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

[bigrebnc1775]

go ahead break your neck doing it. the dramatics

He's dead to me. And dead to this state.

go shoot yourself then

Homophobic bigoted POS republicans have no place in my government.

You have no god damn place in my country leave faggot.

they're just showing their so called "tolerance" for others they crow they are famous for having more of. disagree with them and you get called all kinds of cute little names because they are so empty of anything else

At least I'm not a hypocrite like they are I am very intolerant to their perversions and abnormal acts

 

[Stephanie]

this what CRUZ actually said. so some of you get your razor blades and wrist ready

SNIP:
Allowing Lower Court Rulings on Same-Sex Marriage to Stand is ‘Tragic and Indefensible,’ and ‘Judicial Activism at its Worst’
Sen. Cruz releases statement about Supreme Court actions today
October 6, 2014
|
(202) 228-7561
WASHINGTON, DC --U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, today issued the following statement regarding the Supreme Court’s decision to reject requests from five States to review state laws that prohibit same-sex marriage.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to let rulings by lower court judges stand that redefine marriage is both tragic and indefensible,” said Sen. Cruz. “By refusing to rule if the States can define marriage, the Supreme Court is abdicating its duty to uphold the Constitution. The fact that the Supreme Court Justices, without providing any explanation whatsoever, have permitted lower courts to strike down so many state marriage laws is astonishing.

“This is judicial activism at its worst. The Constitution entrusts state legislatures, elected by the People, to define marriage consistent with the values and mores of their citizens. Unelected judges should not be imposing their policy preferences to subvert the considered judgments of democratically elected legislatures.

“The Supreme Court is, de facto, applying an extremely broad interpretation to the 14th Amendment without saying a word – an action that is likely to have far-reaching consequences. Because of the Court’s decision today, 11 States will likely now be forced to legalize same-sex marriage: Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Utah, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming. And this action paves the way for laws prohibiting same-sex marriage to be overturned in any state.

“It is beyond dispute that when the 14th Amendment was adopted 146 years ago, as a necessary post-Civil War era reform, it was not imagined to also mandate same-sex marriage, but that is what the Supreme Court is implying today. The Court is making the preposterous assumption that the People of the United States somehow silently redefined marriage in 1868 when they ratified the 14th Amendment.

ALL of it here:
Allowing Lower Court Rulings on Same-Sex Marriage to Stand is 145 Tragic and Indefensible 146 and 145 Judicial Activism at its Worst 146 Ted Cruz U.S. Senator for Texas

 

[J.E.D]

wonderful news for individual rights

The founders of this country did not make sure we could have rights that protected perversions and immorality

They made sure we have the right to be free. And that means the freedom to marry the person of your choice. And that's what the SC ensured by refusing to hear the appeals of bigoted attorneys general. Sorry, Bigderp, you lose.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If you are baker or photographer and have a business in a state that covers gays in Public Accommodation Laws then you have to follow the law. You can't offer a public service and then deny service for those covered under PA laws.

Several years ago Muslims cabbies refuses fares on the grounds that it violated their faith. They were violating PA law and ordered not to do so again. That was seen a slap against "creeping sharia" and radical Islam. Christian bakers were told they also can't use their faith as an excuse to deny a public service in states where gays are protected. Some of those same people that cheered the outcome against Muslims cabbies are now hypocritically crying about how their religious freedoms are stomped on. They can't have it both ways.

It shouldn't be both ways. I should be free to discriminate when it comes to doing business with people, and so should the Muslims.

when did muslim cabbies refuse fares?

it's easy to say that you should be free to discriminate in public accommodation when you're white male and christian.

Some Muslim Cabbies Refuse Fares Carrying Alcohol

well within their rights, says I

Now, why do you assume I'm white, Christian, and male?

so they didn't refuse to take people. they refused to take liquor? and what happened when they did tha


my assumption is that if you aren't defending minority rights, you are white, male and christian. of course, you might not be all three at once. but it's a good bet you're at least one of those.

iF you're going to play word games. I'll move on.. What are you, in kindergarten?



Minnesota s Muslim cab drivers face crackdown Reuters


Here's some that refuse to allow service animals in their cabs

By the way, what you have just essentially admitted to is that SOME discriminating is okay. Which is true, under the CRA of 1965 and all subsequent addendum SOME discrimination is alright, while others isn't. And that makes the law a blatant violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the COTUS.

