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

[Pop23]

The far right has real fascination for incest and bestiality.

Funny , make the argument that incest should be legal, then



Runnnnnnnnnn

 

[Vigilante]

 

[bodecea]

The far right has real fascination for incest and bestiality.

Funny , make the argument that incest should be legal, then



Runnnnnnnnnn

Again...can't stick with gay marriage and why it shouldn't be legal. Instead you have to go off-topic.

 

[bodecea]

The far right has real fascination for incest and bestiality.

It's right up there with their continued visual descriptions of gay sex.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right has real fascination for incest and bestiality.

Funny , make the argument that incest should be legal, then Runnnnnnnnnn

That would be the far right's responsibility then.

 

[Pop23]

The far right has real fascination for incest and bestiality.

It's right up there with their continued visual descriptions of gay sex.

You mean masturbation?

 

[martybegan]

You finally get it !

Good on you

So the argument applies to incestuous marriage.

Knew you'd come around

Here's a reality check for you pops. I was always on board with incestuous marriage. What is your problem with it, exactly? Why do you give so much as a single flying fuck who anyone else marries? How does that affect you in even the tiniest little bit?

So what your saying is society has no right to interfere in ANYTHING, except of course forcing a baker to make a cake for a gay wedding.

That's consistency for ya.

Society has no right to interfere in anything that does not involve me depriving you of your rights. That is correct.

So where in the constitution is a right to the exact wedding cake you want?

It's in the part about commerce and right to life, liberty, and such,... oh yeah and equal protection under the law. You need me to cite those parts AGAIN for you or do you remember where they were the last time you asked this question?

What does the law have to do with a private contract between to people to provide a wedding cake? And why does a gay person's life/liberty and such trump a religious persons life/liberty and such?

 

[martybegan]

So what your saying is society has no right to interfere in ANYTHING, except of course forcing a baker to make a cake for a gay wedding.

That's consistency for ya.

Society has no right to interfere in anything that does not involve me depriving you of your rights. That is correct.

So where in the constitution is a right to the exact wedding cake you want?

It's in the part about commerce and right to life, liberty, and such,... oh yeah and equal protection under the law. You need me to cite those parts AGAIN for you or do you remember where they were the last time you asked this question?

So that means you can't find it in the constitution. thanks.

No that means you probably have early onset of Alzheimers. Life liberty etc. are in the 14th amendment. Equal protection clause is in the 14th amendment. Commerce clause is Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.

Thus.. public accommodation laws are legal per the commerce clause if federal, and per the 14th if state.

Again, the definition of public accommodation has been stretched to meaningless. The whole "go private" argument is moot when you make everything a public accommodation.

By this use of the commerce clause and the 14th amendment you basically open up the government to regulate ANYTHING it wants, to punish ANYONE it wants, and to fuck over EVERYONE.

 

[martybegan]

So what your saying is society has no right to interfere in ANYTHING, except of course forcing a baker to make a cake for a gay wedding.

That's consistency for ya.

Society has no right to interfere in anything that does not involve me depriving you of your rights. That is correct.

So where in the constitution is a right to the exact wedding cake you want?

It's in the part about commerce and right to life, liberty, and such,... oh yeah and equal protection under the law. You need me to cite those parts AGAIN for you or do you remember where they were the last time you asked this question?

So that means you can't find it in the constitution. thanks.

So, if it isn't specifically stated in the Constitution, you can ignore it? Cool! that means I never have to pay taxes again.

And here I spent my whole life stupidly thinking that US citizens were subject all laws that were Constitutionally sound, not just to the actual words within the Constitution. Thanks for that information.

the constitution gives the government the ability to raise revenue. The Income Tax amendment lets them use an income tax.

Those ARE in the constitution, unlike forcing a baker to bake a cake.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Here's a reality check for you pops. I was always on board with incestuous marriage. What is your problem with it, exactly? Why do you give so much as a single flying fuck who anyone else marries? How does that affect you in even the tiniest little bit?

