Ohio jury awards $11 million to bakery owners targeted by Oberlin College student protests - This highlights the problem of SJW Insanity from the left

Bakery filed the libel suit after student boycott, allegations of racism,

The owners of an Ohio bakery who sued for libel after being targeted by student protests won Friday an $11 million verdict against Oberlin College.

A Lorain County jury ordered Oberlin to pay $11 million in compensatory damages to Gibson’s Bakery, a local fixture since 1885 that was beset by protests and racism allegations after three black students were arrested for shoplifting the day after the 2016 presidential election.

“The jury saw that Oberlin College went out of their way to harm a good family and longtime business in their community for no real reason, and the jury said we aren’t going to tolerate that in our community anymore,” Owen Rarric, an attorney for the Gibsons, told Legal Insurrection.

The award, which could triple at Tuesday’s hearing on punitive damages, came as a warning to universities that encourage social-justice activism as student protests spill from the campus to the local community.

“The verdict sends a strong message that colleges and universities cannot simply wind up and set loose student social justice warriors and then wash their hands of the consequences,” said Cornell Law School professor William Jacobson, who runs the conservative Legal Insurrection website.


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jun/7/ohio-jury-awards-11-million-to-bakery-owners-targe/

http://www.chroniclet.com/Local-News/2019/06/07/Gibson-s-Bakery-v-Oberlin-College-More-than-11-million-awarded.html

Good. Just because the three boys arrested for shoplifting were black, that doesn't mean that the bakery discriminated against them. They pleaded guilty anyway, so the bakery was right. In addition, the bakery was not responsible for the arrests and prosecution, that was down to the police and justice system.

I'm sure students weren't so stupid and hysterical in my day. It's a pity that the student protestors weren't arrested as well.

This is just more of the madness of the lefty mindset...

Tommy Monk wrote:This is just more of the madness of the lefty mindset...

Riddle me this: Why did the jurors award $11-million if they have leftist leanings?

My post was in reply to rags post above...

Tommy Monk wrote:My post was in reply to rags post above...

You should make that clear. Most people are interpreted as responding to the OP, not some off-shoot remark.

This was clearly a lawsuit under the anti-trust laws—Clayton Act or Sherman Antitrust Act—for a secondary boycott. You see restraint of trade practices everywhere, but bringing a suit is expensive, hiring experts, etc.

Someone should bring a secondary boycott suit against Angie's List. The sole effect of it is to not to select, but to exclude people. Their avowed purpose is a ruse.

I wonder what was the theory of any involvement of Oberlin College? The article says: “Oberlin College went out of their way to harm a good family and longtime business.” That’s not very substantive. Could be an impassioned jury. It’s of interest because the verdict might be overturned.

We shouldn't let misguided college kids speak for the left any more than we should let pointy-hat-wearing cross-burners speak for the right.

Ben Reilly wrote:We shouldn't let misguided college kids speak for the left any more than we should let pointy-hat-wearing cross-burners speak for the right.

“Hand-wringing, whiny-ass college kids”

Let’s be fair with the insults, eh?

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:We shouldn't let misguided college kids speak for the left any more than we should let pointy-hat-wearing cross-burners speak for the right.

“Hand-wringing, whiny-ass college kids”

Let’s be fair with the insults, eh?

Touche!

Except they did think they were fighting for justice, of course.

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:We shouldn't let misguided college kids speak for the left any more than we should let pointy-hat-wearing cross-burners speak for the right.

“Hand-wringing, whiny-ass college kids”

Let’s be fair with the insults, eh?

Touche!

Quite.

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:We shouldn't let misguided college kids speak for the left any more than we should let pointy-hat-wearing cross-burners speak for the right.

“Hand-wringing, whiny-ass college kids”

Let’s be fair with the insults, eh?

But... they are the left... and in huge numbers...


While the huge majority of 'right' are always misrepresented as being like the handful of idiots in point hats...