How the 14th Amendment got extended to private businesses is ridiculous. No other part of the COTUS extends constitutional protections from a private business violating your rights.Not one.

The Muslim's were cited under State law and not Federal law.

The ruling against them was by Minnesota State courts and the appeal was heard by the Minnesota Court of Appeals, the decision issued by Judge Jill Flaskamp Halbrooks who is not a federal judge.


Muslim cab drivers lose round in court Minnesota Public Radio News
Jill Flaskamp Halbrooks - Judgepedia


>>>>

 

[Stephanie]

wonderful news for individual rights

The founders of this country did not make sure we could have rights that protected perversions and immorality

They made sure we have the right to be free. And that means the freedom to marry the person of your choice. And that's what the SC ensured by refusing to hear the appeals of bigoted attorneys general. Sorry, Bigderp, you lose.

who cares who you marry. marry your damn goat

 

[J.E.D]

this what CRUZ actually said. so some of you get your razor blades and wrist ready

SNIP:
Allowing Lower Court Rulings on Same-Sex Marriage to Stand is ‘Tragic and Indefensible,’ and ‘Judicial Activism at its Worst’
Sen. Cruz releases statement about Supreme Court actions today
October 6, 2014
|
(202) 228-7561
WASHINGTON, DC --U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, today issued the following statement regarding the Supreme Court’s decision to reject requests from five States to review state laws that prohibit same-sex marriage.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to let rulings by lower court judges stand that redefine marriage is both tragic and indefensible,” said Sen. Cruz. “By refusing to rule if the States can define marriage, the Supreme Court is abdicating its duty to uphold the Constitution. The fact that the Supreme Court Justices, without providing any explanation whatsoever, have permitted lower courts to strike down so many state marriage laws is astonishing.

“This is judicial activism at its worst. The Constitution entrusts state legislatures, elected by the People, to define marriage consistent with the values and mores of their citizens. Unelected judges should not be imposing their policy preferences to subvert the considered judgments of democratically elected legislatures.

“The Supreme Court is, de facto, applying an extremely broad interpretation to the 14th Amendment without saying a word – an action that is likely to have far-reaching consequences. Because of the Court’s decision today, 11 States will likely now be forced to legalize same-sex marriage: Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Utah, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Kansas, Colorado, and Wyoming. And this action paves the way for laws prohibiting same-sex marriage to be overturned in any state.

“It is beyond dispute that when the 14th Amendment was adopted 146 years ago, as a necessary post-Civil War era reform, it was not imagined to also mandate same-sex marriage, but that is what the Supreme Court is implying today. The Court is making the preposterous assumption that the People of the United States somehow silently redefined marriage in 1868 when they ratified the 14th Amendment.

ALL of it here:
Allowing Lower Court Rulings on Same-Sex Marriage to Stand is 145 Tragic and Indefensible 146 and 145 Judicial Activism at its Worst 146 Ted Cruz U.S. Senator for Texas

Who gives a shit what Pedro Cruz, the Canadian-Mexican, has to say? He's going to introduce a Constitutional amendment? Oooo we're all so scared. Good luck with that

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

It shouldn't be both ways. I should be free to discriminate when it comes to doing business with people, and so should the Muslims.

when did muslim cabbies refuse fares?

it's easy to say that you should be free to discriminate in public accommodation when you're white male and christian.

Some Muslim Cabbies Refuse Fares Carrying Alcohol

well within their rights, says I

Now, why do you assume I'm white, Christian, and male?

so they didn't refuse to take people. they refused to take liquor? and what happened when they did tha


my assumption is that if you aren't defending minority rights, you are white, male and christian. of course, you might not be all three at once. but it's a good bet you're at least one of those.

iF you're going to play word games. I'll move on.. What are you, in kindergarten?



Minnesota s Muslim cab drivers face crackdown Reuters


Here's some that refuse to allow service animals in their cabs

By the way, what you have just essentially admitted to is that SOME discriminating is okay. Which is true, under the CRA of 1965 and all subsequent addendum SOME discrimination is alright, while others isn't. And that makes the law a blatant violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the COTUS.

How the 14th Amendment got extended to private businesses is ridiculous. No other part of the COTUS extends constitutional protections from a private business violating your rights.Not one.

