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

[jillian]

wonderful news for individual rights

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

Yet we consider slavery and the rape of slave women a perversion and immorality and they all made sure the right to own slaves and do with them as property was protected.

I've also made mention of the fact that women were denied the vote and blacks were 3/5 of a person. hence my not idolizing a bunch of politicians who were of their time.

 

[jillian]

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

but they do apply.

 

[jillian]

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

well, i'd say its a pretty good bet that if your state went rogue like idiots think it should, your little social security nest egg would probably dry up.

oops.

 

[martybegan]

wonderful news for individual rights

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

the founders made sure that your religious judgments cannot be imposed on others.

The idea was to prevent the government from imposing a religion on PEOPLE, not other people practicing their religion and harming no one.

Having to go to another baker is not harm.

it was both. and one can't exist without the other.

the whole point is that your extremist religious views are what they are. I don't really care what they are. but no religion was ever supposed to be given preferential treatment.

so do us a favor and don't interfere what is acceptable in others' belief systems.

YOU are the one who wants government to interfere in other's belief systems, not me. YOU are the one forcing people to decide between faith or pursing their career of choice. YOU are the one who loves smashing people who disagree with you with the hammer of government.

My views are irrelevant here, what matters is the process, the process that you and your ilk seem to ignore or bastardize as long as you get what you want.

 

[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."

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 ?

you prefer bigot? ok.

 

[rightwinger]

wonderful news for individual rights

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

Yet we consider slavery and the rape of slave women a perversion and immorality and they all made sure the right to own slaves and do with them as property was protected.

I've also made mention of the fact that women were denied the vote and blacks were 3/5 of a person. hence my not idolizing a bunch of politicians who were of their time.

Blacks were not persons at all, they were property

The 3/5ths only applied to apportioning representatives that would keep them as property

 

[martybegan]

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

but they do apply.

They only apply because evidently they are the best way to crush those who disagree with you, i.e. BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE PEASANT!

 

[bodecea]

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.

Then, let us hope that some gay person comes to be hired and you make it very very clear you will not hire them because they are gay.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

I'm not gay you POS pansy.

 

[martybegan]

Marriage equality steps on no one.

Marriage equality hurts neither Marty nor Stephanie.

View attachment 32622

My owning a firearm harms no one, but progressives seem to ignore the 2nd amendment to make it harder for me to get one.

and that text is actually IN the constitution, and you assholes bastardize it every chance you get.

 

[jillian]

wonderful news for individual rights

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

the founders made sure that your religious judgments cannot be imposed on others.

The idea was to prevent the government from imposing a religion on PEOPLE, not other people practicing their religion and harming no one.

Having to go to another baker is not harm.

it was both. and one can't exist without the other.

the whole point is that your extremist religious views are what they are. I don't really care what they are. but no religion was ever supposed to be given preferential treatment.

so do us a favor and don't interfere what is acceptable in others' belief systems.

YOU are the one who wants government to interfere in other's belief systems, not me. YOU are the one forcing people to decide between faith or pursing their career of choice. YOU are the one who loves smashing people who disagree with you with the hammer of government.

My views are irrelevant here, what matters is the process, the process that you and your ilk seem to ignore or bastardize as long as you get what you want.

fist. take a deep breath. frankly, i'm unsure as to why you give a flying that two adult people who love each other can get married. i'm not sure why it makes you turn into a venom spewing extremist. I've not always found you to be this angry.

what process? the court has ALWAYS put the kibosh on unconstitutional actions by bigots. well, when it gets things right.

and, frankly, my gay friends have as much right to have their relationships recognized by the state as you do.

 

[Czernobog]

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.>>>>

The problem is, WW, unless you are talking about an appointment only business where one does not allow the public access, there is no such thing as a "private business". That's the point. If you have a truly private business - one in which you have no access to the public, and potential customers can only avail themselves of your services by referral and appointment, then public accommodation laws don't apply to you. The only time you become subject to the public accommodation laws is when you are open to the public. See how that "public" thing is kind of important to the concept?

 

[Czernobog]

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

They don't.

 

[jillian]

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.

I think the problem is you are confused about who belongs in this country

 

[martybegan]

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

the founders made sure that your religious judgments cannot be imposed on others.

The idea was to prevent the government from imposing a religion on PEOPLE, not other people practicing their religion and harming no one.

Having to go to another baker is not harm.

it was both. and one can't exist without the other.

the whole point is that your extremist religious views are what they are. I don't really care what they are. but no religion was ever supposed to be given preferential treatment.

so do us a favor and don't interfere what is acceptable in others' belief systems.

YOU are the one who wants government to interfere in other's belief systems, not me. YOU are the one forcing people to decide between faith or pursing their career of choice. YOU are the one who loves smashing people who disagree with you with the hammer of government.