Tommy Monk wrote:While the huge majority of 'right' are always misrepresented as being like the handful of idiots in point hats..

.

Wow, that's an epiphany, Tommy.  Pointy hats...hummm...

Typical conservative Republican:



Average foxy Fox News reporter:



Typical righty Trump rally:



Parody always has a bit of truth to it.

Raggamuffin wrote:Good. Just because the three boys arrested for shoplifting were black, that doesn't mean that the bakery discriminated against them. They pleaded guilty anyway, so the bakery was right. In addition, the bakery was not responsible for the arrests and prosecution, that was down to the police and justice system.

I'm sure students weren't so stupid and hysterical in my day. It's a pity that the student protestors weren't arrested as well.

students have always been stupid and hysterical, there is social media to highlight that stupidity now

Ben Reilly wrote:Except they did think they were fighting for justice, of course.

if people had been arrested for shoplifting then they weren;t fighting for justice, they were fighting for special privilege

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:While the huge majority of 'right' are always misrepresented as being like the handful of idiots in point hats..

.

Wow, that's an epiphany, Tommy.  Pointy hats...hummm...

Typical conservative Republican:



Average foxy Fox News reporter:



Typical righty Trump rally:



Parody always has a bit of truth to it.

It must annoy you that David duke of the KKK has endorsed Jeremy corbyn.

David Duke also endorsed Trump.  David Duke has been endorsing every RW, populist candidate around the world, for his entire life.

Most candidates reject his endorsement and send back his checks.

What can you do? It's a free country.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Except they did think they were fighting for justice, of course.

if people had been arrested for shoplifting then they weren;t fighting for justice, they were fighting for special privilege

They weren't protesting that they should be allowed to shoplift because they were black; they were protesting what they believed to be a long history of racial profiling at the store, according to news reports. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oberlin-ohio-gibsons-bakery-racism-dispute/

Ben Reilly wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Except they did think they were fighting for justice, of course.

if people had been arrested for shoplifting then they weren;t fighting for justice, they were fighting for special privilege

They weren't protesting that they should be allowed to shoplift because they were black; they were protesting what they believed to be a long history of racial profiling at the store, according to news reports. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oberlin-ohio-gibsons-bakery-racism-dispute/

Hmmm, well the store turned out to be correct, I guess.

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Except they did think they were fighting for justice, of course.

if people had been arrested for shoplifting then they weren;t fighting for justice, they were fighting for special privilege

They weren't protesting that they should be allowed to shoplift because they were black; they were protesting what they believed to be a long history of racial profiling at the store, according to news reports. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oberlin-ohio-gibsons-bakery-racism-dispute/

Hmmm, well the store turned out to be correct, I guess.

They were; I was just trying to show that the students weren't protesting that black people should have the "special privilege" (his words) of being allowed to shoplift, as DYK was claiming.

eddie wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

They weren't protesting that they should be allowed to shoplift because they were black; they were protesting what they believed to be a long history of racial profiling at the store, according to news reports. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oberlin-ohio-gibsons-bakery-racism-dispute/

Hmmm, well the store turned out to be correct, I guess.

I don't know. I'm still interested in knowing what Oberlin did. Bet there is an appeal. The heavy money is against them.

Ben Reilly wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
if people had been arrested for shoplifting then they weren;t fighting for justice, they were fighting for special privilege

They weren't protesting that they should be allowed to shoplift because they were black; they were protesting what they believed to be a long history of racial profiling at the store, according to news reports. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oberlin-ohio-gibsons-bakery-racism-dispute/

Bullshit alert

The student body and Professors and agains based on intersectionality divisive bullshit. Made unfounded claims against the bakery, claiming they were white supreamcists. That because 3 black students actually stole from the store and instead of seeking the facts. This illibral college, instead. Set out on a campaign, to destroy the bakery and the people that run this, based on no evidence, but intersectionality ideology. Only you could possible excuse this kind of racist bullshit, when white people are the target of racism. This came from far leftist ideology and wwas promoted by the professors to target the bakery with lies

phil wrote:The student body and Professors and agains based on intersectionality divisive bullshit. Made unfounded claims against the bakery...