The Muslim's were cited under State law and not Federal law.

The ruling against them was by Minnesota State courts and the appeal was heard by the Minnesota Court of Appeals, the decision issued by Judge Jill Flaskamp Halbrooks who is not a federal judge.


Muslim cab drivers lose round in court Minnesota Public Radio News
Jill Flaskamp Halbrooks - Judgepedia


>>>>

I
And I wholeheartedly disagree with the ruling. Those Muslims should be free to serve whichever customers they see fit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I've got mixed feelings abou this. The Court again punted the football, but they are running out of places to punt it to.

clearly, the court's majority (the four liberals plus Kennedy) want to declare gay marriage for the whole country, but they want to get more coverage from the lower courts without having to pull the trigger themselves.

Lawrence and Roemer have already set the precedent. You can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. But the court doesn't want to pull that trigger on marriage - yet.

Want to bet I can't discriminate? I will never hire a faggot as long as I run my company.

You don't run a company, unless you are subcontracting in your field of employment. Thus you are not a company, merely a subcontractor. Now get off your knees.

 

[J.E.D]

wonderful news for individual rights

The founders of this country did not make sure we could have rights that protected perversions and immorality

They made sure we have the right to be free. And that means the freedom to marry the person of your choice. And that's what the SC ensured by refusing to hear the appeals of bigoted attorneys general. Sorry, Bigderp, you lose.

who cares who you marry. marry your damn goat

You're still here? I figured you'd be busy stocking your bunker. Has your head exploded yet?

 

[Stephanie]

found this on another site I posted on earlier:
Supreme Court declines to hear same-sex marriage cases making it legal in five new states Hot Air

Your religion may not like that, but as a matter of secular government, you don’t get to determine what a marriage is for other consenting adults and deny them taxpayer benefits based upon your personally preferred definition.
Good Lt on October 6, 2014 at 1:02 PM

So a secular government is free to redefine the meaning of a word to fit and advance their rights over others? How Orwellian.
At what point does the redefinition of the meaning of certain words end?
Frankly, a secular government can define a new term, ‘civil unions’ and extend to them the same rights and responsibilities as those in a ‘marriage’ without having to redefine a word or permitting a minority to leverage a tyranny over the majority in the name of ‘rights’ – where their ‘rights’ are more endowed by the secular government than the ‘rights’ of others.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I've got mixed feelings abou this. The Court again punted the football, but they are running out of places to punt it to.

clearly, the court's majority (the four liberals plus Kennedy) want to declare gay marriage for the whole country, but they want to get more coverage from the lower courts without having to pull the trigger themselves.

Lawrence and Roemer have already set the precedent. You can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. But the court doesn't want to pull that trigger on marriage - yet.

Want to bet I can't discriminate? I will never hire a faggot as long as I run my company.

You don't run a company, unless you are subcontracting in your field of employment, the which you shared with us a long time ago. Thus you are not a company, merely a subcontractor.

Companies subcontract other companies all the time , so it is possible. Probably about as likely as a mid 80s lesbian naval aviator, but possible.

 

[WorldWatcher]

when did muslim cabbies refuse fares?

it's easy to say that you should be free to discriminate in public accommodation when you're white male and christian.

Some Muslim Cabbies Refuse Fares Carrying Alcohol

well within their rights, says I

Now, why do you assume I'm white, Christian, and male?

so they didn't refuse to take people. they refused to take liquor? and what happened when they did tha


my assumption is that if you aren't defending minority rights, you are white, male and christian. of course, you might not be all three at once. but it's a good bet you're at least one of those.

iF you're going to play word games. I'll move on.. What are you, in kindergarten?



Minnesota s Muslim cab drivers face crackdown Reuters


Here's some that refuse to allow service animals in their cabs

By the way, what you have just essentially admitted to is that SOME discriminating is okay. Which is true, under the CRA of 1965 and all subsequent addendum SOME discrimination is alright, while others isn't. And that makes the law a blatant violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the COTUS.

How the 14th Amendment got extended to private businesses is ridiculous. No other part of the COTUS extends constitutional protections from a private business violating your rights.Not one.

The Muslim's were cited under State law and not Federal law.

The ruling against them was by Minnesota State courts and the appeal was heard by the Minnesota Court of Appeals, the decision issued by Judge Jill Flaskamp Halbrooks who is not a federal judge.


Muslim cab drivers lose round in court Minnesota Public Radio News
Jill Flaskamp Halbrooks - Judgepedia


>>>>

I
And I wholeheartedly disagree with the ruling. Those Muslims should be free to serve whichever customers they see fit.

I don't disagree with the ruling about Public Accommodation as it obviously complies with the laws that were written by the legislature and such laws have been upheld both at the State and Federal level as it within a State power to regulate commerce within that State.


With that said Public Accommodation laws should be repealed as applied to private business. Just because a law is "legal" doesn't mean it should exist.



>>>>

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

wonderful news for individual rights

No. It's a ruling against rights and freedom.
The gov mandating by fascist decree that all people must acknowledge and acquiesce to irrelevant kinky sex between non-procreative adults is an infringement upon rights and freedom. Not even a religious thing. Just basic logic. Something that eludes most democrats and lefties.

So, just to clarify, it is your contention that the only people who should be allowed to marry are those who can, and will, procreate? A simple yes, or no will suffice.

Your question is more detailed than can be answered by yes or no only. But you have an angle and that's why you asked it that way.
People who should be allowed to marry are those who could possibly conceive or who would provide the ideal circumstances for raising children. That, of course, being a man and a woman.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If a business can advertise privately, then I don't think public accommodation laws should apply.

 

[JakeStarkey]

wonderful news for individual rights

No. It's a ruling against rights and freedom.
The gov mandating by fascist decree that all people must acknowledge and acquiesce to irrelevant kinky sex between non-procreative adults is an infringement upon rights and freedom. Not even a religious thing. Just basic logic. Something that eludes most democrats and lefties.

So, just to clarify, it is your contention that the only people who should be allowed to marry are those who can, and will, procreate? A simple yes, or no will suffice.

Your question is more detailed than can be answered by yes or no only. But you have an angle and that's why you asked it that way.
People who should be allowed to marry are those who could possibly conceive or who would provide the ideal circumstances for raising children. That, of course, being a man and a woman.

Well, that's an opinion, I guess.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Some Muslim Cabbies Refuse Fares Carrying Alcohol

well within their rights, says I

Now, why do you assume I'm white, Christian, and male?

so they didn't refuse to take people. they refused to take liquor? and what happened when they did tha


my assumption is that if you aren't defending minority rights, you are white, male and christian. of course, you might not be all three at once. but it's a good bet you're at least one of those.

iF you're going to play word games. I'll move on.. What are you, in kindergarten?



Minnesota s Muslim cab drivers face crackdown Reuters


Here's some that refuse to allow service animals in their cabs

By the way, what you have just essentially admitted to is that SOME discriminating is okay. Which is true, under the CRA of 1965 and all subsequent addendum SOME discrimination is alright, while others isn't. And that makes the law a blatant violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the COTUS.

How the 14th Amendment got extended to private businesses is ridiculous. No other part of the COTUS extends constitutional protections from a private business violating your rights.Not one.

The Muslim's were cited under State law and not Federal law.

The ruling against them was by Minnesota State courts and the appeal was heard by the Minnesota Court of Appeals, the decision issued by Judge Jill Flaskamp Halbrooks who is not a federal judge.


Muslim cab drivers lose round in court Minnesota Public Radio News
Jill Flaskamp Halbrooks - Judgepedia


>>>>

I
And I wholeheartedly disagree with the ruling. Those Muslims should be free to serve whichever customers they see fit.

I don't disagree with the ruling about Public Accommodation as it obviously complies with the laws that were written by the legislature and such laws have been upheld both at the State and Federal level as it within a State power to regulate commerce within that State.


With that said Public Accommodation laws should be repealed as applied to private business. Just because a law is "legal" doesn't mean it should exist.



>>>>

On a state level I would agree, states DO have the right to do so. but the CRA of 1965 is a FEDERAL law and as such, blatantly violates the 14th Amendment.

Now, I actually believe that if the law simply made ANY discrimination illegal, then it would be a constitutional law, but that isn't what the law did; instead it carves out certain criteria that can't be discriminated.

But, I see we disagree on this, and that's okay.

 

[WorldWatcher]

so they didn't refuse to take people. they refused to take liquor? and what happened when they did tha


my assumption is that if you aren't defending minority rights, you are white, male and christian. of course, you might not be all three at once. but it's a good bet you're at least one of those.

iF you're going to play word games. I'll move on.. What are you, in kindergarten?



