I came across this is little story today, it's not breaking news. I suspect that a member of the housekeeping staff knows something about the bomb threat that required the sweep for weapons.
According to police in Secaucus, the bomb threat — which later was determined to be bogus — was called in to Hudson Regional Hospital on July 18. During a search, bomb detection dogs led investigators to an unlocked office closet containing dozens of firearms.
Among the weapons were 11 handguns and 27 rifles or shotguns, according to police. The closet also contained a .45 caliber semi-automatic rifle with a high-capacity magazine that was determined to be an assault rifle, and a 14-round high-capacity handgun magazine.
The arrested the guy the next day.
What the heck do you think this guy was doing? It sounds very ominous that he was keeping those weapons there.
She isn't saying she is "being forced to do business with gay people," she's saying that if she were forced to work on a same sex wedding web project, doing so would violate her religious beliefs.
So is she asking for the law to be thrown out based on hypothetically being forced to work on a same sex wedding? Does that mean a state cannot restrict business licenses based discrimination of protected classes?
I still don't see how she is harmed if the scripture that her religion is based on doesn't even forbid same sex marriage. According to one member here, it is based on a confidential agreement with her clergy.
So is she asking for the law to be thrown out based on hypothetically being forced to work on a same sex wedding? Does that mean a state cannot restrict business licenses based discrimination of protected classes?
I still don't see how she is harmed if the scripture that her religion is based on doesn't even forbid same sex marriage. According to one member here, it is based on a confidential agreement with her clergy.
She learned a lesson from the wedding cake baker. He was targeted and then sued. She is wanting to avoid that.
She isn't saying she is "being forced to do business with gay people," she's saying that if she were forced to work on a same sex wedding web project, doing so would violate her religious beliefs.
I think the petitioner and her client are both ridiculous and simply being dicks. There are more important issues that John Robert's has to deal with first, such as the corruption of Clarence Thomas. Web designers are a dime a dozen. Why make a federal case of this except for publicity? I'm perfectly confident where this court will run with this.
I think the petitioner and her client are both ridiculous and simply being dicks. There are more important issues that John Robert's has to deal with first, such as the corruption of Clarence Thomas. Web designers are a dime a dozen. Why make a federal case of this except for publicity? I'm perfectly confident where this court will run with this.
Please enlighten us to all this corruption of Clarence Thomas
I think the petitioner and her client are both ridiculous and simply being dicks. There are more important issues that John Robert's has to deal with first, such as the corruption of Clarence Thomas. Web designers are a dime a dozen. Why make a federal case of this except for publicity? I'm perfectly confident where this court will run with this.
I'm not surprised that you would think that "dealing with" liberals' perceived corruption of Thomas would take priority over a citizen's constitutional right to our judicial process.
So, although web designers are a dime a dozen, the petitioner is concerned about her own business and her right to have creative control over it. I'm curious on how you think she is being rediculous?
My suspicion is that you really don't have a reason, or have taken anytime to understand her claim.
The Court will surely side on the side of "religious freedom". I don't care, if you don't want my gay money I don't want to force it on you. There is widespread community support for the LGBT community and many are happy to take our billion dollar impact on the economy.
I do worry about any further affects like for example, will I be thrown out of a restaurant, will they be able to post "No Jews allowed" because it violates their religion as they killed Jesus? What will the long term effects be? But I'm prepared for "religious freedom" because F-them anyway.
In other News Zelensky was named Time Magazine's Person of the Year. DeSantis was in the top ten short list.
The Court will surely side on the side of "religious freedom". I don't care, if you don't want my gay money I don't want to force it on you. There is widespread community support for the LGBT community and many are happy to take our billion dollar impact on the economy.
I do worry about any further affects like for example, will I be thrown out of a restaurant, will they be able to post "No Jews allowed" because it violates their religion as they killed Jesus? What will the long term effects be? But I'm prepared for "religious freedom" because F-them anyway.
In other News Zelensky was named Time Magazine's Person of the Year. DeSantis was in the top ten short list.
My question would be do you? Because it seems hypocritical to favor "religious freedom" and then whine about this.
As I said above, I don't have a problem with religious freedom and would like to know who wants my money. I act like a regular customer so would never be asked to leave for being gay I would think, but if I went in with a gay group and they asked us to leave, I would say "bye witch, I'll take my money elsewhere to someone that wants it".
My question would be do you? Because it seems hypocritical to favor "religious freedom" and then whine about this.
As I said above, I don't have a problem with religious freedom and would like to know who wants my money. I act like a regular customer so would never be asked to leave for being gay I would think, but if I went in with a gay group and they asked us to leave, I would say "bye witch, I'll take my money elsewhere to someone that wants it".
I would take my business elsewhere. Now do you have a problem with it? I can guarantee you libs have no problem when this is done to conservatives.
I thought I was clear, my bad.
First, I think a good business should suck it up and serve their customers regardless of political, relgioius and sexual orientation. Just look at it as a business transaction and leave it at that and be professional.
That being said, I also support a private business's right to refuse customers because we are free nation. It's ugly and humiliating when people refuse to serve gays, Muslims (there are instances of this too) and conservative groups but if they are a private business owner, I support their right. But to say "I don't have a problem with it" means I have no soul. I sincerely felt bad for the humiliation of Huckabeen when she was thrown out of a restaurant when she was Press Secretary for Trump. She just wanted to eat dinner.
Maybe being thrown out of a restaurant wasn't a good example since it happens all the time. But what if I had a same sexed husband and wanted to buy a condo, would the real estate company be able to refuse to sell to me because they are Christian. It's illegal if it's based on race, but is that line blurred when it comes to someone's religious objection to someone LBGT.
The Court will surely side on the side of "religious freedom". I don't care, if you don't want my gay money I don't want to force it on you. There is widespread community support for the LGBT community and many are happy to take our billion dollar impact on the economy.
I do worry about any further affects like for example, will I be thrown out of a restaurant, will they be able to post "No Jews allowed" because it violates their religion as they killed Jesus? What will the long term effects be? But I'm prepared for "religious freedom" because F-them anyway.
In other News Zelensky was named Time Magazine's Person of the Year. DeSantis was in the top ten short list.
Along with the Trump Organization decision it was a good day to wake up! I've been hoping for the decision on Zelensky and wish Time would always elect a meritorious person for this designation. It should become a position of honor rather dishonor (Putin).
Beerman, BSN
4,427 Posts
You're not very well informed about this case.