My views are irrelevant here, what matters is the process, the process that you and your ilk seem to ignore or bastardize as long as you get what you want.

fist. take a deep breath. frankly, i'm unsure as to why you give a flying that two adult people who love each other can get married. i'm not sure why it makes you turn into a venom spewing extremist. I've not always found you to be this angry.

what process? the court has ALWAYS put the kibosh on unconstitutional actions by bigots. well, when it gets things right.

and, frankly, my gay friends have as much right to have their relationships recognized by the state as you do.

Again, if it is via the state legislature changing the marriage contract, I have no issue with it. I would probably vote for it.

My issue is with courts making up rights, because the same courts can make shit up to take them away. My other issue is with PA laws that force people to either compromise their religious beliefs, or abandon their preferred way of making a living. PA laws were meant to cover essentials, like lodging, transportation, and basic necessity purchasing, they were not meant to protect the feelings of a couple that has to call another baker/photographer for their wedding.

And what really gets my goat is the same people who are OK with making crap up in the constitution are A-OK with ignoring another part of it when it suits them.

The fact you have to accuse of me of some non existent bigotry is sad.

 

[Seawytch]

Where is the part of the equal protection clause that specifically states it's only to apply to race issues?

We all know the intent of the amendment, its a historical fact. It's being stretched beyond its intent. Its that simple.

And yet, if that was the only intent, race would have been mentioned specifically wouldn't it? Loving was not the only marriage case that cited the 14th...and that one wasn't about race.

You assume that same sex and opposite sex marriage are the equal, they are not, no matter how much you wish it to be.

Your bigoted opinion of gays is irrelevant. The only reason they are unequal at this point is because of Section 2 of the Unconstitutional DOMA. That will fall soon enough.

Tell me, precisely, why you believe my civil marriage license, issued by my state, should be treated differently than yours?

Did your state ratify it via legislative action, or judicial fiat?

And facts can't be bigoted.

Facts can't be, but you saying that marriage between gays and marriage between heterosexuals isn't equal IS bigoted. In half the states now it is equal. Can you explain why you believe that my civil marriage license should be treated differently than yours?

 

[jillian]

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

How has Nullification worked out in the past?

neo-confederate insurrectionists are funny.

 

[jillian]

the founders made sure that your religious judgments cannot be imposed on others.

The idea was to prevent the government from imposing a religion on PEOPLE, not other people practicing their religion and harming no one.

Having to go to another baker is not harm.

it was both. and one can't exist without the other.

the whole point is that your extremist religious views are what they are. I don't really care what they are. but no religion was ever supposed to be given preferential treatment.

so do us a favor and don't interfere what is acceptable in others' belief systems.

YOU are the one who wants government to interfere in other's belief systems, not me. YOU are the one forcing people to decide between faith or pursing their career of choice. YOU are the one who loves smashing people who disagree with you with the hammer of government.

My views are irrelevant here, what matters is the process, the process that you and your ilk seem to ignore or bastardize as long as you get what you want.

fist. take a deep breath. frankly, i'm unsure as to why you give a flying that two adult people who love each other can get married. i'm not sure why it makes you turn into a venom spewing extremist. I've not always found you to be this angry.

what process? the court has ALWAYS put the kibosh on unconstitutional actions by bigots. well, when it gets things right.

and, frankly, my gay friends have as much right to have their relationships recognized by the state as you do.

Again, if it is via the state legislature changing the marriage contract, I have no issue with it. I would probably vote for it.

My issue is with courts making up rights, because the same courts can make shit up to take them away. My other issue is with PA laws that force people to either compromise their religious beliefs, or abandon their preferred way of making a living. PA laws were meant to cover essentials, like lodging, transportation, and basic necessity purchasing, they were not meant to protect the feelings of a couple that has to call another baker/photographer for their wedding.

And what really gets my goat is the same people who are OK with making crap up in the constitution are A-OK with ignoring another part of it when it suits them.

The fact you have to accuse of me of some non existent bigotry is sad.

federal law trumps state law. and, if I've mischaracterized you, i'm sorry. I can only go by what I see. and, to be fair, most states' rights extremists are only states rights extremists because they're still pissed off about brown v board of ed, outlawing segregation and theocracy.... none of which is permissible anywhere but in the extremes of the right.

 

[jillian]

and martybegan the states rights battle was lost at the end of the civil war. perhaps its time to get over it.

 

[jillian]

wonderful news for individual rights

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

Yet we consider slavery and the rape of slave women a perversion and immorality and they all made sure the right to own slaves and do with them as property was protected.

I've also made mention of the fact that women were denied the vote and blacks were 3/5 of a person. hence my not idolizing a bunch of politicians who were of their time.

Blacks were not persons at all, they were property

The 3/5ths only applied to apportioning representatives that would keep them as property

I know. but I was making a particular point.