It is currently Fri Nov 29, 2024 10:54 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 382 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 13  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 1:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:15 pm
Posts: 41380
Location: Small Fringe Minority
pizza_Place: John's
Harvard Dan wrote:
So I should pay the mob protection money so they don't ruin my business? You might want to rethink your premise there. He disagrees with paying for birth control on religious grounds and that's your counter-argument? Basically they're going to get pregnant and then choose to have an abortion or a welfare child because I won't pay for their birth control? Try a different tack...


You can't be "Pro Life" and then have a objection to the government supporting a Child. You just can't.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 1:52 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38376
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
Brick is asking a separate question. If that happens at some time in the future, I'll be happy to answer it.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/03/13/oklahoma_legislator_wants_anti_gay_businesses_to_post_no_gays_allowed_signs.html

Ok. You can answer now.


Not good.

Not acceptable.

Very unfortunate.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 1:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
conns7901 wrote:
Any Christian who would deny services based on if someone is gay is not a real Christian.

Agreed


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 1:53 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38376
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
rogers park bryan wrote:
Seacrest wrote:


Because we can all agree that in some instances, that certain beliefs are better than others.

Wow, that is actually surprising.



It's incredibly surprising that you don't find any agreement with that statement.

Stunning actually.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 1:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:15 pm
Posts: 41380
Location: Small Fringe Minority
pizza_Place: John's
Seacrest wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
Brick is asking a separate question. If that happens at some time in the future, I'll be happy to answer it.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/03/13/oklahoma_legislator_wants_anti_gay_businesses_to_post_no_gays_allowed_signs.html

Ok. You can answer now.


Not good.

Not acceptable.

Very unfortunate.


Very unfortunate that Pence didn't get that specific language into SB 101?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 1:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:15 pm
Posts: 41380
Location: Small Fringe Minority
pizza_Place: John's
rogers park bryan wrote:
conns7901 wrote:
Any Christian who would deny services based on if someone is gay is not a real Christian.

Agreed

'
Those are the "Devout Christians"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 1:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
badrogue17 wrote:
Never let Ricks dogged attempts to nail you the cross bother you Crest.

No Gays allowed cool with you, too?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 1:54 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38376
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Harvard Dan wrote:
Wouldn't you rather pay for the birth control over the cost of an abortion? Or the wellfare $$$ needed to sustain such child?


No, I would not.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 1:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:10 pm
Posts: 32067
pizza_Place: Milano's
Seacrest wrote:
Bagels wrote:
Seacrest wrote:

My views are pretty clear here.

What they are based upon is even clearer.


right, but what's funny is that while they are very clear for anyone to see, you still can't bring yourself to actually state them



I think everyone here sans you, comprehended my views on the law here, across the country and IN.

Brick is asking a separate question. If that happens at some time in the future, I'll be happy to answer it.


oh i comprehend your views alright


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 1:55 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38376
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
rogers park bryan wrote:
badrogue17 wrote:
Never let Ricks dogged attempts to nail you the cross bother you Crest.

No Gays allowed cool with you, too?



Misinformation and shame are really all you have to offer.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 1:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:10 pm
Posts: 32067
pizza_Place: Milano's
Seacrest wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
badrogue17 wrote:
Never let Ricks dogged attempts to nail you the cross bother you Crest.

No Gays allowed cool with you, too?



Misinformation and shame are really all you have to offer.


hey Seacrest , i was Lord Chesterfield, not you. Can it with the pseudo quotes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 1:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Seacrest wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Seacrest wrote:


Because we can all agree that in some instances, that certain beliefs are better than others.

Wow, that is actually surprising.



It's incredibly surprising that you don't find any agreement with that statement.

Stunning actually.

Better is an odd word to use.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 1:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 7:11 pm
Posts: 3612
Location: Home of Dick Tracy Days
pizza_Place: Georgio's--Crystal Lake
Caller Bob wrote:
Harvard Dan wrote:
So I should pay the mob protection money so they don't ruin my business? You might want to rethink your premise there. He disagrees with paying for birth control on religious grounds and that's your counter-argument? Basically they're going to get pregnant and then choose to have an abortion or a welfare child because I won't pay for their birth control? Try a different tack...


You can't be "Pro Life" and then have a objection to the government supporting a Child. You just can't.


