The US Supreme Court upheld the entire Trump travel ban today. This is a great move for the sovereignty of the US and protection of her citizens.

Now to shut down sanctuary cities.

Yep.

Now if only we could get rid of the liberal judges that shot it down to begin with.....

This is a major problem in this country

Dilly Dilly!

Let the impeachments begin!

^^^^^^Amen!!! Let's start with everyone on the 9th circuit and move on from there.

Good stuff right there!!!
Now to Impeach the 9th circuit judges.

Bout time we start protecting our borders. Now to end sanctuary cities.

If I read it correctly, on Tuesday SCOTUS will hear arguments about the baker who refused to create/make a cake for the gay couple and was sued for discrimination.

Yep! That's gonna be heard tomorrow. I pray that the baker wins.

A win for the gay couple amounts to forced labor.

Unsure if SCOTUS will rule on that tomorrow.

Definitely will be interesting to see how it turns out. I'll bet they side with the couple, citing that it would be discriminatory to decline service because of their sexual orientation.

I wonder if they’d make the baker make a cake that says “all cake bakers are bastards and don’t deserve to live in our town”? He’d be refusing service using similar logic that it’s offensive to him.

Baker should win in my opinion. What about the signs that say “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”? Are they just empty words? I figure it is private business and he doesn’t OWE anyone anything. If he decides to turn down business, so be it

From my understanding and one of our resident attorneys are welcome to correct me if I'm wrong, but they are only going to hear the case tomorrow. They won't rule on it for months because all the law clerks have to do their research for them and give their opinions to the justices.

As to the merits of the case, it was clearly discrimination under the STATE law, but the way I see it is; does the state law trump the baker's right to religious freedom? Homosexuality is not a protected class under federal law, only in certain states, but freedom from religious persecution is federally protected. If this was on a playground you would have two kids yelling that "my discrimination is bigger than yours."

Afraid the baker's going to lose this one...

Yea, but the baker is a victim of violation of his relegious beliefs.

This could go either way but I'd say that freedom of religion and the right to refuse service will trump this type of said discrimination

Them queers can go to Wal Mart and get a box of Betty Crocker and make their own damn cake.

Yep.

this^^^ and then shove it where the sun don't shine.

They will not be issuing a ruling on the cake case today. They are just hearing arguments. The opinion will come out in the spring.

I really don't have any idea how they will rule in this case. Homosexuality is not a protected class under federal law, but it is under Colorado law apparently. The question I think they have to decide is if they want a ruling that could open the door for being gay to be a protected class nationwide. If they decide there is a legitimate state interest in protecting the rights of homosexuals, then I think they rule against the baker. Essentially putting homosexuals on the same level as all other protected classes (Age, sex, race, religion). If they do that, it trumps the bakers rights, just like it would a restaurant owner who said his religion didn't allow him to serve blacks.

On the other hand, if they determine there is no legitimate state interest in protecting homosexuals, then they rule for the bakers.

I bet they've already tried it....

I expect that the ruling will be that they baker can NOT refuse to sell them a cake, but won't be forced to decorate it contrary to his beliefs.

Be nice Fred

The relevant immigration statute expressly gives the POTUS power to do what Trump did. The atheist Marxist liberal federal judges refused to apply that statute and should be impeached. Two SCOTUS members (Ginsburg and Sotomayer) also did not want to obey the statute.

too old and set in my ways to be nice to queers pushing their lifestyle on the rest of the world. Struck dead by lightening would be appropriate.

Up until recently, sexual orientation/preference was NOT even remotely a protected class, as is race, age, religion, sex (actual gender), ethnicity, disability, etc. It was deemed a behavior not a protected right/class.

But with the Progressive Movement push and designed court cases once Obama loaded the lower courts with over 280 Progressive judges the whole LGBTQ??? orientation/preference issue is front and center.

The Progressive goal is to get the official status that sexual behavior/orientation/preference/identity is a protect class by arguing that being gay or trans or gender fluid is some natural thing. This situation/confrontation was hand picked to go to court, the media and eventually the SCOTUS to get such a ruling...pushing the envelope. Targeted and by design to do two things----put a huge dent into Christian freedom of religion and to promote a new class of protected people.

Good analysis.

It begs the question to what special or unique state interests there are to "protect" homosexuals over the laws that are already on the books that protect everyone else. These people are already part of at least 7 protected classes already, as we all are:

1. Age: all of us are a certain age, regardless of any other factor.
2. Color: all of us have a certain skin color, regardless of any other factor.
3. Race/Ethnicity: all of us have a certain race or ethnicity, regardless of any other factor.
4. Sex: all of us have a certain physical sex or gender, regardless of any other factor.
5. National Origin/Ancestry: all of us have a certain heritage/linage/origin, regardless of any other factor.
6. Genetic Information: all of us have a certain genetic code/info, regardless of any other factor.
7. Citizenship: all of us have a certain citizenship status, regardless of any other factor.

The gay people filing suit are already protected by default on all of these already, plus more depending on their unique circumstance (religion, creed, veteran status, disabilities). They were not denied their specific gay cake based on any of these. So what compelling interest would there be?--other than to promote the Progressive LGBT? agenda to make all sexual and gender identity preferences a protected class??

And does that desire trump the rights of religion and expression that the baker does have protection for?

This is what this case is about 100%. A conservative constitutional ruling would be the right ruling in this case, but there are some leaners on the court so I'm not so sure how it will go down. This is one of the biggest rulings to go before the court in a long time and will have devastating consequences down the road to the fabric of traditional America is the court rules in favor of the gay couple.

It is a protected class in many states, as I pointed out earlier. That almost makes this a States Rights issue since the baker was following his religious beliefs. Does a state have the right to limit religious beliefs if they conflict with their state laws?