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

[Frank'sRules]

"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.

According to you. If you follow strict constructionism, it is jiggery-pokery, nothing more.

There is no "strict" constitutionalism. Try to prove that equality before the law for one adult, or two adults even, isn't unconstitutional?

One is a Christian, one is a Jew. One is a Christian couple, one is a Jewish couple. One is a gay man, one is a straight man. One is a straight couple, one is a gay couple. Show us where the Constitution says we can treat them differently, using your "strict" definition?

It depends on what your view of equal is. There is no precedent for SSM anywhere in our history. It is a new concept. It should be made equal not via the courts, but via the State Legislatures.

If any of them are related to each other closer than 1st cousin (or 2nd cousin in some states) they can be denied a marriage certificate. So they are being treated differently.

There was no more precedent for Loving than there was for Obergefell. Interracial marriage was a "new concept made equal by the courts"

not at all. Racial restrictions were something imposed on the existing contract. History is replete with marriages between people of differing races, clans, and tribes. Not so much with SSM.

Sorry, Doc, I can't take antibiotics, they are a recent development even though people have been using herbs to heal since mankind walked the earth. Do you have some milkweed instead?

 

[Frank'sRules]

Equality came along with the Bill of Rights, it just wasn't applied to many until later, and most marriage restrictions are unconstitutional. That's a snap to test. Find first cousins wanting to get married in a state that bans it (and not all do) and test it when one first cousin is adopted? There is no rational basis at all, no incest risk, just another tradition. Goodbye restriction, you are just another unconstitutional law.

The only discrimination that is legal is when there is a rational basis. None could be found against gay marriage so it died in the courts. The only argument against it was tradition and that's not enough here. When you argue tradition you'll lose.

So which of the amendments in the bill of rights led to the obergfell decision?

The most important one, the right to be left the fuck alone, which started long before that in the actual Constitution as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

And the equality part starts with number one, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and redress of grievances for all, not just some.

Unless, of course, you are a baker, and then BAKE THE FUCKING CAKE, peasant, right?

Your "interpretation" of the 1st amendment is why people despise progressives so much.

The First Amendment is alive and well, but not at the Motel 6, when checking in guests, that's a Public Accommodation. After work you can hate the fags as much as you like.

Where does the constitution say "unless you are at work?"

The same place the boss does. You want to preach about Jesus? That's on your time not mine. Get back to work, Christian.

It's also from the same place that churches get a tax break, government regulations.

 

[martybegan]

According to you. If you follow strict constructionism, it is jiggery-pokery, nothing more.

There is no "strict" constitutionalism. Try to prove that equality before the law for one adult, or two adults even, isn't unconstitutional?

One is a Christian, one is a Jew. One is a Christian couple, one is a Jewish couple. One is a gay man, one is a straight man. One is a straight couple, one is a gay couple. Show us where the Constitution says we can treat them differently, using your "strict" definition?

It depends on what your view of equal is. There is no precedent for SSM anywhere in our history. It is a new concept. It should be made equal not via the courts, but via the State Legislatures.

If any of them are related to each other closer than 1st cousin (or 2nd cousin in some states) they can be denied a marriage certificate. So they are being treated differently.

There was no more precedent for Loving than there was for Obergefell. Interracial marriage was a "new concept made equal by the courts"

not at all. Racial restrictions were something imposed on the existing contract. History is replete with marriages between people of differing races, clans, and tribes. Not so much with SSM.

Sorry, Doc, I can't take antibiotics, they are a recent development even though people have been using herbs to heal since mankind walked the earth. Do you have some milkweed instead?

Now you are just being an idiot. Who's sock is this?

Your comparison fails on its "merits"

 

[Frank'sRules]

The most important one, the right to be left the fuck alone, which started long before that in the actual Constitution as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

And the equality part starts with number one, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and redress of grievances for all, not just some.

Being left alone to do things in private is not the same as inviting others to join in and enable your behavior as a 'new social value' when they don't want to...in a public venue..

You are welcome to use another guy's anus as an artificial vagina in your own home, but don't got thinking that decriminalized behavior is now a protected class you can force other people to play along with or enable. Get enumeration in the Constitution or get used to the 1st Amendment trumping on PA laws everywhere. Prepare yourself accordingly.

Being left alone is you sell dildos and who I am buying it for and where and when I use it is none of your goddamned business. That's up to me.

 

[martybegan]

So which of the amendments in the bill of rights led to the obergfell decision?

The most important one, the right to be left the fuck alone, which started long before that in the actual Constitution as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

And the equality part starts with number one, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and redress of grievances for all, not just some.

Unless, of course, you are a baker, and then BAKE THE FUCKING CAKE, peasant, right?

Your "interpretation" of the 1st amendment is why people despise progressives so much.