So, sue the students and professors, based on whatever evidence you can make up.

Nothing connects up the college with the facts.

Gd. luck on appeal.

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:The student body and Professors and agains based on intersectionality divisive bullshit. Made unfounded claims against the bakery...

So, sue the students and professors, based on whatever evidence you can make up.

Nothing connects up the college with the facts.

Gd. luck on appeal.

No need, when the University has been for its hateful campaign against this family and now has also another 33 million in punitive damages to pay on top of this

Happy days, its about time society did something about these hateful Far left extremist colleges

https://www.apnews.com/a9b095a4bf9040ed86b814fc9f889c0f

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

So, sue the students and professors, based on whatever evidence you can make up.

Nothing connects up the college with the facts.

Gd. luck on appeal.

No need, when the University has been for its hateful campaign against this family and now has also another 33 million in punitive damages to pay on top of this

Happy days, its about time society did something about these hateful Far left extremist colleges

https://www.apnews.com/a9b095a4bf9040ed86b814fc9f889c0f

It'll be overturned on appeal.

Original Quill wrote:

phildidge wrote:
No need, when the University has been for its hateful campaign against this family and now has also another 33 million in punitive damages to pay on top of this

Happy days, its about time society did something about these hateful Far left extremist colleges

https://www.apnews.com/a9b095a4bf9040ed86b814fc9f889c0f

It'll be overturned on appeal.

They tried to appeal within the trial and got told to sod off. Any further appeal on this will result in the same and so it should, when they campaigned with hate against this bakery, based on lies. Its interesting, that you again defend such racism, when its against innocent white people. This is the problem today of identity politics and you are part of that problem. Thankfully, people are starting to wake up to this bullshit. The best thing to do is to start sacking these ideological idiots in teaching for gross misconduct. As they do not care about teaching but spreading hate

I’m with you on this didge.

phildidge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
if people had been arrested for shoplifting then they weren;t fighting for justice, they were fighting for special privilege

They weren't protesting that they should be allowed to shoplift because they were black; they were protesting what they believed to be a long history of racial profiling at the store, according to news reports. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oberlin-ohio-gibsons-bakery-racism-dispute/

Bullshit alert

The student body and Professors and agains based on intersectionality divisive bullshit. Made unfounded claims against the bakery, claiming they were white supreamcists. That because 3 black students actually stole from the store and instead of seeking the facts. This illibral college, instead. Set out on a campaign, to destroy the bakery and the people that run this, based on no evidence, but intersectionality ideology. Only you could possible excuse this kind of racist bullshit, when white people are the target of racism. This came from far leftist ideology and wwas promoted by the professors to target the bakery with lies

Apparently many non-white students had been grumbling for years about being followed around in that store, and this incident, which happened very close to Trump getting into the White House, made a bunch of people lose their shit.

But nobody was out there protesting that black people should have the right to shoplift.

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:


Bullshit alert

The student body and Professors and agains based on intersectionality divisive bullshit. Made unfounded claims against the bakery, claiming they were white supreamcists. That because 3 black students actually stole from the store and instead of seeking the facts. This illibral college, instead. Set out on a campaign, to destroy the bakery and the people that run this, based on no evidence, but intersectionality ideology. Only you could possible excuse this kind of racist bullshit, when white people are the target of racism. This came from far leftist ideology and wwas promoted by the professors to target the bakery with lies

Apparently many non-white students had been grumbling for years about being followed around in that store, and this incident, which happened very close to Trump getting into the White House, made a bunch of people lose their shit.

But nobody was out there protesting that black people should have the right to shoplift.

They had been grumbling for years and only decided to protest after an event where 3 black college students who later admitted to shoplifting and assualting one of the shop owners? 