Minnesota s Muslim cab drivers face crackdown Reuters


Here's some that refuse to allow service animals in their cabs

By the way, what you have just essentially admitted to is that SOME discriminating is okay. Which is true, under the CRA of 1965 and all subsequent addendum SOME discrimination is alright, while others isn't. And that makes the law a blatant violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the COTUS.

How the 14th Amendment got extended to private businesses is ridiculous. No other part of the COTUS extends constitutional protections from a private business violating your rights.Not one.

The Muslim's were cited under State law and not Federal law.

The ruling against them was by Minnesota State courts and the appeal was heard by the Minnesota Court of Appeals, the decision issued by Judge Jill Flaskamp Halbrooks who is not a federal judge.


Muslim cab drivers lose round in court Minnesota Public Radio News
Jill Flaskamp Halbrooks - Judgepedia


>>>>

I
And I wholeheartedly disagree with the ruling. Those Muslims should be free to serve whichever customers they see fit.

I don't disagree with the ruling about Public Accommodation as it obviously complies with the laws that were written by the legislature and such laws have been upheld both at the State and Federal level as it within a State power to regulate commerce within that State.


With that said Public Accommodation laws should be repealed as applied to private business. Just because a law is "legal" doesn't mean it should exist.



>>>>

On a state level I would agree, states DO have the right to do so. but the CRA of 1965 is a FEDERAL law and as such, blatantly violates the 14th Amendment.

Now, I actually believe that if the law simply made ANY discrimination illegal, then it would be a constitutional law, but that isn't what the law did; instead it carves out certain criteria that can't be discriminated.

But, I see we disagree on this, and that's okay.

The Muslim cab driver case had nothing to do with Federal law. It was based on State law and decided by State Courts.


>>>>

 

[dcraelin]

I never thought the Supreme Court would rule on any of these cases. They learned their lesson with Roe v Wade. They won't repeat it with same sex marriage.
It looks like the activists that wanted a ruling legalizing same sex marriage in the whole of the US are just out of luck.

Well...not really. It's just going to be a slower process. The courts are letting it be done circuit by circuit. Guess what? That's working, too. It's just taking longer. That's fine with me. The activists who want to keep gays from enjoying the same rights, and privileges as everyone else are clearly losing this fight. Marriage equality will now clearly be the law of the land in well over half of the country. The rest is bound to follow.

I've read that the phrase "the law of the land" was prominently used by the kings court of England...which was part of the tyranny the founders fought to get out from under. I think the S Court today recognized the danger in gay-marriage as a "right" ....so they weaseled their way out. Pathetic really...but somewhat better than calling it a "right". Marshall justified judicial review in part by saying all cases should be heard.....not this bull shit, where even tho they have more clerks and bigger budgets than ever, they routinely turn down cases......It shows a need for judicial reform.

You get that the Supreme Court's move today not only has the effect of striking down the gay marriage ban in each of these cases, but also made the bans in the other eleven states in their jurisdiction invalid, as well. It sounds a whole lot like the Supreme Court just recognized the federal circuit courts' decision that gay marriage is a right. This just increased the number of states that recognize marriage equality from a paltry 19 minority to an impressive 30 majority of the nation.

I keep hearing the media say that it extends to 11 states but I dont see why, I would think that would still depend on state by state cases,... but whatever,even if it does, I still see it as weaseling out of a definitive ruling. .....As I understand Marshall, if the court doesn't take every case presented, it undermines its moral authority to judge the Constitutionality of the law.

Also why do you care about 30 states being a majority????....your basing your validation on the decision of what 4 people?

 

[dilloduck]

wonderful news for individual rights

The founders of this country did not make sure we could have rights that protected perversions and immorality

Actually, the founders of this country pointedly remained silent on the issue of morality, while framing The Constitution. This would be because they did not feel it was the job of government to mandate morality.

Want to bet they didn't?
Who said this?
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Probably John Adams. Since you are neither moral nor righteous, you don't need to worry about it.

ahh judgemental is the PC correct word for these decisions ?

 

[Stephanie]

So what would happen if the states just refused to follow the lower courts decisions?

The people in this country better wake up to this judical actitivism taking away the rights of the states you live in