Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
LGBTQIA+ Issues and Relationship Discussion
Reply to "US supreme court strikes blow against LGBTQ+ rights with Colorado ruling"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I'm torn. "wedding websites" aren't an industry where it's hard to find a vendor. It's one of the gay-heaviest industries. I'd hate to accidentally pay a bigot to make my website. I'd much rather be rejected. [/quote] Don't kid yourself, these people being sued, bakeries, website designers, etc. have been sought out by specific groups just so these lawsuits can be brought forward I guess hoping to solidify something into law. There are many businesses that would happily have created this website for these people, move on. I would much rather have my party catered or the cake being baked made by someone who wants my business. The vilifying of individuals is back firing. It needs to stop.[/quote] Except in this case it was the website maker who completely made up this case. There was never a gay couple asking for a website! What’s stopping them from making up other cases to further erode our rights, invalidate our marriages?[/quote] Got it. You don’t know how the law works, or how how standing works, or what “stipulation” means. But sure let’s hear more of your opinions. :roll: [/quote] You're right, I'm non a constitutional law expert. What is stopping the ADF or some other right wing group from making up another case to erode our rights/invalidate our marriages? I would feel much better if you could explain why they were allowed to make up a case here but they won't be able to make up additional cases. [/quote] I'm not the previous poster of the post you are referring to but the answer is that they this particular case wasn't even on shaky ground it had no grounds. Should never have been heard based on standing. Arizona's AG has reportedly stated she will ignore the ruling. THAT NEVER HAPPENS. Already this case has undermined to many the appearance of the SC's credibility.[/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics