Bakers fined for not working homosexual "wedding" continue fighting for their freedoms

[Seawytch]

I'm not defining anything, just following the logical conclusion of your statements. The Loving decision and the Obergerfel decision came about in the EXACT same way but you think one was a bad ruling.

Race and sexual orientation are not the same thing, and there was no precedence for SSM compared to interracial marriages (or inter tribe marriages, or inter clan marriages).

A change that big, that is something new, not correcting something that was wrongly implemented, should not come from the courts, but from the legislatures.

No precedent? You're kidding, right?

Oh, please do explain how there was precedent for Loving and not Obergefell.

Show me any culture in history that had established marriages between people of the same sex.

Ours had.

link?

Same Sex Marriage Over Time

1970
Baker v. Nelson
Jack Baker and James McConnell applied for a marriage license.

 

[Frank'sRules]

You are arguing the how, not the why.

Of course I'm talking about the "how" as the act was against the law.

The case exists and is being adjudicated through the courts, that is all about "how".

The "why" of the existence of Public Accommodation laws is a different thread and is more political than a specific case. They "why" of the existence of Public Accommodation laws - IMHO - has passed and it's time for repeal. Just because a State can have constitutional law (such as Public Accommodation) does not mean they SHOULD have such laws or that such laws cannot be changed. For example repeal Public Accommodation laws as they apply to non-government entities or provide provisions for discrimination with adequate public notice.


>>>>

But when you answer with the "how" when all these threads are really about the "why", you fall into the same trap as posters like Body and Seawytch. Everyone knows there are laws out there that do these things, the real question, and probably the only question is why these laws exist, or more accurately, why they were extended from actual Public Accommodations into "every time money changes hands".

Why shouldn't all transactions be neutral? Is gay money worth less than straight money?

When you go to city hall should they have different windows for straights and gays?

Two different issues. In the first, a person's freedom of association has to be balanced against the need for government to assure proper commerce, and through that economic freedom. So there is a difference between point of sale, time sensitive, or major commerce transactions and contracted, non-necessary, non time sensitive transactions that have easily obtainable substitutes.

The 2nd one, is different. To me it isn't a question of what I think is equal, Its what the people of a given State think, and once they decide SSM and OSM are one and the same, then it is.

You want the people to vote on the rights of others? If they were allowed to soon no one would have any rights. Federal law trumps state law, you'll just have to accept that since it's our system. The states can make plenty of their own laws as long as they are constitutional and gay marriage bans were not.

 

[martybegan]

From the article:

Pederasty is not a good example when trying to equate "unions" to actual marriage.

It's much more complicated than that and if you are just going to cherry-pick and lie, why bother? The law is settled and your side lost just like it did with interracial and interfaith marriages. Move on.

No, it isn't. Again, I am all for SSM as long as it is done in the proper way, namely petitioning State legislatures to change the marriage laws. I would be OK as well if States wanted to allow plural marriages. My issue is solely with Courts deciding to make up rights out of thin air.

What the Court SHOULD have done is allow States to issue Marriage licenses as they choose, but force them to recognize any valid marriage license from another State, same as now.

You are the kind that would have been all for slavery being abolished, as long as the states did it. It doesn't work that way sometimes and you'll just have to deal with it. The state bans were found to be unconstitutional and once the federal judges rule that to be true that is the end of that.

And why in God's name would you want your marriage to be valid in only one state? That would be like your money being valid in only one state? That's idiotic.

In the case of Slavery a Civil War was fought, and blood spent. Even then the proper procedure was used, i.e. a constitutional amendment that banned slavery and overrode the will of the States. THAT is the proper procedure. Without that amendment the Federal Judges would have had no authority over Slavery in the States. A federal law might have also worked, but the people at the time, in their wisdom, figured an amendment would be far better, and far more final.

It would be valid in all States under my concept, it's just each State would get to decide if they wanted to ISSUE SSM licenses or not.

"It would be valid in all States under my concept, it's just each State would get to decide if they wanted to ISSUE SSM licenses or not"

And why would that matter? The two gay guys next door would be just as legally married either way. It seems that you want to vote on the rights of others and we are not a democracy so that's not an option.

