CENTER STAGE

[Skylar]

So? Those laws have not changed and have nothing to do with gay people. What's your point?

You brought up consenting adults, I was just trying to determine what that means to you. Of course we had a law on marriage, until it changed, didn't we? I guess everything is subject to change depending on a minorities wants.

Or more accurately, depending on the rights that minorities have. Remember, just because you have the numbers to strip people of rights doesn't mean their rights cease to exist. And since the passage of the 14th amendment, the States lack the authority to strip any US citizen of constitutional guarantees.

No matter badly Texas wants to. Texas was wrong on segregation. Texas was wrong on interracial marriage bans. Texas was wrong on sodomy laws. And Texas is wrong on same sex marriage bans.

I can usually just limit each sentence to 'Texas was wrong' and be just as right.

Actually I only disagree with you on one point, the rest were put in place by democrats, you might want to talk to them about that.

They were put in place by conservatives. And with each, the only reason Texas gave them up....is that the courts forced them to.

LBJ and his supporters were conservative, really?

And which legislation specifically are you attributing to LBJ?

 

[Skylar]

Anyway, it's late and I'm tired of this conversation, so nightie night!

There's no much to it anymore. THe anti-gay ground have kinda shot their rhetorical wad. Directly comparing being gay with murder is some weak ass, JV shit.

But the anti-gay crowd is at a stark disadvantage in a court of law. They can't actually argue their real motivation. So they're left with half assed second tier arguments that just dont hold up in court.

 

[OKTexas]

This is exactly what you said:

"Gays aren't murderers. Rendering your analogy yet another example of panty shitting hyperbole."

Check again, dip. I said that. Its in the very thread you're quoting. And your analogy directly compared being gay....with being a murderer. That's not a human nature argument. That's rabid anti-gay hysterics.

Again, your ilk lost this issue for a reason. Remember that whenever you drive by the county building and realize that gays may well be getting married inside.

The analogy was peoples lives being easier if the courts changed the law, that was the only association drawn. You chose to read it the other way.

You also assume I have a problem with what gays might be doing, I don't, just don't try to force me to participate to make a living, which you can never do, now that I'm retired.

I'm sure they do not want to force you to participate. LOL. They just wanted a gosh darn cake! I'm quite sure that being discriminated against here in America in the year 2015 probably pisses people off too.

No they did not want a generic cake, they wanted a custom cake that the baker didn't want to make. Which brings us back around to the shirt printer that refused to print a custom shirt with a message he found offensive, he discriminated, he wasn't penalized, and the left didn't try to put him out of business.

Was it in the state of Oregon? Different states have different laws, you know. The point is, that the baker is messed up if he thinks that by baking a cake, he is endorsing anything. He is simply doing his job.

So the baker doesn't have the same rights as the shirt printer, got it.

 

[Skylar]

Check again, dip. I said that. Its in the very thread you're quoting. And your analogy directly compared being gay....with being a murderer. That's not a human nature argument. That's rabid anti-gay hysterics.

Again, your ilk lost this issue for a reason. Remember that whenever you drive by the county building and realize that gays may well be getting married inside.

The analogy was peoples lives being easier if the courts changed the law, that was the only association drawn. You chose to read it the other way.

You also assume I have a problem with what gays might be doing, I don't, just don't try to force me to participate to make a living, which you can never do, now that I'm retired.

I'm sure they do not want to force you to participate. LOL. They just wanted a gosh darn cake! I'm quite sure that being discriminated against here in America in the year 2015 probably pisses people off too.

No they did not want a generic cake, they wanted a custom cake that the baker didn't want to make. Which brings us back around to the shirt printer that refused to print a custom shirt with a message he found offensive, he discriminated, he wasn't penalized, and the left didn't try to put him out of business.

Was it in the state of Oregon? Different states have different laws, you know. The point is, that the baker is messed up if he thinks that by baking a cake, he is endorsing anything. He is simply doing his job.

So the baker doesn't have the same rights as the shirt printer, got it.

A cake isn't speech. Text is. I suspect that if the cake baker had baked the cake but refused to put any text on it related to the wedding....they would have been fine.

 

[OKTexas]

You brought up consenting adults, I was just trying to determine what that means to you. Of course we had a law on marriage, until it changed, didn't we? I guess everything is subject to change depending on a minorities wants.

Or more accurately, depending on the rights that minorities have. Remember, just because you have the numbers to strip people of rights doesn't mean their rights cease to exist. And since the passage of the 14th amendment, the States lack the authority to strip any US citizen of constitutional guarantees.

No matter badly Texas wants to. Texas was wrong on segregation. Texas was wrong on interracial marriage bans. Texas was wrong on sodomy laws. And Texas is wrong on same sex marriage bans.

