# Supreme Court justices RIP ruling forcing states to recognize same-sex marriages - 'Threat To Religious Freedom!'



## easyt65

That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!

_"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."_

"_The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."

Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance."_



_"Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss," he wrote. "In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals."_

Just because you have a deep RELIGIOUS conviction regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and does not include same-sex marriages does *NOT *make one a Bigot or Homophobe and protects that religious belief / conviction. 

_Thomas added: "This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as 'disparag[ing]' homosexuals and 'diminish[ing] their personhood' through '[d]ignitary wounds.'"_





_








						Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case
					

The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.




					www.foxnews.com
				



_


----------



## Andylusion

easyt65 said:


> That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!
> 
> _"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."_
> 
> "_The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."
> 
> Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance."_
> 
> 
> 
> _"Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss," he wrote. "In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals."_
> 
> Just because you have a deep RELIGIOUS conviction regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and does not include same-sex marriages does *NOT *make one a Bigot or Homophobe and protects that religious belief / conviction.
> 
> _Thomas added: "This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as 'disparag[ing]' homosexuals and 'diminish[ing] their personhood' through '[d]ignitary wounds.'"_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case
> 
> 
> The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _



The whole idea that the Supreme Court even has the authority to determine what the law is, is questionable to me.  Where in the Constitutional does the court get to decide what the law is?


----------



## Oddball

Andylusion said:


> The whole idea that the Supreme Court even has the authority to determine what the law is, is questionable to me.  Where in the Constitutional does the court get to decide what the law is?


They seized that authority in Marbury v. Madison, and the congress was too cowardly to abolish them.


----------



## easyt65

Andylusion said:


> The whole idea that the Supreme Court even has the authority to determine what the law is, is questionable to me.  Where in the Constitutional does the court get to decide what the law is?



_"Article III, Section I states that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Although the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, it permits Congress to decide how to organize it."_







						About the Supreme Court
					

Supreme Court Background  Article III of the Constitution establishes the federal judiciary. Article III, Section I states that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."...




					www.uscourts.gov


----------



## rightwinger

easyt65 said:


> Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."



There is a lot of stuff not explicitly in the Constitution. Women’s rights, a standing Army, Space Force...

Same Sex Marriage is here to stay


----------



## TemplarKormac

rightwinger said:


> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a lot of stuff not explicitly in the Constitution. Women’s rights, a standing Army, Space Force...
> 
> Same Sex Marriage is here to stay
Click to expand...


And? If it isn't mandated in the Constitution, it shouldn't be mandated on the population it governs. It matters not who passes the mandate. Trump or Obama.

Being a part of the LGBT community now, I can tell that the majority of the community do not want to force itself onto society, we just want equal treatment under law. But what is there to gain from our equal status in society if it comes by trampling the rights of others? If my rights come at the cost of other's rights, I don't want them. 

Tell me, how is that fair? My grandmother is a devout Christian. She also knows I'm gay as well, as she was the one I came out to first. But I will not force her to change her beliefs to accept me. That is wrong. _Just as wrong_ as someone trying to change me because of my sexual affiliation.


----------



## BluesLegend

The era of Dem mob law is coming to a close as the SCOTUS returns to the US Constitution.


----------



## TemplarKormac

The science tells me that homosexuality is a flaw in the human genome. Yes, it is genetic. It does not change the fact that homosexuality is a counterproductive mechanism to the proliferation of our species. It does not abide our evolution. Homosexuality is a defect. Heterosexual reproduction is the norm. Homosexual is not. Any means of reproduction in a heterosexual species such as ours requires heterosexual methods. If two moms want a child, one of them must be inseminated with male sperm. If two fathers want a child, they inseminate a surrogate mother. You cannot further the evolution of our species via homosexuality. _*You cannot deny the heterosexual nature of humanity. Never.*_

I understand that the minority should be treated no differently from the majority, but the minority should not have more rights than the majority. What liberals want is special treatment for us, we just want to be left alone. We do not want to conquer society with our version of morality. Equality, not submission. Coexistence, not subversion.


----------



## RodISHI

TemplarKormac said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a lot of stuff not explicitly in the Constitution. Women’s rights, a standing Army, Space Force...
> 
> Same Sex Marriage is here to stay
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? If it isn't mandated in the Constitution, it shouldn't be mandated on the population it governs. It matters not who passes the mandate. Trump or Obama.
> 
> Being a part of the LGBT community now, I can tell that the majority of the community do not want to force itself onto society, we just want equal treatment under law. But what is there to gain from our equal status in society if it comes by trampling the rights of others? If my rights come at the cost of other's rights, I don't want them.
> 
> Tell me, how is that fair? My grandmother is a devout Christian. She also knows I'm gay as well, as she was the one I came out to first. But I will not force her to change her beliefs to accept me. That is wrong. _Just as wrong_ as someone trying to change me because of my sexual affiliation.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your stance.

Government should never have been involved in marriage as it is a religious institution. Contracts on the otherhand are for all so it should be a civil contract and the same for all couples wanting their marriage to be registered with the state.


----------



## Dragonlady

easyt65 said:


> That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!
> 
> _"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."_
> 
> "_The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."
> 
> Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance."_
> 
> 
> 
> _"Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss," he wrote. "In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals."_
> 
> Just because you have a deep RELIGIOUS conviction regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and does not include same-sex marriages does *NOT *make one a Bigot or Homophobe and protects that religious belief / conviction.
> 
> _Thomas added: "This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as 'disparag[ing]' homosexuals and 'diminish[ing] their personhood' through '[d]ignitary wounds.'"_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case
> 
> 
> The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _




You get dumber every day Easy.  The Supreme Court, ruled on a 7-2 basis, that Kim Davis has no legal right to refuse to give marriage licences to gay people and that Davis cannot try to impose her religious beliefs on people in the State where she lives, or anywhere else, and the Court recently ruled overwhelming in favour of gay rights. 

Thomas and Alito's dissent reads like right wing bullshit, not well considered law.


----------



## rightwinger

TemplarKormac said:


> And? If it isn't mandated in the Constitution, it shouldn't be mandated on the population it governs



You have obviously never read the Constitution.

It provides broad guidance and is intentionally vague. 
There is no way for it to cover all contingencies


----------



## Lysistrata

The Constitution provides for equal protection of the law for all.



easyt65 said:


> "Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."



Nowhere in this statement did Thomas and Alito address how the liberty of all persons is to be _balanced _against the "liberty" of those persons in the population who do not believe in same-sex marriage. They are implying that the rights of these people are more important than, and must be given precedence over, the rights of others, of all sexual orientations, who do not hold this belief and who are entitled under the U.S. Constitution to equal protection of the law.

The _Obergefell _decision addressed only the right to contract a marriage under _civil_ law. It is certain that people who enter into same-sex marriages do not have a religious belief against it. Moreover, people of every religion have the right to enter a marriage according to the requirements of their respective faiths and undergo their faith's marriage rites and to choose whom to marry.

Someone should make Thomas and Alito aware that the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion.

Of course, there are further issues in this case of a public employee's right to refuse to perform the duties of his/her job.


----------



## Indeependent

rightwinger said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? If it isn't mandated in the Constitution, it shouldn't be mandated on the population it governs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have obviously never read the Constitution.
> 
> It provides broad guidance and is intentionally vague.
> There is no way for it to cover all contingencies
Click to expand...

I was wondering why there are 50,00,000 interpretations of every letter in the USC.
We should simply give you a call.


----------



## Natural Citizen

There are no such things as gay rights. There are only Individual rights. Incidentally, Individuals have the natural right of freedom of association. Why on Earth two Individuals would want to give the state jurisdiction over their relationship via "license' baffles me. By asking permssion from the state for a license to marry basically just means that you feel that you aren't capable of running a household and a family, so you're giving them authority over your family unit. You're basically asking them for permission and then because you're asking permission by way of applying for license, you're saying that you aren't capable of marriage without government supervision.


----------



## Seawytch

easyt65 said:


> That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!
> 
> _"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."_
> 
> "_The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."
> 
> Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance."_
> 
> 
> 
> _"Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss," he wrote. "In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals."_
> 
> Just because you have a deep RELIGIOUS conviction regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and does not include same-sex marriages does *NOT *make one a Bigot or Homophobe and protects that religious belief / conviction.
> 
> _Thomas added: "This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as 'disparag[ing]' homosexuals and 'diminish[ing] their personhood' through '[d]ignitary wounds.'"_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case
> 
> 
> The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _


Is it a slow news day or something? This is settled law, get over it.


----------



## Natural Citizen

Statism is a really, really repulsive religion.


----------



## 22lcidw

rightwinger said:


> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a lot of stuff not explicitly in the Constitution. Women’s rights, a standing Army, Space Force...
> 
> Same Sex Marriage is here to stay
Click to expand...

in your zest you are not paying attention to things. Traditional marriage has taken a beating. Still the cheapest way to raise kids with a higher percentage ending up civil.  Things stay until there are no more resources. Then people get blamed. Read about it. Right now....for supporting a Repub you get fired from jobs. You shamed, demeaned attacked and more. The last chapter of the Bible calls it "Buy and Sell"....... Pay attention to it.  It means that humans are to the point that someone is getting ph uked over. The past is full of it.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

This shit is not the hill to die on.  

I join Austin Petersen in the ideal scenario:

_"Gay married couple defends marijuana farm with machine guns."_

I can think of no better way to describe individual liberty.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lysistrata said:


> Nowhere in this statement did Thomas and Alito address how the liberty of all persons is to be _balanced _against the "liberty" of those persons in the population who do not believe in same-sex marriage. They are implying that the rights of these people are more important than, and must be given precedence over, the rights of others, of all sexual orientations, who do not hold this belief and who are entitled under the U.S. Constitution to equal protection of the law.
> 
> The _Obergefell _decision addressed only the right to contract a marriage under _civil_ law. It is certain that people who enter into same-sex marriages do not have a religious belief against it. Moreover, people of every religion have the right to enter a marriage according to the requirements of their respective faiths and undergo their faith's marriage rites and to choose whom to marry.
> 
> Someone should make Thomas and Alito aware that the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion.
> 
> Of course, there are further issues in this case of a public employee's right to refuse to perform the duties of his/her job.



To be totally honest, what they should have ruled is government needs to get out of marriage.  Let the religions have their own marriage along with their own criteria and if they want to marry a gay couple, then it's up to them, not the government. 

So what does equal protection under the law have to do with this?  Government benefits.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Ray From Cleveland said:


> To be totally honest, what they should have ruled is government needs to get out of marriage.


Fucking......THIS!!!  Exactly!!!


----------



## rightwinger

Indeependent said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? If it isn't mandated in the Constitution, it shouldn't be mandated on the population it governs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have obviously never read the Constitution.
> 
> It provides broad guidance and is intentionally vague.
> There is no way for it to cover all contingencies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was wondering why there are 50,00,000 interpretations of every letter in the USC.
> We should simply give you a call.
Click to expand...

Read it
There is not a lot of detailed direction in just four pages


----------



## Indeependent

rightwinger said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? If it isn't mandated in the Constitution, it shouldn't be mandated on the population it governs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have obviously never read the Constitution.
> 
> It provides broad guidance and is intentionally vague.
> There is no way for it to cover all contingencies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was wondering why there are 50,00,000 interpretations of every letter in the USC.
> We should simply give you a call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read it
> There is not a lot of detailed direction in just four pages
Click to expand...

That's why *our *opinions don't matter.


----------



## initforme

How does same sex marriage threaten my traditional marriage?   Answer?  It doesn't.  I have no issues with it and I'm a lifelong Christian.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Andylusion said:


> The whole idea that the Supreme Court even has the authority to determine what the law is, is questionable to me. Where in the Constitutional does the court get to decide what the law is?



I guess when they feel a law is unconstitutional.  But let's take that a step further:  If states are prohibited by law from discriminating against gay marriage, then they can't discriminate if brother and sister get married, father and daughter.  Hell in this day and age, father and son. 

It hasn't happened yet but I'm sure it will down the road.  Then how are the courts going to rule?


----------



## TemplarKormac

rightwinger said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? If it isn't mandated in the Constitution, it shouldn't be mandated on the population it governs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have obviously never read the Constitution.
> 
> It provides broad guidance and is intentionally vague.
> There is no way for it to cover all contingencies
Click to expand...


So, you interpret the "vaguery" to mean giving and taking rights as you see fit?

No. Nowhere in the founding documents of our nation did the founders say we could interpret the Constitution outside of its bounds. The Constitution was meant to preserve rights, not to be used as a method of taking them away from one group or another. If you cannot interpret and/or enact law within its confines, the interpretation and the law you enacted are baseless.


----------



## Lysistrata

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in this statement did Thomas and Alito address how the liberty of all persons is to be _balanced _against the "liberty" of those persons in the population who do not believe in same-sex marriage. They are implying that the rights of these people are more important than, and must be given precedence over, the rights of others, of all sexual orientations, who do not hold this belief and who are entitled under the U.S. Constitution to equal protection of the law.
> 
> The _Obergefell _decision addressed only the right to contract a marriage under _civil_ law. It is certain that people who enter into same-sex marriages do not have a religious belief against it. Moreover, people of every religion have the right to enter a marriage according to the requirements of their respective faiths and undergo their faith's marriage rites and to choose whom to marry.
> 
> Someone should make Thomas and Alito aware that the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion.
> 
> Of course, there are further issues in this case of a public employee's right to refuse to perform the duties of his/her job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be totally honest, what they should have ruled is government needs to get out of marriage.  Let the religions have their own marriage along with their own criteria and if they want to marry a gay couple, then it's up to them, not the government.
> 
> So what does equal protection under the law have to do with this?  Government benefits.
Click to expand...


You and Natural Citizen are arguing against contracting a marriage under civil law. But legal marriage involves not only government benefits, but also inheritance rights, the right to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapable spouse, tax treatment, court testimony in criminal cases, the rights of military spouses, and I'm sure there is more. These matters have nothing to do with religion, but your proposal would create the massive chaos of government having to figure out how to administer these rights with respect to each and every religion and each and every individual. Moreover, there are plenty of people who don't have a religion. What are they supposed to do?

Your proposal would require a massive re-write of many laws and regulations. It's absurd. 

And all because of some people who are upset about whom some stranger marries. Idiotic.


----------



## TemplarKormac

rightwinger said:


> You have obviously never read the Constitution.



Actually, I have several books and commentaries on the  Constitution. Odds are, I'm more versed in it than you are.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Lysistrata said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in this statement did Thomas and Alito address how the liberty of all persons is to be _balanced _against the "liberty" of those persons in the population who do not believe in same-sex marriage. They are implying that the rights of these people are more important than, and must be given precedence over, the rights of others, of all sexual orientations, who do not hold this belief and who are entitled under the U.S. Constitution to equal protection of the law.
> 
> The _Obergefell _decision addressed only the right to contract a marriage under _civil_ law. It is certain that people who enter into same-sex marriages do not have a religious belief against it. Moreover, people of every religion have the right to enter a marriage according to the requirements of their respective faiths and undergo their faith's marriage rites and to choose whom to marry.
> 
> Someone should make Thomas and Alito aware that the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion.
> 
> Of course, there are further issues in this case of a public employee's right to refuse to perform the duties of his/her job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be totally honest, what they should have ruled is government needs to get out of marriage.  Let the religions have their own marriage along with their own criteria and if they want to marry a gay couple, then it's up to them, not the government.
> 
> So what does equal protection under the law have to do with this?  Government benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and Natural Citizen are arguing against contracting a marriage under civil law. But legal marriage involves not only government benefits, but also inheritance rights, the right to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapable spouse, tax treatment, court testimony in criminal cases, the rights of military spouses, and I'm sure there is more. These matters have nothing to do with religion, but your proposal would create the massive chaos of government having to figure out how to administer these rights with respect to each and every religion and each and every individual. Moreover, there are plenty of people who don't have a religion. What are they supposed to do?
> 
> Your proposal would require a massive re-write of many laws and regulations. It's absurd.
> 
> And all because of some people who are upset about whom some stranger marries. Idiotic.
Click to expand...


Equality under the law means gaining the benefits, as well as suffering the liabilities of said law. Either treat everyone equally under the law or rewrite the law. Which would you prefer? We've already seen what rewriting the law does.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Seawytch said:


> This is settled law, get over it.



It's settled law until it isn't.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Lysistrata said:


> You and Natural Citizen are arguing against contracting a marriage under civil law. But legal marriage involves not only government benefits, but also inheritance rights, the right to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapable spouse, tax treatment, court testimony in criminal cases, the rights of military spouses, and I'm sure there is more. These matters have nothing to do with religion, but your proposal would create the massive chaos of government having to figure out how to administer these rights with respect to each and every religion and each and every individual. Moreover, there are plenty of people who don't have a religion. What are they supposed to do?
> 
> Your proposal would require a massive re-write of many laws and regulations. It's absurd.
> 
> And all because of some people who are upset about whom some stranger marries. Idiotic.



You just made my point for me.  Yes, it's because of all the government goodies, stupid laws and tax benefits to being married.  Marriage is not a necessity.  I've never been married in my life and never will be.  

When this came up during the GW administration, many states put SSM on the ballot.  In almost all states, it was voted down.  Then the lower liberal courts started to get involved and said to hell with the will of the people.  We know you voted against it, but we don't care.  We're overturning your vote. 

After that of course it went to a national level from there.  

But as I stated earlier, if government benefits are the deciding factor in all this, what's wrong with father marrying daughter?  What about mother marrying son?  First cousins (yes, I know it's legal in several states already) do you see where I'm going with this?  

The solution to this problem is to get government totally out of it.  Everybody treated the same.  If you want to get married, find a religion willing to marry you.  If our federal government has to make changes, then make them.  It's not like these people are terribly overworked.


----------



## Seawytch

TemplarKormac said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is settled law, get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's settled law until it isn't.
Click to expand...

It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Seawytch said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is settled law, get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's settled law until it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.
Click to expand...


You're being naive if you think law is _ever_ settled. Bans against gay marriage were "settled law" until they were overturned in SCOTUS by those two same rulings.


----------



## martybegan

easyt65 said:


> That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!
> 
> _"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."_
> 
> "_The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."
> 
> Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance."_
> 
> 
> 
> _"Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss," he wrote. "In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals."_
> 
> Just because you have a deep RELIGIOUS conviction regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and does not include same-sex marriages does *NOT *make one a Bigot or Homophobe and protects that religious belief / conviction.
> 
> _Thomas added: "This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as 'disparag[ing]' homosexuals and 'diminish[ing] their personhood' through '[d]ignitary wounds.'"_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case
> 
> 
> The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _



Actually the issue with Obergfell is that all States are forced to ISSUE same sex marriage licenses. 

To me the better choice would be to force States to accept valid marriage licenses issued by other States as they have to do now and before Obergfell.


----------



## martybegan

Seawytch said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is settled law, get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's settled law until it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.
Click to expand...


Separate but Equal was "settled law" for decades until overturned.


----------



## easyt65

martybegan said:


> Actually the issue with Obergfell is that all States are forced to ISSUE same sex marriage licenses.
> 
> To me the better choice would be to force States to accept valid marriage licenses issued by other States as they have to do now and before Obergfell.


Why would anyone want to force some other state's decision on someone. If someone in a state wants something they will vote for it in their own state. What is it with Liberals trying to force someone else's choices on people?


----------



## martybegan

easyt65 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the issue with Obergfell is that all States are forced to ISSUE same sex marriage licenses.
> 
> To me the better choice would be to force States to accept valid marriage licenses issued by other States as they have to do now and before Obergfell.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone want to force some other state's decision on someone. If someone in a state wants something they will vote for it in their own state. What is it with Liberals trying to force someone else's choices on people?
Click to expand...


Because our system works on States accepting the documents of other States as binding. It's why your Driver's license works all over, why you don't need a new birth certificate every time you move, and why you don't need to be re-married every time you move from State to State. 

To me Obergfell should have allowed States the choice to issue SSM licenses or not, but the State governments would have had to accept SSM licenses from other States as valid, just as they accept marriage licenses from other States that don't meet their other requirements (age of consent, blood tests, level of cousin you can marry legally, etc)


----------



## easyt65

The easier / easiest - IMO - thing to do is remove the religious connotation by not using the word 'marriage'. 

Pass a law that states anyone who would like to receive state/federal benefits and rights currently afforded to traditional married couples just needs to pay for a govt license, have an officially-licensed official oversee some event, and afterwards submit the necessary signed paperwork. 

It' snot really God's blessing LGBT couples want but rather the same local/state/federal govt legal status and benefits traditional married couples want.


----------



## martybegan

easyt65 said:


> The easier / easiest - IMO - thing to do is remove the religious connotation by not using the word 'marriage'.
> 
> Pass a law that states anyone who would like to receive state/federal benefits and rights currently afforded to traditional married couples just needs to pay for a govt license, have an officially-licensed official oversee some event, and afterwards submit the necessary signed paperwork.
> 
> It' snot really God's blessing LGBT couples want but rather the same local/state/federal govt legal status and benefits traditional married couples want.



Most of them want the word and social acceptance that comes with it as well. When offered civil unions the activists didn't want that, they wanted marriage.


----------



## easyt65

martybegan said:


> Most of them want the word and social acceptance that comes with it as well. When offered civil unions the activists didn't want that, they wanted marriage.



Agreed, they wanted to 'ram it up their asses' & 'FORCE' them to accept their relationships / bonding as equal. Even if the USSC ruled everyone MUST consider the relationships/bonds you can not TRULY force people in their hearts / religious beliefs to accept them as 'equal'.  People of true religious conviction will never truly accept homosexual marriages as 'a union blessed by God'. They would accept the relationship as one viewed by the government as legally, lawfully equal, giving them the same LEGAL benefits as traditional marriage couples. 

IMHO...


----------



## Meathead

Dragonlady said:


> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!
> 
> _"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."_
> 
> "_The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."
> 
> Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance."_
> 
> 
> 
> _"Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss," he wrote. "In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals."_
> 
> Just because you have a deep RELIGIOUS conviction regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and does not include same-sex marriages does *NOT *make one a Bigot or Homophobe and protects that religious belief / conviction.
> 
> _Thomas added: "This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as 'disparag[ing]' homosexuals and 'diminish[ing] their personhood' through '[d]ignitary wounds.'"_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case
> 
> 
> The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get dumber every day Easy.  The Supreme Court, ruled on a 7-2 basis, that Kim Davis has no legal right to refuse to give marriage licences to gay people and that Davis cannot try to impose her religious beliefs on people in the State where she lives, or anywhere else, and the Court recently ruled overwhelming in favour of gay rights.
> 
> Thomas and Alito's dissent reads like right wing bullshit, not well considered law.
Click to expand...

New day, and will be a new court. Ha ha


----------



## martybegan

easyt65 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of them want the word and social acceptance that comes with it as well. When offered civil unions the activists didn't want that, they wanted marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, they wanted to 'ram it up their asses' & 'FORCE' them to accept their relationships / bonding as equal. Even if the USSC ruled everyone MUST consider the relationships/bonds you can not TRULY force people in their hearts / religious beliefs to accept them as 'equal'.  People of true religious conviction will never truly accept homosexual marriages as 'a union blessed by God'. They would accept the relationship as one viewed by the government as legally, lawfully equal, giving them the same LEGAL benefits as traditional marriage couples.
> 
> IMHO...
Click to expand...


And that's your opinion. Me personally, my libertarian (small l) leanings doesn't get involved in the moral aspect with regards to sexuality, only in the aspect of constitutionality (framer's intent, and amendment intent) and in the morality of using government to force your views on others.


----------



## Dragonlady

Meathead said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!
> 
> _"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."_
> 
> "_The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."
> 
> Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance."_
> 
> 
> 
> _"Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss," he wrote. "In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals."_
> 
> Just because you have a deep RELIGIOUS conviction regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and does not include same-sex marriages does *NOT *make one a Bigot or Homophobe and protects that religious belief / conviction.
> 
> _Thomas added: "This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as 'disparag[ing]' homosexuals and 'diminish[ing] their personhood' through '[d]ignitary wounds.'"_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case
> 
> 
> The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get dumber every day Easy.  The Supreme Court, ruled on a 7-2 basis, that Kim Davis has no legal right to refuse to give marriage licences to gay people and that Davis cannot try to impose her religious beliefs on people in the State where she lives, or anywhere else, and the Court recently ruled overwhelming in favour of gay rights.
> 
> Thomas and Alito's dissent reads like right wing bullshit, not well considered law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> New day, and will be a new court. Ha ha
Click to expand...


I was a couple of months ago, and there's only been one change to the Court.  Justice Ginsberg is gone.  

With Republicans Senators dropping like flies from Covid, and Moscow Mitch having no virtual voting, I don't think this is going to going down like you think it will.  At this point, with two members of the Judiciary Committee sick with covid and unable to vote, Mitch may have problems getting the nomination out of committee.

Murkowski and Collins have said they will not vote to confirm prior to the election, so with the 3 Senators who are ill, there may not be enough votes on the floor of the Senate to get her confirmed.  McConnell can't even pass a Resolution for virtual voting before the confirmation hearings, because so many Republican Senators are sick and in quarantine, that he doesn't have enough live votes left to pass the Resolution.  

It was stupid of Trump to try to confirm her before the election.  But everything Trump does is shortsighted and stupid.  7 bankruptcies and billions of business losses.  Not a lot of good decision making involved is an understatement.  He could have told voters vote for him to ensure a conservative court, but instead he want's to go "ta da".  Vote for me because I did it.

By trying to get her confirmed BEFORE the election, Trump loses those voters who have been holding their noses and voting for him because of the courts.  McConnell and Trump have been bragging that all federal courts nominations have now been filled with good conservatives, and the courts are safely packed.  OK the courts are done so we don't have to for these jackasses any more.


----------



## Meathead

Dragonlady said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!
> 
> _"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."_
> 
> "_The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."
> 
> Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance."_
> 
> 
> 
> _"Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss," he wrote. "In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals."_
> 
> Just because you have a deep RELIGIOUS conviction regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and does not include same-sex marriages does *NOT *make one a Bigot or Homophobe and protects that religious belief / conviction.
> 
> _Thomas added: "This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as 'disparag[ing]' homosexuals and 'diminish[ing] their personhood' through '[d]ignitary wounds.'"_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case
> 
> 
> The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get dumber every day Easy.  The Supreme Court, ruled on a 7-2 basis, that Kim Davis has no legal right to refuse to give marriage licences to gay people and that Davis cannot try to impose her religious beliefs on people in the State where she lives, or anywhere else, and the Court recently ruled overwhelming in favour of gay rights.
> 
> Thomas and Alito's dissent reads like right wing bullshit, not well considered law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> New day, and will be a new court. Ha ha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was a couple of months ago, and there's only been one change to the Court.  Justice Ginsberg is gone.
> 
> With Republicans Senators dropping like flies from Covid, and Moscow Mitch having no virtual voting, I don't think this is going to going down like you think it will.  At this point, with two members of the Judiciary Committee sick with covid and unable to vote, Mitch may have problems getting the nomination out of committee.
> 
> Murkowski and Collins have said they will not vote to confirm prior to the election, so with the 3 Senators who are ill, there may not be enough votes on the floor of the Senate to get her confirmed.  McConnell can't even pass a Resolution for virtual voting before the confirmation hearings, because so many Republican Senators are sick and in quarantine, that he doesn't have enough live votes left to pass the Resolution.
> 
> It was stupid of Trump to try to confirm her before the election.  But everything Trump does is shortsighted and stupid.  7 bankruptcies and billions of business losses.  Not a lot of good decision making involved is an understatement.  He could have told voters vote for him to ensure a conservative court, but instead he want's to go "ta da".  Vote for me because I did it.
> 
> By trying to get her confirmed BEFORE the election, Trump loses those voters who have been holding their noses and voting for him because of the courts.  McConnell and Trump have been bragging that all federal courts nominations have now been filled with good conservatives, and the courts are safely packed.  OK the courts are done so we don't have to for these jackasses any more.
Click to expand...

It's a done deal. No amount of wishful thinking is going to change that. Even when Roberts swings, it will be a 5-4 court for the good guys. HA HA!


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

martybegan said:


> Most of them want the word and social acceptance that comes with it as well. When offered civil unions the activists didn't want that, they wanted marriage.



Yep, you hit the nail right on the head.  Like any group of people, gays have a percentage that just can't accept rejection.  I believe these were the types that led the fight.  In their minds, if they force society to accept their marriages, then their lifestyles will also be accepted.  It doesn't work that way.


----------



## Seawytch

TemplarKormac said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is settled law, get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's settled law until it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being naive if you think law is _ever_ settled. Bans against gay marriage were "settled law" until they were overturned in SCOTUS by those two same rulings.
Click to expand...

It was a 7-2 decision. Over 300,000 couples have been married. Gay marriage isn’t being reversed.


----------



## Seawytch

martybegan said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is settled law, get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's settled law until it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Separate but Equal was "settled law" for decades until overturned.
Click to expand...

That was an injustice. This is not. Your fever dream ain’t gonna happen. This IS done and won’t be undone.


----------



## Seawytch

Ray From Cleveland said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of them want the word and social acceptance that comes with it as well. When offered civil unions the activists didn't want that, they wanted marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you hit the nail right on the head.  Like any group of people, gays have a percentage that just can't accept rejection.  I believe these were the types that led the fight.  In their minds, if they force society to accept their marriages, then their lifestyles will also be accepted.  It doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...










						U.S. Support for Same-Sex Marriage Matches Record High
					

Two in three Americans (67%) say marriages between same-sex couples should be legally recognized, matching the previous high Gallup measured in 2018.




					news.gallup.com
				




I guarantee you gay marriage is more popular than a Trump supporter.


----------



## Seawytch

easyt65 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of them want the word and social acceptance that comes with it as well. When offered civil unions the activists didn't want that, they wanted marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, they wanted to 'ram it up their asses' & 'FORCE' them to accept their relationships / bonding as equal. Even if the USSC ruled everyone MUST consider the relationships/bonds you can not TRULY force people in their hearts / religious beliefs to accept them as 'equal'.  People of true religious conviction will never truly accept homosexual marriages as 'a union blessed by God'. They would accept the relationship as one viewed by the government as legally, lawfully equal, giving them the same LEGAL benefits as traditional marriage couples.
> 
> IMHO...
Click to expand...

We really don’t care about you or your hearts. We care that we are equal legally.


----------



## Meathead

Seawytch said:


> It was a 7-2 decision. Over 300,000 couples have been married. Gay marriage isn’t being reversed.


No, it was a 5-4 decision. We will have three more Trump-appointed SCOTUS members, two of them rep;acing Kennedy and Ginsburg who voted with the majority.

I am not against gay marriage, but you're wrong.






						Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Dragonlady

easyt65 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of them want the word and social acceptance that comes with it as well. When offered civil unions the activists didn't want that, they wanted marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, they wanted to 'ram it up their asses' & 'FORCE' them to accept their relationships / bonding as equal. Even if the USSC ruled everyone MUST consider the relationships/bonds you can not TRULY force people in their hearts / religious beliefs to accept them as 'equal'.  People of true religious conviction will never truly accept homosexual marriages as 'a union blessed by God'. They would accept the relationship as one viewed by the government as legally, lawfully equal, giving them the same LEGAL benefits as traditional marriage couples.
> 
> IMHO...
Click to expand...


Marriage isn't a union "blessed by God".  Marriage is a civil contract, blessed by the state, conferring certain rights and obligations upon the participants, all of which can be enforced by a court of laws, in any state in the nation.  

Gays don't want "civil contracts" because they don't offer anywhere near the rights or protections of marriage.  Civil contracts are state, not federal contracts.  None of the protections of provide in federal marriage laws, are offered in "civil unions".  Even worse, the relationship isn't recognized outside of the state which granted the status.  If a person wants to avoid the financial obligations to my civil partner in Ohio, they can simply move to New York where the contract is unenforceable.

But the biggest reason why the gays needed to RAM IT DOWN YOUR THROAT, is because of sickness and death and medical care, property and family rights.  It was not uncommon when a gay partner became ill and incapacitated, for the parents of gay people to swoop in and assert their "next of kin" status, and take over the care of the gay child, banning their partner from the hospital.  The gay partner is the one who knows their spouse, their wishes, what they need, not the homophobic family.  There have been instances when children are involved where the grandparents take their grandchildren away from their suviving parent, and destroy the family.

This became a HUGE issue during the AIDS pandemic, where the patients were often young men in their 20's and 30's, and families were hateful to the partners because they blamed the lifestyle for the death of their sons.  Before gay marriage, if gays adopted, one partner's name was on the papers, not both.  The surviving partners had to fight for custody or even access of their children.  Similary, with lesbian couples, the birth mother had rights, but not the partner.

This is gay marriage advocates will never settle for a "civil union" and demand the full on protections of a legal "marriage".  And as a one half of a straight couple, I can honestly say that that the fact that gays are allowed to marry has had absolutely no impact on me, the members of our church or anyone else.  So the idea that gay marriage has any impact on the lives of those who believe it's wrong, would be a flat out lie.  Those in the marriage services business who refuse to provide services to a gay couple who are not getting married in their home church, is no infringement on their right to worship as they see fit.

As a divorced woman, there were any number of churches where I could not get married for the second time.  So Churches are being forced to marry people they don't believe should marry.  I got remarried in the Presbyterian Church.  Kim Davis, the woman who wouldn't issue a marriage license to gays, had been married 5 times.  Hardly a model citizen for making good decisions in her life.  

Also, her Christian Church, doesn't allow divorce, and considers remarriage "adultery".  Does the 5 times married Mrs. Davis also refuse to issue marriage licenses on "religious grounds" to divorced couples?  Because if she does, her religious argument goes right out the window.

If any of these "Christian bakers", and deeply religious types are providing marriage licenses and wedding services to other sinners - adulterers, blasphemers, liars or thieves, or other sins named in the 10 Commandments, then their claim that their "religious freedom is being compromised", is bullshit.  This is simply homophobia and hate hiding behind the 1st Amendment, and claiming religious freedom to continue to violate Jesus' first law - do unto others as you would have them do unto you.


----------



## Nosmo King

Oddball said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole idea that the Supreme Court even has the authority to determine what the law is, is questionable to me.  Where in the Constitutional does the court get to decide what the law is?
> 
> 
> 
> They seized that authority in Marbury v. Madison, and the congress was too cowardly to abolish them.
Click to expand...

So SOME judicial activism is okay, but not ALL judicial activism.

Conservative principles are a chameleon on plaid.


----------



## Dragonlady

Meathead said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a 7-2 decision. Over 300,000 couples have been married. Gay marriage isn’t being reversed.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was a 5-4 decision. We will have three more Trump-appointed SCOTUS members, two of them rep;acing Kennedy and Ginsburg who voted with the majority.
> 
> I am not against gay marriage, but you're wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...


Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court decided that employers and landlords could not discriminate against gay couples.  Nothing has changed.  The Constitution hasn't changed.  Kavenaugh voted for that one.  Just because the judges are conservative, doesn't mean that they won't follow the Constitution.  

There is absolutely no legal reason to uphold the notion that gays should not be allowed to marry.  And such laws have no impact on the religious right.  They don't even have standing in the matter.  It has no impact on them at all.


----------



## Meathead

Dragonlady said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a 7-2 decision. Over 300,000 couples have been married. Gay marriage isn’t being reversed.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was a 5-4 decision. We will have three more Trump-appointed SCOTUS members, two of them rep;acing Kennedy and Ginsburg who voted with the majority.
> 
> I am not against gay marriage, but you're wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court decided that employers and landlords could not discriminate against gay couples.  Nothing has changed.  The Constitution hasn't changed.  Kavenaugh voted for that one.  Just because the judges are conservative, doesn't mean that they won't follow the Constitution.
> 
> There is absolutely no legal reason to uphold the notion that gays should not be allowed to marry.  And such laws have no impact on the religious right.  They don't even have standing in the matter.  It has no impact on them at all.
Click to expand...

It is the opinions of the justices that matter here, not yours. The court is undergoing radical change for the better. I do not share they gay guy's opinion and have the notion that your panties may get bunched up a lot in the coming years.


----------



## Invisibleflash

easyt65 said:


> That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!
> 
> _"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."_
> 
> "_The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."
> 
> Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance."_
> 
> 
> 
> _"Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss," he wrote. "In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals."_
> 
> Just because you have a deep RELIGIOUS conviction regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and does not include same-sex marriages does *NOT *make one a Bigot or Homophobe and protects that religious belief / conviction.
> 
> _Thomas added: "This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as 'disparag[ing]' homosexuals and 'diminish[ing] their personhood' through '[d]ignitary wounds.'"_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case
> 
> 
> The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _




Years ago this subject was brought up. The forum said that even if SCOTUS said to go queer, the states could run themselves and not be bound by a queer marriage ruling.

We can see how the forum's prediction worked out.

The gun forums say that states will run themselves for gun laws if a crazy SCOTUS outlaws guns. The same will happen with guns no doubt.

Personally I like queers and trans people...but only as an underground subculture. Once you make them normal and mainstream...standards go to hell. Once a man with a pee-pee is really a woman_...anything goes._


----------



## Dragonlady

Meathead said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a 7-2 decision. Over 300,000 couples have been married. Gay marriage isn’t being reversed.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was a 5-4 decision. We will have three more Trump-appointed SCOTUS members, two of them rep;acing Kennedy and Ginsburg who voted with the majority.
> 
> I am not against gay marriage, but you're wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court decided that employers and landlords could not discriminate against gay couples.  Nothing has changed.  The Constitution hasn't changed.  Kavenaugh voted for that one.  Just because the judges are conservative, doesn't mean that they won't follow the Constitution.
> 
> There is absolutely no legal reason to uphold the notion that gays should not be allowed to marry.  And such laws have no impact on the religious right.  They don't even have standing in the matter.  It has no impact on them at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is the opinions of the justices that matter here, not yours. The court is undergoing radical change for the better. I do not share they gay guy's opinion and have the notion that your panties may get bunched up a lot in the coming years.
Click to expand...


That still didn't stop the court from deciding that landlords and employers could not discriminate against gays, on the grounds of sexual orientation.  The judges never just sit down and say "Let's go through all of the old decisions and toss out the stuff we don't like".  

The Court has already ruled that gay marriage is constitutional.  It's Precedent now.  There has to be a really compelling reason for the courts to even revisit the ruling - a major harm that can only be remedied by reversing the Precedent.  There isn't even a case in the lower court pipeline to revisit that decision.  So it would take a least 3 years for a case to be filed, and to make it's way through the appeals court process to the Supreme, and then the SC has to agree to hear it.  

The ACA case that the Court is hearing this month has been in the pipeline every since the Republican Party failed to pass the President's health care plan - 3 years ago.  The only gay rights cases in the pipeline right now are the revisited version of whether or not the baker has to bake the cake.  Even if they find in favour of the baker, it doesn't have any effect on gay marriage.  Just whether nor not you can refuse to provide wedding services to gays, on religious grounds.  Those are the only kinds of gay issues the court is even looking at.

It is not me who is ignorant of how the courts and specifically the SC works.


----------



## Seawytch

Meathead said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a 7-2 decision. Over 300,000 couples have been married. Gay marriage isn’t being reversed.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was a 5-4 decision. We will have three more Trump-appointed SCOTUS members, two of them rep;acing Kennedy and Ginsburg who voted with the majority.
> 
> I am not against gay marriage, but you're wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...


The Davis ruling they were sniveling about was 7-2.


----------



## martybegan

Seawytch said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is settled law, get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's settled law until it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Separate but Equal was "settled law" for decades until overturned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was an injustice. This is not. Your fever dream ain’t gonna happen. This IS done and won’t be undone.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but "bake or die" is an injustice, you just don't see it because you support the oppressors. 

And when the constitution is litigated from the bench, it is maybe not an injustice, but it's short sighted and stupid.

And it's funny you had to add a qualifier to your position when called out.


----------



## Seawytch

martybegan said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is settled law, get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's settled law until it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Separate but Equal was "settled law" for decades until overturned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was an injustice. This is not. Your fever dream ain’t gonna happen. This IS done and won’t be undone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but "bake or die" is an injustice, you just don't see it because you support the oppressors.
> 
> And when the constitution is litigated from the bench, it is maybe not an injustice, but it's short sighted and stupid.
> 
> And it's funny you had to add a qualifier to your position when called out.
Click to expand...

Your "bake or die" hangup isn't on us. Take it up with Title II of the CRA. PA laws protecting gays are STATE laws, cupcake.


----------



## martybegan

Seawytch said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is settled law, get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's settled law until it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Separate but Equal was "settled law" for decades until overturned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was an injustice. This is not. Your fever dream ain’t gonna happen. This IS done and won’t be undone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but "bake or die" is an injustice, you just don't see it because you support the oppressors.
> 
> And when the constitution is litigated from the bench, it is maybe not an injustice, but it's short sighted and stupid.
> 
> And it's funny you had to add a qualifier to your position when called out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your "bake or die" hangup isn't on us. Take it up with Title II of the CRA. PA laws protecting gays are STATE laws, cupcake.
Click to expand...


PA laws cannot trump Free Exercise, even at the State level. 

Your "force people to accept us using the government bayonet" mindset is on you. 

You don't want tolerance, you want forced acceptance.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Seawytch said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is settled law, get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's settled law until it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being naive if you think law is _ever_ settled. Bans against gay marriage were "settled law" until they were overturned in SCOTUS by those two same rulings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a 7-2 decision. Over 300,000 couples have been married. Gay marriage isn’t being reversed.
Click to expand...


Ha. Then you know nothing about the tendencies of the Supreme Court.

On another note, I know you are gay as well as I, so do not attempt to speak for me. I want equality under the law, but not at the expense of other people's legal rights. 

We're not supposed to be conquering people, we should be getting them to accept us!


----------



## Seawytch

martybegan said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is settled law, get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's settled law until it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Separate but Equal was "settled law" for decades until overturned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was an injustice. This is not. Your fever dream ain’t gonna happen. This IS done and won’t be undone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but "bake or die" is an injustice, you just don't see it because you support the oppressors.
> 
> And when the constitution is litigated from the bench, it is maybe not an injustice, but it's short sighted and stupid.
> 
> And it's funny you had to add a qualifier to your position when called out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your "bake or die" hangup isn't on us. Take it up with Title II of the CRA. PA laws protecting gays are STATE laws, cupcake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws cannot trump Free Exercise, even at the State level.
> 
> Your "force people to accept us using the government bayonet" mindset is on you.
> 
> You don't want tolerance, you want forced acceptance.
Click to expand...

So far every court (and most people) disagree with you. Maybe you’ll get lucky the hundredth time around.


----------



## Seawytch

TemplarKormac said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is settled law, get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's settled law until it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being naive if you think law is _ever_ settled. Bans against gay marriage were "settled law" until they were overturned in SCOTUS by those two same rulings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a 7-2 decision. Over 300,000 couples have been married. Gay marriage isn’t being reversed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha. Then you know nothing about the tendencies of the Supreme Court.
> 
> On another note, I know you are gay as well as I, so do not attempt to speak for me. I want equality under the law, but not at the expense of other people's legal rights.
> 
> We're not supposed to be conquering people, we should be getting them to accept us!
Click to expand...

If you want equality under the law, then you should want to be protected by the same laws that protect other minorities.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Seawytch said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is settled law, get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's settled law until it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being naive if you think law is _ever_ settled. Bans against gay marriage were "settled law" until they were overturned in SCOTUS by those two same rulings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a 7-2 decision. Over 300,000 couples have been married. Gay marriage isn’t being reversed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha. Then you know nothing about the tendencies of the Supreme Court.
> 
> On another note, I know you are gay as well as I, so do not attempt to speak for me. I want equality under the law, but not at the expense of other people's legal rights.
> 
> We're not supposed to be conquering people, we should be getting them to accept us!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want equality under the law, then you should want to be protected by the same laws that protect other minorities.
Click to expand...


Interesting... I want the law to treat me as equally as everyone else. But I don't want the law to give me special treatment. That's the difference, Seawytch. You don't want equality, you want special treatment. Forcing people to accept you is not acceptance, it's subversion. 

You are entitled to nothing but equal treatment, not special treatment. That is something _you_ need to understand.


----------



## Seawytch

TemplarKormac said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is settled law, get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's settled law until it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being naive if you think law is _ever_ settled. Bans against gay marriage were "settled law" until they were overturned in SCOTUS by those two same rulings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a 7-2 decision. Over 300,000 couples have been married. Gay marriage isn’t being reversed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha. Then you know nothing about the tendencies of the Supreme Court.
> 
> On another note, I know you are gay as well as I, so do not attempt to speak for me. I want equality under the law, but not at the expense of other people's legal rights.
> 
> We're not supposed to be conquering people, we should be getting them to accept us!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want equality under the law, then you should want to be protected by the same laws that protect other minorities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting... I want the law to treat me as equally as everyone else. But I don't want the law to give me special treatment. That's the difference, Seawytch. You don't want equality, you want special treatment. Forcing people to accept you is not acceptance, it's subversion.
> 
> You are entitled to nothing but equal treatment, not special treatment. That is something _you_ need to understand.
Click to expand...

To be treated exactly like other minorities is equal. You want special treatment for gays if you want them to be able to be discriminated against where you cannot do the same for other minorities.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Seawytch said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is settled law, get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's settled law until it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being naive if you think law is _ever_ settled. Bans against gay marriage were "settled law" until they were overturned in SCOTUS by those two same rulings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a 7-2 decision. Over 300,000 couples have been married. Gay marriage isn’t being reversed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha. Then you know nothing about the tendencies of the Supreme Court.
> 
> On another note, I know you are gay as well as I, so do not attempt to speak for me. I want equality under the law, but not at the expense of other people's legal rights.
> 
> We're not supposed to be conquering people, we should be getting them to accept us!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want equality under the law, then you should want to be protected by the same laws that protect other minorities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting... I want the law to treat me as equally as everyone else. But I don't want the law to give me special treatment. That's the difference, Seawytch. You don't want equality, you want special treatment. Forcing people to accept you is not acceptance, it's subversion.
> 
> You are entitled to nothing but equal treatment, not special treatment. That is something _you_ need to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To be treated exactly like other minorities is equal. You want special treatment for gays if you want them to be able to be discriminated against where you cannot do the same for other minorities.
Click to expand...


No. Absolutely not.

You are totally missing the point. We are not minorities, we are equals among our peers. There should be no minority or majority. We want the same treatment as the majority; but by asking for special treatment, by classifying us as "minorities" you are thereby already committing the act of discrimination. We are not a niche population, *we are Americans like everyone else.*

To ask for equal treatment among minorities only is not equality. That is exclusion. You cannot see the forest for the trees. What you do is only corrupt our cause beyond its original purpose, you only drive people away, you aren't gaining their acceptance, _only their contempt_.

I will fight for LGBT rights insomuch as my rights do not come at the expense of the freedoms of others. Period, full stop.

I *will not* advocate for methods that suppress the freedoms of others.  *We do not do to others what they are already doing to us.*

Am I clear? We are already having our freedoms suppressed, what is there to gain by going on a revenge campaign? That's all I see the fight for LGBT rights by the mainstream community as.

I will sooner be damned than do something so spiteful and vile. We want tolerance but are unwilling to give it in return. Such puerile behavior.


----------



## martybegan

Seawytch said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is settled law, get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's settled law until it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Separate but Equal was "settled law" for decades until overturned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was an injustice. This is not. Your fever dream ain’t gonna happen. This IS done and won’t be undone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but "bake or die" is an injustice, you just don't see it because you support the oppressors.
> 
> And when the constitution is litigated from the bench, it is maybe not an injustice, but it's short sighted and stupid.
> 
> And it's funny you had to add a qualifier to your position when called out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your "bake or die" hangup isn't on us. Take it up with Title II of the CRA. PA laws protecting gays are STATE laws, cupcake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws cannot trump Free Exercise, even at the State level.
> 
> Your "force people to accept us using the government bayonet" mindset is on you.
> 
> You don't want tolerance, you want forced acceptance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So far every court (and most people) disagree with you. Maybe you’ll get lucky the hundredth time around.
Click to expand...


appeal to the masses isn't a response, it's a dodge.


----------



## Seawytch

TemplarKormac said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is settled law, get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's settled law until it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being naive if you think law is _ever_ settled. Bans against gay marriage were "settled law" until they were overturned in SCOTUS by those two same rulings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a 7-2 decision. Over 300,000 couples have been married. Gay marriage isn’t being reversed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha. Then you know nothing about the tendencies of the Supreme Court.
> 
> On another note, I know you are gay as well as I, so do not attempt to speak for me. I want equality under the law, but not at the expense of other people's legal rights.
> 
> We're not supposed to be conquering people, we should be getting them to accept us!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want equality under the law, then you should want to be protected by the same laws that protect other minorities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting... I want the law to treat me as equally as everyone else. But I don't want the law to give me special treatment. That's the difference, Seawytch. You don't want equality, you want special treatment. Forcing people to accept you is not acceptance, it's subversion.
> 
> You are entitled to nothing but equal treatment, not special treatment. That is something _you_ need to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To be treated exactly like other minorities is equal. You want special treatment for gays if you want them to be able to be discriminated against where you cannot do the same for other minorities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Absolutely not.
> 
> You are totally missing the point. We are not minorities, we are equals among our peers. There should be no minority or majority. We want the same treatment as the majority; but by asking for special treatment, by classifying us as "minorities" you are thereby already committing the act of discrimination. We are not a niche population, *we are Americans like everyone else.*
> 
> To ask for equal treatment among minorities only is not equality. That is exclusion. You cannot see the forest for the trees. What you do is only corrupt our cause beyond its original purpose, you only drive people away, you aren't gaining their acceptance, _only their contempt_.
> 
> I will fight for LGBT rights insomuch as my rights do not come at the expense of the freedoms of others. Period, full stop.
> 
> I *will not* advocate for methods that suppress the freedoms of others.  *We do not do to others what they are already doing to us.*
> 
> Am I clear? We are already having our freedoms suppressed, what is there to gain by going on a revenge campaign? That's all I see the fight for LGBT rights by the mainstream community as.
> 
> I will sooner be damned than do something so spiteful and vile. We want tolerance but are unwilling to give it in return. Such puerile behavior.
Click to expand...

What are you ranting about? It is simple. Title II of the FEDERAL Civil Rights Act is your “bake the damn cake” boogie man, not local and state laws. Either add gays, a historically oppressed minority, to the other historically oppressed minorities protected by it or get rid of PA protection for religion, race, gender, etc.


----------



## Seawytch

martybegan said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is settled law, get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's settled law until it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Separate but Equal was "settled law" for decades until overturned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was an injustice. This is not. Your fever dream ain’t gonna happen. This IS done and won’t be undone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but "bake or die" is an injustice, you just don't see it because you support the oppressors.
> 
> And when the constitution is litigated from the bench, it is maybe not an injustice, but it's short sighted and stupid.
> 
> And it's funny you had to add a qualifier to your position when called out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your "bake or die" hangup isn't on us. Take it up with Title II of the CRA. PA laws protecting gays are STATE laws, cupcake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws cannot trump Free Exercise, even at the State level.
> 
> Your "force people to accept us using the government bayonet" mindset is on you.
> 
> You don't want tolerance, you want forced acceptance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So far every court (and most people) disagree with you. Maybe you’ll get lucky the hundredth time around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> appeal to the masses isn't a response, it's a dodge.
Click to expand...

It’s a fact. Most Americans want gays protected alongside other minorities...and nobody has the balls to go after Title II of the CRA.


----------



## Faun

easyt65 said:


> That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!
> 
> _"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."_
> 
> "_The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."
> 
> Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance."_
> 
> 
> 
> _"Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss," he wrote. "In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals."_
> 
> Just because you have a deep RELIGIOUS conviction regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and does not include same-sex marriages does *NOT *make one a Bigot or Homophobe and protects that religious belief / conviction.
> 
> _Thomas added: "This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as 'disparag[ing]' homosexuals and 'diminish[ing] their personhood' through '[d]ignitary wounds.'"_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case
> 
> 
> The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _


_*"That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution"*_

Of course it is...

*Fourteenth Amendment*

_nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._​
Marriage is a state sanctioned legal contract. The state cannot say one person can marry the person they love but another person can't. Doing so was not applying the law equally. That's thd reason same sex marriage was deemed constitutional by our Supreme Court.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Seawytch said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is settled law, get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's settled law until it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being naive if you think law is _ever_ settled. Bans against gay marriage were "settled law" until they were overturned in SCOTUS by those two same rulings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a 7-2 decision. Over 300,000 couples have been married. Gay marriage isn’t being reversed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha. Then you know nothing about the tendencies of the Supreme Court.
> 
> On another note, I know you are gay as well as I, so do not attempt to speak for me. I want equality under the law, but not at the expense of other people's legal rights.
> 
> We're not supposed to be conquering people, we should be getting them to accept us!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want equality under the law, then you should want to be protected by the same laws that protect other minorities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting... I want the law to treat me as equally as everyone else. But I don't want the law to give me special treatment. That's the difference, Seawytch. You don't want equality, you want special treatment. Forcing people to accept you is not acceptance, it's subversion.
> 
> You are entitled to nothing but equal treatment, not special treatment. That is something _you_ need to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To be treated exactly like other minorities is equal. You want special treatment for gays if you want them to be able to be discriminated against where you cannot do the same for other minorities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Absolutely not.
> 
> You are totally missing the point. We are not minorities, we are equals among our peers. There should be no minority or majority. We want the same treatment as the majority; but by asking for special treatment, by classifying us as "minorities" you are thereby already committing the act of discrimination. We are not a niche population, *we are Americans like everyone else.*
> 
> To ask for equal treatment among minorities only is not equality. That is exclusion. You cannot see the forest for the trees. What you do is only corrupt our cause beyond its original purpose, you only drive people away, you aren't gaining their acceptance, _only their contempt_.
> 
> I will fight for LGBT rights insomuch as my rights do not come at the expense of the freedoms of others. Period, full stop.
> 
> I *will not* advocate for methods that suppress the freedoms of others.  *We do not do to others what they are already doing to us.*
> 
> Am I clear? We are already having our freedoms suppressed, what is there to gain by going on a revenge campaign? That's all I see the fight for LGBT rights by the mainstream community as.
> 
> I will sooner be damned than do something so spiteful and vile. We want tolerance but are unwilling to give it in return. Such puerile behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you ranting about? It is simple. Title II of the FEDERAL Civil Rights Act is your “bake the damn cake” boogie man, not local and state laws. Either add gays, a historically oppressed minority, to the other historically oppressed minorities protected by it or get rid of PA protection for religion, race, gender, etc.
Click to expand...


Your ignorance of the nuances of law is astounding. 

So Title II says we must circumvent the religious beliefs of someone rendering a service? Is that what you're getting at? 

