Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Wedding Cake Case (unemployed, legal, racist)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How about you cut out the condescension right now? I'm on your side on the issue, and I'm just trying to clarify something.
What condescension? I repeated my sentence and explained it, complete with the prepositional phrase that has both a subject and verb. And then I asked what about that you failed to understand
Perhaps you're projecting?
Quote:
If I substitute "The Supreme Court" for "that" (in the manner you have suggested), your sentence becomes "The Supreme Court is almost the entire makeup of the Court that ruled in favor of HL..." My apologies in advance for frustrating you with my lack of understanding, but that makes even less sense.
Nope.
Let's dissect the sentence:
"That's almost the entire makeup
of the Court that ruled in favor of HLdue to the availability of a less restrictive means to achieve the same outcome."
The Court ruled in favor of HL.
Now, do you get it?
Here's another example, if you're still confused:
"That's the owner
of the dog that chased, caught, and killed the rabbit due to his natural predator instinct."
The dog chased, caught and killed the rabbit. The owner did not.
I do have to say that I'm stumped by some people's lack of understanding of the English language.
Just a couple of posts up, you seem to have endorsed the government restricting thought, and nothing can be more polar opposite of "live and let live" than that.
You can't restrict thought! Good luck with that...
You can, however, restrict what people do. Like not serve people in a restaurant, because they are black.
I am always inspired to move on with comments like these of yours, because I really do need to move on to something more productive. This is ridiculous, but I suspect you must really be serious!
If I could control thought, you wouldn't still be repeating this nonsense I don't think...
Somebody must have hijacked your account and wrote this:
Yes, how people think is what leads to what people do. You can't control what people think, but you can at least affect what people do, ideally to prevent wrong-doing. Please don't tell me you don't understand and agree with me on this at a fundamental level...
It wouldn't surprise me at all if you also supported the regulation of thought.
Put the "regulation of thought" rhetoric aside for a bit, and just try good old fashioned thought. Think.
No one can control your thinking other than you, no matter what you think about all those boogeymen out to get you, but do practice some thinking that will help you make better sense out of what is going on around you, like the reason we have laws, for example, and how they get enforced. Might help you sleep better at night...
What condescension? I repeated my sentence and explained it, complete with the prepositional phrase that has both a subject and verb. And then I asked what about that you failed to understand
Perhaps you're projecting?
Nope.
Let's dissect the sentence:
"That's almost the entire makeup
of the Court that ruled in favor of HLdue to the availability of a less restrictive means to achieve the same outcome."
The Court ruled in favor of HL.
Now, do you get it?
Here's another example, if you're still confused:
"That's the owner
of the dog that chased, caught, and killed the rabbit due to his natural predator instinct."
The dog chased, caught and killed the rabbit. The owner did not.
I do have to say that I'm stumped by some people's lack of understanding of the English language.
If I may...
The two of you have pretty well exhausted the effort to define what "entire makeup" means. Might be more entertaining for you and everyone else if you moved on to what the decision of this case means, the subject of this thread. Just saying...
But as you wish of course. Another good reason for me to sign off now in any case, until tomorrow!
No, you fail at reading comprehension. That's why you can't understand the issue or what's going on.
I said: "That's almost the entire makeup of the Court that ruled in favor of HL due to the availability of a less restrictive means to achieve the same outcome."
"That" is a pronoun that refers to a thing, and that thing is the Supreme Court. SCOTUS did, in fact, rule in favor of HL, even with the Justices you listed.
Only if there are less restrictive alternate means to achieve the same outcome. You would know that if you had read the HL ruling and could actually comprehend what you read.
Why you insist on continuing to make yourself look foolish us a mystery...
Fine, lets look at how you meant it. HL was still a 5-4 ruling. Even with a Gorsuch vote, it takes only Kennedy to switch sides.
I know you'll respond to what I tell you now with gibberish about the Supremacy Clause, Federally protected classes, blahblah, but here goes.
There are many fact differences between HL and this one that could easily move a judge from pro-HL to anti-bakery. A giant difference is the federal RFRA doesn't apply to this case. If you read the HL decision, you'd see the standard is different for RFRA vs pure 1st Amendment cases. Another is that HL's employees had an ACA-established way to get the coverage HL didn't want to pay for; Colorado doesn't have a wedding cake bakery.
Fine, lets look at how you meant it. HL was still a 5-4 ruling. Even with a Gorsuch vote, it takes only Kennedy to switch sides.
I know you'll respond to what I tell you now with gibberish about the Supremacy Clause, Federally protected classes, blahblah, but here goes.
There are many fact differences between HL and this one that could easily move a judge from pro-HL to anti-bakery.
Actually, I see it going in the opposite way. More Justices are going to rule for the baker and against the State of Colorado for three key reasons:
1) The baker did not discriminate against the gay couple as persons. He's served them in his bakery on prior occasions.
2) Both the First Amendment and the Federal Civil Rights Act supercede state law, with Religion being a Federally Protected Class under the CRA while LGBT Status is not.
3) The baker cannot be forced to have his First Amendment Rights violated when there's a less restrictive alternate means of achieving the same outcome, which of course, there was.
What condescension? I repeated my sentence and explained it, complete with the prepositional phrase that has both a subject and verb. And then I asked what about that you failed to understand
Perhaps you're projecting?
Nope.
Let's dissect the sentence:
"That's almost the entire makeup
of the Court that ruled in favor of HLdue to the availability of a less restrictive means to achieve the same outcome."
The Court ruled in favor of HL.
Now, do you get it?
Here's another example, if you're still confused:
"That's the owner
of the dog that chased, caught, and killed the rabbit due to his natural predator instinct."
The dog chased, caught and killed the rabbit. The owner did not.
I do have to say that I'm stumped by some people's lack of understanding of the English language.
I'm done. Not relevant to the thread. I'm willing to let you happily assume I have a "lack of understanding of the English language."
I'm done. Not relevant to the thread. I'm willing to let you happily assume I have a "lack of understanding of the English language."
It IS relevant when people in the discussion are claiming I said something I didn't say.
Did the dissected sentence example with the owner and the dog clarify the English language for you? Or are you still confused?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