The jury found no such evidence of profilling and hence why they rulled in the families favour. As it was very clear these claims against the bakery were unfounded. Not only that the 3 black students were guilty of shoplifting. 

The reality is, because of how far leftist intersectionality was taught. Never questioning whether the students may have shoplifted. Lies were created against the bakery and fueled by the student body and professors. So I am sorry, but backing the claim of the very students who did nothing before around so called claims of racial profilling. Whilst the University before this continued to trade with the bakery. Shoiws that claims was nothing more than complete horseshit.

As do you not think that if such claims made before, when this college has a history of only recently before claiming cultural appropiation on food within its school? Sometimes Ben you really are blind to what is going on

eddie wrote:I’m with you on this didge.

Thanks Eddie and what annoys me is how again people attempt to make excuses and even worse believe the lies being claimed around racial profilling. Its like a shop now has to not stop shoplifters, if they are black. If they do, they are not witnessing and acting on a crime, but being racist apparantly.  

phildidge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:


Bullshit alert

The student body and Professors and agains based on intersectionality divisive bullshit. Made unfounded claims against the bakery, claiming they were white supreamcists. That because 3 black students actually stole from the store and instead of seeking the facts. This illibral college, instead. Set out on a campaign, to destroy the bakery and the people that run this, based on no evidence, but intersectionality ideology. Only you could possible excuse this kind of racist bullshit, when white people are the target of racism. This came from far leftist ideology and wwas promoted by the professors to target the bakery with lies

Apparently many non-white students had been grumbling for years about being followed around in that store, and this incident, which happened very close to Trump getting into the White House, made a bunch of people lose their shit.

But nobody was out there protesting that black people should have the right to shoplift.

They had been grumbling for years and only decided to protest after an event where 3 black college students who later admitted to shoplifting and assualting one of the shop owners? 

The jury found no such evidence of profilling and hence why they rulled in the families favour. As it was very clear these claims against the bakery were unfounded. Not only that the 3 black students were guilty of shoplifting. 

The reality is, because of how far leftist intersectionality was taught. Never questioning whether the students may have shoplifted. Lies were created against the bakery and fueled by the student body and professors. So I am sorry, but backing the claim of the very students who did nothing before around so called claims of racial profilling. Whilst the University before this continued to trade with the bakery. Shoiws that claims was nothing more than complete horseshit.

As do you not think that if such claims made before, when this college has a history of only recently before claiming cultural appropiation on food within its school? Sometimes Ben you really are blind to what is going on

Nobody was out there protesting that black people should have the right to shoplift.

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:

They had been grumbling for years and only decided to protest after an event where 3 black college students who later admitted to shoplifting and assualting one of the shop owners? 

The jury found no such evidence of profilling and hence why they rulled in the families favour. As it was very clear these claims against the bakery were unfounded. Not only that the 3 black students were guilty of shoplifting. 

The reality is, because of how far leftist intersectionality was taught. Never questioning whether the students may have shoplifted. Lies were created against the bakery and fueled by the student body and professors. So I am sorry, but backing the claim of the very students who did nothing before around so called claims of racial profilling. Whilst the University before this continued to trade with the bakery. Shoiws that claims was nothing more than complete horseshit.

As do you not think that if such claims made before, when this college has a history of only recently before claiming cultural appropiation on food within its school? Sometimes Ben you really are blind to what is going on

Nobody was out there protesting that black people should have the right to shoplift.

Whataboutism, as by such protests they were defending said shoplifters, claiming them innocent. They protested to claim that criminal people were innocent and sought to target the owners based off lies

phildidge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:

They had been grumbling for years and only decided to protest after an event where 3 black college students who later admitted to shoplifting and assualting one of the shop owners? 

The jury found no such evidence of profilling and hence why they rulled in the families favour. As it was very clear these claims against the bakery were unfounded. Not only that the 3 black students were guilty of shoplifting. 