No, you want protection for one, but not the other.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Faun said:


> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!
> 
> _"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."_
> 
> "_The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."
> 
> Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance."_
> 
> 
> 
> _"Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss," he wrote. "In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals."_
> 
> Just because you have a deep RELIGIOUS conviction regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and does not include same-sex marriages does *NOT *make one a Bigot or Homophobe and protects that religious belief / conviction.
> 
> _Thomas added: "This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as 'disparag[ing]' homosexuals and 'diminish[ing] their personhood' through '[d]ignitary wounds.'"_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case
> 
> 
> The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _*"That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution"*_
> 
> Of course it is...
> 
> *Fourteenth Amendment*​​_nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._​
> Marriage is a state sanctioned legal contract. The state cannot say one person can marry the person they love but another person can't. Doing so was not applying the law equally. That's thd reason same sex marriage was deemed constitutional by our Supreme Court.
Click to expand...


Interesting, Faun thinks he has superior legal knowledge as compared to the judge who offered that dissent, who spent years of his life studying the very law itself. 

You're funny.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Seawytch said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is settled law, get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's settled law until it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Separate but Equal was "settled law" for decades until overturned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was an injustice. This is not. Your fever dream ain’t gonna happen. This IS done and won’t be undone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but "bake or die" is an injustice, you just don't see it because you support the oppressors.
> 
> And when the constitution is litigated from the bench, it is maybe not an injustice, but it's short sighted and stupid.
> 
> And it's funny you had to add a qualifier to your position when called out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your "bake or die" hangup isn't on us. Take it up with Title II of the CRA. PA laws protecting gays are STATE laws, cupcake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws cannot trump Free Exercise, even at the State level.
> 
> Your "force people to accept us using the government bayonet" mindset is on you.
> 
> You don't want tolerance, you want forced acceptance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So far every court (and most people) disagree with you. Maybe you’ll get lucky the hundredth time around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> appeal to the masses isn't a response, it's a dodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a fact. Most Americans want gays protected alongside other minorities...and nobody has the balls to go after Title II of the CRA.
Click to expand...


Curious, what does that accomplish?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Seawytch said:


> What are you ranting about?



That question tells me you weren't interested in the content of my post. Do not speak to me until you read it. Or exit the conversation. 

I tire of people who want to debate with emotions instead of attacking the points and contentions of an argument with fact-based rebuttals.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Seawytch said:


> It is simple. Title II of the FEDERAL Civil Rights Act is your “bake the damn cake” boogie man



I make the contention the law isn't ethical to either party, not just minorities. And as I can see, you aren't concerned with the ethics in regards to the legal impact it has on people of faith. This is a suppression campaign in response to suppression. That is revenge. Nothing more.


----------



## martybegan

Seawytch said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is settled law, get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's settled law until it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Separate but Equal was "settled law" for decades until overturned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was an injustice. This is not. Your fever dream ain’t gonna happen. This IS done and won’t be undone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but "bake or die" is an injustice, you just don't see it because you support the oppressors.
> 
> And when the constitution is litigated from the bench, it is maybe not an injustice, but it's short sighted and stupid.
> 
> And it's funny you had to add a qualifier to your position when called out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your "bake or die" hangup isn't on us. Take it up with Title II of the CRA. PA laws protecting gays are STATE laws, cupcake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PA laws cannot trump Free Exercise, even at the State level.
> 
> Your "force people to accept us using the government bayonet" mindset is on you.
> 
> You don't want tolerance, you want forced acceptance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So far every court (and most people) disagree with you. Maybe you’ll get lucky the hundredth time around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> appeal to the masses isn't a response, it's a dodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a fact. Most Americans want gays protected alongside other minorities...and nobody has the balls to go after Title II of the CRA.
Click to expand...


Do most Americans agree a baker should be ruined if they don't want to provide one contracted service?

All those polls you would quote are worded in a way to get what the poll taker wants, and you know it.

And again with appeal to the masses instead of justifying why you get a chubby out of ruining people that you disagree with politically, you dried up old cow.


----------



## Faun

TemplarKormac said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in this statement did Thomas and Alito address how the liberty of all persons is to be _balanced _against the "liberty" of those persons in the population who do not believe in same-sex marriage. They are implying that the rights of these people are more important than, and must be given precedence over, the rights of others, of all sexual orientations, who do not hold this belief and who are entitled under the U.S. Constitution to equal protection of the law.
> 
> The _Obergefell _decision addressed only the right to contract a marriage under _civil_ law. It is certain that people who enter into same-sex marriages do not have a religious belief against it. Moreover, people of every religion have the right to enter a marriage according to the requirements of their respective faiths and undergo their faith's marriage rites and to choose whom to marry.
> 
> Someone should make Thomas and Alito aware that the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion.
> 
> Of course, there are further issues in this case of a public employee's right to refuse to perform the duties of his/her job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be totally honest, what they should have ruled is government needs to get out of marriage.  Let the religions have their own marriage along with their own criteria and if they want to marry a gay couple, then it's up to them, not the government.
> 
> So what does equal protection under the law have to do with this?  Government benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and Natural Citizen are arguing against contracting a marriage under civil law. But legal marriage involves not only government benefits, but also inheritance rights, the right to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapable spouse, tax treatment, court testimony in criminal cases, the rights of military spouses, and I'm sure there is more. These matters have nothing to do with religion, but your proposal would create the massive chaos of government having to figure out how to administer these rights with respect to each and every religion and each and every individual. Moreover, there are plenty of people who don't have a religion. What are they supposed to do?
> 
> Your proposal would require a massive re-write of many laws and regulations. It's absurd.
> 
> And all because of some people who are upset about whom some stranger marries. Idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equality under the law means gaining the benefits, as well as suffering the liabilities of said law. Either treat everyone equally under the law or rewrite the law. Which would you prefer? We've already seen what rewriting the law does.
Click to expand...

Great, so you agree to apply the law equally, a gay person has the same right to legally marry the person of their choice; just like a straight person?


----------



## Faun

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and Natural Citizen are arguing against contracting a marriage under civil law. But legal marriage involves not only government benefits, but also inheritance rights, the right to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapable spouse, tax treatment, court testimony in criminal cases, the rights of military spouses, and I'm sure there is more. These matters have nothing to do with religion, but your proposal would create the massive chaos of government having to figure out how to administer these rights with respect to each and every religion and each and every individual. Moreover, there are plenty of people who don't have a religion. What are they supposed to do?
> 
> Your proposal would require a massive re-write of many laws and regulations. It's absurd.
> 
> And all because of some people who are upset about whom some stranger marries. Idiotic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just made my point for me.  Yes, it's because of all the government goodies, stupid laws and tax benefits to being married.  Marriage is not a necessity.  I've never been married in my life and never will be.
> 
> When this came up during the GW administration, many states put SSM on the ballot.  In almost all states, it was voted down.  Then the lower liberal courts started to get involved and said to hell with the will of the people.  We know you voted against it, but we don't care.  We're overturning your vote.
> 
> After that of course it went to a national level from there.
> 
> But as I stated earlier, if government benefits are the deciding factor in all this, what's wrong with father marrying daughter?  What about mother marrying son?  First cousins (yes, I know it's legal in several states already) do you see where I'm going with this?
> 
> The solution to this problem is to get government totally out of it.  Everybody treated the same.  If you want to get married, find a religion willing to marry you.  If our federal government has to make changes, then make them.  It's not like these people are terribly overworked.
Click to expand...

Incestuous marriages are illegal because incest is illegal. Marriage for such folks is denied because marriage cannot make crimes legal. Whereas being gay is not criminal, so there is no compelling reason to deny a gay person access to laws available to straight people.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Faun said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in this statement did Thomas and Alito address how the liberty of all persons is to be _balanced _against the "liberty" of those persons in the population who do not believe in same-sex marriage. They are implying that the rights of these people are more important than, and must be given precedence over, the rights of others, of all sexual orientations, who do not hold this belief and who are entitled under the U.S. Constitution to equal protection of the law.
> 
> The _Obergefell _decision addressed only the right to contract a marriage under _civil_ law. It is certain that people who enter into same-sex marriages do not have a religious belief against it. Moreover, people of every religion have the right to enter a marriage according to the requirements of their respective faiths and undergo their faith's marriage rites and to choose whom to marry.
> 
> Someone should make Thomas and Alito aware that the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion.
> 
> Of course, there are further issues in this case of a public employee's right to refuse to perform the duties of his/her job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be totally honest, what they should have ruled is government needs to get out of marriage.  Let the religions have their own marriage along with their own criteria and if they want to marry a gay couple, then it's up to them, not the government.
> 
> So what does equal protection under the law have to do with this?  Government benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and Natural Citizen are arguing against contracting a marriage under civil law. But legal marriage involves not only government benefits, but also inheritance rights, the right to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapable spouse, tax treatment, court testimony in criminal cases, the rights of military spouses, and I'm sure there is more. These matters have nothing to do with religion, but your proposal would create the massive chaos of government having to figure out how to administer these rights with respect to each and every religion and each and every individual. Moreover, there are plenty of people who don't have a religion. What are they supposed to do?
> 
> Your proposal would require a massive re-write of many laws and regulations. It's absurd.
> 
> And all because of some people who are upset about whom some stranger marries. Idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equality under the law means gaining the benefits, as well as suffering the liabilities of said law. Either treat everyone equally under the law or rewrite the law. Which would you prefer? We've already seen what rewriting the law does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, so you agree to apply the law equally, a gay person has the same right to legally marry the person of their choice; just like a straight person?
Click to expand...


Did I just not get through saying I was gay? I want the law to benefit both sides, not one. Neither side should be put at a disadvantage. 

You want equal treatment? The do it, damn it.


----------



## Faun

TemplarKormac said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!
> 
> _"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."_
> 
> "_The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."
> 
> Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance."_
> 
> 
> 
> _"Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss," he wrote. "In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals."_
> 
> Just because you have a deep RELIGIOUS conviction regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and does not include same-sex marriages does *NOT *make one a Bigot or Homophobe and protects that religious belief / conviction.
> 
> _Thomas added: "This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as 'disparag[ing]' homosexuals and 'diminish[ing] their personhood' through '[d]ignitary wounds.'"_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case
> 
> 
> The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _*"That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution"*_
> 
> Of course it is...
> 
> *Fourteenth Amendment*​​_nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._​
> Marriage is a state sanctioned legal contract. The state cannot say one person can marry the person they love but another person can't. Doing so was not applying the law equally. That's thd reason same sex marriage was deemed constitutional by our Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting, Faun thinks he has superior legal knowledge as compared to the judge who offered that dissent, who spent years of his life studying the very law itself.
> 
> You're funny.
Click to expand...

LOL

You mean the dissent that was overruled by a majority of the court? At least you confess you don't have a clear understanding about what I posted.


----------



## Faun

TemplarKormac said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in this statement did Thomas and Alito address how the liberty of all persons is to be _balanced _against the "liberty" of those persons in the population who do not believe in same-sex marriage. They are implying that the rights of these people are more important than, and must be given precedence over, the rights of others, of all sexual orientations, who do not hold this belief and who are entitled under the U.S. Constitution to equal protection of the law.
> 
> The _Obergefell _decision addressed only the right to contract a marriage under _civil_ law. It is certain that people who enter into same-sex marriages do not have a religious belief against it. Moreover, people of every religion have the right to enter a marriage according to the requirements of their respective faiths and undergo their faith's marriage rites and to choose whom to marry.
> 
> Someone should make Thomas and Alito aware that the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion.
> 
> Of course, there are further issues in this case of a public employee's right to refuse to perform the duties of his/her job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be totally honest, what they should have ruled is government needs to get out of marriage.  Let the religions have their own marriage along with their own criteria and if they want to marry a gay couple, then it's up to them, not the government.
> 
> So what does equal protection under the law have to do with this?  Government benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and Natural Citizen are arguing against contracting a marriage under civil law. But legal marriage involves not only government benefits, but also inheritance rights, the right to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapable spouse, tax treatment, court testimony in criminal cases, the rights of military spouses, and I'm sure there is more. These matters have nothing to do with religion, but your proposal would create the massive chaos of government having to figure out how to administer these rights with respect to each and every religion and each and every individual. Moreover, there are plenty of people who don't have a religion. What are they supposed to do?
> 
> Your proposal would require a massive re-write of many laws and regulations. It's absurd.
> 
> And all because of some people who are upset about whom some stranger marries. Idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equality under the law means gaining the benefits, as well as suffering the liabilities of said law. Either treat everyone equally under the law or rewrite the law. Which would you prefer? We've already seen what rewriting the law does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, so you agree to apply the law equally, a gay person has the same right to legally marry the person of their choice; just like a straight person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I just not get through saying I was gay? I want the law to benefit both sides, not one. Neither side should be put at a disadvantage.
> 
> You want equal treatment? The do it, damn it.
Click to expand...

Your sexual preference has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Neither side is at a disadvantage by applying the law equally to straights and gays.


----------



## Seawytch

TemplarKormac said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is settled law, get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's settled law until it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being naive if you think law is _ever_ settled. Bans against gay marriage were "settled law" until they were overturned in SCOTUS by those two same rulings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a 7-2 decision. Over 300,000 couples have been married. Gay marriage isn’t being reversed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ha. Then you know nothing about the tendencies of the Supreme Court.
> 
> On another note, I know you are gay as well as I, so do not attempt to speak for me. I want equality under the law, but not at the expense of other people's legal rights.
> 
> We're not supposed to be conquering people, we should be getting them to accept us!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want equality under the law, then you should want to be protected by the same laws that protect other minorities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting... I want the law to treat me as equally as everyone else. But I don't want the law to give me special treatment. That's the difference, Seawytch. You don't want equality, you want special treatment. Forcing people to accept you is not acceptance, it's subversion.
> 
> You are entitled to nothing but equal treatment, not special treatment. That is something _you_ need to understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To be treated exactly like other minorities is equal. You want special treatment for gays if you want them to be able to be discriminated against where you cannot do the same for other minorities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Absolutely not.
> 
> You are totally missing the point. We are not minorities, we are equals among our peers. There should be no minority or majority. We want the same treatment as the majority; but by asking for special treatment, by classifying us as "minorities" you are thereby already committing the act of discrimination. We are not a niche population, *we are Americans like everyone else.*
> 
> To ask for equal treatment among minorities only is not equality. That is exclusion. You cannot see the forest for the trees. What you do is only corrupt our cause beyond its original purpose, you only drive people away, you aren't gaining their acceptance, _only their contempt_.
> 
> I will fight for LGBT rights insomuch as my rights do not come at the expense of the freedoms of others. Period, full stop.
> 
> I *will not* advocate for methods that suppress the freedoms of others.  *We do not do to others what they are already doing to us.*
> 
> Am I clear? We are already having our freedoms suppressed, what is there to gain by going on a revenge campaign? That's all I see the fight for LGBT rights by the mainstream community as.
> 
> I will sooner be damned than do something so spiteful and vile. We want tolerance but are unwilling to give it in return. Such puerile behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are you ranting about? It is simple. Title II of the FEDERAL Civil Rights Act is your “bake the damn cake” boogie man, not local and state laws. Either add gays, a historically oppressed minority, to the other historically oppressed minorities protected by it or get rid of PA protection for religion, race, gender, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your ignorance of the nuances of law is astounding.
> 
> So Title II says we must circumvent the religious beliefs of someone rendering a service? Is that what you're getting at?
Click to expand...

 That is correct. The Christian baker cannot refuse to bake a cake for an interracial couple, why should they be able to refuse a gay couple?



> No, you want protection for one, but not the other.


Nope, simple equality. If the Christian baker can refuse me service I should be able to refuse him service. The law prevents that.


----------



## Seawytch

TemplarKormac said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in this statement did Thomas and Alito address how the liberty of all persons is to be _balanced _against the "liberty" of those persons in the population who do not believe in same-sex marriage. They are implying that the rights of these people are more important than, and must be given precedence over, the rights of others, of all sexual orientations, who do not hold this belief and who are entitled under the U.S. Constitution to equal protection of the law.
> 
> The _Obergefell _decision addressed only the right to contract a marriage under _civil_ law. It is certain that people who enter into same-sex marriages do not have a religious belief against it. Moreover, people of every religion have the right to enter a marriage according to the requirements of their respective faiths and undergo their faith's marriage rites and to choose whom to marry.
> 
> Someone should make Thomas and Alito aware that the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion.
> 
> Of course, there are further issues in this case of a public employee's right to refuse to perform the duties of his/her job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be totally honest, what they should have ruled is government needs to get out of marriage.  Let the religions have their own marriage along with their own criteria and if they want to marry a gay couple, then it's up to them, not the government.
> 
> So what does equal protection under the law have to do with this?  Government benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and Natural Citizen are arguing against contracting a marriage under civil law. But legal marriage involves not only government benefits, but also inheritance rights, the right to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapable spouse, tax treatment, court testimony in criminal cases, the rights of military spouses, and I'm sure there is more. These matters have nothing to do with religion, but your proposal would create the massive chaos of government having to figure out how to administer these rights with respect to each and every religion and each and every individual. Moreover, there are plenty of people who don't have a religion. What are they supposed to do?
> 
> Your proposal would require a massive re-write of many laws and regulations. It's absurd.
> 
> And all because of some people who are upset about whom some stranger marries. Idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equality under the law means gaining the benefits, as well as suffering the liabilities of said law. Either treat everyone equally under the law or rewrite the law. Which would you prefer? We've already seen what rewriting the law does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, so you agree to apply the law equally, a gay person has the same right to legally marry the person of their choice; just like a straight person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I just not get through saying I was gay? I want the law to benefit both sides, not one. Neither side should be put at a disadvantage.
> 
> You want equal treatment? The do it, damn it.
Click to expand...

Who is disadvantaged by gays having equal access to legal, civil marriage?


----------



## Seawytch

TemplarKormac said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is simple. Title II of the FEDERAL Civil Rights Act is your “bake the damn cake” boogie man
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I make the contention the law isn't ethical to either party, not just minorities. And as I can see, you aren't concerned with the ethics in regards to the legal impact it has on people of faith. This is a suppression campaign in response to suppression. That is revenge. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

And yet NOBODY is going after the Federal PA laws, just the state and local laws. To be EQUAL, either you get rid of Title II of the CRA and everyone gets to discriminate against everyone or you add gays to existing laws. That would be EQUAL.


----------



## Crepitus

easyt65 said:


> That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!
> 
> _"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."_
> 
> "_The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."
> 
> Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance."_
> 
> 
> 
> _"Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss," he wrote. "In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals."_
> 
> Just because you have a deep RELIGIOUS conviction regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and does not include same-sex marriages does *NOT *make one a Bigot or Homophobe and protects that religious belief / conviction.
> 
> _Thomas added: "This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as 'disparag[ing]' homosexuals and 'diminish[ing] their personhood' through '[d]ignitary wounds.'"_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case
> 
> 
> The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _


How is someone else's wedding a threat to you?

Are you that delicate a snowflake?


----------



## Crepitus

Seawytch said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in this statement did Thomas and Alito address how the liberty of all persons is to be _balanced _against the "liberty" of those persons in the population who do not believe in same-sex marriage. They are implying that the rights of these people are more important than, and must be given precedence over, the rights of others, of all sexual orientations, who do not hold this belief and who are entitled under the U.S. Constitution to equal protection of the law.
> 
> The _Obergefell _decision addressed only the right to contract a marriage under _civil_ law. It is certain that people who enter into same-sex marriages do not have a religious belief against it. Moreover, people of every religion have the right to enter a marriage according to the requirements of their respective faiths and undergo their faith's marriage rites and to choose whom to marry.
> 
> Someone should make Thomas and Alito aware that the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion.
> 
> Of course, there are further issues in this case of a public employee's right to refuse to perform the duties of his/her job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be totally honest, what they should have ruled is government needs to get out of marriage.  Let the religions have their own marriage along with their own criteria and if they want to marry a gay couple, then it's up to them, not the government.
> 
> So what does equal protection under the law have to do with this?  Government benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and Natural Citizen are arguing against contracting a marriage under civil law. But legal marriage involves not only government benefits, but also inheritance rights, the right to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapable spouse, tax treatment, court testimony in criminal cases, the rights of military spouses, and I'm sure there is more. These matters have nothing to do with religion, but your proposal would create the massive chaos of government having to figure out how to administer these rights with respect to each and every religion and each and every individual. Moreover, there are plenty of people who don't have a religion. What are they supposed to do?
> 
> Your proposal would require a massive re-write of many laws and regulations. It's absurd.
> 
> And all because of some people who are upset about whom some stranger marries. Idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equality under the law means gaining the benefits, as well as suffering the liabilities of said law. Either treat everyone equally under the law or rewrite the law. Which would you prefer? We've already seen what rewriting the law does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, so you agree to apply the law equally, a gay person has the same right to legally marry the person of their choice; just like a straight person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I just not get through saying I was gay? I want the law to benefit both sides, not one. Neither side should be put at a disadvantage.
> 
> You want equal treatment? The do it, damn it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is disadvantaged by gays having equal access to legal, civil marriage?
Click to expand...

Absolutely no one.


----------



## Dragonlady

martybegan said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is settled law, get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's settled law until it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Separate but Equal was "settled law" for decades until overturned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was an injustice. This is not. Your fever dream ain’t gonna happen. This IS done and won’t be undone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but "bake or die" is an injustice, you just don't see it because you support the oppressors.
> 
> And when the constitution is litigated from the bench, it is maybe not an injustice, but it's short sighted and stupid.
> 
> And it's funny you had to add a qualifier to your position when called out.
Click to expand...


The "opressors" are the people who refuse to provide services to the gay couple.  They are oppressing the rights of their customers to their service.  They are not being required to attend the wedding or do anything but deliver the cake, which they do for anyone else who asks - divorced people, adulterers, blasphemers, but not gays.  What exactly are they being asked to do here that would violate any religiouos freedom. 

When I was a law clerk, one of the lawyers asked me to handle the liquor license renewal for a strip club/house of prostitution, located in my neighbourhood.  I wanted that place GONE!  The streetcar transfer stop to go downtown right outside the door the exit door had to be moved after many complaints from women sexual harassment by drunks coming out of there.  The girls were offering "additional services" to the customers in the VIP room.  The club was the last remnant of seedy neighbourhood that had been that area until gentrification 20 years earlier.  Now it was a middle class neighbourhood, and this seedy flophouse needed to go.

I objected to helping these people get their liquor license renewal on religious grounds, on the grounds that I didn't want them in my neighbourhood, and that the place was a haven to criminals and whores, but it was my job, and I went back to my desk and got them their damn license.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Seawytch said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in this statement did Thomas and Alito address how the liberty of all persons is to be _balanced _against the "liberty" of those persons in the population who do not believe in same-sex marriage. They are implying that the rights of these people are more important than, and must be given precedence over, the rights of others, of all sexual orientations, who do not hold this belief and who are entitled under the U.S. Constitution to equal protection of the law.
> 
> The _Obergefell _decision addressed only the right to contract a marriage under _civil_ law. It is certain that people who enter into same-sex marriages do not have a religious belief against it. Moreover, people of every religion have the right to enter a marriage according to the requirements of their respective faiths and undergo their faith's marriage rites and to choose whom to marry.
> 
> Someone should make Thomas and Alito aware that the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion.
> 
> Of course, there are further issues in this case of a public employee's right to refuse to perform the duties of his/her job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be totally honest, what they should have ruled is government needs to get out of marriage.  Let the religions have their own marriage along with their own criteria and if they want to marry a gay couple, then it's up to them, not the government.
> 
> So what does equal protection under the law have to do with this?  Government benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and Natural Citizen are arguing against contracting a marriage under civil law. But legal marriage involves not only government benefits, but also inheritance rights, the right to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapable spouse, tax treatment, court testimony in criminal cases, the rights of military spouses, and I'm sure there is more. These matters have nothing to do with religion, but your proposal would create the massive chaos of government having to figure out how to administer these rights with respect to each and every religion and each and every individual. Moreover, there are plenty of people who don't have a religion. What are they supposed to do?
> 
> Your proposal would require a massive re-write of many laws and regulations. It's absurd.
> 
> And all because of some people who are upset about whom some stranger marries. Idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equality under the law means gaining the benefits, as well as suffering the liabilities of said law. Either treat everyone equally under the law or rewrite the law. Which would you prefer? We've already seen what rewriting the law does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, so you agree to apply the law equally, a gay person has the same right to legally marry the person of their choice; just like a straight person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I just not get through saying I was gay? I want the law to benefit both sides, not one. Neither side should be put at a disadvantage.
> 
> You want equal treatment? The do it, damn it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is disadvantaged by gays having equal access to legal, civil marriage?
Click to expand...


Nobody. Except those who wish to practice their faith freely. Essentially, you must bar yourself from entrepreneurial endeavors if you are a strict adherent to the Christian faith. That is a disadvantage. 

Curious, why is a cake such a critical thing for a wedding anyway? If you want one, you don't have to force the proprietor of the establishment to put messages on it that they disagree with. You don't even have to tell them you're gay. It's an easy workaround, Seawytch.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Crepitus said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in this statement did Thomas and Alito address how the liberty of all persons is to be _balanced _against the "liberty" of those persons in the population who do not believe in same-sex marriage. They are implying that the rights of these people are more important than, and must be given precedence over, the rights of others, of all sexual orientations, who do not hold this belief and who are entitled under the U.S. Constitution to equal protection of the law.
> 
> The _Obergefell _decision addressed only the right to contract a marriage under _civil_ law. It is certain that people who enter into same-sex marriages do not have a religious belief against it. Moreover, people of every religion have the right to enter a marriage according to the requirements of their respective faiths and undergo their faith's marriage rites and to choose whom to marry.
> 
> Someone should make Thomas and Alito aware that the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion.
> 
> Of course, there are further issues in this case of a public employee's right to refuse to perform the duties of his/her job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be totally honest, what they should have ruled is government needs to get out of marriage.  Let the religions have their own marriage along with their own criteria and if they want to marry a gay couple, then it's up to them, not the government.
> 
> So what does equal protection under the law have to do with this?  Government benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and Natural Citizen are arguing against contracting a marriage under civil law. But legal marriage involves not only government benefits, but also inheritance rights, the right to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapable spouse, tax treatment, court testimony in criminal cases, the rights of military spouses, and I'm sure there is more. These matters have nothing to do with religion, but your proposal would create the massive chaos of government having to figure out how to administer these rights with respect to each and every religion and each and every individual. Moreover, there are plenty of people who don't have a religion. What are they supposed to do?
> 
> Your proposal would require a massive re-write of many laws and regulations. It's absurd.
> 
> And all because of some people who are upset about whom some stranger marries. Idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equality under the law means gaining the benefits, as well as suffering the liabilities of said law. Either treat everyone equally under the law or rewrite the law. Which would you prefer? We've already seen what rewriting the law does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, so you agree to apply the law equally, a gay person has the same right to legally marry the person of their choice; just like a straight person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I just not get through saying I was gay? I want the law to benefit both sides, not one. Neither side should be put at a disadvantage.
> 
> You want equal treatment? The do it, damn it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is disadvantaged by gays having equal access to legal, civil marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely no one.
Click to expand...


How naive. The law by its very nature, any law for that matter, places one group or another at a disadvantage. If you want me to be honest, equality is a myth. An unattainable goal.


----------



## DGS49

Sorry for not reading all five pages here, but it seems to me like this is a stupid thread.

The Constitutional issue is NOT one that would threaten gay marriage. AT WORST it would make FUTURE gay marriages a little more inconvenient.

The reason is because the Constitution includes what is called the "full faith and credit" clause.

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

What this means is that every state must recognize the formal acts of every other state.  So if ANY state recognizes gay marriages, then every other state must recognize those marriages.  if you live in, for example, Utah, and Utah doesn't have gay marriage, all a gay couple would have to do is drive over the California and get married.  Utah would then have to recognize that marriage as fully as if it had been done in Utah.

The dispute about the previous decision (Oberkfell?) is the Constitutional BASIS for that case, which is extremely dubious.  But regardless, no existing gay marriage is in jeopardy and no gay couple is without the ability to get legally married.


----------



## Seawytch

TemplarKormac said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in this statement did Thomas and Alito address how the liberty of all persons is to be _balanced _against the "liberty" of those persons in the population who do not believe in same-sex marriage. They are implying that the rights of these people are more important than, and must be given precedence over, the rights of others, of all sexual orientations, who do not hold this belief and who are entitled under the U.S. Constitution to equal protection of the law.
> 
> The _Obergefell _decision addressed only the right to contract a marriage under _civil_ law. It is certain that people who enter into same-sex marriages do not have a religious belief against it. Moreover, people of every religion have the right to enter a marriage according to the requirements of their respective faiths and undergo their faith's marriage rites and to choose whom to marry.
> 
> Someone should make Thomas and Alito aware that the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion.
> 
> Of course, there are further issues in this case of a public employee's right to refuse to perform the duties of his/her job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be totally honest, what they should have ruled is government needs to get out of marriage.  Let the religions have their own marriage along with their own criteria and if they want to marry a gay couple, then it's up to them, not the government.
> 
> So what does equal protection under the law have to do with this?  Government benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and Natural Citizen are arguing against contracting a marriage under civil law. But legal marriage involves not only government benefits, but also inheritance rights, the right to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapable spouse, tax treatment, court testimony in criminal cases, the rights of military spouses, and I'm sure there is more. These matters have nothing to do with religion, but your proposal would create the massive chaos of government having to figure out how to administer these rights with respect to each and every religion and each and every individual. Moreover, there are plenty of people who don't have a religion. What are they supposed to do?
> 
> Your proposal would require a massive re-write of many laws and regulations. It's absurd.
> 
> And all because of some people who are upset about whom some stranger marries. Idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equality under the law means gaining the benefits, as well as suffering the liabilities of said law. Either treat everyone equally under the law or rewrite the law. Which would you prefer? We've already seen what rewriting the law does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, so you agree to apply the law equally, a gay person has the same right to legally marry the person of their choice; just like a straight person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I just not get through saying I was gay? I want the law to benefit both sides, not one. Neither side should be put at a disadvantage.
> 
> You want equal treatment? The do it, damn it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is disadvantaged by gays having equal access to legal, civil marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody. Except those who wish to practice their faith freely. Essentially, you must bar yourself from entrepreneurial endeavors if you are a strict adherent to the Christian faith. That is a disadvantage.
> 
> Curious, why is a cake such a critical thing for a wedding anyway? If you want one, you don't have to force the proprietor of the establishment to put messages on it that they disagree with. You don't even have to tell them you're gay. It's an easy workaround, Seawytch.
Click to expand...

Nobody is prevented from practicing their faith freely. That is a ridiculous statement on its face. 

A Christian opposed to interracial marriage has to bake the damn cake too, but nobody seems worried about their "religious freedom" . 

A wedding cake is a wedding cake. No one is asking for anything written on it. The easy workaround is to follow the laws of your state or locality.


----------



## martybegan

Dragonlady said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is settled law, get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's settled law until it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Separate but Equal was "settled law" for decades until overturned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was an injustice. This is not. Your fever dream ain’t gonna happen. This IS done and won’t be undone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but "bake or die" is an injustice, you just don't see it because you support the oppressors.
> 
> And when the constitution is litigated from the bench, it is maybe not an injustice, but it's short sighted and stupid.
> 
> And it's funny you had to add a qualifier to your position when called out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "opressors" are the people who refuse to provide services to the gay couple.  They are oppressing the rights of their customers to their service.  They are not being required to attend the wedding or do anything but deliver the cake, which they do for anyone else who asks - divorced people, adulterers, blasphemers, but not gays.  What exactly are they being asked to do here that would violate any religiouos freedom.
> 
> When I was a law clerk, one of the lawyers asked me to handle the liquor license renewal for a strip club/house of prostitution, located in my neighbourhood.  I wanted that place GONE!  The streetcar transfer stop to go downtown right outside the door the exit door had to be moved after many complaints from women sexual harassment by drunks coming out of there.  The girls were offering "additional services" to the customers in the VIP room.  The club was the last remnant of seedy neighbourhood that had been that area until gentrification 20 years earlier.  Now it was a middle class neighbourhood, and this seedy flophouse needed to go.
> 
> I objected to helping these people get their liquor license renewal on religious grounds, on the grounds that I didn't want them in my neighbourhood, and that the place was a haven to criminals and whores, but it was my job, and I went back to my desk and got them their damn license.
Click to expand...


What "right" to a service or good?  Who are you to say and force what level of participation they are required to perform? In all these cases point of sale generic items were not denied, just one specific contracted item for one specific event. 

Criminal lawyers deal with defending people they know are guilty all the time, thus deal with things they don't agree with. That is actually part of the job. In this case if you truly didn't want to work on it, you can quit, and probably get the same type job somewhere else. In your case you are an EMPLOYEE, not a Business owner. And not doing this one thing doesn't ruin your chance to get similar employment or do similar things. You also don't have the investment an owner does in a business, you can walk away with no loss. 

As usual, with SJW twat snowflakes such as yourself it all boils down to MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE


----------



## Dragonlady

TemplarKormac said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in this statement did Thomas and Alito address how the liberty of all persons is to be _balanced _against the "liberty" of those persons in the population who do not believe in same-sex marriage. They are implying that the rights of these people are more important than, and must be given precedence over, the rights of others, of all sexual orientations, who do not hold this belief and who are entitled under the U.S. Constitution to equal protection of the law.
> 
> The _Obergefell _decision addressed only the right to contract a marriage under _civil_ law. It is certain that people who enter into same-sex marriages do not have a religious belief against it. Moreover, people of every religion have the right to enter a marriage according to the requirements of their respective faiths and undergo their faith's marriage rites and to choose whom to marry.
> 
> Someone should make Thomas and Alito aware that the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion.
> 
> Of course, there are further issues in this case of a public employee's right to refuse to perform the duties of his/her job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be totally honest, what they should have ruled is government needs to get out of marriage.  Let the religions have their own marriage along with their own criteria and if they want to marry a gay couple, then it's up to them, not the government.
> 
> So what does equal protection under the law have to do with this?  Government benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and Natural Citizen are arguing against contracting a marriage under civil law. But legal marriage involves not only government benefits, but also inheritance rights, the right to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapable spouse, tax treatment, court testimony in criminal cases, the rights of military spouses, and I'm sure there is more. These matters have nothing to do with religion, but your proposal would create the massive chaos of government having to figure out how to administer these rights with respect to each and every religion and each and every individual. Moreover, there are plenty of people who don't have a religion. What are they supposed to do?
> 
> Your proposal would require a massive re-write of many laws and regulations. It's absurd.
> 
> And all because of some people who are upset about whom some stranger marries. Idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equality under the law means gaining the benefits, as well as suffering the liabilities of said law. Either treat everyone equally under the law or rewrite the law. Which would you prefer? We've already seen what rewriting the law does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, so you agree to apply the law equally, a gay person has the same right to legally marry the person of their choice; just like a straight person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I just not get through saying I was gay? I want the law to benefit both sides, not one. Neither side should be put at a disadvantage.
> 
> You want equal treatment? The do it, damn it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is disadvantaged by gays having equal access to legal, civil marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody. Except those who wish to practice their faith freely. Essentially, you must bar yourself from entrepreneurial endeavors if you are a strict adherent to the Christian faith. That is a disadvantage.
> 
> Curious, why is a cake such a critical thing for a wedding anyway? If you want one, you don't have to force the proprietor of the establishment to put messages on it that they disagree with. You don't even have to tell them you're gay. It's an easy workaround, Seawytch.
Click to expand...


Well that's tough shit.  If you want to open a business, you are required to obey ALL of the laws.  Jesus even said to his followers to respect the law - "render unto Ceasar that which is Cesears", so the baker is violation of Jesus teachings too.  

When His followers tried to turn people away from him, Jesus rebuked them - EVERY SINGLE TIME.  Jesus turned away no one.  As a Sunday School teacher and a Presbyterian elder, the idea denying people service is the very antithesis of Jesus teachings.

According to you, the onus is on the gay couple to keep from having their existence offend the baker.  This is EXACTLY the kind of discrimination that is offensive and disgusting to anyone.  Hide, don't let anyone know who you are because it's offensive to others.

If the baker was refusing to make a wedding cake for a Down's Syndrome couple because the baker believed that such people shouldn't be allowed to breed, would you be OK with that too.  The reason for public accommodation laws is once you start down this slope, where does it end.  How do "undesireables" navigate their lives getting service?


----------



## martybegan

Dragonlady said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in this statement did Thomas and Alito address how the liberty of all persons is to be _balanced _against the "liberty" of those persons in the population who do not believe in same-sex marriage. They are implying that the rights of these people are more important than, and must be given precedence over, the rights of others, of all sexual orientations, who do not hold this belief and who are entitled under the U.S. Constitution to equal protection of the law.
> 
> The _Obergefell _decision addressed only the right to contract a marriage under _civil_ law. It is certain that people who enter into same-sex marriages do not have a religious belief against it. Moreover, people of every religion have the right to enter a marriage according to the requirements of their respective faiths and undergo their faith's marriage rites and to choose whom to marry.
> 
> Someone should make Thomas and Alito aware that the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion.
> 
> Of course, there are further issues in this case of a public employee's right to refuse to perform the duties of his/her job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be totally honest, what they should have ruled is government needs to get out of marriage.  Let the religions have their own marriage along with their own criteria and if they want to marry a gay couple, then it's up to them, not the government.
> 
> So what does equal protection under the law have to do with this?  Government benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and Natural Citizen are arguing against contracting a marriage under civil law. But legal marriage involves not only government benefits, but also inheritance rights, the right to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapable spouse, tax treatment, court testimony in criminal cases, the rights of military spouses, and I'm sure there is more. These matters have nothing to do with religion, but your proposal would create the massive chaos of government having to figure out how to administer these rights with respect to each and every religion and each and every individual. Moreover, there are plenty of people who don't have a religion. What are they supposed to do?
> 
> Your proposal would require a massive re-write of many laws and regulations. It's absurd.
> 
> And all because of some people who are upset about whom some stranger marries. Idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equality under the law means gaining the benefits, as well as suffering the liabilities of said law. Either treat everyone equally under the law or rewrite the law. Which would you prefer? We've already seen what rewriting the law does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, so you agree to apply the law equally, a gay person has the same right to legally marry the person of their choice; just like a straight person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I just not get through saying I was gay? I want the law to benefit both sides, not one. Neither side should be put at a disadvantage.
> 
> You want equal treatment? The do it, damn it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is disadvantaged by gays having equal access to legal, civil marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody. Except those who wish to practice their faith freely. Essentially, you must bar yourself from entrepreneurial endeavors if you are a strict adherent to the Christian faith. That is a disadvantage.
> 
> Curious, why is a cake such a critical thing for a wedding anyway? If you want one, you don't have to force the proprietor of the establishment to put messages on it that they disagree with. You don't even have to tell them you're gay. It's an easy workaround, Seawytch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that's tough shit.  If you want to open a business, you are required to obey ALL of the laws.  Jesus even said to his followers to respect the law - "render unto Ceasar that which is Cesears", so the baker is violation of Jesus teachings too.
> 
> When His followers tried to turn people away from him, Jesus rebuked them - EVERY SINGLE TIME.  Jesus turned away no one.  As a Sunday School teacher and a Presbyterian elder, the idea denying people service is the very antithesis of Jesus teachings.
> 
> According to you, the onus is on the gay couple to keep from having their existence offend the baker.  This is EXACTLY the kind of discrimination that is offensive and disgusting to anyone.  Hide, don't let anyone know who you are because it's offensive to others.
> 
> If the baker was refusing to make a wedding cake for a Down's Syndrome couple because the baker believed that such people shouldn't be allowed to breed, would you be OK with that too.  The reason for public accommodation laws is once you start down this slope, where does it end.  How do "undesireables" navigate their lives getting service?
Click to expand...


PA laws shouldn't be applied to a contracted service in the first place. 

Your solution of forcing your morality on others via the government gun just shows what a gutless fucking dried up old cat lady twat you are.


----------



## Crepitus

TemplarKormac said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in this statement did Thomas and Alito address how the liberty of all persons is to be _balanced _against the "liberty" of those persons in the population who do not believe in same-sex marriage. They are implying that the rights of these people are more important than, and must be given precedence over, the rights of others, of all sexual orientations, who do not hold this belief and who are entitled under the U.S. Constitution to equal protection of the law.
> 
> The _Obergefell _decision addressed only the right to contract a marriage under _civil_ law. It is certain that people who enter into same-sex marriages do not have a religious belief against it. Moreover, people of every religion have the right to enter a marriage according to the requirements of their respective faiths and undergo their faith's marriage rites and to choose whom to marry.
> 
> Someone should make Thomas and Alito aware that the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion.
> 
> Of course, there are further issues in this case of a public employee's right to refuse to perform the duties of his/her job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be totally honest, what they should have ruled is government needs to get out of marriage.  Let the religions have their own marriage along with their own criteria and if they want to marry a gay couple, then it's up to them, not the government.
> 
> So what does equal protection under the law have to do with this?  Government benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and Natural Citizen are arguing against contracting a marriage under civil law. But legal marriage involves not only government benefits, but also inheritance rights, the right to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapable spouse, tax treatment, court testimony in criminal cases, the rights of military spouses, and I'm sure there is more. These matters have nothing to do with religion, but your proposal would create the massive chaos of government having to figure out how to administer these rights with respect to each and every religion and each and every individual. Moreover, there are plenty of people who don't have a religion. What are they supposed to do?
> 
> Your proposal would require a massive re-write of many laws and regulations. It's absurd.
> 
> And all because of some people who are upset about whom some stranger marries. Idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equality under the law means gaining the benefits, as well as suffering the liabilities of said law. Either treat everyone equally under the law or rewrite the law. Which would you prefer? We've already seen what rewriting the law does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, so you agree to apply the law equally, a gay person has the same right to legally marry the person of their choice; just like a straight person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I just not get through saying I was gay? I want the law to benefit both sides, not one. Neither side should be put at a disadvantage.
> 
> You want equal treatment? The do it, damn it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is disadvantaged by gays having equal access to legal, civil marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely no one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How naive. The law by its very nature, any law for that matter, places one group or another at a disadvantage. If you want me to be honest, equality is a myth. An unattainable goal.
Click to expand...

If you don't like same sex marriage, don't get same sex married.

Or are you afraid you won't be able to resist?


----------



## Faun

Crepitus said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in this statement did Thomas and Alito address how the liberty of all persons is to be _balanced _against the "liberty" of those persons in the population who do not believe in same-sex marriage. They are implying that the rights of these people are more important than, and must be given precedence over, the rights of others, of all sexual orientations, who do not hold this belief and who are entitled under the U.S. Constitution to equal protection of the law.
> 
> The _Obergefell _decision addressed only the right to contract a marriage under _civil_ law. It is certain that people who enter into same-sex marriages do not have a religious belief against it. Moreover, people of every religion have the right to enter a marriage according to the requirements of their respective faiths and undergo their faith's marriage rites and to choose whom to marry.
> 
> Someone should make Thomas and Alito aware that the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion.
> 
> Of course, there are further issues in this case of a public employee's right to refuse to perform the duties of his/her job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be totally honest, what they should have ruled is government needs to get out of marriage.  Let the religions have their own marriage along with their own criteria and if they want to marry a gay couple, then it's up to them, not the government.
> 
> So what does equal protection under the law have to do with this?  Government benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and Natural Citizen are arguing against contracting a marriage under civil law. But legal marriage involves not only government benefits, but also inheritance rights, the right to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapable spouse, tax treatment, court testimony in criminal cases, the rights of military spouses, and I'm sure there is more. These matters have nothing to do with religion, but your proposal would create the massive chaos of government having to figure out how to administer these rights with respect to each and every religion and each and every individual. Moreover, there are plenty of people who don't have a religion. What are they supposed to do?
> 
> Your proposal would require a massive re-write of many laws and regulations. It's absurd.
> 
> And all because of some people who are upset about whom some stranger marries. Idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equality under the law means gaining the benefits, as well as suffering the liabilities of said law. Either treat everyone equally under the law or rewrite the law. Which would you prefer? We've already seen what rewriting the law does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, so you agree to apply the law equally, a gay person has the same right to legally marry the person of their choice; just like a straight person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I just not get through saying I was gay? I want the law to benefit both sides, not one. Neither side should be put at a disadvantage.
> 
> You want equal treatment? The do it, damn it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is disadvantaged by gays having equal access to legal, civil marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely no one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How naive. The law by its very nature, any law for that matter, places one group or another at a disadvantage. If you want me to be honest, equality is a myth. An unattainable goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't like same sex marriage, don't get same sex married.
> 
> Or are you afraid you won't be able to resist?
Click to expand...

That idiot says he's gay but that gays shouldn't have the same rights as straights.


----------



## Dragonlady

DGS49 said:


> Sorry for not reading all five pages here, but it seems to me like this is a stupid thread.
> 
> The Constitutional issue is NOT one that would threaten gay marriage. AT WORST it would make FUTURE gay marriages a little more inconvenient.
> 
> The reason is because the Constitution includes what is called the "full faith and credit" clause.
> 
> "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."
> 
> What this means is that every state must recognize the formal acts of every other state.  So if ANY state recognizes gay marriages, then every other state must recognize those marriages.  if you live in, for example, Utah, and Utah doesn't have gay marriage, all a gay couple would have to do is drive over the California and get married.  Utah would then have to recognize that marriage as fully as if it had been done in Utah.
> 
> The dispute about the previous decision (Oberkfell?) is the Constitutional BASIS for that case, which is extremely dubious.  But regardless, no existing gay marriage is in jeopardy and no gay couple is without the ability to get legally married.



Why should a gay couple have to drive out of state to marry, when straight couples don't have to do that?  You're whole premise is that in states which discrimate against you, you can find an "end around".  Why must gays or others always look for "end around"? 

This has been an argument for those seeking to restrict abortion rights.  Well if your state bans abortion, you can always go to another state and get one.  Not always.  And why should women have to travel out of state to get a medical procedure?  Such barriers always effect the poor the most because they can't "just travel out of state".  

Why is it that the people who consistently say thing like "why don't you just . . . . " are those who will never have to deal with the situations those who are discriminated against or face having to find an "end around" for something that anyone else can get just by walking in the door.


----------



## Crepitus

Faun said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in this statement did Thomas and Alito address how the liberty of all persons is to be _balanced _against the "liberty" of those persons in the population who do not believe in same-sex marriage. They are implying that the rights of these people are more important than, and must be given precedence over, the rights of others, of all sexual orientations, who do not hold this belief and who are entitled under the U.S. Constitution to equal protection of the law.
> 
> The _Obergefell _decision addressed only the right to contract a marriage under _civil_ law. It is certain that people who enter into same-sex marriages do not have a religious belief against it. Moreover, people of every religion have the right to enter a marriage according to the requirements of their respective faiths and undergo their faith's marriage rites and to choose whom to marry.
> 
> Someone should make Thomas and Alito aware that the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion.
> 
> Of course, there are further issues in this case of a public employee's right to refuse to perform the duties of his/her job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be totally honest, what they should have ruled is government needs to get out of marriage.  Let the religions have their own marriage along with their own criteria and if they want to marry a gay couple, then it's up to them, not the government.
> 
> So what does equal protection under the law have to do with this?  Government benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and Natural Citizen are arguing against contracting a marriage under civil law. But legal marriage involves not only government benefits, but also inheritance rights, the right to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapable spouse, tax treatment, court testimony in criminal cases, the rights of military spouses, and I'm sure there is more. These matters have nothing to do with religion, but your proposal would create the massive chaos of government having to figure out how to administer these rights with respect to each and every religion and each and every individual. Moreover, there are plenty of people who don't have a religion. What are they supposed to do?
> 
> Your proposal would require a massive re-write of many laws and regulations. It's absurd.
> 
> And all because of some people who are upset about whom some stranger marries. Idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equality under the law means gaining the benefits, as well as suffering the liabilities of said law. Either treat everyone equally under the law or rewrite the law. Which would you prefer? We've already seen what rewriting the law does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, so you agree to apply the law equally, a gay person has the same right to legally marry the person of their choice; just like a straight person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I just not get through saying I was gay? I want the law to benefit both sides, not one. Neither side should be put at a disadvantage.
> 
> You want equal treatment? The do it, damn it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is disadvantaged by gays having equal access to legal, civil marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely no one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How naive. The law by its very nature, any law for that matter, places one group or another at a disadvantage. If you want me to be honest, equality is a myth. An unattainable goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't like same sex marriage, don't get same sex married.
> 
> Or are you afraid you won't be able to resist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That idiot says he's gay but that gays shouldn't have the same rights as straights.
Click to expand...

He's most likely a paid troll.  They do crap like that.  Like Muslims claiming to be tRump supporters and women against women's rights


----------



## Dragonlady

martybegan said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is settled law, get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's settled law until it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Separate but Equal was "settled law" for decades until overturned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was an injustice. This is not. Your fever dream ain’t gonna happen. This IS done and won’t be undone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but "bake or die" is an injustice, you just don't see it because you support the oppressors.
> 
> And when the constitution is litigated from the bench, it is maybe not an injustice, but it's short sighted and stupid.
> 
> And it's funny you had to add a qualifier to your position when called out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "opressors" are the people who refuse to provide services to the gay couple.  They are oppressing the rights of their customers to their service.  They are not being required to attend the wedding or do anything but deliver the cake, which they do for anyone else who asks - divorced people, adulterers, blasphemers, but not gays.  What exactly are they being asked to do here that would violate any religiouos freedom.
> 
> When I was a law clerk, one of the lawyers asked me to handle the liquor license renewal for a strip club/house of prostitution, located in my neighbourhood.  I wanted that place GONE!  The streetcar transfer stop to go downtown right outside the door the exit door had to be moved after many complaints from women sexual harassment by drunks coming out of there.  The girls were offering "additional services" to the customers in the VIP room.  The club was the last remnant of seedy neighbourhood that had been that area until gentrification 20 years earlier.  Now it was a middle class neighbourhood, and this seedy flophouse needed to go.
> 
> I objected to helping these people get their liquor license renewal on religious grounds, on the grounds that I didn't want them in my neighbourhood, and that the place was a haven to criminals and whores, but it was my job, and I went back to my desk and got them their damn license.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "right" to a service or good?  Who are you to say and force what level of participation they are required to perform? In all these cases point of sale generic items were not denied, just one specific contracted item for one specific event.
> 
> Criminal lawyers deal with defending people they know are guilty all the time, thus deal with things they don't agree with. That is actually part of the job. In this case if you truly didn't want to work on it, you can quit, and probably get the same type job somewhere else. In your case you are an EMPLOYEE, not a Business owner. And not doing this one thing doesn't ruin your chance to get similar employment or do similar things. You also don't have the investment an owner does in a business, you can walk away with no loss.
> 
> As usual, with SJW twat snowflakes such as yourself it all boils down to MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Click to expand...


Of course the baker is the one who is screaming that it's all about MEEEEEEEEEEE, and that's the part you fools don't get.  I don't want to do this and you can't make me!!!

When you apply for a business license, you agree to abide by all of the laws of the jurisdiction in running that business.  That includes public accommodations laws.  If you are unwilling to live up to that obligation, you should have your license lifted.  What if this guy doesn't want to bake a wedding cake Down's Syndrome couples because his Church believes such people should not breed.  Are you OK with that?  Or Jews, because Jews killed Jesus? 

Just because you choose to believe things that are foolish, hurtful and wrong, doesn't mean you get to inflict your beliefs on others and treat them badly.  And people that biased and prejudiced shouldn't be allowed to poison the business environment for others.

Jesus said to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".  Jesus himself gathered and showed kindness to sinner, lepers, and the outcasts of society, and rebuked his Disciples for keeping such "unclean" people away from him.  He stopped the stoning of a woman accused of adultery saying "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her".  That is how Jesus treated with "sinners". 

So when you try to use religious grounds to deny service to others, you're not only on shaky legal grounds, you are going against both the teachings of your Lord and Saviour, but his Second Commandment, and his leadership by example.


----------



## martybegan

Dragonlady said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is settled law, get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's settled law until it isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Separate but Equal was "settled law" for decades until overturned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was an injustice. This is not. Your fever dream ain’t gonna happen. This IS done and won’t be undone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but "bake or die" is an injustice, you just don't see it because you support the oppressors.
> 
> And when the constitution is litigated from the bench, it is maybe not an injustice, but it's short sighted and stupid.
> 
> And it's funny you had to add a qualifier to your position when called out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "opressors" are the people who refuse to provide services to the gay couple.  They are oppressing the rights of their customers to their service.  They are not being required to attend the wedding or do anything but deliver the cake, which they do for anyone else who asks - divorced people, adulterers, blasphemers, but not gays.  What exactly are they being asked to do here that would violate any religiouos freedom.
> 
> When I was a law clerk, one of the lawyers asked me to handle the liquor license renewal for a strip club/house of prostitution, located in my neighbourhood.  I wanted that place GONE!  The streetcar transfer stop to go downtown right outside the door the exit door had to be moved after many complaints from women sexual harassment by drunks coming out of there.  The girls were offering "additional services" to the customers in the VIP room.  The club was the last remnant of seedy neighbourhood that had been that area until gentrification 20 years earlier.  Now it was a middle class neighbourhood, and this seedy flophouse needed to go.
> 
> I objected to helping these people get their liquor license renewal on religious grounds, on the grounds that I didn't want them in my neighbourhood, and that the place was a haven to criminals and whores, but it was my job, and I went back to my desk and got them their damn license.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "right" to a service or good?  Who are you to say and force what level of participation they are required to perform? In all these cases point of sale generic items were not denied, just one specific contracted item for one specific event.
> 
> Criminal lawyers deal with defending people they know are guilty all the time, thus deal with things they don't agree with. That is actually part of the job. In this case if you truly didn't want to work on it, you can quit, and probably get the same type job somewhere else. In your case you are an EMPLOYEE, not a Business owner. And not doing this one thing doesn't ruin your chance to get similar employment or do similar things. You also don't have the investment an owner does in a business, you can walk away with no loss.
> 
> As usual, with SJW twat snowflakes such as yourself it all boils down to MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course the baker is the one who is screaming that it's all about MEEEEEEEEEEE, and that's the part you fools don't get.  I don't want to do this and you can't make me!!!
> 
> When you apply for a business license, you agree to abide by all of the laws of the jurisdiction in running that business.  That includes public accommodations laws.  If you are unwilling to live up to that obligation, you should have your license lifted.  What if this guy doesn't want to bake a wedding cake Down's Syndrome couples because his Church believes such people should not breed.  Are you OK with that?  Or Jews, because Jews killed Jesus?
> 
> Just because you choose to believe things that are foolish, hurtful and wrong, doesn't mean you get to inflict your beliefs on others and treat them badly.  And people that biased and prejudiced shouldn't be allowed to poison the business environment for others.
> 
> Jesus said to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".  Jesus himself gathered and showed kindness to sinner, lepers, and the outcasts of society, and rebuked his Disciples for keeping such "unclean" people away from him.  He stopped the stoning of a woman accused of adultery saying "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her".  That is how Jesus treated with "sinners".
> 
> So when you try to use religious grounds to deny service to others, you're not only on shaky legal grounds, you are going against both the teachings of your Lord and Saviour, but his Second Commandment, and his leadership by example.
Click to expand...


One single service, one non-life required easily obtainable elsewhere service, usually booked months in advanced, and you SJW progressive control freaks can't even let that go. 

