SalinasSpartan

I think it would probably be worth it where I’m at, but I don’t think I would actually get panels unless I can afford to purchase them outright instead of lease them. So, I’m probably never getting them lol.

I’m happy Griner is coming home. Wish Whelan was as well, but I’m not going to pretend I have a clue as to whether or not that was even possible; I’ve never sat in on an international negotiation to swap prisoners.

Local law enforcement and state laws largely dictate how many people go to jail for non-violent drug offenses, not the executive branch of the federal government.

But in practice, today, SCOTUS doesn’t seem to really be looking at it like that. The conservative justices on SCOTUS seem to decide if they like the state law or not first, and then that determination dictates whether they will invoke federalism or not. And it’s not always hot button political issues; like for example you don’t see SCOTUS typically invoking federalism when a state like CA tries to ban certain arbitration clauses in contracts.

The Libertarian Party will never be what actual “principled” Libertarians want it to be.

See I just don’t agree with the sort of labor influenced argument you are making. I think it’s too arbitrary as to what qualifies as labor; making a cake is labor, but cooking and serving food at a restaurant is not, nor is stocking shelves? You could see this play out at a grocery store; a worker can’t refuse to serve the gay couple at the main cash register, but if the couple goes back to the bakery section and asks for a custom cake for their wedding, that worker can refuse to do it? The Christian rock group is a closer call. To me, I think the right distinction is when there is a business that is open to do business to the general public. In that scenario, I do not think a person should be able to refuse service because a potential customer is a member of a protected class. Open to the public means open to the public, and because of the Establishment Clause the “public” is a secular one. And that is not even mentioning the 14th amendment issues I raised earlier regarding opening the door to de facto discrimination. For the rock band, I don’t think the rock band is actually “open to the public” like a bakery, so I can at least see why a court would allow a rock band to act differently than a baker. It’d be an interesting case. And it’d be even more interesting if it were a fundamentalist Muslim band refusing to perform at a Christian wedding.

So he’s like every other HC?

Basically 4 general elections in 25 months. Crazy.

I thought Mo (Netflix) was pretty good. Short episodes too, so it’s a quick watch. Also saw this Australian miniseries on Netflix called Stateless, it was very good. I recommend it, but it is pretty depressing.

I have a lot going on this week, I’ll try to respond quicker. Apologies. In one post you are arguing the couple can just “make their own damn cake”. In later posts you are arguing that making wedding cakes is a “specialized artisanal skill” and it is “astonishingly difficult”. Something cannot be an astonishingly difficult task that requires a specialized artisanal skill while also being a task so simple that anybody with access to a grocery store can do.

When you typed this out: A baker that doesn’t make wedding cakes for gay weddings shouldn’t be forced to do so. It’s a specialized artisanal skill: And this: And it isn’t the amount of labor, though highly skilled baking is astonishingly difficult and time consuming, Did you at any point realize you shit all over your original point on page 4 were you argued that the ingredients for cakes are readily available, so the gay couple should “make their own damn cake”?

1) Much of the food in grocery stores is processed; meaning labor created something that didn’t exist in nature. And the food that isn’t, like fruits and vegetables, has been picked. Again, labor. Your argument is very bad here, please fix it. 2) I am asking if you believe a restaurant has the right to refuse service to someone strictly because they are gay, as in it is the business’s policy not to serve gay people. You are being cowardly here and refusing to answer the real question. Try again, but actually address the issue this time. Regarding the first amendment, I would argue that a gay couple also has a first amendment right to live their life without having religion imposed on them. In the world you seem to want to live in, a gay couple could conceivably be refused service for many things in the community they live if that place happens to have a lot of people with sincere religious beliefs. If the “Lawlor Formula” of whether sufficient labor has been applied to a good comes out against the couple, they just have to “bake their own cake”. That is just a path to de facto discrimination and completely “junks” the 14th amendment. So in this case, balancing the 1st amendment rights of the guy that doesn’t want to bake a cake for a gay couple and the 14th (and I would argue 1st) amendment rights of the gay couple, I think the rights of the gay couple should win out. It is more just to force a baker to bake a cake for people who live lifestyles they don’t approve of then to force a couple to live in a world where anybody with particular religious beliefs can refuse to serve them. On theological grounds, I would argue that a gay marriage is not an inherently religious matter at all, it is a legal contract between the couple and the state. I do not think Christianity was foreseen by Jesus as a way to govern a society, meaning it shouldn’t really be relevant to the baker that people he bakes a cake for are doing things he doesn’t think Jesus would approve of, since society has deemed those things legal. I mean Jesus told his disciples to pay taxes to a heathen empire; isn’t that supporting the worship of false gods? That is a sin that is much worse than a dude banging another dude.

I mean I posed several questions in this thread days ago and no conservatives have attempted to answer them. I’ll ask you one directly here; where is the line where one can refuse to serve a gay couple? Should a restaurant be able to refuse service? A grocery store? If it turns on the selling food aspect that, why can’t a grocery store refuse service? If it turns on the food preparation aspect, why can’t a restaurant refuse service? Or, should they all be able to refuse service?

Yup. I made this case when I was advocating for trying to pre-empt the AAC to add UTSA and some other Texas schools. I figured regardless of whether it would add revenue, it would give the MWC a chance to firmly establish itself as the best conference outside the P5 (and Big East). People very smugly lectured about how no schools “moved the needle” and blah blah blah, and now many of those same people are shocked that the AAC is in a good position to lose 3 of their top 4 all around schools and still be the top conference outside the P5. The MWC could have done what the AAC did and worked with their TV partners and expansion targets and figured out a number that would have made a move worth it for the TX schools and keep the status quo for the rest of the MWC. Then the MWC asserts itself as the top G5 conference with a strong foothold in the Central Time Zone in time to negotiate the next TV deal. Or just keep status quo and be surprised that the conference is treading water.

Lmao, you are just out of your depth here. I’m strictly talking about the law, and you can’t even make up your mind whether you want to talk about the law or generic culture war bullshit. If you make up your mind, let me know.