The reality is, because of how far leftist intersectionality was taught. Never questioning whether the students may have shoplifted. Lies were created against the bakery and fueled by the student body and professors. So I am sorry, but backing the claim of the very students who did nothing before around so called claims of racial profilling. Whilst the University before this continued to trade with the bakery. Shoiws that claims was nothing more than complete horseshit.

As do you not think that if such claims made before, when this college has a history of only recently before claiming cultural appropiation on food within its school? Sometimes Ben you really are blind to what is going on

Nobody was out there protesting that black people should have the right to shoplift.

Whataboutism, as by such protests they were defending said shoplifters, claiming them innocent. They protested to claim that criminal people were innocent and sought to target the owners based off lies

The only reason I jumped into this thread in the first place was to make this point: Nobody was out there protesting that black people should have the right to shoplift.

That was a claim first made by DYK, if you read back.

I'm not saying that the protesters were right, or that the school should have won the lawsuit. I'm simply saying that the protests were not over letting people shoplift if they're black.

You cannot do it Ben can you?
Condemn the actions, hate of the college professors and student body and look to make whatboutism arguments. Neglecting the fact this famioly bakery had to lay off people, through lost buisness. That means people lost their jobs over this. I mean you seem unconcerned by this. You seem more concerned over whether people should protest whether black people have a right to shoplift.

You have got your priorities all wrong over this. When you should be condemning the trial by college of a family business, that has never had any view to cast them as racist. In the many years they did buisness with the College. Only when some ideological extremist post modernist Professors, ramp up a witch hunt over the bakery. 

That was disgusting by the University and its students

phildidge wrote:You cannot do it Ben can you?
Condemn the actions, hate of the college professors and student body and look to make whatboutism arguments. Neglecting the fact this famioly bakery had to lay off people, through lost buisness. That means people lost their jobs over this. I mean you seem unconcerned by this. You seem more concerned over whether people should protest whether black people have a right to shoplift.

You have got your priorities all wrong over this. When you should be condemning the trial by college of a family business, that has never had any view to cast them as racist. In the many years they did buisness with the College. Only when some ideological extremist post modernist Professors, ramp up a witch hunt over the bakery. 

That was disgusting by the University and its students

The only reason I jumped into this thread in the first place was to make this point: Nobody was out there protesting that black people should have the right to shoplift.

That was a claim first made by DYK, if you read back.

I'm not saying that the protesters were right, or that the school should have won the lawsuit. I'm simply saying that the protests were not over letting people shoplift if they're black.

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:


Whataboutism, as by such protests they were defending said shoplifters, claiming them innocent. They protested to claim that criminal people were innocent and sought to target the owners based off lies

The only reason I jumped into this thread in the first place was to make this point: Nobody was out there protesting that black people should have the right to shoplift.

That was a claim first made by DYK, if you read back.

I'm not saying that the protesters were right, or that the school should have won the lawsuit. I'm simply saying that the protests were not over letting people shoplift if they're black.

I cannot believe what I am reading. Real people got effected and lost jobs over the actions of the college and all you are interested in is whether anyone protested whteher shoplifting was ever okay? Never understanding, the people protesting, actually were defending shoplifters and trhen inventing lies to effect the livelihood of the bakery and the people that worked for them?

Your reasoning is completely fucked up and missing he point

I'm not saying that the protesters were right, or that the school should have won the lawsuit. I'm simply saying that the protests were not over letting people shoplift if they're black.

Ben Reilly wrote:I'm not saying that the protesters were right, or that the school should have won the lawsuit. I'm simply saying that the protests were not over letting people shoplift if they're black.

What the fuck has that got to do with anything here?
Being that their protests were in defence of actual shoplifters?
That these protests cast lies and hate against this family bakery?
So their protests were about letting off shoplifters who were black, because they campaigned on this very issue making up hateful lies against the bakery.

