Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wrong, again. There are many, many who are faithful to their religion who do not feel the need to fanatically force those same beliefs on everyone else through the law.I don't have to, you did, again. It's the faithful who are for traditional marriage, those who you called fanatics.Quote where I bashed a faith. In fact, I'll do you one better. I'll quote what I actually said:Walk it backNot once did I bash a faith. I bashed fanatics who want to force everyone else to behave in accordance with their faith as a matter of law. The only people who don't know the difference are the fanatics. Are you a fanatic R.D.?Which is why it's better to understand what things mean before acting like a faith bashing assOh, shit! I'm hearing a commentator suggesting that this doesn't become the law of the land in those states, but in the entire district that each of those federal district court holds jurisdiction over. That means, the bans still in place in 11 other states in those district also become invalid!
Bad news for the religious fanatics.
Now, would you like explain how "religious fanatics" morphs into "faith bashing", or would you like to just admit to your lie.
Those same faithful are not homophobic, against equality, racist or running scared because fools like yourself try to peg them as such.
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.The right loves the government controlling them. Liking saying who they can marry. They just love big government.wonderful news for individual rights
LOL.
Progressives love making people live they way the progressives want them to live, or else face government sanction or shaming.
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.
So, with this ruling it looks like 30 states will allow gay marriage
How long before Republicans drop their "one man, one woman" stance?
And thank you for demonstrating, again, the pure idiocy from the left on the matter.That's not what i said. There are many, many who are faithful to their religion who do not feel the need to fanatically force those same beliefs on everyone else through the law.I don't have to, you did, again. It's the faithful who are for traditional marriage, those who you called fanatics.Quote where I bashed a faith. In fact, I'll do you one better. I'll quote what I actually said:Walk it backNot once did I bash a faith. I bashed fanatics who want to force everyone else to behave in accordance with their faith as a matter of law. The only people who don't know the difference are the fanatics. Are you a fanatic R.D.?Which is why it's better to understand what things mean before acting like a faith bashing ass
Bad news for the religious fanatics.
Now, would you like explain how "religious fanatics" morphs into "faith bashing", or would you like to just admit to your lie.
Those same faithful are not homophobic, against equality, racist or running scared because fools like yourself try to peg them as such.
Like I said, the only people who don't see the difference between calling out the fanatics, and "bashing faith" are the fanatics. Thanks for demonstrating that you are one of the fanatics.
That would be never. Gotta love the "slippery slope" arguments of the fanatics. We don't give a shit about churches, or what the congregation of those churches do among themselves. We only care, such as in the extreme case of Westboro Baptist, what those churches do to other people, in public.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?
So says the fanatic.And thank you for demonstrating, again, the pure idiocy from the left on the matter.That's not what i said. There are many, many who are faithful to their religion who do not feel the need to fanatically force those same beliefs on everyone else through the law.I don't have to, you did, again. It's the faithful who are for traditional marriage, those who you called fanatics.Quote where I bashed a faith. In fact, I'll do you one better. I'll quote what I actually said:Walk it backNot once did I bash a faith. I bashed fanatics who want to force everyone else to behave in accordance with their faith as a matter of law. The only people who don't know the difference are the fanatics. Are you a fanatic R.D.?
Bad news for the religious fanatics.
Now, would you like explain how "religious fanatics" morphs into "faith bashing", or would you like to just admit to your lie.
Those same faithful are not homophobic, against equality, racist or running scared because fools like yourself try to peg them as such.
Like I said, the only people who don't see the difference between calling out the fanatics, and "bashing faith" are the fanatics. Thanks for demonstrating that you are one of the fanatics.
wonderful news for individual rights
Unless you are a baker or a photographer.
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.
This is the typical "one size fits all" approach of PA laws that is quite frankly, stupid.
I am not exactly wild about PA laws myself but sadly it appears they are still needed. I believe most states don't cover gays under PA laws, my state is one of them in fact.
PA laws are needed for any form of government service, or quasi-government service. I can also see the need for them for such essential services as transportation, lodging, and basic food-stuff provision.
What they are not needed for are non-essential services, nor to protect the feelings of people. They are designed to prevent systemic discrimination in the public square, not forcing someone to go against their morals.
True. But the "bad decision" wasn't that they legalized abortion; the "bad decision" was that they ruled on the wrong issue. This wasn't really the fault of the court, but on the part of the lawyers who argued the case. This should never have been a question of the very narrow issue of "right of privacy" between a doctor and his/her patient. It should have been argued as a case of "right of ownership" of one's own body. That would have made the decision much more definitive, and had a much more comprehensive impact on the question of individual liberty.Someone needs a lesson on STATES RIGHTS
It was accepted long ago that the Supreme Court made a very bad decision when it legalized abortion with the decision in Roe v. Wade. That decision is what set every subsequent battle over abortion rights. That's why they refused to hear these cases and left it to the states. If they had left abortion as a decision to be made by the states none of that would have happened. These justices weren't about to repeat that mistake which would drag every same sex marriage challenge to the federal level just like abortion has been dragged to the federal level.
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?
