Breaking News: Supreme Court Has Chosen Not To Hear Any Of The 7 Marriage Equality Cases.

[Anathema]

Maybe back in the day; however, that model is not economically feasible anymore. In most homes it takes two incomes to support the household.

Then that household has over-extended itself financially.

 

[daws101]

Now let's change the tax code so that only households that raise(d) the future generations get tax breaks.

Then we can talk equity.

Okay. I like that idea. It encourages adoption. I mean, I assume that your intention was not to exclude heterosexuals who are impotent, sterile, or have had permanent sterilization surgeries, was it?

Same sex couples are sterile by their nature, but can use invitro or adopt. Those that can't, and want the deduction, and judged competent would get the deduction

pop for senate 2014!

 

[daws101]

Maybe back in the day; however, that model is not economically feasible anymore. In most homes it takes two incomes to support the household.

Then that household has over-extended itself financially.

bullshit!

 

[Czernobog]

Oh! And martybegan, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what marriage equality is making you do now that you didn't have to do before.

It's not what it does not me, its what it does to the Republic when it is enforced by judicial fiat and not through the actions of State Legislatures changing the laws that establish the marriage contract.

Except that isn't what happened. It was you guys who all went rushing to your state legislatures to change the marriage laws to include a restriction - "one man, one woman" - that was never there before, because you didn't like those icky icky fags marrying each other. All the courts have done is said, "Nope. You don't get to change the law just because you don't like who happens to be taking advantage of it,"

Also, "The Republic" isn't a person. Your claim was that we force people to behave according to our beliefs. That means that we are actually forcing people to behave differently than they were before. So, either give us an example of how "we" are doing that, or feel free to find a different argument - preferably one that isn't quite so retarded.

The restriction was always implied, it had to be codified because of you assholes. You then went to courts and got them to create a "right" out of thin air, and violated the prerogatives of the state legislatures

No it wasn't. That is, in fact, why you guys keep losing. There was never any such "implication". You tried to change the laws, and we simply went to the courts to demand that the laws be returned to their original state. The right was always there. It was you who tried to restrict it by adding a clause that had never existed.

When government forces you to "bake or go out of business" you are forcing your beliefs on others. That is the only example one needs.

They didn't want to bake? Then why on earth did they open a bakery? That seems kind of retarded. Why would you open a business that requires you to do something you didn't want to do?

 

[Pop23]

Now let's change the tax code so that only households that raise(d) the future generations get tax breaks.

Then we can talk equity.

Okay. I like that idea. It encourages adoption. I mean, I assume that your intention was not to exclude heterosexuals who are impotent, sterile, or have had permanent sterilization surgeries, was it?

Same sex couples are sterile by their nature, but can use invitro or adopt. Those that can't, and want the deduction, and judged competent would get the deduction

pop for senate 2014!

You'd vote for a drunk!

 

[daws101]

Now let's change the tax code so that only households that raise(d) the future generations get tax breaks.

Then we can talk equity.

Okay. I like that idea. It encourages adoption. I mean, I assume that your intention was not to exclude heterosexuals who are impotent, sterile, or have had permanent sterilization surgeries, was it?

Same sex couples are sterile by their nature, but can use invitro or adopt. Those that can't, and want the deduction, and judged competent would get the deduction

pop for senate 2014!

You'd vote for a drunk!

it worked for jackson!

 

[bodecea]

So, with this ruling it looks like 30 states will allow gay marriage

How long before Republicans drop their "one man, one woman" stance?

How much longer until Progressives start going after churches and such to force "tolerance" onto everyone?

Just like they forced churches to "tolerate" inter-racial couples and inter-faith couples and formerly divorced couples.....right?

 

[Czernobog]

The constitution guarantees no such right. Next...

The First Amendment guarantees the Right of Free Association and Assembly. By extension I have a Right to choose NOT to associate with people as well.

True. You have the right to be a hermit. But if you are in a service business, particularly a business dealing with weddings, you do not have the 'right' to discriminate based on you personal fears and suspicions. If you bake wedding cakes and a same sex couple wants your services, you have NO 'RIGHT" to refuse them because they are gay. Just as you have no 'right' to refuse services to Blacks, Asian, Latinos or any other group. In other words, if you're open to the public, you must be OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

BAKE YOU DAMN PEASANT BAKE!!!!

You and your ilk have no right to be a bunch of fucking staist jackasses, but you seem to do it anyway.

FUCK YOU ALL HARD.

You do get how stupid you sound, right? You are claiming that these people opened a bakery, and didn't want to bake! it's real simple. If they don't want to bake, close the bakery, and open a business that you do want to do. No one is forcing them to be bakers.

 

[bodecea]

wonderful news for individual rights

The right loves the government controlling them. Liking saying who they can marry. They just love big government.

LOL.

Progressives love making people live they way the progressives want them to live, or else face government sanction or shaming.

Wrong, again. progressives promote policies that don't "make' people live in any way. Rather they promote policies - like marriage equality, and Pro-Choice - that allows everyone to live as they personally see fit. You see, there is nothing in the support of marriage equality that says you have to marry someone of the same sex - only that you don't get to tell anyone else that they can't. There is noting in Pro-Choice that says you must get an abortion - only that you don't get to tell anyone else that they can't.

Progressive policies allow you to believe anything you want, and to act in accordance with those believes. The only thing Progressive policies won't allow you to do is to force other people to do the same, whether they agree with you, or not.

omg, i'm going to barf. as if we couldn't DO any of that already.
one thing homosexual marraige they can't SHOVE on us so they expect the supreme court to do it for them. the brainwashing is complete on you. and you don't care how foolish you look

Let us know when you are shoved into a homosexual marriage.

 

[daws101]

The constitution guarantees no such right. Next...

The First Amendment guarantees the Right of Free Association and Assembly. By extension I have a Right to choose NOT to associate with people as well.

True. You have the right to be a hermit. But if you are in a service business, particularly a business dealing with weddings, you do not have the 'right' to discriminate based on you personal fears and suspicions. If you bake wedding cakes and a same sex couple wants your services, you have NO 'RIGHT" to refuse them because they are gay. Just as you have no 'right' to refuse services to Blacks, Asian, Latinos or any other group. In other words, if you're open to the public, you must be OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

BAKE YOU DAMN PEASANT BAKE!!!!

You and your ilk have no right to be a bunch of fucking staist jackasses, but you seem to do it anyway.

FUCK YOU ALL HARD.

You do get how stupid you sound, right? You are claiming that these people opened a bakery, and didn't want to bake! it's real simple. If they don't want to bake, close the bakery, and open a business that you do want to do. No one is forcing them to be bakers.

marty has no idea how ignorant and stupid he sounds...

 

[Czernobog]

Now let's change the tax code so that only households that raise(d) the future generations get tax breaks.

Then we can talk equity.

Okay. I like that idea. It encourages adoption. I mean, I assume that your intention was not to exclude heterosexuals who are impotent, sterile, or have had permanent sterilization surgeries, was it?

Same sex couples are sterile by their nature, but can use invitro or adopt. Those that can't, and want the deduction, and judged competent would get the deduction

Okay. I'm okay with this. Although, I think, as someone already pointed out, we already do this. That's kinda what the Child Tax Credit is...

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yep, they love activist Judges in their black robes until it comes to hobby lobby or something

this means nothing. You can't force a STATE to do anything.

Only took four posts until activist judges were mentioned.

Stephanie has a matrix, one which hold only a few responses. You will notice on some issues she is Joanie on the spot, other times she'll save her ire until she has something to echo, usually a page or two into a thread.

 

[Pop23]

Now let's change the tax code so that only households that raise(d) the future generations get tax breaks.

Then we can talk equity.

Okay. I like that idea. It encourages adoption. I mean, I assume that your intention was not to exclude heterosexuals who are impotent, sterile, or have had permanent sterilization surgeries, was it?

Same sex couples are sterile by their nature, but can use invitro or adopt. Those that can't, and want the deduction, and judged competent would get the deduction

Okay. I'm okay with this. Although, I think, as someone already pointed out, we already do this. That's kinda what the Child Tax Credit is...

That ends when the child leaves. It should not.

Why should I pay the same rate, when I produce future tax payers, then those that don't or won't?

