You may be violating trade mark agreements utilizing Grateful Dead memorabilia and rebranding it.
1 Like
Haha well I certainly wouldn’t question YOU regarding legal matters. I’ll just end up giving them a slice when I start selling flags and tshirts. The profits is gonna be HYYYYUUUUUGGGGEE
Not when they see all the zeros on the check.
Edit: I took it down though. Just poking a bit of fun 
But…but…your avatar…
1 Like
To be fair, he’d be covered under fair use too 
1 Like
Jordan Peterson echoes this. In his words, “it’s none of your damn business.”
1 Like
I’m triggered!!!
Well, it appears that simply can’t be the case as the legal and the commercial at times intersect with a person’s belief. Perhaps the wedding cake baker should be able to tell his detractors “it’s none of your BUSINESS.” Get it, because it is literally his business…His bakery…His business. .Ahem.
But yeah. Oh. Um, I agree with whatever was said about justices and stuff. The topic or some such.
JP just says that regarding a personal level. I’m with you regarding the baker.
But the baker made it everyone else’s business when he used it to discriminate. And that’s my point. His religion didn’t tell him to not bake a cake; it told him that certain homosexual behaviors are a sin. How he used that was a personal decision but it wasn’t about saving his soul as much as it was to regulate someone else.
Or did the couple make it the baker’s business by deciding to take part in a social institution that is also state recognized, and then insisting he bake their symbolic expression.
Either way, religion is social. One of the major things we consider when exploring a society/people is its religious practices. Religion is certainly more ubiquitous than that couple’s homosexuality. So much so one might think a characteristic of the human species is its religious thought/practice. Almost as if we’re, largely, predisposed/orientated to religious thought.
Anywho, in my opinion, religion is most welcome in the public sphere to be discussed and practiced. The cold deaf dumb universe doesn’t care, either way.
1 Like
And no, other people (not everyone, first of all) made it their business. They’re free to move on, leave it between the baker and the couple solely.
1 Like
You’re making assumptions about his religious beliefs.
His religion might also reasonably tell him that taking part in or profiting from a celebration of sin is a sin. If you think homosexual marriage/sex is a sin, it’s not a huge logical leap to say homosexual weddings are a celebration of sin.
I’m sure you know it’s not that simple, @Sloth…
When “regular folks” (like the Baker and the Couple) get a case that makes it to the Supreme Court…both sides had powerful groups AND outside money behind them…
This is no “Mr. Smith goes to the Supreme Court”…
It doesn’t work that way…
Perhaps. But leaving it solely to them does default to a matter of voluntary association. Which is the baker’s position. in this case.
Lol, whut?
Agree, @usmccds423…
If opposition is going to use this type of hyperbole to oppose Kavanaugh…all they will do is make themselves look worse than they already do…
Kavanaugh (and by extension Gorsuch) are solid, legal, CONSTITUTIONAL scholars.
There are not going to make sweeping decisions to take away voting rights, or any basic fundamental rights of Americans.
1 Like
How did the couple make their religious beliefs the baker’s business?
No. They/we made his beliefs our business. The transaction was simply between them.
Cripes.