You assume there is a right to SSM, there isn't, except in the addled minds of 5 liberal justices.

My issue has been that a court that makes up rights can just as easily ignore them, hence my concern of Hillary getting to appoint justices and that impact on the 2nd amendment.

 

[martybegan]

Race and sexual orientation are not the same thing, and there was no precedence for SSM compared to interracial marriages (or inter tribe marriages, or inter clan marriages).

A change that big, that is something new, not correcting something that was wrongly implemented, should not come from the courts, but from the legislatures.

No precedent? You're kidding, right?

Oh, please do explain how there was precedent for Loving and not Obergefell.

Show me any culture in history that had established marriages between people of the same sex.

Ours had.

link?

Same Sex Marriage Over Time

1970
Baker v. Nelson
Jack Baker and James McConnell applied for a marriage license.

You can't use the front end of the current argument as "precedent".

 

[Frank'sRules]

Race and sexual orientation are not the same thing, and there was no precedence for SSM compared to interracial marriages (or inter tribe marriages, or inter clan marriages).

A change that big, that is something new, not correcting something that was wrongly implemented, should not come from the courts, but from the legislatures.

No precedent? You're kidding, right?

Oh, please do explain how there was precedent for Loving and not Obergefell.

Show me any culture in history that had established marriages between people of the same sex.

Ours had.

link?

Same Sex Marriage Over Time

1970
Baker v. Nelson
Jack Baker and James McConnell applied for a marriage license.

Had the courts ruled fairly on that one, we would have had gay marriage long ago. Tradition and not the law or legal reasoning won that day. The ruling was obviously unfair.

 

[Seawytch]

No precedent? You're kidding, right?

Oh, please do explain how there was precedent for Loving and not Obergefell.

Show me any culture in history that had established marriages between people of the same sex.

History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the article:

At the same time, many of these relationships might be more clearly understood as mentoring relationships between adult men and young boys rather than an analog of marriage

Pederasty is not a good example when trying to equate "unions" to actual marriage.

It's much more complicated than that and if you are just going to cherry-pick and lie, why bother? The law is settled and your side lost just like it did with interracial and interfaith marriages. Move on.

No, it isn't. Again, I am all for SSM as long as it is done in the proper way, namely petitioning State legislatures to change the marriage laws. I would be OK as well if States wanted to allow plural marriages. My issue is solely with Courts deciding to make up rights out of thin air.

What the Court SHOULD have done is allow States to issue Marriage licenses as they choose, but force them to recognize any valid marriage license from another State, same as now.

If they "should have" done it for gays then they "should have" done it for interracial marriage...you know, the ruling you think is a "good" ruling while you think Obergefell is "bad".

How does it work when you keep saying that you don't feel gay marriages are equal with straight marriages and how that doesn't make you anti gay? If someone said interracial marriages were not equal with same race marriages, we'd call them racist wouldn't we?

 

[Frank'sRules]

It's much more complicated than that and if you are just going to cherry-pick and lie, why bother? The law is settled and your side lost just like it did with interracial and interfaith marriages. Move on.

No, it isn't. Again, I am all for SSM as long as it is done in the proper way, namely petitioning State legislatures to change the marriage laws. I would be OK as well if States wanted to allow plural marriages. My issue is solely with Courts deciding to make up rights out of thin air.

What the Court SHOULD have done is allow States to issue Marriage licenses as they choose, but force them to recognize any valid marriage license from another State, same as now.

You are the kind that would have been all for slavery being abolished, as long as the states did it. It doesn't work that way sometimes and you'll just have to deal with it. The state bans were found to be unconstitutional and once the federal judges rule that to be true that is the end of that.

And why in God's name would you want your marriage to be valid in only one state? That would be like your money being valid in only one state? That's idiotic.

In the case of Slavery a Civil War was fought, and blood spent. Even then the proper procedure was used, i.e. a constitutional amendment that banned slavery and overrode the will of the States. THAT is the proper procedure. Without that amendment the Federal Judges would have had no authority over Slavery in the States. A federal law might have also worked, but the people at the time, in their wisdom, figured an amendment would be far better, and far more final.

It would be valid in all States under my concept, it's just each State would get to decide if they wanted to ISSUE SSM licenses or not.

