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

[Frank'sRules]

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.....

WTH are you talking about? Abortion is a private matter.

 

[owebo]

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.....

WTH are you talking about? Abortion is a private matter.

Agreed.....what the fuck are you talking about?

 

[Frank'sRules]

I am.

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

No, why would I be?

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

WTH are you talking about? Abortion is a private matter.

Agreed.....what the fuck are you talking about?

Never mind. You are an insane little person so don't bother responding.

 

[martybegan]

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.

They are entirely the same and you are lying to yourself is you don't think so. What got taken to the Supreme Court in Loving? The law says we, two adults, can't marry and that's unfair, it has no rational basis. What got taken to the Supreme Court in gay marriage? The law says we, two adults, can't marry and that's unfair, it has no rational basis.

Both were declared invalid as unconstitutional state laws by the highest court in the land. That is how it works here.

You are arguing the how, and not the why. My argument is the how is outside the scope of the framer's intent.

 

[martybegan]

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.

The First Amendment applies to you on your own time or in your church, on your property or public property. I can't say that in my religion we smoke dope and get naked and therefore I should be able to do that both at work and at school and at home. One out of the three I might have a chance but the courts will not back me up on the first two. Why? Because rights have limitations. I can't get witch-burning or the stoning of children approved either, anywhere, it's unreasonable. Whether you like that or not I don't care, in the real world compromises are made, deals are cut. This is part of the deal.

Where does it say that you lose first amendment protections when you participate in commerce?

 

[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.

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

Not the same, and I am talking history in general.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Finding it icky has nothing to do with it. I find gummy worms icky, you don't see me trying to ban them.

The difference is biological, pure and simple.

 

[martybegan]

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.

You find bakers who refuse to bake cakes "icky", so where's the difference?

 

[owebo]

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

No, why would I be?

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

WTH are you talking about? Abortion is a private matter.

Agreed.....what the fuck are you talking about?

Never mind. You are an insane little person so don't bother responding.

It's hard speaking down to your second grade level......

You're either for the right of privacy,,or not......

 

[Seawytch]

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.

You find bakers who refuse to bake cakes "icky", so where's the difference?

I'm prohibited from refusing to serve them in my establishment. There's a big difference right there. The bigoted Christian can demand I serve him and I'd have to because the grandaddy of PA laws requires I do.

I also never tried to pass laws that would prevent them from marrying each other. Another huge difference.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Finding it icky has nothing to do with it. I find gummy worms icky, you don't see me trying to ban them.

The difference is biological, pure and simple.

Tell me that story again where you're not anti gay. I love that story.

Marty: I'm not anti gay, I just don't think gays are equal to straights.

What would we call someone who said "I'm not a bigot, I just don't think blacks are equal to whites...you know, biologically"?

 

[martybegan]

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.

You find bakers who refuse to bake cakes "icky", so where's the difference?

I'm prohibited from refusing to serve them in my establishment. There's a big difference right there. The bigoted Christian can demand I serve him and I'd have to because the grandaddy of PA laws requires I do.

I also never tried to pass laws that would prevent them from marrying each other. Another huge difference.

Do you perform a time sensitive, necessary, or point of sale service? Or a contracted service? Remember, I think PA laws have a place, not just when it comes to contracted services and hurt feelings.

So it's all about the butt hurt for you then, right?

 

[bodecea]

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.

The First Amendment applies to you on your own time or in your church, on your property or public property. I can't say that in my religion we smoke dope and get naked and therefore I should be able to do that both at work and at school and at home. One out of the three I might have a chance but the courts will not back me up on the first two. Why? Because rights have limitations. I can't get witch-burning or the stoning of children approved either, anywhere, it's unreasonable. Whether you like that or not I don't care, in the real world compromises are made, deals are cut. This is part of the deal.

Where does it say that you lose first amendment protections when you participate in commerce?

So...you don't have to get a business license?

 

[martybegan]

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.

Finding it icky has nothing to do with it. I find gummy worms icky, you don't see me trying to ban them.

The difference is biological, pure and simple.

Tell me that story again where you're not anti gay. I love that story.

Marty: I'm not anti gay, I just don't think gays are equal to straights.

What would we call someone who said "I'm not a bigot, I just don't think blacks are equal to whites...you know, biologically"?

I just don't see SSM and OSM as equal enough to warrant a court saying they are. considering I would vote for them to be made legally equal, or at least support my legislature in voting to make them equal, how does that make me anti-gay?

And blacks and whites are biologically equal except for melanin concentration.

 

[martybegan]

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.

The First Amendment applies to you on your own time or in your church, on your property or public property. I can't say that in my religion we smoke dope and get naked and therefore I should be able to do that both at work and at school and at home. One out of the three I might have a chance but the courts will not back me up on the first two. Why? Because rights have limitations. I can't get witch-burning or the stoning of children approved either, anywhere, it's unreasonable. Whether you like that or not I don't care, in the real world compromises are made, deals are cut. This is part of the deal.

Where does it say that you lose first amendment protections when you participate in commerce?

So...you don't have to get a business license?

Where does it say that you lose your 1st amendment rights when you get a business license?

 

[martybegan]

No, why would I be?

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

WTH are you talking about? Abortion is a private matter.

Agreed.....what the fuck are you talking about?

Never mind. You are an insane little person so don't bother responding.

It's hard speaking down to your second grade level......

You're either for the right of privacy,,or not......

Like most progressives, they only support rights they agree with.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

You find bakers who refuse to bake cakes "icky", so where's the difference?

I'm prohibited from refusing to serve them in my establishment. There's a big difference right there. The bigoted Christian can demand I serve him and I'd have to because the grandaddy of PA laws requires I do.

I also never tried to pass laws that would prevent them from marrying each other. Another huge difference.

Do you perform a time sensitive, necessary, or point of sale service? Or a contracted service? Remember, I think PA laws have a place, not just when it comes to contracted services and hurt feelings.

So it's all about the butt hurt for you then, right?

How you feel about them doesn't change the way the law is.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Finding it icky has nothing to do with it. I find gummy worms icky, you don't see me trying to ban them.

The difference is biological, pure and simple.

Tell me that story again where you're not anti gay. I love that story.

Marty: I'm not anti gay, I just don't think gays are equal to straights.

What would we call someone who said "I'm not a bigot, I just don't think blacks are equal to whites...you know, biologically"?

I just don't see SSM and OSM as equal enough to warrant a court saying they are. considering I would vote for them to be made legally equal, or at least support my legislature in voting to make them equal, how does that make me anti-gay?

And blacks and whites are biologically equal except for melanin concentration.

Just as sexuality isn't black and white, neither is bigotry. There are as many shades of bigotry as there are sexualities. That you think gays and straights aren't equal is anti gay. Sure, it's not full on Silhouette anti gay, but it's still there.

 

[dblack]

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

WTH are you talking about? Abortion is a private matter.

Agreed.....what the fuck are you talking about?

Never mind. You are an insane little person so don't bother responding.

It's hard speaking down to your second grade level......

You're either for the right of privacy,,or not......

Like most progressives, they only support rights they agree with.

They also seem to have forgotten the Ninth Amendment, which was written to address this misconception:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

 

[martybegan]

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.

You find bakers who refuse to bake cakes "icky", so where's the difference?

I'm prohibited from refusing to serve them in my establishment. There's a big difference right there. The bigoted Christian can demand I serve him and I'd have to because the grandaddy of PA laws requires I do.

I also never tried to pass laws that would prevent them from marrying each other. Another huge difference.

Do you perform a time sensitive, necessary, or point of sale service? Or a contracted service? Remember, I think PA laws have a place, not just when it comes to contracted services and hurt feelings.

So it's all about the butt hurt for you then, right?

How you feel about them doesn't change the way the law is.

you didn't answer the question, and again arguing the how, not the why.