Again, and get this through your thick empty head, PA laws cannot trump Free Exercise. You are saying either follow our morality or lose your business, which is so laughably fascist that it's amazing even a drooling idiot like you can't pick up on that. 

All your religious arguments fall flat, because you don't really believe in any of it, you are just using it as a cudgel to whack on those you despise, i.e. anyone who doesn't "think" just like you. 

You don't care about the harm to the bakers because you hate them and wish they would just bend the knee to your morality and position. 

Well fuck you, you dried up old cat lady, hopefully when your time comes, they will eat you.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dragonlady said:


> According to you, the onus is on the gay couple to keep from having their existence offend the baker. This is EXACTLY the kind of discrimination that is offensive and disgusting to anyone. Hide, don't let anyone know who you are because it's offensive to others.
> 
> If the baker was refusing to make a wedding cake for a Down's Syndrome couple because the baker believed that such people shouldn't be allowed to breed, would you be OK with that too. The reason for public accommodation laws is once you start down this slope, where does it end. How do "undesireables" navigate their lives getting service?



Down's syndrome has nothing to do with religion.  Our Constitution guarantees us the right to freedom of religion, and there is no exception for public accommodation laws. 

In those cases, the baker in the past has served the gay couple knowing they were gay.  However baking a cake specifically for their wedding was getting involved in their ceremony which was against his religion.  He even offered to make a cake for them excluding the wedding parts.  In another case I remember, the gay couple admitted to singling out that particular bakery because they knew of his strong religious beliefs.  

In all cases, they could simply take their business to another bakery, but they chose to make trouble instead.  

Since you believe that anybody deserves service from a vendor, should a black baker be forced by law to make a cake for a senior member of the KKK birthday party?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Crepitus said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in this statement did Thomas and Alito address how the liberty of all persons is to be _balanced _against the "liberty" of those persons in the population who do not believe in same-sex marriage. They are implying that the rights of these people are more important than, and must be given precedence over, the rights of others, of all sexual orientations, who do not hold this belief and who are entitled under the U.S. Constitution to equal protection of the law.
> 
> The _Obergefell _decision addressed only the right to contract a marriage under _civil_ law. It is certain that people who enter into same-sex marriages do not have a religious belief against it. Moreover, people of every religion have the right to enter a marriage according to the requirements of their respective faiths and undergo their faith's marriage rites and to choose whom to marry.
> 
> Someone should make Thomas and Alito aware that the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion.
> 
> Of course, there are further issues in this case of a public employee's right to refuse to perform the duties of his/her job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be totally honest, what they should have ruled is government needs to get out of marriage.  Let the religions have their own marriage along with their own criteria and if they want to marry a gay couple, then it's up to them, not the government.
> 
> So what does equal protection under the law have to do with this?  Government benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and Natural Citizen are arguing against contracting a marriage under civil law. But legal marriage involves not only government benefits, but also inheritance rights, the right to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapable spouse, tax treatment, court testimony in criminal cases, the rights of military spouses, and I'm sure there is more. These matters have nothing to do with religion, but your proposal would create the massive chaos of government having to figure out how to administer these rights with respect to each and every religion and each and every individual. Moreover, there are plenty of people who don't have a religion. What are they supposed to do?
> 
> Your proposal would require a massive re-write of many laws and regulations. It's absurd.
> 
> And all because of some people who are upset about whom some stranger marries. Idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equality under the law means gaining the benefits, as well as suffering the liabilities of said law. Either treat everyone equally under the law or rewrite the law. Which would you prefer? We've already seen what rewriting the law does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, so you agree to apply the law equally, a gay person has the same right to legally marry the person of their choice; just like a straight person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I just not get through saying I was gay? I want the law to benefit both sides, not one. Neither side should be put at a disadvantage.
> 
> You want equal treatment? The do it, damn it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is disadvantaged by gays having equal access to legal, civil marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely no one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How naive. The law by its very nature, any law for that matter, places one group or another at a disadvantage. If you want me to be honest, equality is a myth. An unattainable goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't like same sex marriage, don't get same sex married.
> 
> Or are you afraid you won't be able to resist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That idiot says he's gay but that gays shouldn't have the same rights as straights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's most likely a paid troll.  They do crap like that.  Like Muslims claiming to be tRump supporters and women against women's rights
Click to expand...


Excuse me? How bigoted is it that you would question the fact I am gay? I mean seriously, do you really think you own us? Do I have to agree with you to be gay? How dare you. Such arrogance. I am just as passionate about gay rights as I am the rights of the faithful.  I do not see one group of people as greater than another. 

Screw you. I am nobody's pawn, and I will hold whatever positions I wish, understand?

On a side note, I never said anything about gays not getting married, you simple-minded creatures. The sooner you learn to read the better.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Crepitus said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in this statement did Thomas and Alito address how the liberty of all persons is to be _balanced _against the "liberty" of those persons in the population who do not believe in same-sex marriage. They are implying that the rights of these people are more important than, and must be given precedence over, the rights of others, of all sexual orientations, who do not hold this belief and who are entitled under the U.S. Constitution to equal protection of the law.
> 
> The _Obergefell _decision addressed only the right to contract a marriage under _civil_ law. It is certain that people who enter into same-sex marriages do not have a religious belief against it. Moreover, people of every religion have the right to enter a marriage according to the requirements of their respective faiths and undergo their faith's marriage rites and to choose whom to marry.
> 
> Someone should make Thomas and Alito aware that the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion.
> 
> Of course, there are further issues in this case of a public employee's right to refuse to perform the duties of his/her job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be totally honest, what they should have ruled is government needs to get out of marriage.  Let the religions have their own marriage along with their own criteria and if they want to marry a gay couple, then it's up to them, not the government.
> 
> So what does equal protection under the law have to do with this?  Government benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and Natural Citizen are arguing against contracting a marriage under civil law. But legal marriage involves not only government benefits, but also inheritance rights, the right to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapable spouse, tax treatment, court testimony in criminal cases, the rights of military spouses, and I'm sure there is more. These matters have nothing to do with religion, but your proposal would create the massive chaos of government having to figure out how to administer these rights with respect to each and every religion and each and every individual. Moreover, there are plenty of people who don't have a religion. What are they supposed to do?
> 
> Your proposal would require a massive re-write of many laws and regulations. It's absurd.
> 
> And all because of some people who are upset about whom some stranger marries. Idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equality under the law means gaining the benefits, as well as suffering the liabilities of said law. Either treat everyone equally under the law or rewrite the law. Which would you prefer? We've already seen what rewriting the law does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, so you agree to apply the law equally, a gay person has the same right to legally marry the person of their choice; just like a straight person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I just not get through saying I was gay? I want the law to benefit both sides, not one. Neither side should be put at a disadvantage.
> 
> You want equal treatment? The do it, damn it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is disadvantaged by gays having equal access to legal, civil marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely no one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How naive. The law by its very nature, any law for that matter, places one group or another at a disadvantage. If you want me to be honest, equality is a myth. An unattainable goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't like same sex marriage, don't get same sex married.
> 
> Or are you afraid you won't be able to resist?
Click to expand...


What are you talking about? 

I am not resisting anything, nor am I trying to deny the marriage rights of my fellows, but simply put, I will not attain such rights when they come at the expense of other people's. 

If you don't want someone denying you your confectionary delights, go elsewhere. The one thing we gays have is a choice.

How does your attitude garner the respect of anyone around you?


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a lot of stuff not explicitly in the Constitution. Women’s rights, a standing Army, Space Force...
> 
> Same Sex Marriage is here to stay
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? If it isn't mandated in the Constitution, it shouldn't be mandated on the population it governs. It matters not who passes the mandate. Trump or Obama.
> 
> *Being a part of the LGBT community now, I can tell that the majority of the community do not want to force itself onto society, we just want equal treatment under law. But what is there to gain from our equal status in society if it comes by trampling the rights of others? If my rights come at the cost of other's rights, I don't want them.*
> 
> Tell me, how is that fair? My grandmother is a devout Christian. She also knows I'm gay as well, as she was the one I came out to first. *But I will not force her to change her beliefs to accept me.* That is wrong. _Just as wrong_ as someone trying to change me because of my sexual affiliation.
Click to expand...


This is something I don't understand.

First - should rights, in particular the equal application of those rights, be contingent upon popular approval?

Second - how does acknowledging those rights, legally, force anyone to change their beliefs?

There are many beliefs that people hold that do not line up with what we recognize as rights.

There are also rights that have been extended to cover a greater number of people, that at the time violated people's "beliefs".  One example would be ending miscegenation laws in America.

It seems to me that the basis of coming to terms with this is not excluding those categories of people from rights but doing what I think your grandmother is doing (I'm guessing) - she loves you, no matter what.  She doesn't approve of your sexuality, but she loves you anyway.  And you have enough respect and love for her, that you would not hurt her by forcing her to acknowledge more or challenge her beliefs.


----------



## progressive hunter

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a lot of stuff not explicitly in the Constitution. Women’s rights, a standing Army, Space Force...
> 
> Same Sex Marriage is here to stay
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? If it isn't mandated in the Constitution, it shouldn't be mandated on the population it governs. It matters not who passes the mandate. Trump or Obama.
> 
> *Being a part of the LGBT community now, I can tell that the majority of the community do not want to force itself onto society, we just want equal treatment under law. But what is there to gain from our equal status in society if it comes by trampling the rights of others? If my rights come at the cost of other's rights, I don't want them.*
> 
> Tell me, how is that fair? My grandmother is a devout Christian. She also knows I'm gay as well, as she was the one I came out to first. *But I will not force her to change her beliefs to accept me.* That is wrong. _Just as wrong_ as someone trying to change me because of my sexual affiliation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is something I don't understand.
> 
> First - should rights, in particular the equal application of those rights, be contingent upon popular approval?
> 
> Second - how does acknowledging those rights, legally, force anyone to change their beliefs?
> 
> There are many beliefs that people hold that do not line up with what we recognize as rights.
> 
> There are also rights that have been extended to cover a greater number of people, that at the time violated people's "beliefs".  One example would be ending miscegenation laws in America.
> 
> It seems to me that the basis of coming to terms with this is not excluding those categories of people from rights but doing what I think your grandmother is doing (I'm guessing) - she loves you, no matter what.  She doesn't approve of your sexuality, but she loves you anyway.  And you have enough respect and love for her, that you would not hurt her by forcing her to acknowledge more or challenge her beliefs.
Click to expand...

I think youre confusing true rights with government granted privilege's that are often called rights,,,

a true right doesnt require application of any kind, it requires all others to accept it whether they like it or not,,,


----------



## Coyote

progressive hunter said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a lot of stuff not explicitly in the Constitution. Women’s rights, a standing Army, Space Force...
> 
> Same Sex Marriage is here to stay
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? If it isn't mandated in the Constitution, it shouldn't be mandated on the population it governs. It matters not who passes the mandate. Trump or Obama.
> 
> *Being a part of the LGBT community now, I can tell that the majority of the community do not want to force itself onto society, we just want equal treatment under law. But what is there to gain from our equal status in society if it comes by trampling the rights of others? If my rights come at the cost of other's rights, I don't want them.*
> 
> Tell me, how is that fair? My grandmother is a devout Christian. She also knows I'm gay as well, as she was the one I came out to first. *But I will not force her to change her beliefs to accept me.* That is wrong. _Just as wrong_ as someone trying to change me because of my sexual affiliation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is something I don't understand.
> 
> First - should rights, in particular the equal application of those rights, be contingent upon popular approval?
> 
> Second - how does acknowledging those rights, legally, force anyone to change their beliefs?
> 
> There are many beliefs that people hold that do not line up with what we recognize as rights.
> 
> There are also rights that have been extended to cover a greater number of people, that at the time violated people's "beliefs".  One example would be ending miscegenation laws in America.
> 
> It seems to me that the basis of coming to terms with this is not excluding those categories of people from rights but doing what I think your grandmother is doing (I'm guessing) - she loves you, no matter what.  She doesn't approve of your sexuality, but she loves you anyway.  And you have enough respect and love for her, that you would not hurt her by forcing her to acknowledge more or challenge her beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think youre confusing true rights with government granted privilege's that are often called rights,,,
> 
> a true right doesnt require application of any kind, it requires all others to accept it whether they like it or not,,,
Click to expand...


Interesting point...
I think the same reasoning would apply - though.


----------



## progressive hunter

Coyote said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a lot of stuff not explicitly in the Constitution. Women’s rights, a standing Army, Space Force...
> 
> Same Sex Marriage is here to stay
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And? If it isn't mandated in the Constitution, it shouldn't be mandated on the population it governs. It matters not who passes the mandate. Trump or Obama.
> 
> *Being a part of the LGBT community now, I can tell that the majority of the community do not want to force itself onto society, we just want equal treatment under law. But what is there to gain from our equal status in society if it comes by trampling the rights of others? If my rights come at the cost of other's rights, I don't want them.*
> 
> Tell me, how is that fair? My grandmother is a devout Christian. She also knows I'm gay as well, as she was the one I came out to first. *But I will not force her to change her beliefs to accept me.* That is wrong. _Just as wrong_ as someone trying to change me because of my sexual affiliation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is something I don't understand.
> 
> First - should rights, in particular the equal application of those rights, be contingent upon popular approval?
> 
> Second - how does acknowledging those rights, legally, force anyone to change their beliefs?
> 
> There are many beliefs that people hold that do not line up with what we recognize as rights.
> 
> There are also rights that have been extended to cover a greater number of people, that at the time violated people's "beliefs".  One example would be ending miscegenation laws in America.
> 
> It seems to me that the basis of coming to terms with this is not excluding those categories of people from rights but doing what I think your grandmother is doing (I'm guessing) - she loves you, no matter what.  She doesn't approve of your sexuality, but she loves you anyway.  And you have enough respect and love for her, that you would not hurt her by forcing her to acknowledge more or challenge her beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think youre confusing true rights with government granted privilege's that are often called rights,,,
> 
> a true right doesnt require application of any kind, it requires all others to accept it whether they like it or not,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting point...
> I think the same reasoning would apply - though.
Click to expand...

its a case by case basis where specifics would need to be presented,,,

as for gay marriage the 1st A is clear we have a right to assemble with who we please


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> First - should rights, in particular the equal application of those rights, be contingent upon popular approval?



Yes, if they are just and fair. Problem is, who determines that?





Coyote said:


> Second - how does acknowledging those rights, legally, force anyone to change their beliefs?



By having PA laws to start with, you are forcing a proprietor to choose between his or her religious beliefs and their livelihood. That is not fair.

I have already read stories of other gays having to choose between their job and their sexual affiliation, equally as unfair. 

So, my conclusion is that there should be a solution which does not compromise the rights of either side. 


Coyote said:


> There are many beliefs that people hold that do not line up with what we recognize as rights.



Free exercise of religion, is, however, a universally accepted right in this country. The nature of their religious beliefs are irrelevant.


----------



## rightwinger

Hard to believe we still have two idiotic Justices that can’t acknowledge how they missed the boat on same sex marriage


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> First - should rights, in particular the equal application of those rights, be contingent upon popular approval?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, if they are just and fair. Problem is, who determines that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second - how does acknowledging those rights, legally, force anyone to change their beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By having PA laws to start with, you are forcing a proprietor to choose between his or her religious beliefs and their livelihood. That is not fair.
Click to expand...


You mean public accommodation laws?  

In my opinion there is a fine line between violating a person's religious beliefs and using religious beliefs to violate another person's rights. I have seen cases where it's clear, for example, that a person has selected a business solely to make an issue of being violated.  Likewise, I have seen cases where a person is using "religion" as an excuse for thinly veiled bigotry.  So where would you draw the line?

In the case of Public Accommodation laws, there is also an ugly history of service refused to people on the basis of race (and religious views have been used to forward those arguments).  Black people could not rely on being able to get a hotel if they travel, unless they used a special guide that was put out just for that purpose.

 If proprietors could refuse to provide business for any reason, under the guise of "religious beliefs" - at what point does it violate someone else's rights?  What if enough people within an area feel that way, and no business will serve them?  



> I have already read stories of other gays having to choose between their job and their sexual affiliation, equally as unfair.
> 
> So, my conclusion is that there should be a solution which does not compromise the rights of either side.



I agree.



> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are many beliefs that people hold that do not line up with what we recognize as rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Free exercise of religion, is, however, a universally accepted right in this country. The nature of their religious beliefs are irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Actually the nature IS relevant.  There are still things you can not do in the name of religious beliefs.  For example polygamy.  Sacrificing virgins.  That sort of stuff...


----------



## Seawytch

TemplarKormac said:


> Free exercise of religion, is, however, a universally accepted right in this country. The nature of their religious beliefs are irrelevant.


Is it? Can a satanist practice ritual sacrifice? Can a Rastafarian legally use illicit drugs? Can Mormons legally marry multiple women? Can racists deny service to interracial couples?


----------



## rightwinger

Seawytch said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free exercise of religion, is, however, a universally accepted right in this country. The nature of their religious beliefs are irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it? Can a satanist practice ritual sacrifice? Can a Rastafarian legally use illicit drugs? Can Mormons legally marry multiple women? Can racists deny service to interracial couples?
Click to expand...


Let’s bring in Sharia Law to appease religious fundamentalists


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> First - should rights, in particular the equal application of those rights, be contingent upon popular approval?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, if they are just and fair. Problem is, who determines that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second - how does acknowledging those rights, legally, force anyone to change their beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By having PA laws to start with, you are forcing a proprietor to choose between his or her religious beliefs and their livelihood. That is not fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean public accommodation laws?
> 
> In my opinion there is a fine line between violating a person's religious beliefs and using religious beliefs to violate another person's rights. I have seen cases where it's clear, for example, that a person has selected a business solely to make an issue of being violated.  Likewise, I have seen cases where a person is using "religion" as an excuse for thinly veiled bigotry.  So where would you draw the line?
> 
> In the case of Public Accommodation laws, there is also an ugly history of service refused to people on the basis of race (and religious views have been used to forward those arguments).  Black people could not rely on being able to get a hotel if they travel, unless they used a special guide that was put out just for that purpose.
> 
> If proprietors could refuse to provide business for any reason, under the guise of "religious beliefs" - at what point does it violate someone else's rights?  What if enough people within an area feel that way, and no business will serve them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have already read stories of other gays having to choose between their job and their sexual affiliation, equally as unfair.
> 
> So, my conclusion is that there should be a solution which does not compromise the rights of either side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are many beliefs that people hold that do not line up with what we recognize as rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free exercise of religion, is, however, a universally accepted right in this country. The nature of their religious beliefs are irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the nature IS relevant.  There are still things you can not do in the name of religious beliefs.  For example polygamy.  Sacrificing virgins.  That sort of stuff...
Click to expand...


Okay. So, back to my original point. Why must a person choose between their beliefs and their livelihood? It's like... someone having to abandon what they believe in in order to make a living. That is plain wrong. But all I see is people like me making unreasonable demands of the faithful. And yes, I know, I have been and still am part of both sides of the coin. I know what it feels like to be a Christian and have my brethren chastised and ridiculed because they believe marriage is between one man and one woman. I have had gay friends who have been treated like shit by Christians claiming to be tolerant. I have seen gays treating Christians the same way demanding tolerance from them.

So no, the nature of belief is irrelevant. If you are truly interested in reaching a compromise that preserves the right of both parties, you leave the presumptions at the door. Period. Full stop.

I have experienced both sides. I still am. I have adapted my beliefs to be tolerant of other gay people, because I myself am one. I can see the reasoning behind both arguments, and I can tell you that compromise is impossible if you automatically assume the ideas and beliefs of the other side from the beginning.

Are all Christians Bible thumping bigots? No. Some are, a great deal of them aren't. I can tell you that also because my devout grandmother still thinks homosexuality is a sin, but not to the point where she openly disowned me when I came out to her a couple years back.

Are all gays simple-minded sexual deviants? No. In fact, I am gay and asexual. I have no interest in romance, so I know from personal experience that such an assumption isn't true.

PA laws are secular. As they should be. But they need to be ethical to both sides, not just one or the other.  I will not stand at the counter and force a Christian store owner to choose between feeding his or her kids and accomodating my sexual affiliation against the teaching of their faith.




Seawytch said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free exercise of religion, is, however, a universally accepted right in this country. The nature of their religious beliefs are irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it? Can a satanist practice ritual sacrifice? Can a Rastafarian legally use illicit drugs? Can Mormons legally marry multiple women? Can racists deny service to interracial couples?
Click to expand...


I've known Satanists in my life, and they do nothing like what you describe. What the hell is a Rastafarian?  Polygamy is illegal even in the Bible (See Genesis 2:23-24 and set aside the whole "man-woman" thing. God made his intent clear from the very beginning that marriage is between two people. Not 20.) Racism is not a religious ideal, it is evil.

And before you get started, no, I am not going to dive into the theological weeds with you. So don't bother. 

Now, your presumptions about people of faith has led you to be as vindictive as you can possibly be. No wonder we in the LGBT community can't get the other side to look at us and out cause positively. People like you are just as full of hatred and spite as some Christians are.  Both sides have burned their bridges, and continue doing so.

Spare me the lecture. And don't preach tolerance to me when you can't even accept that another gay person has a different opinion than you.


----------



## TemplarKormac

... 

There has to be a way to fight for your rights without ruining someone.

There just has to be.


----------



## rightwinger

TemplarKormac said:


> ...
> 
> There has to be a way to fight for your rights without ruining someone.
> 
> There just has to be.



How does same sex marriage ruin anyone outside of pissing off the bigots?


----------



## Crepitus

TemplarKormac said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in this statement did Thomas and Alito address how the liberty of all persons is to be _balanced _against the "liberty" of those persons in the population who do not believe in same-sex marriage. They are implying that the rights of these people are more important than, and must be given precedence over, the rights of others, of all sexual orientations, who do not hold this belief and who are entitled under the U.S. Constitution to equal protection of the law.
> 
> The _Obergefell _decision addressed only the right to contract a marriage under _civil_ law. It is certain that people who enter into same-sex marriages do not have a religious belief against it. Moreover, people of every religion have the right to enter a marriage according to the requirements of their respective faiths and undergo their faith's marriage rites and to choose whom to marry.
> 
> Someone should make Thomas and Alito aware that the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion.
> 
> Of course, there are further issues in this case of a public employee's right to refuse to perform the duties of his/her job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be totally honest, what they should have ruled is government needs to get out of marriage.  Let the religions have their own marriage along with their own criteria and if they want to marry a gay couple, then it's up to them, not the government.
> 
> So what does equal protection under the law have to do with this?  Government benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and Natural Citizen are arguing against contracting a marriage under civil law. But legal marriage involves not only government benefits, but also inheritance rights, the right to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapable spouse, tax treatment, court testimony in criminal cases, the rights of military spouses, and I'm sure there is more. These matters have nothing to do with religion, but your proposal would create the massive chaos of government having to figure out how to administer these rights with respect to each and every religion and each and every individual. Moreover, there are plenty of people who don't have a religion. What are they supposed to do?
> 
> Your proposal would require a massive re-write of many laws and regulations. It's absurd.
> 
> And all because of some people who are upset about whom some stranger marries. Idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equality under the law means gaining the benefits, as well as suffering the liabilities of said law. Either treat everyone equally under the law or rewrite the law. Which would you prefer? We've already seen what rewriting the law does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, so you agree to apply the law equally, a gay person has the same right to legally marry the person of their choice; just like a straight person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I just not get through saying I was gay? I want the law to benefit both sides, not one. Neither side should be put at a disadvantage.
> 
> You want equal treatment? The do it, damn it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is disadvantaged by gays having equal access to legal, civil marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely no one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How naive. The law by its very nature, any law for that matter, places one group or another at a disadvantage. If you want me to be honest, equality is a myth. An unattainable goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't like same sex marriage, don't get same sex married.
> 
> Or are you afraid you won't be able to resist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That idiot says he's gay but that gays shouldn't have the same rights as straights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's most likely a paid troll.  They do crap like that.  Like Muslims claiming to be tRump supporters and women against women's rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me? How bigoted is it that you would question the fact I am gay? I mean seriously, do you really think you own us? Do I have to agree with you to be gay? How dare you. Such arrogance. I am just as passionate about gay rights as I am the rights of the faithful.  I do not see one group of people as greater than another.
> 
> Screw you. I am nobody's pawn, and I will hold whatever positions I wish, understand?
> 
> On a side note, I never said anything about gays not getting married, you simple-minded creatures. The sooner you learn to read the better.
Click to expand...

You're a gay person who is against gay rights.

I'm sure that happens all the time, lol.

Please try to be serious.


----------



## TemplarKormac

rightwinger said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> There has to be a way to fight for your rights without ruining someone.
> 
> There just has to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does same sex marriage ruin anyone outside of pissing off the bigots?
Click to expand...


You miss the point entirely. As such, it would be a waste of time trying. 

You can only see this issue from one perspective. A biased one. 

Same sex marriage itself does not "ruin" anyone or anything. Forcing someone to put messages that endorse a practice their religion teaches against does, and as we have all seen, they were swiftly put out of business for it. That should not be. There has to be a way to accommodate the gay and the Christian alike.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Crepitus said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in this statement did Thomas and Alito address how the liberty of all persons is to be _balanced _against the "liberty" of those persons in the population who do not believe in same-sex marriage. They are implying that the rights of these people are more important than, and must be given precedence over, the rights of others, of all sexual orientations, who do not hold this belief and who are entitled under the U.S. Constitution to equal protection of the law.
> 
> The _Obergefell _decision addressed only the right to contract a marriage under _civil_ law. It is certain that people who enter into same-sex marriages do not have a religious belief against it. Moreover, people of every religion have the right to enter a marriage according to the requirements of their respective faiths and undergo their faith's marriage rites and to choose whom to marry.
> 
> Someone should make Thomas and Alito aware that the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion.
> 
> Of course, there are further issues in this case of a public employee's right to refuse to perform the duties of his/her job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be totally honest, what they should have ruled is government needs to get out of marriage.  Let the religions have their own marriage along with their own criteria and if they want to marry a gay couple, then it's up to them, not the government.
> 
> So what does equal protection under the law have to do with this?  Government benefits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and Natural Citizen are arguing against contracting a marriage under civil law. But legal marriage involves not only government benefits, but also inheritance rights, the right to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapable spouse, tax treatment, court testimony in criminal cases, the rights of military spouses, and I'm sure there is more. These matters have nothing to do with religion, but your proposal would create the massive chaos of government having to figure out how to administer these rights with respect to each and every religion and each and every individual. Moreover, there are plenty of people who don't have a religion. What are they supposed to do?
> 
> Your proposal would require a massive re-write of many laws and regulations. It's absurd.
> 
> And all because of some people who are upset about whom some stranger marries. Idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Equality under the law means gaining the benefits, as well as suffering the liabilities of said law. Either treat everyone equally under the law or rewrite the law. Which would you prefer? We've already seen what rewriting the law does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, so you agree to apply the law equally, a gay person has the same right to legally marry the person of their choice; just like a straight person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I just not get through saying I was gay? I want the law to benefit both sides, not one. Neither side should be put at a disadvantage.
> 
> You want equal treatment? The do it, damn it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who is disadvantaged by gays having equal access to legal, civil marriage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely no one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How naive. The law by its very nature, any law for that matter, places one group or another at a disadvantage. If you want me to be honest, equality is a myth. An unattainable goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't like same sex marriage, don't get same sex married.
> 
> Or are you afraid you won't be able to resist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That idiot says he's gay but that gays shouldn't have the same rights as straights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's most likely a paid troll.  They do crap like that.  Like Muslims claiming to be tRump supporters and women against women's rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me? How bigoted is it that you would question the fact I am gay? I mean seriously, do you really think you own us? Do I have to agree with you to be gay? How dare you. Such arrogance. I am just as passionate about gay rights as I am the rights of the faithful.  I do not see one group of people as greater than another.
> 
> Screw you. I am nobody's pawn, and I will hold whatever positions I wish, understand?
> 
> On a side note, I never said anything about gays not getting married, you simple-minded creatures. The sooner you learn to read the better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a gay person who is against gay rights.
> 
> I'm sure that happens all the time, lol.
> 
> Please try to be serious.
Click to expand...


I am serious.  You act like a mind reader when you aren't one.  You read into my statements things that aren't there. You can't be bothered to read any of my statements in this thread, except for the ones you disagree with. Your interpretation is therefore flawed.  Your biases are evident.

You only fight for gay people because it benefits you. Not because you want it to benefit them, me.

I am a gay person with a mind of my own. I'm sorry that scares the bigot out of you. You treat black people and women, or any minority the same way. If they don't share your political ideals, they must not be who they say they are. 

Excuse me? What? Do not dare lecture me about diversity and tolerance when your ideals and political beliefs are as rigid and dogmatic as those in religion. 

You can kindly gfy.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Let me ask you two something:

How is asking for equal accommodations for gays and Christians tantamount to being against gay marriage? I thought you wanted equality? Equality means equality of opportunity, not of equal outcome. 

It appears you only want submission and silence.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote 

Is this how liberals treat gay people like me? Like monsters? I would like to hear your response specifically.


----------



## rightwinger

TemplarKormac said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> There has to be a way to fight for your rights without ruining someone.
> 
> There just has to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does same sex marriage ruin anyone outside of pissing off the bigots?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You miss the point entirely. As such, it would be a waste of time trying.
> 
> You can only see this issue from one perspective. A biased one.
> 
> Same sex marriage itself does not "ruin" anyone or anything. Forcing someone to put messages that endorse a practice their religion teaches against does, and as we have all seen, they were swiftly put out of business for it. That should not be. There has to be a way to accommodate the gay and the Christian alike.
Click to expand...

It’s quite simple actually......
Mind your own business and keep your opinions to yourself 

If Christians cannot tolerate gays.......pray for them and STFU


----------



## TemplarKormac

rightwinger said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> There has to be a way to fight for your rights without ruining someone.
> 
> There just has to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does same sex marriage ruin anyone outside of pissing off the bigots?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You miss the point entirely. As such, it would be a waste of time trying.
> 
> You can only see this issue from one perspective. A biased one.
> 
> Same sex marriage itself does not "ruin" anyone or anything. Forcing someone to put messages that endorse a practice their religion teaches against does, and as we have all seen, they were swiftly put out of business for it. That should not be. There has to be a way to accommodate the gay and the Christian alike.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s quite simple actually......
> Mind your own business and keep your opinions to yourself
> 
> If Christians cannot tolerate gays.......pray for them and STFU
Click to expand...


"Mind your own business and keep your opinions to yourself."







That's not how this country works you fascist fool.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Oh, I see. RW can't argue the point or answer the question, he is left with nothing but to press the funny button.

Oh, and screaming "shut up and mind your own business."

He can't stand it when a gay person thinks for himself. That is clearly evident. And now we know where the_ real _bigotry lies. 

The hilarity never ends.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Okay. So, back to my original point. Why must a person choose between their beliefs and their livelihood? It's like... someone having to abandon what they believe in in order to make a living. That is plain wrong. But all I see is people like me making unreasonable demands of the faithful. And yes, I know, I have been and still am part of both sides of the coin. I know what it feels like to be a Christian and have my brethren chastised and ridiculed because they believe marriage is between one man and one woman. I have had gay friends who have been treated like shit by Christians claiming to be tolerant. I have seen gays treating Christians the same way demanding tolerance from them.
> 
> So no, the nature of belief is irrelevant. If you are truly interested in reaching a compromise that preserves the right of both parties, you leave the presumptions at the door. Period. Full stop.
> 
> I have experienced both sides. I still am. I have adapted my beliefs to be tolerant of other gay people, because I myself am one. I can see the reasoning behind both arguments, and I can tell you that compromise is impossible if you automatically assume the ideas and beliefs of the other side from the beginning.
> 
> Are all Christians Bible thumping bigots? No. Some are, a great deal of them aren't. I can tell you that also because my devout grandmother still thinks homosexuality is a sin, but not to the point where she openly disowned me when I came out to her a couple years back.
> 
> Are all gays simple-minded sexual deviants? No. In fact, I am gay and asexual. I have no interest in romance, so I know from personal experience that such an assumption isn't true.
> 
> PA laws are secular. As they should be. But they need to be ethical to both sides, not just one or the other.  I will not stand at the counter and force a Christian store owner to choose between feeding his or her kids and accomodating my sexual affiliation against the teaching of their faith.



What is ethical to both sides...what is fair exactly?

What if everyone in the community feels the same and refuses service?

And this is kind of where I think religious rights can instead become a form of tyranny.

If you open a business that serves the public...it needs to serve the public equally.


----------



## Seawytch

TemplarKormac said:


> I've known Satanists in my life, and they do nothing like what you describe.



Duh, because it is illegal.


> What the hell is a Rastafarian?


_Rastafari, also known as Rastafarianism and the Rastafari Movement, is a religion that developed in Jamaica during the 1930s. It is classified as both a new religious movement and a social movement by scholars of religion. Wikipedia_​​


> Polygamy is illegal even in the Bible (See Genesis 2:23-24 and set aside the whole "man-woman" thing. God made his intent clear from the very beginning that marriage is between two people. Not 20.)



The MORMON bible says they can. Where is their free exercise of religion?



> Racism is not a religious ideal, it is evil.


And yet the racists believe the bible backs THEM up just as deeply as the homophobes do. Why aren't their "deeply held religious beliefs" taken into account?



> And before you get started, no, I am not going to dive into the theological weeds with you. So don't bother.


I'll  "bother" with whatever I feel like, especially when you display such a naive ignorance of facts. You want anti gay Christians to have "rights" and privileges not granted racists. That's not equal.



> Now, your presumptions about people of faith has led you to be as vindictive as you can possibly be. No wonder we in the LGBT community can't get the other side to look at us and out cause positively. People like you are just as full of hatred and spite as some Christians are.  Both sides have burned their bridges, and continue doing so.
> 
> Spare me the lecture. And don't preach tolerance to me when you can't even accept that another gay person has a different opinion than you.



It's not vindictiveness, it is simply seeking equality. Racists don't get to deny service to blacks or interracial couples. Why should the anti gay bigots be able to? Either the racists should be able to discriminate as well or the anti gay bigots should not be able to, right?


----------



## Seawytch

TemplarKormac said:


> ...
> 
> There has to be a way to fight for your rights without ruining someone.
> 
> There just has to be.


It didn't ruin Woolworths when they had to serve blacks at their counter.


----------



## Coyote

KL,.



TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote
> 
> Is this how liberals treat gay people like me? Like monsters? I would like to hear your response specifically.



I’m not sure where you are coming from on this question.  Do you mean being gay and being Christian?  Being gay and also trying to respect the religious rights of others?

As a liberal, I have a lot of respect for you, your beliefs, and your struggle to find a just and fair balance.  No monsters.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Seawytch said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> There has to be a way to fight for your rights without ruining someone.
> 
> There just has to be.
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't ruin Woolworths when they had to serve blacks at their counter.
Click to expand...


That's a dodge. We're not talking about racism. That, as far as PA laws go, was solved.


----------



## Seawytch

TemplarKormac said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> There has to be a way to fight for your rights without ruining someone.
> 
> There just has to be.
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't ruin Woolworths when they had to serve blacks at their counter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a dodge. We're not talking about racism. That, as far as PA laws go, was solved.
Click to expand...

No, you are dodging. I am making a valid comparison. You want antigay bigots to be able to deny service to gays but you draw the line at allowing racist bigots the same "religious freedom" . Why?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Seawytch said:


> I'll "bother" with whatever I feel like, especially when you display such a naive ignorance of facts. You want anti gay Christians to have "rights" and privileges not granted racists. That's not equal.



Oh wow, look at the mental gymnastics there. Even the East German judge gave you a 10 for that one. 

I know what the facts are, and they don't agree with your emotions. That much is clear


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> What is ethical to both sides...what is fair exactly?
> 
> What if everyone in the community feels the same and refuses service?
> 
> And this is kind of where I think religious rights can instead become a form of tyranny.
> 
> If you open a business that serves the public...it needs to serve the public equally.



Then once again I pose the question:  If a senior member of the KKK had a birthday party, should a black baker be forced by law to make his birthday cake with a black man hanging from a rope?


----------



## Seawytch

TemplarKormac said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll "bother" with whatever I feel like, especially when you display such a naive ignorance of facts. You want anti gay Christians to have "rights" and privileges not granted racists. That's not equal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wow, look at the mental gymnastics there. Even the East German judge gave you a 10 for that one.
> 
> I know what the facts are, and they don't agree with your emotions. That much is clear
Click to expand...

Then what are "the facts"? Racists cannot, by law, refuse to serve an interracial couple. Should they be able to, yes or no?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Seawytch said:


> You want antigay bigots to be able to deny service to gays but you draw the line at allowing racist bigots the same "religious freedom" .



Um, no. Where are you getting this from?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Seawytch said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll "bother" with whatever I feel like, especially when you display such a naive ignorance of facts. You want anti gay Christians to have "rights" and privileges not granted racists. That's not equal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wow, look at the mental gymnastics there. Even the East German judge gave you a 10 for that one.
> 
> I know what the facts are, and they don't agree with your emotions. That much is clear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then what are "the facts"? Racists cannot, by law, refuse to serve an interracial couple. Should they be able to, yes or no?
Click to expand...


What are you getting at? You aren't even trying to address my original point.


----------



## Seawytch

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is ethical to both sides...what is fair exactly?
> 
> What if everyone in the community feels the same and refuses service?
> 
> And this is kind of where I think religious rights can instead become a form of tyranny.
> 
> If you open a business that serves the public...it needs to serve the public equally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then once again I pose the question:  If a senior member of the KKK had a birthday party, should a black baker be forced by law to make his birthday cake with a black man hanging from a rope?
Click to expand...












Which one is for the wedding of a gay couple? You cannot compel speech and the gay couples are not asking for a product the baker does not sell. A wedding cake is a wedding cake.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote
> 
> Is this how liberals treat gay people like me? Like monsters? I would like to hear your response specifically.



That's exactly what they do.  The Democrat party divides people into groups.  Then they decide which groups they like and which ones they don't.  Look how they've treated black people throughout the years, like kids on the short school bus.  You can't do X without us, you won't be treated fairly unless you vote for us, you will be a failure unless you vote for us.  Then after all that, they usher in illegal immigrants to take their jobs, or go to court to fight school vouchers which has helped a lot of black children. 

Each party wants to expand their tent as they say in politics.  The two main supportive groups for the Democrats are government dependents and victims.  Democrats love victims and victims love Democrats.  It make sense for them to expand that victim tent for power.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> Do you mean being gay and being Christian? Being gay and also trying to respect the religious rights of others?



Precisely. Because I have inhabited both sides of the coin.


----------



## Seawytch

TemplarKormac said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll "bother" with whatever I feel like, especially when you display such a naive ignorance of facts. You want anti gay Christians to have "rights" and privileges not granted racists. That's not equal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wow, look at the mental gymnastics there. Even the East German judge gave you a 10 for that one.
> 
> I know what the facts are, and they don't agree with your emotions. That much is clear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then what are "the facts"? Racists cannot, by law, refuse to serve an interracial couple. Should they be able to, yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you getting at? You aren't even trying to address my original point.
Click to expand...

Your point is that you believe that Christians should be able to deny service to gays, correct?


----------



## Coyote

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is ethical to both sides...what is fair exactly?
> 
> What if everyone in the community feels the same and refuses service?
> 
> And this is kind of where I think religious rights can instead become a form of tyranny.
> 
> If you open a business that serves the public...it needs to serve the public equally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then once again I pose the question:  If a senior member of the KKK had a birthday party, should a black baker be forced by law to make his birthday cake with a black man hanging from a rope?
Click to expand...


But see, that is where your example is wrong.

The baker only needs to provide a birthday cake of the sort of designs he would provide normally.   He can’t be forced to make special products he does not ordinarily provide.  Likewise, a Baker  who makes wedding cakes can’t be forced to create, say, a pornographic wedding cake, if he does not ordinarily do so, but he can’t discriminate on who he will serve based on their sexual orientation.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Seawytch said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is ethical to both sides...what is fair exactly?
> 
> What if everyone in the community feels the same and refuses service?
> 
> And this is kind of where I think religious rights can instead become a form of tyranny.
> 
> If you open a business that serves the public...it needs to serve the public equally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then once again I pose the question:  If a senior member of the KKK had a birthday party, should a black baker be forced by law to make his birthday cake with a black man hanging from a rope?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one is for the wedding of a gay couple? You cannot compel speech and the gay couples are not asking for a product the baker does not sell. A wedding cake is a wedding cake.
Click to expand...


See... here's the thing, if there's no message or any compulsion by the buyer to endorse gay marriage, they should serve them. But if you are going to stand there and threaten to ruin them because they will not adhere to your demands to put pro-gay imagery or messaging on said cake, you go too far.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Seawytch said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll "bother" with whatever I feel like, especially when you display such a naive ignorance of facts. You want anti gay Christians to have "rights" and privileges not granted racists. That's not equal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wow, look at the mental gymnastics there. Even the East German judge gave you a 10 for that one.
> 
> I know what the facts are, and they don't agree with your emotions. That much is clear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then what are "the facts"? Racists cannot, by law, refuse to serve an interracial couple. Should they be able to, yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you getting at? You aren't even trying to address my original point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point is that you believe that Christians should be able to deny service to gays, correct?
Click to expand...


No. They should only deny service when such service comes in conflict with the stated tenets of their faith. As I just got done explaining in the previous post. Messaging and symbolism are the issue. The cake itself is not. Bake the cake, or offer a DIY cake decorating class free of charge. Let the couple put whatever they want on the cake.

Easy, right?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

TemplarKormac said:


> You treat black people and women, or any minority the same way. If they don't share your political ideals, they must not be who they say they are.



_*"You are not really black unless you vote for me!"*_ 
Joe Biden


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> As a liberal, I have a lot of respect for you, your beliefs, and your struggle to find a just and fair balance. No monsters.



Thank you Coyote, I needed that. I really did.


----------



## Seawytch

TemplarKormac said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is ethical to both sides...what is fair exactly?
> 
> What if everyone in the community feels the same and refuses service?
> 
> And this is kind of where I think religious rights can instead become a form of tyranny.
> 
> If you open a business that serves the public...it needs to serve the public equally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then once again I pose the question:  If a senior member of the KKK had a birthday party, should a black baker be forced by law to make his birthday cake with a black man hanging from a rope?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one is for the wedding of a gay couple? You cannot compel speech and the gay couples are not asking for a product the baker does not sell. A wedding cake is a wedding cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See... here's the thing, if there's no message or any compulsion by the buyer to endorse gay marriage, they should serve them. But if you are going to stand there and threaten to ruin them because they will not adhere to your demands to put pro-gay imagery or messaging on said cake, you go too far.
Click to expand...

No couple that has sued has asked the baker to provide an item they don't already provide. If the baker does not carry groom/groom toppers, they don't have to. The bakers did not deny them because of what they ordered, but WHO they are.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

rightwinger said:


> How does same sex marriage ruin anyone outside of pissing off the bigots?



Does it have to ruin anybody's life in order for them to be against something?  That is real liberal thought right there.


----------



## Seawytch

TemplarKormac said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll "bother" with whatever I feel like, especially when you display such a naive ignorance of facts. You want anti gay Christians to have "rights" and privileges not granted racists. That's not equal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wow, look at the mental gymnastics there. Even the East German judge gave you a 10 for that one.
> 
> I know what the facts are, and they don't agree with your emotions. That much is clear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then what are "the facts"? Racists cannot, by law, refuse to serve an interracial couple. Should they be able to, yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you getting at? You aren't even trying to address my original point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point is that you believe that Christians should be able to deny service to gays, correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. They should only deny service when such service comes in conflict with the stated tenets of their faith. As I just got done explaining in the previous post. Messaging and symbolism are the issue. The cake itself is not. Bake the cake, or offer a DYI decorating class free of charge. Let the couple put whatever they want on the cake.
> 
> Easy, right?
Click to expand...

{Sigh} The couples all ordered wedding cakes out of a catalog. It was the couples the bakers objected to, not the cake.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Seawytch said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is ethical to both sides...what is fair exactly?
> 
> What if everyone in the community feels the same and refuses service?
> 
> And this is kind of where I think religious rights can instead become a form of tyranny.
> 
> If you open a business that serves the public...it needs to serve the public equally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then once again I pose the question:  If a senior member of the KKK had a birthday party, should a black baker be forced by law to make his birthday cake with a black man hanging from a rope?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one is for the wedding of a gay couple? You cannot compel speech and the gay couples are not asking for a product the baker does not sell. A wedding cake is a wedding cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See... here's the thing, if there's no message or any compulsion by the buyer to endorse gay marriage, they should serve them. But if you are going to stand there and threaten to ruin them because they will not adhere to your demands to put pro-gay imagery or messaging on said cake, you go too far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No couple that has sued has asked the baker to provide an item they don't already provide. If the baker does not carry groom/groom toppers, they don't have to. The bakers did not deny them because of what they ordered, but WHO they are.
Click to expand...


Then in such a scenario, that is unacceptable.  I understand the argument you make, but it should still be no reason to put someone on the street.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

easyt65 said:


> That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!



  I'll go beyond that.

  There is not so much as a single word written into the Constitution, that was written by any person who would have ever considered it reasonable to suppose that a sick homosexual mockery of marriage should be considered or treated as being in any way comparable to a genuine marriage.  Not a single word written by anyone who wouldn't have found the very idea to be outrageous and unthinkable.


----------



## Seawytch

TemplarKormac said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is ethical to both sides...what is fair exactly?
> 
> What if everyone in the community feels the same and refuses service?
> 
> And this is kind of where I think religious rights can instead become a form of tyranny.
> 
> If you open a business that serves the public...it needs to serve the public equally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then once again I pose the question:  If a senior member of the KKK had a birthday party, should a black baker be forced by law to make his birthday cake with a black man hanging from a rope?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one is for the wedding of a gay couple? You cannot compel speech and the gay couples are not asking for a product the baker does not sell. A wedding cake is a wedding cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See... here's the thing, if there's no message or any compulsion by the buyer to endorse gay marriage, they should serve them. But if you are going to stand there and threaten to ruin them because they will not adhere to your demands to put pro-gay imagery or messaging on said cake, you go too far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No couple that has sued has asked the baker to provide an item they don't already provide. If the baker does not carry groom/groom toppers, they don't have to. The bakers did not deny them because of what they ordered, but WHO they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then in such a scenario, that is unacceptable.  I understand the argument you make, but it should still be no reason to put someone on the street.
Click to expand...

They made the choice to violate the laws of their state or locality.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Seawytch said:


> {Sigh} The couples all ordered wedding cakes out of a catalog. It was the couples the bakers objected to, not the cake.



Nobody objected to the couples. They objected into being involved in their ceremonies.  None of these cases ever discriminated against people because of their sexual orientation, they objected to participation into the celebration of their relationship.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Dragonlady said:


> Thomas and Alito's dissent reads like right wing bullshit, not well considered law.



  So what?

  All instances of basic decency, common sense, and sanity, sound like _“right wing bullshit”_ to those of you on the left *wrong*.

  That is absolutely no  reason at all why we sane, decent people ought to give any consideration at all to the insane, immoral, and nonsensical crap that you have been forcing, and wish to force, into our system of law and government.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Seawytch said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll "bother" with whatever I feel like, especially when you display such a naive ignorance of facts. You want anti gay Christians to have "rights" and privileges not granted racists. That's not equal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wow, look at the mental gymnastics there. Even the East German judge gave you a 10 for that one.
> 
> I know what the facts are, and they don't agree with your emotions. That much is clear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then what are "the facts"? Racists cannot, by law, refuse to serve an interracial couple. Should they be able to, yes or no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you getting at? You aren't even trying to address my original point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your point is that you believe that Christians should be able to deny service to gays, correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. They should only deny service when such service comes in conflict with the stated tenets of their faith. As I just got done explaining in the previous post. Messaging and symbolism are the issues. The cake itself is not. Bake the cake, or offer a DYI decorating class free of charge. Let the couple put whatever they want on the cake.
> 
> Easy, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> {Sigh} The couples all ordered wedding cakes out of a catalog. It was the couples the bakers objected to, not the cake.
Click to expand...


Okay then. So just make the cake. If that is indeed the issue that continually plays out in situations like these.

Some Christians see making and selling the cake for a gay couple to be a direct endorsement, and ergo direct participation in their wedding, which according to them is against the Bible's teachings. So, do we force them to choose between violating their conscience or losing their livelihoods?

Whereas, most gays I know don't want to make an issue out of the religious beliefs of someone who is making their cake or other wedding related items. They just want to take the next step in their relationship. Those who do make an issue out of it are being vindictive with no concern for furthering equal treatment among them.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Seawytch said:


> They made the choice to violate the laws of their state or locality.



  It is states and localities that try to enact and enforce laws which blatantly violate the Constitution which are acting illegally, not those decent, law-abiding citizens who refuse to comply with these illegal acts.


----------



## TemplarKormac

I've only been out for a couple of years, if I sound like I don't know anything about it, it's because I truly don't.


----------



## Seawytch

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> {Sigh} The couples all ordered wedding cakes out of a catalog. It was the couples the bakers objected to, not the cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody objected to the couples. They objected into being involved in their ceremonies.  None of these cases ever discriminated against people because of their sexual orientation, they objected to participation into the celebration of their relationship.
Click to expand...

They are in the business of selling wedding cakes. 

Should people that object to an interracial couple be able to refuse to "celebrate their relationship" and refuse to bake them a cake?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Coyote said:


> But see, that is where your example is wrong.
> 
> The baker only needs to provide a birthday cake of the sort of designs he would provide normally. He can’t be forced to make special products he does not ordinarily provide. Likewise, a Baker who makes wedding cakes can’t be forced to create, say, a pornographic wedding cake, if he does not ordinarily do so, but he can’t discriminate on who he will serve based on their sexual orientation.



In the cases I read of, those bakers didn't refuse to make their cake, they refused to do the artistic inscribing on them.  They had the option of buying the cake and inscribing it themselves, or have somebody more artistic to do it.  Man and Man or woman and woman figures can probably be bought on Amazon.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Seawytch said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is ethical to both sides...what is fair exactly?
> 
> What if everyone in the community feels the same and refuses service?
> 
> And this is kind of where I think religious rights can instead become a form of tyranny.
> 
> If you open a business that serves the public...it needs to serve the public equally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then once again I pose the question:  If a senior member of the KKK had a birthday party, should a black baker be forced by law to make his birthday cake with a black man hanging from a rope?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one is for the wedding of a gay couple? You cannot compel speech and the gay couples are not asking for a product the baker does not sell. A wedding cake is a wedding cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See... here's the thing, if there's no message or any compulsion by the buyer to endorse gay marriage, they should serve them. But if you are going to stand there and threaten to ruin them because they will not adhere to your demands to put pro-gay imagery or messaging on said cake, you go too far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No couple that has sued has asked the baker to provide an item they don't already provide. If the baker does not carry groom/groom toppers, they don't have to. The bakers did not deny them because of what they ordered, but WHO they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then in such a scenario, that is unacceptable.  I understand the argument you make, but it should still be no reason to put someone on the street.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They made the choice to violate the laws of their state or locality.
Click to expand...


Question,  do you go there for the cake, or for the explicit reason of destroying their business?

Which would be less hassle? Not telling the proprietor about your sexual affiliation, buying the cake and walking out with it

OR

Initiating years worth of litigation which may wind up destroying you as well as the business that you allege discriminated against you?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Seawytch said:


> They are in the business of selling wedding cakes.
> 
> Should people that object to an interracial couple be able to refuse to "celebrate their relationship" and refuse to bake them a cake?



No because I don't know of any religion that considers interracial marriages a abomination to their God.


----------



## Seawytch

TemplarKormac said:


> Some Christians see making and selling the cake for a gay couple to be a direct endorsement, and ergo direct participation in their wedding, which according to them is against the Bible's teachings. So, do we force them to choose between violating their conscience or losing their livelihoods?



Historically, yes.






						Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				



.
_argued that the Civil Rights Act violated his freedom of religion as "his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever."[8] _​


----------



## Seawytch

TemplarKormac said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is ethical to both sides...what is fair exactly?
> 
> What if everyone in the community feels the same and refuses service?
> 
> And this is kind of where I think religious rights can instead become a form of tyranny.
> 
> If you open a business that serves the public...it needs to serve the public equally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then once again I pose the question:  If a senior member of the KKK had a birthday party, should a black baker be forced by law to make his birthday cake with a black man hanging from a rope?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one is for the wedding of a gay couple? You cannot compel speech and the gay couples are not asking for a product the baker does not sell. A wedding cake is a wedding cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See... here's the thing, if there's no message or any compulsion by the buyer to endorse gay marriage, they should serve them. But if you are going to stand there and threaten to ruin them because they will not adhere to your demands to put pro-gay imagery or messaging on said cake, you go too far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No couple that has sued has asked the baker to provide an item they don't already provide. If the baker does not carry groom/groom toppers, they don't have to. The bakers did not deny them because of what they ordered, but WHO they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then in such a scenario, that is unacceptable.  I understand the argument you make, but it should still be no reason to put someone on the street.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They made the choice to violate the laws of their state or locality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Question,  do you go there for the cake, or for the explicit reason of destroying their business?
> 
> Which would be less hassle? Not telling the proprietor about your sexual affiliation, buying the cake and walking out with it
> 
> OR
> 
> Initiating years worth of litigation which may wind up destroying you as well as the business that you allege discriminated against you?
Click to expand...

None of the couples did that either. Maybe you should read up on the cases...


----------



## TemplarKormac

Seawytch said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some Christians see making and selling the cake for a gay couple to be a direct endorsement, and ergo direct participation in their wedding, which according to them is against the Bible's teachings. So, do we force them to choose between violating their conscience or losing their livelihoods?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historically, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> _argued that the Civil Rights Act violated his freedom of religion as "his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever."[8] _​
Click to expand...


We're not talking about race, Seawytch.


----------



## Seawytch

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are in the business of selling wedding cakes.
> 
> Should people that object to an interracial couple be able to refuse to "celebrate their relationship" and refuse to bake them a cake?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No because I don't know of any religion that considers interracial marriages a abomination to their God.
Click to expand...

The racists believe the Christian bible does and their beliefs are as deeply held to them as yours are to you.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Seawytch said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is ethical to both sides...what is fair exactly?
> 
> What if everyone in the community feels the same and refuses service?
> 
> And this is kind of where I think religious rights can instead become a form of tyranny.
> 
> If you open a business that serves the public...it needs to serve the public equally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then once again I pose the question:  If a senior member of the KKK had a birthday party, should a black baker be forced by law to make his birthday cake with a black man hanging from a rope?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one is for the wedding of a gay couple? You cannot compel speech and the gay couples are not asking for a product the baker does not sell. A wedding cake is a wedding cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See... here's the thing, if there's no message or any compulsion by the buyer to endorse gay marriage, they should serve them. But if you are going to stand there and threaten to ruin them because they will not adhere to your demands to put pro-gay imagery or messaging on said cake, you go too far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No couple that has sued has asked the baker to provide an item they don't already provide. If the baker does not carry groom/groom toppers, they don't have to. The bakers did not deny them because of what they ordered, but WHO they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then in such a scenario, that is unacceptable.  I understand the argument you make, but it should still be no reason to put someone on the street.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They made the choice to violate the laws of their state or locality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Question,  do you go there for the cake, or for the explicit reason of destroying their business?
> 
> Which would be less hassle? Not telling the proprietor about your sexual affiliation, buying the cake and walking out with it
> 
> OR
> 
> Initiating years worth of litigation which may wind up destroying you as well as the business that you allege discriminated against you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of the couples did that either. Maybe you should read up on the cases...
Click to expand...