"It would be valid in all States under my concept, it's just each State would get to decide if they wanted to ISSUE SSM licenses or not"

And why would that matter? The two gay guys next door would be just as legally married either way. It seems that you want to vote on the rights of others and we are not a democracy so that's not an option.

You assume there is a right to SSM, there isn't, except in the addled minds of 5 liberal justices.

My issue has been that a court that makes up rights can just as easily ignore them, hence my concern of Hillary getting to appoint justices and that impact on the 2nd amendment.

"You assume there is a right to SSM, there isn't, except in the addled minds of 5 liberal justices. "

No, you misunderstanding the ruling which is based on equality before the law. Nothing was made up. The bans were found to be unconstitutional just like the bans on interracial marriage were found to be unconstitutional. It made two people, just two, unequal before the law.

 

[Seawytch]

No precedent? You're kidding, right?

Oh, please do explain how there was precedent for Loving and not Obergefell.

Show me any culture in history that had established marriages between people of the same sex.

Ours had.

link?

Same Sex Marriage Over Time

1970
Baker v. Nelson
Jack Baker and James McConnell applied for a marriage license.

You can't use the front end of the current argument as "precedent".

It's the same precedent that allowed Loving to go to the SCOTUS and win.

 

[Frank'sRules]

Show me any culture in history that had established marriages between people of the same sex.

History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the article:

At the same time, many of these relationships might be more clearly understood as mentoring relationships between adult men and young boys rather than an analog of marriage

Pederasty is not a good example when trying to equate "unions" to actual marriage.

It's much more complicated than that and if you are just going to cherry-pick and lie, why bother? The law is settled and your side lost just like it did with interracial and interfaith marriages. Move on.

No, it isn't. Again, I am all for SSM as long as it is done in the proper way, namely petitioning State legislatures to change the marriage laws. I would be OK as well if States wanted to allow plural marriages. My issue is solely with Courts deciding to make up rights out of thin air.

What the Court SHOULD have done is allow States to issue Marriage licenses as they choose, but force them to recognize any valid marriage license from another State, same as now.

If they "should have" done it for gays then they "should have" done it for interracial marriage...you know, the ruling you think is a "good" ruling while you think Obergefell is "bad".

How does it work when you keep saying that you don't feel gay marriages are equal with straight marriages and how that doesn't make you anti gay? If someone said interracial marriages were not equal with same race marriages, we'd call them racist wouldn't we?

He very likely feels that interracial marriages are less valid than same race marriages. It's the same mentality, those people I like getting married but not these others.

 

[martybegan]

Show me any culture in history that had established marriages between people of the same sex.

History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the article:

At the same time, many of these relationships might be more clearly understood as mentoring relationships between adult men and young boys rather than an analog of marriage

Pederasty is not a good example when trying to equate "unions" to actual marriage.

It's much more complicated than that and if you are just going to cherry-pick and lie, why bother? The law is settled and your side lost just like it did with interracial and interfaith marriages. Move on.

No, it isn't. Again, I am all for SSM as long as it is done in the proper way, namely petitioning State legislatures to change the marriage laws. I would be OK as well if States wanted to allow plural marriages. My issue is solely with Courts deciding to make up rights out of thin air.

What the Court SHOULD have done is allow States to issue Marriage licenses as they choose, but force them to recognize any valid marriage license from another State, same as now.

If they "should have" done it for gays then they "should have" done it for interracial marriage...you know, the ruling you think is a "good" ruling while you think Obergefell is "bad".

How does it work when you keep saying that you don't feel gay marriages are equal with straight marriages and how that doesn't make you anti gay? If someone said interracial marriages were not equal with same race marriages, we'd call them racist wouldn't we?

Not equal in a sense that they do not fall under equal protection under the law. Again, what loving removed was an artificial construct, i.e. racial restrictions on marriages. What obergfell did was extend that to an entirely new concept. It goes past interpretation and into legislating from the bench.

I do, however treat SSM married couples the same as OSM ones. As i said, as long as the legislature approves it, I approve of SSM, and probably don't really care about plural marriage either if done using the proper procedure.

What don't you still get about it. Procedure is EVERYTHING to me.

 

[martybegan]

Show me any culture in history that had established marriages between people of the same sex.