The First Amendment is alive and well, but not at the Motel 6, when checking in guests, that's a Public Accommodation. After work you can hate the fags as much as you like.

Where does the constitution say "unless you are at work?"

The same place the boss does. You want to preach about Jesus? That's on your time not mine. Get back to work, Christian.

It's also from the same place that churches get a tax break, government regulations.

Not an appropriate comparison. Again, where does the constitution say you lose your rights when you try to sell something? You are talking about an employee/employer relationship, not the same thing.

and your 2nd point has no comparison to the situation.

 

[Silhouette]

Now you are just being an idiot. Who's sock is this?

Your comparison fails on its "merits"

I was thinking the same thing. He almost seems like a caricature at this point. To be "Frank" though...lol.. he is very new at this game. He might not be used to having his contentions thoroughly dissected. Liberal/intolerant websites bounce any posters the second the tiniest whisper of "maybe the cult of LGBT isn't perfectly fine" comes out. So he may not be used to any opposing opinion of his wobbly points and so he is not refined in doing his homework. Cults are kind of that way; they get weak in debate> never a need for strength training if you "disappear" all opposing forces.

vv See, he's already unraveling...he can't take that his points are being evaporated as fast as he can make them.

 

[Frank'sRules]

There is no "strict" constitutionalism. Try to prove that equality before the law for one adult, or two adults even, isn't unconstitutional?

One is a Christian, one is a Jew. One is a Christian couple, one is a Jewish couple. One is a gay man, one is a straight man. One is a straight couple, one is a gay couple. Show us where the Constitution says we can treat them differently, using your "strict" definition?

It depends on what your view of equal is. There is no precedent for SSM anywhere in our history. It is a new concept. It should be made equal not via the courts, but via the State Legislatures.

If any of them are related to each other closer than 1st cousin (or 2nd cousin in some states) they can be denied a marriage certificate. So they are being treated differently.

There was no more precedent for Loving than there was for Obergefell. Interracial marriage was a "new concept made equal by the courts"

not at all. Racial restrictions were something imposed on the existing contract. History is replete with marriages between people of differing races, clans, and tribes. Not so much with SSM.

Sorry, Doc, I can't take antibiotics, they are a recent development even though people have been using herbs to heal since mankind walked the earth. Do you have some milkweed instead?

Now you are just being an idiot. Who's sock is this?

Your comparison fails on its "merits"

Aren't you all about "tradition"? Antibiotics are new but that doesn't bother you however gay marriage is legal now and you scream Tradition, Tradition!!!!!! Go join Fiddler on the Roof.

 

[martybegan]

It depends on what your view of equal is. There is no precedent for SSM anywhere in our history. It is a new concept. It should be made equal not via the courts, but via the State Legislatures.

If any of them are related to each other closer than 1st cousin (or 2nd cousin in some states) they can be denied a marriage certificate. So they are being treated differently.

There was no more precedent for Loving than there was for Obergefell. Interracial marriage was a "new concept made equal by the courts"

not at all. Racial restrictions were something imposed on the existing contract. History is replete with marriages between people of differing races, clans, and tribes. Not so much with SSM.

Sorry, Doc, I can't take antibiotics, they are a recent development even though people have been using herbs to heal since mankind walked the earth. Do you have some milkweed instead?

Now you are just being an idiot. Who's sock is this?

Your comparison fails on its "merits"

Aren't you all about "tradition"? Antibiotics are new but that doesn't bother you however gay marriage is legal now and you scream Tradition, Tradition!!!!!! Go join Fiddler on the Roof.

I am about precedent and judicial restraint. Judges should leave legislating to the legislatures.

 

[martybegan]

Now you are just being an idiot. Who's sock is this?

Your comparison fails on its "merits"

I was thinking the same thing. He almost seems like a caricature at this point. To be "Frank" though...lol.. he is very new at this game. He might not be used to having his contentions thoroughly dissected. Liberal-intolerant websites bounce any posters the second the tiniest whisper of "maybe the cult of LGBT isn't perfectly fine" comes out. So he may not be used to any opposing opinion of his wobbly points and so he is not refined in doing his homework. Cults are kind of that way; they get weak in debate.

I am now leaning more towards sock than new. This isn't ordinary stupid, it's advanced stupid.

 

[Frank'sRules]

The most important one, the right to be left the fuck alone, which started long before that in the actual Constitution as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

And the equality part starts with number one, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and redress of grievances for all, not just some.

Unless, of course, you are a baker, and then BAKE THE FUCKING CAKE, peasant, right?

Your "interpretation" of the 1st amendment is why people despise progressives so much.

The First Amendment is alive and well, but not at the Motel 6, when checking in guests, that's a Public Accommodation. After work you can hate the fags as much as you like.