I can usually just limit each sentence to 'Texas was wrong' and be just as right.

Actually I only disagree with you on one point, the rest were put in place by democrats, you might want to talk to them about that.

They were put in place by conservatives. And with each, the only reason Texas gave them up....is that the courts forced them to.

LBJ and his supporters were conservative, really?

And which legislation specifically are you attributing to LBJ?

In his senate days he and his party tried to block every piece of civil rights legislation and they put the discriminating laws in place in TX.

 

[Skylar]

Or more accurately, depending on the rights that minorities have. Remember, just because you have the numbers to strip people of rights doesn't mean their rights cease to exist. And since the passage of the 14th amendment, the States lack the authority to strip any US citizen of constitutional guarantees.

No matter badly Texas wants to. Texas was wrong on segregation. Texas was wrong on interracial marriage bans. Texas was wrong on sodomy laws. And Texas is wrong on same sex marriage bans.

I can usually just limit each sentence to 'Texas was wrong' and be just as right.

Actually I only disagree with you on one point, the rest were put in place by democrats, you might want to talk to them about that.

They were put in place by conservatives. And with each, the only reason Texas gave them up....is that the courts forced them to.

LBJ and his supporters were conservative, really?

And which legislation specifically are you attributing to LBJ?

In his senate days he and his party tried to block every piece of civil rights legislation and they put the discriminating laws in place in TX.

So you're not actually attributing any pieces of legislation to LBJ.

And of course you recognize that LBJ was a major champion on Civil Rights legislation later in his career.

Can you see why these awkward attempts to blame liberals for conservative bullshit don't convince anyone but your fellow conservatives? Again, Texas was wrong on segregation, it was wrong on civil rights, it was wrong on interracial marriage, it was wrong on sodomy laws, and it was wrong on gay marriage.

And at every stage.......it required outside intervention in the form of the courts or federal legislation to force Texas to stop abusing minorities.

 

[OKTexas]

The analogy was peoples lives being easier if the courts changed the law, that was the only association drawn. You chose to read it the other way.

You also assume I have a problem with what gays might be doing, I don't, just don't try to force me to participate to make a living, which you can never do, now that I'm retired.

I'm sure they do not want to force you to participate. LOL. They just wanted a gosh darn cake! I'm quite sure that being discriminated against here in America in the year 2015 probably pisses people off too.

No they did not want a generic cake, they wanted a custom cake that the baker didn't want to make. Which brings us back around to the shirt printer that refused to print a custom shirt with a message he found offensive, he discriminated, he wasn't penalized, and the left didn't try to put him out of business.

Was it in the state of Oregon? Different states have different laws, you know. The point is, that the baker is messed up if he thinks that by baking a cake, he is endorsing anything. He is simply doing his job.

So the baker doesn't have the same rights as the shirt printer, got it.

A cake isn't speech. Text is. I suspect that if the cake baker had baked the cake but refused to put any text on it related to the wedding....they would have been fine.

I would be willing to take a bet on that one, no one wants an undecorated wedding cake, they wouldn't have been fine.

 

[Skylar]

I'm sure they do not want to force you to participate. LOL. They just wanted a gosh darn cake! I'm quite sure that being discriminated against here in America in the year 2015 probably pisses people off too.

No they did not want a generic cake, they wanted a custom cake that the baker didn't want to make. Which brings us back around to the shirt printer that refused to print a custom shirt with a message he found offensive, he discriminated, he wasn't penalized, and the left didn't try to put him out of business.

Was it in the state of Oregon? Different states have different laws, you know. The point is, that the baker is messed up if he thinks that by baking a cake, he is endorsing anything. He is simply doing his job.

So the baker doesn't have the same rights as the shirt printer, got it.

A cake isn't speech. Text is. I suspect that if the cake baker had baked the cake but refused to put any text on it related to the wedding....they would have been fine.

I would be willing to take a bet on that one, no one wants an undecorated wedding cake, they wouldn't have been fine.

Text and decoration are two different things. As you well know. Which is why you intentionally moved your goal posts.

Alas, the bakers refused to even bake the cake, running headlong into their state's PA laws.

 

[OKTexas]

Actually I only disagree with you on one point, the rest were put in place by democrats, you might want to talk to them about that.

They were put in place by conservatives. And with each, the only reason Texas gave them up....is that the courts forced them to.

LBJ and his supporters were conservative, really?

And which legislation specifically are you attributing to LBJ?

In his senate days he and his party tried to block every piece of civil rights legislation and they put the discriminating laws in place in TX.

So you're not actually attributing any pieces of legislation to LBJ.

And of course you recognize that LBJ was a major champion on Civil Rights legislation later in his career.

Can you see why these awkward attempts to blame liberals for conservative bullshit don't convince anyone but your fellow conservatives? Again, Texas was wrong on segregation, it was wrong on civil rights, it was wrong on interracial marriage, it was wrong on sodomy laws, and it was wrong on gay marriage.

And at every stage.......it required outside intervention in the form of the courts or federal legislation to force Texas to stop abusing minorities.

LBJ became a champion of civil right and today the left became a champion of so called gay rights for the same reason, political expediency. They changed their tactics for votes and to stay in power, nothing else, it is and was never about a sudden epiphany. It's all about marketing.

 

[Skylar]

They were put in place by conservatives. And with each, the only reason Texas gave them up....is that the courts forced them to.

LBJ and his supporters were conservative, really?

And which legislation specifically are you attributing to LBJ?

In his senate days he and his party tried to block every piece of civil rights legislation and they put the discriminating laws in place in TX.

So you're not actually attributing any pieces of legislation to LBJ.

And of course you recognize that LBJ was a major champion on Civil Rights legislation later in his career.

Can you see why these awkward attempts to blame liberals for conservative bullshit don't convince anyone but your fellow conservatives? Again, Texas was wrong on segregation, it was wrong on civil rights, it was wrong on interracial marriage, it was wrong on sodomy laws, and it was wrong on gay marriage.

And at every stage.......it required outside intervention in the form of the courts or federal legislation to force Texas to stop abusing minorities.

LBJ became a champion of civil right and today the left became a champion of so called gay rights for the same reason, political expediency. They changed their tactics for votes and to stay in power, nothing else, it is and was never about a sudden epiphany. It's all about marketing.

And yet.....they protected and defended civil rights, while your ilk fought them. They protected the rights of gays and lesbians while your ilk fought them. They ended segregation, while your ilk tried to preserve it. They championed same sex marriage while your ilk fought it. They championed an end to sodomy laws while your ilk enforced them. They championed an end to interracial marriage bans.....while your ilk enacted them.

You can imagine whatever motivations you want. But its the actions of liberals that the people remember and celebrate. And the actions of conservatives that people are ashamed of.

 

[OKTexas]

No they did not want a generic cake, they wanted a custom cake that the baker didn't want to make. Which brings us back around to the shirt printer that refused to print a custom shirt with a message he found offensive, he discriminated, he wasn't penalized, and the left didn't try to put him out of business.

Was it in the state of Oregon? Different states have different laws, you know. The point is, that the baker is messed up if he thinks that by baking a cake, he is endorsing anything. He is simply doing his job.

So the baker doesn't have the same rights as the shirt printer, got it.

A cake isn't speech. Text is. I suspect that if the cake baker had baked the cake but refused to put any text on it related to the wedding....they would have been fine.

I would be willing to take a bet on that one, no one wants an undecorated wedding cake, they wouldn't have been fine.

Text and decoration are two different things. As you well know. Which is why you intentionally moved your goal posts.

Alas, the bakers refused to even bake the cake, running headlong into their state's PA laws.

How many decorated wedding cakes have you seen that didn't contain text? For me, zero. If you think the faghadist would have been satisfied with anything less than the full monte, your nuts. I have however seen shirts with offensive images with no text.

 

[Skylar]

Was it in the state of Oregon? Different states have different laws, you know. The point is, that the baker is messed up if he thinks that by baking a cake, he is endorsing anything. He is simply doing his job.

So the baker doesn't have the same rights as the shirt printer, got it.

A cake isn't speech. Text is. I suspect that if the cake baker had baked the cake but refused to put any text on it related to the wedding....they would have been fine.

I would be willing to take a bet on that one, no one wants an undecorated wedding cake, they wouldn't have been fine.

Text and decoration are two different things. As you well know. Which is why you intentionally moved your goal posts.

Alas, the bakers refused to even bake the cake, running headlong into their state's PA laws.

How many decorated wedding cakes have you seen that didn't contain text? For me, zero. If you think the faghadist would have been satisfied with anything less than the full monte, your nuts. I have however seen shirts with offensive images with no text.

Most, actually.Text is more of a sheet cake kinda thing. Wedding cakes typically don't include text. Especially the higher end cakes.

And 'faghadist', huh? You're not even trying to put a thin veneer on your animus toward gays and lesbians, are you? Again, this is why you lost. And will continue to lose. As your hatred isn't founded in any rational basis.

 

[OKTexas]

LBJ and his supporters were conservative, really?

And which legislation specifically are you attributing to LBJ?

In his senate days he and his party tried to block every piece of civil rights legislation and they put the discriminating laws in place in TX.

So you're not actually attributing any pieces of legislation to LBJ.

And of course you recognize that LBJ was a major champion on Civil Rights legislation later in his career.