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:


Bullshit alert

The student body and Professors and agains based on intersectionality divisive bullshit. Made unfounded claims against the bakery, claiming they were white supreamcists. That because 3 black students actually stole from the store and instead of seeking the facts. This illibral college, instead. Set out on a campaign, to destroy the bakery and the people that run this, based on no evidence, but intersectionality ideology. Only you could possible excuse this kind of racist bullshit, when white people are the target of racism. This came from far leftist ideology and wwas promoted by the professors to target the bakery with lies

Apparently many non-white students had been grumbling for years about being followed around in that store, and this incident, which happened very close to Trump getting into the White House, made a bunch of people lose their shit.

3 black people found guilty of shoplifting made a bunch of people lose their shit because,,,,meh,,,,Trump

gelico wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

phildidge wrote:


Bullshit alert

The student body and Professors and agains based on intersectionality divisive bullshit. Made unfounded claims against the bakery, claiming they were white supreamcists. That because 3 black students actually stole from the store and instead of seeking the facts. This illibral college, instead. Set out on a campaign, to destroy the bakery and the people that run this, based on no evidence, but intersectionality ideology. Only you could possible excuse this kind of racist bullshit, when white people are the target of racism. This came from far leftist ideology and wwas promoted by the professors to target the bakery with lies

Apparently many non-white students had been grumbling for years about being followed around in that store, and this incident, which happened very close to Trump getting into the White House, made a bunch of people lose their shit.

3 black people found guilty of shoplifting made a bunch of people lose their shit because,,,,meh,,,,Trump

And let’s not forget that a lot of college students are angsty and simply love to protest about some shit or another.

phil wrote:They tried to appeal within the trial and got told to sod off.  Any further appeal on this will result in the same and so it should...

That’s called a “special action” or a Writ of Certourri, Habeas Corpus, Mandamous or Prohibition, or Quo Warrrento, depending on the relief requested.  It is an “extraordinary writ” claiming that the trial court exceeded its authority in some way.  The writs all involve an order by a higher court for a lower court to send a case before them, up to the higher court (including the records).

Denial of a writ is not telling them to “sod off”, but saying there’s no need for a rush.  The writ contemplates two decisions: (1) the appellate court first has to grant the writ, then (2) it must decide the issue raised in the writ.  Not granting the writ has no bearing on the merits of the case; the court is simply saying, we’ll hear the matter on appeal.

In nearly all cases, the appellate court will deny the writ, and leave jurisdiction with the trial court.  The special writs disrupt the normal procedure of the judicial system: trial or hearing, appeal and discretionary review.  Most parties try for them, but only in extreme cases does the appellate court grant them.

The denial of an extraordinary writ says nothing about the case on ordinary appeal.  It’s the appellate court saying there’s nothing to warrant special action.

This case is most probably going to be reversed on appeal.

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:They tried to appeal within the trial and got told to sod off.

That’s called a “special action” or a Writ of Certourri, Habeas Corpus, Mandamous or Prohibition, or Quo Warrrento, depending on the relief requested.  It is an “extraordinary writ” claiming that the trial court exceeded its authority in some way.  The writs all involve an order by a higher court for a lower court to send a case before them, up to the higher court (including the records).

The denial of an extraordinary writ says nothing about the case on ordinary appeal.  It’s the appellate court saying there’s nothing to warrant special action.

So you claim, but by the very judgement of this case, we are entering new grounds. Hence your claim as to what is here, is simple bullshit and you know this. What again is even worse here, is you are defending the College, who were racist and hateful over the bakery. 
So this is a speacial case here, one where people are not going to stand by left wing racism. Yopu can harp on till the cows come home, I call this justice

phil wrote:So you claim, but by the very judgement of this case, we are entering new grounds.

WTF does that mean? A judgement is always necessary, as it indicates that the trial court has ended its job and "entered a judgment".

The appellate courts reverse all the time. It means only that the trial court fooked up. Unless by special action, they reverse after a judgment.

If the judgment is fooked up, of course the appellate court is going to reverse.

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:So you claim, but by the very judgement of this case, we are entering new grounds.

WTF does that mean?  A judgement is always necessary, as it indicates that the trial court has ended its job and "entered a judgment".