Ours had.

link?

Same Sex Marriage Over Time

1970
Baker v. Nelson
Jack Baker and James McConnell applied for a marriage license.

You can't use the front end of the current argument as "precedent".

It's the same precedent that allowed Loving to go to the SCOTUS and win.

Doesn't make it right. Not the same thing.

 

[Frank'sRules]

No precedent? You're kidding, right?

Oh, please do explain how there was precedent for Loving and not Obergefell.

Show me any culture in history that had established marriages between people of the same sex.

Ours had.

link?

Same Sex Marriage Over Time

1970
Baker v. Nelson
Jack Baker and James McConnell applied for a marriage license.

You can't use the front end of the current argument as "precedent".

You want to say that gay marriage never existed, which isn't true, but it doesn't matter either way. As a society grows up in expands the rights of minorities to make them more equal to everyone else. That is all that has been done here. Slaves got rights. Women got rights. Children got rights. Now gays have rights. It's progress and without it nothing changes which is not a good thing even if change bugs you.

 

[Pop23]

Your right, the law can't force a business to sell a product they don't offer.

Thank you.

And no law can force a business to sell a product that was created by a law.

I don't know what this means, no products are created by law.

I've proven time and time again that the baker is willing to sell cakes to gays. And he likely has.

Irrelevant to the case at hand that they may have sold other goods to same-sex couples. The law states " all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is of age, as described in this section, or older."

Notice it says "full and equal" that means a business can't offer one set of goods and services to the general puplic but only sell a subset to specific groups based on "race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age".

Now, prove that anyone has been discriminated on based on sexuality.

Klein quoted Leviticus and referred to the couple as an "abomination". Leviticus refers to homosexuals. (The reference to abomination is in the court documents that the Kliens agreed was factually accurate.)

Let's see the sexuality test the state requires.

There is no "test of sexuality", just like there is not test for religion. The standard is based on the owners actions. And when you are an owner calling lesbians an abomination and refuse them service, ya that's pretty much the gold standard on determination that the discrimination is based on the customers sexuality.


>>>>

There you go again with religion. That is a belief not a choice. That belief is clearly protected in something known as "the bill of RIGHTS". Note the word RIGHTS.

The default biological sexuality is clearly heterosexual, any other that can't be backed by biology is choice.

Your argument is that the couple was discriminated because of their sexuality.

I've demonstrated time and time again that he did not.

1. You can't prove he's refused gay wedding cakes. Prove that every single wedding cake he made only went to heterosexual couples. What is the test you will give these couples, who bought he cakes, that they are/were not gay?

What is the test you will administer to all these couples that they are/ were not straight.

I can give you objecting testing guidelines to prove all others listed as a federally protected class not specifically listed in the BILL OF RIGHTS.

I've demonstrated that a heterosexual same sex couple could walk in and SIMPLY CLAIM TO BE GAY, and SUE THE BAKER FOR REFUSAL TO BAKE THE CAKE......... Based on sexual orientation????????? Which sexuality are the filing suit under?

So homosexuality is simply a claim?

Wow

You're going to have to do better then that or the legal system becomes a joke.

I really don't care what the baker used as a defense. It doesn't change the fact that he never offered the service. The market for the service was created by a law. And that since the law created the market, the baker is under no duty to produce a product for a newly created market.

 

[Frank'sRules]

History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the article:

At the same time, many of these relationships might be more clearly understood as mentoring relationships between adult men and young boys rather than an analog of marriage

Pederasty is not a good example when trying to equate "unions" to actual marriage.

It's much more complicated than that and if you are just going to cherry-pick and lie, why bother? The law is settled and your side lost just like it did with interracial and interfaith marriages. Move on.

No, it isn't. Again, I am all for SSM as long as it is done in the proper way, namely petitioning State legislatures to change the marriage laws. I would be OK as well if States wanted to allow plural marriages. My issue is solely with Courts deciding to make up rights out of thin air.

What the Court SHOULD have done is allow States to issue Marriage licenses as they choose, but force them to recognize any valid marriage license from another State, same as now.

If they "should have" done it for gays then they "should have" done it for interracial marriage...you know, the ruling you think is a "good" ruling while you think Obergefell is "bad".

