I have so many questions. Several are legal (like, is there some aspect of fraud that applies to filing a false lawsuit? does the Supreme Court have to throw out a decision based on a false lawsuit?), but one is religious, so you can probably explain this to me. Why do these Old Testament adherents call themselves Christians? They seem to ignore most of the New Testament that's all about their supposed guy. I'm thinking along the lines of Matthew 25:40-46. If Ms. Smith truly is a believer, then she must be hearing Him saying, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire." But maybe she's not listening.
Someday you and I are going to have to sit down (over a hearty meal, because this will require energy) so you can attempt to explain some of this to me. Where in the long history of religion, "Christianity" in particular, did the trail veer off into this warped interpretation of what seems a pretty straightforward message? We need to chew over the twisted psychology and speculate on the characters involved.
I coin her a Christian “pretzel”, that is one who twists faith to match the hate and judgement that defines their (her) persona. Of course the real issue is how did this ‘case’ even get on the court’s docket?!?
Smith didn't even have a business yet, as I understand it. This "case" flies in the face of Article III "case" or "controversy" requirements. It should have been tossed out of court on day one.
Confounding is the right word for this decision. Another aspect of it that I've never understood is it's not her content so how is about her first amendment right to free speech? I maintain a website for a small museum I'm on the board of. I don't post my personal thoughts and beliefs on the museum's website. I get that she doesn't want to create a website for a gay couple given her misguided beliefs but I don't see how it's a first amendment issue and something the Supreme Court needed to rule on.
Though it’s a fake case, the decision rests, in part, on compelling speech. Requiring her to create a website would be considered compelled speech, which isn’t allowed.
I was going to skip this because I’m not a believer , but you’re not the boss of me
The callithump of goofballs the less than supreme justices have been willing to engage with is troubling
Their bunburying behavior is infuriating
But considering that religion is about having a belief and having faith in that belief , I guess if they believe the goofball was telling the truth and they have faith in that belief , they are staying true to their flawed selves
I have so many questions. Several are legal (like, is there some aspect of fraud that applies to filing a false lawsuit? does the Supreme Court have to throw out a decision based on a false lawsuit?), but one is religious, so you can probably explain this to me. Why do these Old Testament adherents call themselves Christians? They seem to ignore most of the New Testament that's all about their supposed guy. I'm thinking along the lines of Matthew 25:40-46. If Ms. Smith truly is a believer, then she must be hearing Him saying, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire." But maybe she's not listening.
You are asking an important question, why Christians would seek to Asher to what was essentially Old
Law to them. Jesus talked about this, how Christianity with its absolute law of love replaced,
for Christians, Hebrew law. They’re cherry-picking.
Someday you and I are going to have to sit down (over a hearty meal, because this will require energy) so you can attempt to explain some of this to me. Where in the long history of religion, "Christianity" in particular, did the trail veer off into this warped interpretation of what seems a pretty straightforward message? We need to chew over the twisted psychology and speculate on the characters involved.
I coin her a Christian “pretzel”, that is one who twists faith to match the hate and judgement that defines their (her) persona. Of course the real issue is how did this ‘case’ even get on the court’s docket?!?
That’s a good name.
I'd like to know why a fake case is heard, too.
Smith didn't even have a business yet, as I understand it. This "case" flies in the face of Article III "case" or "controversy" requirements. It should have been tossed out of court on day one.
Yes. It should have.
Confounding is the right word for this decision. Another aspect of it that I've never understood is it's not her content so how is about her first amendment right to free speech? I maintain a website for a small museum I'm on the board of. I don't post my personal thoughts and beliefs on the museum's website. I get that she doesn't want to create a website for a gay couple given her misguided beliefs but I don't see how it's a first amendment issue and something the Supreme Court needed to rule on.
Though it’s a fake case, the decision rests, in part, on compelling speech. Requiring her to create a website would be considered compelled speech, which isn’t allowed.
And, SHAME on the Supreme Court for pursuing this bogus case.
Shame.
I was going to skip this because I’m not a believer , but you’re not the boss of me
The callithump of goofballs the less than supreme justices have been willing to engage with is troubling
Their bunburying behavior is infuriating
But considering that religion is about having a belief and having faith in that belief , I guess if they believe the goofball was telling the truth and they have faith in that belief , they are staying true to their flawed selves
Ha. I am sad that I'm not the boss of you. I'd be a pretty good boss...
I’ve worked for corporations that would hand out made up titles like area leader
I’m willing to consider you my Connecticut area leader