The cases don't explain the intentions, they only cite the violations of the law. They don't paint the entire picture.


----------



## Seawytch

TemplarKormac said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some Christians see making and selling the cake for a gay couple to be a direct endorsement, and ergo direct participation in their wedding, which according to them is against the Bible's teachings. So, do we force them to choose between violating their conscience or losing their livelihoods?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historically, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> _argued that the Civil Rights Act violated his freedom of religion as "his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever."[8] _​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not talking about race, Seawytch.
Click to expand...

It is a comparable argument...so I understand why you don't want to face it.


----------



## Dr Grump

easyt65 said:


> That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution



And?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Seawytch said:


> The racists believe the Christian bible does and their beliefs are as deeply held to them as yours are to you.



They do?  I was born into a Catholic family.  I went to a Catholic church.  I even served as an altar boy in that church.  Religion was half of our class time, and for the life of me, I don't recall any teachings against interracial marriages or relationships.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Seawytch said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some Christians see making and selling the cake for a gay couple to be a direct endorsement, and ergo direct participation in their wedding, which according to them is against the Bible's teachings. So, do we force them to choose between violating their conscience or losing their livelihoods?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historically, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> _argued that the Civil Rights Act violated his freedom of religion as "his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever."[8] _​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not talking about race, Seawytch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a comparable argument...so I understand why you don't want to face it.
Click to expand...


No, because I see it as a deviation from the topic. Whereas you say I won't address your racial argument, you won't address my religious one. 

Stop playing games with me.


----------



## Seawytch

TemplarKormac said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is ethical to both sides...what is fair exactly?
> 
> What if everyone in the community feels the same and refuses service?
> 
> And this is kind of where I think religious rights can instead become a form of tyranny.
> 
> If you open a business that serves the public...it needs to serve the public equally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then once again I pose the question:  If a senior member of the KKK had a birthday party, should a black baker be forced by law to make his birthday cake with a black man hanging from a rope?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one is for the wedding of a gay couple? You cannot compel speech and the gay couples are not asking for a product the baker does not sell. A wedding cake is a wedding cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See... here's the thing, if there's no message or any compulsion by the buyer to endorse gay marriage, they should serve them. But if you are going to stand there and threaten to ruin them because they will not adhere to your demands to put pro-gay imagery or messaging on said cake, you go too far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No couple that has sued has asked the baker to provide an item they don't already provide. If the baker does not carry groom/groom toppers, they don't have to. The bakers did not deny them because of what they ordered, but WHO they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then in such a scenario, that is unacceptable.  I understand the argument you make, but it should still be no reason to put someone on the street.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They made the choice to violate the laws of their state or locality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Question,  do you go there for the cake, or for the explicit reason of destroying their business?
> 
> Which would be less hassle? Not telling the proprietor about your sexual affiliation, buying the cake and walking out with it
> 
> OR
> 
> Initiating years worth of litigation which may wind up destroying you as well as the business that you allege discriminated against you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of the couples did that either. Maybe you should read up on the cases...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The cases don't explain the intentions, they only cite the violations of the law. They don't paint the entire picture.
Click to expand...

You obviously didn't read them. You have heard of *testimony*? Findings of fact?





__





						Klein v. Or. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 289 Or. App. 507 | Casetext Search + Citator
					

Read Klein v. Or. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 289 Or. App. 507, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database



					casetext.com


----------



## Seawytch

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The racists believe the Christian bible does and their beliefs are as deeply held to them as yours are to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do?  I was born into a Catholic family.  I went to a Catholic church.  I even served as an altar boy in that church.  Religion was half of our class time, and for the life of me, I don't recall any teachings against interracial marriages or relationships.
Click to expand...










						God once opposed interracial marriage, too
					

The United Methodist Church’s ban on same-sex marriage is not likely to last.




					www.post-gazette.com


----------



## TemplarKormac

Seawytch said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is ethical to both sides...what is fair exactly?
> 
> What if everyone in the community feels the same and refuses service?
> 
> And this is kind of where I think religious rights can instead become a form of tyranny.
> 
> If you open a business that serves the public...it needs to serve the public equally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then once again I pose the question:  If a senior member of the KKK had a birthday party, should a black baker be forced by law to make his birthday cake with a black man hanging from a rope?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one is for the wedding of a gay couple? You cannot compel speech and the gay couples are not asking for a product the baker does not sell. A wedding cake is a wedding cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See... here's the thing, if there's no message or any compulsion by the buyer to endorse gay marriage, they should serve them. But if you are going to stand there and threaten to ruin them because they will not adhere to your demands to put pro-gay imagery or messaging on said cake, you go too far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No couple that has sued has asked the baker to provide an item they don't already provide. If the baker does not carry groom/groom toppers, they don't have to. The bakers did not deny them because of what they ordered, but WHO they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then in such a scenario, that is unacceptable.  I understand the argument you make, but it should still be no reason to put someone on the street.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They made the choice to violate the laws of their state or locality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Question,  do you go there for the cake, or for the explicit reason of destroying their business?
> 
> Which would be less hassle? Not telling the proprietor about your sexual affiliation, buying the cake and walking out with it
> 
> OR
> 
> Initiating years worth of litigation which may wind up destroying you as well as the business that you allege discriminated against you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of the couples did that either. Maybe you should read up on the cases...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The cases don't explain the intentions, they only cite the violations of the law. They don't paint the entire picture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You obviously didn't read them. You have heard of *testimony*? Findings of fact?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Klein v. Or. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 289 Or. App. 507 | Casetext Search + Citator
> 
> 
> Read Klein v. Or. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 289 Or. App. 507, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
> 
> 
> 
> casetext.com
Click to expand...


Findings of fact, yes, those are facts of the matter, not facts stating the exact motivations of the plaintiff. 

...

This is getting rather tedious.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Seawytch said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The racists believe the Christian bible does and their beliefs are as deeply held to them as yours are to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do?  I was born into a Catholic family.  I went to a Catholic church.  I even served as an altar boy in that church.  Religion was half of our class time, and for the life of me, I don't recall any teachings against interracial marriages or relationships.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God once opposed interracial marriage, too
> 
> 
> The United Methodist Church’s ban on same-sex marriage is not likely to last.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.post-gazette.com
Click to expand...


So, for starters, the author of that article, nor the delegates at the UMC conference it referred to cite any scripture. Perhaps you could do what they didn't.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Seawytch said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The racists believe the Christian bible does and their beliefs are as deeply held to them as yours are to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do?  I was born into a Catholic family.  I went to a Catholic church.  I even served as an altar boy in that church.  Religion was half of our class time, and for the life of me, I don't recall any teachings against interracial marriages or relationships.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God once opposed interracial marriage, too
> 
> 
> The United Methodist Church’s ban on same-sex marriage is not likely to last.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.post-gazette.com
Click to expand...


So you had to go back over 60 years to find one case of one church (not religion itself) to make your point?


----------



## Faun

TemplarKormac said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> There has to be a way to fight for your rights without ruining someone.
> 
> There just has to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does same sex marriage ruin anyone outside of pissing off the bigots?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You miss the point entirely. As such, it would be a waste of time trying.
> 
> You can only see this issue from one perspective. A biased one.
> 
> Same sex marriage itself does not "ruin" anyone or anything. Forcing someone to put messages that endorse a practice their religion teaches against does, and as we have all seen, they were swiftly put out of business for it. That should not be. There has to be a way to accommodate the gay and the Christian alike.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. If gay marriage is against your religion, don't enter a gay marriage. Problem solved.


----------



## Faun

Seawytch said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> There has to be a way to fight for your rights without ruining someone.
> 
> There just has to be.
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't ruin Woolworths when they had to serve blacks at their counter.
Click to expand...

Aren't they out of business?


----------



## Seawytch

TemplarKormac said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The racists believe the Christian bible does and their beliefs are as deeply held to them as yours are to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do?  I was born into a Catholic family.  I went to a Catholic church.  I even served as an altar boy in that church.  Religion was half of our class time, and for the life of me, I don't recall any teachings against interracial marriages or relationships.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God once opposed interracial marriage, too
> 
> 
> The United Methodist Church’s ban on same-sex marriage is not likely to last.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.post-gazette.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, for starters, the author of that article, nor the delegates at the UMC conference it referred to cite any scripture. Perhaps you could do what they didn't.
Click to expand...

Scripture isn’t required for a deeply held religious belief, but they have that too.
Exodus 34:10-16 and 2 Corinthians 6:14 are most often used.


----------



## Seawytch

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The racists believe the Christian bible does and their beliefs are as deeply held to them as yours are to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do?  I was born into a Catholic family.  I went to a Catholic church.  I even served as an altar boy in that church.  Religion was half of our class time, and for the life of me, I don't recall any teachings against interracial marriages or relationships.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God once opposed interracial marriage, too
> 
> 
> The United Methodist Church’s ban on same-sex marriage is not likely to last.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.post-gazette.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you had to go back over 60 years to find one case of one church (not religion itself) to make your point?
Click to expand...

God was cited as a reason against interracial marriage...by a judge.


----------



## Seawytch

TemplarKormac said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some Christians see making and selling the cake for a gay couple to be a direct endorsement, and ergo direct participation in their wedding, which according to them is against the Bible's teachings. So, do we force them to choose between violating their conscience or losing their livelihoods?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Historically, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.m.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> _argued that the Civil Rights Act violated his freedom of religion as "his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever."[8] _​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're not talking about race, Seawytch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a comparable argument...so I understand why you don't want to face it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because I see it as a deviation from the topic. Whereas you say I won't address your racial argument, you won't address my religious one.
> 
> Stop playing games with me.
Click to expand...

I did address your religious “argument”. I said that they should not be able to discriminate against me as long as I am prohibited, by law, from discriminating against them. I said they should not be able to discriminate against me if they cannot discriminate against an interracial couple. It’s quite simple.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

rightwinger said:


> easyt65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a lot of stuff not explicitly in the Constitution. Women’s rights, a standing Army, Space Force...
> 
> Same Sex Marriage is here to stay
Click to expand...

Yup...you see..the majority want it....and as the geezers die off and the Religious nutz diminish in both numbers and influence--that majority will only grow.

The Constitution is a living document..and judicial activism is an important part of evolving as a nation. 

SCOTUS disagrees/ Well..maybe we get 6 more Justices..and fix that!


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> The racists believe the Christian bible does and their beliefs are as deeply held to them as yours are to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do?  I was born into a Catholic family.  I went to a Catholic church.  I even served as an altar boy in that church.  Religion was half of our class time, and for the life of me, I don't recall any teachings against interracial marriages or relationships.
Click to expand...

Of course..if you want to marry a non-Catholic--there's an issue.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

easyt65 said:


> That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!


But equal protection under the law and the right to due proces is in the constitution. You should read the majority opinion. For that matter read the constitution.

And speaking of what is and is not in the constitution, the right to discriminat against others- to dictate how others can live and who they can love based on YOUR religious beliefs is not to be found.  What you are told by the government that you must get gay married or have gay sex, then and only then will you have something to bitch about,.


----------



## progressive hunter

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> But equal protection under the law and the right to due proces is in the constitution. You should read the majority opinion. For that matter read the constitution.
> 
> And speaking of what is and is not in the constitution, the right to discriminat against others- to dictate how others can live and who they can love based on YOUR religious beliefs is not to be found.  What you are told by the government that you must get gay married or have gay sex, then and only then will you have something to bitch about,.


the constitution is mainly what government can and cant do not the average person,, I should be able to discriminate against whoever I want,,

as for gay marriage,, thats covered in the 1st A with freedom to assemble,,


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> But equal protection under the law and the right to due proces is in the constitution.



Yep, and with that ruling, brother and sister can be married, father and daughter, mother and son.  Equal protection doesn't apply to just straight and gays, it applies to everybody.  It's only a matter of time until some smart ass takes it to the Supreme Court.


----------



## Dragonlady

easyt65 said:


> That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!
> 
> _"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."_
> 
> "_The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."
> 
> Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance."_
> 
> 
> 
> _"Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss," he wrote. "In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals."_
> 
> Just because you have a deep RELIGIOUS conviction regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and does not include same-sex marriages does *NOT *make one a Bigot or Homophobe and protects that religious belief / conviction.
> 
> _Thomas added: "This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as 'disparag[ing]' homosexuals and 'diminish[ing] their personhood' through '[d]ignitary wounds.'"_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case
> 
> 
> The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _



If the validity of your marriage isn't recognized in every state of the union, it becomes a legal nightmare.

If you and your spouse are driving through a state with no same sex marriage and you have a car accident, which injures your spouse, you can't legally consent to their medical care because your marriage isn't recognized?  If your spouse dies, and you have children to which your spouse is the only biological parent, that state would take the children away from you and place them in foster care because you aren't married, and they're not your kids.

If your marital status changes multiple times driving across the USA, with differing recognition in various states, how do you divorce if you're currently residing in a no-marriage state, since you'll still be legally married if you move or even vacation somewhere else?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Of course..if you want to marry a non-Catholic--there's an issue.



Yes it is.  Not as much today, but years ago it was.


----------



## Dragonlady

progressive hunter said:


> the constitution is mainly what government can and cant do not the average person,, I should be able to discriminate against whoever I want,,
> 
> as for gay marriage,, thats covered in the 1st A with freedom to assemble,,



You should NOT be free to discrimminate against anyone.  That violates THEIR rights to freedom and the pursuit of happiness.  You can choose to not associate with people, but if you do so in a way that violates non-discrimmination laws, you should be punished for violating their Constitiutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Your demand for the freedom to be an asshole is limited by my right to life a life free of assholes and their asshole behaviour.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

progressive hunter said:


> the constitution is mainly what government can and cant do not the average person,, I should be able to discriminate against whoever I want,,


You might think that you have that right but the laws against discrimination that cove LGBT people in many states say otherwise. It is not only what the government can and cannot do. It is also what the government will allow to be done to people by others. 

The government connot imprison someone without due process but the government also prohibits individuals from practicing unlawful imprisonment . Your libertarian bullshit falls flat.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

progressive hunter said:


> as for gay marriage,, thats covered in the 1st A with freedom to assemble,,


WHAT!!!????


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yep, and with that ruling, brother and sister can be married, father and daughter, mother and son.  Equal protection doesn't apply to just straight and gays, it applies to everybody.  It's only a matter of time until some smart ass takes it to the Supreme Court.


Hysterical, slippery slope logical fallacy inane equine excrement. It has been about six years since the Obergfell ruling. How many people have tried to marry a sibling, or a child, or their dog citing that ruling?

Gay people made their case for marriage by challenging the states to come up with a compelling government reason, or at least a rational basis to deny unrelated, consenting adults of the same sex marriage. The states failed miserably.

If someone wished to further expand the definition of marriage to include close relatives or animals they are welcome to pursue it through the judicial and/or legislative process. However, the issues would be different and for the states to show that there are compelling reasons to not allow such unions would likely be far easier.

Lastly, the Obergfell decision SPECIFICALLY states that the right for same sex couple to marry will be in accordance with current state laws governing marriage between opposite sex coupls. Thoes laws prohibit siblings and parrent -child marriage. So get a fucking grip!


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Hysterical, slippery slope logical fallacy bovine excrement. It has been about six years since the Obergfell ruling. How many people have tried to marry a sibling, or a child, or their dog citing that ruling?
> 
> Gay people made their case for marriage by challenging the states to come up with a compelling government reason, or at least a rational basis to deny unrelated, consenting adults of the same sex marriage. The states failed miserably.
> 
> If someone wished to further expand the definition of marriage to include close relatives or animals they are welcome to pursue it through the judicial and/or legislative process. However, the issues would be different and for the states to show that there are compelling reasons to not allow such unions would likely be far easier.
> 
> Lastly, the Obergfell decision SPECIFICALLY states that the right for same sex couple to marry will be in accordance with current state laws governing marriage between opposite sex coupls. Thoes laws prohibit siblings and parrent -child marriage. So get a fucking grip!


As long as AIDS medications aren't paid for by the taxpayers and hospitalization costs don't increase due to rectal injuries.


----------



## progressive hunter

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> WHAT!!!????


what what??

are you saying the freedom to assemble doesnt include marriage??

thats two people assembling isnt it??


----------



## progressive hunter

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You might think that you have that right but the laws against discrimination that cove LGBT people in many states say otherwise. It is not only what the government can and cannot do. It is also what the government will allow to be done to people by others.
> 
> The government connot imprison someone without due process but the government also prohibits individuals from practicing unlawful imprisonment . Your libertarian bullshit falls flat.


to a degree youre right,, but to discuss it in detail is a waste of time with some of you,,


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Hysterical, slippery slope logical fallacy inane equine excrement. It has been about six years since the Obergfell ruling. How many people have tried to marry a sibling, or a child, or their dog citing that ruling?
> 
> Gay people made their case for marriage by challenging the states to come up with a compelling government reason, or at least a rational basis to deny unrelated, consenting adults of the same sex marriage. The states failed miserably.
> 
> If someone wished to further expand the definition of marriage to include close relatives or animals they are welcome to pursue it through the judicial and/or legislative process. However, the issues would be different and for the states to show that there are compelling reasons to not allow such unions would likely be far easier.
> 
> Lastly, the Obergfell decision SPECIFICALLY states that the right for same sex couple to marry will be in accordance with current state laws governing marriage between opposite sex coupls. Thoes laws prohibit siblings and parrent -child marriage. So get a fucking grip!



No because if marriage is a right guaranteed by equal protection under the law, then it's equal protection for everybody or none at all. Correct, nobody tried to push incest cases as of yet, but down the road somebody will.  

I was a lad when this whole gay thing started.  Just let them out of the closet the leftists protested, and they will be happy.  Fast forward to today, they are forcing their way of life down the throats of all Americans.  Perhaps the best idea was not letting them out of the closet in the first place.  All it really does is invite trouble down the road.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dragonlady said:


> You should NOT be free to discrimminate against anyone. That violates THEIR rights to freedom and the pursuit of happiness. You can choose to not associate with people, but if you do so in a way that violates non-discrimmination laws, you should be punished for violating their Constitiutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.



The Constitution doesn't guarantee you rights from other people, it only guarantees you rights from government.  You can yell at a politician saying their wife is ugly and their clothing looks like shit, and there is nothing they can do to you about it.  Now try the same thing with your employer and see what happens.


----------



## initforme

Please explain why anyone cares what 2 consenting adults do.  If they want to marry it has zero effect on my traditional marriage.  Ever heard of freedom?   As a lifelong practicing Christian I have no negative feelings toward gay marriage.  It's none of my business.  Or yours.  Snowflakes.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I was a lad when this whole gay thing started. Just let them out of the closet the leftists protested, and they will be happy. Fast forward to today, they are forcing their way of life down the throats of all Americans. Perhaps the best idea was not letting them out of the closet in the first place. All it really does is invite trouble down the road.



  We went from _“Don't force your morality on me!”_ to allowing them to force their immorality on us.

  We went to it being about _“consenting adults”_ to them trying to drag those of us into their filth who want nothing to do with it (so much for _”consenting”_) and even going after children (so much for _“adults”_).


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ray From Cleveland said:


> No because if marriage is a right guaranteed by equal protection under the law, then it's equal protection for everybody or none at all. Correct, nobody tried to push incest cases as of yet, but down the road somebody will.
> 
> I was a lad when this whole gay thing started.  Just let them out of the closet the leftists protested, and they will be happy.  Fast forward to today, they are forcing their way of life down the throats of all Americans.  Perhaps the best idea was not letting them out of the closet in the first place.  All it really does is invite trouble down the road.


Same horseshit different post. Read what I wrote again and try to comprehend if you can. Give the histrionics a rest and stop trying to justify your bigotry. It's a pathetic fail. You're not even trying to address the points that I made


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

progressive hunter said:


> to a degree youre right,, but to discuss it in detail is a waste of time with some of you,,


Thank you for acknowledging that I am right. But, what further detail are you referring to? Try me.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Bob Blaylock said:


> We went from _“Don't force your morality on me!”_ to allowing them to force their immorality on us.
> 
> We went to it being about _“consenting adults”_ to them trying to drag those of us into their filth who want nothing to do with it (so much for _”consenting”_) and even going after children (so much for _“adults”_).


So you were dragged into gay marriage and gay sex.? Please tell us more.


----------



## progressive hunter

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Thank you for acknowledging that I am right. But, what further detail are you referring to? Try me.


to a degree you were right,, your problem is you dont want anything other than your full opinion acknowledged,,

trying to rationalize with a progressive is useless,,


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

progressive hunter said:


> what what??
> 
> are you saying the freedom to assemble doesnt include marriage??
> 
> thats two people assembling isnt it??


Oh Christ!! Seriously?  Freedome to assemble is NOT MARRIAGE.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

progressive hunter said:


> to a degree you were right,, your problem is you dont want anything other than your full opinion acknowledged,,
> 
> trying to rationalize with a progressive is useless,,


As I said, try me. Don't just whine about how it is futile to argue because I won't capitulate. Make your case


----------



## progressive hunter

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Oh Christ!! Seriously?  Freedome to assemble is NOT MARRIAGE.


why not??

are you saying the government has the power to tell you who you can or cant be with in a religious setting??


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Oh Christ!! Seriously?  Freedome to assemble is NOT MARRIAGE.


It IS the motto of the LEGO Builders of America~


----------



## progressive hunter

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Oh Christ!! Seriously?  Freedome to assemble is NOT MARRIAGE.


and you wonder why you keep loosing the discussion,,,

marriage is a religious ceremony where two people come together,, assemble as one,,,

use that argument and get government out of marriage,,


your problem is you dont like the government saying who you can or cant marry and your solution is to have that same government say who you can,,,

thats called being a serf not a free person,, but being a progressive you dont understand that concept,,


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

progressive hunter said:


> why not??
> 
> are you saying the government has the power to tell you who you can or cant be with in a religious setting??


You're just playing silly and dishonest game now. We are talking about legal marriage. Marriage that is recognised by the state. Marriage for same sex couples that affords them all of the same legal and financial benefits and protections that hetero couples can take for granted. It has nothing to do with religion. Give me a fucking break!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

progressive hunter said:


> and you wonder why you keep loosing the discussion,,,


I have not lost anything. You are loosing because you can't accept the reality of what marriage is


----------



## progressive hunter

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You're just playing silly and dishonest gave now. We are talking about legal marriage. Marriage that is recognised by the state. Marriage for same sex couples that affords them all of the same legal and financial benefits and protections that hetero couples can take for granted. It has nothing to do with religion. Give me a fucking break!


only idiots and progressives think the solution to government over reach is more government over reach,,,

the government has no business in marriage,, period end of story have a nice day,,


----------



## progressive hunter

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I have not lost anything. You are loosing because you can't accept the reality of what marriage is


its a religious ceremony not a government event,,


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

progressive hunter said:


> marriage is a religious ceremony where two people come together,, assemble as one,,,


For most people it is a civil/ legal arrangement. For some , religion also plays a role but that does not change or diminish the legal aspect of it


----------



## progressive hunter

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> For most people it is a civil/ legal arrangement. For some , religion also pklays a role but that does not change or diminish the legal aspect of it


there shouldnt be any legal aspect since the government has no business in marriage,,

but being a progressive/serf you dont understand that


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

progressive hunter said:


> your problem is you dont like the government saying who you can or cant marry and your solution is to have that same government say who you can,,,
> 
> thats called being a serf not a free person,, but being a progressive you dont understand that concept,,


I don't like the government making arbitrary and capricious decisions about who can marry as was done by prohibiting same sex marriage. The goverment does however have a legitament interest in regulating marriage . I am not the one with  the problem here


----------



## progressive hunter

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I don't like the government making arbitrary and capricious decisions about who can marry as was done by prohibiting same sex marriage. The goverment does however have a legitament interest in regulating marriage . I am not the one with  the problem here


as I said,,
only idiots and progressives need the government for their everyday lives,,,

doesnt matter what you think,, the constitution doesnt give them the authority,,


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

progressive hunter said:


> there shouldnt be any legal aspect since the government has no business in marriage,,
> 
> but being a progressive/serf you dont understand that


The reality is that government is very much a part of marriage like it or not. Deal with that reality. Government was not always entrenched in marriage but, given the evolution of state sanctioned marriage , try to explain what marriage would like like  without government involvement


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

progressive hunter said:


> as I said,,
> only idiots and progressives need the government for their everyday lives,,,
> 
> doesnt matter what you think,, the constitution doesnt give them the authority,,


Government is not in my everyday life. It is there in the background for when it is needed


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

progressive hunter said:


> its a religious ceremony not a government event,,


Appeal to ignorance and appeal to authority logical fallacy. Making a proclaimation does not make it true or real


----------



## progressive hunter

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Government is not in my everyday life. It is there in the background for when it is needed


WTF??
marriage is your everyday life,,,


----------



## progressive hunter

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Appeal to ignorance and appeal to authority logical fallacy. Making a poroclaimation does not make it true or real


and yet you keep doing it,,,


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

progressive hunter said:


> and yet you keep doing it,,,


I am using logic, reason and the law. You are just spouting off.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

progressive hunter said:


> WTF??
> marriage is your everyday life,,,


Yes I am married. My wife is  in my every day life. Not the government. But the government is there when we need it to secure our legal and financial security. What the fuck about that is so hard to understand.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I am using logic, reason and the law. You are just spouting off.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Bob Blaylock said:


> We went from _“Don't force your morality on me!”_ to allowing them to force their immorality on us.
> 
> We went to it being about _“consenting adults”_ to them trying to drag those of us into their filth who want nothing to do with it (so much for _”consenting”_) and even going after children (so much for _“adults”_).



It's a bullshit argument to begin with.  For one, nobody ever stopped a gay marriage if they found a clergy to perform it.  You and whatever decided to get married, found a church to do it, and you were married.  It's just the state didn't recognize it and during the GW years, states even voted on gay marriage acceptance.  Nearly every state including mine voted it down. 

That's why I said they are shoving their gay marriage up our ass.  It's what happens when you allow liberalism to go too far; something to think about when they say they only want a "few" more gun restrictions.  Never trust a commie, because baby steps is how they ultimately get what they want.


----------



## progressive hunter

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Yes I am married. My wife is  in my every day life. Not the government.


but yet you had to get their permission to marry her,,

like I said, trying to rationalize with a progressive is a waste of time,,


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Yes I am married. My wife is in my every day life. Not the government. But the government is there when we need it to secure our legal and financial security. What the fuck about that is so hard to understand.



Nothing that can't be done with a good lawyer for single people.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> For most people it is a civil/ legal arrangement. For some , religion also plays a role but that does not change or diminish the legal aspect of it



Which is why the court should have ruled for the government to get out of marriage.  Marriage is a religious institution government adopted as time went on.


----------



## Flopper

easyt65 said:


> That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!
> 
> _"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."_
> 
> "_The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."
> 
> Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance."_
> 
> 
> 
> _"Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss," he wrote. "In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals."_
> 
> Just because you have a deep RELIGIOUS conviction regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and does not include same-sex marriages does *NOT *make one a Bigot or Homophobe and protects that religious belief / conviction.
> 
> _Thomas added: "This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as 'disparag[ing]' homosexuals and 'diminish[ing] their personhood' through '[d]ignitary wounds.'"_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case
> 
> 
> The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _


This seems to old news from Oct 2020 when the Supreme Court refused to hear the 2005 case.   On *June 26, 2015*, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all state bans on same-sex marriage, legalized it in all fifty states, and required states to honor out-of-state same-sex marriage licenses in the case Obergefell v. Hodges.  As of 2019, there were 568,000 same sex marriages in the US.  Today it estimated that there have been  over 700,000 same sex marriages in all states.  Obviously same sex marriages are here to stay.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Which is why the court should have ruled for the government to get out of marriage.  Marriage is a religious institution government adopted as time went on.


It is also a legal one which is what the court addressed, not religious marriages.
Ray, I haven't seen your posts in a long time.  Have you been posting or maybe I have been elsewhere?


----------



## Dr Grump

progressive hunter said:


> I should be able to discriminate against whoever I want,,



No you should not. Unless you want to live in Somalia. In which case, off you go.


----------



## progressive hunter

Dr Grump said:


> No you should not. Unless you want to live in Somalia. In which case, off you go.


so I as a business owner or government official shouldnt be allowed to discriminate against a person thats not vaccinated???


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

progressive hunter said:


> but yet you had to get their permission to marry her,,
> 
> like I said, trying to rationalize with a progressive is a waste of time,,


No I did not need permission. We had to get a lisence but that is just to ensure  that we are legally eligible to be married . No one could arbitrarilly deny our ability to marry


----------



## progressive hunter

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> No I did not need permission. We had to get a lisence but that is just to ensure  that we are legally eligible to be married . No one could arbitrarilly deny our ability to marry


dude,, a license is permission you idiot prog,,, just like a license to drive is permission to drive,,

youre a slave and dont even know it,,


----------



## Dr Grump

progressive hunter said:


> so I as a business owner or government official shouldnt be allowed to discriminate against a person thats not vaccinated???


That's a health issue, not a discrimination issue. You give equal weight to both. This is not the case.


----------



## progressive hunter

Dr Grump said:


> That's a health issue, not a discrimination issue. You give equal weight to both. This is not the case.


so discrimination is ok if its something you agree with,, got it,,


----------



## Dr Grump

progressive hunter said:


> so discrimination is ok if its something you agree with,, got it,,


I could have written your answer for you. Such is your ignorance of both nuance and comprehension...


----------



## progressive hunter

Dr Grump said:


> I could have written your answer for you. Such is your ignorance of both nuance and comprehension...


spoken like a true fascist,,,


----------



## emilynghiem

easyt65 said:


> That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!
> 
> _"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."_
> 
> "_The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."
> 
> Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance."_
> 
> 
> 
> _"Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss," he wrote. "In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals."_
> 
> Just because you have a deep RELIGIOUS conviction regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and does not include same-sex marriages does *NOT *make one a Bigot or Homophobe and protects that religious belief / conviction.
> 
> _Thomas added: "This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as 'disparag[ing]' homosexuals and 'diminish[ing] their personhood' through '[d]ignitary wounds.'"_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case
> 
> 
> The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _


Originally the Bill of Rights spelled out that Congress shall not make laws either Establishing Religion or Prohibiting religious free exercise.
Then the 14th Amendment extended equal protections of individuals to State Govt.
Most recently the Civil Rights Act then extended this to Public Institutions, which could not deny equal rights on the basis of creed, race, gender etc.

It is generally agreed that nobody can be banned from marriage as a personal choice of activity, so the govt cannot Prohibit persons from marrying or having weddings according to their beliefs.

But no govt can establish beliefs either, and can only conduct policies based on what the public consents to.

Now that same sex weddings have been added to the conditions for the state to be involved in marriages, if the public does NOT agree to the same terms then this becomes a spiritual or religious difference in beliefs the state cannot mandate.

States that can resolve this issue can continue to be involved in marriages.

If not, then States/Govt cannot take one side's bias over the other, but may need to revert to secular neutral terms such as civil unions or domestic partnerships that are only about the legal agreements concerning property, custody, or other shared authority legally and financially.

The social relationship is not anything the govt can recognize, establish, endorse, regulate or either legalize/illegalize. 

The partnership contract that govt recognizes should only be about the legal/financial relationship.


----------



## Dr Grump

progressive hunter said:


> spoken like a true fascist,,,


I'm a fascist like you're intelligent. ie, not much..


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Nothing that can't be done with a good lawyer for single people.


Yes, of course. Not surprisingly, you are alluding to a private contract between spouses. Now all that you  have to do is explaine how such a contract can compell a third party to honor it. Let us know when you think that there is popular and political support for ending government reccognition of marrige


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

progressive hunter said:


> so I as a business owner or government official shouldnt be allowed to discriminate against a person thats not vaccinated???


False equivelancy  logical fallacy. Enforcing a public health mandate is not discrimination


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Which is why the court should have ruled for the government to get out of marriage.  Marriage is a religious institution government adopted as time went on.


The courts could not have made such a ruling because the issue og government involvement in marriage was not befor the court. Marriage is a religious institution for religious people. For the rest of us it is a civil/ legal matter


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The courts could not have made such a ruling because the issue og government involvement in marriage was not befor the court. Marriage is a religious institution for religious people. For the rest of us it is a civil/ legal matter



If there were no benefits to marriage (civil, legal, government goodies) than the court would have never heard the case in the first place.  Force government to restructure our society so there are no more benefits to being married than unmarried and problem solved. But wait!  Would that actually solve the problem? 

Of course not, because it has nothing to do with legalities.  What it has to do with is people forcing their way of life down our throats.  They are offended that most people don't "accept" their way of life, and if they can force their way of life down our throats, we would have to accept it which is a flawed way of thinking.  If anything, it makes people more irritated about gay relationships.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Yes, of course. Not surprisingly, you are alluding to a private contract between spouses. Now all that you have to do is explaine how such a contract can compell a third party to honor it. Let us know when you think that there is popular and political support for ending government reccognition of marrige



Give me an example of what you're talking about.  You can't compel anybody into anything simply because you have a marriage certificate.  There is no law that states so.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> It is also a legal one which is what the court addressed, not religious marriages.
> Ray, I haven't seen your posts in a long time. Have you been posting or maybe I have been elsewhere?



This is true, we haven't run into each other in quite a while.  I'm doing fine and hope you are doing the same. 

Correct, the court could never address the religious part of marriage.  That's why they should have ordered government out of marriage completely.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Dr Grump said:


> I could have written your answer for you. Such is your ignorance of both nuance and comprehension...



  Says someone who defends forced medical experimentation on nonconsenting human subjects as a _“__health issue__”_.


----------



## Seawytch

Ray From Cleveland said:


> If there were no benefits to marriage (civil, legal, government goodies) than the court would have never heard the case in the first place.  Force government to restructure our society so there are no more benefits to being married than unmarried and problem solved. But wait!  Would that actually solve the problem?
> 
> Of course not, because it has nothing to do with legalities.  What it has to do with is people forcing their way of life down our throats.  They are offended that most people don't "accept" their way of life, and if they can force their way of life down our throats, we would have to accept it which is a flawed way of thinking.  If anything, it makes people more irritated about gay relationships.


Wrong. It has everything to do with legalities. We had religious marriage rights from the get go. It has always been about the LEGAL protections associated with civil marriage. Things like medical and legal decisions that can be made by civilly married couples. The right not to testify against your spouse, stuff like that.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

I am conservative as it gets and I don't care.
I have no problem with recognizing gay marriage by the government.
I said 20 years ago there should be "two marriages"... legal and religious. (For those that want it)
A legal marriage is a recognized union between two people that provides to them numerous benefits and recognition by the government.
A religious marriage based on the two people's faith or combined faith. - This marriage, the government has no place to protect or legislate whatsoever. Including all churches and or private institutions can refuse to marry anyone they chose based on any reason.


----------



## bodecea

Andylusion said:


> The whole idea that the Supreme Court even has the authority to determine what the law is, is questionable to me.  Where in the Constitutional does the court get to decide what the law is?


You don't know our country very well, do you?   Where are you from?


----------



## bodecea

RodISHI said:


> I appreciate your stance.
> 
> Government should never have been involved in marriage as it is a religious institution. Contracts on the otherhand are for all so it should be a civil contract and the same for all couples wanting their marriage to be registered with the state.


So.........what have YOU actively done to eliminate civil marriages and civil marriage laws.?


----------



## bodecea

iamwhatiseem said:


> I am conservative as it gets and I don't care.
> I have no problem with recognizing gay marriage by the government.
> I said 20 years ago there should be "two marriages"... legal and religious. (For those that want it)
> A legal marriage is a recognized union between two people that provides to them numerous benefits and recognition by the government.
> A religious marriage based on the two people's faith or combined faith. - This marriage, the government has no place to protect or legislate whatsoever. Including all churches and or private institutions can refuse to marry anyone they chose based on any reason.


Ironically, religious marriages have been available to gay couples for decades before civil marriages were.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

progressive hunter said:


> dude,, a license is permission you idiot prog,,, just like a license to drive is permission to drive,,
> 
> youre a slave and dont even know it,,


Get a fucking grip. The license is to ensure that people meet the basic criteria for a legal marriage between consenting adults. Beyond that, no one can be forbidden to marry


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Give me an example of what you're talking about.  You can't compel anybody into anything simply because you have a marriage certificate.  There is no law that states so.


So there is no law that allows married spouses to file a joint tax return, or for a surviving spouse to collect social security benefits and avoid paying an inheritance tax? Get the idea? Want more?


----------



## progressive hunter

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> False equivelancy  logical fallacy. Enforcing a public health mandate is not discrimination


yeah and a marriage license isnt getting permission from the government to get married,,


----------



## progressive hunter

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Get a fucking grip. The license is to ensure that people meet the basic criteria for a legal marriage between consenting adults. Beyond that, no one can be forbidden to marry


thats called  getting permission you dumb fucking prog,,,


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ray From Cleveland said:


> If there were no benefits to marriage (civil, legal, government goodies) than the court would have never heard the case in the first place.  Force government to restructure our society so there are no more benefits to being married than unmarried and problem solved. But wait!  Would that actually solve the problem?
> 
> Of course not, because it has nothing to do with legalities.  What it has to do with is people forcing their way of life down our throats.  They are offended that most people don't "accept" their way of life, and if they can force their way of life down our throats, we would have to accept it which is a flawed way of thinking.  If anything, it makes people more irritated about gay relationships.


Forcing down your throat ? Really? Were you forced to get gay married. Please tell us more. No body care what you  accept. Just stay the hell out of the way.


----------



## progressive hunter

Dr Grump said:


> I'm a fascist like you're intelligent. ie, not much..


I know hitler used that same excuse against the jews,,


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

progressive hunter said:


> thats called  getting permission you dumb fucking prog,,,


You can call it what ever the hell you want. And calling me dumb does not make you sound smart


----------



## progressive hunter

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You can call it what ever the hell you want. And calling me dumb does not make you sound smart


what makes you dumb is not knowing a license is getting permission from the government to do something,,,

why do I feel dirty everytime I have a discussion with a prog??


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Forcing down your throat ? Really? Were you forced to get gay married. Please tell us more. No body care what you accept. Just stay the hell out of the way.



Yes, forcing it down our throats.  When we voted on it in our state, it was overwhelmingly defeated.  Forcing us to accept gay marriage is forcing it down our throats. 

Until recently, marriage was the union between man and woman as the Bible outlines, and that's the way it should have stayed.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> So there is no law that allows married spouses to file a joint tax return, or for a surviving spouse to collect social security benefits and avoid paying an inheritance tax? Get the idea? Want more?



Well there you go, government goodies.  All we need to do is not allow joint tax returns and stop passing SS benefits to your spouse.  After all, most married couples work today and have their own SS account.  Our SS system is going broke and that would make it last a little longer.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Seawytch said:


> Wrong. It has everything to do with legalities. We had religious marriage rights from the get go. It has always been about the LEGAL protections associated with civil marriage. Things like medical and legal decisions that can be made by civilly married couples. The right not to testify against your spouse, stuff like that.



Who gets to visit you in the hospital is not law, it's hospital policy.  You can plea the 5th to anything in court.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yes, forcing it down our throats.  When we voted on it in our state, it was overwhelmingly defeated.  Forcing us to accept gay marriage is forcing it down our throats.
> 
> Until recently, marriage was the union between man and woman as the Bible outlines, and that's the way it should have stayed.


You don't get to vote on civil rights issues. Get over it


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You don't get to vote on civil rights issues. Get over it



Marriage isn't a right and never was civil or otherwise.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Marriage isn't a right and never was civil or otherwise.


Actually, the courts have said many times-on many different types of marriage cases-that it is indeed a right but I won't try to educate you since I'm sure that you don't want to learn anything.

It seems like you and https://www.usmessageboard.com/members/progressive-hunter.71645/ are rather bitter about this marriage thing. So please tell the class, home has same sex marriage impacted you life? What detrimental effects do you see it having on society?


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> This is true, we haven't run into each other in quite a while.  I'm doing fine and hope you are doing the same.
> 
> Correct, the court could never address the religious part of marriage.  That's why they should have ordered government out of marriage completely.


No, I think government has to be involved.  There needs to be a legal contract in order to protect both parties as well the children.  Gay marriage is becoming a non-issue with most Americans.  Support for gay marriage has reach and all time high with only a small minority, 26% in opposition.  With the Supreme Court ruling in 2015, the number licensed gay marriages in the country are estimated at over 700,000.   It seems very unlikely that there would be enough votes to reverse their 2015 decision despite the remarks of the two supreme judges.


----------



## Meathead

Dragonlady said:


> You get dumber every day Easy.  The Supreme Court, ruled on a 7-2 basis, that Kim Davis has no legal right to refuse to give marriage licences to gay people and that Davis cannot try to impose her religious beliefs on people in the State where she lives, or anywhere else, and the Court recently ruled overwhelming in favour of gay rights.
> 
> Thomas and Alito's dissent reads like right wing bullshit, not well considered law.


Kennedy and Ginsberg are gone. It's a new court. We can thank Kennedy for retiring and Ginsberg for dying during the Trump administration.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> No, I think government has to be involved. There needs to be a legal contract in order to protect both parties as well the children. Gay marriage is becoming a non-issue with most Americans. Support for gay marriage has reach and all time high with only a small minority, 26% in opposition. With the Supreme Court ruling in 2015, the number licensed gay marriages in the country are estimated at over 700,000. It seems very unlikely that there would be enough votes to reverse their 2015 decision despite the remarks of the two supreme judges.



After the ruling people just gave up.  No sense in fighting city hall.  Nobody cares anymore and marriage has transformed from a sacred institution into a joke.  You can't be a true liberal unless you are ruining things for other people.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Marriage isn't a right and never was civil or otherwise.


The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the *fundamental right** to marry *is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ray From Cleveland said:


> After the ruling people just gave up.  No sense in fighting city hall.  Nobody cares anymore and marriage has transformed from a sacred institution into a joke.  You can't be a true liberal unless you are ruining things for other people.


How did same sex marriage ruin things? For who?  You?


----------



## Unkotare

Andylusion said:


> The whole idea that the Supreme Court even has the authority to determine what the law is, is questionable to me.  Where in the Constitutional does the court get to decide what the law is?


How much time you got?


----------



## Unkotare

Ray From Cleveland said:


> After the ruling people just gave up.  No sense in fighting city hall.  Nobody cares anymore and marriage has transformed from a sacred institution into a joke.  You can't be a true liberal unless you are ruining things for other people.


I thought you never married. What has been ruined for you? In fact......


----------



## Dragonlady

Meathead said:


> Kennedy and Ginsberg are gone. It's a new court. We can thank Kennedy for retiring and Ginsberg for dying during the Trump administration.



It was your new court that ruled in favour of gay marriage, Sleazy.


----------



## meaner gene

easyt65 said:


> That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!





TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You don't get to vote on civil rights issues. Get over it





Ray From Cleveland said:


> Marriage isn't a right and never was civil or otherwise.


 Are you being deliberately argumentative.  Marriage is one of the fundamental rights of man.  It sanctions the right to reproduce.  The right to pass property to their children.

mar·riage

_the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship

 Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces._


----------



## Unkotare

If this supreme court ruling were overturned, what would happen to Loving V Virginia?


----------



## Meathead

Dragonlady said:


> It was your new court that ruled in favour of gay marriage, Sleazy.


Do you have any idea what you're writing?





__





						Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## meaner gene

Ray From Cleveland said:


> After the ruling people just gave up.  No sense in fighting city hall.  Nobody cares anymore and marriage has transformed from a sacred institution into a joke.  You can't be a true liberal unless you are ruining things for other people.


 By the USSC ruling over half the states recognized gay marriage.  The ruling applied equal protection to the other half of the country.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Meathead said:


> Do you have any idea what you're writing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


She is sort of right. Just this past year after Ginsburg died, a case was brought by the ashole former Alabama State Supreme Court Chief Justice to SCOTUS trying to overturn Obergefell. This court threw it out. They did not rule on it. They just did not hear it because the plaintif did not havestanding.


----------



## Meathead

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> She is sort of right. Just this past year after Ginsburg died, a case filed by the ashole former Alabama State Supreme Court Chief Justice broought a case to SCOTUS trying to overturn Obergefell. This court threw it out. They diod not rule on it. They just did not hear it because the plaintif did not havestanding.


Look, few care anymore if you fags get married. Having said that, she was wrong and ignorant.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Until recently, marriage was the union between man and woman as the Bible outlines, and that's the way it should have stayed.



  It's what it is, and what it has always been, and what it will always be.

  Any law or government act that declares there to be any such thing as a _“marriage”_ between two men, or between two women, is no more meaningful or valid than a law that declares that two plus two equals ten.


----------



## John T. Ford

Obergefell is unConstitutional and should be overturned.


----------



## meaner gene

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> She is sort of right. Just this past year after Ginsburg died, a case filed by the ashole former Alabama State Supreme Court Chief Justice broought a case to SCOTUS trying to overturn Obergefell. This court threw it out. They diod not rule on it. They just did not hear it *because the plaintif did not havestanding.*


This is an important part.  They require somebody show how somebody elses marriage actually harms them.


----------



## meaner gene

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Until recently, marriage was the union between man and woman as the Bible outlines, and that's the way it should have stayed.


Actually the bible also had marriage as the union between a man and a child.

Do you wish that be the way it stayed?


----------



## Meathead

meaner gene said:


> This is an important part.  They require somebody show how somebody elses marriage actually harms them.


If that were the case we could marry animals, children and close blood relatives.


----------



## meaner gene

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Who gets to visit you in the hospital is not law, it's hospital policy.  You can plea the 5th to anything in court.


Its policy based on law.  The definition of "immediate family" is a legal one.

And as for the 5th, that's to keep from incriminating yourself.  It doesn't expand to others, except a spouse, a legal client, and a confession.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> How did same sex marriage ruin things? For who? You?



I said for people, not particularly myself.  That's besides the fact it doesn't have to ruin things for me in order to be against it.  I don't have children or at this point, grandchildren.  But that doesn't mean if the court ruled adults could have sex with children, I wouldn't be against it.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

meaner gene said:


> Its policy based on law. The definition of "immediate family" is a legal one.
> 
> And as for the 5th, that's to keep from incriminating yourself. It doesn't expand to others, except a spouse, a legal client, and a confession.



You can plea the fifth for anything if you don't want to testify against something.  Laws don't apply if they have been ruled unconstitutional.


----------



## John T. Ford

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I said for people, not particularly myself.  That's besides the fact it doesn't have to ruin things for me in order to be against it.  I don't have children or at this point, grandchildren.  But that doesn't mean if the court ruled adults could have sex with children, I wouldn't be against it.


Obergefell is unConstitutional and needs to be overturned. 

It forced Davis to choose between her religious beliefs and her job. 

Her religious beliefs are protected under the 1st amendment to the US Constitution.

The Obergefell ruling violates the 1st Amendment.


----------



## meaner gene

Meathead said:


> If that were the case we could marry animals, children and close blood relatives.


For animals, you would have to get past the "consent" requirement, besides, it's illegal to have sex with them for the same reason.

For blood relatives, different states draw the line at how close a blood relative can be in order to lessen the possibility to genetic defects.


----------



## JohnDB

SCOTUS is correct...
We don't ask Moslems to endorse eating Ham and cheese sandwiches with a shrimp cocktail...it violates their religious laws.

So by the same token we cannot ask believing Christians to endorse homosexual marriages. It's against their religious laws. 

To do otherwise is to absolutely violate the "Freedom of Religion" bill of rights. 

This is the basic constitutional right of every citizen of this nation...
It is so tied up with freedom of expression (freedom of speech) that they are intertwined with each other. You undo one and you have destroyed the other.


----------



## meaner gene

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I said for people, not particularly myself.  That's besides the fact it doesn't have to ruin things for me in order to be against it.  I don't have children or at this point, grandchildren.  But that doesn't mean if the court ruled adults could have sex with children, I wouldn't be against it.


The interesting thing is that people could use the bible to claim sex with children is protected by their religious beliefs.


----------



## bodecea

progressive hunter said:


> what makes you dumb is not knowing a license is getting permission from the government to do something,,,
> 
> why do I feel dirty everytime I have a discussion with a prog??


It's you.....it's really you.


----------



## bodecea

meaner gene said:


> The interesting thing is that people could use the bible to claim sex with children is protected by their religious beliefs.


Some have.   And, of course, some use the bible to claim killing others over religion is ok.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

meaner gene said:


> Actually the bible also had marriage as the union between a man and a child.
> 
> Do you wish that be the way it stayed?



We used to have that in this country too.  I worked with a guy who got married when he was 20 to his wife who was 14 at the time.  As long as you had the parents permission, nobody bothered you about it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Until recently, marriage was the union between man and woman as the Bible outlines, and that's the way it should have stayed.


And there in lies you problem. You think that the United States should be a theocracy. Sorry. Read the constitution


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

meaner gene said:


> The interesting thing is that people could use the bible to claim sex with children is protected by their religious beliefs.



So what religion is it that having sex with children is part of their creed?  I don't know of any, but then again being a Catholic, I never studied other religions.


----------



## Dragonlady

Meathead said:


> Do you have any idea what you're writing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obergefell v. Hodges - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org



My apologies.  It was gay employment rights:









						In landmark case, Supreme Court rules LGBTQ workers are protected from job discrimination
					

The decision said Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it illegal for employers to discriminate because of a person's sex, also covers sexual orientation and transgender status.




					www.nbcnews.com
				




Gay marriage rights have no impact on anyone other than gays getting married.  I know bakers and other wedding services companies believe otherwise but their discrimination is illegal.  They're not being required to "participate in the wedding".  They're being asked to bake a cake.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

meaner gene said:


> For animals, you would have to get past the "consent" requirement, besides, it's illegal to have sex with them for the same reason.



Do animals give consent to being locked up in a house?  Do animals give consent to being put on a leash to go outside for a walk?  Your claim is ridiculous.


----------



## meaner gene

Ray From Cleveland said:


> You can plea the fifth for anything if you don't want to testify against something.  Laws don't apply if they have been ruled unconstitutional.


The 5th is limited to protection against self incrimination.  You can't plead the 5th to protect somebody else, unless you are a co-conspirator.


----------



## Meathead

bodecea said:


> Some have.   And, of course, some use the bible to claim killing others over religion is ok.


It's called the Koran, not the Bible fat lady.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ray From Cleveland said:


> We used to have that in this country too.  I worked with a guy who got married when he was 20 to his wife who was 14 at the time.  As long as you had the parents permission, nobody bothered you about it.


And you think that is OK because idiot parents gave permission? You are more fucked in the head than I ever could have thought. 14 fucking years old! Do you actually think that 14 year old is mature enough to consent? Do you not think that  there had to be an element of coersion involved? What the fuck is wrong with you.? That childs life was most likely ruined.!


----------



## John T. Ford

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So what religion is it that having sex with children is part of their creed?  I don't know of any, but then again being a Catholic, I never studied other religions.


That would be the Left's cherished Islam.


----------



## bodecea

JohnDB said:


> SCOTUS is correct...
> We don't ask Moslems to endorse eating Ham and cheese sandwiches with a shrimp cocktail...it violates their religious laws.
> 
> So by the same token we cannot ask believing Christians to endorse homosexual marriages. It's against their religious laws.
> 
> To do otherwise is to absolutely violate the "Freedom of Religion" bill of rights.
> 
> This is the basic constitutional right of every citizen of this nation...
> It is so tied up with freedom of expression (freedom of speech) that they are intertwined with each other. You undo one and you have destroyed the other.


And so you want religion to con-trol civil marriage?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Do animals give consent to being locked up in a house?  Do animals give consent to being put on a leash to go outside for a walk?  Your claim is ridiculous.


Actually our animals were rescued from a kill shelter and thank us every day for giving them a home. However, we do not have sex with them.


----------



## Meathead

Dragonlady said:


> My apologies.  It was gay employment rights:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In landmark case, Supreme Court rules LGBTQ workers are protected from job discrimination
> 
> 
> The decision said Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it illegal for employers to discriminate because of a person's sex, also covers sexual orientation and transgender status.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nbcnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage rights have no impact on anyone other than gays getting married.  I know bakers and other wedding services companies believe otherwise but their discrimination is illegal.  They're not being required to "participate in the wedding".  They're being asked to bake a cake.


They have the right not to be associated. It is something called free will, anathema to left-wing ideology.


----------



## bodecea

John T. Ford said:


> That would be the Left's cherished Islam.


Hardly....especially con-sidering how sad trumpanzees are today over the drone bombing of an ISIS leader last nite.


----------



## John T. Ford

Dragonlady said:


> My apologies.  It was gay employment rights:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In landmark case, Supreme Court rules LGBTQ workers are protected from job discrimination
> 
> 
> The decision said Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it illegal for employers to discriminate because of a person's sex, also covers sexual orientation and transgender status.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nbcnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gay marriage rights have no impact on anyone other than gays getting married.  I know bakers and other wedding services companies believe otherwise but their discrimination is illegal.  They're not being required to "participate in the wedding".  They're being asked to bake a cake.


Doesn't matter what they are asked.

It violates what is already guaranteed to them in the Bill of Rights.

You cannot take Liberties from one person in order to give to another.

That's exactly what Obergefell does.


----------



## bodecea

Meathead said:


> Kennedy and Ginsberg are gone. It's a new court. We can thank Kennedy for retiring and Ginsberg for dying during the Trump administration.


The pendulum swings, Chubby.


----------



## bodecea

John T. Ford said:


> Obergefell is unConstitutional and needs to be overturned.
> 
> It forced Davis to choose between her religious beliefs and her job.
> 
> Her religious beliefs are protected under the 1st amendment to the US Constitution.
> 
> The Obergefell ruling violates the 1st Amendment.


I love how Davis got used.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> And you think that is OK because idiot parents gave permission? You are more fucked in the head than I ever could have thought. 14 fucking years old! Do you actually think that 14 year old is mature enough to consent? Do you not think that there had to be an element of coersion involved? What the fuck is wrong with you.? That childs life was most likely ruined.!



He passed away a number of years ago.  He was a Vietnam vet that served our military for 20 years.  He was married to this same woman his entire life, brought up a family very successfully and had several grandchildren when he passed away.

The only reason I brought it up is because you act like adults having sex with children was never acceptable in this country when indeed it was under certain circumstances.  Who knows, it may be the same way in some states.  That's something that would need to be researched.

Addendum:  I looked it up.  In many states including mine the age of consent is 16 years old.  Yes, 16 is still considered a child by law. 









