Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 762

What about Johnny Cash givin’ the finger? A friend of mine where’s a shirt of that regularly and has only gotten in trouble for it once.

EDIT: I think it’s this one:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Yeah, you can, and should, be able to wear anything you want to school.

Anything?

I don’t think kids should be allowed to wear a shirt displaying tentacle porn on the front and “FUCK YOU ASSHOLE SQUARES”
on the back but maybe that’s just me.

I guess obscenity can be reasonably banned, but other than that I don’t like the idea of dress codes.

Dek Rollins said:

What about Johnny Cash givin’ the finger? A friend of mine where’s a shirt of that regularly and has only gotten in trouble for it once.

EDIT: I think it’s this one:

That rocks.

On any given day I usually want to flip off 100% of the people I come into contact with so that shirt would be great.

Possessed said:

Dek Rollins said:

where’s

Dek honey no

… … … There is so much wrong with that I can’t comprehend how I didn’t notice.

Possessed said:

Yeah but I don’t think he wouldn’t have noticed that right away. Therefore, he’s probably not talking about that, dollface.

I have no idea what you’re talking about, kitten.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/williamson/2018/06/01/dinesh-dsouza-trump-pardon-photo-soldier-widow-tweet/665424002/

Trump pardons right-wing propagandist.

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

The idea that courts can decide whether a law is legal or not based essentially on perceived motivations is dangerous and impractical.

Motives are taken into account all the time by courts for all sorts of reasons – criminal, civil, administrative, sanctions. Sometimes they get it wrong, I’m sure, but in cases like this, I’d say the evidence of illegal motivation has to be so ironclad that I’m not terribly concerned. I’m sure if the courts feel there’s any doubt at all about motivation, if there’s any sense at all that they’re dealing with perceived motivation rather than actual motivation, they would let the law stand. It would have to be the once-a-century unicorn case where some buffoon left around ample documentary evidence of illegal motivation for the courts to intervene.

Supreme Court decided today that the decision to punish a baker’s refusal to make a cake for same-sex wedding discriminated against his religious freedom. The Court held that this was so because his religious objections were not treated in a neutral and respectful way by the state.

The state still may be able to compel bakers to bake, but only if they adjudicate these cases without showing hostility to religion.

I don’t think I would force someone (or even want someone), who told me they didn’t approve of my wedding, to bake my wedding cake. It would be easier to tell them to jump in a lake and then go find someone else to bake it. Give them a bad yelp rating or complain to the BBB or something. Taking them to court over it is too much hassle.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron8472 said:

I don’t think I would force someone (or even want someone), who told me they didn’t approve of my wedding, to bake my wedding cake. It would be easier to tell them to jump in a lake and then go find someone else to bake it. Give them a bad yelp rating or complain to the BBB or something. Taking them to court over it is too much hassle.

It’s clearly not about the cake.

Clearly, but for myself I wouldn’t give someone the opportunity to pee in my soup.

TV’s Frink said:

It also continues to baffle me that some people see discrimination as a valid religious belief.

I think that the most significant things the Court did was to reject the ideas that religion doesn’t have any place in commerce and that discriminatory religious views are categorically incompatible with civil society.

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

It also continues to baffle me that some people see discrimination as a valid religious belief.

I think that the most significant things the Court did was to reject the ideas that religion doesn’t have any place in commerce and that discriminatory religious views are categorically incompatible with civil society.

I was speaking more generally, I haven’t read the details of the decision. But discriminatory any views should be categorically incompatible with civil society.

I wasn’t arguing with your statement, I just saw a connection with what the Court did. Individuals can express the sentiments you write of course, but now if the government does it might violate religious freedom. I think that’s a pretty significant ruling exactly for the reasons you give against it.

https://twitter.com/HamillHimself/status/1006019463920025602 (with video)

‘How to get a STANDING OVATION at The Tonys? Give the people what they want…always a crowd pleaser!!!’

&

for those that want the uncensored version:-

https://twitter.com/dialmformovies/status/1006005583160360960