Oh! But that's just it! That would have decided, once and for all, that a fetus is not an "individual", and this "debate' would have been over 40 years ago. As to the "can you sell your body" question, my opinion is, and has always been, yes. I have always been opposed to prostitution laws. But, then, I have always been opposed to any laws that were designed to "protect us from ourselves". That was never the intent of law. The intent of Law was always to protect me from you. When we decided to start protecting me from myself, we created a whole new class of law that invariably infringes on individual liberty.True. But the "bad decision" wasn't that they legalized abortion; the "bad decision" was that they ruled on the wrong issue. This wasn't really the fault of the court, but on the part of the lawyers who argued the case. This should never have been a question of the very narrow issue of "right of privacy" between a doctor and his/her patient. It should have been argued as a case of "right of ownership" of one's own body. That would have made the decision much more definitive, and had a much more comprehensive impact on the question of individual liberty.Someone needs a lesson on STATES RIGHTS
It was accepted long ago that the Supreme Court made a very bad decision when it legalized abortion with the decision in Roe v. Wade. That decision is what set every subsequent battle over abortion rights. That's why they refused to hear these cases and left it to the states. If they had left abortion as a decision to be made by the states none of that would have happened. These justices weren't about to repeat that mistake which would drag every same sex marriage challenge to the federal level just like abortion has been dragged to the federal level.
If it had been an argument over ownership interests it would have been even worse. To have a ruling that an individual was subject to ownership would have unleashed a terrible precedent. If you in fact "own" your body, can you sell it? Can you sell it as an ownership interest
That, too, may have been true...The Roe decision set up every subsequent supreme court challenge. Had the SC left it to the states, the whole issue would have been dead by now. That's what they are hoping to do with same sex marriage. Have it legalized state by state and end any possibility of future supreme court challenges. That's what they were doing in the cases they refused to hear. They were prohibiting future cases from coming before the Supreme Court.
Oh! But that's just it! That would have decided, once and for all, that a fetus is not in "individual", and this "debate' would have been over 40 years ago.True. But the "bad decision" wasn't that they legalized abortion; the "bad decision" was that they ruled on the wrong issue. This wasn't really the fault of the court, but on the part of the lawyers who argued the case. This should never have been a question of the very narrow issue of "right of privacy" between a doctor and his/her patient. It should have been argued as a case of "right of ownership" of one's own body. That would have made the decision much more definitive, and had a much more comprehensive impact on the question of individual liberty.Someone needs a lesson on STATES RIGHTS
It was accepted long ago that the Supreme Court made a very bad decision when it legalized abortion with the decision in Roe v. Wade. That decision is what set every subsequent battle over abortion rights. That's why they refused to hear these cases and left it to the states. If they had left abortion as a decision to be made by the states none of that would have happened. These justices weren't about to repeat that mistake which would drag every same sex marriage challenge to the federal level just like abortion has been dragged to the federal level.
If it had been an argument over ownership interests it would have been even worse. To have a ruling that an individual was subject to ownership would have unleashed a terrible precedent. If you in fact "own" your body, can you sell it? Can you sell it as an ownership interest
That, too, may have been true...The Roe decision set up every subsequent supreme court challenge. Had the SC left it to the states, the whole issue would have been dead by now. That's what they are hoping to do with same sex marriage. Have it legalized state by state and end any possibility of future supreme court challenges. That's what they were doing in the cases they refused to hear. They were prohibiting future cases from coming before the Supreme Court.
Well, by not taking the case, they have set the precedent for those 7 circuits. Which will bring the count of states without same sex ban to 31. Clearly, those who oppose marriage equality are losing this fight.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 should also be noted that the Court said it will not hear any of the cases during this session. As I understand it, this still leaves them the option to pick any of the cases up at a later time...
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.The right loves the government controlling them. Liking saying who they can marry. They just love big government.wonderful news for individual rights
LOL.
Progressives love making people live they way the progressives want them to live, or else face government sanction or shaming.
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.
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.
please stop commenting about things you haven't an ounce of understanding about.
Please become an attorney before you tell others to shut up and then stop bother all of us
States are now free to replace judges and legislatures and make a different decision if they wish.
Coming from YOU? Really. YOU?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.
please stop commenting about things you haven't an ounce of understanding about.
I understand you're one of the stupidest people on the board. you should probably back away from your keyboard now. you're getting drool over it.
and your insanity does not diminish me in the least.
but thanks for playing.
you need to stop while you're ahead
Clearly, those who oppose marriage equality are losing this fight.
We have not yet begun to FIGHT. Let's see how many churches, Justices of the Peace, Town Clerks, etc.... are willing to be involved in thus when they start turning up like abortion doctors..... dead.
and you call yourself an attorney. just awfulSomeone needs a lesson on STATES RIGHTS
states don't get to violate the federal constitution
you're welcome steffie baby.
Except these weren't state courts. These were federal circuit courts, and federal appeals courts. Nice thought thought. And, I'm glad to see right-wing activists admitting that they want to install activist judges that will be more interested in supporting an agenda, than they are the law.States are now free to replace judges and legislatures and make a different decision if they wish.