Where was the person denied access to birth control? Seacrest not paying for someone else's =/=it being denied. Did drugstores stop selling condoms, pills, sponges, and so on? I said try another tack not move the goal posts.

_________________
An unjust law is no law at all--St. Augustine of Hippo

Cause tried and true
I see the light in you
Oh, can you dig in my soul?
Could you smell my whole...
life?--Gener and Deaner


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 1:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 7:11 pm
Posts: 3612
Location: Home of Dick Tracy Days
pizza_Place: Georgio's--Crystal Lake
Seacrest wrote:
Harvard Dan wrote:
Wouldn't you rather pay for the birth control over the cost of an abortion? Or the wellfare $$$ needed to sustain such child?


No, I would not.


I didn't write that, Caller did.

_________________
An unjust law is no law at all--St. Augustine of Hippo

Cause tried and true
I see the light in you
Oh, can you dig in my soul?
Could you smell my whole...
life?--Gener and Deaner


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 2:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Seacrest wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
badrogue17 wrote:
Never let Ricks dogged attempts to nail you the cross bother you Crest.

No Gays allowed cool with you, too?



Misinformation and shame are really all you have to offer.

Bullshit.

My information is sound. Illinois law is not the same as what Indiana passed. That is fact. If you would do some research on the two laws, how they differ, and how Civil Unions affec them, you would know that.

Im sorry that my beliefs dont align with yours but please stop making claims that arent true (Illinois has the same law)

And I was speaking to BadRogue, so not sure why you even answered


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 2:02 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38376
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
rogers park bryan wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
badrogue17 wrote:
Never let Ricks dogged attempts to nail you the cross bother you Crest.

No Gays allowed cool with you, too?



Misinformation and shame are really all you have to offer.

Bullshit.

My information is sound. Illinois law is not the same or even close to what Indiana passed. That is fact. If you would do some research on the two laws, how they differ, and how Civil Unions affec them, you would know that.

Im sorry that my beliefs dont align with yours but please stop making claims that arent true (Illinois has the same law)

And I was speaking to BadRogue, so not sure why you even answered



Your information was not sound. Own it.

Both federal, and IL law allow what you used as an example in the IN issue.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 2:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 92108
Location: To the left of my post
Harvard Dan wrote:
Seacrest not paying for someone else's =/=it being denied.
They both pay premiums into the health insurance. That insurance would deny them of birth control.

Why are Seacrest's premiums considered more important than Mrs. God hates me for it but I want to take the pill?

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 2:02 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38376
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Harvard Dan wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
Harvard Dan wrote:
Wouldn't you rather pay for the birth control over the cost of an abortion? Or the wellfare $$$ needed to sustain such child?


No, I would not.


I didn't write that, Caller did.



Sorry HD.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 2:03 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38376
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Harvard Dan wrote:
Seacrest not paying for someone else's =/=it being denied.
They both pay premiums into the health insurance. That insurance would deny them of birth control.

Why are Seacrest's premiums considered more important than Mrs. God hates me for it but I want to take the pill?


No it doesn't Brick.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 2:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Seacrest wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
My information is sound. Illinois law is not the same or even close to what Indiana passed. That is fact. If you would do some research on the two laws, how they differ, and how Civil Unions affec them, you would know that.

Im sorry that my beliefs dont align with yours but please stop making claims that arent true (Illinois has the same law)

And I was speaking to BadRogue, so not sure why you even answered



Your information was not sound. Own it.

Both federal, and IL law allow what you used as an example in the IN issue.

No, they dont. If you truly believe that then you need to do more research.

The threshold for applying the law is radically different in Illinois.


If you have some sources showing that the law passed in 1998 (and pretty much obliterated by the Civil Union Act of 2011) and the one that became law in Indiana this week are identical, Id love to see them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 2:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 7:11 pm
Posts: 3612
Location: Home of Dick Tracy Days
pizza_Place: Georgio's--Crystal Lake
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Harvard Dan wrote:
Seacrest not paying for someone else's =/=it being denied.
They both pay premiums into the health insurance. That insurance would deny them of birth control.

Why are Seacrest's premiums considered more important than Mrs. God hates me for it but I want to take the pill?


They would deny payment of birth control...and in this scenario I see the point. Insurance doesn't stop one from purchasing other birth control...that was the angle I was coming from in terms of it not being denied (I can go purchase condoms, sponge, etc...) You're still not denied birth control Rick, you just may be denied the one you prefer.