How does it work when you keep saying that you don't feel gay marriages are equal with straight marriages and how that doesn't make you anti gay? If someone said interracial marriages were not equal with same race marriages, we'd call them racist wouldn't we?

Not equal in a sense that they do not fall under equal protection under the law. Again, what loving removed was an artificial construct, i.e. racial restrictions on marriages. What obergfell did was extend that to an entirely new concept. It goes past interpretation and into legislating from the bench.

I do, however treat SSM married couples the same as OSM ones. As i said, as long as the legislature approves it, I approve of SSM, and probably don't really care about plural marriage either if done using the proper procedure.

What don't you still get about it. Procedure is EVERYTHING to me.

"What don't you still get about it. Procedure is EVERYTHING to me."

Learn it, then. A state makes a law. The law is challenged in the state. It goes all the way up to the state Supreme Court. It gets challenged again, this time in Federal Court. It goes all the way to the Federal Supreme Court and they make the final ruling. That is just what happened here, the state bans were found to unconstitutional. That IS the procedure!!!!!!!!

 

[Pop23]

Show me any culture in history that had established marriages between people of the same sex.

Ours had.

link?

Same Sex Marriage Over Time

1970
Baker v. Nelson
Jack Baker and James McConnell applied for a marriage license.

You can't use the front end of the current argument as "precedent".

You want to say that gay marriage never existed, which isn't true, but it doesn't matter either way. As a society grows up in expands the rights of minorities to make them more equal to everyone else. That is all that has been done here. Slaves got rights. Women got rights. Children got rights. Now gays have rights. It's progress and without it nothing changes which is not a good thing even if change bugs you.

There are objective tests that prove a black is a black

There are objective tests that prove a woman is a woman

There are objective tests that prove a child is a child.

What is the objective test that prove an individual's sexuality?

 

[Frank'sRules]

Your right, the law can't force a business to sell a product they don't offer.

Thank you.

And no law can force a business to sell a product that was created by a law.

I don't know what this means, no products are created by law.

I've proven time and time again that the baker is willing to sell cakes to gays. And he likely has.

Irrelevant to the case at hand that they may have sold other goods to same-sex couples. The law states " all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is of age, as described in this section, or older."

Notice it says "full and equal" that means a business can't offer one set of goods and services to the general puplic but only sell a subset to specific groups based on "race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age".

Now, prove that anyone has been discriminated on based on sexuality.

Klein quoted Leviticus and referred to the couple as an "abomination". Leviticus refers to homosexuals. (The reference to abomination is in the court documents that the Kliens agreed was factually accurate.)

Let's see the sexuality test the state requires.

There is no "test of sexuality", just like there is not test for religion. The standard is based on the owners actions. And when you are an owner calling lesbians an abomination and refuse them service, ya that's pretty much the gold standard on determination that the discrimination is based on the customers sexuality.


>>>>

There you go again with religion. That is a belief not a choice. That belief is clearly protected in something known as "the bill of RIGHTS". Note the word RIGHTS.

The default biological sexuality is clearly heterosexual, any other that can't be backed by biology is choice.

Your argument is that the couple was discriminated because of their sexuality.

I've demonstrated time and time again that he did not.

1. You can't prove he's refused gay wedding cakes. Prove that every single wedding cake he made only went to heterosexual couples. What is the test you will give these couples, who bought he cakes, that they are/were not gay?

What is the test you will administer to all these couples that they are/ were not straight.

I can give you objecting testing guidelines to prove all others listed as a federally protected class not specifically listed in the BILL OF RIGHTS.

I've demonstrated that a heterosexual same sex couple could walk in and SIMPLY CLAIM TO BE GAY, and SUE THE BAKER FOR REFUSAL TO BAKE THE CAKE......... Based on sexual orientation????????? Which sexuality are the filing suit under?

So homosexuality is simply a claim?

Wow

You're going to have to do better then that or the legal system becomes a joke.

I really don't care what the baker used as a defense. It doesn't change the fact that he never offered the service. The market for the service was created by a law. And that since the law created the market, the baker is under no duty to produce a product for a newly created market.

What's the difference between a gay wedding cake and a straight wedding cake? Oh, hey, just look at that will ya, there is no difference.