						Statutory Rape: A Guide to State Laws and Reporting Requirements
					

AcknowledgementsWork on this project was funded by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under a contract to The Lewin Group.  This report benefited greatly from the oversight and input of Jerry Silverman, the ASPE...




					aspe.hhs.gov


----------



## meaner gene

John T. Ford said:


> Obergefell is unConstitutional and needs to be overturned.
> 
> It forced Davis to choose between her religious beliefs and her job.



That's not a good argument, since it applies to many people in their choice of careers.   Such as jobs that require working on the sabbath. Or jobs requiring men to be clean shaven.


----------



## Meathead

bodecea said:


> The pendulum swings, Chubby.


Rather, the pendulum has swung porky.


----------



## John T. Ford

meaner gene said:


> That's not a good argument, since it applies to many people in their choice of careers.   Such as jobs that require working on the sabbath. Or jobs requiring men to be clean shaven.


The SCOTUS Justices disagree with you as do I.

Forcing Davis to choose between her religious beliefs and her state job is violating her 1st Amendment Right.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Actually our animals were rescued from a kill shelter and thank us every day for giving them a home. However, we do not have sex with them.



The point that flew over your head is animals don't have rights and do not need to give consent to anything.  We have laws that prohibit mistreating and hurting animals, but it's not because they have rights, it's because we as a society find it deplorable.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Ray From Cleveland said:
> 
> 
> 
> We used to have that in this country too.  I worked with a guy who got married when he was 20 to his wife who was 14 at the time.  As long as you had the parents permission, nobody bothered you about it.
> 
> 
> 
> And you think that is OK because idiot parents gave permission? You are more fucked in the head than I ever could have thought. 14 fucking years old! Do you actually think that 14 year old is mature enough to consent? Do you not think that  there had to be an element of coersion [sic] involved? What the fuck is wrong with you.? That childs [sic] life was most likely ruined.!
Click to expand...


  For much of human history, fourteen years was considered an appropriate age to get married.

  This is reflected in Shakespeare's work Romeo and Juliet, in which Juliet is at a _“pretty age”_ (meaning an age to consider gett8ing married) as she approached her fourteenth birthday. 

  The Jewish tradition of _Bar Mitzva_ reflects a cultural principle that held young men to be ready for the responsibilities of adulthood (including marriage) at thirteen.

  Adulthood being held off to an older age than that is a relatively recent thing; reflecting, in my view, that society has become much more complex, and it takes longer to achieve the maturity and knowledge to function as an adult therein.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

John T. Ford said:


> It violates what is already guaranteed to them in the Bill of Rights.


The Bill of Rights includes the right to  discriminate? Please explaine


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

John T. Ford said:


> You cannot take Liberties from one person in order to give to another.


You'r absolutly right! But employers do not have the right to discriminate so nothing is being taken from them, just like you do not have the right to prohibit gays from marrying. On the other hand, LGBT people have the right to be free of discrimination and not have their rights subjegated by bogus claims of violations of religious freedom, or just because you don't approve of them.


----------



## Meathead

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The Bill of Rights includes the right to  discriminate? Please explaine


The Bill of Rights is a check on the powers of government in favor of individual liberty. It does not limit the free will of the people, nor was it meant to.


----------



## John T. Ford

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The Bill of Rights includes the right to  discriminate? Please explaine


It has nothing to do with discrimination.

The Bill of Rights guarantees religious liberty.


The state forcing this woman to act against her religion is a violation of the 1st Amendment.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Bob Blaylock said:


> For much of human history, fourteen years was considered an appropriate age to get married.
> 
> This is reflected in Shakespeare's work Romeo and Juliet, in which Juliet is at a _“pretty age”_ (meaning an age to consider gett8ing married) as she approached her fourteenth birthday.
> 
> The Jewish tradition of _Bar Mitzva_ reflects a cultural principle that held young men to be ready for the responsibilities of adulthood (including marriage) at thirteen.
> 
> Adulthood being held off to an older age than that is a relatively recent thing; reflecting, in my view, that society has become much more complex, and it takes longer to achieve the maturity and knowledge to function as an adult therein.


And you have the nerve to call me fucked in the head while you are publicly endorsing the sexual, and emotional abuse of children.The year is 2021, not 1400


----------



## John T. Ford

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> You'r absolutly right! But employers do not have the right to discriminate so nothing is being taken from them, just like you do not have the right to prohibit gays from marrying. On the other hand, LGBT people have the right to be free of discrimination and not have their rights subjegated by bogus claims of violations of religious freedom, or just because you don't approve of them.


Forcing states to recognize gay marriage is unConstitutional and will be eventually overturned.


----------



## meaner gene

Ray From Cleveland said:


> So what religion is it that having sex with children is part of their creed?  I don't know of any, but then again being a Catholic, I never studied other religions.



It's in the bible, if you bothered to read it in detail.

_17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:17-18 (KJV)

10 “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. Deuteronomy 21:10-13_

Quick translation. It commanded the victorious Israelites to capture unmarried girls and marry them a month later.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The Bill of Rights includes the right to discriminate? Please explaine [sic]



  Freedom of association is not explicitly stated, but very strongly implied by the freedoms of religion and assembly that are explicitly stated in the First Amendment.  This would necessarily include a right not to associate in any context with any individual that one chooses not to associate with, for whatever reason one makes that choice.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> And you have the nerve to call be fucked in the head while you are publicly endorsing the sexual, and emotional abuse of children.The year is 2021, not 1400


----------



## meaner gene

meaner gene said:


> For animals, you would have to get past the "consent" requirement, besides, it's illegal to have sex with them for the same reason.
> 
> For blood relatives, different states draw the line at how close a blood relative can be in order to lessen the possibility to genetic defects.





Ray From Cleveland said:


> Do animals give consent to being locked up in a house?  Do animals give consent to being put on a leash to go outside for a walk?  Your claim is ridiculous.


Marriage is a legal contract, which requires consent to enter into.


----------



## bodecea

Meathead said:


> Rather, the pendulum has swung porky.


It's gonna swing back, Chubby.   Whatever will you INCELs do?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

John T. Ford said:


> Obergefell is unConstitutional and needs to be overturned.
> 
> It forced Davis to choose between her religious beliefs and her job.
> 
> Her religious beliefs are protected under the 1st amendment to the US Constitution.
> 
> The Obergefell ruling violates the 1st Amendment.


How much horseshit can you actually spew in one day ? Not only did she refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay people, but she also forbade her staff from doing so. And alow me to point out that many Christians disagree with her and support gay marriage. Her rights were not violated and she was not personally harmed by gay marriage. She harmed herself by refusing to do her job and willfully being in contemp of court . Most of the conservative Suprememe court agreed buy throwing out the case for lack of standing.


----------



## Meathead

bodecea said:


> It's gonna swing back, Chubby.   Whatever will you INCELs do?


I thought you guys preferred calling yourselves "horizontally challenged". Is "incel" a new and more politically-correct term?


----------



## John T. Ford

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What woman What are you talking about. Religious freedom does not include the ability to discriminate or control others


Kim Davis.

Look it up.

This has nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with the Constitution.

If they want to deny Americans their 1st Amendment Rights then let Congress propose an Amendment to the Constitution.

There is an avenue for that.

What they can't do is use a ruling like in the Obergefell case to deny Americans their Constitutional Rights.

That is exactly what they have done here and when Obergefell comes up again it will be repealed base on exactly that.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

John T. Ford said:


> Forcing states to recognize gay marriage is unConstitutional and will be eventually overturned.


Keep dreaming. At no time in history has a right that has been won been revoked. Can you immaging the outrage? The disruption to society and the legal system.? Do you think that the 700K gay marriages already performed should be annulled ? Have you thought about the children who would be deprived of the legal and financial security of having married parents who are both their legal guardians? How stupid are you?


----------



## John T. Ford

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> How much horseshit can you actually spew in one day ? Not only did she refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay people, but she also forbade her staff from doing so. And alow me to point out that many Christians disagree with her and support gay marriage. Her rights were not violated and she was not personally harmed by gay marriage. She harmed herself by refusing to do her job and willfully being in contemp of court . Most of the conservative Suprememe court agreed buy throwing out the case for lack of standing.


You backwards bobbies are always so damn emotional.

The state cannot force anyone to act against their religious belief without Amending the Constitution.

Forcing the states to recognize gay marriage is unConstitutional for that very reason.

I could give a shit less what you people do.

But, you can't violate the Bill of Rights.

I suspect you are not smart to understand why.


----------



## bodecea

Meathead said:


> I thought you guys preferred calling yourselves "horizontally challenged". Is "incel" a new and more politically-correct term?



You "thought"?   I seriously doubt that, Chubby.  And INCEL....
incel
/ˈinˌsel/

_noun_


a member of an online community of young men who consider themselves unable to attract women sexually, typically associated with views that are hostile toward women and men who are sexually active.
"self-identified incels have used the internet to find anonymous support"


----------



## bodecea

John T. Ford said:


> Kim Davis.
> 
> Look it up.
> 
> This has nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with the Constitution.
> 
> If they want to deny Americans their 1st Amendment Rights then let Congress propose an Amendment to the Constitution.
> 
> There is an avenue for that.
> 
> What they can't do is use a ruling like in the Obergefell case to deny Americans their Constitutional Rights.
> 
> That is exactly what they have done here and when Obergefell comes up again it will be repealed base on exactly that.


Kim Davis.....married four times and used by GOP presidential candidates.   Where is that loser today?


----------



## John T. Ford

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Keep dreaming. At no time in history has a right that has been won been revoked. Can you immaging the outrage? The disruption to society and the legal system.? Do you think that the 700K gay marriages already performed should be annulled ? Have you thought about the children who would be deprived of the legal and financial security of having married parents who are both their legal guardians? How stupid are you?


It's not a right.

It's hanging on by a single SCOTUS ruling that is unConstitutional.

I am not saying it's going away.

But, it isn't going to always be what it is now.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The point that flew over your head is animals don't have rights and do not need to give consent to anything.  We have laws that prohibit mistreating and hurting animals, but it's not because they have rights, it's because we as a society find it deplorable.


Bullshit. Animals do have rights. But you are just using this animal thing as a red herring to deflect attention from the real issues here. I asked you several time how you and society has been harmed by same sex marriage . You have yrt to answer. Why is that ? Cat got your tongue? LOL


----------



## meaner gene

John T. Ford said:


> Kim Davis.
> 
> Look it up.
> 
> This has nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with the Constitution.


_Kimberly Jean Davis (née Bailey; born September 17, 1965) is a former county clerk for Rowan County, Kentucky, who gained international attention in August 2015 when she defied a U.S. federal court order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Davis was elected Rowan County Clerk in 2014. The following year, the Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges, and all county clerks in Kentucky were ordered to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Citing personal religious objections to same-sex marriage, Davis began denying marriage licenses to all couples to avoid issuing them to same-sex couples

she was ultimately jailed for contempt of court.[4] Davis was released after five days in jail under the condition that she not interfere with the efforts of her deputy clerks, who had begun issuing marriage licenses to all couples in her absence. Davis then modified the Kentucky marriage licenses used in her office so that they no longer mentioned her name._


----------



## surada

easyt65 said:


> That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!
> 
> _"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."_
> 
> "_The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."
> 
> Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance."_
> 
> 
> 
> _"Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss," he wrote. "In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals."_
> 
> Just because you have a deep RELIGIOUS conviction regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and does not include same-sex marriages does *NOT *make one a Bigot or Homophobe and protects that religious belief / conviction.
> 
> _Thomas added: "This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as 'disparag[ing]' homosexuals and 'diminish[ing] their personhood' through '[d]ignitary wounds.'"_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case
> 
> 
> The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _



You don't have to attend same sex weddings or invite homosexual couples to dinner.. What exactly is your problem?


----------



## Meathead

bodecea said:


> You "thought"?   I seriously doubt that, Chubby.  And INCEL....
> incel
> /ˈinˌsel/
> 
> _noun_
> 
> 
> a member of an online community of young men who consider themselves unable to attract women sexually, typically associated with views that are hostile toward women and men who are sexually active.
> "self-identified incels have used the internet to find anonymous support"


Shit, I'm 65 and sexually active so that's not me. But I don't do porkers.

Keep trying. There are sites for fat chicks, I'm sure.


----------



## meaner gene

John T. Ford said:


> You backwards bobbies are always so damn emotional.
> 
> The state cannot force anyone to act against their religious belief without Amending the Constitution.
> 
> Forcing the states to recognize gay marriage is unConstitutional for that very reason.


Except that states do not have religious beliefs, via 14th amendment,  First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

The states have no dog in the hunt.


----------



## John T. Ford

meaner gene said:


> Except that states do not have religious beliefs, via 14th amendment,  First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
> 
> The states have no dog in the hunt.


*or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;*

There's the states dog right there !!!!!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Bob Blaylock said:


> Freedom of association is not explicitly stated, but very strongly implied by the freedoms of religion and assembly that are explicitly stated in the First Amendment.  This would necessarily include a right not to associate in any context with any individual that one chooses not to associate with, for whatever reason one makes that choice.


Horseshit Bobby. Freedom of assebly is generally considered to mean that a group can gather for any purpose without being harassed. It has nothing to do with workplace or any other form of discrimination

Freedom of religion means that you can express your beliefs, worship openly and live accordance with the tenants of your faith without fear. It does not mean that you can dictate how others live or what  they believe.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

meaner gene said:


> Except that states do not have religious beliefs, via 14th amendment,  First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
> 
> The states have no dog in the hunt.


You got him with that zinger!


----------



## meaner gene

meaner gene said:


> Except that states do not have religious beliefs, via 14th amendment,  First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
> 
> The states have no dog in the hunt.





John T. Ford said:


> *or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;*
> 
> There's the states dog right there !!!!!


You have it backwards Descartes.


----------



## John T. Ford

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Horseshit Bobby. Freedom of assebly is generally considered to mean that a group can gather for any purpose without being harassed. It has nothing to do with workplace or any other form of discrimination
> 
> Freedom of religion means that you can express your beliefs, worship openly and live accordance with the tenants of your faith without fear.* It does not mean that you can dictate how others live or what  they believe.*


_"It does not mean that you can dictate how others live or what  they believe"_

Which is exactly what the state did when they fired Kim Davis.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

John T. Ford said:


> Kim Davis.
> 
> Look it up.
> 
> This has nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do with the Constitution.
> 
> If they want to deny Americans their 1st Amendment Rights then let Congress propose an Amendment to the Constitution.
> 
> There is an avenue for that.
> 
> What they can't do is use a ruling like in the Obergefell case to deny Americans their Constitutional Rights.
> 
> That is exactly what they have done here and when Obergefell comes up again it will be repealed base on exactly that.


Yes I know and I responed . See post 324 Deal with it


----------



## John T. Ford

meaner gene said:


> You have it backwards Descartes.


The SCOTUS Justices disagree.

The state firing Kim Davis was prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Thus a violation of the 1st Amendment.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

John T. Ford said:


> It's not a right.
> 
> It's hanging on by a single SCOTUS ruling that is unConstitutional.
> 
> I am not saying it's going away.
> 
> But, it isn't going to always be what it is now.


Really? What is it going to be?


----------



## meaner gene

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Freedom of religion means that you can express your beliefs, worship openly and live accordance with the tenants of your faith without fear. It does not mean that you can dictate how others live or what  they believe.


Correct.  Religious views can neither be forced against an individual, nor can an individual force their religious views on others.

Basically it means do your job, and leave your religion at the front door.

If your religion conflicts with your job, why did you ever take the job.  It's like a christian scientist wanting to become a doctor.  And then claiming his religion prevents him from practicing medicine.


----------



## meaner gene

meaner gene said:


> You have it backwards Descartes.





John T. Ford said:


> _"It does not mean that you can dictate how others live or what  they believe"_
> 
> Which is exactly what the state did when they fired Kim Davis.


Actually they got rid of her, because she refused to do her job.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> And you have the nerve to call me fucked in the head while you are publicly endorsing the sexual, and emotional abuse of children.The year is 2021, not 1400



  Do something about the beam in your eye before you fuss about the mote that you imagine in mine.

  Of all those who infest this forum, you have been one of the loudest supporters of the sexual abuse and exploitation of children, and the stronger supporter of the very most degenerated of sexual perverts.

  I was talking about actual history of where adulthood is defined, around or past adolescence, while you have openly supported the sexual exploitation of children well below that age.

  Who was it that wrote the following, about a *three-year-old* child?



TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Anyway, my assessment of the account of what is going on there is that the child, and possibly the aunt are confused about the difference between being gay and transsexual. Children of that age are already developing a sense of gender identity and *he most likely is transsexual*. That is not taught nor can it be. It just happens.



  What kind of sick freak thinks of, or speaks of, children that young, in terms of such disgusting, degenerate sexual perversions?


----------



## meaner gene

John T. Ford said:


> The SCOTUS Justices disagree.
> 
> The state firing Kim Davis was prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
> 
> Thus a violation of the 1st Amendment.


The supreme court refused to hear her case.  They agreed with the lower court ruling forcing her to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.


----------



## John T. Ford

meaner gene said:


> Actually they got rid of her, because she refused to do her job.


It doesn't surprise me that you lack the intelligence to follow along here.


----------



## John T. Ford

meaner gene said:


> The supreme court refused to hear her case.  They agreed with the lower court ruling forcing her to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.


Try reading up on why they didn't hear her case genius.

They will eventually hear it.


----------



## John T. Ford

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Really? What is it going to be?


I could care less.

But, Obergefell is unConstitutional and when it comes up, without RBG, it will be overturned.


----------



## meaner gene

meaner gene said:


> Actually they got rid of her, because she refused to do her job.





John T. Ford said:


> It doesn't surprise me that you lack the intelligence to follow along here.


She refused to do her job, and interfered with the other clerks issuing marriages licences in her place.   The court ordered her to not interfere with the other clerks doing her job in her place.


----------



## surada

TemplarKormac said:


> The science tells me that homosexuality is a flaw in the human genome. Yes, it is genetic. It does not change the fact that homosexuality is a counterproductive mechanism to the proliferation of our species. It does not abide our evolution. Homosexuality is a defect. Heterosexual reproduction is the norm. Homosexual is not. Any means of reproduction in a heterosexual species such as ours requires heterosexual methods. If two moms want a child, one of them must be inseminated with male sperm. If two fathers want a child, they inseminate a surrogate mother. You cannot further the evolution of our species via homosexuality. _*You cannot deny the heterosexual nature of humanity. Never.*_
> 
> I understand that the minority should be treated no differently from the majority, but the minority should not have more rights than the majority. What liberals want is special treatment for us, we just want to be left alone. We do not want to conquer society with our version of morality. Equality, not submission. Coexistence, not subversion.



Are you claiming the minority has MORE rights?


----------



## Bob Blaylock

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Horseshit Bobby. Freedom of assebly is generally considered to mean that a group can gather for any purpose without being harassed. It has nothing to do with workplace or any other form of discrimination



  Very strongly implied in that is the freedom to choose—for whatever reason one will, or even watthour any obligation to state a reason—with whom one will or will not assemble, or otherwise associate.  The Ninth Amendment certainly gives additional backing to this and any right that is so strongly implied.




TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Freedom of religion means that you can express your beliefs, worship openly and live accordance with the tenants of your faith without fear. It does not mean that you can dictate how others live or what they believe.



  Nor does it mean that Godless filth such as yourself are allowed license to dictate to us how we must live or believe; especially when you wish to do so in manners that violate all standards of decency and morality.


----------



## meaner gene

meaner gene said:


> The supreme court refused to hear her case.  They agreed with the lower court ruling forcing her to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.





John T. Ford said:


> Try reading up on why they didn't hear her case genius.
> 
> They will eventually hear it.











						Supreme Court rejects appeal from county clerk who wouldn't issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples
					

Two of the conservative justices, however, said the 2015 ruling making same-sex marriage the law of the land amounted to a "cavalier treatment of religion."




					www.nbcnews.com
				




Supreme Court rejects appeal from county clerk who wouldn't issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples

the court was apparently unanimous in refusing to hear her appeal,


----------



## Dragonlady

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yes, forcing it down our throats.  When we voted on it in our state, it was overwhelmingly defeated.  Forcing us to accept gay marriage is forcing it down our throats.
> 
> Until recently, marriage was the union between man and woman as the Bible outlines, and that's the way it should have stayed.



"Legal" marriage is a secular contract between two partners having NOTHING to do with religion.  It therefore doesn't matter what your religious self thinks about gay marriage.  Marriage sets out the rights and responsibilities of the partners to one another, and the manner in which joint assets will be split on the dissolution of the marriage, as well as spousal support in that event.

Furthermore, unless the State is forcing  or requiring you to marry a same sex partner, same sex marriage isn't being "forced" on you or "shoved down your throat".  The bald fact is that unless you're a gay person who wants to get married, the legalization of gay marriage will have absolutely no impact on your life at all.  You're simply a miserable old man who keeps trying to inflict his idea of morality on other people.

I think it's wrong and immoral for people to choose to remain single and childless.  God told people to be fruitful and multiply and you have ignored that command.  You don't even replace yourself, and you use all kinds of resources in your final years, you've contributed nothing to create.  I believe being single and childless is an affront to God's plan for us.

YOU should have been required to marry and raise a family.  You have been socially irresponsible and gone against God's will and natural order of things.

If you found this argument to be stupid and an affront to your rights as a citizen, that is how I feel about your stance against gay marriage.  Jesus spoke not one word against homosexuality, or "immorality".  He preached love and acceptance.

So take you "religious ideals" and stuff them.  They have no business in other people's lives other than your own.


----------



## John T. Ford

meaner gene said:


> She refused to do her job, and interfered with the other clerks issuing marriages licences in her place.   The court ordered her to not interfere with the other clerks doing her job in her place.


The state violated her 1st Amendment Right.

This is the very reason Obergefell will eventually be overturned.


----------



## meaner gene

John T. Ford said:


> I could care less.
> 
> But, Obergefell is unConstitutional and when it comes up, without RBG, it will be overturned.



As previously stated, what would they do as far as the 700K gay marriages, and their legal standing, in everything from inheritance to adoption.


----------



## John T. Ford

meaner gene said:


> Supreme Court rejects appeal from county clerk who wouldn't issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples
> 
> 
> Two of the conservative justices, however, said the 2015 ruling making same-sex marriage the law of the land amounted to a "cavalier treatment of religion."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nbcnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme Court rejects appeal from county clerk who wouldn't issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples
> 
> the court was apparently unanimous in refusing to hear her appeal,


They want have to hear her case.

All they have to do is overturn Obergefell.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

surada said:


> Are you claiming the minority has MORE rights?



  A very important part of the rationale of founding this country, as it was, as a constitutional republic rather than as a democracy, was to insure that the rights of the minorities would be protected against the tyranny of the majority.  The Constitution was crafted to establish certain rules and rights that could not be violated, even of the majority wanted to do so; and to set up the processes of government in the hands of those who were to bear the responsibility, above all else, of making sure that the Constitution was upheld and obeyed.


----------



## John T. Ford

meaner gene said:


> As previously stated, what would they do as far as the 700K gay marriages, and their legal standing, in everything from inheritance to adoption.


Again, I don't know and I don't care.

I'm sure they will figure something out.

But, whatever it is it will have to be within the parameters of the Constitutional

And, Obergefell is NOT !!!!


----------



## meaner gene

Dragonlady said:


> Furthermore, unless the State is forcing  or requiring you to marry a same sex partner, same sex marriage isn't being "forced" on you or "shoved down your throat".  The bald fact is that unless you're a gay person who wants to get married, the legalization of gay marriage will have absolutely no impact on your life at all.  You're simply a miserable old man who keeps trying to inflict his idea of morality on other people.


The same thing happened with interracial marriage.


----------



## bodecea

John T. Ford said:


> It's not a right.
> 
> It's hanging on by a single SCOTUS ruling that is unConstitutional.
> 
> I am not saying it's going away.
> 
> But, it isn't going to always be what it is now.


If the government provides civil marriage with its over 1000 rights to straight couples, per the 14th Amendment, they also have to offer it to gay couples.


----------



## bodecea

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The point that flew over your head is animals don't have rights and do not need to give consent to anything.  We have laws that prohibit mistreating and hurting animals, but it's not because they have rights, it's because we as a society find it deplorable.


If you have trouble seeing the DIFFERENCE between marriage between con-senting adults and with animals and children, I would seriously question your ability to distinguish between right and wrong when near animals and children.


----------



## bodecea

Meathead said:


> Shit, I'm 65 and sexually active so that's not me. But I don't do porkers.
> 
> Keep trying. There are sites for fat chicks, I'm sure.


Sure you are, Chubby.   Sure you are.....


----------



## meaner gene

meaner gene said:


> She refused to do her job, and interfered with the other clerks issuing marriages licences in her place.   The court ordered her to not interfere with the other clerks doing her job in her place.






John T. Ford said:


> The state violated her 1st Amendment Right.
> 
> This is the very reason Obergefell will eventually be overturned.



Except that an employee, even of a state, while in the course of their employment, have no 1st amendment rights.

That is a right of the individual, when acting as an individual, not as the employee of the state.


----------



## surada

Bob Blaylock said:


> A very important part of the rationale of founding this country, as it was, as a constitutional republic rather than as a democracy, was to insure that the rights of the minorities would be protected against the tyranny of the majority.  The Constitution was crafted to establish certain rules and rights that could not be violated, even of the majority wanted to do so; and to set up the processes of government in the hands of those who were to bear the responsibility, above all else, of making sure that the Constitution was upheld and obeyed.



I know and I agree.. Gay people also have civil rights.. not more rights.


----------



## bodecea

John T. Ford said:


> _"It does not mean that you can dictate how others live or what  they believe"_
> 
> Which is exactly what the state did when they fired Kim Davis.


Fired her for not doing her job she was elected to do.


----------



## bodecea

John T. Ford said:


> The SCOTUS Justices disagree.
> 
> The state firing Kim Davis was prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
> 
> Thus a violation of the 1st Amendment.


So anyone who claims doing the job they were already hired for would go against their "newly" found religious beliefs is protected from being fired?


----------



## meaner gene

John T. Ford said:


> They want have to hear her case.
> 
> All they have to do is overturn Obergefell.


Nobody has standing to challenge Obergefell.


----------



## bodecea

John T. Ford said:


> It doesn't surprise me that you lack the intelligence to follow along here.


Well isn't that Ironic coming from a self-avowed double digit IQ "genius".


----------



## bodecea

John T. Ford said:


> I could care less.
> 
> But, Obergefell is unConstitutional and when it comes up, without RBG, it will be overturned.


Obergefell is Constitutional....so you are just gonna have to deal with gay Americans being allowed to get legally married.   You poor lil'thang.....


----------



## meaner gene

meaner gene said:


> As previously stated, what would they do as far as the 700K gay marriages, and their legal standing, in everything from inheritance to adoption.





John T. Ford said:


> Again, I don't know and I don't care.
> 
> I'm sure they will figure something out.
> 
> But, whatever it is it will have to be within the parameters of the Constitutional
> 
> And, Obergefell is NOT !!!!


You must have missed the USSC using that as a reason to prevent Trump from ending DACA.


----------



## bodecea

Dragonlady said:


> "Legal" marriage is a secular contract between two partners having NOTHING to do with religion.  It therefore doesn't matter what your religious self thinks about gay marriage.  Marriage sets out the rights and responsibilities of the partners to one another, and the manner in which joint assets will be split on the dissolution of the marriage, as well as spousal support in that event.
> 
> Furthermore, unless the State is forcing  or requiring you to marry a same sex partner, same sex marriage isn't being "forced" on you or "shoved down your throat".  The bald fact is that unless you're a gay person who wants to get married, the legalization of gay marriage will have absolutely no impact on your life at all.  You're simply a miserable old man who keeps trying to inflict his idea of morality on other people.
> 
> I think it's wrong and immoral for people to choose to remain single and childless.  God told people to be fruitful and multiply and you have ignored that command.  You don't even replace yourself, and you use all kinds of resources in your final years, you've contributed nothing to create.  I believe being single and childless is an affront to God's plan for us.
> 
> YOU should have been required to marry and raise a family.  You have been socially irresponsible and gone against God's will and natural order of things.
> 
> If you found this argument to be stupid and an affront to your rights as a citizen, that is how I feel about your stance against gay marriage.  Jesus spoke not one word against homosexuality, or "immorality".  He preached love and acceptance.
> 
> So take you "religious ideals" and stuff them.  They have no business in other people's lives other than your own.


Ironically, religious gay marriage has been around a lot longer than legal gay marriage.


----------



## bodecea

John T. Ford said:


> The state violated her 1st Amendment Right.
> 
> This is the very reason Obergefell will eventually be overturned.


No they did not.   But I can see how this really really destroys you....


----------



## meaner gene

bodecea said:


> So anyone who claims doing the job they were already hired for would go against their "newly" found religious beliefs is protected from being fired?


I gave the example of a chrstian scientist who becomes a doctor, and then after being hired by a hospital, refuses to practice medicine.


----------



## John T. Ford

meaner gene said:


> Except that an employee, even of a state, while in the course of their employment, have no 1st amendment rights.
> 
> That is a right of the individual, when acting as an individual, not as the employee of the state.


I don't care how you want to justify this.

The state violated her 1st Amendment Right.

It is the very reason Obergefell will be overturned.

Well .... that and the Left no longer has a majority on the Court.


----------



## bodecea

John T. Ford said:


> I don't care how you want to justify this.
> 
> The state violated her 1st Amendment Right.
> 
> It is the very reason Obergefell will be overturned.
> 
> Well .... that and the Left no longer has a majority on the Court.


----------



## meaner gene

meaner gene said:


> Except that an employee, even of a state, while in the course of their employment, have no 1st amendment rights.
> 
> That is a right of the individual, when acting as an individual, not as the employee of the state.





John T. Ford said:


> I don't care how you want to justify this.
> 
> The state violated her 1st Amendment Right.
> 
> It is the very reason Obergefell will be overturned.
> 
> Well .... that and the Left no longer has a majority on the Court.



You said it could be challenged as a 1st amendment violation, when no such violation can exist, as state employees have no 1st amendment rights in the course of their employment.


----------



## bodecea

meaner gene said:


> You said it could be challenged as a 1st amendment violation, when no such violation can exist, as state employees have no 1st amendment rights in the course of their employment.


You have to forgive him....he's working off a double digit IQ.


----------



## Faun

progressive hunter said:


> sorry commie whore,, but their/your rights end at my front door,, dont like move along,,,
> 
> thats proven by me being forced to put up with your shit,,
> 
> in fact since youre not even american I dont give a fuck what you think so fuck off,,


Of course she's American, ya dumb fuckin' hillbilly.









						Definition of AMERICAN
					

an American Indian of North America or South America; a native or inhabitant of North America or South America; a native or inhabitant of the U.S. : a U.S. citizen… See the full definition




					www.merriam-webster.com


----------



## John T. Ford

meaner gene said:


> You said it could be challenged as a 1st amendment violation, when no such violation can exist, as state employees have no 1st amendment rights in the course of their employment.


I understood what you posted the first time.

Posting it again doesn't make it any more factual.

The SCOTUS Justices are Constitutionally correct when they say that Obergefell is highly flawed and marginalizes those who do not believe in same-sex marriage.

It is unConstitutional and will be overturned now that RBG is no longer on the Court.


----------



## Faun

John T. Ford said:


> Again, I don't know and I don't care.
> 
> I'm sure they will figure something out.
> 
> But, whatever it is it will have to be within the parameters of the Constitutional
> 
> And, Obergefell is NOT !!!!


Poor baby.


----------



## meaner gene

meaner gene said:


> You said it could be challenged as a 1st amendment violation, when no such violation can exist, as state employees have no 1st amendment rights in the course of their employment.





bodecea said:


> You have to forgive him....he's working off a double digit IQ.


This is also what prevents Obergefell from being overturned, because there can't be someone with standing to make that challenge.

As article 3 of the constitution requires the courts only hear cases where a plaintiff has suffered actual harm.

That's why the lawsuit by the Texas (and other) AG's challenging the voter certification in other states was thrown out.


----------



## surada

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The point that flew over your head is animals don't have rights and do not need to give consent to anything.  We have laws that prohibit mistreating and hurting animals, but it's not because they have rights, it's because we as a society find it deplorable.



Animals and children can't consent. You should have learned that in High School.


----------



## Faun

John T. Ford said:


> You backwards bobbies are always so damn emotional.
> 
> The state cannot force anyone to act against their religious belief without Amending the Constitution.
> 
> Forcing the states to recognize gay marriage is unConstitutional for that very reason.
> 
> I could give a shit less what you people do.
> 
> But, you can't violate the Bill of Rights.
> 
> I suspect you are not smart to understand why.


No one is being forced to marry someone of the same sex. Try and be best.


----------



## John T. Ford

Faun said:


> No one is being forced to marry someone of the same sex. Try and be best.


What a dumbass comment.

It doesn't surprise me that you have no clue what this thread is about.


----------



## meaner gene

meaner gene said:


> You said it could be challenged as a 1st amendment violation, when no such violation can exist, as state employees have no 1st amendment rights in the course of their employment.





John T. Ford said:


> I understood what you posted the first time.
> 
> Posting it again doesn't make it any more factual.
> 
> The SCOTUS Justices are Constitutionally correct when they say that Obergefell is highly flawed and marginalizes those who do not believe in same-sex marriage.
> 
> It is unConstitutional and will be overturned now that RBG is no longer on the Court.


Actually it was 7-2, and stare decisis dictates they have to let it stand unless it is abhorrent to  the law.  Which it clearly is not.

The same way that making certain speech illegal, such as inciting a riot, clearly interferes with freedom of speech, it doesn't rise to the level of being abhorrent to the constitution.


----------



## bodecea

progressive hunter said:


> sorry commie whore,, but their/your rights end at my front door,, dont like move along,,,
> 
> thats proven by me being forced to put up with your shit,,
> 
> in fact since youre not even american I dont give a fuck what you think so fuck off,,


----------



## John T. Ford

meaner gene said:


> Actually it was 7-2, and stare decisis dictates they have to let it stand unless it is abhorrent to  the law.  Which it clearly is not.
> 
> The same way that making certain speech illegal, such as inciting a riot, clearly interferes with freedom of speech, it doesn't rise to the level of being abhorrent to the constitution.


No .... it was 5-4 and being unConstitutional damn sure fits the definition of abhorrent to the law.


----------



## bodecea

Bob Blaylock said:


> We went from _“Don't force your morality on me!”_ to allowing them to force their immorality on us.
> 
> We went to it being about _“consenting adults”_ to them trying to drag those of us into their filth who want nothing to do with it (so much for _”consenting”_) and even going after children (so much for _“adults”_).


So...my being legally married FORCES my "immorality" on you?    How does that even work?   And how is marriage immoral?


----------



## bodecea

progressive hunter said:


> its a religious ceremony not a government event,,


Not civil marriage, which is what we are discussing here.


----------



## bodecea

progressive hunter said:


> there shouldnt be any legal aspect since the government has no business in marriage,,
> 
> but being a progressive/serf you dont understand that


Oh really?   So tell us what you are ACTIVELY doing to eliminate civil marriage.


----------



## bodecea

progressive hunter said:


> WTF??
> marriage is your everyday life,,,


Oh really?   We are all REQUIRED to get married?


----------



## surada

progressive hunter said:


> its a religious ceremony not a government event,,



Marriage is a contract between consenting adults. That's Law 101. If you marry in church it is also a sacrament.


----------



## meaner gene

John T. Ford said:


> No .... it was 5-4 and being unConstitutional damn sure fits the definition of abhorrent to the law.


What you missed is that Roberts was dissenting in the case.  And like the Georgia election case, Roberts switched his vote in the name of stare decisis.  So it brought before the court it would remain 5-4.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

surada said:


> Animals and children can't consent. You should have learned that in High School.



You must have just read the last few posts, so again I ask, does an animal have to consent to being put on a leash, go to the vet, eat off the floor?  

Animals don't give consent because they are animals.  They have no rights.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

surada said:


> Marriage is a contract between consenting adults. That's Law 101. If you marry in church it is also a sacrament.



No, as I posted earlier, adult men used to marry minors all the time, and the average age of consent is 16 years old in this country.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

bodecea said:


> If you have trouble seeing the DIFFERENCE between marriage between con-senting adults and with animals and children, I would seriously question your ability to distinguish between right and wrong when near animals and children.



Obviously you haven't been following the conversation.  People have claimed that a person cannot marry an animal because an animal can't give consent.  Animals can't consent to anything. They do as their owner desires.


----------



## AZrailwhale

I think from a strictly constitutional point of view, they are right.  However that decision opens several real cans of worms.  If all states must recognize same sex marriage licenses issued by other states, then logically, they must recognize CCWs and immigration restrictions issued by other states as well.


----------



## Coyote

bodecea said:


> So...my being legally married FORCES my "immorality" on you?    How does that even work?   And how is marriage immoral?


Ya, I really don’t get that..somehow being obsessed with the marriages of people you have never met is “forcing it on us”.

Why do they care?


----------



## meaner gene

Ray From Cleveland said:


> You must have just read the last few posts, so again I ask, does an animal have to consent to being put on a leash, go to the vet, eat off the floor?
> 
> Animals don't give consent because they are animals.  They have no rights.


You forget, as the declaration of independence states, that rights are God given, and not a creation of man.  And as God created all creatures great and small, he granted each certain inalienable rights.

Even animals have the right against cruel and unusual punishment.


----------



## Seawytch

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Who gets to visit you in the hospital is not law, it's hospital policy.  You can plea the 5th to anything in court.


I didn't say who can visit you in the hospital. How disingenuous of you. I said make medical and legal decisions. You can only plead the fifth to not incriminate yourself. The law allows you to not testify against your legal spouse. Again you are being disingenuous.


----------



## Coyote

AZrailwhale said:


> I think from a strictly constitutional point of view, they are right.  However that decision opens several real cans of worms.  If all states must recognize same sex marriage licenses issued by other states, then logically, they must recognize CCWs and immigration restrictions issued by other states as well.


I don’t think so.  Marriage is a fundamental individual right that needs to be consistently applied.  You can’t have it defined state by state, where one state says your marriage is legal and another state not.  Marriage has legal aspects.


----------



## meaner gene

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Animals don't give consent because they are animals.  They have no rights.



Is kosher slaughtering humane?

_While the most humane choice is always plant-based alternatives to slaughtered animals, most experts agree that kosher slaughter, when performed correctly, is at least as humane as pre-slaughter stunning._

Religious recognition of animals rights against cruel punishment.


----------



## Seawytch

John T. Ford said:


> I don't care how you want to justify this.
> 
> The state violated her 1st Amendment Right.
> 
> It is the very reason Obergefell will be overturned.
> 
> Well .... that and the Left no longer has a majority on the Court.


Three words for you...

Right to work.


----------



## Seawytch

Coyote said:


> I don’t think so.  Marriage is a fundamental individual right that needs to be consistently applied.  You can’t have it defined state by state, where one state says your marriage is legal and another state not.  Marriage has legal aspects.


You can have different laws, they just have to apply in all states. For example second cousins even first cousins can marry in some states and not in others but their marriage is recognized in all 50.


----------



## bodecea

progressive hunter said:


> but yet you had to get their permission to marry her,,
> 
> like I said, trying to rationalize with a progressive is a waste of time,,


And gay couples get each others' permission to marry too.   How about that.


----------



## bodecea

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Nothing that can't be done with a good lawyer for single people.


1.   For a lot of money
2.  And even then, not always recognized. 

Why not have straight couples just go get a good lawyer and spend all that time and $$$ instead  of getting legally married?


----------



## bodecea

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Which is why the court should have ruled for the government to get out of marriage.  Marriage is a religious institution government adopted as time went on.


So what have YOU actively been doing to get the government out of the marriage business?


----------



## Seawytch

bodecea said:


> And gay couples get each others' permission to marry too.   How about that.


You didn't bash your wife over the head and drag her to the altar? You are so old-fashioned.


----------



## JohnDB

bodecea said:


> And so you want religion to con-trol civil marriage?


How you get there from anything I've said is beyond me... never suggested it nor did it come to mind.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Dragonlady said:


> "Legal" marriage is a secular contract between two partners having NOTHING to do with religion. It therefore doesn't matter what your religious self thinks about gay marriage. Marriage sets out the rights and responsibilities of the partners to one another, and the manner in which joint assets will be split on the dissolution of the marriage, as well as spousal support in that event.
> 
> Furthermore, unless the State is forcing or requiring you to marry a same sex partner, same sex marriage isn't being "forced" on you or "shoved down your throat". The bald fact is that unless you're a gay person who wants to get married, the legalization of gay marriage will have absolutely no impact on your life at all. You're simply a miserable old man who keeps trying to inflict his idea of morality on other people.
> 
> I think it's wrong and immoral for people to choose to remain single and childless. God told people to be fruitful and multiply and you have ignored that command. You don't even replace yourself, and you use all kinds of resources in your final years, you've contributed nothing to create. I believe being single and childless is an affront to God's plan for us.
> 
> YOU should have been required to marry and raise a family. You have been socially irresponsible and gone against God's will and natural order of things.
> 
> If you found this argument to be stupid and an affront to your rights as a citizen, that is how I feel about your stance against gay marriage. Jesus spoke not one word against homosexuality, or "immorality". He preached love and acceptance.
> 
> So take you "religious ideals" and stuff them. They have no business in other people's lives other than your own.



Marriage always was a religious institution until government interfered.  I'm sure if they could foresee into the future, they never would have.  

Be fruitful and multiply was a great idea when we had a few hundred people on this planet, but we now have 7.5 billion, and I don't believe that applies any longer.  And as for being fruitful and multiplying, gays can't do that either unless they get a mate of the opposite sex.  There is a reason God made it that way.  

As a society we set social standards, particularly for our children.  If I did have children, I wouldn't want them witnessing two guys french kissing in the park.  A fat 70 old woman walking around naked in public doesn't affect me either unless I actually see it, but it does violate our social standards as it will make a lot of people ill, just like a lot of people get ill seeing two guys kissing at a bus stop.


----------



## meaner gene

Coyote said:


> I don’t think so.  Marriage is a fundamental individual right that needs to be consistently applied.  You can’t have it defined state by state, where one state says your marriage is legal and another state not.  Marriage has legal aspects.


That's the exact point.  You can't have one state recognize the right of inheritance, but if some of that property is in another state, they don't.  Or where one state allows a gay spouse to share health insurance, and another state denies it.  Or children legally adopted in one state, not being recognized in another.

That's why "equal protection" applies, where crossing state lines doesn't change fundamental "privileges and immunities"


----------



## progressive hunter

bodecea said:


> Not civil marriage, which is what we are discussing here.


OH you mean the one where serfs beg the goverrnment for permission to get married???

must suck to be such a POS you want the governments permission to do something like get married,,


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

bodecea said:


> 1. For a lot of money
> 2. And even then, not always recognized.
> 
> Why not have straight couples just go get a good lawyer and spend all that time and $$$ instead of getting legally married?



Many of us do.  Ever hear of living together?  You don't just go out and buy a house without some sort of legal document.  People who don't want government in their relationship get lawyers to settle any financial matters if the relationship dissolves.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

meaner gene said:


> That's the exact point. You can't have one state recognize the right of inheritance, but if some of that property is in another state, they don't. Or where one state allows a gay spouse to share health insurance, and another state denies it. Or children legally adopted in one state, not being recognized in another.
> 
> That's why "equal protection" applies, where crossing state lines doesn't change fundamental "privileges and immunities"



Bull.  When I die my properties and money go to my niece and nephew.  You can will anything to anybody you want, even an organization.


----------



## progressive hunter

bodecea said:


> And gay couples get each others' permission to marry too.   How about that.


dont give a fuck as long as its not the government,,

what say you??


----------



## Coyote

progressive hunter said:


> OH you mean the one where serfs beg the goverrnment for permission to get married???
> 
> must suck to be such a POS you want the governments permission to do something like get married,,


Nothing to do with permission.


----------



## JohnDB

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Many of us do.  Ever hear of living together?  You don't just go out and buy a house without some sort of legal document.  People who don't want government in their relationship get lawyers to settle any financial matters if the relationship dissolves.


There are legal protections inside of marriage that can be done by legal agreement...

But see that can't be the point of the homosexual agenda...they aren't happy with tolerance...they want endorsement and idolization by everyone. And if you don't comply with that they want you criminalized and incarcerated.


----------



## surada

progressive hunter said:


> there shouldnt be any legal aspect since the government has no business in marriage,,
> 
> but being a progressive/serf you dont understand that



The government is NOT  party to the marriage contract. That's Law 101.


----------



## surada

Coyote said:


> Nothing to do with permission.



What we have here is steady ignorance on parade.


----------



## meaner gene

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Marriage always was a religious institution until government interfered.  I'm sure if they could foresee into the future, they never would have.


The reason government got into the act, is because they separated church from state.  So the state would oversee inheritance, and not the church.  That the courts would be in charge of probate, and not the church.





__





						Inheritance (in the Bible) | Encyclopedia.com
					

INHERITANCE (IN THE BIBLE) The juridical notion of inheritance or heritage, designating the transmission or possession of goods not acquired personally but given by a previous possessor, is attested in the Bible rather frequently in its literal sense; but since it naturally lends itself to...




					www.encyclopedia.com
				




It is known, however, from these and other passages, that the oldest son had a right to a double share of his father's possessions (Dt 21.17

Daughters did not inherit, unless there were no male heirs and the daughters married within the same clan (Nm 27.1–8

 A widow did not inherit; she could, however, be the guardian of her deceased husband's property until their sons came to full age (Ru 4.9; 2


----------



## progressive hunter

Coyote said:


> Nothing to do with permission.


oh great,, another fucking idiot that doesnt know that a license is permission from the government to do something,,

what are you 12 yrs old or a fucking idiot??


----------



## bodecea

Dr Grump said:


> No you should not. Unless you want to live in Somalia. In which case, off you go.


Or the new Sharia Law and INCEL friendly Afghanistan.


----------



## John T. Ford

meaner gene said:


> What you missed is that Roberts was dissenting in the case.  And like the Georgia election case, Roberts switched his vote in the name of stare decisis.  So it brought before the court it would remain 5-4.


Yeah .....

That's what I posted.

5-4 .... not 7-2


----------



## Coyote

progressive hunter said:


> oh great,, another fucking idiot that doesnt know that a license is permission from the government to do something,,
> 
> what are you 12 yrs old or a fucking idiot??


Calm down honey.  It isn’t that complicated.  The government doesn’t give permission (ever heard of common law marriage, grasshopper?).  The government does grant certain legal rights with marriage that are difficult to get, more personally expensive to get, and more easily challenged in court with out that legal document called a license.  Hope that helps.


----------



## surada

progressive hunter said:


> oh great,, another fucking idiot that doesnt know that a license is permission from the government to do something,,
> 
> what are you 12 yrs old or a fucking idiot??



Did you finish HS? The government registers the marital contract, nothing else.


----------



## bodecea

progressive hunter said:


> so I as a business owner or government official shouldnt be allowed to discriminate against a person thats not vaccinated???


All I, as a business owner has to say is that vaccinated employees is a requirement of my religion.   There.   Fixed it for you.


----------



## John T. Ford

Seawytch said:


> Three words for you...
> 
> Right to work.


One word for you ...

UnConstitutional


----------



## bodecea

progressive hunter said:


> dude,, a license is permission you idiot prog,,, just like a license to drive is permission to drive,,
> 
> youre a slave and dont even know it,,


So....are you legally married?  And what have you ACTIVELY done to eliminate legal marriage in the United States?


----------



## meaner gene

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Many of us do.  Ever hear of living together?  You don't just go out and buy a house without some sort of legal document.  *People who don't want government in their relationship get lawyers to settle any financial matters if the relationship dissolves.*


The problem with lawyers, is that they are a construct of the government. They can only practice with the advice and consent of the government.  And have no power or authority on their own.

Otherwise you might as well get your plumber to handle your divorce, or a carpenter to help you buy your house.


----------



## bodecea

Seawytch said:


> You can have different laws, they just have to apply in all states. For example second cousins even first cousins can marry in some states and not in others but their marriage is recognized in all 50.


And let's not even get into how EARLY Red states allow marriage.


----------



## progressive hunter

Coyote said:


> Calm down honey.  It isn’t that complicated.  The government doesn’t give permission (ever heard of common law marriage, grasshopper?).  The government does grant certain legal rights with marriage that are difficult to get, more personally expensive to get, and more easily challenged in court with out that legal document called a license.  Hope that helps.


government doesnt grant rights you idiot,, they make laws and give permission to serfs that beg the government for activities in their private lives,,

my god you progs are slaves and dont even know it,,


----------



## progressive hunter

bodecea said:


> All I, as a business owner has to say is that vaccinated employees is a requirement of my religion.   There.   Fixed it for you.


can you provide a link to that doctrine?? I didnt think so,,


----------



## bodecea

John T. Ford said:


> One word for you ...
> 
> UnConstitutional


My religious beliefs tell me that I can fire Texans.


----------



## bodecea

progressive hunter said:


> can you provide a link to that doctrine?? I didnt think so,,


I don't have to....it's a deeply held belief and stop oppressing me over my religion!


----------



## progressive hunter

bodecea said:


> I don't have to....it's a deeply held belief and stop oppressing me over my religion!


I didnt think you were being serious,,


----------



## meaner gene

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Bull.  When I die my properties and money go to my niece and nephew.  You can will anything to anybody you want, even an organization.


Not if it was the church in charge of marriage, instead of the state.

So your desire to put the church in charge, means that the church dictates who you can leave your property to.


----------



## bodecea

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yes, forcing it down our throats.  When we voted on it in our state, it was overwhelmingly defeated.  Forcing us to accept gay marriage is forcing it down our throats.
> 
> Until recently, marriage was the union between man and woman as the Bible outlines, and that's the way it should have stayed.


Did your state ever vote for integrated schools or did the government have to "force it down your throats"?
Did the people in your state ever vote for legalizing inter-racial marriage?   Or did the courts have to "force it down your throats"?
Did your state vote to allow women to vote or did the federal government have to "force it down your throats"?


----------



## bodecea

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Well there you go, government goodies.  All we need to do is not allow joint tax returns and stop passing SS benefits to your spouse.  After all, most married couples work today and have their own SS account.  Our SS system is going broke and that would make it last a little longer.


Yes....government goodies.   Are you giving them up?


----------



## bodecea

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Who gets to visit you in the hospital is not law, it's hospital policy.  You can plea the 5th to anything in court.


Not necessarily....https://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=7633058&page=1


----------



## bodecea

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Marriage isn't a right and never was civil or otherwise.


So you have worked ACTIVELY to get rid of civil marriage?   What have you done?


----------



## bodecea

progressive hunter said:


> I didnt think you were being serious,,


Who are you to say whether I am serious or not?   We have freedom of religion in America....that means you do NOT have a say in how I interpret my religious beliefs.


----------



## bodecea

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> How did same sex marriage ruin things? For who?  You?


Isn't it sad?


----------



## bodecea

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> She is sort of right. Just this past year after Ginsburg died, a case was brought by the ashole former Alabama State Supreme Court Chief Justice to SCOTUS trying to overturn Obergefell. This court threw it out. They did not rule on it. They just did not hear it because the plaintif did not havestanding.


That pervert that likes underaged girls?


----------



## meaner gene

progressive hunter said:


> can you provide a link to that doctrine?? I didnt think so,,


The courts have said they will not sit in judgement of religious doctrines.  So they will not determine how someone interprets their beliefs, or whether their interpretation has merit.  So what they say is a requirement of their religion is taken on faith.


----------



## bodecea

John T. Ford said:


> Obergefell is unConstitutional and should be overturned.


File then.  Let it know how it goes.


----------



## progressive hunter

bodecea said:


> Who are you to say whether I am serious or not?   We have freedom of religion in America....that means you do NOT have a say in how I interpret my religious beliefs.


when did I tell you how to interpret anything,, just asked so I could see if it would work for me,,


----------



## bodecea

Meathead said:


> If that were the case we could marry animals, children and close blood relatives.


If you cannot distinguish the difference between marriage between consenting adults and marriage between an adult and an animal or child........perhaps you should stay away from animals AND children.


----------



## bodecea

John T. Ford said:


> Obergefell is unConstitutional and needs to be overturned.
> 
> It forced Davis to choose between her religious beliefs and her job.
> 
> Her religious beliefs are protected under the 1st amendment to the US Constitution.
> 
> The Obergefell ruling violates the 1st Amendment.


Have you filed yet?   If not, why not?


----------



## bodecea

Meathead said:


> It's called the Koran, not the Bible fat lady.


Nope...the bible allows it too.  Moses was even encouraged to kill his own wife's people.....Surely you know about that.


----------



## bodecea

John T. Ford said:


> It has nothing to do with discrimination.
> 
> The Bill of Rights guarantees religious liberty.
> 
> 
> The state forcing this woman to act against her religion is a violation of the 1st Amendment.


And I have the religious liberty to make sure no Texans ever are employed in my business....or even allowed services.


----------



## bodecea

John T. Ford said:


> It doesn't surprise me that you lack the intelligence to follow along here.


How Ironic.


----------



## bodecea

surada said:


> Animals and children can't consent. You should have learned that in High School.


If he hasn't learned that, or he's unable to distinguish, maybe he needs to be kept away from animals and children.


----------



## bodecea

Seawytch said:


> You didn't bash your wife over the head and drag her to the altar? You are so old-fashioned.


I know, right?


----------



## bodecea

progressive hunter said:


> OH you mean the one where serfs beg the goverrnment for permission to get married???
> 
> must suck to be such a POS you want the governments permission to do something like get married,,


Ok, you know that when serfs were around, they were STILL religious marriages ONLY.   You aren't very good at this.      The serf had to ask permission because he was OWNED by the lord.  He had to ask permission for pretty much everything.


----------



## bodecea

progressive hunter said:


> dont give a fuck as long as its not the government,,
> 
> what say you??


What are you doing actively to end civil marriage?


----------



## progressive hunter

bodecea said:


> Ok, you know that when serfs were around, they were STILL religious marriages ONLY.   You aren't very good at this.      The serf had to ask permission because he was OWNED by the lord.  He had to ask permission for pretty much everything.


you mean asking like prog slaves do today,,


----------



## progressive hunter

bodecea said:


> What are you doing actively to end civil marriage?


so what youre saying is you know youve lost the discussion to the point you feel like an ass and now want to make it about me,,

got it,,


----------



## easyt65

surada said:


> You don't have to attend same sex weddings or invite homosexual couples to dinner.. What exactly is your problem?


I have no problem...but it is obvious you do.


----------



## surada

easyt65 said:


> I have no problem...but it is obvious you do.



You are projecting.


----------



## bodecea

progressive hunter said:


> you mean asking like prog slaves do today,,


Are you calling us slaves?


----------



## bodecea

progressive hunter said:


> so what youre saying is you know youve lost the discussion to the point you feel like an ass and now want to make it about me,,
> 
> got it,,


Serious question.   You stated that you don't believe the government should be in the marriage business.....so what are you actively doing to make that happen?


----------



## meaner gene

easyt65 said:


> I have no problem...but it is obvious you do.


 "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,"


----------



## easyt65

surada said:


> You are projecting.


I never project. I speak for myself only.

You should try it sometime, snowflake.


