But another threat looms, one that can stretch across the entire American landscape, is immune to the filibuster, and is largely sheltered from judicial review.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/ ... un-rights/
Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators
But another threat looms, one that can stretch across the entire American landscape, is immune to the filibuster, and is largely sheltered from judicial review.
Banks and credit card companies are discussing ways to identify purchases of guns in their payment systems, a move that could be a prelude to restricting such transactions. The financial companies have explored creating a new credit card code for firearms dealers, similar to how they code restaurants or department stores. Another idea would require merchants to share information about specific firearm products consumers are buying. Such data could allow banks to restrict purchases at certain businesses or monitor them.
Of the banks that are still around all fully repaid their TARP money, with interest. That debt is paid and the taxpayers have been made whole.Mr. Glock wrote:Remember that big bail out in 2007-8? We gun owners were forced to bail out bank fat cats, who now bite thr hand that fed them.
That bail out also pre-empts any of that “private business can do what they want” nonsense. They only exist due to being bailed out by the government, which means the tax payer, so they aren’t true private businesses.
Actually the government ultimately lost that fight at the SCOTUS.Chuck wrote:They can make a baker bake a cake though
Yeah, there is a double standard and hypocrisy writ large on these actors. Too true.Chuck wrote:They can make a baker bake a cake though
Not really, at least not yet. That decision merely stated that the Colorado Commission on Human Rights showed such bias against the baker that it could not render a fair decision. They left the actual question open to future litigation.catfish86 wrote:Actually the government ultimately lost that fight at the SCOTUS.Chuck wrote:They can make a baker bake a cake though
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/06/ ... eedom.html
Could have been referring to Sweet Cakes by MelissaChuck wrote:They can make a baker bake a cake though
If you've not watched Free Speech Apocalypse (Language warning, previously titled Stonewall), I highly recommend it. The Sweet Cakes owners discuss their experience.The Oregon Supreme Court has declined to consider the case of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, the now-defunct Gresham bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple in 2013 based on the bakers' religious objections.
Aaron and Melissa Klein had been ordered to pay $135,000 to couple Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer in emotional damages in 2015 after the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries found that the Kleins violated state anti-discrimination law.
The Kleins appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals, which upheld the $135,000 order. The Kleins then appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court, arguing that the state’s high court needed to "determine whether entrepreneurs in Oregon can exercise their freedoms of speech, religious exercise and conscience; and whether due process will protect them against bias and prejudgment by ideologically motivated adjudicators.''
Critics said the Kleins were asking for a "license to discriminate."
The Supreme Court on Thursday turned down the case, offering no explanation.