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

[Seawytch]

"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.

You said "our history". Which "our"? US history banned interracial and same sex marriages. "Our" SCOTUS found both unconstitutional. Same same

 

[Seawytch]

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.

not the same.

Exactly the same. Just because you find one icky and the other not is not sufficiently different.

 

[Frank'sRules]

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.

not the same.

Exactly the same. Just because you find one icky and the other not is not sufficiently different.

To him I bet both are icky and icky is not what we base our laws on.

 

[Pop23]

And he would stand also against polygamy marriage based on the tradition that marriage has only meant "two" people for thousands of years... You really can't make this shit up.

I agree, that's why the removal of "one man to one woman" was so tragic. Without it.........

Katie bar the door!

If there is a rational basis for limiting marriage to two adults then you have a chance. If not, out it goes. Tradition isn't enough. They tried that with interfaith and interracial marriages. They lost both of those and then lost on gay marriage. No rational basis could be found. Next Incest, kind of rational, and then plural marriage, and there's no rational basis about that at all as in, a child of divorce who now has two parents and two step-parents all of whom can care for them? How lucky for them, four for the price of two.

 

[Frank'sRules]

And he would stand also against polygamy marriage based on the tradition that marriage has only meant "two" people for thousands of years... You really can't make this shit up.

I agree, that's why the removal of "one man to one woman" was so tragic. Without it.........

Katie bar the door!

If there is a rational basis for limiting marriage to two adults then you have a chance. If not, out it goes. Tradition isn't enough. They tried that with interfaith and interracial marriages. They lost both of those and then lost on gay marriage. No rational basis could be found. Next Incest, kind of rational, and then plural marriage, and there's no rational basis about that at all as in, a child of divorce who now has two parents and two step-parents all of whom can care for them? How lucky for them, four for the price of two.

If two parents are better than one, and three parents are better than two, why wouldn't four parents be better than three or two or one? If you can't answer that then you can't work out the rational basis for why two gay parents shouldn't have the same standing as two heterosexual parents, or two homosexuals the same standing as two heterosexuals? Unlike you the courts are fairly rational. They actually can work these out and when they do, you lose.

 

[Pop23]

And he would stand also against polygamy marriage based on the tradition that marriage has only meant "two" people for thousands of years... You really can't make this shit up.

I agree, that's why the removal of "one man to one woman" was so tragic. Without it.........

Katie bar the door!

If there is a rational basis for limiting marriage to two adults then you have a chance. If not, out it goes. Tradition isn't enough. They tried that with interfaith and interracial marriages. They lost both of those and then lost on gay marriage. No rational basis could be found. Next Incest, kind of rational, and then plural marriage, and there's no rational basis about that at all as in, a child of divorce who now has two parents and two step-parents all of whom can care for them? How lucky for them, four for the price of two.

If two parents are better than one, and three parents are better than two, why wouldn't four parents be better than three or two or one? If you can't answer that then you can't work out the rational basis for why two gay parents shouldn't have the same standing as two heterosexual parents, or two homosexuals the same standing as two heterosexuals? Unlike you the courts are fairly rational. They actually can work these out and when they do, you lose.

Then why limit the number of parents at all. There are communities that just allow the local gang (gotta be hundreds of parents) raise their chillins.

That's worked exceedingly well, dun ya think?

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Your right to freely exercise your religion stops when it infringes on someone else's constitutional rights.

 

[Silhouette]

Your right to freely exercise your religion stops when it infringes on someone else's constitutional rights.

Which is funny because gay sex behaviors have ZERO enumerated rights in the Constitution: while religion is covered at length, starting in the 1st Amendment. Wonder how the impasse will be resolved? (Not really; I know who will win and who will lose; and so do you)

 

[dblack]

Your right to freely exercise your religion stops when it infringes on someone else's constitutional rights.

Which is funny because gay sex behaviors have ZERO enumerated rights in the Constitution: while religion is covered at length, starting in the 1st Amendment. Wonder how the impasse will be resolved? (Not really; I know who will win and who will lose; and so do you)

Are you of the opinion that the only rights government should protect are those enumerated in the Constitution?

 

[Silhouette]

Are you of the opinion that the only rights government should protect are those enumerated in the Constitution?

Some can be implied but nowhere is gay sex implied in the Constitution. Especially not where this fake class can kick around Christians and force them to bend to their will.