----------



## meaner gene

bodecea said:


> Serious question.   You stated that you don't believe the government should be in the marriage business.....so what are you actively doing to make that happen?


More importantly, who does he want in the marriage business in the governments place.


----------



## Augustine_

easyt65 said:


> That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!
> 
> _"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."_
> 
> "_The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."
> 
> Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance."_
> 
> 
> 
> _"Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss," he wrote. "In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals."_
> 
> Just because you have a deep RELIGIOUS conviction regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and does not include same-sex marriages does *NOT *make one a Bigot or Homophobe and protects that religious belief / conviction.
> 
> _Thomas added: "This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as 'disparag[ing]' homosexuals and 'diminish[ing] their personhood' through '[d]ignitary wounds.'"_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case
> 
> 
> The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _


Gay people should just start their own religion and use this religious freedom bullshit to their advantage.


----------



## bodecea

meaner gene said:


> More importantly, who does he want in the marriage business in the governments place.


If he states "religion", I've got news for him......religions were in the gay marriage "business" before the government was.


----------



## bodecea

Augustine_ said:


> Gay people should just start their own religion and use this religious freedom bullshit to their advantage.


True....it is also my religious belief that the government should issue marriage licenses to gay couples just as they do straight couples.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

John T. Ford said:


> Obergefell is unConstitutional and needs to be overturned.
> 
> It forced Davis to choose between her religious beliefs and her job.
> 
> Her religious beliefs are protected under the 1st amendment to the US Constitution.
> 
> The Obergefell ruling violates the 1st Amendment.


Complete horseshit. You do not know what you are talking about. Obergefell was decided on the 14th Amendment and it does not violate anyones religious freedome


----------



## John T. Ford

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Complete horseshit. You do not know what you are talking about. Obergefell was decided on the 14th Amendment and it does not violate anyones religious freedome


The SCOTUS Justices disagree.

Clearly it violated Kim Davis' religious freedoms.

In fact the SCOTUS Justices said that Obergefell is highly flawed and marginalizes those who do not believe in same-sex marriage.

The only reason the SCOTUS was able to get this unConstitutional ruling passed was because of RBG.

When it comes up again, it will be overturned.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

John T. Ford said:


> The SCOTUS Justices disagree.
> 
> Clearly it violated Kim Davis' religious freedoms.
> 
> In fact the SCOTUS Justices said that Obergefell is highly flawed and marginalizes those who do not believe in same-sex marriage.
> 
> The only reason the SCOTUS was able to get this unConstitutional ruling passed was because of RBG.
> 
> When it comes up again, it will be overturned.


What justices said that Obergefell is flawed? Thomas? Alito, Scalia? That does not mean that it is. Those who oppose marriage equality should be marginalized. They are dinosours, An anachonism. They are bigots and they are selfish


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

John T. Ford said:


> The SCOTUS Justices disagree.
> 
> Clearly it violated Kim Davis' religious freedoms.
> 
> In fact the SCOTUS Justices said that Obergefell is highly flawed and marginalizes those who do not believe in same-sex marriage.
> 
> The only reason the SCOTUS was able to get this unConstitutional ruling passed was because of RBG.
> 
> When it comes up again, it will be overturned.


It is not comming up again. It would take someone who can claim that they were personally harmed by same sex marriage so that they would have standing to bring a case. Ki,m Davis was shot down. That was the end of it.

The fact is that no one has been harmed by it. Have you been harmed? If so how? What do you want so badly to deprive gays access to an institution that you can take for granted? How would doing so make life better for you or others?


----------



## meaner gene

John T. Ford said:


> The SCOTUS Justices disagree.
> 
> Clearly it violated Kim Davis' religious freedoms.


Separation of church and state means that Kims freedom of religion begins and ends at the threshold of her job.  Just like the state can't mandate a religious belief, the employees who work for them, while in the context of their job, can't either.


----------



## John T. Ford

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> What justices said that Obergefell is flawed? Thomas? Alito, Scalia? That does not mean that it is. Those who oppose marriage equality should bemarginalized. They are dinosours, An anachonism. They are bigots and they are selfish


You're right ....

It does not matter who said it.

But, the fact that Obergefell forced Davis to choose between her religious beliefs and her job does mean that it is flawed it will continue to have ruinous consequences for religious liberty until it is overturned.

I don't give a damn what you people do.  I could care less.

But, it can't be at the expense of someone else Freedom or Liberty.

Including yours.

All Americans should demand that this unConstitutional ruling and any other be overturned regardless of who is or is not affected by it.


----------



## John T. Ford

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> It is not comming up again. It would take someonewho can claim that they were personally harmed by same sex marriage so that they would have standing to bring a case. Ki,m Davis was shot down. That was the end of it.
> 
> The fact is that no one has been harmed by it. Have you been harmed? If so how? What do you want so badly to deprive gays access to an institution that you can take for granted? How would doing so make life better for you or others?


That's not why the Court didn't hear the case.

And, she lost her job so she was harmed.

It will come up again.


----------



## John T. Ford

meaner gene said:


> Separation of church and state means that Kims freedom of religion begins and ends at the threshold of her job.  Just like the state can't mandate a religious belief, the employees who work for them, while in the context of their job, can't either.


Stop wasting my time.

Inform your self and stop word vomiting meaningless opinions.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

John T. Ford said:


> You're right ....
> 
> It does not matter who said it.
> 
> But, the fact that Obergefell forced Davis to choose between her religious beliefs and her job does mean that it is flawed it will continue to have ruinous consequences for religious liberty until it is overturned.
> 
> I don't give a damn what you people do.  I could care less.
> 
> But, it can't be at the expense of someone else Freedom or Liberty.
> 
> Including yours.
> 
> All Americans should demand that this unConstitutional ruling and any other be overturned regardless of who is or is not affected by it.


That is insane. Get over it, Not happening.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

John T. Ford said:


> Stop wasting my time.
> 
> Inform your self and stop word vomiting meaningless opinions.


 please take your own advise


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

John T. Ford said:


> That's not why the Court didn't hear the case.
> 
> And, she lost her job so she was harmed.
> 
> It will come up again.


She harmed herself by refusing  to do her job and choosing to be in contempt of court. Only Thomas and Alito thought that she had a case. Even id Barott had been on the court at the time, the outcome would have been that same. It takes 4 votes to grant standing


----------



## John T. Ford

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> She harmed herself by refusing  to do her job and choosing to be in contempt of court. Only Thomas and Alito thought that she had a case. Even id Barott had been on the court at the time, the outcome would have been that same. It takes 4 votes to grant standing


I saw your opinion the first time you posted them.

Don't be like dumbass gene and keep posting them over and over.

It does not make them any more factual then the first time you posted them.

I am simply posting what the SCOTUS Justices are saying.

It may not come up again .....

You may be right ....

But, the fact that it will continue to deny Americans their 1st Amendment Rights tells me it's only a matter of time before it is once again challenged and rightfully so.

You simply cannot provide Freedom and Liberty to one group by taking it from another.

That is EXACTLY what Obergefell does.

They will get it figured out.


----------



## meaner gene

John T. Ford said:


> But, the fact that Obergefell forced Davis to choose between her religious beliefs and her job does mean that it is flawed it will continue to have ruinous consequences for religious liberty until it is overturned.


This is no different than many other cases where someone tries to pit their religion against their job.  The problem is that people should chose their job to be in line with their religious beliefs, and not force their job to be in line with their religious beliefs.


----------



## meaner gene

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> She harmed herself by refusing  to do her job and choosing to be in contempt of court. Only Thomas and Alito thought that she had a case. Even id Barott had been on the court at the time, the outcome would have been that same. *It takes 4 votes to grant standing*



4 votes to grant certiorari
Standing is a separate matter.


----------



## meaner gene

John T. Ford said:


> I saw your opinion the first time you posted them.
> 
> Don't be like dumbass gene and keep posting them over and over.
> 
> It does not make them any more factual then the first time you posted them.
> 
> I am simply posting what the SCOTUS Justices are saying.


You know that dissenting opinions mean nothing.  You might as well quote mad magazine.


----------



## meaner gene

John T. Ford said:


> But, the fact that it will continue to deny Americans their 1st Amendment Rights tells me it's only a matter of time before it is once again challenged and rightfully so.


Kim Davis while acting as an agent of the state had no 1st amendment rights.

Ex:  Government employees can be prevented from making or wearing political statements while on duty.  And that doesn't violate their right to do so in private.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

bodecea said:


> Not necessarily....https://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=7633058&page=1



You didn't even realize your link supports my point, didn't you?  Thanks for the 12 year old article though.


----------



## progressive hunter

bodecea said:


> Serious question.   You stated that you don't believe the government should be in the marriage business.....so what are you actively doing to make that happen?



so what youre saying is I am right and you wonder what I'm doing about it???


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> After the ruling people just gave up.  No sense in fighting city hall.  Nobody cares anymore and marriage has transformed from a sacred institution into a joke.  You can't be a true liberal unless you are ruining things for other people.


The sacred institution of marriage is not the same as the legal (civil) institution of marriage.  A religious marriage is a religious contract.  A civil marriage is legal contract. The Supreme Court ruling that makes gay marriage legal in all states applies to the legal institution of marriage, not religious institution of marriage The marriage rules have never been same for legal and religious marriages.  Today, most marriages are civil ceremonies and not religious.  The civil institution of marriage is certainly no joke, not sure about religious marriages.

 There are many religious denominations that sanction gay marriage including the Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church, Presbyterian, Unitarian, United Church of Christ, etc....


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> The civil institution of marriage is certainly no joke, not sure about religious marriages.



Of course it's a joke, and it's liberals turned it into a joke.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Of course it's a joke, and it's liberals turned it into a joke.


I think religious marriages have been joke long before gay marriage.  The legal marriage contract is what protects marriages and the rights of marriage partners.  The religious marriage contracts different with ever religion.  The legal contract does not.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> I think religious marriages have been joke long before gay marriage. The legal marriage contract is what protects marriages and the rights of marriage partners. The religious marriage contracts different with ever religion. The legal contract does not.



Which is why marriage should have always been (and it has) the only kind of marriage.  Government didn't come up with marriage--religion did.  Government took over marriages and that was the start of the problem we have today.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

easyt65 said:


> That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!
> 
> _"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."_
> 
> "_The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."
> 
> Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance."_
> 
> 
> 
> _"Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss," he wrote. "In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals."_
> 
> Just because you have a deep RELIGIOUS conviction regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and does not include same-sex marriages does *NOT *make one a Bigot or Homophobe and protects that religious belief / conviction.
> 
> _Thomas added: "This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as 'disparag[ing]' homosexuals and 'diminish[ing] their personhood' through '[d]ignitary wounds.'"_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case
> 
> 
> The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _


Let’s just ban all marriages. Most end in divorce anyway.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Let’s just ban all marriages. Most end in divorce anyway.



The Constitution prohibits government interfering in religious rites, but I agree with you on the ban of government sponsored marriages.  Since they destroyed that, just convert it to some sort of social contract enabling all benefits between any two people, and leave marriage where it belongs--with religions.


----------



## Unkotare

Ray From Cleveland said:


> .... some sort of social contract enabling all benefits between any two people.....


That's what marriage is.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Which is why marriage should have always been (and it has) the only kind of marriage.  Government didn't come up with marriage--religion did.  Government took over marriages and that was the start of the problem we have today.


The problems that we have today?? I'm still waiting for you to explain how gay marriage has effected to personnally, or has been detrimental to society. You must have something to say about that considering your hostility to marriage equality.


----------



## Colin norris

easyt65 said:


> That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!
> 
> _"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."_
> 
> "_The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."
> 
> Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance."_
> 
> 
> 
> _"Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss," he wrote. "In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals."_
> 
> Just because you have a deep RELIGIOUS conviction regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and does not include same-sex marriages does *NOT *make one a Bigot or Homophobe and protects that religious belief / conviction.
> 
> _Thomas added: "This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as 'disparag[ing]' homosexuals and 'diminish[ing] their personhood' through '[d]ignitary wounds.'"_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case
> 
> 
> The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _



How does two gays getting married threaten religious freedom? 
What your really saying is your again st it and using it to promote your freedom is at risk. That's bullshit.  You're still to criticise and speak on behave if God. 

Why would it be in the constitution? 
Neither was row v wade but it's still law. 
Get over it.


----------



## bodecea

Ray From Cleveland said:


> You didn't even realize your link supports my point, didn't you?  Thanks for the 12 year old article though.


It doesn't support your point...that  couple got a power of attorney and that Florida hospital REFUSED to recognize it.   And yes, it was a 12 year old article.........shows what it was like BEFORE legalized gay marriage had happened.   You want to go back to that.   It's not going to happen.


----------



## bodecea

progressive hunter said:


> so what youre saying is I am right and you wonder what I'm doing about it???


What are you ACTIVELY doing to end civil marriage?   Or are you just whining on a message board?


----------



## bodecea

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Of course it's a joke, and it's liberals turned it into a joke.


That is only your opinion......try to treat it as a joke when a legally married couple exercises one of their rights as a married couple.   https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/...pension, worker's compensation, or disability


----------



## bodecea

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Which is why marriage should have always been (and it has) the only kind of marriage.  Government didn't come up with marriage--religion did.  Government took over marriages and that was the start of the problem we have today.


What problem do we have today started by legal marriage?


----------



## bodecea

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Let’s just ban all marriages. Most end in divorce anyway.


Go right ahead.....actively work for that.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The Constitution prohibits government interfering in religious rites, but I agree with you on the ban of government sponsored marriages.  Since they destroyed that, just convert it to some sort of social contract enabling all benefits between any two people, and leave marriage where it belongs--with religions.


So then only religious people would be able to marry? Do you see any constitutional problems with that ?


----------



## bodecea

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The Constitution prohibits government interfering in religious rites, but I agree with you on the ban of government sponsored marriages.  Since they destroyed that, just convert it to some sort of social contract enabling all benefits between any two people, and leave marriage where it belongs--with religions.


You are unhappy with gays getting legally married...so let's pout and get rid of all legal marriages....just like segregationists didn't like that blacks were allowed in city pools, so they closed them and filled them with cement.   Same attitude when those you don't like get the same rights you have.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> So then only religious people would be able to marry? Do you see any constitutional problems with that ?



What constitutional problems?  If marriage went back to where it was as a religious rite, then the Constitution has nothing to do with it.  Furthermore there are a lot of people like myself who never wanted to be married so I never got married.  I have lived with a woman and children on several occasions.  The only way for us to get marital benefits would have been for us to get married, and those women (like myself) objected to any kind of marriage religious or otherwise.  

Unless you are planning to have children to carry out your name, marriage to me is stupid.  How does that conversation go anyway?  "Honey, I love you, and you love me.  We have this great thing going, and the only possible way to make it better is getting government involved in our relationship!"   

So a social contract replacing government marriage preserves marriage for normal people and gives anti-marry people like myself the ability to have the government benefits married people get.


----------



## bodecea

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The problems that we have today?? I'm still waiting for you to explain how gay marriage has effected to personnally, or has been detrimental to society. You must have something to say about that considering your hostility to marriage equality.


I remember, years ago, listening to the radio on my way home from work and a local rightwing radio program had some woman.....president of a con-servative women's group "Concerned Women of America" on.   She declared, seriously, that if gay marriage was legalized thousands of women would flock to divorce their husbands in order to marry each other.  Maybe we have some of those divorced and abandoned men here?


----------



## Blues Man

Andylusion said:


> The whole idea that the Supreme Court even has the authority to determine what the law is, is questionable to me.  Where in the Constitutional does the court get to decide what the law is?


All SCOTUS does is rule on the Constitutionality of laws.


----------



## bodecea

Ray From Cleveland said:


> What constitutional problems?  If marriage went back to where it was as a religious rite, then the Constitution has nothing to do with it.  Furthermore there are a lot of people like myself who never wanted to be married so I never got married.  I have lived with a woman and children on several occasions.  The only way for us to get marital benefits would have been for us to get married, and those women (like myself) objected to any kind of marriage religious or otherwise.
> 
> Unless you are planning to have children to carry out your name, marriage to me is stupid.  How does that conversation go anyway?  "Honey, I love you, and you love me.  We have this great thing going, and the only possible way to make it better is getting government involved in our relationship!"
> 
> So a social contract replacing government marriage preserves marriage for normal people and gives anti-marry people like myself the ability to have the government benefits married people get.


So...what to do with people who are not religious?


----------



## Blues Man

Civil marriage is nothing but a legal property contract.

So states should have to recognize it for what it is.

IMO the state should not recognize any religious rite as legal.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

bodecea said:


> It doesn't support your point...that couple got a power of attorney and that Florida hospital REFUSED to recognize it. And yes, it was a 12 year old article.........shows what it was like BEFORE legalized gay marriage had happened. You want to go back to that. It's not going to happen.



What the article said is what I said, and that is hospital visitation are regulated by hospitals--not government.  It's the hospital that refused this woman to see her other.  And as your article points out, they did the very same with heterosexual couples as well.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Colin norris said:


> How does two gays getting married threaten religious freedom?
> What your really saying is your again st it and using it to promote your freedom is at risk. That's bullshit. You're still to criticise and speak on behave if God.
> 
> Why would it be in the constitution?
> Neither was row v wade but it's still law.
> Get over it.



To my knowledge it hasn't happened yet, but what if a gay couple insist on being married in a Catholic church?  The Catholic church is against gay relationships of any kind.  Would they have to conduct the marriage against their beliefs because of a Supreme Court decision?  And if they do, doesn't that violate their constitutional rights in regards to religion?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

bodecea said:


> So...what to do with people who are not religious?



The same thing normal couples that don't want to marry would do to have marital benefits, and that is replace government marriage with a social contract.


----------



## Blues Man

Ray From Cleveland said:


> To my knowledge it hasn't happened yet, but what if a gay couple insist on being married in a Catholic church?  The Catholic church is against gay relationships of any kind.  Would they have to conduct the marriage against their beliefs because of a Supreme Court decision?  And if they do, doesn't that violate their constitutional rights in regards to religion?


One more reason we need to not recognize religious rites of marriage as legal.

Giving a religious organization the power to sanction anything as legal and binding seems to me to be a violation of the First Amendment.


----------



## Blues Man

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The same thing normal couples that don't want to marry would do to have marital benefits, and that is replace government marriage with a social contract.


Civil marriage is a property contract


----------



## Seawytch

John T. Ford said:


> One word for you ...
> 
> UnConstitutional


 Not even remotely. She wasn't fired for anything she said, she was fired for refusing to do her job.


----------



## SHOWME

easyt65 said:


> That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!
> 
> _"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."_
> 
> "_The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."
> 
> Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance."_
> 
> 
> 
> _"Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss," he wrote. "In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals."_
> 
> Just because you have a deep RELIGIOUS conviction regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and does not include same-sex marriages does *NOT *make one a Bigot or Homophobe and protects that religious belief / conviction.
> 
> _Thomas added: "This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as 'disparag[ing]' homosexuals and 'diminish[ing] their personhood' through '[d]ignitary wounds.'"_
> 
> IN ORDER TO FIND YOUR WAY TO PARADISE, MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case
> 
> 
> The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _


----------



## Seawytch

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Let’s just ban all marriages. Most end in divorce anyway.


Did yours? Mine hasn't. Been married since 2008 but been together since 1996. If you are or were married, do or did you eschew all the rights, benefits and privileges associated with civil marriage?


----------



## Seawytch

Ray From Cleveland said:


> What the article said is what I said, and that is hospital visitation are regulated by hospitals--not government.  It's the hospital that refused this woman to see her other.  And as your article points out, they did the very same with heterosexual couples as well.


It's not about visitation, but *DECISIONS*. A legal spouse can make medical and legal decisions for their partner. 

Also, a spouse cannot be compelled to testify. You glossed over these very important privileges of civil marriage.


----------



## John T. Ford

Seawytch said:


> Not even remotely. She wasn't fired for anything she said, she was fired for refusing to do her job.


Doesn't matter ....

It is still a violation of her 1st Amendment Rights as the SCOTUS Justices point out!!


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

bodecea said:


> Go right ahead.....actively work for that.


You obviously don’t understand sarcasm. Poor old hag.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Seawytch said:


> Did yours? Mine hasn't. Been married since 2008 but been together since 1996. If you are or were married, do or did you eschew all the rights, benefits and privileges associated with civil marriage?


It was a JOKE. Do you leftists ever have a sense of humor. I am still married lol. My wife hasn’t kicked me out yet. Obviously marriages won’t be banned. How did you take that literally? OMG!


----------



## danielpalos

easyt65 said:


> That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!
> 
> _"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."_
> 
> "_The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."
> 
> Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance."_
> 
> 
> 
> _"Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss," he wrote. "In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals."_
> 
> Just because you have a deep RELIGIOUS conviction regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and does not include same-sex marriages does *NOT *make one a Bigot or Homophobe and protects that religious belief / conviction.
> 
> _Thomas added: "This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as 'disparag[ing]' homosexuals and 'diminish[ing] their personhood' through '[d]ignitary wounds.'"_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case
> 
> 
> The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _


Nobody takes right-wingers more seriously than mere practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy (unto God, with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.)

_The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._

Be Legal to express Law not just hypocrites in border threads, Right-Wingers.


----------



## Seawytch

_"Just because you have a deep RELIGIOUS conviction regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and does not include same-sex marriages does *NOT *make one a Bigot or Homophobe and protects that religious belief / conviction."_

Yeah, actually it does. We call the people that hold deep religious convictions about interracial marriage bigots. Same/same.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

bodecea said:


> What problem do we have today started by legal marriage?



I don't know what it is with you leftists, but you ask questions, we answer, and you keep asking the same questions over and over again as if you didn't read a word.  If your memory is that bad, I suggest speed read the previous replies to get your answer  AGAIN!


----------



## Seawytch

AzogtheDefiler said:


> It was a JOKE. Do you leftists ever have a sense of humor. I am still married lol. My wife hasn’t kicked me out yet. Obviously marriages won’t be banned. How did you take that literally? OMG!


It's called Poe's Law. Quite a few on this thread are proposing that exact thing. How are we supposed to know one out of the throng is joking?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Seawytch said:


> It's not about visitation, but *DECISIONS*. A legal spouse can make medical and legal decisions for their partner.
> 
> Also, a spouse cannot be compelled to testify. You glossed over these very important privileges of civil marriage.



Then we get rid of government sponsored marriages and replace it with a social contract that gives them such rights.  Problem solved.


----------



## Seawytch

John T. Ford said:


> Doesn't matter ....
> 
> It is still a violation of her 1st Amendment Rights as the SCOTUS Justices point out!!


The losing opinion. It absolutely was not a violation of her 1st amendment rights. Your religion doesn't guarantee you a job. If your religion prevents you from performing your job, you have two choices...get a new job or a new religion.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Seawytch said:


> It's called Poe's Law. Quite a few on this thread are proposing that exact thing. How are we supposed to know one out of the throng is joking?


LOL

Intuition? It’s called common sense. The wedding industry is massive. No chance marriages ever get banned even if someone were to really try to. Actually I have never seen you exhibit any sense of humor here. You’re always negative and monotone. You must be a blast at parties….


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Blues Man said:


> One more reason we need to not recognize religious rites of marriage as legal.
> 
> Giving a religious organization the power to sanction anything as legal and binding seems to me to be a violation of the First Amendment.



Which is why marriage should be contained to the religion only and not involve government at all.  If you are a Catholic, get married in the Catholic church, you are married in the eyes of that religion and the people who are also part of that religion.


----------



## Seawytch

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Then we get rid of government sponsored marriages and replace it with a social contract that gives them such rights.  Problem solved.


We don't have a problem. Civil marriage isn't a problem except to some bigots that don't like sharing the goodies they've given themselves.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Seawytch said:


> The losing opinion. It absolutely was not a violation of her 1st amendment rights. Your religion doesn't guarantee you a job. If your religion prevents you from performing your job, you have two choices...get a new job or a new religion.


Unless that religion is Islam. Then we seem to bow and cower. I actually would agree with you if not for the hypocrisy of bowing to Islam.


----------



## Seawytch

AzogtheDefiler said:


> LOL
> 
> Intuition? It’s called common sense. The wedding industry is massive. No chance marriages ever get banned even if someone were to really try to. Actually I have never seen you exhibit any sense of humor here. You’re always negative and monotone. You must be a blast at parties….


 call the doctor, I have irony poisoning!


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Seawytch said:


> call the doctor, I have irony poisoning!


What? I am very funny on here. You just don’t want to admit it. At least you ve shown some life with that post. Congratulations!!!! Bravo! A childish emoji even.


----------



## Seawytch

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Unless that religion is Islam. Then we seem to bow and cower. I actually would agree with you if not for the hypocrisy of bowing to Islam.


Really? 









						Muslim cab drivers lose round in court
					

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday against the cabbies' attempt to block penalties for refusing service to passengers who carry alcohol.




					www.mprnews.org


----------



## progressive hunter

bodecea said:


> What are you ACTIVELY doing to end civil marriage?   Or are you just whining on a message board?


not voting for those that support it,, and getting fascist pricks like you to expose yourself for what you are,,,

those are just starters,,


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Seawytch said:


> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muslim cab drivers lose round in court
> 
> 
> The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday against the cabbies' attempt to block penalties for refusing service to passengers who carry alcohol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mprnews.org


We are getting better. But usually we cower to that ideology. Do we not?


----------



## Blues Man

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Which is why marriage should be contained to the religion only and not involve government at all.  If you are a Catholic, get married in the Catholic church, you are married in the eyes of that religion and the people who are also part of that religion.


And the state should not recognize religious marriage as a legal property contract.


----------



## John T. Ford

AzogtheDefiler said:


> It was a JOKE. Do you leftists ever have a sense of humor. I am still married lol. My wife hasn’t kicked me out yet. Obviously marriages won’t be banned. How did you take that literally? OMG!


Humor requires a double digit IQ.

You will not find much humor around Leftist.


----------



## John T. Ford

Seawytch said:


> The losing opinion. It absolutely was not a violation of her 1st amendment rights. Your religion doesn't guarantee you a job. If your religion prevents you from performing your job, you have two choices...get a new job or a new religion.


You need to go back to your crayons and hot cocoa and stop trying to understand Constitutional Law.


----------



## bodecea

Ray From Cleveland said:


> What the article said is what I said, and that is hospital visitation are regulated by hospitals--not government.  It's the hospital that refused this woman to see her other.  And as your article points out, they did the very same with heterosexual couples as well.


And the wife had no LEGAL recourse.   She would have if gay marriage had been legal then.   So spending a load of time and money on Lawyers really isn't the answer/replacement for legalized marriage, is it?


----------



## bodecea

John T. Ford said:


> Humor requires a double digit IQ.
> 
> You will not find much humor around Leftist.


You again admit to your double digit IQ.......


----------



## bodecea

AzogtheDefiler said:


> It was a JOKE. Do you leftists ever have a sense of humor. I am still married lol. My wife hasn’t kicked me out yet. Obviously marriages won’t be banned. How did you take that literally? OMG!


And if you were not legally married, what recourse would you have if your wife kicked you out?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

bodecea said:


> And if you were not legally married, what recourse would you have if your wife kicked you out?


Even if married what recourse do I have and if I was not legally married she would not be my wife. Are you ever not a deranged leftist?


----------



## Seawytch

AzogtheDefiler said:


> We are getting better. But usually we cower to that ideology. Do we not?


No, we do not. All the monotheistic religions are treated equally.


----------



## Seawytch

John T. Ford said:


> You need to go back to your crayons and hot cocoa and stop trying to understand Constitutional Law.


Where does the constitution require that you have a job? 

I thought you righties like those "right to work" laws? Not when they apply to ya'll?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

That is not a decision. It is a bigotted, butt hurt rant about this religious freedom bullshit


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Blues Man said:


> Civil marriage is a property contract


So women are still property?


----------



## John T. Ford

Seawytch said:


> Where does the constitution require that you have a job?
> 
> I thought you righties like those "right to work" laws? Not when they apply to ya'll?


See comment #538


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ray From Cleveland said:


> To my knowledge it hasn't happened yet, but what if a gay couple insist on being married in a Catholic church?  The Catholic church is against gay relationships of any kind.  Would they have to conduct the marriage against their beliefs because of a Supreme Court decision?  And if they do, doesn't that violate their constitutional rights in regards to religion?


Stupid questions No religious organization would be compelled to perform a same sex wedding


----------



## John T. Ford

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> That is not a decision. It is a bigotted, but hurt rant about this *religious freedom bullshit*


_"religious freedom bullshit" _......

You mean the very 1st Amendment to the US Constitution?

Dumbass ........


----------



## Oddball

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> That is not a decision. It is a bigotted, but hurt rant about this religious freedom bullshit


----------



## Seawytch

John T. Ford said:


> See comment #538


The one where you can't formulate a response? 

So I guess you support those Muslim cab drivers refusing to give rides to people carrying alcohol?


----------



## Seawytch

Ray From Cleveland said:


> To my knowledge it hasn't happened yet, but what if a gay couple insist on being married in a Catholic church?  The Catholic church is against gay relationships of any kind.  Would they have to conduct the marriage against their beliefs because of a Supreme Court decision?  And if they do, doesn't that violate their constitutional rights in regards to religion?


Has any church ever been forced, by the government, to conduct an interracial marriage? The answer is no they have not. Religions will change the way they always have...from within.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ray From Cleveland said:


> What constitutional problems?  If marriage went back to where it was as a religious rite, then the Constitution has nothing to do with it.  Furthermore there are a lot of people like myself who never wanted to be married so I never got married.  I have lived with a woman and children on several occasions.  The only way for us to get marital benefits would have been for us to get married, and those women (like myself) objected to any kind of marriage religious or otherwise.
> 
> Unless you are planning to have children to carry out your name, marriage to me is stupid.  How does that conversation go anyway?  "Honey, I love you, and you love me.  We have this great thing going, and the only possible way to make it better is getting government involved in our relationship!"
> 
> So a social contract replacing government marriage preserves marriage for normal people and gives anti-marry people like myself the ability to have the government benefits married people get.


Marriage to many is a cherished institution that  provides financial, and legal protections as well as social status. You are proposing a system where only religious people can bemarried. By doing so you are creating inequality. 

You might think that marriage is stupid, but many of us, including those without children like being married, even if only for the  intangible benefits. Marriage is universally understood to mean a commitment to each other. You contract crap won't work for the same reasons why civil unions did not work

You don't want to be married but I see that you want those government benefits while being willing to deny those who want married that opportunity. That is sometwisted shit


----------



## John T. Ford

Seawytch said:


> The one where you can't formulate a response?
> 
> So I guess you support those Muslim cab drivers refusing to give rides to people carrying alcohol?


I did formulate a response.

I posted that you need to go back to your crayons and hot cocoa and stop trying to understand Constitutional Law.

Get it this time?


----------



## Seawytch

John T. Ford said:


> I did formulate a response.
> 
> I posted that you need to go back to your crayons and hot cocoa and stop trying to understand Constitutional Law.
> 
> Get it this time?


Yes, I saw your 4th grade response...which isn't a response, but diversionary nonsense. Now, would you like to try answering the question? Do you support Muslim cab drivers refusing to carry passengers with alcohol? It's a simple yes or no question. Surely that's not too difficult for you.


----------



## John T. Ford

Seawytch said:


> Yes, I saw your 4th grade response...which isn't a response, but diversionary nonsense. Now, would you like to try answering the question? Do you support Muslim cab drivers refusing to carry passengers with alcohol? It's a simple yes or no question. Surely that's not too difficult for you.


Hey dumbass .....

This is not a thread about Mooslim cab drivers.

Try commenting on the actual OP or stick your whataboutism up your ass.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Marriage to many is a cherished institution that provides financial, and legal protections as well as social status. You are proposing a system where only religious people can bemarried. By doing so you are creating inequality.
> 
> You might think that marriage is stupid, but many of us, including those without children like being married, even if only for the intangible benefits. Marriage is universally understood to mean a commitment to each other. You contract crap won't work for the same reasons why civil unions did not work
> 
> You don't want to be married but I see that you want those government benefits while being willing to deny those who want married that opportunity. That is sometwisted shit



Instead of making up dozens of bullshit reasons, why don't you just be honest if you can?  The reason gays invaded our normal institution is that some can't accept rejection.  It drives them crazy that they are looked upon as outcasts in society.  You talk legal this and benefits that, yet when I say okay, let's give everybody those benefits and legalities but keep marriage as a religious union, you still feel rejected and continue your rant about being married.  So it has nothing to do with legalities or benefits at all.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Seawytch said:


> Has any church ever been forced, by the government, to conduct an interracial marriage? The answer is no they have not. Religions will change the way they always have...from within.



Dodge of question noted.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Stupid questions No religious organization would be compelled to perform a same sex wedding



Why not?  A priest still has to get state certification to conduct a legal marriage.


----------



## John T. Ford

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Instead of making up dozens of bullshit reasons, why don't you just be honest if you can?  The reason gays invaded our normal institution is that some can't accept rejection.  It drives them crazy that they are looked upon as outcasts in society.  You talk legal this and benefits that, yet when I say okay, let's give everybody those benefits and legalities but keep marriage as a religious union, you still feel rejected and continue your rant about being married.  So it has nothing to do with legalities or benefits at all.


Very well put.

They want to normalize what is not normal.

That is the core issue.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

bodecea said:


> And if you were not legally married, what recourse would you have if your wife kicked you out?



That has nothing to do with marriage.  You cannot remove a person living in your home without a legal eviction from the courts.  If your wife kicked you out (which I don't know how a woman would that) the husband simply calls the police and they will make sure you can reenter your home.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

bodecea said:


> And the wife had no LEGAL recourse. She would have if gay marriage had been legal then. So spending a load of time and money on Lawyers really isn't the answer/replacement for legalized marriage, is it?



WTF do you mean no recourse.  She sued the hospital, didn't she?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Seawytch said:


> We don't have a problem. Civil marriage isn't a problem except to some bigots that don't like sharing the goodies they've given themselves.



You mean people who want to preserve a sacred and honorable tradition?


----------



## Seawytch

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Dodge of question noted.


That's not a dodge, it is an answer to your question. When interracial marriage was "forced down our throats" by the Supreme Court, a majority of Americans were opposed to blacks marrying whites. (Which was not the case with the gay marriage decision) Few churches were willing to do it. NONE were forced by the government to perform interracial marriages. 

None will be forced to perform a ceremony for a gay couple.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Seawytch said:


> None will be forced to perform a ceremony for a gay couple.



Why not?  Again, a priest has to obtain a government license to marry people just like a magistrate.  So why would this court ruling exclude them?


----------



## Seawytch

Ray From Cleveland said:


> You mean people who want to preserve a sacred and honorable tradition?


Oh please. If they cared about the "sacred and honorable traditions" of civil marriage, they would be more concerned about Las Vegas drive thru, get married by Elvis weddings than committed gay couples. Try again...


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

John T. Ford said:


> Hey dumbass .....
> 
> This is not a thread about Mooslim cab drivers.
> 
> Try commenting on the actual OP or stick your whataboutism up your ass.



If she wants to talk about Muslim drivers, talk about the Muslim truck drivers that were fired for not taking a trailer of alcohol to a warehouse.  They sued the trucking company right out of business.


----------



## Seawytch

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Why not?  Again, a priest has to obtain a government license to marry people just like a magistrate.  So why would this court ruling exclude them?


No, he doesn't. I was married in a church, by a priest, without having to present a marriage license. You can get religiously married without having to get a license.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Seawytch said:


> Oh please. If they cared about the "sacred and honorable traditions" of civil marriage, they would be more concerned about Las Vegas drive thru, get married by Elvis weddings than committed gay couples. Try again...



The kind of ceremony is not tradition, marriage being the union of one man and one woman is tradition until the commies Fd it up like they do everything in this country.  You can't be a true liberal unless you are destroying things for other people.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Seawytch said:


> No, he doesn't. I was married in a church, by a priest, without having to present a marriage license. You can get religiously married without having to get a license.



Yes you can, but it's not accepted or recognized by the state.


----------



## Seawytch

Ray From Cleveland said:


> If she wants to talk about Muslim drivers, talk about the Muslim truck drivers that were fired for not taking a trailer of alcohol to a warehouse.  They sued the trucking company right out of business.


That's a different case entirely. The drivers asked for a religious accommodation that could have easily been granted the drivers since the trucking company rarely hauled alcohol and had plenty of other drivers. It's different than the taxi driver case since a large number, a majority I believe, of the cab drivers were Muslim. 

Also, Davis wasn't fired...she lost an election.


----------



## Seawytch

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The kind of ceremony is not tradition, marriage being the union of one man and one woman is tradition until the commies Fd it up like they do everything in this country.  You can't be a true liberal unless you are destroying things for other people.


Wow drama queen. Marriage is destroyed now?  

Go fill them pools with cement so the black kids can't swim with the whites!


----------



## Seawytch

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yes you can, but it's not accepted or recognized by the state.


So, isn't that what you want? 

Churches were never compelled to perform interracial marriages. They will never be compelled to perform same sex marriages. To think so is ridiculous.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Instead of making up dozens of bullshit reasons, why don't you just be honest if you can?  The reason gays invaded our normal institution is that some can't accept rejection.  It drives them crazy that they are looked upon as outcasts in society.  You talk legal this and benefits that, yet when I say okay, let's give everybody those benefits and legalities but keep marriage as a religious union, you still feel rejected and continue your rant about being married.  So it has nothing to do with legalities or benefits at all.





John T. Ford said:


> Very well put.
> 
> They want to normalize what is not normal.
> 
> That is the core issue.



  Beyond that, they want to force abnormality and immorality on society as a whole, compel everyone to treat abnormal as normal, immoral as moral, and to punish any who refuse to do so.

Isaiah 5:20:  _Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!_


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Seawytch said:


> So, isn't that what you want?
> 
> Churches were never compelled to perform interracial marriages. They will never be compelled to perform same sex marriages. To think so is ridiculous.



The state cannot interfere with religious rituals.  They can interfere if that priest is licensed by the state and conducting a legal marriage also sponsored by government.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Bob Blaylock said:


> Beyond that, they want to force abnormality and immorality on society as a whole, compel everyone to treat abnormal as normal, immoral as moral, and to punish any who refuse to do so.



Leftists won't be happy until our entire society looks like an old circus freak show.


----------



## Seawytch

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The state cannot interfere with religious rituals.  They can interfere if that priest is licensed by the state and conducting a legal marriage also sponsored by government.


No, they can't. They couldn't force churches to perform interracial marriages and they can't force a church to perform gay marriages.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Seawytch said:


> That's a different case entirely. The drivers asked for a religious accommodation that could have easily been granted the drivers since the trucking company rarely hauled alcohol and had plenty of other drivers. It's different than the taxi driver case since a large number, a majority I believe, of the cab drivers were Muslim.



Look,  you are talking to a retired truck driver.  I know the transportation field pretty well.  

If there is a call for a pickup of alcohol in New York, you don't send a driver in Texas to pick it up.  You have to pay that driver for every empty mile he drives.  You call one of your drivers in PA or or one already in NY to pickup the load.  

The drivers made no request for religious accommodations otherwise the company would have never hired them.  When it comes to freight, you take what you can get and haul anything legal to haul.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

John T. Ford said:


> I saw your opinion the first time you posted them.
> 
> Don't be like dumbass gene and keep posting them over and over.
> 
> It does not make them any more factual then the first time you posted them.
> 
> I am simply posting what the SCOTUS Justices are saying.
> 
> It may not come up again .....
> 
> You may be right ....
> 
> But, the fact that it will continue to deny Americans their 1st Amendment Rights tells me it's only a matter of time before it is once again challenged and rightfully so.
> 
> You simply cannot provide Freedom and Liberty to one group by taking it from another.
> 
> That is EXACTLY what Obergefell does.
> 
> They will get it figured out.


It is a fact. Not an opinion and I keep repeating it because it is not sinking in. The first amendment claim is bullshit. Thomas and Alito are cranks. 

Granting  the right to marry to gays, and expecting a public official to do her job  is not taking a liberty away from anyone. . The first amendment speaks to the ability  to practice ones religion . It does not give anyone the right to discriminate or to determine how others should live. Yes I am repeating that too. Deal with it


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I don't know what it is with you leftists, but you ask questions, we answer, and you keep asking the same questions over and over again as if you didn't read a word.  If your memory is that bad, I suggest speed read the previous replies to get your answer  AGAIN!


Bullshit! You still have not answered the question that I asked several times. How has  same sex marriage harmed you personally, or society in general?


----------



## John T. Ford

Bob Blaylock said:


> Beyond that, they want to force abnormality and immorality on society as a whole, compel everyone to treat abnormal as normal, immoral as moral, and to punish any who refuse to do so.
> 
> Isaiah 5:20:  _Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!_


Communist Goal #26

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."


----------



## John T. Ford

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> It is a fact. Not an opinion and I keep repeating it because it is not sinking in. The first amendment claim is bullshit. Thomas and Alito are cranks.
> 
> Granting  the right to marry to gays, and expecting a public official to do her job  is not taking a liberty away from anyone. . The first amendment speaks to the ability  to practice ones religion . It does not give anyone the right to discriminate or to determine how others should live. Yes I am repeating that too. Deal with it


I don't care what your opinion is.

The SCOTUS Justices are correct.

Clearly Obergefell forced Davis to choose between her religious beliefs and her job.

There is no denying that this was a violation of her 1st Amendment Rights.

Regardless of how many time you deny it.


----------



## Unkotare

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Bullshit! You still have not answered the question that I asked several times. How has  same sex marriage harmed you personally, or society in general?


Why does it bother you so much that someone does not agree with you on this issue?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

John T. Ford said:


> I don't care what your opinion is.
> 
> The SCOTUS Justices are correct.
> 
> Clearly Obergefell forced Davis to choose between her religious beliefs and her job.
> 
> There is no denying that this was a violation of her 1st Amendment Rights.
> 
> Regardless of how many time you deny it.


Give it a damned rest, Ford. You are becomming tedious


----------



## Unkotare

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Give it a damned rest, Ford. You are becomming [sic] tedious


Is that an 'argument'?


----------



## John T. Ford

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Give it a damned rest, Ford. You are becomming tedious


Your refusal/incapability to recognize reality is not me being "tedious".


----------



## John T. Ford

Unkotare said:


> Is that an 'argument'?


It's a concession.


----------



## John T. Ford

Unkotare said:


> Why does it bother you so much that someone does not agree with you on this issue?


I can answer that.

It's because they want normal thinking people to accept that which is abnormal as being normal.

Even they know this will never be yet they continue to try to convince others that it is.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Unkotare said:


> Is that an 'argument'?


I have ginen up arguing with Ford. It is  pointless


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Unkotare said:


> Why does it bother you so much that someone does not agree with you on this issue?


It does not bother me in the least bit. I am trying to into his head andfind out what is bothering him.


----------



## John T. Ford

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> It does not bother me in the least bit. I am trying to into his head andfind out what is bothering him.


There is nothing bothering me.

This is about you being incapable or refusing to acknowledge reality.


----------



## Unkotare

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> It does not bother me in the least bit. ....


Sorta seems like it does.


----------



## Faun

John T. Ford said:


> I don't care what your opinion is.
> 
> The SCOTUS Justices are correct.
> 
> Clearly Obergefell forced Davis to choose between her religious beliefs and her job.
> 
> There is no denying that this was a violation of her 1st Amendment Rights.
> 
> Regardless of how many time you deny it.


So what? People have to choose between job and religion all the time. That's not new nor is it unconstitutional. Religious Jews have to make that choice when their job would have them work on Shabbat.


----------



## John T. Ford

Faun said:


> So what? People have to choose between job and religion all the time. That's not new nor is it unconstitutional. Religious Jews have to make that choice when their job would have them work on Shabbat.


DO NOT respond to my comments with your single digit IQ nonsense.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Unkotare said:


> Sorta seems like it does.


Bigotry in general bothers me but I don't let these fools get to me and I don''t expect to change any minds


----------



## bodecea

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Even if married what recourse do I have and if I was not legally married she would not be my wife. Are you ever not a deranged leftist?


You have lots of legal recourse if you are legally married.   Lots of protection on property and child dependency....if not legally married, you may have nothing.


----------



## bodecea

John T. Ford said:


> DO NOT respond to my comments with your single digit IQ nonsense.


Yeah...you are PROUD of your double digit IQ, aren't you?


----------



## bodecea

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Why not?  A priest still has to get state certification to conduct a legal marriage.


And he doesn't have to either....but if he doesn't, he can only do religious marriages.   Lots of people get their state certification for legal marriages and NOT religious marriages.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

bodecea said:


> You have lots of legal recourse if you are legally married.   Lots of protection on property and child dependency....if not legally married, you may have nothing.


None. In MA, the mother has all the rights. 100%. Try again.


----------



## bodecea

Ray From Cleveland said:


> That has nothing to do with marriage.  You cannot remove a person living in your home without a legal eviction from the courts.  If your wife kicked you out (which I don't know how a woman would that) the husband simply calls the police and they will make sure you can reenter your home.


If they aren't on the mortgage or lease, it's pretty damn easy to get rid of them....and they get no ownership.    You are very naive.


----------



## bodecea

AzogtheDefiler said:


> None. In MA, the mother has all the rights. 100%. Try again.


Not true.  But you sound a little bitter.


----------



## bodecea

John T. Ford said:


> Communist Goal #26
> 
> 26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."


"promiscuity"....as in the fat former guy you voted for?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

bodecea said:


> Not true.  But you sound a little bitter.


100% true. Look it up. How can you tell how I sound on a message board? LOL

you’re deranged


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

bodecea said:


> If they aren't on the mortgage or lease, it's pretty damn easy to get rid of them....and they get no ownership. You are very naive.



Look it up yourself.  I've been a landlord almost 30 years now.  Trust me, this is something I know about.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

bodecea said:


> And he doesn't have to either....but if he doesn't, he can only do religious marriages. Lots of people get their state certification for legal marriages and NOT religious marriages.



So how many couples do you suppose would go through all that expense and planning if their marriage was not recognized by the state?


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Bullshit! You still have not answered the question that I asked several times. How has same sex marriage harmed you personally, or society in general?



And I answered that multiple times.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Bigotry in general bothers me but I don't let these fools get to me and I don''t expect to change any minds



Of course you're not going to change any minds.  I'm sure most political people seldom do.  But when issues come up it's interesting to see what makes the other side tick.


----------



## bodecea

AzogtheDefiler said:


> 100% true. Look it up. How can you tell how I sound on a message board? LOL
> 
> you’re deranged


Not true...but you made the claim.  Back it up.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

bodecea said:


> Not true...but you made the claim.  Back it up.


You made the claim first actually. Duh.


----------



## bodecea

AzogtheDefiler said:


> You made the claim first actually. Duh.


No...you claimed that in Massachusetts, women have all the rights, 100%.   Your claim.   Prove it.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

bodecea said:


> No...you claimed that in Massachusetts, women have all the rights, 100%.   Your claim.   Prove it.


And you claim they do not. Prove it. You said first it’s equal.


----------



## bodecea

AzogtheDefiler said:


> And you claim they do not. Prove it. You said first it’s equal.


So you were lying.   I accept your admission of lying.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

bodecea said:


> So you were lying.   I accept your admission of lying.


Whatever helps you sleep at night


----------



## bodecea

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Whatever helps you sleep at night







__





						Massachusetts Child Custody: Both Parents Have Equal Rights
					

Learn about the basics of child custody in Massachusetts, and the right both the mother and father have.




					www.lawfirms.com
				




You are a liar.  Probably misogynist....maybe even INCEL.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

bodecea said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Massachusetts Child Custody: Both Parents Have Equal Rights
> 
> 
> Learn about the basics of child custody in Massachusetts, and the right both the mother and father have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.lawfirms.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar.  Probably misogynist....maybe even INCEL.


LOL…the laws on the books are one thing end result is something different. Do your own research. But made you look. Poke successful. Too easy.


----------



## bodecea

AzogtheDefiler said:


> LOL…the laws on the books are one thing end result is something different. Do your own research. But made you look. Poke successful. Too easy.


Nope....you lied.  And have been called on your lying.


----------



## meaner gene

Ray From Cleveland said:


> That has nothing to do with marriage.  You cannot remove a person living in your home without a legal eviction from the courts.  If your wife kicked you out (which I don't know how a woman would that) the husband simply calls the police and they will make sure you can reenter your home.


And you call yourself a landlord.  I've been on the other side when I was in college.  Unless your name is on the lease, or you're the spouse of the lease holder, you have no legal rights involving the rental.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

bodecea said:


> Nope....you lied.  And have been called on your lying.


Let me explain it to you this way. The mortgage is in my name only. If my wife says get out, I have to leave. Yes I get to see the kids on a weekend or so but my rights are limited if any. That’s MA. Believe me or don’t believe me, I do not care as you’re as deranged leftist.


----------



## bodecea

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Let me explain it to you this way. The mortgage is in my name only. If my wife says get out, I have to leave. Yes I get to see the kids on a weekend or so but my rights are limited if any. That’s MA. Believe me or don’t believe me, I do not care as you’re as deranged leftist.


You lied....and let me tell you something....I'm not the least bit surprised to find out you are a liar.


----------



## meaner gene

bodecea said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Massachusetts Child Custody: Both Parents Have Equal Rights
> 
> 
> Learn about the basics of child custody in Massachusetts, and the right both the mother and father have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.lawfirms.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar.  Probably misogynist....maybe even INCEL.





AzogtheDefiler said:


> LOL…the laws on the books are one thing end result is something different. Do your own research. But made you look. Poke successful. Too easy.


The end result is always according to the law.  Either directly, or after appeal.  The bottom line is that the law eventually is what dictates.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

bodecea said:


> You lied....and let me tell you something....I'm not the least bit surprised to find out you are a liar.


You’re not paying attention. That’s OK.


----------



## meaner gene

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Let me explain it to you this way. The mortgage is in my name only. If my wife says get out, I have to leave. Yes I get to see the kids on a weekend or so but my rights are limited if any. That’s MA. Believe me or don’t believe me, I do not care as you’re as deranged leftist.


The mortgage in your name is no more yours alone, than your wife's credit card bill is only her responsibility.


----------



## Unkotare

AzogtheDefiler said:


> LOL…the laws on the books are one thing end result is something different. ...


----------



## bodecea

AzogtheDefiler said:


> You’re not paying attention. That’s OK.


What did you say, liar?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

meaner gene said:


> The mortgage in your name is no more yours alone, than your wife's credit card bill is only her responsibility.


Yep.


----------



## Unkotare

AzogtheDefiler said:


> ..... Yes I get to see the kids on a weekend or so but my rights are limited ....


Far be it from me to throw the penalty flag on a fellow Bostonian, but you did say "100%." My best friend has 3 ex wives, and he has rights. MA has divorce court like all the other states.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Unkotare said:


> Far be it from me to throw the penalty flag on a fellow Bostonian, but you did say "100%." My best friend has 3 ex wives, and he has rights. MA has divorce court like all the other states.


I exaggerated but you get my gist. Women in MA generally get the best outcomes.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

bodecea said:


> What did you say, liar?


LOL

I exaggerated to trigger you. It worked. Good day.


----------



## bodecea

AzogtheDefiler said:


> I exaggerated but you get my gist. Women in MA generally get the best outcomes.


Trying backtrack now?   Still a liar.


----------



## Unkotare

AzogtheDefiler said:


> I exaggerated but you get my gist. Women in MA generally get the best outcomes.


I would imagine that is generally the case in every state. The man does not go into such negotiations with the benefit of the doubt. An ironically patriarchal tradition of gender role expectations.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

meaner gene said:


> And you call yourself a landlord. I've been on the other side when I was in college. Unless your name is on the lease, or you're the spouse of the lease holder, you have no legal rights involving the rental.



Sure you do if you were legally living there.  When I first started out I used to give several leases to roommates.  When one left, they wanted their part of the security back.  If I asked about something that was damaged, it was always "I didn't do that!  Ask Kevin!"  It just got to be too many problems. 

I quickly learned that you only give a lease to one person, and they are responsible for everybody else living there.  

If one of the other tenants not on the lease is causing a problem, I can't make them leave.  I have to place eviction notices on all entry ways, and if they don't leave after three days, I have to go to court and file for an eviction hearing even though they are not the lease holder.  By law, it's their home simply by living there and it's against the law for me to force somebody out of their home on my own.   

Or let's say I am evicting the leaseholder.  I can't tell the other occupants they have to leave because they are running up the water bill.  They get to stay until the court rules that they must leave the rental unit.


----------



## Flopper

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Let’s just ban all marriages. Most end in divorce anyway.


Of course it is not explicitly in the Constitution.  If it were the case would not have gone before the Supreme Court.  The court ruled that denying gays the right to legally marry was violation of both due process (5th amendment) and the 14th amendment and if you want the court's reasoning read the majority opinion.


----------



## meaner gene

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Sure you do if you were legally living there.  When I first started out I used to give several leases to roommates.
> 
> I quickly learned that you only give a lease to one person, and they are responsible for everybody else living there.
> 
> Or let's say I am evicting the leaseholder.  I can't tell the other occupants they have to leave because they are running up the water bill.  They get to stay until the court rules that they must leave the rental unit.


First the rental agreement has to state who else can occupy the property, and how it either modifies or violates the lease.

Usually the lease holder is responsible for the acts of his guests, and if his guests violate terms, then the lease holder can be evicted, which means evacuating everyone and everything from the rental unit.  And as an act of the court, like innocent until proven guilty, they can't be thrown out until convicted.

BTW:  if there is rent or utilities due, or damages etc.  you can retain the contents of the rental unit, even if not belonging to the lease holder.


----------



## bodecea

Flopper said:


> Of course it is not explicitly in the Constitution.  If it were the case would not have gone before the Supreme Court.  The court ruled that denying gays the right to legally marry was violation of both due process (5th amendment) and the 14th amendment and if you want the court's reasoning read the majority opinion.


They should also read the majority opinion in _Loving v. Virginia_.


----------



## meaner gene

Flopper said:


> *Of course it is not explicitly in the Constitution.*  If it were the case would not have gone before the Supreme Court.  The court ruled that denying gays the right to legally marry was violation of both due process (5th amendment) and the 14th amendment and if you want the court's reasoning read the majority opinion.



Marriage is one of the inalienable rights of man.  It's so fundamental they didn't think it needed to be written down.

The supreme court had to decide if such an inalienable right should be limited.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Which is why marriage should have always been (and it has) the only kind of marriage.  Government didn't come up with marriage--religion did.  Government took over marriages and that was the start of the problem we have today.


Government has to be involved in marriage to issue marriage licenses.  Without a marriage license there would be no practical legal means of dividing property upon death or divorce because there would no record civil marriage, possible not even religious marriages.    With 70% of unions being civil marriages not religious marriages, a marriage license is even more important as it is the only proof of marriage.   Civil marriages should not be regulated based on religion beliefs.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Unkotare said:


> I would imagine that is generally the case in every state. The man does not go into such negotiations with the benefit of the doubt. An ironically patriarchal tradition of gender role expectations.


