Polls: Society & Politics

https://www.axios.com/2023/06/30/supreme-court-lgbtq-wedding-website
Supreme Court rules businesses can refuse service to LGBTQ+ customers

Businesses can refuse to serve same-sex couples if doing so would violate the owners' religious beliefs, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday.

Why it matters: The court has significantly expanded LGBTQ rights over the past several years, but is now carving out some exceptions.

Driving the news: The case concerns Lorie Smith, a Colorado web designer who wanted to create and sell wedding websites, but not to same-sex couples.

Colorado's civil rights law prohibited her, or any business that serves the general public, from turning away customers because of their sexual orientation. She said complying with that law would force her to espouse views she does not agree with.
"The artwork that I create is speech," Smith told Colorado Public Radio in December, adding that, "those messages must be consistent with my convictions."
The big picture: The conservative-majority Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Smith, saying she has a First Amendment right to refuse to design custom wedding websites for same-sex couples.

"The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Colorado cannot deny that promise consistent with the First Amendment," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion.

It's all about them monnies, Lamborghinis and sleeping with 20 year old avaricious female supermodels.

Reference article: https://ballotpedia.org/Partisan_affiliations_of_registered_voters

Note 1: THIS QUESTION IS ONLY FOR 18+ (VOTING AGE) ADULTS and opinions from people under-18 will be deleted.

Note 2: Choose the answer-option in the poll that most closely matches your response to this question.

Note 3: Please state in your comments WHICH ANSWER-OPTION LETTER you selected in the poll.

Evolution relies on speciation... which will never happen unless a small subset of people get isolated and form a new gene pool... which obviously isn't happening nowadays.

In fact we are degenerating... the speciation that was happening... that produced whites, blacks, Asians... is being reversed through mixing.

Seems like the word sparks debate. Fine, but what are we actually talking about?

Don’t who any of these fcks are by the way, just enjoyed the debate. Lol

Should NATO become a global organization for protecting democratic countries and their freedom? Yes I am aware of it’s name and it’s current scope.

Some likely candidates: Japan, Australia, South Korea, Australia would be members. Who else do you think?

Oddly I do. Those against it weren’t going to vote for him anyway.

Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee and West Virginia

Over 50% of this populace smokes.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/opinion-pledge-of-allegiance_n_64a2eca3e4b0dcb22c46c8dc
The Freedom NOT To Recite The Pledge Of Allegiance

Forgive me, dear reader, if I implore you to refrain from engaging in overly demonstrative platitudes about love of God or country when discussing the Pledge of Allegiance.
On this day of independence, when we celebrate America’s birthdate, I decided to embark on a cursory and perhaps ill-advised review of this invocation, long recited in classrooms nationwide. To my surprise, it remains a source of controversy, at the root of which are the most fundamental principles of our democracy: the First Amendment rights to free speech and religious liberty.

We may have been taught as pliable and vulnerable children that the pledge was all about love of God and country, but the pledge’s origins belie such dogma.

Some historical context is particularly instructive given our pitiable grasp of civics, including, it seems, among some educators.
I chose to return to this subject having covered it nearly a decade ago when so-called “pledge controversies” — more precisely, over the words “under God” — erupted at public schools in two California locales: Tracy and San Jacinto.

The San Jacinto Unified School District agreed in late October 2014 to apologize to a Monte Vista Middle School student after a teacher admonished an 11-year-old boy for not standing during the pledge.

But at West High School in Tracy, 17-year-old Derek Giardina received detention and a reduced grade in his speech class for omitting the “under God” in his required recitation. The school district, which claimed to respect everyone’s religious beliefs or lack thereof, supported the punishment because, it explained, it was part of an assignment to lead the Pledge of Allegiance, and, as district spokesperson Sam Strube put it, “If you’re going to lead the school in the pledge, you better say it in the traditional way.”

Please do not answer this if you are not an American.

Can only pick one or the other.

Seems backward to me, but I’m a minority on this site: liberal a-hole.