_________________
An unjust law is no law at all--St. Augustine of Hippo

Cause tried and true
I see the light in you
Oh, can you dig in my soul?
Could you smell my whole...
life?--Gener and Deaner


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 2:11 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38376
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
rogers park bryan wrote:
Cant find the text of the bill but this is the troubling issue summed up as a positive by some of it's supporters....


Conservative groups backing the bill have said it merely seeks to prevent the government from compelling people to provide such things as catering or photography for same-sex weddings or other activities they find objectionable on religious grounds.


This was and is allowed in IL, and is also protected by federal law.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 2:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:15 pm
Posts: 41380
Location: Small Fringe Minority
pizza_Place: John's
Seacrest wrote:
Harvard Dan wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
Harvard Dan wrote:
Wouldn't you rather pay for the birth control over the cost of an abortion? Or the wellfare $$$ needed to sustain such child?


No, I would not.


I didn't write that, Caller did.



Sorry HD.



One would think a hot shot mover and shaker that has the Constitution memorized could navigate simple message board quotes.
:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 2:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:03 pm
Posts: 43583
Seacrest wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Cant find the text of the bill but this is the troubling issue summed up as a positive by some of it's supporters....


Conservative groups backing the bill have said it merely seeks to prevent the government from compelling people to provide such things as catering or photography for same-sex weddings or other activities they find objectionable on religious grounds.


This was and is allowed in IL, and is also protected by federal law.

If this is protected by federal law, then why did Indiana have to pass anything?

_________________
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
I am not a legal expert, how many times do I have to say it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 2:13 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38376
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Harvard Dan wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
Harvard Dan wrote:
Seacrest not paying for someone else's =/=it being denied.
They both pay premiums into the health insurance. That insurance would deny them of birth control.

Why are Seacrest's premiums considered more important than Mrs. God hates me for it but I want to take the pill?


They would deny payment of birth control...and in this scenario I see the point. Insurance doesn't stop one from purchasing other birth control...that was the angle I was coming from in terms of it not being denied (I can go purchase condoms, sponge, etc...) You're still not denied birth control Rick, you just may be denied the one you prefer.



Thank you for so eloquently explaining that.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 2:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Seacrest wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Cant find the text of the bill but this is the troubling issue summed up as a positive by some of it's supporters....


Conservative groups backing the bill have said it merely seeks to prevent the government from compelling people to provide such things as catering or photography for same-sex weddings or other activities they find objectionable on religious grounds.


This was and is allowed in IL, and is also protected by federal law.

Court Rules Bakery Illegally Discriminated Against Gay Couple

A Colorado judge today determined that a Lakewood bakery unlawfully discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to sell them a wedding cake.

David Mullins and Charlie Craig visited Masterpiece Cakeshop last year, with Craig’s mother, to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception. Mullins and Craig planned to marry in Massachusetts and then celebrate with family and friends back home in Colorado. Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips informed them that because of his religious beliefs the store’s policy was to deny service to customers who wished to order baked goods to celebrate a same-sex couple’s wedding.

“Being denied service by Masterpiece Cakeshop was offensive and dehumanizing especially in the midst of arranging what should be a joyful family celebration,” said Mullins. “No one should fear being turned away from a public business because of who they are. We are grateful to have the support of our community and our state, and we hope that today’s decision will help ensure that no one else will experience this kind of discrimination again in Colorado.”

Longstanding Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation. Mullins and Craig filed complaints with the Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD) contending that Masterpiece had violated this law. Earlier this year, the CCRD ruled that Phillips illegally discriminated against Mullins and Craig. Today’s decision from Judge Robert N. Spencer of the Colorado Office of Administrative Courts affirms that finding.

“While we all agree that religious freedom is important, no one’s religious beliefs make it acceptable to break the law by discriminating against prospective customers,” said Amanda C. Goad, staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project. “No one is asking Masterpiece’s owner to change his beliefs, but treating gay people differently because of who they are is discrimination plain and simple.”

Phillips admitted he had turned away other same-sex couples as a matter of policy. The CCRD’s decision noted evidence in the record that Phillips had expressed willingness to take a cake order for the “marriage” of two dogs, but not for the commitment ceremony of two women, and that he would not make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding celebration “just as he would not be willing to make a pedophile cake.”