So what your saying is society has no right to interfere in ANYTHING, except of course forcing a baker to make a cake for a gay wedding.

That's consistency for ya.

Society has no right to interfere in anything that does not involve me depriving you of your rights. That is correct.

So where in the constitution is a right to the exact wedding cake you want?

It's in the part about commerce and right to life, liberty, and such,... oh yeah and equal protection under the law. You need me to cite those parts AGAIN for you or do you remember where they were the last time you asked this question?

What does the law have to do with a private contract between to people to provide a wedding cake? And why does a gay person's life/liberty and such trump a religious persons life/liberty and such?

Nothing, if you privately advertise by world of mouth or whatever, as long as you don't hold yourself out publicly as a baker of wedding cakes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Society has no right to interfere in anything that does not involve me depriving you of your rights. That is correct.

So where in the constitution is a right to the exact wedding cake you want?

It's in the part about commerce and right to life, liberty, and such,... oh yeah and equal protection under the law. You need me to cite those parts AGAIN for you or do you remember where they were the last time you asked this question?

So that means you can't find it in the constitution. thanks.

So, if it isn't specifically stated in the Constitution, you can ignore it? Cool! that means I never have to pay taxes again.

And here I spent my whole life stupidly thinking that US citizens were subject all laws that were Constitutionally sound, not just to the actual words within the Constitution. Thanks for that information.

the constitution gives the government the ability to raise revenue. The Income Tax amendment lets them use an income tax.

Those ARE in the constitution, unlike forcing a baker to bake a cake.

To be libertarian voice in the wilderness is a lonely position, yes.

 

[rightwinger]

So what do we do with the remaining 20 states that do not acknowledge gay marriages?

What happens when a gay family enters one of those states and has a medical emergency where their marital relationship is not acknowledged?

What happens when gay married soldiers are stationed in those states and receive unequal benefits and treatment from that state?

 

[JakeStarkey]

So what do we do with the remaining 20 states that do not acknowledge gay marriages?

What happens when a gay family enters one of those states and has a medical emergency where their marital relationship is not acknowledged?

What happens when gay married soldiers are stationed in those states and receive unequal benefits and treatment from that state?

That's how the advocates of marriage equality will chip away at those laws.

 

[dcraelin]

I guess Justice Kennedy granted stays against gay marriage in Idaho and Nevada yesterday and I just heard about it now in the media...

He took back the stay in Nevada because the officials there had not asked for it, though I believe they have now asked for it. Which I think shows that differences within states in the same court circuit should be considered.

 

[RKMBrown]

Society has no right to interfere in anything that does not involve me depriving you of your rights. That is correct.

So where in the constitution is a right to the exact wedding cake you want?

It's in the part about commerce and right to life, liberty, and such,... oh yeah and equal protection under the law. You need me to cite those parts AGAIN for you or do you remember where they were the last time you asked this question?

So that means you can't find it in the constitution. thanks.

No that means you probably have early onset of Alzheimers. Life liberty etc. are in the 14th amendment. Equal protection clause is in the 14th amendment. Commerce clause is Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.

Thus.. public accommodation laws are legal per the commerce clause if federal, and per the 14th if state.

Again, the definition of public accommodation has been stretched to meaningless. The whole "go private" argument is moot when you make everything a public accommodation.

By this use of the commerce clause and the 14th amendment you basically open up the government to regulate ANYTHING it wants, to punish ANYONE it wants, and to fuck over EVERYONE.

There you go, you are now 100% correct in your description of the commerce clause and 14th amendment. Although you left out the payroll tax, and popular vote for the senate parts, that put the finishing nails on the coffin.

Yes the commerce, 14th, taxing clauses, and senate popular vote amendments pretty much ended our republic and turned us into a democracy where the tyranny of the majority rules, rightly or wrongly, justly or without justice, for better or for worse.

