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

[AceRothstein]

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.

Bigreb is a mop boy for the private booths at an adult bookstore.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

wonderful news for individual rights

Unless you are a baker or a photographer.

This doesn't make any sense.

The cases under review concerned 14th Amendment jurisprudence, not Commerce Clause jurisprudence authorizing public accommodations laws.

Your disdain for the civil rights of gay Americans only exposes your ignorance and stupidity.

 

[sameech]

I live in Virginia. Our local Clerk of Court office says that it won't issue any marriage licenses for same sex couples until it receives clarification of the law/direction from Richmond requiring them to do so since the current statutes do not authorize it. This Dillon Rule stuff will have to be sorted out.

I don't see how that applies. Your local Clerk of Court is demanding "clarification" of a law that has already been clarified. The court has rolled back the "between one man, and one woman" clause that was added to the law. Insisting that the Clerk of Court has no "authority" to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples only works if that same clerk is also insisting that they do not have the authority to issue marriage licenses to any couple. Otherwise all it is is a delaying tactic to avoid having to abide by the ruling of the court.

Courts don't demand clarifications of laws. The Clerk need clarification of the procedures. As it turns out, the Attorney General's Office and the State Supreme Court had already worked to have the necessary changes to required paperwork in anticipation of the possible outcome. Those forms just had to be distributed. The State Supreme Court electronically distributed the new licensing form today and expects to have the remaining forms available tomorrow so that weddings can take place. It wasn't like they could just scratch through "Bride" and replace it with "Other Groom" on their existing forms because MSNBC says so.

And no the SCOTUS did not "roll back" the law because same sex couples could not marry prior to the amendment having been passed. The SCOTUS did not decide the case at all. It is still unsettled law in 20 states.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.



>>>>

Private businesses function as a part of their local markets, where their actions effect all other interrelated markets. Allowing private businesses to refuse to accommodate patrons because of their race, religion, or sexual orientation would be disruptive to both the local market and those other interrelated markets, hence the validity of public accommodations laws as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

Public accommodations laws are therefore necessary, proper, and Constitutional, not merely 'legal,' where advocacy for their repeal is unwarranted.

 

[Czernobog]

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."

I see your Adams, and raise you a Jefferson:
"All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution."

 

[Czernobog]

I'm going to do EVERYTHING in my power to make sure Cruz is never re-elected in this state.

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.

You have your own country! Wow, I'm impressed! I've never actually talked to royalty before. What's it called?

 

[Czernobog]

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.

Yeah...you know it's easy to spew stupid homophobic bullshit when you're anonymous. I hope you are stupid enough to make that opinion known out in the real world where you will actually have to suffer the consequences of your stupidity.

 

[hipeter924]

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.

Yeah...you know it's easy to spew stupid homophobic bullshit when you're anonymous. I hope you are stupid enough to make that opinion known out in the real world where you will actually have to suffer the consequences of your stupidity.

Whats funny too is that he thinks he can tell who is gay and who is not. Some people who dated girls and appeared straight back in my school days turned out to be gay, and I have met a few in the closet gays who are straight and macho in appearance but actually gay in private.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

I don't get it The supreme court decided not to hear any cases regrading faggots rights to marriage because it's viewed as a states issue, but it is the federal appointed judges ruled states cannot make this decision. When the lower FEDERAL courts overturn thew will of the people of each state it made it a federal issue. Didn't the supreme court say let the states decide?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Yeah...you know it's easy to spew stupid homophobic bullshit when you're anonymous. I hope you are stupid enough to make that opinion known out in the real world where you will actually have to suffer the consequences of your stupidity.

I'm not anonymous you fucking idiot govco knows where I am. You can bet your last fucking dollar I will never hire a faggot to work for me. I'd shut my business down before I would.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

TOLERANCE

Not acceptance.

Is it so hard to tolerate someone else? Must we all conform to a narrow template of morality? Who arbitrates this morality? Used to be Queen Victoria, but that was under the aegis of the throne in Great Britain. But in America?

The government is mandating that two consenting adults without a blood relationship may avail themselves of the benefits and protections of the marriage contract.

Why do you have a problem with that? Will same sex marriage ruin your marriage?

You are just a bigot whose world is shrinking. Tough.

Looks like my post went over your head, too. Tolerance means not interfering. Forced acquiescence is interference. Homos want to force their irrelevant behavior onto others. That is the opposite of tolerance.

I cannot see any correlation between marriage equality and anyone force(ing) their irrelevant behavior onto others. Do heterosexual married couples 'force' their lives upon yours?

When they create children they have. On those children by their mere existence and others in the sense that new people exist to affect society. Homos cannot create children therefore no need to involve the government or others.

I know several homosexual women who became pregnant and gave birth to a child.

All they need is sperm. A sperm bank can provide that. Or a male friend can.

The reproductive organs in homosexual women work the exact same way as they do in heterosexual women.

As I can well attest. I've used donated sperm from a friend and IVF. Everything worked just fine. Five healthy babies.

Is your friend raising his children? If not, you've selfishly denied those kids the natural right to be raised by their father. Shame on your conservative ass!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Yeah...you know it's easy to spew stupid homophobic bullshit when you're anonymous. I hope you are stupid enough to make that opinion known out in the real world where you will actually have to suffer the consequences of your stupidity.

Whats funny too is that he thinks he can tell who is gay and who is not. Some people who dated girls and appeared straight back in my school days turned out to be gay, and I have met a few in the closet gays who are straight and macho in appearance but actually gay in private.