 

[Frank'sRules]

Are you of the opinion that the only rights government should protect are those enumerated in the Constitution?

Some can be implied but nowhere is gay sex implied in the Constitution. Especially not where this fake class can kick around Christians and force them to bend to their will.

Gay sex, like straight sex, is covered by the implied Right to Privacy. That also covers abortion and birth control. None of your business, homophobe.

 

[Frank'sRules]

Your right to freely exercise your religion stops when it infringes on someone else's constitutional rights.

Which is funny because gay sex behaviors have ZERO enumerated rights in the Constitution: while religion is covered at length, starting in the 1st Amendment. Wonder how the impasse will be resolved? (Not really; I know who will win and who will lose; and so do you)

At length? It's mention in one amendment. And sex of any kind isn't mentioned at all. I guess no one was meant to have sex, just pray?

 

[owebo]

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.

Your right to freely exercise your religion stops when it infringes on someone else's constitutional rights.

Indeed....

 

[owebo]

Are you of the opinion that the only rights government should protect are those enumerated in the Constitution?

Some can be implied but nowhere is gay sex implied in the Constitution. Especially not where this fake class can kick around Christians and force them to bend to their will.

Gay sex, like straight sex, is covered by the implied Right to Privacy. That also covers abortion and birth control. None of your business, homophobe.

So, as the LWNJ you are, you don't believe in abortion?

 

[Frank'sRules]

Are you of the opinion that the only rights government should protect are those enumerated in the Constitution?

Some can be implied but nowhere is gay sex implied in the Constitution. Especially not where this fake class can kick around Christians and force them to bend to their will.

Gay sex, like straight sex, is covered by the implied Right to Privacy. That also covers abortion and birth control. None of your business, homophobe.

So, as the LWNJ you are, you don't believe in abortion?

Abortion is a necessary medical procedure. It's also legal even if used when it isn't necessary.

 

[owebo]

Are you of the opinion that the only rights government should protect are those enumerated in the Constitution?

Some can be implied but nowhere is gay sex implied in the Constitution. Especially not where this fake class can kick around Christians and force them to bend to their will.

Gay sex, like straight sex, is covered by the implied Right to Privacy. That also covers abortion and birth control. None of your business, homophobe.

So, as the LWNJ you are, you don't believe in abortion?

Abortion is a necessary medical procedure. It's also legal even if used when it isn't necessary.

Oh, I thought you said you were for right to privacy....my bad....

 

[Frank'sRules]

Are you of the opinion that the only rights government should protect are those enumerated in the Constitution?

Some can be implied but nowhere is gay sex implied in the Constitution. Especially not where this fake class can kick around Christians and force them to bend to their will.

Gay sex, like straight sex, is covered by the implied Right to Privacy. That also covers abortion and birth control. None of your business, homophobe.

So, as the LWNJ you are, you don't believe in abortion?

Abortion is a necessary medical procedure. It's also legal even if used when it isn't necessary.

Oh, I thought you said you were for right to privacy....my bad....

I am.

 

[owebo]

Some can be implied but nowhere is gay sex implied in the Constitution. Especially not where this fake class can kick around Christians and force them to bend to their will.

Gay sex, like straight sex, is covered by the implied Right to Privacy. That also covers abortion and birth control. None of your business, homophobe.

So, as the LWNJ you are, you don't believe in abortion?

Abortion is a necessary medical procedure. It's also legal even if used when it isn't necessary.

Oh, I thought you said you were for right to privacy....my bad....

I am.

So you are against abortion....huh.....

 

[Frank'sRules]

Gay sex, like straight sex, is covered by the implied Right to Privacy. That also covers abortion and birth control. None of your business, homophobe.

So, as the LWNJ you are, you don't believe in abortion?

Abortion is a necessary medical procedure. It's also legal even if used when it isn't necessary.

Oh, I thought you said you were for right to privacy....my bad....

I am.

So you are against abortion....huh.....

No, why would I be?

 

[owebo]

So, as the LWNJ you are, you don't believe in abortion?

Abortion is a necessary medical procedure. It's also legal even if used when it isn't necessary.

Oh, I thought you said you were for right to privacy....my bad....

I am.

So you are against abortion....huh.....

No, why would I be?

I thought you said you were for right to privacy.....confused.....