 

[Pop23]

Your right, the law can't force a business to sell a product they don't offer.

Thank you.

And no law can force a business to sell a product that was created by a law.

I don't know what this means, no products are created by law.

I've proven time and time again that the baker is willing to sell cakes to gays. And he likely has.

Irrelevant to the case at hand that they may have sold other goods to same-sex couples. The law states " all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is of age, as described in this section, or older."

Notice it says "full and equal" that means a business can't offer one set of goods and services to the general puplic but only sell a subset to specific groups based on "race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age".

Now, prove that anyone has been discriminated on based on sexuality.

Klein quoted Leviticus and referred to the couple as an "abomination". Leviticus refers to homosexuals. (The reference to abomination is in the court documents that the Kliens agreed was factually accurate.)

Let's see the sexuality test the state requires.

There is no "test of sexuality", just like there is not test for religion. The standard is based on the owners actions. And when you are an owner calling lesbians an abomination and refuse them service, ya that's pretty much the gold standard on determination that the discrimination is based on the customers sexuality.


>>>>

There you go again with religion. That is a belief not a choice. That belief is clearly protected in something known as "the bill of RIGHTS". Note the word RIGHTS.

The default biological sexuality is clearly heterosexual, any other that can't be backed by biology is choice.

Your argument is that the couple was discriminated because of their sexuality.

I've demonstrated time and time again that he did not.

1. You can't prove he's refused gay wedding cakes. Prove that every single wedding cake he made only went to heterosexual couples. What is the test you will give these couples, who bought he cakes, that they are/were not gay?

What is the test you will administer to all these couples that they are/ were not straight.

I can give you objecting testing guidelines to prove all others listed as a federally protected class not specifically listed in the BILL OF RIGHTS.

I've demonstrated that a heterosexual same sex couple could walk in and SIMPLY CLAIM TO BE GAY, and SUE THE BAKER FOR REFUSAL TO BAKE THE CAKE......... Based on sexual orientation????????? Which sexuality are the filing suit under?

So homosexuality is simply a claim?

Wow

You're going to have to do better then that or the legal system becomes a joke.

I really don't care what the baker used as a defense. It doesn't change the fact that he never offered the service. The market for the service was created by a law. And that since the law created the market, the baker is under no duty to produce a product for a newly created market.

What's the difference between a gay wedding cake and a straight wedding cake? Oh, hey, just look at that will ya, there is no difference.

I know, right. Any gay woman can buy a cake for her wedding to her gay husband.

The baker wouldn't mind. He simply does not do cakes for same sex wedding regardless of the couples sexuality.

 

[Frank'sRules]

Ours had.

link?

Same Sex Marriage Over Time

1970
Baker v. Nelson
Jack Baker and James McConnell applied for a marriage license.

You can't use the front end of the current argument as "precedent".

You want to say that gay marriage never existed, which isn't true, but it doesn't matter either way. As a society grows up in expands the rights of minorities to make them more equal to everyone else. That is all that has been done here. Slaves got rights. Women got rights. Children got rights. Now gays have rights. It's progress and without it nothing changes which is not a good thing even if change bugs you.

There are objective tests that prove a black is a black

There are objective tests that prove a woman is a woman

There are objective tests that prove a child is a child.

What is the objective test that prove an individual's sexuality?

Not really. There are people who look female but have male genetics. Race is hit and miss thing. A child with the mind of an adult might be small but we just had a nine-year-old head off to college so what are they, and who you have sex with doesn't matter. Two heterosexual women have just as much right to marry as two heterosexual men or a man and a woman of any sexuality. Marriage doesn't require that the couple will or even can procreate. Natural reproduction is not the basis of our laws here, equality and liberty are. If two adults can legally do something then any two adults can legally do something. That is the gay marriage ruling in a nutshell.

 

[Frank'sRules]

Your right, the law can't force a business to sell a product they don't offer.

Thank you.

And no law can force a business to sell a product that was created by a law.

I don't know what this means, no products are created by law.

I've proven time and time again that the baker is willing to sell cakes to gays. And he likely has.

Irrelevant to the case at hand that they may have sold other goods to same-sex couples. The law states " all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is of age, as described in this section, or older."