Firing would also be an option if that ever happen. But when I hire people I do background check I talk with their neighbors family members References are required before being hired.

 

[Politico]

Not sure why this happened. By taking the cases they could have set precedent for the entire country, now the rulings vary by which circuit the original cases were held in.

It is clear why it happened. They are a bunch of pussies motivated by politics rather than the law.

 

[Qball]

This is just a gross misuse of the separation of powers doctrine and blatantly ignoring the people's will. Seriously ask yourself: how much acceptance will gays have if gay marriage is just going to be rammed through by shenanigans like this? Let the Circuit Courts strike down duly passed constitutional amendments and state laws, and then the SCOTUS just lets those lower court rulings stand because it's easier than doing it themselves. And why is it okay to pick-and-choose when we're going to acknowledge the majority? When a poll says a majority supports gay marriage, it's hailed as the gospel. But when the majority actually votes and doesn't approve of it, it's okay to just get that overturned on principle. Somebody name me one other supposed "civil right" that has been enacted through judges essentially legislating from the bench.

You get that he court isn't about "acknowledging the majority", right? If "the majority" of Americans said "It is okay to shoot blond people on Sundays", the Court would still be obliged to say, "No, it isn't", because the Court's job is to decide if a law is constitutional, or not; not whether the majority of Americans like a particular law, or not.

True, but you have to toe a fine line between determining constitutionality and legislating from the bench. It's an easier remedy to have a judge strike down a law than it is for the governing body to coalesce around one issue, which is why gay marriage advocates like the legal remedies option.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Make sure you tell them that when you don't hire them.

Or better yet, when you find out that your employee is gay, make sure you let him know that's why you're firing him.

 

[jillian]

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.



>>>>

Private businesses function as a part of their local markets, where their actions effect all other interrelated markets. Allowing private businesses to refuse to accommodate patrons because of their race, religion, or sexual orientation would be disruptive to both the local market and those other interrelated markets, hence the validity of public accommodations laws as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

Public accommodations laws are therefore necessary, proper, and Constitutional, not merely 'legal,' where advocacy for their repeal is unwarranted.

and your assessment doesn't even take into consideration what happens to the parties discriminated against in a homogeneous market where "anti's" control the supply of goods and services.

they want to go back to an era where you could humiliate someone and prevent them from eating in your restaurant, purchasing your goods, staying at your inn if some bigot disapproves of your religion/color/sexual orientation

 

[jillian]

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."

I see your Adams, and raise you a Jefferson:
"All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution."

ultimately, they forget that the founders were the politicians of their day. they did not all agree about all things. but they set up a government that allowed for people to disagree about things like religion and made sure government would stay out of their religion and they'd keep their religion out of our government.

 

[Seawytch]

One, this is an issue about law, not culture.

Two, if we bring in culture, the millennials (who all can vote in 2016) overwhelmingly support this news.

Three, they outnumber the social con right.

Four, this is over.

I'd slightly disagree. Millennials support gay marriage insofar as they associate disagreement with it with the Christian right and homophobia. They look at the debate over gay marriage as being a referendum on homosexuality, and "who cares about people who are gay???", so thus, they "support" it. But, like you said, this is an issue about law, not culture.

I would also suggest you could polarize even the "millennials" by fully explaining that gay marriage isn't simply being "legalized", it's being declared the law by judges. It might be all well and good now, but let a Republican administration or Republican-appointed judge do something similar and suddenly they will get that pesky separation of powers doctrine actually has a purpose.

You should try actually looking at the polls and the poll questions. Look at the actual question. It's not "should gays be left alone to be gay". The question is, in essence; "should marriage for gays be legal just like marriage for straights"

 

[Seawytch]

I am asking about your concept of 'forced acquiescence'. Please clarify.

When the government mandates tax breaks and subsidies and equal footing for adoption that is forced acquiescence. Tolerance is accepting homos for who they are and not interfering their own personal choices. That is all fine. But forcing others to grant privileges to homos in the name of their personal choices is forced acquiescence. It is fascism.

No, it's equality. Tax breaks are granted to parents, married couples, the uber wealthy and corporations leaving the country. Now, which of these groups forced acquiescence upon you? The marriage license is simply that. A marriage license. It's not a heterosexual license, nor is it a homosexual license. The rights, privileges and protections provided apply to each and every license.

Discriminating because of NO SOUND REASON WHATEVER is, indeed Fascism.

Any tax break afforded is a subsidy paid by the rest of the taxpayers. Using and objectionable tax break as rationale to defend and equally objectionable tax break doesn't defend either.
Granting tax breaks created with the intention of aiding child rearing to homo couples (and thereby forcing the subsidization of homo marriages), who by their very nature cannot procreate, is a fascist imposition.
There is no need to give homo marriage legal status. They can't procreate as can hetero couples. That is the only and most necessary distinction. There is no denying rights or any undue discrimination.

Moron...we get the tax breaks for the kids regardless of whether we are married or not.

Dumbass, homos can't have kids together.

You mean they have to adopt kids, use IVF or artificial insemination just like millions of straight couples? No shit. Does that change the FACT that gays do have children that are legally and emotionally "theirs"? No, it does not, but keep talking and looking more moronic, please.

 

[Stephanie]

Just face, they beat you down. They couldn't pass it by the people in the states so they used black robes activism to step on you

what a country eh?