I hear that’s not the case in every state but could be.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Flopper said:


> Of course it is not explicitly in the Constitution.  If it were the case would not have gone before the Supreme Court.  The court ruled that denying gays the right to legally marry was violation of both due process (5th amendment) and the 14th amendment and if you want the court's reasoning read the majority opinion.


!?!! I was kidding. If dudes want to marry their basketballs, let them. I do not care. What I do care is if you legally force me to use certain pronouns. Then you’re asking too much. Or if you ask me to turn a blind eye while trans girls compete in sports with biological girls.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

meaner gene said:


> First the rental agreement has to state who else can occupy the property, and how it either modifies or violates the lease.
> 
> Usually the lease holder is responsible for the acts of his guests, and if his guests violate terms, then the lease holder can be evicted, which means evacuating everyone and everything from the rental unit. And as an act of the court, like innocent until proven guilty, they can't be thrown out until convicted.
> 
> BTW: if there is rent or utilities due, or damages etc. you can retain the contents of the rental unit, even if not belonging to the lease holder.



A rental agreement does not have to state who lives there outside of the lease holder.  What I do is put a number of other occupants so the lease holder doesn't move anybody else in without discussing it with me.  If a woman moves in with two kids, she would be violating the lease if she moved in her nieces or nephews.  The city only requires the names of adults living there for taxation purposes, but they cannot ask for the names of any children.  They tried that one time and a resident filed a complaint with the ACLU.  They had to stop requiring names of children.  

If a friend of yours lost his apartment and you let him move in with you, got into a fight a month later, you cannot legally force him to leave.  If the police are involved, they may ask one of you to leave to keep the peace, but you cannot throw him out until you follow eviction procedures.


----------



## bodecea

AzogtheDefiler said:


> !?!! I was kidding. If dudes want to marry their basketballs, let them. I do not care. What I do care is if you legally force me to use certain pronouns. Then you’re asking too much. Or if you ask me to turn a blind eye while trans girls compete in sports with biological girls.


Basketballs give con-sent?


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> What constitutional problems?  If marriage went back to where it was as a religious rite, then the Constitution has nothing to do with it.  Furthermore there are a lot of people like myself who never wanted to be married so I never got married.  I have lived with a woman and children on several occasions.  The only way for us to get marital benefits would have been for us to get married, and those women (like myself) objected to any kind of marriage religious or otherwise.
> 
> Unless you are planning to have children to carry out your name, marriage to me is stupid.  How does that conversation go anyway?  "Honey, I love you, and you love me.  We have this great thing going, and the only possible way to make it better is getting government involved in our relationship!"
> 
> So a social contract replacing government marriage preserves marriage for normal people and gives anti-marry people like myself the ability to have the government benefits married people get.


Well marriage is not going back to just a religious rite which makes that line discussing a waste of time.

There are of course advantages and disadvantages to marriage.  When children come into picture, marriage is much more important.  Medical research has convincingly showed that children who are raised by their married, biological parents enjoy better physical, cognitive, and emotional outcomes, on average, than children who are raised in other circumstances.  

On the legal front, however, breaking up can be a lot easier for unmarried couples than going through a divorce.  However, if there are children and the parents can't resolve their disputes, things can be very messy because the codified divorce procedures that apply to married couples do not apply to unmarried folks.


----------



## Flopper

Blues Man said:


> All SCOTUS does is rule on the Constitutionality of laws.


No, the supreme court is final arbitrator of law which may or may not involve the constitution.  The court also does judicial review which, is the power to decide the validity of acts of the legislative and executive branches of government.   It may seem like the court just interprets the constitution because those are highly publicized cases.  The court hears 100 to a`150 cases a year, but only a few end up in the news media.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

bodecea said:


> Basketballs give con-sent?


Who am I to judge basketballs?


----------



## bodecea

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Who am I to judge basketballs?


By all means.....if you cannot discern.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

bodecea said:


> By all means.....if you cannot discern.


I can


----------



## bodecea

AzogtheDefiler said:


> I can


Well I will chalk that up to you lying again.


----------



## meaner gene

AzogtheDefiler said:


> What I do care is if you legally force me to use certain pronouns. Then you’re asking too much.


There has never been a legal requirement to use any pronoun.   You're exaggerating, just like in the child custody argument.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

bodecea said:


> Well I will chalk that up to you lying again.


LOL OK


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

meaner gene said:


> There has never been a legal requirement to use any pronoun.   You're exaggerating, just like in the child custody argument.


Correct. I am saying “if”. And consent isn’t everything. Brother and sister can give consent. Should we allow them to marry?


----------



## bodecea

AzogtheDefiler said:


> LOL OK


----------



## meaner gene

Ray From Cleveland said:


> If a friend of yours lost his apartment and you let him move in with you, got into a fight a month later, you cannot legally force him to leave.  If the police are involved, they may ask one of you to leave to keep the peace, but you cannot throw him out until you follow eviction procedures.


NOPE.

Any guest, is just that, a guest.  Whether in a home, an apartment.  They have to be invited, and their remaining is contingent on that grant not being revoked.

If they refuse to leave, you just have to call the police, and say there is a trespasser.  

*How Do I Get Rid of a House Guest Who Won't Leave?*

_Technically, in most situations a houseguest who remains after being asked to leave is trespassing. ... If you have made crystal clear that a guest is not welcome, but the guest continues to stay, call the police and report the person for trespassing._


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

meaner gene said:


> NOPE.
> 
> Any guest, is just that, a guest.  Whether in a home, an apartment.  They have to be invited, and their remaining is contingent on that grant not being revoked.
> 
> If they refuse to leave, you just have to call the police, and say there is a trespasser.
> 
> *How Do I Get Rid of a House Guest Who Won't Leave?*
> 
> _Technically, in most situations a houseguest who remains after being asked to leave is trespassing. ... If you have made crystal clear that a guest is not welcome, but the guest continues to stay, call the police and report the person for trespassing._



That's for somebody visiting, not somebody that moved in.  Once somebody moves in, that is their place of residence.  If that person who moved in gives you anything of value in exchange for living there, even cooking dinner one night, that legally makes that person a tenant.  

*Can I lock a guest out and put the guest’s property on the street?   

The safest way to remove a guest from your property is to use the court process. There are several reasons why it may be a bad idea to use self-help eviction to remove a guest from your home.

You may be risking your personal safety if the guest becomes angry or violent during or after the eviction.

 If the police need to be called because the eviction is causing a disturbance, they may stop the eviction and direct you to let the guest move back into your home. The police may also direct you to go to court to evict the guest.

In many cases, you cannot be sure whether a person is a guest or a tenant. If you are wrong and a judge decides that your guest actually is a tenant, you may be ordered to let that person move back into your home and you might have to pay that person money for wrongfully evicting him or her.    

Judgments for wrongful eviction can be a large amount of money and can include: reimbursement for living costs while the guest was out of the property, lost or stolen personal property, pain and suffering, and, if the tenant can prove that you acted recklessly or maliciously, additional damages to punish you for the illegal eviction.    

You can protect yourself from these problems by using the court process to evict your guest.*









						Welcome to LawHelp.org/DC | A guide to free and low-cost legal aid and services in Washington, D.C.
					

LawHelp.Org/DC provides free legal information to the public about topics of interest to low and middle income DC residents. We also provide referral information about legal and social service providers



					www.lawhelp.org


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> The same thing normal couples that don't want to marry would do to have marital benefits, and that is replace government marriage with a social contract.


A marriage license is a social contract.  A couple can create their own contract and if done proper, it is legal and if filed with the county clerk there will be permanent record.  However, for the marriage to be legal there are a number of requirements depending on state that must be met such as:
Proof of identity of each with state approved identification.
State approved proof of age
Proof of 24 hr. waiting prior the signing of marriage license, where require by law
Evidence of a verbal agreement that each party is willing to entering into the marriage
Evidence that both parties understand the marriage contract, where require by law
Evidence of passing a blood test, where require by law
Opportunity of others to state reasons why the marriage should not be allowed, depending on state law

For most people a Social Contract in place of marriage license is impractical.  Most social contract are in addition to the marriage license such as prenup agreements.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> That's for somebody visiting, not somebody that moved in.  Once somebody moves in, that is their place of residence.  If that person who moved in gives you anything of value in exchange for living there, even cooking dinner one night, that legally makes that person a tenant.
> 
> *Can I lock a guest out and put the guest’s property on the street?
> 
> The safest way to remove a guest from your property is to use the court process. There are several reasons why it may be a bad idea to use self-help eviction to remove a guest from your home.
> 
> You may be risking your personal safety if the guest becomes angry or violent during or after the eviction.
> *
> *If the police need to be called because the eviction is causing a disturbance, they may stop the eviction and direct you to let the guest move back into your home. The police may also direct you to go to court to evict the guest.*
> 
> *In many cases, you cannot be sure whether a person is a guest or a tenant. If you are wrong and a judge decides that your guest actually is a tenant, you may be ordered to let that person move back into your home and you might have to pay that person money for wrongfully evicting him or her.
> 
> Judgments for wrongful eviction can be a large amount of money and can include: reimbursement for living costs while the guest was out of the property, lost or stolen personal property, pain and suffering, and, if the tenant can prove that you acted recklessly or maliciously, additional damages to punish you for the illegal eviction.
> 
> You can protect yourself from these problems by using the court process to evict your guest.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to LawHelp.org/DC | A guide to free and low-cost legal aid and services in Washington, D.C.
> 
> 
> LawHelp.Org/DC provides free legal information to the public about topics of interest to low and middle income DC residents. We also provide referral information about legal and social service providers
> 
> 
> 
> www.lawhelp.org


Agreed but laws are different from state to state and the covid-19 thing  is making it a bit different.   Most of the time, you can sue to evict a guest as soon as you have asked the person to leave and they have refused to move out. However, as you said, if that guest gave you money or anything of value to stay in your dwelling, then that's a different situation.  Right now in Seattle it is damn near impossible to evict anyone.


----------



## meaner gene

Ray From Cleveland said:


> That's for somebody visiting, not somebody that moved in.  Once somebody moves in, that is their place of residence.  If that person who moved in gives you anything of value in exchange for living there, even cooking dinner one night, that legally makes that person a tenant.


Now you're moving the bar.  You said the friend lost his apartment and was staying at your place.  Well first there would be a general agreement how long they intended to stay, which as until they found another place, with an expectation of a certain number of days

_Any guest staying in the property more than two weeks in any six-month period will be considered a tenant, rather than a guest, and must be added in the lease agreement. Landlord may also increase the rent at any such time that a new tenant is added to the lease or premise._


----------



## ClaireH

TemplarKormac said:


> And? If it isn't mandated in the Constitution, it shouldn't be mandated on the population it governs. It matters not who passes the mandate. Trump or Obama.
> 
> Being a part of the LGBT community now, I can tell that the majority of the community do not want to force itself onto society, we just want equal treatment under law. But what is there to gain from our equal status in society if it comes by trampling the rights of others? If my rights come at the cost of other's rights, I don't want them.
> 
> Tell me, how is that fair? My grandmother is a devout Christian. She also knows I'm gay as well, as she was the one I came out to first. But I will not force her to change her beliefs to accept me. That is wrong. _Just as wrong_ as someone trying to change me because of my sexual affiliation.


Well now Templar, you’ve provided more evidence that you are indeed a healthy minded individual. I suspected as such from your previous posts You’re spot on that it’s all about the force aspect that’s caused so much friction. Specific groups, unfortunately, have jumped on the friction wagon. Some of the extreme messages are on social media, while others support a much less aggressive message of wanting fair treatment.

Those who are yelling will not be heard, while those who are having respectful dialogue, like with your close bond with your grandma, will continue to be heard and accepted as individuals just doing their best and living their lives.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Which is why marriage should be contained to the religion only and not involve government at all.  If you are a Catholic, get married in the Catholic church, you are married in the eyes of that religion and the people who are also part of that religion.


If the only marriage are religious marriages, about half of the country would not get married.  That would be bad for everyone.


----------



## bodecea

Flopper said:


> If the only marriage are religious marriages, about half of the country would not get married.  That would be bad for everyone.


More than half.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Ray From Cleveland said:


> And I answered that multiple times.


No you have not! You might think that you did but you have not. All that I am getting is that you oppose marriage in general. But this all started with your opposition specifically to gay marriage and you have not explained that at all. It appears that your anti marriage crap is intended to avoint the issue of gay marriage . Throw the baby out with the bath water. Prove me wrong


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

meaner gene said:


> Now you're moving the bar. You said the friend lost his apartment and was staying at your place. Well first there would be a general agreement how long they intended to stay, which as until they found another place, with an expectation of a certain number of days
> 
> _Any guest staying in the property more than two weeks in any six-month period will be considered a tenant, rather than a guest, and must be added in the lease agreement. Landlord may also increase the rent at any such time that a new tenant is added to the lease or premise._



Not moving the bar at all.  Once a person establishes residency at a dwelling, that is the persons home whether considered a guest or tenant by law.  It's illegal to remove a person from their home.  Even if they say they'll be gone in four months, you still need to evict the person past that verbal deadline.  

Trust me, I've had to discuss this with my lawyer before.  I had a guy move in a friend and didn't tell me about it.  When I found out, I told him his friend had to move.  He didn't so I contacted my lawyer.  My lawyer advised not to address the guest in any way or form.  Advise the tenant they are in violation of the lease, and unless they get back into compliance (get rid of their friend) then you will proceed to the eviction process and they'll both be gone.  His friend left.  

I also had a friend who was in a busted marriage and they split up. She was scared to death at nights being alone, so she found some player to move in to replace her husband against my advice.  He was a classic loser, didn't work, ate all her food, didn't pay her anything, and she asked him to leave repeatedly which he didn't.  I don't know what happened, but one day she called the police to have him removed.  The police told her they couldn't do a thing.  It's not a police matter, it's a civil matter that only the court can settle.  She had to file for an eviction to get him out of there.  Once he received it, he finally left.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> No you have not! You might think that you did but you have not. All that I am getting is that you oppose marriage in general. But this all started with your opposition specifically to gay marriage and you have not explained that at all. It appears that your anti marriage crap is intended to avoint the issue of gay marriage . Throw the baby out with the bath water. Prove me wrong



Post 412: 



Ray From Cleveland said:


> As a society we set social standards, particularly for our children. If I did have children, I wouldn't want them witnessing two guys french kissing in the park. A fat 70 old woman walking around naked in public doesn't affect me either unless I actually see it, but it does violate our social standards as it will make a lot of people ill, just like a lot of people get ill seeing two guys kissing at a bus stop.


----------



## bodecea

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Post 412:


Let me ask you....do you honestly believe that getting rid of gay marriage will stop two gay men from kissing in the park?


----------



## justinacolmena

rightwinger said:


> There is a lot of stuff not explicitly in the Constitution. Women’s rights, a standing Army, Space Force...
> 
> Same Sex Marriage is here to stay


Women's rights? Let's just leave that "right" to marry another woman out. Is it a cellmate in prison? Or some f***in' rich-a$$ pop culture celeb wh0re with a live-in housekeeper? Is it all over when a boyfriend shows up? Or do they just call it a threesome in that case? I don't see one lady picnicking on another lady like that, I just don't buy the hardcore porn crap, and I don't believe what I don't see. Streetwalkers work the streets _au pair_, and offer themselves to men on a one night stand basis, with the other woman to help kick the boyfriend out in the morning.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> If the only marriage are religious marriages, about half of the country would not get married. That would be bad for everyone.



It would be great for normal people.  We could preserve the tradition of marriage as it's been for the many generations and since the founding of this country until liberals Fd it up for us.  It's one of the many reasons I think it's time to have two countries instead of one.  By dividing the country between liberals and conservatives, it would solve most all of our problems.  I do hope there is a movement soon to start the process.  You wouldn't have to put up with us, and we wouldn't have to put up with you, and everybody would be happy.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

bodecea said:


> Let me ask you....do you honestly believe that getting rid of gay marriage will stop two gay men from kissing in the park?



I don't know, but at least it would stop promoting it.  Like I said, liberals have the mentality of children.  This has nothing to do with visitation rights in hospitals, Social Security, testifying against a spouse (like how often does that happen?)  It's purely about rejection.  Some gays don't like feeling like an outcast and believe that by forcing their marriage down our throats, it will make them normal somehow.  

It doesn't work that way.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Yes you can, but it's not accepted or recognized by the state.


That depends on whether the state recognized common law marriages and if you meet the requirements.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It would be great for normal people.  We could preserve the tradition of marriage as it's been for the many generations and since the founding of this country until liberals Fd it up for us.  It's one of the many reasons I think it's time to have two countries instead of one.  By dividing the country between liberals and conservatives, it would solve most all of our problems.  I do hope there is a movement soon to start the process.  You wouldn't have to put up with us, and we wouldn't have to put up with you, and everybody would be happy.


If you divide the country  into liberal and conservatives what do you do with 35% of the country that identify as moderate who are neither fully on the left or right.  And what about the swing hitters who move back and forth and then the I' don't give shit bunch.


----------



## Seawytch

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Look,  you are talking to a retired truck driver.  I know the transportation field pretty well.
> 
> If there is a call for a pickup of alcohol in New York, you don't send a driver in Texas to pick it up.  You have to pay that driver for every empty mile he drives.  You call one of your drivers in PA or or one already in NY to pickup the load.
> 
> The drivers made no request for religious accommodations otherwise the company would have never hired them.  When it comes to freight, you take what you can get and haul anything legal to haul.


I don't care if you are J.B. Hunt himself. The company could have made a religious accommodation for the drivers. And yes, they did ask for a religious accommodation and it was denied so they notified the EEOC. 





__





						StackPath
					





					www.fleetowner.com
				




_The case involved two drivers at Star Transport, Inc. in Morton, Illinois who, in 2009, asked for an accommodation because delivering alcohol went against their religious beliefs. In 2012, after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Star could not reach an agreement after months of negotiations, the federal agency filed a lawsuit. [...]_​​_According to the judge's opinion, Star's HR person testified that he received no formal training in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which governs religious accommodations nor did the company even bother to educate themselves on their obligations. "You don't see that very often," Atterberry said, laughing. "That's pretty bad."_​​_Star did not mount any sort of defense. They didn't come forward and show why reasonable accommodation was not possible or would have cause undue hardship. "They did not, from what I can tell, actively litigate this case," she said.[...]_​​_According to court documents, Star could have easily switched drivers because they rarely hauled alcohol. In 2008, they only carried one case. The following year, they carried 474 cases out of almost 70,000 loads._​
And these drivers did not bankrupt the company. It was in financial trouble and closed its doors BEFORE the lawsuit and the award for damages.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Flopper said:


> If you divide the country into liberal and conservatives what do you do with 35% of the country that identify as moderate who are neither fully on the left or right. And what about the swing hitters who move back and forth and then the I' don't give shit bunch.



They would have to choose a side that most identifies with their particular beliefs.  

Do you want to live disarmed in a high crime high tax country?  Do you want to live with way overpriced alternative energy?  Do you want to live in an open border country where the government caters to them more than you?  Do you want to live where industry and business in general is running away from your country to ours?  Do you want to live in a country that panders to criminals and has such disdain and restrictions on police they are virtually useless?  Then move to the Democrat country. 

Do you want to live armed with low taxes?  Do you want to live with much less crime?  Do you want to live where jobs are nearly endless?  Do you want to pay much less money for fuel?  Do you want to live in a country where prisons are actually prisons and offer a real deterrent to crime?  Do you want to live in a country where only real women are considered women and real men are considered men?  Then move to the Republican country.


----------



## Flopper

Bob Blaylock said:


> Beyond that, they want to force abnormality and immorality on society as a whole, compel everyone to treat abnormal as normal, immoral as moral, and to punish any who refuse to do so.
> 
> Isaiah 5:20:  _Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!_


What is so great about being normal?  If you look up normal in any English dictionary, the first definition is usual, regular, common, typical. How did _this_ become something to aspire?


----------



## Unkotare

Flopper said:


> What is so great about being normal?  If you look up normal in any English dictionary, the first definition is usual, regular, common, typical. How did _this_ become something to aspire?


Sorta depends on how you look at it. It is "normal" to have ten fingers, a nose on the front of your head, and to breathe air.


----------



## Flopper

AzogtheDefiler said:


> !?!! I was kidding. If dudes want to marry their basketballs, let them. I do not care. What I do care is if you legally force me to use certain pronouns. Then you’re asking too much. Or if you ask me to turn a blind eye while trans girls compete in sports with biological girls.


If there is force, it will be social, not government.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Flopper said:


> If there is force, it will social, not government.


That’s perfectly fine with me. Social norms are what they are. So if it were Govt would you be OK with it? Cause Ontario wanted to do so.


----------



## Faun

John T. Ford said:


> DO NOT respond to my comments with your single digit IQ nonsense.


LOL

Dayum, you're a whiney bitch. Idiot, it's  analogistic. You're literally crying that a person lost their job for not doing their job because they believe doing their job violates their first Amendment rights. I gave you an example of others faced with that and it's never been deemed unconstitutional.


----------



## Faun

bodecea said:


> Yeah...you are PROUD of your double digit IQ, aren't you?


Invective sure beats argument, huh?


----------



## Faun

AzogtheDefiler said:


> 100% true. Look it up. How can you tell how I sound on a message board? LOL
> 
> you’re deranged


LOLOL 

You just called yourself, "deranged," ShortBus. And who know you better than you?


----------



## Faun

AzogtheDefiler said:


> I exaggerated but you get my gist. Women in MA generally get the best outcomes.


LOLOLOL 

ShortBus, how the fuck do you go from "100%" to "generally?" She's right, you lied and got caught lying.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Faun said:


> LOLOL
> 
> You just called yourself, "deranged," ShortBus. And who know you better than you?


The stalker is back. OCD meds wore off?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Faun said:


> LOLOLOL
> 
> ShortBus, how the fuck do you go from "100%" to "generally?" She's right, you lied and got caught lying.


OK stalker. Happy now? What are you trying to achieve? Take your ocd meds and go to bed, old man.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> They would have to choose a side that most identifies with their particular beliefs.
> 
> Do you want to live disarmed in a high crime high tax country?  Do you want to live with way overpriced alternative energy?  Do you want to live in an open border country where the government caters to them more than you?  Do you want to live where industry and business in general is running away from your country to ours?  Do you want to live in a country that panders to criminals and has such disdain and restrictions on police they are virtually useless?  Then move to the Democrat country.
> 
> Do you want to live armed with low taxes?  Do you want to live with much less crime?  Do you want to live where jobs are nearly endless?  Do you want to pay much less money for fuel?  Do you want to live in a country where prisons are actually prisons and offer a real deterrent to crime?  Do you want to live in a country where only real women are considered women and real men are considered men?  Then move to the Republican country.


Nope, I want to live in the middle where common sense trumps stereotypes, where people understand that neither side is totally right or wrong, where people reject the toxic form of polarization that has fundamentally altered political discourse, public civility and even the way politicians govern.   You can have your make believe society where your side is all right and other side is all wrong.  That's not for me.


----------



## Faun

Ray From Cleveland said:


> They would have to choose a side that most identifies with their particular beliefs.
> 
> Do you want to live disarmed in a high crime high tax country?  Do you want to live with way overpriced alternative energy?  Do you want to live in an open border country where the government caters to them more than you?  Do you want to live where industry and business in general is running away from your country to ours?  Do you want to live in a country that panders to criminals and has such disdain and restrictions on police they are virtually useless?  Then move to the Democrat country.
> 
> Do you want to live armed with low taxes?  Do you want to live with much less crime?  Do you want to live where jobs are nearly endless?  Do you want to pay much less money for fuel?  Do you want to live in a country where prisons are actually prisons and offer a real deterrent to crime?  Do you want to live in a country where only real women are considered women and real men are considered men?  Then move to the Republican country.


And then when moderates disagree with you, you'll want them thrown out of their own country.

Sorry, life doesn't work that way. If you don't want to live in the U.S. which comprises all ideologies -- then you get the fuck out, not others you can't get along with.


----------



## Faun

AzogtheDefiler said:


> The stalker is back. OCD meds wore off?


I'm just agreeing with you when you call yourself, "deranged."


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Faun said:


> I'm just agreeing with you when you call yourself, "deranged."


OK. Happy now? You are such a sad little man. OCD stalker.


----------



## Faun

AzogtheDefiler said:


> OK. Happy now? You are such a sad little man. OCD stalker.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Faun said:


>


Stalkers gonna stalk. Your OCD won’t let you give it up. It runs you. Poor old ugly fool.


----------



## Faun

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Stalkers gonna stalk. Your OCD won’t let you give it up. It runs you. Poor old ugly fool.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Faun said:


>


Case in point.


----------



## Faun

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Case in point.
> 
> View attachment 532496


Yeah, I noticed you can't turn it off.


----------



## Flopper

AzogtheDefiler said:


> That’s perfectly fine with me. Social norms are what they are. So if it were Govt would you be OK with it? Cause Ontario wanted to do so.


When social norms conflict with law, government often acts.  This usually occurs when social norms of isolated sociopolitical group's norms are not shared by most of nation.  This occurred in South in 50's and 60's over racial injustice and in 21st century with gay marriage. Also in late 20th century in regard to the failure of the equal right for women.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Faun said:


> Yeah, I noticed you can't turn it off.


Notice the last time I initiated a convo between us? It’s been you stalking me. Your OCD is off the rails and it amuses me.

You’re like a retarded parrot: Shortbus…Kwak…shortbus…kwak…

Come on man. Go stalk elsewhere. Thank you in advance.

Truth over Facts


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Flopper said:


> When social norms conflict with law, government often acts.  This usually occurs when social norms of isolated sociopolitical group's norms are not shared by most of nation.  This occurred in South in 50's and 60's over racial injustice and in 21st century with gay marriage. Also in late 20th century in regard to the failure of the equal right for women.


I asked You a question and you told me some weird diatribe. You were obviously raised poorly.


----------



## Faun

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Notice the last time I initiated a convo between us? It’s been you stalking me. Your OCD is off the rails and it amuses me.
> 
> You’re like a retarded parrot: Shortbus…Kwak…shortbus…kwak…
> 
> Come on man. Go stalk elsewhere. Thank you in advance.
> 
> Truth over Facts


LOLOL 

You poor thing, you really are as deranged as you say you are. In reality, you started talking about me. As always, your obsession with me is noted and laughed at.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Faun said:


> LOLOL
> 
> You poor thing, you really are as deranged as you say you are. In reality, you started talking about me. As always, your obsession with me is noted and laughed at.


?? You have lost your mind ???

Good night, stalker


----------



## Faun

AzogtheDefiler said:


> ?? You have lost your mind ???
> 
> Good night, stalker


No. You talk about me in everything you post. You're so obsessed with me, you talk about me in your signature.


----------



## Flopper

Looks like this thread is coming to end and rightly so.  The Supreme Court's actions making gay marriage legal was not about religious marriages but it was perceived to be.  It was about the legal aspect of marriage; that is freedom of choice in legal marriage, a replay of the court striking down the ban on interracial marriage.  I suspect that the 21st century will continue to move toward more freedom of individual choice in all areas of society.


----------



## Faun

Flopper said:


> Looks like this thread is coming to end and rightly so.  The Supreme Court's actions making gay marriage legal was not about religious marriages but it was perceived to be.  It was about the legal aspect of marriage; that is freedom of choice in legal marriage, a replay of the court striking down the ban on interracial marriage.  I suspect that the 21st century will continue to move toward more freedom of individual choice in all areas of society.


It was about equal access to rights. Marriage, being a fundamental right, is not proprietary to straight people.


----------



## Batcat

I find myself wondering what the Founding Fathers would have done if they knew that in the future marriages between people of the same sex would be allowed. 

I’ll bet they would have prohibited same sex marraige in the Constitution.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Faun said:


> No. You talk about me in everything you post. You're so obsessed with me, you talk about me in your signature.


You’re forever immortalized in my wall of morons and that eats at you. That is outstanding. I own your ass. Every time someone reads my posts they realize you’re an idiot. Ha ha ha ha. Doesn’t mean I stalk you.


OCD old fool.


----------



## Blues Man

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> So women are still property?


Idiot.


----------



## bodecea

Ray From Cleveland said:


> It would be great for normal people.  We could preserve the tradition of marriage as it's been for the many generations and since the founding of this country until liberals Fd it up for us.  It's one of the many reasons I think it's time to have two countries instead of one.  By dividing the country between liberals and conservatives, it would solve most all of our problems.  I do hope there is a movement soon to start the process.  You wouldn't have to put up with us, and we wouldn't have to put up with you, and everybody would be happy.


So....you believe only religious people are normal?    What next?  Only christian religious people are normal?   Then only Baptist christian religious people are normal?  And so on?

And what exactly IS the "tradition of marriage" you speak of?


----------



## bodecea

Ray From Cleveland said:


> I don't know, but at least it would stop promoting it.  Like I said, liberals have the mentality of children.  This has nothing to do with visitation rights in hospitals, Social Security, testifying against a spouse (like how often does that happen?)  It's purely about rejection.  Some gays don't like feeling like an outcast and believe that by forcing their marriage down our throats, it will make them normal somehow.
> 
> It doesn't work that way.


"stop promoting it"?        "It's purely about rejection."?


----------



## bodecea

AzogtheDefiler said:


> The stalker is back. OCD meds wore off?


Let me guess...you are LYING about OCD meds, aren't you?


----------



## bodecea

Batcat said:


> I find myself wondering what the Founding Fathers would have done if they knew that in the future marriages between people of the same sex would be allowed.
> 
> I’ll bet they would have prohibited same sex marraige in the Constitution.


Just like they would have prohibited women's rights in the Constitution if they'd known that women now vote and work, etc.    And, of course, we KNOW what they thought about slavery....and about Native Americans.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

bodecea said:


> Let me guess...you are LYING about OCD meds, aren't you?


I do not know for sure but his MO screams OCD. You conflate lying with exaggerating and guessing. But you’re a leftist so that’s OK.


----------



## bodecea

AzogtheDefiler said:


> I do not know for sure but his MO screams OCD. You conflate lying with exaggerating and guessing. But you’re a leftist so that’s OK.


And now you try to gaslight over your lying ways.          I hope no one trusts you.


----------



## Faun

Batcat said:


> I find myself wondering what the Founding Fathers would have done if they knew that in the future marriages between people of the same sex would be allowed.
> 
> I’ll bet they would have prohibited same sex marraige in the Constitution.


Don't just make up what they would have said.. You should conduct a seance and ask them.


----------



## Faun

AzogtheDefiler said:


> You’re forever immortalized in my wall of morons and that eats at you. That is outstanding. I own your ass. Every time someone reads my posts they realize you’re an idiot. Ha ha ha ha. Doesn’t mean I stalk you.
> 
> 
> OCD old fool.


LOL

No, it doesn't eat me. Why on Earth would posting words I myself posted, "eat me," ShortBus? What it does do though, is offers a glimpse into how obsessed you are with me that you feel compelled to talk about be in every single post you make. So when you claim I'm stalking you or initiating communication with you, everyone here sees you're merely projecting because in reality, it's you who can't stop talking about me.


----------



## Faun

bodecea said:


> Let me guess...you are LYING about OCD meds, aren't you?


He admitted he lies to get a rise out of people. It's a sickness.


----------



## bodecea

Faun said:


> He admitted he lies to get a rise out of people. It's a sickness.


I sure how those around him know to watch their backs and double check anything he claims to them.........


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

bodecea said:


> So....you believe only religious people are normal? What next? Only christian religious people are normal? Then only Baptist christian religious people are normal? And so on?
> 
> And what exactly IS the "tradition of marriage" you speak of?



When did I ever say only religious people are normal?  Why do you liberals lie about what we said right in front of us as if we weren't there?  

Normal is what most people do.  That's what normal is.  Traditional marriage is the union of one man and one woman.


----------



## Ray From Cleveland

Batcat said:


> I find myself wondering what the Founding Fathers would have done if they knew that in the future marriages between people of the same sex would be allowed.
> 
> I’ll bet they would have prohibited same sex marraige in the Constitution.



Back in the day marriage had nothing to do with government which is why it was never addressed.  Marriage was a religious rite and government had nothing to do with dictating religion.  As time went on government got involved with this rite and that's why it's a problem now.


----------



## Faun

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Back in the day marriage had nothing to do with government which is why it was never addressed.  Marriage was a religious rite and government had nothing to do with dictating religion.  As time went on government got involved with this rite and that's why it's a problem now.


LOL

A problem for whom?


----------



## Batcat

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Back in the day marriage had nothing to do with government which is why it was never addressed.  Marriage was a religious rite and government had nothing to do with dictating religion.  As time went on government got involved with this rite and that's why it's a problem now.


That’s is a fair point. Thanks.


----------



## Batcat

Faun said:


> Don't just make up what they would have said.. You should conduct a seance and ask them.


While I have known several white witches I am not a believer in seances.


----------



## Batcat

bodecea said:


> Just like they would have prohibited women's rights in the Constitution if they'd known that women now vote and work, etc.    And, of course, we KNOW what they thought about slavery....and about Native Americans.


Many of the Founding Fathers opposed slavery. 









						The Founding Fathers and Slavery
					

Although many of the Founding Fathers acknowledged that slavery violated the core American Revolutionary ideal of liberty, their simultaneous commitment to private property rights, principles of limited government, and intersectional harmony prevented them from making a bold move against...



					www.britannica.com
				




I will agree women didn’t have many rights. 

The French had far better relations with Native Americans than the English colonists. 









						The French and Native American Relations
					

The French enjoyed much better relations with Native Americans than other European groups when they first came to American shores. Here are the reasons why.




					ancestralfindings.com


----------



## bodecea

Ray From Cleveland said:


> When did I ever say only religious people are normal?  Why do you liberals lie about what we said right in front of us as if we weren't there?
> 
> Normal is what most people do.  That's what normal is.  Traditional marriage is the union of one man and one woman.


So...you are NOT saying that just religious people are normal.   Ok, then.  And traditional marriage, just like traditional anything changes over time.


----------



## ClaireH

Flopper said:


> If you divide the country  into liberal and conservatives what do you do with 35% of the country that identify as moderate who are neither fully on the left or right.  And what about the swing hitters who move back and forth and then the I' don't give shit bunch.


Last time I checked a few comparative sources, have it around 40% for subsets of independents. If these groups and stragglers unite under a new party label, this voting majority will make an impact.


----------



## Flopper

Batcat said:


> I find myself wondering what the Founding Fathers would have done if they knew that in the future marriages between people of the same sex would be allowed.
> 
> I’ll bet they would have prohibited same sex marraige in the Constitution.


Since many of the founders such as *W*ashington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and Monroe were Deists  and very few people used marriage licenses, they would have probably done nothing.


----------



## John T. Ford

Faun said:


> LOL
> 
> Dayum, you're a whiney bitch. Idiot, it's  analogistic. You're literally crying that a person lost their job for not doing their job because they believe doing their job violates their first Amendment rights. I gave you an example of others faced with that and it's never been deemed unconstitutional.


Your example is single digit IQ bullshit.

Fuck off.


----------



## Flopper

ClaireH said:


> Last time I checked a few comparative sources, have it around 40% for subsets of independents. If these groups and stragglers unite under a new party label, this voting majority will make an impact.


IMHO, what America needs is a third party that represents moderates that reject the extremists view of both parties.  A third party could end congressional stalemates


----------



## Flopper

bodecea said:


> "stop promoting it"?        "It's purely about rejection."?


So you think gay's fight to legalizing gay marriage was about being accepted by society?  Please explain how being able to get a marriage license would make them more accepted.

 I don't know what planet you are from but gays are being accepted particular by younger people.


----------



## Faun

John T. Ford said:


> Your example is single digit IQ bullshit.
> 
> Fuck off.


LOL

Keep whining, it's music to muh Liberal ears as you flail, unable to refute the bitch-slapping you're taking.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> When did I ever say only religious people are normal?  Why do you liberals lie about what we said right in front of us as if we weren't there?
> 
> Normal is what most people do.  That's what normal is.  Traditional marriage is the union of one man and one woman.


Normal is a subjective term.  What you consider normal may be very different than what I consider normal and would certainly be different from those living in a homeless camp, refugee center, in a South Chicago neighborhood  ruled by gangs,  Atherton, Ca. where the average household income is 10 times the national average, or Salinas, Ca. where the population is 78% Hispanic.

Normal is  a setting on a washing machine.


----------



## skye

Sadly, the Supreme Court is fucked now.

Americans can not count on any  Justice coming from this Supreme Court anymore.


----------



## John T. Ford

Faun said:


> LOL
> 
> Keep whining, it's music to muh Liberal ears as you flail, unable to refute the bitch-slapping you're taking.


Nobody is whining DUMBASS ...

Post an intelligent response  .....

Not gonna happen ....

Just saying ...


----------



## Faun

John T. Ford said:


> Nobody is whining DUMBASS ...
> 
> Post an intelligent response  .....
> 
> Not gonna happen ....
> 
> Just saying ...


I already did. I gave examples of others who had to choose between work and their religion and their rights were not violated. You simply lack the ability to understand. That's on you, nobody else. I can live with that.

Here's another example...









						Supreme Court Nixes Religious Bias Claim for Walgreens Denying Saturdays-Off Request
					

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to Walgreens, turning away an appeal by a fired former Florida employee of the pharmacy chain who asked




					www.insurancejournal.com
				




_The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to Walgreens, turning away an appeal by a fired former Florida employee of the pharmacy chain who asked not to work on Saturdays for religious reasons as a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

The justices declined to review a lower court ruling in Darrell Patterson’s religious discrimination lawsuit that concluded that his demand to never work on Saturday, observed as the Sabbath by Seventh-day Adventists, placed an undue hardship on Walgreens._​
... here's where you bitch & moan some more.


----------



## Flopper

Ray From Cleveland said:


> Back in the day marriage had nothing to do with government which is why it was never addressed.  Marriage was a religious rite and government had nothing to do with dictating religion.  As time went on government got involved with this rite and that's why it's a problem now.


In Colonial Times most marriages were not religions ceremonies.  Church weddings as such were rare. A minister was often asked to preform a ceremony in the house of the bride or groom.   In poorer families often the father of the bride might give away his daughter in a family ceremony.  Many of the marriages were arrange by the parents of the bride.  The bride might be taken to the dwelling of the husband. Handshakes and hugs were  exchanged, maybe a celebratory drink and possibly a dowry was paid and that was often the marriage ceremony.  In North Carolina, agreement between the families was made and the marriage was announced 3 times to make it legal.  Most couples did not bother with marriage licenses because of cost.  Common law marriages were typical.  Pregnant brides were not uncommon.  The marriage was about property and reproduction. 

The idea of romantic love as a prerequisite for marriage grew out of the popularity of novels in the 1800's and Church weddings began replacing the family ceremony.  The need for a proof of marriage in a standardize format for insurance, banking, inheritance, and taxes led to the requirement that  marriages be licensed in the late 19th century and early 20th century.  


			Marriage | History Detectives | PBS


----------



## John T. Ford

Faun said:


> LOL
> 
> Keep whining, it's music to muh Liberal ears as you flail, unable to refute the bitch-slapping you're taking.


Miss the Fuck Off part of my comment?


----------



## John T. Ford

Faun said:


> I already did. I gave examples of others who had to choose between work and their religion and their rights were not violated. You simply lack the ability to understand. That's on you, nobody else. I can live with that.
> 
> Here's another example...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme Court Nixes Religious Bias Claim for Walgreens Denying Saturdays-Off Request
> 
> 
> The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to Walgreens, turning away an appeal by a fired former Florida employee of the pharmacy chain who asked
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.insurancejournal.com
> 
> 
> 
> ​_The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to Walgreens, turning away an appeal by a fired former Florida employee of the pharmacy chain who asked not to work on Saturdays for religious reasons as a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church._​​_The justices declined to review a lower court ruling in Darrell Patterson’s religious discrimination lawsuit that concluded that his demand to never work on Saturday, observed as the Sabbath by Seventh-day Adventists, placed an undue hardship on Walgreens._​
> ... here's where you bitch & moan some more.


Dumbass ...

Your comment is irrelevant and certainly not a rebuttal ....

Go away little guy ...


----------



## Faun

John T. Ford said:


> Miss the Fuck Off part of my comment?


No, I got that. I just don't give a shit. Don't like it? TFB.


----------



## Faun

John T. Ford said:


> Dumbass ...
> 
> Your comment is irrelevant and certainly not a rebuttal ....
> 
> Go away little guy ...


Not my problem you're too ignorant to comprehend the relevance.  You trying to blindly dismiss it is a fail on your part. I have no problem with that.


----------



## surada

easyt65 said:


> That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!
> 
> _"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."_
> 
> "_The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."
> 
> Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance."_
> 
> 
> 
> _"Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss," he wrote. "In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals."_
> 
> Just because you have a deep RELIGIOUS conviction regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and does not include same-sex marriages does *NOT *make one a Bigot or Homophobe and protects that religious belief / conviction.
> 
> _Thomas added: "This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as 'disparag[ing]' homosexuals and 'diminish[ing] their personhood' through '[d]ignitary wounds.'"_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case
> 
> 
> The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _



How does same sex marriage impact your life or your religious faith?


----------



## easyt65

surada said:


> How does same sex marriage impact your life or your religious faith?


Show me in the Constitution where it gives the US govt authority to make Same-Sex Marriage mandates.

You can't argue with what I posted above so you ask me how it affects me personally, which is irrelevant ... like you.


----------



## Blues Man

easyt65 said:


> Show me in the Constitution where it gives the US govt authority to make Same-Sex Marriage mandates.
> 
> You can't argue with what I posted above so you ask me how it affects me personally, which is irrelevant ... like you.


Show me where the federal government has any authority over any marriages at all.

As far as the state is concerned marriage is just a property contract.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

Blues Man said:


> Show me where the federal government has any authority over any marriages at all.
> 
> As far as the state is concerned marriage is just a property contract.


Yup...Gender/Race have no Constitutional Ban..nor approval. That which is not expressly forbidden is allowed. That's freedom. It's the religious nutz that fuck it all up~


----------



## Blues Man

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Yup...Gender/Race have no Constitutional Ban..nor approval. That which is not expressly forbidden is allowed. That's freedom. It's the religious nutz that fuck it all up~


I have to agree with that.

The thing is the government should not recognize any religious marriages and should not give any clergy person the power to act for the state


----------



## easyt65

Blues Man said:


> As far as the state is concerned marriage is just a property contract.



I agree with you on this one.

Liberals are not satisfied with this, though. They (seem to) want to force others to accept Same-Sex UNIONS as MARRIAGES, complete with the Christian connotations / inferences of a union of 2 people blessed by God.  Since God is opposed to homosexuality this is a huge problem for many in the country, causing huge opposition.

I personally don't care if 2 peoe of the same sex get together, spend their whole lives together, and have every legal benefit as heterosexual married couples.

I have a problem when the govt steps in and attempts to tell someone they must violate their religeous beliefs to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple or conduct abortions.

The courts made the right, legal decisions.
- There are other bakeries willing to give you what you want. Go to one of them.
- There are other doctors and hospitals that perform abortions - go to one of them.


----------



## Blues Man

easyt65 said:


> I agree with you on this one.
> 
> Liberals are not satisfied with this, though. They (seem to) want to force others to accept Same-Sex UNIONS as MARRIAGES, complete with the Christian connotations / inferences of a union of 2 people blessed by God.  Since God is opposed to homosexuality this is a huge problem for many in the country, causing huge opposition.
> 
> I personally don't care if 2 peoe of the same sex get together, spend their whole lives together, and have every legal benefit as heterosexual married couples.
> 
> I have a problem when the govt steps in and attempts to tell someone they must violate their religeous beliefs to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple or conduct abortions.
> 
> The courts made the right, legal decisions.
> - There are other bakeries willing to give you what you want. Go to one of them.
> - There are other doctors and hospitals that perform abortions - go to one of them.


The word marriage does not necessarily imply any religious trappings.  And a cake certainly doesn't.

And if you're fine with all businesses being free from public accommodation laws then you're OK with people denying you service because of your religion right?  Or would you be complaining about signs that say "No Christians Allowed"?


----------



## Unkotare

easyt65 said:


> I agree with you on this one.
> 
> Liberals are not satisfied with this, though. They (seem to) want to force others to accept Same-Sex UNIONS as MARRIAGES, complete with the Christian connotations / inferences of a union of 2 people blessed by God.  ...
> - ....


I don't think atheists are too concerned with being blessed by God. They are too busy trying to convince themselves that they ARE God.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> I don't think atheists are too concerned with being blessed by God. They are too busy trying to convince themselves that they ARE God.


I'm not an atheist.

But the government should still not give any clergy the power to act for the state in the ratifying of legal contracts like marriage.


----------



## easyt65

Blues Man said:


> I have to agree with that.
> 
> The thing is the government should not recognize any religious marriages and should not give any clergy person the power to act for the state



A religeous marriage is one where a couple us joined while asking for God's recognition and blessing of the union. 
- Its spiritual / religeous.

The govt demanding there be licenses, fees, and administrative filings for govt recognition of the legal contract, which includes govt / legal benefits and obligations, is different.
- Its 'worldly' / legal.

At least that is how I see it.


----------



## Faun

easyt65 said:


> Show me in the Constitution where it gives the US govt authority to make Same-Sex Marriage mandates.
> 
> You can't argue with what I posted above so you ask me how it affects me personally, which is irrelevant ... like you.



Where the Constitution reads, _*nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*_


----------



## Blues Man

easyt65 said:


> A religeous marriage is one where a couple us joined while asking for God's recognition and blessing of the union.
> - Its spiritual / religeous.
> 
> The govt demanding there be licenses, fees, and administrative filings for govt recognition of the legal contract, which includes govt / legal benefits and obligations, is different.
> - Its 'worldly' / legal.
> 
> At least that is how I see it.


In other countries all marriages require a civil hearing ( ceremony) where the couple getting married present themselves before a representative of the government and enter into the legal marriage contract.

If they want to have a religious ceremony they can but only the civil ceremony is recognized by the government.


----------



## Blues Man

Faun said:


> Where the Constitution reads, _*nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*_


Exactly and marriage is nothing but a property contract that any 2 people can enter into.


----------



## easyt65

Blues Man said:


> And if you're fine with all businesses being free from public accommodation laws then you're OK with people denying you service because of your religion right?


The law / courts are tasked with protecting someone's rights with the least invasive, oppressive means.

THAT means if there are other businesses that are willing to provide the service the same-sex couple wants then the govt can not step in and force that 1 business that does not based on religeous beliefs to do so.

If you have a problem with that, I suggest you take it up with your representatives and / or the USSC.


----------



## easyt65

Blues Man said:


> In other countries all marriages require a civil hearing ( ceremony) where the couple getting married present themselves before a representative of the government and enter into the legal marriage contract.
> 
> If they want to have a religious ceremony they can but only the civil ceremony is recognized by the government.


Same sex couples here seem to want to demand they be 1 and the same.


----------



## Blues Man

easyt65 said:


> The law / courts are tasked with protecting someone's rights with the least invasive, oppressive means.
> 
> THAT means if there are other businesses that are willing to provide the service the same-sex couple wants then the govt can not step in and force that 1 business that does not based on religeous beliefs to do so.
> 
> If you have a problem with that, I suggest you take it up with your representatives and / or the USSC.


But the laws have to apply equally to all and no one is owed any special treatment.

If you exempt one business from the law then you have to exempt them all.

The government cannot grant Christians special status to be exempt from any law.


----------



## Blues Man

easyt65 said:


> Same sex couples here seem to want to demand they be 1 and the same.


As far as the government is concerned they are just 2 people entering into a property contract


----------



## easyt65

Blues Man said:


> But the laws have to apply equally to all and no one is owed any special treatment.
> 
> If you exempt one business from the law then you have to exempt them all.
> 
> The government cannot grant Christians special status to be exempt from any law.


Again, the USSC has already decided this.  Since you so strongly object to their ruling you should take this up with them.

Good luck with that.


----------



## rightwinger

easyt65 said:


> Show me in the Constitution where it gives the US govt authority to make Same-Sex Marriage mandates.
> 
> You can't argue with what I posted above so you ask me how it affects me personally, which is irrelevant ... like you.



14th Amendment requires equal protection under the laws 

Homosexuals therefore are entitled to the same marriage protections as anyone else

Show me where the Constitution says marriage is between a man and a woman


----------



## Blues Man

easyt65 said:


> Again, the USSC has already decided this.  Since you so strongly object to their ruling you should take this up with them.
> 
> Good luck with that.


SCOTUS rulings get overturned all the time.


----------



## Faun

easyt65 said:


> Same sex couples here seem to want to demand they be 1 and the same.



Seems to me they want to be allowed to marry the person they love just like straight folks get to do.

Equal protection under the law. Why do you hate the Constitution?


----------



## easyt65

Blues Man said:


> As far as the government is concerned they are just 2 people entering into a property contract


But here in the US, like it or not, you are dealing with the govt AND the public. 

As you know, whether it be abortion or same sex marriage, public opposition to or support for an issue is important.


----------



## Blues Man

easyt65 said:


> But here in the US, like it or not, you are dealing with the govt AND the public.
> 
> As you know, whether it be abortion or same sex marriage, public opposition to or support for an issue is important.


Rights are not subject to mob rule.


----------



## easyt65

Blues Man said:


> Rights are not subject to mob rule.


No, as the USSC proved, they are subject to the Constitution and courts / the USSC's rulings.


----------



## Blues Man

easyt65 said:


> No, as the USSC proved, they are subject to the Constitution and courts / the USSC's rulings.


and yet those rulings change quite frequently so why would you trust SCOTUS?


----------



## easyt65

Blues Man said:


> and yet those rulings change quite frequently so why would you trust SCOTUS?


Just because you snowflakes are pissed a ruling did not go your way Democrats called for violence against tbe USSC, personally threatened the USSC, incited an attempted political assassination against them, have attempted to undermine the USSC, and even openly called for an actual insurrection...

What was that you said about the law / rights and mob rule?


----------



## Blues Man

easyt65 said:


> Just because you snowflakes are pissed a ruling did not go your way Democrats called for violence against tbe USSC, personally threatened the USSC, incited an attempted political assassination against them, have attempted to undermine the USSC, and even openly called for an actual insurrection...
> 
> What was that you said about the law / rights and mob rule?


You mean like the way you were all wound up about abortion for the past 50 years?  Seems like you aren't taking your own advice and just accepting every SCOTUS ruling,  Hypocrite.

And FYI I am neither a democrat nor a republican because it is the corrupt duopoly that has fucked everything up.


----------



## easyt65

Blues Man said:


> You mean like the way you were all wound up about abortion for the past 50 years?  Seems like you aren't taking your own advice and just accepting every SCOTUS ruling,  Hypocrite.
> 
> And FYI I am neither a democrat nor a republican because it is the corrupt duopoly that has fucked everything up



Again, if you have a problem with the USSC court's decision why don't you join your fellow snowflakes in birming down another church or marching outside one of the Justices' homes instead of wasting your time trying to.pestor me?!


----------



## Golfing Gator

easyt65 said:


> A religeous marriage is one where a couple us joined while asking for God's recognition and blessing of the union.
> - Its spiritual / religeous.
> 
> The govt demanding there be licenses, fees, and administrative filings for govt recognition of the legal contract, which includes govt / legal benefits and obligations, is different.
> - Its 'worldly' / legal.
> 
> At least that is how I see it.



And the only one same sex couples care about is the worldly one.


----------



## Golfing Gator

Blues Man said:


> In other countries all marriages require a civil hearing ( ceremony) where the couple getting married present themselves before a representative of the government and enter into the legal marriage contract.
> 
> If they want to have a religious ceremony they can but only the civil ceremony is recognized by the government.



The same thing happens in the US basically.  The couples still have to present themselves and get their licensee and an official rep from the Govt has to sign it.


----------



## progressive hunter

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> That which is not expressly forbidden is allowed.


thats exactly the opposite of what the constitution says,,


----------



## Blues Man

easyt65 said:


> Again, if you have a problem with the USSC court's decision why don't you join your fellow snowflakes in birming down another church or marching outside one of the Justices' homes instead of wasting your time trying to.pestor me?!


Again I am not a democrat and I unlike you do not condone violence.

But tell me why didn't you just accept the first SCOTUS ruling on abortion instead and did you murder any abortion doctors like your fellow republicans did?

The point I am making that has sailed over your pointy head is that SCOTUS rulings change all the time and you are an idiot if you think they won't change again.


----------



## Blues Man

Golfing Gator said:


> The same thing happens in the US basically.  The couples still have to present themselves and get their licensee and an official rep from the Govt has to sign it.


But the clergy is vested with power by the state .

That has to end


----------



## candycorn

easyt65 said:


> Show me in the Constitution where it gives the US govt authority to make Same-Sex Marriage mandates.
> 
> You can't argue with what I posted above so you ask me how it affects me personally, which is irrelevant ... like you.


Its probably next to the place in the Constitution that gives the US Govt authority to make mixed sex marriage mandates.


----------



## Golfing Gator

Blues Man said:


> But the clergy is vested with power by the state .
> 
> That has to end



Yes and no.  It is pretty much a joke.   A friend and co-worker is recognized by the Government as a "clergy" and he is the least religious person I have ever met.   He did it so he could preform the ceremony for some of his friends.   Took like 5 minutes and 20 bucks I think and BOOM he is now a member of the clergy


----------



## easyt65

Blues Man said:


> Again I am not a democrat and I unlike you do not condone violence.



...but you sure as hell LIE and make false accusations when you become triggered.


----------



## Blues Man

easyt65 said:


> ...but you sure as hell LIE and make false accusations when you become triggered.


What accusations have I made?

and what lies have I told?


----------



## Blues Man

candycorn said:


> Its probably next to the place in the Constitution that gives the US Govt authority to make mixed sex marriage mandates.


I'm not aware of any same sex marriage mandates.


----------



## easyt65

Blues Man said:


> What accusations have I made?
> 
> and what lies have I told?



Let's start with THIS one:

'Again I am not a democrat and I *unlike you *do not condone violence.'



Go away, lil' snowflake.


----------



## Blues Man

easyt65 said:


> Let's start with THIS one:
> 
> 'Again I am not a democrat and I *unlike you *do not condone violence.'
> 
> 
> 
> Go away, lil' snowflake.


That's an accusation?  

It's more of my opinion regarding your character.


----------



## easyt65

Blues Man said:


> That's an accusation?  It's more of my opinion regarding your character.



Lie, deny, justify, and spin...

You sure you're not a Democrat?


----------



## Blues Man

easyt65 said:


> Lie, deny, justify, and spin...
> 
> You sure you're not a Democrat?


Tell me did you support the riot at the Capitol Jan 6 2020?

If you did you condone violence.


----------



## easyt65

Blues Man said:


> Tell me did you support the riot at the Capitol Jan 6 2020?
> 
> If you did you condone violence.



Good thing I didn't then, huh?!

Fail.


----------



## Blues Man

easyt65 said:


> Good thing I didn't then, huh?!
> 
> Fail.


