative? Yes. Smart; Quick witted; good Debating skills? Yes.
 
  Racist? No, not at all.

[psiberzerker]

Okay, if it takes all that mental gymnastics to bend everything backwards, and discredit anyone who calls them on it only to come back around to the conclusion you started with?  You can't be convinced.  You will find some way to justify everything they said, because that matches your original assessment.  He can't possibly be racist, because he can't possibly be racist.

You asked how someone could have possibly gotten that idea?  I lived in North Carolina.  Raleigh, (Well Garner) at the time.  Basically, anyone who doesn't go through all that effort to make excuses for everything systematically?

Just might get that idea.  Somehow.  Imagine that.

 

[Athos_131]

I will ignore Athos comments regarding Trump or Stephen Miller

Trump asked Sessions about closing case against Arpaio, an ally since ‘birtherism’

Inside the West Wing, the pardon process was set in motion. Senior policy adviser Stephen Miller, who had gotten to know Arpaio through their work on immigration policy during the campaign, advocated internally for the pardon, as did chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon, according to people familiar with the deliberations.

Stephen Miller, the Other Big Racist in the White House

Department of Justification

Bannon’s role in blocking the reform had gone beyond sympathetic coverage on his site. Over the previous year, he, Sessions and one of Sessions’s top aides, Stephen Miller, spent “an enormous amount of time” meeting in person, “developing plans and messaging and strategy,” as Miller later explained to Rosie Gray in The Atlantic. Breitbart writers also reportedly met with Sessions’s staff for a weekly happy hour at the Union Pub. For most Republicans in Washington, immigration was an issue they wished would go away, a persistent source of conflict between the party’s elites, who saw it as a straightforward economic good, and its middle-class voting base, who mistrusted the effects of immigration on employment. But for Bannon, Sessions and Miller, immigration was a galvanizing issue, lying at the center of their apparent vision for reshaping the United States by tethering it to its European and Christian origins. (None of them would comment for this article.) That September evening, as they celebrated the collapse of the reform effort — and the rise of Farage, whose own anti-immigration party in Britain represented the new brand of nativism — it felt like the beginning of something new. “I was privileged enough to be at it,” Miller said about the gathering last June, while a guest on Breitbart’s SiriusXM radio show. “It’s going to sound like a motivational speech, but it’s true. To all the voters out there: The only limits to what we can achieve is what we believe we can achieve.”

The answer to what they could achieve, of course, is now obvious: everything. Bannon and Miller are ensconced in the West Wing, as arguably the two most influential policy advisers to Donald J. Trump. And Jeff Sessions is now the attorney general of the United States. The genesis of their working relationship is crucial to understanding the far-reaching domestic goals of the Trump presidency and how the law may be used to attain them over the next four years. Bannon and Sessions have effectively presented the country’s changing demographics — the rising number of minority and foreign-born residents — as America’s chief internal threat. Sessions has long been an outlier in his party on this subject; in 2013, when his Republican colleagues were talking primarily about curbing illegal immigration, he offered a proposal to curb legal immigration. (It failed in committee, 17 to one.)

As the Republican primary season progressed, it became clear to Sessions and Bannon that Trump could be the vessel for their brand of Republicanism. Back in August 2015, Bannon emailed a friend, according to The Daily Beast, that while he felt good about other candidates like Ted Cruz, he was ready to pick Trump, because he was “a nationalist who embraces” Sessions’s immigration plan. Six months later, Sessions became the first senator to endorse Trump for president. Last August, Sessions helped create a new immigration policy for Trump, which called for reducing immigration by, among other things, tightening the rules about visas for high-skilled workers. That same month, Bannon took over Trump’s campaign.

Their shared view was central to Trump’s Inaugural Address, which, according to The Wall Street Journal, Bannon and Miller principally wrote. For a president taking office amid peacetime and economic growth, the speech offered a singularly dark vision. Trump spoke of “American carnage” — a country made increasingly dangerous by “the crime and the gangs and the drugs,” its economy ravaged by production abroad, its borders infiltrated by marauders. The speech was a perfect distillation of the foreboding view of America broadcast by Breitbart — a land in disarray and decline that has reached the point of crisis.

A week later, Stephen Miller falsely insisted on TV that “14 percent of noncitizens” are registered to vote — portraying the country as vulnerable to shadowy foreign hordes who undermine the very core of American democracy.

Trump’s Right-Hand Troll

Call Stephen Miller a White Nationalist


#Resist

[Athos_131]

I will ignore Athos comments regarding Trump or Stephen Miller

#Resist

[MissBarbara]

I'd add that the difference here being that it's okay when Christians do it, (Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an Institute of Religion) but not all right when people tolerate LGBT people.  So, it's not just bias, it's Religious Intolerance.

Nothing in this case even slightly indicates that "it's okay when Christians do it." The baker's right to deny service was not upheld, and the Supreme Court's decision was extremely narrow, focusing solely on the actions of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

And nothing in the Red Hen Restaurant Affair has anything to do with "tolerating LGBT people." The issue was denial of service, just as it was in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.

And you need to brush up a little on both the text and the meaning of the First Amendment. The only way the First Amendment might come into play here is in protecting the baker from being forced to violate his religious beliefs.

[Athos_131]

Trump Supporter Civilly Flings Shit at Restaurant That Kicked Out Sarah Sanders

Per ABC News, the man was among protesters who showed up with signs that read, “Homos are full of demons” and “Unless they repent Let God Burn Them (LGBT) 2 Peter 2:6.

#Resist

[Katiebee]

One would think that Joan had never met a racist. I have. Until they act or talk about it, you cannot tell them from anyone else. Once they start their innuendos and sly statements they are very plain to see.

[joan1984]

 What I see is a competent, worthy aid to the President, who demonstrated drive and honed his debating and media skills while in College, and is doing a valued and worthy job right now.

  You called Mit Romney racist, you collectively as Democrats, and found a few classmates from his elementary school days to report he had given a "noogy" to a classmate back then. Each Republican you encounter seems to have one to tag him racist, not only 'out there', but very commonly 'right here'.

  I think you doth protest too much, once again.

  What gets justified as suspect, such as someone respecting Joe Arpaio's opinions and actions over the years, as scandalous, invites ridicule.

  Same with the Duke lacrosse "rape" that turned out was not a worthy case to pursue, as the complaining 'victims' could not get their stories straight.  The rights of the kids and their parents, and costs of defense lawyers, and career potential hits be damned, no matter the details, no matter the proof, the charge is so serious as to be a protected species itself, and believed by leftists forever.

  We simply differ as priorities and consideration for what is important, perhaps and I am past being surprised by the drama, and how far some here take it all, almost as if they actually believe their own talking points.

  We will continue to disagree overall, I expect, and I have no illusions as to President Trump, or any politician being 'angels', without sin, know better and it applies to all parties. Some worse than others, and all are suspect at best.

  That said, our system is what it is, and we deal with what we must.

  When Democrats single out someone for abuse, it seems a confirmation of that persons competence, a badge of honor of sorts, and if the news cycle does not destroy the individual, they are stronger for it all.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=noogy