The appellate courts reverse all the time.  It means only that the trial court fooked up.  Unless by special action, they reverse after a judgment.

If the judgment is fooked up, of course the appellate court is going to reverse.

No surprise you favour criminals here
The judgement was sound. The college based on racist and sexist hate, started a campaign against  an innocent family that stopped a criminal robbing their store.

Not sure what crimninal justice system you fgollow, but I back the one that defends innocent people. The college treated the bakery as white supremacists. Based on no evidence.

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

WTF does that mean?  A judgement is always necessary, as it indicates that the trial court has ended its job and "entered a judgment".

The appellate courts reverse all the time.  It means only that the trial court fooked up.  Unless by special action, they reverse after a judgment.

If the judgment is fooked up, of course the appellate court is going to reverse.

phil wrote:No surprise you favour criminals here

It's not about me.  Stick to the point.

phil wrote:The judgement was sound. The college based on racist and sexist hate, started a campaign against  an innocent family that stopped a criminal robbing their store.

I don't see that.  Facts please.  It appears that some in the community may have engaged in a secondary boycott, but so far the college had nothing to do with it.

phil wrote:Not sure what crimninal justice system you fgollow, but I back the one that defends innocent people. The college treated the bakery as white supremacists. Based on no evidence.

Hahaha...Ready, fire, aim!  You want to shoot first, then ask questions.

You shouldn't do anything until you first determine who is innocent.  You have made your decision on no facts.

I have yet to see any facts that the college did anything at all.  Again, it appears that there was a secondary boycott, but I don't see any facts that connect Oberlin College to it.  I know Ohio quite well.  I have a hunch that a Trumpian jury got carried away in these times of extremism, Charlottesville and burning down synagogues.

But your point is based on your racist bias you have of white people not of the same standard  you hdad in education.

The college had everything tdo to do with this and hence why they were found guilty. Some bit part poster who imagines he is a judge and is thus based on his fantazies, has no bearing on the ruling. The rulings were  based on the actions directed by the college. The facts are in the case, and you may not like them, by the evidence is staggering. Again you favour the racists here and not the victims of this racism against white people


I have no need to ask questions. 

Thye onus is on you to defend your racism here, by defending racists, who hate white people

phildidge wrote:But your point is based on your racist bias you have of white people not of the same standard  you hdad in education.

This is about a college in Ohio. It's not about me.

phil wrote:The college had everything tdo to do with this and hence why they were found guilty.

Facts please.

phil wrote:Some bit part poster who imagines he is a judge and is thus based on his fantazies, has no bearing on the ruling. The rulings were  based on the actions directed by the college. The facts are in the case, and you may not like them, by the evidence is staggering. Again you favour the racists here and not the victims of this racism against white people

You have yet to offer any facts that implicate the college at all.

phil wrote:I have no need to ask questions. 

Hahaha...you rarely do, nor do you offer answers. Facts please.

phil wrote:Thye onus is on you to defend your racism here, by defending racists, who hate white people

This is about a college in Ohio. It's not about me.

You sound upset. If so, I suggest you take a break.

Actually its everything to do with you, being a racist low life and a person that defends racism as you do

The court case was clear on who was to blame here

The facts are backed up in previous links I posted

This is about you being a defender of racism, against white people and defending black criminals

phildidge wrote:Actually its everything to do with you, being a racist low life and a person that defends racism as you do

The court case was clear on who was to blame here

The facts are backed up in previous links I posted

This is about you being a defender of racism, against white people and defending black criminals

I don't see my name in the title.

To date, throughout the entire thread, there are no facts that implicate Oberlin College. The fact that you are attacking the messenger, instead of addressing any message, or (as said) raising any facts, tends to support that.

All I see is, you are worried about your ability to make the case. So you attack the messenger.

To date there has been plenty and it shows you have not read the court case

The onus is on you to make the case

As the defendents have been found guillty

Doh