Sure you didn't.  By your logic because you are a republican you must agree with everything ALL republicans do.  After all that is the standard you use in your arguments here


----------



## rightwinger

Golfing Gator said:


> Yes and no.  It is pretty much a joke.   A friend and co-worker is recognized by the Government as a "clergy" and he is the least religious person I have ever met.   He did it so he could preform the ceremony for some of his friends.   Took like 5 minutes and 20 bucks I think and BOOM he is now a member of the clergy


Praise Jesus


----------



## easyt65

Blues Man said:


> Sure you didn't.  By your logic because you are a republican you must agree with everything ALL republicans do.


We can count this as your second example of making false accusations...you just can't help yourself.


----------



## HeyNorm

Dragonlady said:


> You get dumber every day Easy.  The Supreme Court, ruled on a 7-2 basis, that Kim Davis has no legal right to refuse to give marriage licences to gay people and that Davis cannot try to impose her religious beliefs on people in the State where she lives, or anywhere else, and the Court recently ruled overwhelming in favour of gay rights.
> 
> Thomas and Alito's dissent reads like right wing bullshit, not well considered law.


Nah, they were forbidden to deny a license to same sex couples. There is no where on the application to identify sexuality. 

And if a gay man applied for a license with a lesbian, non problemo.


----------



## Blues Man

easyt65 said:


> We can count this as your second example of making false accusations...you just can't help yourself.


Bullshit.

You have lumped me in with church burners and people who threaten judges more than once in this thread all because you think I am a democrat and you are wrong on both counts.


----------



## easyt65

Blues Man said:


> Bullshit.



"By your logic because you are a republican you must agree with everything ALL republicans do."

Your words say you're a liar.


----------



## rightwinger

HeyNorm said:


> Nah, they were forbidden to deny a license to same sex couples. There is no where on the application to identify sexuality.
> 
> And if a gay man applied for a license with a lesbian, non problemo.


What a ridiculous claim


----------



## Blues Man

easyt65 said:


> "By your logic because you are a republican you must agree with everything ALL republicans do."
> 
> Your words say you're a liar.


See I notice you don't quote the entire post where I said you have included me in groups of people who burn churches and threaten judges  because you erroneously believe I am a democrat and that's what democrats do.  Why don't you include that part in your quote?  

Because it's true?


----------



## HeyNorm

rightwinger said:


> What a ridiculous claim



What is?


----------



## easyt65

Blues Man said:


> See I notice you don't quote the entire post where I said you have included me in groups of people who burn churches and threaten judges  because you erroneously believe I am a democrat and that's what democrats do.  Why don't you include that part in your quote?
> 
> Because it's true?


I have mo problem with what I said.  Anyone who would falsely accuse someone then deny their own quote is apt to do those things, I would guess.

You said you did not falsely accuse me, which was a lie. So how am I suppose to believe you don't do those things just based on your say so?

Its just a vicious circle...


----------



## Blues Man

easyt65 said:


> I have mo problem with what I said.  Anyone who would falsely accuse someone then deny their own quote is apt to do those things, I would guess.
> 
> You said you did not falsely accuse me, which was a lie. So how am I suppose to believe you don't do those things just based on your say so?
> 
> Its just a vicious circle...



I made no accusation.  I told you that is my opinion of your character. And you have done nothing to make me change my mind.

You have included me in the company of church burners and other violent people more than once in this thread all because you think I am a democrat and according to you those are the kind of things democrats do therefore I must do them too.


----------



## easyt65

Blues Man said:


> I made no accusation.  I told you that is my opinion of your character.


 

Then your opinion isn't worth shit because you were proven wrong repeatedly, like your attempt to insinuate I supported what happened on J6.


You should stick to telling people what you believe instead of trying to speak for me because you suck at it.


----------



## HeyNorm

HeyNorm said:


> What is?


rightwinger 

Well?


----------



## Blues Man

easyt65 said:


> Then your opinion isn't worth shit because you were proven wrong repeatedly, like your attempt to insinuate I supported what happened on J6.
> 
> 
> You should stick to telling people what you believe instead of trying to speak for me because you suck at it.


You have offered no proof of anything.

But I see you have deflected the topic because you are not able to actually prove any of your points.


----------



## rightwinger

HeyNorm said:


> rightwinger
> 
> Well?


Your assertion of a lesbian marrying a gay man


----------



## HeyNorm

rightwinger said:


> Your assertion of a lesbian marrying a gay man



Why?  Can you prove it’s never happened?

Oh wait……









						She's A Lesbian, He's Gay, And Their 33-Year Marriage Will Change Your Perception Of Love
					

"Life is nothing if not an interesting adventure."




					www.huffpost.com


----------



## easyt65

Blues Man said:


> You have offered no proof of anything.



Lie, deny, and justify...

Are you SURE you're not a Democrat?


----------



## Blues Man

easyt65 said:


> Lie, deny, and justify...
> 
> Are you SURE you're not a Democrat?


 WHat proof have you offered that you do not condone violence?

Your word?

No that's fucking funny


----------



## easyt65

Blues Man said:


> WHat proof have you offered that you do not condone violence?



For one, lil' snowflake, I have never condoned what happened on J6 as you seemingly tried to insinuate I did .

Ya know, I have better things to do that spend all day participating in your attempt yo make you feel better about yourself after you were caught falsely accusing me and then trying to spin it as that isn't what you did.

I'm going to get back to the topic.  

If you want empathy, tell it to your significant other or fellow snowflakes.  

If you want absolution, go tell it to a priest. 

If you want your conscience cleared, go tell your psychiatrist.

But you and I are done here.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Blues Man said:


> Again I am not a democrat and I unlike you do not condone violence.



  Abortion is violence.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TemplarKormac said:


> I understand that the minority should be treated no differently from the majority, but the minority should not have more rights than the majority. What liberals want is special treatment for us, we just want to be left alone. We do not want to conquer society with our version of morality. Equality, not submission. Coexistence, not subversion.


Greetings! I find your postings very interesting and unusual. I am especially curious about one thing  that you said. But before I get into that, let me say this. I am a straight male of a  certain age and consider myself a strong advocate and ally of LGBT people . So please know that my question is in no way intended to disparage you or to undermine your views. I do however want to understand them better. Specifically, you say that you think that liberals ( that would be me) want special treatment for gays. I am left wondering what that special treatment that you think that we want for you is. I hear references to “special treatment “ or special rights coming from those who do not think that you should have the same rights, but I never heard it from a gay person who wants equal rights. So I am a bit confused. Please explain.


----------



## Dragonlady

easyt65 said:


> Lie, deny, and justify...
> 
> Are you SURE you're not a Democrat?



You've just described yourself - lie, deny, and justify.


----------



## Flopper

easyt65 said:


> That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!
> 
> _"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."_
> 
> "_The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."
> 
> Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance."_
> 
> 
> 
> _"Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss," he wrote. "In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals."_
> 
> Just because you have a deep RELIGIOUS conviction regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and does not include same-sex marriages does *NOT *make one a Bigot or Homophobe and protects that religious belief / conviction.
> 
> _Thomas added: "This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as 'disparag[ing]' homosexuals and 'diminish[ing] their personhood' through '[d]ignitary wounds.'"_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case
> 
> 
> The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _


----------



## Flopper

Dragonlady said:


> You get dumber every day Easy.  The Supreme Court, ruled on a 7-2 basis, that Kim Davis has no legal right to refuse to give marriage licences to gay people and that Davis cannot try to impose her religious beliefs on people in the State where she lives, or anywhere else, and the Court recently ruled overwhelming in favour of gay rights.
> 
> Thomas and Alito's dissent reads like right wing bullshit, not well considered law.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

easyt65 said:


> That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!
> 
> _"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."_
> 
> "_The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."
> 
> Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance."_
> 
> 
> 
> _"Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss," he wrote. "In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals."_
> 
> Just because you have a deep RELIGIOUS conviction regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and does not include same-sex marriages does *NOT *make one a Bigot or Homophobe and protects that religious belief / conviction.
> 
> _Thomas added: "This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as 'disparag[ing]' homosexuals and 'diminish[ing] their personhood' through '[d]ignitary wounds.'"_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case
> 
> 
> The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _


All states must reccognize opposite sex marriage is found no where in the US Constitution Marrige of any sort is  found no where in the US Constitutiom.

HOWEVER, since the begining, marriage for heterosexuals has been treated as a rigth while it was denied to homoexuals. That is discriniation and a denial of equal protetion under the law.

Your religious beliefs have nothing to do with what other believe or how they live. Live your life and let others live theirs and you won't be branded  bigot

I can only imaging the howling –much coming from conservatives who are married and enjoying all of the perks that go with it- if a state decided not to recognize heterosexual marriage


----------



## easyt65

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> All states must reccognize opposite sex marriage is found no where in the US Constitutiom. Marrige of any sort is  found no where in the US Constitutiom.
> 
> HOWEVER, since the begining, marriage for heterosexuals has been treated as a righ while it ws denied to homoexuals. That is discriniation and a denial of equal protetion under the law.
> 
> Your religious beliefs have nothing to do with what other believe or how they live. Live your life and let others live theirs and you won't be branded  bigot
> 
> I can only imaging the howling –much coming from conservatives who are married and enjoying all of the perks that go with it- if a state decided not to recognize heterosexual marriage


You (and every triggered snowflake on this board) must have missed my post where I said I don't care if state / federal governments give same sex couples the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples, where I stated what people do in their own bedrooms, who they choose to spend their livees with is their own business that does not concern or bother me. Noone needs my or any other person's permission or acceptance to live their lives, anyway.

Half of the day and posts to me have been from ignorant letist snowflakes falsely accusing me of things, creating false narrarives, and falsely trying to tell ME what I believe / think / feel.  Why should you be any different?!

My advice to such people is take a breath, turn down the 'triggered emotion', actually read and pay attention to what others say, spend more time telling people what YOU think inatead of telling them what they think / believe.

And if you still want to falsely accuse me or try to ignorantky speak for me 'you' can f* off.  Just brcause 'you' say it doesn't make it true, nor does it mean I care what 'you' have to say.

Merry Christmas, and have a great rest of your day.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

easyt65 said:


> "Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."


Thomas is a textualist who believes in a strict and ridged interpretation of the Constitution- a philosophy not widely shared among constitutional scholars He believes  that the only rights that exist are the enumerated rights, a view which flies in the face of two hundred years of case law and precedents. But you bigots who do not know jack shit about Constitutional law  pounce on this as though it was the only truth. Far from it


----------



## playtime

anybody that feels their religious ideology is threatened -  must not have a rock solid faith to begin with.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

easyt65 said:


> You (and every triggered snowflake on this board) must have missed my post where I said I don't care if state / federal governments give same sex couples the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples,


I suppose that I did miss that. Did  you say that you believe that they have the right to legal marriage? If so , why are you plastering all of this shit from Clearance Thomas all over the thread?


----------



## easyt65

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I suppose that I did miss that.



At least you admit it.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

easyt65 said:


> At least you admit it.


I asked you a question! Do you or do you not support LEGAL, same sex MARRIAGE. If you do , why the shameless promotion of Thomas' viepoint?


----------



## easyt65

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I asked you a question! Do you or do you not support LEGAL, same sex MARRIAGE. If you do , why the shameless promotion of Thomas' viepoint?


I answered you.

'Shameless promotion'?
Fuck you, snowflake.


----------



## surada

easyt65 said:


> I agree with you on this one.
> 
> Liberals are not satisfied with this, though. They (seem to) want to force others to accept Same-Sex UNIONS as MARRIAGES, complete with the Christian connotations / inferences of a union of 2 people blessed by God.  Since God is opposed to homosexuality this is a huge problem for many in the country, causing huge opposition.
> 
> I personally don't care if 2 peoe of the same sex get together, spend their whole lives together, and have every legal benefit as heterosexual married couples.
> 
> I have a problem when the govt steps in and attempts to tell someone they must violate their religeous beliefs to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple or conduct abortions.
> 
> The courts made the right, legal decisions.
> - There are other bakeries willing to give you what you want. Go to one of them.
> - There are other doctors and hospitals that perform abortions - go to one of them.



Marriage is a contract between consenting adults. If you want the sacrament, you choose that and marry in a church, synagogue etc.


----------



## Blues Man

Bob Blaylock said:


> Abortion is violence.



Your opinion.


----------



## easyt65

Blues Man said:


> Your opinion.



Killing viable babies capable of surviving outside the womb is violence ... and murder.  Fact.


----------



## Blues Man

easyt65 said:


> Killing viable babies capable of surviving outside the womb is violence ... and murder.  Fact.


A 3 week old fetus is not viable outside of the womb


----------



## easyt65

Blues Man said:


> A 3 week old fetus is not viable outside of the womb


The death cult kills babies in the womb older than 3 weeks, as you know, and they are pushing for abortions through the entire pregnancy, right up until the moment of birth.

Hell, Obama and other Democrats initially supported killing babies fighting to survive outside the womb who had survived a failed abortion attempt.

Fail.


----------



## Blues Man

easyt65 said:


> The death cult kills babies in the womb older than 3 weeks, as you know, and they are pushing for abortions through the entire pregnancy, right up until the moment of birth.
> 
> Hell, Obama and other Democrats initially supported killing babies fighting to survive outside the womb who had survived a failed abortion attempt.
> 
> Fail.


Less than 1% of abortions occur after 21 weeks.  The vast majority of abortions occur before the fetus is viable outside of the womb

You want to ban ALL abortions even the ones that occur BEFORE the fetus is actually viable outside of the womb.

I have always said that viability outside the womb is the cutoff.


----------



## easyt65

Blues Man said:


> Less than 1% of abortions occur after 21 weeks.  The vast majority of abortions occur before the fetus is viable outside of the womb
> 
> You want to ban ALL abortions even the ones that occur BEFORE the fetus is actually viable outside of the womb.
> 
> I have always said that viability outside the womb is the cutoff.


Good for you, but the death cult is still pushing for abortions at any time during the pregnancy.

Got any good explanation for that, other than the acceptable case of the mother's life being in jeopardy?


----------



## Blues Man

easyt65 said:


> Good for you, but the death cult is still pushing for abortions at any time during the pregnancy.
> 
> Got any good explanation for that, other than the acceptable case of the mother's life being in jeopardy?


If the life of the mother is danger or in the case of a terminal fetal abnormality is the main reason for late term abortions


----------



## easyt65

Blues Man said:


> If the life of the mother is danger or in the case of a terminal fetal abnormality is the main reason for late term abortions


Still doesn't explain extremists trying to claim a fetus is not a baby until after it is completely outside the womb or arguing for the right to kill a baby outside the womb after a failed abortion based on the initial intent to abort the baby.

I don't think we, rational people, are that far off on agreeing about abortions but that it is the radical extremists on both sides causing the biggest divide / arguments.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

easyt65 said:


> I answered you.
> 
> 'Shameless promotion'?
> Fuck you, snowflake.


Answer the questions! Are you a coward? Back up you bullshit!


----------



## easyt65

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Answer the questions! Are you a coward? Back up you bullshit!


Are you fucking stupid?  Obviously you are.

I already answered the question, and calling posting the USSC' remarks on their decision is not 'shameless promotion' ... 

...unless you're a snowflake who believes burning down churches, targeting Conservatives, threatening Justices, calling for violence against USSC Justices, and calling for actual insurrection just because you didn't get your way is justifiable.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

easyt65 said:


> Are you fucking stupid?  Obviously you are.
> 
> I already answered the question, and calling posting the USSC' remarks on their decision is not 'shameless promotion' ...
> 
> ...unless you're a snowflake who believes burning down churches, targeting Conservatives, threatening Justices, calling for violence against USSC Justices, and calling for actual insurrection just because you didn't get your way is justifiable.


Where did you state unequivocally that you support LEGAL same sex MARRIAGE?


----------



## Blues Man

easyt65 said:


> Still doesn't explain extremists trying to claim a fetus is not a baby until after it is completely outside the womb or arguing for the right to kill a baby outside the womb after a failed abortion based on the initial intent to abort the baby.
> 
> I don't think we, rational people, are that far off on agreeing about abortions but that it is the radical extremists on both sides causing the biggest divide / arguments.


So you base all you ranting on extremists and not what the reality of the situation is


----------



## hadit

The Church just needs to recognize their own marriages and let the state create its own civil unions. Don't let the state dictate Church policy. But would that satisfy the SJW nutcases?


----------



## easyt65

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Where did you state unequivocally that you support LEGAL same sex MARRIAGE?


Start with post 800 then go back further, THEN use the USMB search app to search for the DOZENS of times I have posted it in numerous threads...

...or don't and just keep falsely accusing me of opposing it. 

At this point I don't give a damn what you think, what you feel, or what you believe.

Let me make this simple for you since you are obviously an idiot:

I don't care what you do with your same-sex partner in your own bedroom, don't care who you choose to spend your life with, don't care if the federal govt recognizes it the same as a heterosexual marriage.  I believe everyone should be treated equally.

You and your same-sex partner getting married is none of my business, and you don't need my permission - or blessing, for that matter - to do it.  The same thing goes for heterosexual marriages.

If you and your same-sex partner decide to head to the court house to get married you won't find me blocking the door with a protest sign. Go for it - Congrats, and have a long happy life together.

I've repeatedly posted this several dozen times over the last few years in numerous threads, and your continued harassment, false accusations,  and questioning shows you still don't know me, still don't know what I believe or think, so STOP trying to speak FOR me, tell me and others what I think / feel / believe.

If that isn't clear enough for you, piss off.


----------



## easyt65

Blues Man said:


> So you base all you ranting on extremists and not what the reality of the situation is


No, of course not...And fuck you.

'_Yes or no - you've stopped beating your wife yet?'_

Enough of your BS, 'gottcha' questions in which you start your question with a statement / accusation and end with a question mark.

Instead of the word so', try using 'do'. I'm tired of your BS word manipulation games. 

Go away, snowflake.


----------



## Blues Man

easyt65 said:


> No, of course not...And fuck you.
> 
> '_Yes or no - you've stopped beating your wife yet?'_
> 
> Emough of your BS, 'gottcha' questions in which you start your question with a statement / accusation and end with a question mark.
> 
> Instead of the word so', try using 'do'. I'm tired of your BS word manipulation games.
> 
> Go away, snowflake.


OK so then why do you constantly mention extremists in your posts on abortion?


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Blues Man said:


> Your opinion.


You are completely divorced from reality if you think that factual statement is “opinion.”


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Thomas is a textualist who believes in a strict and ridged interpretation of the Constitution


So Thomas wants to do his fucking job and respects the Constitution.  

Shame we didn’t have 8 more like him.


----------



## Blues Man

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> You are completely divorced from reality if you think that factual statement is “opinion.”


How is the morning after pill violence?

Early term abortion is not violence and most abortions take place before 10 weeks and all that is needed is a little suction to remove the fetus


----------



## easyt65

Blues Man said:


> OK so then why do you _*constantly*_ mention extremists in your posts on abortion?



Do you consider Obama an extremist? You must.

Search USMB for the tgread about how Obama advocated the killing of babies outside the womb that had survived a failed abortion.

I do not *constantly* do so, liar.

Piss off, troll. I'm done with you.


----------



## Blues Man

easyt65 said:


> Do you consider Obama an extremist? You must.
> 
> Search USMB for the tgread about how Obama advocated the killing of babies outside the womb that had survived a failed abortion.
> 
> I do not *constantly* do so, liar.
> 
> Piss off, troll. I'm done with you.


posts 811, 812, 813

Death cults and extremists.

3 posts on abortion 3 references to the extreme positions


----------



## easyt65

Blues Man said:


> posts 811, 812, 813
> 
> Death cults and extremists.
> 
> 3 posts on abortion 3 references to the extreme positions


...and you think the term 'death cults' applies to everyone who supports abortions?'

And you think 3 posts is 'constantly'?!



You're a self-identified idiot / troll.

And you did not answer my last question.  

Piss off, little snowflake.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Blues Man said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortion is violence.
> 
> 
> 
> Your opinion.
Click to expand...


  A hard fact, not an opinion.

  Every successful abortion causes the death of an innocent human being.  It is the very definition of an act of murderous violence.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Blues Man said:


> A 3 week old fetus is not viable outside of the womb



  Still an innocent human being who deserves to live.


----------



## Blues Man

easyt65 said:


> ...and you think the term 'death cults' applies to everyone who supports abortions?'
> 
> And you think 3 posts is 'constantly'?!
> 
> 
> 
> You're a self-identified idiot / troll.
> 
> And you did not answer my last question.
> 
> Piss off, little snowflake.


Since you only mention death cults in posts about abortion yes.

I suppose you don't think people in "death cults" are extreme in their view right?

And what death cults are you referring to anyway?


----------



## Blues Man

Bob Blaylock said:


> Still an innocent human being who deserves to live.



Ok so put the 3 week old fetus in a petri dish and let it live the best life it can for a few days


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Blues Man said:


> How is the morning after pill violence?
> 
> Early term abortion is not violence and most abortions take place before 10 weeks and all that is needed is a little suction to remove the fetus



  All it would take is a bullet in your head.  Quick, clean, you wouldn't feel a thing.

  How would that be violence?


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Blues Man said:


> How is the morning after pill violence?
> 
> Early term abortion is not violence and most abortions take place before 10 weeks and all that is needed is a little suction to remove the fetus


Shearing forces tearing the body of a young human being apart somehow isn’t violence?

Or are you just ignorant of the definition of words? 

Rhetorical question -  it’s the latter.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Blues Man said:


> Ok so put the 3 week old fetus in a petri dish and let it live the best life it can for a few days



  Put a toddler out on the street to fend for himself.  Let him live the best life that he can.


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Blues Man said:


> Ok so put the 3 week old fetus in a petri dish and let it live the best life it can for a few days


You’re monstrous filth.


----------



## Blues Man

Bob Blaylock said:


> All it would take is a bullet in your head.  Quick, clean, you wouldn't feel a thing.
> 
> How would that be violence?



Not the same thing.

I am a living autonomous sentient being a 3 week old fetus is not those things


----------



## CarsomyrPlusSix

Blues Man said:


> I am a living autonomous sentient being


[CITATION NEEDED]
You seem braindead to me.


----------



## Blues Man

Bob Blaylock said:


> Put a toddler out on the street to fend for himself.  Let him live the best life that he can.


A fetus isn't a toddler.


----------



## Blues Man

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> [CITATION NEEDED]
> You seem braindead to me.


Really and how would one who is brain dead know how to write those words?


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Blues Man said:


> Not the same thing.
> 
> I am a living autonomous sentient being a 3 week old fetus is not those things



  The only relevant difference between a fetus, a toddler, and you, is how much support is needed from others in order to survive.


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Blues Man said:


> A fetus isn't a toddler.



  And a toddler is not an adult.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

easyt65 said:


> Start with post 800 then go back further, THEN use the USMB search app to search for the DOZENS of times I have posted it in numerous threads...
> 
> ...or don't and just keep falsely accusing me of opposing it.
> 
> At this point I don't give a damn what you think, what you feel, or what you believe.
> 
> Let me make this simple for you since you are obviously an idiot:
> 
> I don't care what you do with your same-sex partner in your own bedroom, don't care who you choose to spend your life with, don't care if the federal govt recognizes it the same as a heterosexual marriage.  I believe everyone should be treated equally.
> 
> You and your same-sex partner getting married is none of my business, and you don't need my permission - or blessing, for that matter - to do it.  The same thing goes for heterosexual marriages.
> 
> If you and your same-sex partner decide to head to the court house to get married you won't find me blocking the door with a protest sign. Go for it - Congrats, and have a long happy life together.
> 
> I've repeatedly posted this several dozen times over the last few years in numerous threads, and your continued harassment, false accusations,  and questioning shows you still don't know me, still don't know what I believe or think, so STOP trying to speak FOR me, tell me and others what I think / feel / believe.
> 
> If that isn't clear enough for you, piss off.


That is quite an unhinged rant, Bubba. Get a grip. I did go beck to 800 and that is all I'm going to do. Nowhere did you say thatyou support legal same sex marriage. The closest that you came is to say that gays should have equal rights but you never explained what that would look like. Then you say right here that you don't care "if the Fereral Government recognises it" That still don't cut it. It is not enough to not care what people do. If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. And,  your OP is clearly supportive of Thomas'n remarks. That is what I know about you and it is quite enough. So much for not caring

Haveing said that, let me point out that you do not know me  as evidensed by all of that crap about "my same sex partner." I know a hell of a lot nore about you than you know about me.  To assume that you know something about my sexuality based on my politics and advocacy is as stupid as stupid gets


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

CarsomyrPlusSix said:


> So Thomas wants to do his fucking job and respects the Constitution.
> 
> Shame we didn’t have 8 more like him.


Thomas is a corrupt partisn hack who does the bidding of all of the right wing special interest groups that his wife is in bed with


----------



## easyt65

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> That is quite an unhinged rant, Bubba. Get a grip. I did go beck to 800 and that is all I'm going to do. Nowhere did you say thatyou support legal same sex marriage. The closest that you came is to say that gays should have equal rights but you never explained what that would look like. Then you say right here that you don't care "if the Fereral Government recognises it" That still don't cut it. It is not enough to not care what people do. If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. And,  your OP is clearly supportive of Thomas'n remarks. That is what I know about you and it is quite enough. So much for not caring
> 
> Haveing said that, let me point out that you do not know me  as evidensed by all of that crap about "my same sex partner." I know a hell of a lot nore about you than you know about me.  To assume that you know something about my sexuality based on my politics and advocacy is as stupid as stupid gets


F* off, troll.

You have been proven to be a pathetic liar.  Go stalk someone else.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

easyt65 said:


> F* off, troll.
> 
> You have been proven to be a pathetic liar.  Go stalk someone else.


Are we getting a wee bit defensive? What exactly am I lying about? I am not stalking you . You started this and I am calling you out on yur hipocrissy . You claim to suport equality but then not really.

 Come on Bro, just say the words: "I support LEGAL same sex MARRIAGE" /" I do not agree that states have a constitutional right to ban same sex marriage" You can do it. Just try


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> All states must reccognize opposite sex marriage is found no where in the US Constitution Marrige of any sort is  found no where in the US Constitutiom.
> 
> HOWEVER, since the begining, marriage for heterosexuals has been treated as a rigth while it was denied to homoexuals. That is discriniation and a denial of equal protetion under the law.
> 
> Your religious beliefs have nothing to do with what other believe or how they live. Live your life and let others live theirs and you won't be branded  bigot
> 
> I can only imaging the howling –much coming from conservatives who are married and enjoying all of the perks that go with it- if a state decided not to recognize heterosexual marriage



Marriage was never limited to heterosexuals. Gays can, and have married through out history. But when they did, it was someone of the opposite sex, regardless of the others sexuality. 

This has been pointed out to you countless times.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Thomas is a corrupt partisn hack who does the bidding of all of the right wing special interest groups that his wife is in bed with


There is a  hell of a lot of damaging  news about Thomas for  it all to be fake https://www.usmessageboard.com/members/carsomyrplussix.87475/

Lets see how much of this you can refute



			Clarence Thomas Should Resign for Being 'Corrupt as Hell': Congressman
		


Even Fox News is trashing him









						Clarence Thomas is one of the 'most corrupt justices in American history,' MSNBC guest declares
					

MSNBC guest Elie Mystal blasted Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as one of the "most corrupt justices in American history" on Saturday.




					www.foxnews.com
				




It gets worse









						Clarence Thomas might have just broken the law in the Supreme Court
					

Justice Thomas has not recused himself from a case involving courts' power to strike down electoral maps.




					www.newsweek.com


----------



## Blues Man

Bob Blaylock said:


> The only relevant difference between a fetus, a toddler, and you, is how much support is needed from others in order to survive.



So then remove the fetus and give it support and see what happens.

21 weeks is the very edge of viability outside the womb that is the metric I choose to use as the limit for abortion.

and the fact is that most abortions take place before 10 weeks


----------



## Blues Man

Bob Blaylock said:


> And a toddler is not an adult.


But it is an autonomous sentient being


----------



## Bob Blaylock

Blues Man said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fetus isn't a toddler.
> 
> 
> 
> And a toddler is not an adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But it is an autonomous sentient being
Click to expand...


  Put him out on the street, to fend for himself, and see how _“autonomous”_ he really is.


----------



## Blues Man

Bob Blaylock said:


> Put him out on the street, to fend for himself, and see how _“autonomous”_ he really is.



Irrelevant.


----------



## emilynghiem

surada said:


> How does same sex marriage impact your life or your religious faith?


1. Same sex marriage is a matter of religious freedom. So relying on govt to establish your religious beliefs violates the first amendment. People should be able to practice religious rituals without govt having to force this policy in everyone. 
2. There is nothing wrong with people getting married by their beliefs and practices. This is like the differences in beliefs about Baptisms, communion, funeral services etc. Likewise anyone can go pursue and perform a same sex wedding or marriage if that is their belief. That's a private personal choice and freedom, but not an area that govt is supposed to regulate or establish. 

3. The problem is tying govt benefits to marriage. Which is why so many Conservatives Libertarians and Constitutionalists argue that neither marriage nor benefits should be regulated through govt in the first place . Those are subjective and people will want their own choice of beliefs and interests represented. 

What govt can regulate are the neutral and objective "civil unions" "domestic partnership" "estate or custody agreements" guardianship and other legal and financial agreements. 

And if benefits are managed relatively by party or banks or other institutions where citizens have a choice in what terms of benefits they want to fund and follow, then we wouldn't have to argue or compete to impose one set of conditions for everyone.


----------



## surada

emilynghiem said:


> 1. Same sex marriage is a matter of religious freedom. So relying on govt to establish your religious beliefs violates the first amendment. People should be able to practice religious rituals without govt having to force this policy in everyone.
> 2. There is nothing wrong with people getting married by their beliefs and practices. This is like the differences in beliefs about Baptisms, communion, funeral services etc. Likewise anyone can go pursue and perform a same sex wedding or marriage if that is their belief. That's a private personal choice and freedom, but not an area that govt is supposed to regulate or establish.
> 
> 3. The problem is tying govt benefits to marriage. Which is why so many Conservatives Libertarians and Constitutionalists argue that neither marriage nor benefits should be regulated through govt in the first place . Those are subjective and people will want their own choice of beliefs and interests represented.
> 
> What govt can regulate are the neutral and objective "civil unions" "domestic partnership" "estate or custody agreements" guardianship and other legal and financial agreements.
> 
> And if benefits are managed relatively by party or banks or other institutions where citizens have a choice in what terms of benefits they want to fund and follow, then we wouldn't have to argue or compete to impose one set of conditions for everyone.



Same sex marriage doesn't cost you anything. They pay taxes too.


----------



## emilynghiem

surada said:


> Same sex marriage doesn't cost you anything. They pay taxes too.


It is still the govt endorsing or establishing a policy that people do not all believe in
1.  belief in govt managing social benefits and health care centrally for everyone vs belief that health care and benefits as relative social programs belong to people not federal govt or states unless people consent to the terms. Anc prochoice vs prolife believers clearly do not agree on funding the other policy with their taxes
2. Belief in marriage, being personal and whether belief in same sex couples being valid or not, being endorsed by the state without consent of the public

If people AGREE to these beliefs through govt, then it's not argued as unconstitutional. It's when people don't agree on beliefs, then imposing one policy over another isn't treating everyone's consent and beliefs the same.

When I talk with Libertarians and independents like one of my lesbian friends who also believes govt should stay out of marriage, they agree that Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships would solve the problem similar to having Unisex Restrooms that don't specify gender at all.

So that is where we can get universal consensus. By having the state revert to neutral language and not cause conflicts with anyone's beliefs


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

emilynghiem said:


> 1. Same sex marriage is a matter of religious freedom. So relying on govt to establish your religious beliefs violates the first amendment. People should be able to practice religious rituals without govt having to force this policy in everyone.


Same sex marriage, like marriage in general, is a civil right. People are free to bring religion into it if they so choose. They are also free to allow religion to define marriage... for themselves, and ONLY for themselves. 

So what is this nonsense about government establishing your reigious beliefs? That makes NO sense at all. That is not what is happening. 

But you are correct in saying that "people should be able to practice religious rituals without govt having to force this policy in everyone.
However that was in fact done in the past  with laws against same sex marriage and being done now with abortion to give just two exmples


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

emilynghiem said:


> 2. There is nothing wrong with people getting married by their beliefs and practices. This is like the differences in beliefs about Baptisms, communion, funeral services etc. Likewise anyone can go pursue and perform a same sex wedding or marriage if that is their belief. That's a private personal choice and freedom, but not an area that govt is supposed to regulate or establish.


Yes people can perform a same sex wedding or marriage if that is their belief. But without government they do not enjoy the financial benefits and legal protections and rights of marriage. You seem to be confused. Government regulation of legal marriage does not kean that government is regulating the religious aspects of marriage.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

emilynghiem said:


> 3. The problem is tying govt benefits to marriage. Which is why so many Conservatives Libertarians and Constitutionalists argue that neither marriage nor benefits should be regulated through govt in the first place . Those are subjective and people will want their own choice of beliefs and interests represented.ying govt benefits to marriage



 Tying govt benefits to marriage is only a problem if you make it a problem, and you are making it a problem. t is not a problem for the millionsof people af all religious beliefs and who can be found all accross the political spectum. If you do not want government invilves in mariage anddo not care about the benefits, you are free TO NOT GET MARRIED. Don't try to spoil it for others


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

emilynghiem said:


> What govt can regulate are the neutral and objective "civil unions" "domestic partnership" "estate or custody agreements" guardianship and other legal and financial agreements.


"civil unions" "domestic partnership" ?? Separate but "equal" Didn't work during Jim Crow and it doesn't work now


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

emilynghiem said:


> And if benefits are managed relatively by party or banks or other institutions where citizens have a choice in what terms of benefits they want to fund and follow, then we wouldn't have to argue or compete to impose one set of conditions for everyone.


We do not have to argue about anything  if we just embrace equality and stop trying to accomodate the bigots which I suspect you are sympathetic to


----------



## emilynghiem

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Same sex marriage, like marriage in general, is a civil right. People are free to bring religion into it if they so choose. They are also free to allow religion to define marriage... for themselves, and ONLY for themselves.
> 
> So what is this nonsense about government establishing your reigious beliefs? That makes NO sense at all. That is not what is happening.
> 
> But you are correct in saying that "people should be able to practice religious rituals without govt having to force this policy in everyone.
> However that was in fact done in the past  with laws against same sex marriage and being done now with abortion to give just two exmples


Dear P Patriot 
1. It is a natural right if you believe in natural laws
2. It's a religious right if you believe in spiritual laws
3. It is a civil right if you believe marriage and benefits should be tied to the state

Sorry but Libertarians Christian Anarchists Constitutionalists and other people who do not believe in tying marriage and benefits to the state do not place marriage in govt hands the way you do

Compare people who place right to life at conception in govt hands while others say thats spiritual or medical and outside govt 


Isn't it accurate and fair to say not all people place authority in the same place or order as the next person or party?

Some people put church first then state supports that but doesn't interfere.

Others say govt is public and central and church is optional. 

The same way it offends and excludes you to put "marriage" under the church, it equally offends and excludes people who see marriage as private and not under the state. Both sides complain the other is mixing church and state.

The best way I see to fix this is to neutralize public policy similar to unisex restrooms that don't specify one way or another.

Just have civil unions and partnerships or custody/estate guardianships through the state. And keep all marriage issues, social relations and benefits personal to people through their parties. If parties file to have govt manage their members benefits then you can have your govt marriages and benefits the way you believe through your party or group you want to use for your policies. 


Like shopping for an insurance provider that doesn't impose choices or conditions on anyone else. 

Since you and I are both progressive supporters, let's work with our fellow Democrats Greens and independent progressives to set up marriage and social benefits through our parties including universal health care. We can pay for that instead of prisons and cover educational costs and health care so nobody fights over forcing this through govt into other people who don't agree to the same policies (prochoice, provax, pro LGBT etc). We can do better organizing marriage and social benefits through our parties that believe in universal care, right to marriage and  health care as civil rights


----------



## bodecea

easyt65 said:


> I answered you.
> 
> 'Shameless promotion'?
> Fuck you, snowflake.


Why are you sexually propositioning another poster>


----------



## surada

emilynghiem said:


> It is still the govt endorsing or establishing a policy that people do not all believe in
> 1.  belief in govt managing social benefits and health care centrally for everyone vs belief that health care and benefits as relative social programs belong to people not federal govt or states unless people consent to the terms. Anc prochoice vs prolife believers clearly do not agree on funding the other policy with their taxes
> 2. Belief in marriage, being personal and whether belief in same sex couples being valid or not, being endorsed by the state without consent of the public
> 
> If people AGREE to these beliefs through govt, then it's not argued as unconstitutional. It's when people don't agree on beliefs, then imposing one policy over another isn't treating everyone's consent and beliefs the same.
> 
> When I talk with Libertarians and independents like one of my lesbian friends who also believes govt should stay out of marriage, they agree that Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships would solve the problem similar to having Unisex Restrooms that don't specify gender at all.
> 
> So that is where we can get universal consensus. By having the state revert to neutral language and not cause conflicts with anyone's beliefs



You don't have to believe in same sex marriage. Mind your own business. Look after your own marriage. You don't have the right to dictate to others.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

emilynghiem said:


> Dear P Patriot
> 1. It is a natural right if you believe in natural laws
> 2. It's a religious right if you believe in spiritual laws
> 3. It is a civil right if you believe marriage and benefits should be tied to the state


So? That is pretty much what I have been saying. You sure have a way of using a lot of words to say absolutly nothing that needs to be said


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

emilynghiem said:


> Sorry but Libertarians Christian Anarchists Constitutionalists and other people who do not believe in tying marriage and benefits to the state do not place marriage in govt hands the way you do
> 
> Compare people who place right to life at conception in govt hands while others say thats spiritual or medical and outside govt


Then  Libertarians Christian Anarchists Constitutionalists and other people who do not believe in tying marriage and benefits to the state should simply not get married by the state. Yes it is that simple

There is no comparison to right to life people who are not content to make decisions just for themselves but what to make them for everyone


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

emilynghiem said:


> Isn't it accurate and fair to say not all people place authority in the same place or order as the next person or party?
> 
> Some people put church first then state supports that but doesn't interfere.
> 
> Others say govt is public and central and church is optional.


More unnecessary prattling. What is the point?


----------



## surada

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Then  Libertarians Christian Anarchists Constitutionalists and other people who do not believe in tying marriage and benefits to the state should simply not get married by the state. Yes it is that simple
> 
> There is no comparison to right to life people who are not content to make decisions just for themselves but what to make them for everyone



The state doesn't marry anyone. Marriage is a contract between consenting adults. The state is not party to the contract. They marry each other. That's domestic law 101.


----------



## JustAGuy1

bodecea said:


> Why are you sexually propositioning another poster>



Jealous?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

emilynghiem said:


> The same way it offends and excludes you to put "marriage" under the church, it equally offends and excludes people who see marriage as private and not under the state. Both sides complain the other is mixing church and state.


Now you are making an inane, and bizarre assumption about what offends me. I am not offended by marriage being performed by religious institutions

'I have no problem with anyone going to their pace of woeship, having a cerimony , and calling it marriage, with or without the involvement of government.

My only stipulation is that secular marriage that is government sanctioed be available to those who want it. 

The fact is that the way the sytem is set up now, marriage is in fact a mixture of church and state for those people who want a religious ceremond and also want government benefits. That is a simple fact like it or not.

 My problem with the chuch/ stse issue is when the states tries to define marriage based on religious views of what it should be. That has happened and that is another fact. But we on the left are certainly not mixing church and state


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

surada said:


> The state doesn't marry anyone. Marriage is a contract between consenting adults. The state is not party to the contract. They marry each other. That's domestic law 101.


The state sanctions marriage although not a party to it. Your reponse in no way hegates or diminishes anything that I have said


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

emilynghiem said:


> The best way I see to fix this is to neutralize public policy similar to unisex restrooms that don't specify one way or another.
> 
> Just have civil unions and partnerships or custody/estate guardianships through the state. And keep all marriage issues, social relations and benefits personal to people through their parties. If parties file to have govt manage their members benefits then you can have your govt marriages and benefits the way you believe through your party or group you want to use for your policies.


You keep trying to fix something that is not broken, inorder to appease those who oppose equality. Marriage ia marriage. Participate or do not participate. You do your thing and leave the rest of us alone.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

emilynghiem said:


> Since you and I are both progressive supporters, let's work with our fellow Democrats Greens and independent progressives to set up marriage and social benefits through our parties including universal health care. We can pay for that instead of prisons and cover educational costs and health care so nobody fights over forcing this through govt into other people who don't agree to the same policies (prochoice, provax, pro LGBT etc). We can do better organizing marriage and social benefits through our parties that believe in universal care, right to marriage and health care as civil rights


You're a progressive supporter? I don't think so. You can't be progressive while insisting on accomodating the bigots who bitch about gay marriage being forced on them just because other want it.

Marriage does not need fixing. This "through our parties thing" is rediculous.  It is just another attempt to accomodate the bigots by removing marriage from government  because some snowflakes are offended by gay marriage. Ya know what? They will be offended by it no matter what, so to hell with them.

You want to define parties by how people define marriage and though that were the only issue. And  how exactly is that going to pay for health care, and education? You are not making much sense.

What about people who want gay marriage but also love their guns ? Which party do they fit in with?


----------



## emilynghiem

surada said:


> You don't have to believe in same sex marriage. Mind your own business. Look after your own marriage. You don't have the right to dictate to others.


^ Exactly which is why marriage in terms of specifying "social relations of the partners" should be kept out of govt  

When people form an LLP or a contract to Cosign on a car loan or student loan, those people can be any relation or not at all related. As long as they agree to legal liability and to share financial responsibility by the terms and conditions. 

The equivalent in this case would be to allow "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" that don't specify or dictate what the social relationship is between the parties to the contract. That would be neutral. 

However if either side of the LGBT debate started Legislating that only "couples in a personal Relationship" can share rent or mortgage on a house or agree to pay for college for a student, then we'd get into this mess of which couples count, do heterosexual or homosexual couples count equally as couples eligible for partnership contracts?

Just keep it neutral and this removes either issue. 

And the second issue is not everyone agrees to manage social benefits through govt, or on these terms and conditions applied to marriage, or on the terms and conditions of marriage and benefits tied to govt  

That's 3 different levels people disagree on due to difference in creeds. 

To get people to agree to a uniform neutral policy through govt either means only limiting the policy to where there is consensus OR separating policies by different groups to fund and follow their own choice and beliefs about policy  


It's like the school prayer issue: either agree on one denomination so everyone consents to the school policy, or give eveyone equal free choice of their own beliefs. Which is how Texas came up with the Moment of Silence that was enough for people to agree on as neutral 

Prayer isn't neutral but Moment of Silence passed as legislation.

Marriage isn't neutral but civil unions and domestic partnerships, legal guardianship and custody / estate agreements are neutral positions that can be set up regardless of social relations or not. As long as people agree to the legal and financial terms and conditions of the contract. 

So let people apply and add their terms and conditions. And just keep the govt policy neutral without requiring or regulating "social relations through govt"


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

emilynghiem said:


> ^ Exactly which is why marriage in terms of specifying "social relations of the partners" should be kept out of govt



The government does not- for the most part- define social relationship with respect to marriage. A few exceptions are  prohibiting the marriage of people who are too closely related, those who cannot legally consent, and until recently, those of the same gender. The legalization of same sex marriage moved the government one step further away from defining social relationships so I  really don’t know what your blathering about. 

In  reality, it is the people who are involved in the marriage that determine their social relationship though an implied, unwritten and often unspoken  contract with respect their expectations of marriage and of each other within the marriage. Yes it is that simple 
The government’s role is limited to establishing the legal protections and financial benefits for the couple and their children. Beyond that, government  has no role in the day to day functioning of a marriage . You are inventing  issues and problems and  making things way more complicated then they need be. 

Marriage does not need to be changed or fixed. We got it right by extending marriage as we know it to same sex couples. We made it more inclusive and as such strengthened it as an institution. The only thing that need to be fixed is the brains of people who cannot accept and deal with the concept of marriage equality. Equality made the lives of hundreds of thousands of couples  better. It made the lives of their children better. It cost no one anything. Those who are threatened by changing social and sexual norms need to consider whatever issues they are having with their own sexual  or gender identity,  or in  their marriage and get professional help if necessary.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

emilynghiem said:


> When people form an LLP or a contract to Cosign on a car loan or student loan, those people can be any relation or not at all related. As long as they agree to legal liability and to share financial responsibility by the terms and conditions.
> 
> The equivalent in this case would be to allow "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" that don't specify or dictate what the social relationship is between the parties to the contract. That would be neutral.


There you go again with your false equivalency and non sequitur logical fallacies. Marriage is much  more than a business transaction. Yu repeated references to "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships"  makes no sense and promotes inequality


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

emilynghiem said:


> However if either side of the LGBT debate started Legislating that only "couples in a personal Relationship" can share rent or mortgage on a house or agree to pay for college for a student, then we'd get into this mess of which couples count, do heterosexual or homosexual couples count equally as couples eligible for partnership contracts?


Holy shit what?! You really pulled that fear mongering bullshit from deep inside your pie hole.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

emilynghiem said:


> And the second issue is not everyone agrees to manage social benefits through govt, or on these terms and conditions applied to marriage, or on the terms and conditions of marriage and benefits tied to govt


Then DO  NOT get legally married . Very simple. Those people have no business trying to spoil it for others. YOU  have no business trying to spoil it for others


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

emilynghiem said:


> To get people to agree to a uniform neutral policy through govt either means only limiting the policy to where there is consensus OR separating policies by different groups to fund and follow their own choice and beliefs about policy


Give it a rest! I am not going to agree with the bbigots, or compromise with them.  While claiming to want consensus, you seem to be  proposing  ways to further divide society


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

emilynghiem said:


> Marriage isn't neutral but civil unions and domestic partnerships, legal guardianship and custody / estate agreements are neutral positions that can be set up regardless of social relations or not. As long as people agree to the legal and financial terms and conditions of the contract.


gibberish!


----------



## emilynghiem

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> gibberish!


And that's what the opposite ideology thinks of your beliefs in using Govt and Courts to create rights. From the belief that rights naturally exist, and the people agree on them and use either Constitutional Conventions to establish Rights if these are nationally recognized or use State /


TheProgressivePatriot said:


> gibberish!


----------



## emilynghiem

emilynghiem said:


> And that's what the opposite ideology thinks of your beliefs in using Govt to "establish LGBT beliefs" and Courts to create rights. Instead of keeping beliefs out of Govt, and recognizing that rights we do have naturally exist, where the people must agree on them to form contracts and laws by consent, using either Constitutional Conventions to establish Constitutional Rights nationally recognized or use State Legislatures to pass local laws that apply to people on that level.



^ Both sides have the right to reject each other's beliefs about Govt as "gibberish".

So the Golden Rule of Equal Justice applies to you as well: If you don't have to accept and be under the other ideology and approach to Govt, neither can you impose your ideology that marriage rights and LGBT rights depend on Govt.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

emilynghiem said:


> And that's what the opposite ideology thinks of your beliefs in using Govt and Courts to create rights. From the belief that rights naturally exist, and the people agree on them and use either Constitutional Conventions to establish Rights if these are nationally recognized or use State /


Your problem is that you are a Constitutionalist. Most people are not . It is much more widely accepted that there is far more to the Constitution than the enumerated rights. In the case of same sex marriage, the courts did not invent or create a right. They applied the existing rights of due process and equal protection under the law to an issue that was unforseen in the past. You can't expect gays to wait for equal rightsuntil  a constitutional convention can be called with an uncertain outcome,  or an amendment passed

I find it interesting that all of you Constitutionalists, originalists and textualists all epouse the same conservative world view and use your narrow interpretation of the Constitution as an excuse to thwart progress.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

emilynghiem said:


> ^ Both sides have the right to reject each other's beliefs about Govt as "gibberish".
> 
> So the Golden Rule of Equal Justice applies to you as well: If you don't have to accept and be under the other ideology and approach to Govt, neither can you impose your ideology that marriage rights and LGBT rights depend on Govt.


Except that those of us who advocate for things like gay rights and marriage just want to extend that same rights that others have to LGBT people inorder to make their lives better while taking nothing away fron anybody else. That is not imposing idelogy on anyone because, while some people may not like it, it will not change their lives at all

On the other hand, the ideology of those who want to restrict rights are indeed imposing that view in a very real and tangible way such as by not allowing certain people to marry. So no, your golden rule does not work. The compeeting views are not equal in terms of the effects on the lives of people. Stop hiding behind your Constitutionalism inorder to promote inequality. No. There are not"fine people on both sides"


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Your problem is that you are a Constitutionalist. Most people are not . It is much more widely accepted that there is far more to the Constitution than the enumerated rights. In the case of same sex marriage, the courts did not invent or create a right. They applied the existing rights of due process and equal protection under the law to an issue that was unforseen in the past. You can't expect gays to wait for equal rightsuntil  a constitutional convention can be called with an uncertain outcome,  or an amendment passed
> 
> I find it interesting that all of you Constitutionalists, originalists and textualists all epouse the same conservative world view and use your narrow interpretation of the Constitution as an excuse to thwart progress.


How can most people be Constitutionalists if they have no idea what's in the USC?


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Indeependent said:


> How can most people be Constitutionalists if they have no idea what's in the USC?


I said most people are not. Have an adullt help you with your reading skills

And clearly you do not understand what a Constitutionalist is


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> I said most people are not. Have an adullt help you with your reading skills
> 
> And clearly you do not understand what a Constitutionalist is


I quoted *you*, schmuck.
Every LibTard here claims to be a Constitutionalist because they are mentally ill and thinks words, phrases and sentences mean what they don't mean.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

Indeependent said:


> I quoted *you*, schmuck.
> Every LibTard here claims to be a Constitutionalist because they are mentally ill and thinks words, phrases and sentences mean what they don't mean.


Holy shit!! You quoted me? Go read it again....slowly. Get help if you must. And again prove that you have no fucking idea what a Constitutionalist is. Have your special ed teacher help you to look it up.

I am not a Constitutionalist   emilynghiem is a constitutionalist


----------



## sparky

Have your special ed teacher help you to look it up

well anyone can PP>>>>


What is an example of a constitutionalist?

The definition of constitutionalism is being ruled by basic standards and ideals which are consistent with an overriding rule of law or ethics. An example of constitutionalism is *federal laws of the United States government which are consistent with the U.S. Constitution*.

&&&&&&&&&&&&


What is an American constitutionalist?

Constitutionalism in the United States is a *basic value espoused by political parties, activist groups and individuals across a wide range of the political spectrum*, that the powers of federal, state and local governments are limited by the Constitution of the United States and that the civil and political rights of ...

&&&&&&&&&

What does a living constitutionalist believe?









The Living Constitution, or judicial pragmatism, is the viewpoint that *the United States Constitution holds a dynamic meaning that evolves and adapts to new circumstances even if the document is not formally amended*.


~S~


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

sparky said:


> Have your special ed teacher help you to look it up
> 
> well anyone can PP>>>>
> 
> 
> What is an example of a constitutionalist?
> 
> The definition of constitutionalism is being ruled by basic standards and ideals which are consistent with an overriding rule of law or ethics. An example of constitutionalism is *federal laws of the United States government which are consistent with the U.S. Constitution*.
> 
> &&&&&&&&&&&&
> 
> 
> What is an American constitutionalist?
> 
> Constitutionalism in the United States is a *basic value espoused by political parties, activist groups and individuals across a wide range of the political spectrum*, that the powers of federal, state and local governments are limited by the Constitution of the United States and that the civil and political rights of ...
> 
> &&&&&&&&&
> 
> What does a living constitutionalist believe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Living Constitution, or judicial pragmatism, is the viewpoint that *the United States Constitution holds a dynamic meaning that evolves and adapts to new circumstances even if the document is not formally amended*.
> 
> 
> ~S~


Thank you. To put it more succinctly I would say that the Constitutionalist adheres to a narrow and iteral reading of the Constitution similar to a Textualist or originalist, were as the concept of a living constitution is really the opposite > I dispute the notion that Constitutionalism spans the political spectrum. I see it as decidedly conservative


----------



## Indeependent

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Thank you. To put it more succinctly I would say that the Constitutionalist adheres to a narrow and iteral reading of the Constitution similar to a Textualist or originalist, were as the concept of a living constitution is really the opposite > I dispute the notion that Constitutionalism spans the political spectrum. I see it as decidedly conservative


Every Lib here reads the USC and sees what they want to see in order to satiate their sexual perversions.


----------



## sparky

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Thank you. To put it more succinctly I would say that the Constitutionalist adheres to a narrow and iteral reading of the Constitution similar to a Textualist or originalist, were as the concept of a living constitution is really the opposite > I dispute the notion that Constitutionalism spans the political spectrum. I see it as decidedly conservative


well the scotus is , at the _moment_, portraying their own political _bent_ PP

juxtaposed to a _living _doc, this can be quite the _ride_ for the constituency

Row V Wade , for ex,  turned 1/2 of us into 3/5ths a_ human....._

Article one, section two of the Constitution of the United States declared that *any person who was not free would be counted as three-fifths of a free individual for the purposes of determining congressional representation*

and yes  the _myopic_ view of constitutionalism is rather _exhausting_, much like the religmo fundamentalists who's contrived constraints seem  inversely proportional  to their end goals of _loving_ one another

~S~


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The government does not- for the most part- define social relationship with respect to marriage. A few exceptions are  prohibiting the marriage of people who are too closely related, those who cannot legally consent, and until recently, those of the same gender. The legalization of same sex marriage moved the government one step further away from defining social relationships so I  really don’t know what your blathering about.
> 
> In  reality, it is the people who are involved in the marriage that determine their social relationship though an implied, unwritten and often unspoken  contract with respect their expectations of marriage and of each other within the marriage. Yes it is that simple
> The government’s role is limited to establishing the legal protections and financial benefits for the couple and their children. Beyond that, government  has no role in the day to day functioning of a marriage . You are inventing  issues and problems and  making things way more complicated then they need be.
> 
> Marriage does not need to be changed or fixed. We got it right by extending marriage as we know it to same sex couples. We made it more inclusive and as such strengthened it as an institution. The only thing that need to be fixed is the brains of people who cannot accept and deal with the concept of marriage equality. Equality made the lives of hundreds of thousands of couples  better. It made the lives of their children better. It cost no one anything. Those who are threatened by changing social and sexual norms need to consider whatever issues they are having with their own sexual  or gender identity,  or in  their marriage and get professional help if necessary.



…….not too closely related creates a purpose that all are afraid to define.


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Give it a rest! I am not going to agree with the bbigots, or compromise with them.  While claiming to want consensus, you seem to be  proposing  ways to further divide society



No, that would be you.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> …….not too closely related creates a purpose that all are afraid to define.


The fact is that that you are not bright enough to understand that the issue of consanguinity goes beyond reproductive and biological concerns and speaks the social and societal reasons for marriage


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> The fact is that that you are not bright enough to understand that the issue of consanguinity goes beyond reproductive and biological concerns and speaks the social and societal reasons for marriage



So the wording is for nothing. You need to double your meds.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot

HeyNorm said:


> So the wording is for nothing. You need to double your meds.


ZTB Alert!!


----------



## HeyNorm

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> ZTB Alert!!



Maybe doubling isn’t enough? Consult your physician first though.


----------