Notice it says "full and equal" that means a business can't offer one set of goods and services to the general puplic but only sell a subset to specific groups based on "race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age".

Now, prove that anyone has been discriminated on based on sexuality.

Klein quoted Leviticus and referred to the couple as an "abomination". Leviticus refers to homosexuals. (The reference to abomination is in the court documents that the Kliens agreed was factually accurate.)

Let's see the sexuality test the state requires.

There is no "test of sexuality", just like there is not test for religion. The standard is based on the owners actions. And when you are an owner calling lesbians an abomination and refuse them service, ya that's pretty much the gold standard on determination that the discrimination is based on the customers sexuality.


>>>>

There you go again with religion. That is a belief not a choice. That belief is clearly protected in something known as "the bill of RIGHTS". Note the word RIGHTS.

The default biological sexuality is clearly heterosexual, any other that can't be backed by biology is choice.

Your argument is that the couple was discriminated because of their sexuality.

I've demonstrated time and time again that he did not.

1. You can't prove he's refused gay wedding cakes. Prove that every single wedding cake he made only went to heterosexual couples. What is the test you will give these couples, who bought he cakes, that they are/were not gay?

What is the test you will administer to all these couples that they are/ were not straight.

I can give you objecting testing guidelines to prove all others listed as a federally protected class not specifically listed in the BILL OF RIGHTS.

I've demonstrated that a heterosexual same sex couple could walk in and SIMPLY CLAIM TO BE GAY, and SUE THE BAKER FOR REFUSAL TO BAKE THE CAKE......... Based on sexual orientation????????? Which sexuality are the filing suit under?

So homosexuality is simply a claim?

Wow

You're going to have to do better then that or the legal system becomes a joke.

I really don't care what the baker used as a defense. It doesn't change the fact that he never offered the service. The market for the service was created by a law. And that since the law created the market, the baker is under no duty to produce a product for a newly created market.

What's the difference between a gay wedding cake and a straight wedding cake? Oh, hey, just look at that will ya, there is no difference.

I know, right. Any gay woman can buy a cake for her wedding to her gay husband.

The baker wouldn't mind. He simply does not do cakes for same sex wedding regardless of the couples sexuality.

He makes wedding cakes. Who is getting married is none of his damn business. He went into business to make cakes and money. That's the end of that.

 

[bodecea]

It's much more complicated than that and if you are just going to cherry-pick and lie, why bother? The law is settled and your side lost just like it did with interracial and interfaith marriages. Move on.

No, it isn't. Again, I am all for SSM as long as it is done in the proper way, namely petitioning State legislatures to change the marriage laws. I would be OK as well if States wanted to allow plural marriages. My issue is solely with Courts deciding to make up rights out of thin air.

What the Court SHOULD have done is allow States to issue Marriage licenses as they choose, but force them to recognize any valid marriage license from another State, same as now.

You are the kind that would have been all for slavery being abolished, as long as the states did it. It doesn't work that way sometimes and you'll just have to deal with it. The state bans were found to be unconstitutional and once the federal judges rule that to be true that is the end of that.

And why in God's name would you want your marriage to be valid in only one state? That would be like your money being valid in only one state? That's idiotic.

In the case of Slavery a Civil War was fought, and blood spent. Even then the proper procedure was used, i.e. a constitutional amendment that banned slavery and overrode the will of the States. THAT is the proper procedure. Without that amendment the Federal Judges would have had no authority over Slavery in the States. A federal law might have also worked, but the people at the time, in their wisdom, figured an amendment would be far better, and far more final.

It would be valid in all States under my concept, it's just each State would get to decide if they wanted to ISSUE SSM licenses or not.

"It would be valid in all States under my concept, it's just each State would get to decide if they wanted to ISSUE SSM licenses or not"

And why would that matter? The two gay guys next door would be just as legally married either way. It seems that you want to vote on the rights of others and we are not a democracy so that's not an option.

You assume there is a right to SSM, there isn't, except in the addled minds of 5 liberal justices.

My issue has been that a court that makes up rights can just as easily ignore them, hence my concern of Hillary getting to appoint justices and that impact on the 2nd amendment.

All just in your opinion, of course.