THE ERA OF TRUMP

[Okeefenokee]

They sided with the baker ONLY because they said the government openly showed hostility towards him. Had they made the same decision with no open hostility, it would have been fine.

Arizona ruled against a baker on the exact same type of case just a few days ago.

Was there laws in place about gay marriage?

Because when this cake was asked for, gay marrage was not allowed, was it allowed at the time of the 2nd ruling?

Also, my point is proven, SCOTUS doesn't deal with emotion. Hence why it reversed the ruling, because the the original ruling by the board and then the lower court were based on emotion, not logic and law.

How can you not see this?

Read this slowly,

IT DID NOT SAY THAT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT DID WAS WRONG.

IT SAID THEY WERE MEAN IN HOW THEY DID IT.

[Zlaxer]

http://www.wnd.com/2018/06/up-next-1970 ... ogressive/

[Zlaxer]

http://www.wnd.com/2018/06/up-next-1970 ... ogressive/

Was this what the 1960's were like ?

[The Conservative]

They sided with the baker ONLY because they said the government openly showed hostility towards him. Had they made the same decision with no open hostility, it would have been fine.

Arizona ruled against a baker on the exact same type of case just a few days ago.

Was there laws in place about gay marriage?

Because when this cake was asked for, gay marrage was not allowed, was it allowed at the time of the 2nd ruling?

Also, my point is proven, SCOTUS doesn't deal with emotion. Hence why it reversed the ruling, because the the original ruling by the board and then the lower court were based on emotion, not logic and law.

How can you not see this?

Read this slowly,

IT DID NOT SAY THAT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT DID WAS WRONG.

IT SAID THEY WERE MEAN IN HOW THEY DID IT.

Please tell me where the words meany poopy head were ever used?

[Okeefenokee]

Was there laws in place about gay marriage?

Because when this cake was asked for, gay marrage was not allowed, was it allowed at the time of the 2nd ruling?

Also, my point is proven, SCOTUS doesn't deal with emotion. Hence why it reversed the ruling, because the the original ruling by the board and then the lower court were based on emotion, not logic and law.

How can you not see this?

Read this slowly,

IT DID NOT SAY THAT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT DID WAS WRONG.

IT SAID THEY WERE MEAN IN HOW THEY DID IT.

Please tell me where the words meany poopy head were ever used?

In the half dozen quotes I gave you, fucking poopy head.

[The Conservative]

Read this slowly,

IT DID NOT SAY THAT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT DID WAS WRONG.

IT SAID THEY WERE MEAN IN HOW THEY DID IT.

Please tell me where the words meany poopy head were ever used?

In the half dozen quotes I gave you, fucking poopy head.

So in other words, the actual ruling which I linked to, which shows that the court ruled that the state overstepped their bounds isn’t good enough for you?

Instead, you are saying the court said that they are ruling on the bakers behalf because they were mean because third party websites said so.

Remind me again, when I showed direct quotes of why the judges ruled the way they did, wasn’t it good enough?

It seems to me that you need to re-evaluate where you get your info from.

For if you can’t take the time to read a 50 page ruling, perhaps it’s best that you actual admit that SCOTUS rules on facts, and the reason that they sided with the Baker is because the state court and other entities didn’t.

[kybkh]

[SuburbanFarmer]

Please tell me where the words meany poopy head were ever used?

In the half dozen quotes I gave you, fucking poopy head.

So in other words, the actual ruling which I linked to, which shows that the court ruled that the state overstepped their bounds isn’t good enough for you?

Instead, you are saying the court said that they are ruling on the bakers behalf because they were mean because third party websites said so.

Remind me again, when I showed direct quotes of why the judges ruled the way they did, wasn’t it good enough?

It seems to me that you need to re-evaluate where you get your info from.

For if you can’t take the time to read a 50 page ruling, perhaps it’s best that you actual admit that SCOTUS rules on facts, and the reason that they sided with the Baker is because the state court and other entities didn’t.

But he used caps lock...

[doc_loliday]

Was this what the 1960's were like ?

I think that's where we are going.

[doc_loliday]

I didn't think the GOP had the balls to put something out like that. Will it get people out to the midterms? We'll see. It's definitely ratchets things up.