 

[RKMBrown]

Society has no right to interfere in anything that does not involve me depriving you of your rights. That is correct.

So where in the constitution is a right to the exact wedding cake you want?

It's in the part about commerce and right to life, liberty, and such,... oh yeah and equal protection under the law. You need me to cite those parts AGAIN for you or do you remember where they were the last time you asked this question?

So that means you can't find it in the constitution. thanks.

So, if it isn't specifically stated in the Constitution, you can ignore it? Cool! that means I never have to pay taxes again.

And here I spent my whole life stupidly thinking that US citizens were subject all laws that were Constitutionally sound, not just to the actual words within the Constitution. Thanks for that information.

the constitution gives the government the ability to raise revenue. The Income Tax amendment lets them use an income tax.

Those ARE in the constitution, unlike forcing a baker to bake a cake.

That is correct. Elections have consequences at the federal and state levels. See SCOTUS decision on ACA. Our government, state and local, can regulate ALL commerce, and can tax us for pretty much anything but voting.

 

[martybegan]

So where in the constitution is a right to the exact wedding cake you want?

It's in the part about commerce and right to life, liberty, and such,... oh yeah and equal protection under the law. You need me to cite those parts AGAIN for you or do you remember where they were the last time you asked this question?

So that means you can't find it in the constitution. thanks.

So, if it isn't specifically stated in the Constitution, you can ignore it? Cool! that means I never have to pay taxes again.

And here I spent my whole life stupidly thinking that US citizens were subject all laws that were Constitutionally sound, not just to the actual words within the Constitution. Thanks for that information.

the constitution gives the government the ability to raise revenue. The Income Tax amendment lets them use an income tax.

Those ARE in the constitution, unlike forcing a baker to bake a cake.

That is correct. Elections have consequences at the federal and state levels. See SCOTUS decision on ACA. Our government, state and local, can regulate ALL commerce, and can tax us for pretty much anything but voting.

So in a snit over the ACA you feel everyone else should be fucked over...
Great.

 

[bodecea]

The far right has real fascination for incest and bestiality.

It's right up there with their continued visual descriptions of gay sex.

You mean masturbation?

I see you've thought about it some.

 

[martybegan]

So where in the constitution is a right to the exact wedding cake you want?

It's in the part about commerce and right to life, liberty, and such,... oh yeah and equal protection under the law. You need me to cite those parts AGAIN for you or do you remember where they were the last time you asked this question?

So that means you can't find it in the constitution. thanks.

No that means you probably have early onset of Alzheimers. Life liberty etc. are in the 14th amendment. Equal protection clause is in the 14th amendment. Commerce clause is Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.

Thus.. public accommodation laws are legal per the commerce clause if federal, and per the 14th if state.

Again, the definition of public accommodation has been stretched to meaningless. The whole "go private" argument is moot when you make everything a public accommodation.

By this use of the commerce clause and the 14th amendment you basically open up the government to regulate ANYTHING it wants, to punish ANYONE it wants, and to fuck over EVERYONE.

There you go, you are now 100% correct in your description of the commerce clause and 14th amendment. Although you left out the payroll tax, and popular vote for the senate parts, that put the finishing nails on the coffin.

Yes the commerce, 14th, taxing clauses, and senate popular vote amendments pretty much ended our republic and turned us into a democracy where the tyranny of the majority rules, rightly or wrongly, justly or without justice, for better or for worse.

See my last response. So this is all a grudge match.

 

[rightwinger]

So what do we do with the remaining 20 states that do not acknowledge gay marriages?

What happens when a gay family enters one of those states and has a medical emergency where their marital relationship is not acknowledged?

What happens when gay married soldiers are stationed in those states and receive unequal benefits and treatment from that state?

That's how the advocates of marriage equality will chip away at those laws.

I don't see how we can continue in a situation where your marital status changes as you move between states