2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,236
- 52,459
- Thread starter
- #181
Gee, and if you could quote me saying what you said I did, you'd man-up and do it. Since you can't...what does it say about your "manhood"?Of course you don't its a Wiki article, and thus conforms to the progressive viewpoint due to editing. You were the one denying it was a contract, and I have shown your ignorance on this.AND THERE GO THE GOALPOSTS!!!
No, you showed me what the basis for your reasoning is and I showed you how flawed it was that this supposed "contract" doesn't include one thing about sex or race for that matter.
It used to be all whites married other whites, blacks married other blacks, etc... That changed and the ship of State has continued to sail just fine despite morons who try to row the boat in the other direction.It has been always been one man and one woman in this country, its only in the first 2 decades of the 2000's that that has changed.
And if you guys want it changed the right way, by changing the law State by State by legislative action, I am all for it, I am just against forcing it judicially, and more so, forcing people to accept it privately on pain of ruin.
Marriages need to be recognized by all 50 states. Can you imagine a flight from California to Florida...for half the time when you're over the deep South, you and your partner won't be married.
No goalposts moved. You stated marriage was not a contract, and I proved you wrong. I used a wiki article that clearly defines it as a contract. Nice attempted gotcha, but only in your mind.
Pure BS.
Never made such a statement--quote me if you can.
And for "proof" you reached some wiki source that you didn't provide a link for.
Try again.
The "contract" didn't mention sex or race must be the same or different.Again, race does not equal orientation.
Should people have to obey imaginary street signs as well? Maybe the ones that limit water fountains to whites only should say "heterosexual only" in your book?
Finally, the Court can decide FF&C applies, and force States to RECOGNIZE other marriages from other States regardless of orientation, and I would have zero issue with it, as there is precedent for that with regards to things like age requirements, and first cousin marriage. What the Court SHOULDN'T do is force a State to ISSUE marriages it doesn't want to with regards to SSM.
Gee, for someone so interested in making sure a baker who opens a public business isn't traumatized by baking a cake...you sure seem more than happy to erect artificial barrier after artificial barrier so other Americans can have equal rights.
Your statement was clear, you were trying to be snarky, got caught on it, and now refuse to admit it. Typical progressive.
Legalized discrimination was blown away by federal action. Your attempt to hold on to the last vestiges of a sad yesterday in America will be just as successful.And again, going back to 1960's governmental and institutional racism, and trying to equate it to the current situation. Just repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.
Equal rights apply to government making sure it treats people equally, you are talking about one citizen interacting with another, two different concepts.
So if they didn't want to bake a cake for a black person...they could do that and you'd be happy about it since that is what they are doing now..."interacting"....right?
Only government activity should be completely free of discrimination...since the goverment represents all citizens.....but private business....think of it like your home...you can hire or fire any service you want in your home....for now...until they get around to forcing you to not discriminate in hiring your plumber, electrician and handy men....and that day will come....