Thank you SOW. I feel the same way about you and many others on OPP.

Just be decent human beings, OK?

You, and others here, have offered various examples of what may be voter fraud. I have not had time to research their validity, but will try to do so.

In the meantime, I am inclined to believe the Brennan Center which, unlike most folks here, is non-partisan.

https://www.brennancenter.org/issues/ensure-every-american-can-vote/vote-suppression/myth-voter-fraud

I have my list ready.

Of course we all believe every vote should be legal.
It's just that some do not see the need to stir up some cockamamie theory about something that, statistically, does not exist.

What everyone seems to be missing about public accommodation laws is that if a proprietor offers something to one they must offer it to all. He makes wedding cakes, all of them by definition custom. They are not just plain cakes, which he does offer to all. If a Muslim or Atheist offers WEDDING cakes to anyone, the law requires that they offer them to all. It's really very simple. And the baker in question completely understood this. As his case worked its way through the courts he stopped offering wedding cakes to all rather than be forced to make one for a celebration of which he did not approve. As we have seen, SCOTUS has opened a can of worms whereby anyone may claim a religious exemption for anything at all.

Unfortunately, while either party can appeal a SCOTUS ruling, unlike in appeals court SCOTUS may pick and choose which cases it hears. So it is unlikely an appeal would ever be heard.

Agreed that what you are pointing out has the same effect.
But the Constitution specifically forbids making a law that is retroactive - Ex Post Facto.

Lynching is illegal, regardless of the religious views of the proprietor of the bakery. In any case, if the baker made lynching cakes for white people they would be obligated to make them for everyone, people of color, Muslims, Neo-Nazis. That is what is at issue under public accommodation laws.

What Masterpiece cake could have done is hire someone else to bake and decorate the cake, thereby absolving himself of participation. He even could have donated the proceeds of that cake to a charity.

That’s because, even with statistically no fraud, they feel they cannot win if it is made easier to vote.

Regardless of new laws or SCOTUS' ruling one way or the other, Article I, section 9, clause 3 of theU.S. Constitution specifically forbids Ex Post Facto federal laws.

But at the state level Ex Post Facto is regularly used to decriminalize some actions (like possession of small amounts of marijuana) that occurred in the past when the actions were illegal.

An interesting use at the state level.

That choice I wholeheartedly support.

Thanks for elaborating, my friend.
Considering to whom I am married, one might think I would excel at discerning jokes from pushy comments.
I will try to do better myself in the future.

Happy Memorial Day!

You are incorrect, I think you know it, and you have nothing to substantiate your claim.
Anyway, your comment is just emotional knee-jerk reaction to a post that claimed neither agreement nor disagreement with the meme.

You clearly have not read any of my responses to Wolfie.
We go back a ways, and though I would not say we are friends, we have had some respect-tinged conversations in the past (note I dod not say exactly respectful )

Some might call me a snowflake, but I have yet to melt.

Interesting.