Where does the constitution say "unless you are at work?"

The same place the boss does. You want to preach about Jesus? That's on your time not mine. Get back to work, Christian.

It's also from the same place that churches get a tax break, government regulations.

Not an appropriate comparison. Again, where does the constitution say you lose your rights when you try to sell something? You are talking about an employee/employer relationship, not the same thing.

and your 2nd point has no comparison to the situation.

The rules a boss can apply are the same rules a government can apply to any business, especially one that serves the public. You don't lose your First Amendment rights but they are limited in working just as they are limited in a school. You can yell "I hate fags" all day long on the street corner but that won't cut it at McDonald's or Thomas Jefferson Elementary. Are they denying your rights, or is that just the cost of doing business?

 

[Frank'sRules]

There was no more precedent for Loving than there was for Obergefell. Interracial marriage was a "new concept made equal by the courts"

not at all. Racial restrictions were something imposed on the existing contract. History is replete with marriages between people of differing races, clans, and tribes. Not so much with SSM.

Sorry, Doc, I can't take antibiotics, they are a recent development even though people have been using herbs to heal since mankind walked the earth. Do you have some milkweed instead?

Now you are just being an idiot. Who's sock is this?

Your comparison fails on its "merits"

Aren't you all about "tradition"? Antibiotics are new but that doesn't bother you however gay marriage is legal now and you scream Tradition, Tradition!!!!!! Go join Fiddler on the Roof.

I am about precedent and judicial restraint. Judges should leave legislating to the legislatures.

Here's your problem, they didn't legislate. They knocked down unconstitutional legislation. That is their job.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Hively, found that sexual orientation/behaviors are not covered even under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Hively said, woefully (I guess) that if people doing homosexual stuff wanted enumerated protections, they'd have to go through the proper channels (see: Romer) and get the Congress to Amend the US Constitution.

Gee...

1. Romer was a court case OVERTURNING a State Constitutional amendment allowing people to discriminate against homosexuals.

2. You don't even know that Congress doesn't amend the Constitution? Amendments must be approved by the states not Congress.


>>>>

 

[martybegan]

Unless, of course, you are a baker, and then BAKE THE FUCKING CAKE, peasant, right?

Your "interpretation" of the 1st amendment is why people despise progressives so much.

The First Amendment is alive and well, but not at the Motel 6, when checking in guests, that's a Public Accommodation. After work you can hate the fags as much as you like.

Where does the constitution say "unless you are at work?"

The same place the boss does. You want to preach about Jesus? That's on your time not mine. Get back to work, Christian.

It's also from the same place that churches get a tax break, government regulations.

Not an appropriate comparison. Again, where does the constitution say you lose your rights when you try to sell something? You are talking about an employee/employer relationship, not the same thing.

and your 2nd point has no comparison to the situation.

The rules a boss can apply are the same rules a government can apply to any business, especially one that serves the public. You don't lose your First Amendment rights but they are limited in working just as they are limited in a school. You can yell "I hate fags" all day long on the street corner but that won't cut it at McDonald's or Thomas Jefferson Elementary. Are they denying your rights, or is that just the cost of doing business?

So the government is everyone's boss now? The government is what is restricted from impinging on rights, now you say they can impinge on them if it feels like it? for no reason other than it wants to?

Do you even understand what you are typing?

 

[Frank'sRules]

Now you are just being an idiot. Who's sock is this?

Your comparison fails on its "merits"

I was thinking the same thing. He almost seems like a caricature at this point. To be "Frank" though...lol.. he is very new at this game. He might not be used to having his contentions thoroughly dissected. Liberal/intolerant websites bounce any posters the second the tiniest whisper of "maybe the cult of LGBT isn't perfectly fine" comes out. So he may not be used to any opposing opinion of his wobbly points and so he is not refined in doing his homework. Cults are kind of that way; they get weak in debate> never a need for strength training if you "disappear" all opposing forces.

vv See, he's already unraveling...he can't take that his points are being evaporated as fast as he can make them.

This from someone who makes all issues into anti-homosexual rants?

 

[martybegan]

not at all. Racial restrictions were something imposed on the existing contract. History is replete with marriages between people of differing races, clans, and tribes. Not so much with SSM.

Sorry, Doc, I can't take antibiotics, they are a recent development even though people have been using herbs to heal since mankind walked the earth. Do you have some milkweed instead?

Now you are just being an idiot. Who's sock is this?

Your comparison fails on its "merits"

Aren't you all about "tradition"? Antibiotics are new but that doesn't bother you however gay marriage is legal now and you scream Tradition, Tradition!!!!!! Go join Fiddler on the Roof.

I am about precedent and judicial restraint. Judges should leave legislating to the legislatures.