Equity brother, equity

 

[jillian]

True. You have the right to be a hermit. But if you are in a service business, particularly a business dealing with weddings, you do not have the 'right' to discriminate based on you personal fears and suspicions. If you bake wedding cakes and a same sex couple wants your services, you have NO 'RIGHT" to refuse them because they are gay. Just as you have no 'right' to refuse services to Blacks, Asian, Latinos or any other group. In other words, if you're open to the public, you must be OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

That's why I would never own a business. That's why I would never be a Supervisor or Manager. I would end up shooting myself in the head trying to make the rules those positions are forced to work under mesh with actual morality.

riiiiight. you won't own a business because someone might make you abide by the law.

yeah, that's the ticket

 

[jillian]

Low or no morals, eh? Who arbitrates morality in your world? Who has the final judgment? What law forces you to associate with anyone else? What rights have actually been eroded? Are you forced to hang with colored boys due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Did those darkies muck up your world?.

In the world of people I associate with, I get to set the standard. I am forced to exist in a society where I may have to deal with any number of immoral individuals or at least people in positions they ought not be seen doing in a polite society because our society no longer has rules. Try to find a male bank teller when you need one. I lost out on a very nice career opportunity because it would have meant dealing with a female supervisor in an Engineering Department. Now imagine being a business owner trying to hire personnel or deal with customers if you have actual morals.

you might want to check your own morality.

perhaps start by asking WWJD?

because you're kind of offensive to anyone with actual morals

 

[Anathema]

Why should I pay the same rate, when I produce future tax payers, then those that don't or won't?

Your future tax payers use up current resources like school busses, classrooms, etc.... which many of us will never use yet still pay for.

 

[rightwinger]

Now let's change the tax code so that only households that raise(d) the future generations get tax breaks.

Then we can talk equity.

Okay. I like that idea. It encourages adoption. I mean, I assume that your intention was not to exclude heterosexuals who are impotent, sterile, or have had permanent sterilization surgeries, was it?

Same sex couples are sterile by their nature, but can use invitro or adopt. Those that can't, and want the deduction, and judged competent would get the deduction

Okay. I'm okay with this. Although, I think, as someone already pointed out, we already do this. That's kinda what the Child Tax Credit is...

That ends when the child leaves. It should not.

Why should I pay the same rate, when I produce future tax payers, then those that don't or won't?

Equity brother, equity

You expect a child tax deduction even when you no longer have children?

And you claim liberals want free stuff

 

[Czernobog]

Now let's change the tax code so that only households that raise(d) the future generations get tax breaks.

Then we can talk equity.

Okay. I like that idea. It encourages adoption. I mean, I assume that your intention was not to exclude heterosexuals who are impotent, sterile, or have had permanent sterilization surgeries, was it?

Same sex couples are sterile by their nature, but can use invitro or adopt. Those that can't, and want the deduction, and judged competent would get the deduction

Okay. I'm okay with this. Although, I think, as someone already pointed out, we already do this. That's kinda what the Child Tax Credit is...

That ends when the child leaves. It should not.

Why should I pay the same rate, when I produce future tax payers, then those that don't or won't?

Equity brother, equity

Hmmm...I don't know about that. I mean the whole point of the tax credit is supposed to be about offsetting the cost of raising that "future tax payer". Just like the marriage deduction is to offset the costs of starting a family. We don't really have any individual tax breaks that are meant to be rewards simply for the sake of rewards. I mean we do have some corporate tax breaks that are for that purpose, but those are meant to be economic incentives. To my knowledge we don't have any personal tax breaks that are designed like that.

 

[jillian]

Now let's change the tax code so that only households that raise(d) the future generations get tax breaks.

Then we can talk equity.

er... no.

er... Yes

so if someone is infertile they should have a different tax rate than someone who can have a child?

rightwingnuthackworld is funny

 

[Pop23]

Now let's change the tax code so that only households that raise(d) the future generations get tax breaks.

Then we can talk equity.

Okay. I like that idea. It encourages adoption. I mean, I assume that your intention was not to exclude heterosexuals who are impotent, sterile, or have had permanent sterilization surgeries, was it?

Same sex couples are sterile by their nature, but can use invitro or adopt. Those that can't, and want the deduction, and judged competent would get the deduction

Okay. I'm okay with this. Although, I think, as someone already pointed out, we already do this. That's kinda what the Child Tax Credit is...

That ends when the child leaves. It should not.

Why should I pay the same rate, when I produce future tax payers, then those that don't or won't?

Equity brother, equity

You expect a child tax deduction even when you no longer have children?

And you claim liberals want free stuff

Yes