“Masterpiece Cakeshop has willfully and repeatedly considered itself above the law when it comes to discriminating against customers, and the state has rightly determined otherwise,” said Sara R. Neel, staff attorney with the ACLU of Colorado. “It’s important for all Coloradans to be treated fairly by every business that is open to the public – that’s good for business and good for the community.”



Also, I never said anything about Illinois other than the fact that Illinois law is not identical to Indiana's which is true. So no misinformation on my part and it's pretty low to suggest that.


Last edited by rogers park bryan on Fri Mar 27, 2015 2:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 2:14 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38376
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Douchebag wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Cant find the text of the bill but this is the troubling issue summed up as a positive by some of it's supporters....


Conservative groups backing the bill have said it merely seeks to prevent the government from compelling people to provide such things as catering or photography for same-sex weddings or other activities they find objectionable on religious grounds.


This was and is allowed in IL, and is also protected by federal law.

If this is protected by federal law, then why did Indiana have to pass anything?



Now we got someone asking the right questions.

I'm sure their governor explains why somewhere on the interwebs.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 2:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:03 pm
Posts: 43583
Seacrest wrote:
Douchebag wrote:
If this is protected by federal law, then why did Indiana have to pass anything?



Now we got someone asking the right questions.

I'm sure their governor explains why somewhere on the interwebs.

I'll go with that Pence just wanted it be very clear that he hates gay people.

_________________
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
I am not a legal expert, how many times do I have to say it?


Last edited by Douchebag on Fri Mar 27, 2015 2:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 2:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:10 pm
Posts: 32067
pizza_Place: Milano's
Seacrest wrote:


Now we got someone asking the right questions.



if only you could actually answer some


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 2:17 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:45 pm
Posts: 38376
Location: Lovetron
pizza_Place: Malnati's
rogers park bryan wrote:
Seacrest wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Cant find the text of the bill but this is the troubling issue summed up as a positive by some of it's supporters....


Conservative groups backing the bill have said it merely seeks to prevent the government from compelling people to provide such things as catering or photography for same-sex weddings or other activities they find objectionable on religious grounds.


This was and is allowed in IL, and is also protected by federal law.

Court Rules Bakery Illegally Discriminated Against Gay Couple

A Colorado judge today determined that a Lakewood bakery unlawfully discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to sell them a wedding cake.

David Mullins and Charlie Craig visited Masterpiece Cakeshop last year, with Craig’s mother, to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception. Mullins and Craig planned to marry in Massachusetts and then celebrate with family and friends back home in Colorado. Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips informed them that because of his religious beliefs the store’s policy was to deny service to customers who wished to order baked goods to celebrate a same-sex couple’s wedding.

“Being denied service by Masterpiece Cakeshop was offensive and dehumanizing especially in the midst of arranging what should be a joyful family celebration,” said Mullins. “No one should fear being turned away from a public business because of who they are. We are grateful to have the support of our community and our state, and we hope that today’s decision will help ensure that no one else will experience this kind of discrimination again in Colorado.”

Longstanding Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation. Mullins and Craig filed complaints with the Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD) contending that Masterpiece had violated this law. Earlier this year, the CCRD ruled that Phillips illegally discriminated against Mullins and Craig. Today’s decision from Judge Robert N. Spencer of the Colorado Office of Administrative Courts affirms that finding.

“While we all agree that religious freedom is important, no one’s religious beliefs make it acceptable to break the law by discriminating against prospective customers,” said Amanda C. Goad, staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project. “No one is asking Masterpiece’s owner to change his beliefs, but treating gay people differently because of who they are is discrimination plain and simple.”

Phillips admitted he had turned away other same-sex couples as a matter of policy. The CCRD’s decision noted evidence in the record that Phillips had expressed willingness to take a cake order for the “marriage” of two dogs, but not for the commitment ceremony of two women, and that he would not make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding celebration “just as he would not be willing to make a pedophile cake.”

“Masterpiece Cakeshop has willfully and repeatedly considered itself above the law when it comes to discriminating against customers, and the state has rightly determined otherwise,” said Sara R. Neel, staff attorney with the ACLU of Colorado. “It’s important for all Coloradans to be treated fairly by every business that is open to the public – that’s good for business and good for the community.”



So it would be incumbent upon Masterpiece to take this to a federal level since CO law ruled against them.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 382 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 13  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group