Here's your problem, they didn't legislate. They knocked down unconstitutional legislation. That is their job.

No, they expanded on equal protection and applied it to a new situation that was not equal, and can only be made equal via legislative action.

 

[Frank'sRules]

The First Amendment is alive and well, but not at the Motel 6, when checking in guests, that's a Public Accommodation. After work you can hate the fags as much as you like.

Where does the constitution say "unless you are at work?"

The same place the boss does. You want to preach about Jesus? That's on your time not mine. Get back to work, Christian.

It's also from the same place that churches get a tax break, government regulations.

Not an appropriate comparison. Again, where does the constitution say you lose your rights when you try to sell something? You are talking about an employee/employer relationship, not the same thing.

and your 2nd point has no comparison to the situation.

The rules a boss can apply are the same rules a government can apply to any business, especially one that serves the public. You don't lose your First Amendment rights but they are limited in working just as they are limited in a school. You can yell "I hate fags" all day long on the street corner but that won't cut it at McDonald's or Thomas Jefferson Elementary. Are they denying your rights, or is that just the cost of doing business?

So the government is everyone's boss now? The government is what is restricted from impinging on rights, now you say they can impinge on them if it feels like it? for no reason other than it wants to?

Do you even understand what you are typing?

The government sets the rules that all businesses are required to follow. If you don't like that then open a church. Their rules are different but they also have rules. For no rules you have to move to Somalia and deal with warlords, who also have rules, instead.

 

[Frank'sRules]

Sorry, Doc, I can't take antibiotics, they are a recent development even though people have been using herbs to heal since mankind walked the earth. Do you have some milkweed instead?

Now you are just being an idiot. Who's sock is this?

Your comparison fails on its "merits"

Aren't you all about "tradition"? Antibiotics are new but that doesn't bother you however gay marriage is legal now and you scream Tradition, Tradition!!!!!! Go join Fiddler on the Roof.

I am about precedent and judicial restraint. Judges should leave legislating to the legislatures.

Here's your problem, they didn't legislate. They knocked down unconstitutional legislation. That is their job.

No, they expanded on equal protection and applied it to a new situation that was not equal, and can only be made equal via legislative action.

No. You are wrong. The Loving decision killed unconstitutional legislative actions. The same as the gay marriage ruling.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

However it was done, some of our most important freedoms have been taken from us. Freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom to contract have all been taken away. The time to run about yelling this is wrong has passed. Yes it is wrong. What do we do about it?

Gays have the right to marry and nothing will change that until the collapse of the country. The right of the people who choose not to participate in depravity must be protected. That's the fight.

 

[Silhouette]

Here's your problem, they didn't legislate. They knocked down unconstitutional legislation. That is their job.

No, they expanded on equal protection and applied it to a new situation that was not equal, and can only be made equal via legislative action.

Correct. The Judicial Branch's "job" is not to exceed their limits of power. And the 7th Circuit federal court of appeals in Hively v Ivy Tech this year just reaffirmed that as correctly the job of the Legislature when it denied sexual orientation coverage under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Of course as they sat there deliberating on Hively, they realized that homosexuality is not the only sexual orientation! Hence the reason it isn't covered and cannot even have Judicial-overreach cover it because it is so poorly understood of a behavioral phenomenon. I mean, with necrophila, copraphilia, beastiality, polyamory, incest and on and on...the 7th knew you could not draw the line. Come one, come all; that's how "equality" works.

Only the Legislature can add a brand spanking new class to the Constitution. Sex behaviors are not a race of people. Nor are they a religion...officially...yet...

 

[martybegan]

Where does the constitution say "unless you are at work?"

The same place the boss does. You want to preach about Jesus? That's on your time not mine. Get back to work, Christian.

It's also from the same place that churches get a tax break, government regulations.

Not an appropriate comparison. Again, where does the constitution say you lose your rights when you try to sell something? You are talking about an employee/employer relationship, not the same thing.

and your 2nd point has no comparison to the situation.

The rules a boss can apply are the same rules a government can apply to any business, especially one that serves the public. You don't lose your First Amendment rights but they are limited in working just as they are limited in a school. You can yell "I hate fags" all day long on the street corner but that won't cut it at McDonald's or Thomas Jefferson Elementary. Are they denying your rights, or is that just the cost of doing business?

So the government is everyone's boss now? The government is what is restricted from impinging on rights, now you say they can impinge on them if it feels like it? for no reason other than it wants to?

Do you even understand what you are typing?

The government sets the rules that all businesses are required to follow. If you don't like that then open a church. Their rules are different but they also have rules. For no rules you have to move to Somalia and deal with warlords, who also have rules, instead.

What part of the 1st amendment limits religious freedom only to Churches?

And your resort to argumentum ad absurdum is noted.