Can you see why these awkward attempts to blame liberals for conservative bullshit don't convince anyone but your fellow conservatives? Again, Texas was wrong on segregation, it was wrong on civil rights, it was wrong on interracial marriage, it was wrong on sodomy laws, and it was wrong on gay marriage.

And at every stage.......it required outside intervention in the form of the courts or federal legislation to force Texas to stop abusing minorities.

LBJ became a champion of civil right and today the left became a champion of so called gay rights for the same reason, political expediency. They changed their tactics for votes and to stay in power, nothing else, it is and was never about a sudden epiphany. It's all about marketing.

And yet.....they protected and defended civil rights, while your ilk fought them. They protected the rights of gays and lesbians while your ilk fought them. They ended segregation, while your ilk tried to preserve it. They championed same sex marriage while your ilk fought it. They championed an end to sodomy laws while your ilk enforced them. They championed an end to interracial marriage bans.....while your ilk enacted them.

You can imagine whatever motivations you want. But its the actions of liberals that the people remember and celebrate. And the actions of conservatives that people are ashamed of.

95% of the civil rights battles were over before I graduated from high school, I doubt we are that much different in age and for your info I didn't move to TX permanently till 1996, so don't talk about me and my ilk, I wasn't even in the picture.

 

[Skylar]

And which legislation specifically are you attributing to LBJ?

In his senate days he and his party tried to block every piece of civil rights legislation and they put the discriminating laws in place in TX.

So you're not actually attributing any pieces of legislation to LBJ.

And of course you recognize that LBJ was a major champion on Civil Rights legislation later in his career.

Can you see why these awkward attempts to blame liberals for conservative bullshit don't convince anyone but your fellow conservatives? Again, Texas was wrong on segregation, it was wrong on civil rights, it was wrong on interracial marriage, it was wrong on sodomy laws, and it was wrong on gay marriage.

And at every stage.......it required outside intervention in the form of the courts or federal legislation to force Texas to stop abusing minorities.

LBJ became a champion of civil right and today the left became a champion of so called gay rights for the same reason, political expediency. They changed their tactics for votes and to stay in power, nothing else, it is and was never about a sudden epiphany. It's all about marketing.

And yet.....they protected and defended civil rights, while your ilk fought them. They protected the rights of gays and lesbians while your ilk fought them. They ended segregation, while your ilk tried to preserve it. They championed same sex marriage while your ilk fought it. They championed an end to sodomy laws while your ilk enforced them. They championed an end to interracial marriage bans.....while your ilk enacted them.

You can imagine whatever motivations you want. But its the actions of liberals that the people remember and celebrate. And the actions of conservatives that people are ashamed of.

95% of the civil rights battles were over before I graduated from high school, I doubt we are that much different in age and for your info I didn't move to TX permanently till 1996, so don't talk about me and my ilk, I wasn't even in the picture.

So distancing yourself from Texas and her past. Wise that.

And your ilk are conservatives.

 

[OKTexas]

So the baker doesn't have the same rights as the shirt printer, got it.

A cake isn't speech. Text is. I suspect that if the cake baker had baked the cake but refused to put any text on it related to the wedding....they would have been fine.

I would be willing to take a bet on that one, no one wants an undecorated wedding cake, they wouldn't have been fine.

Text and decoration are two different things. As you well know. Which is why you intentionally moved your goal posts.

Alas, the bakers refused to even bake the cake, running headlong into their state's PA laws.

How many decorated wedding cakes have you seen that didn't contain text? For me, zero. If you think the faghadist would have been satisfied with anything less than the full monte, your nuts. I have however seen shirts with offensive images with no text.

Most, actually.Text is more of a sheet cake kinda thing. Wedding cakes typically don't include text. Especially the higher end cakes.

And 'faghadist', huh? You're not even trying to put a thin veneer on your animus toward gays and lesbians, are you? Again, this is why you lost. And will continue to lose. As your hatred isn't founded in any rational basis.

I reserve the term for the extremist and activist, you know the ones who think they have a right to impose themselves on and try to destroy the society for rest of us. At the very best they are an anomaly of nature, at worst they are a bunch of deviant perverts. I consider the activist the latter. Only activist will bust someone's balls over a freaking cake when there are close to 400 other bakeries available.

 

[OKTexas]

In his senate days he and his party tried to block every piece of civil rights legislation and they put the discriminating laws in place in TX.

So you're not actually attributing any pieces of legislation to LBJ.

And of course you recognize that LBJ was a major champion on Civil Rights legislation later in his career.

Can you see why these awkward attempts to blame liberals for conservative bullshit don't convince anyone but your fellow conservatives? Again, Texas was wrong on segregation, it was wrong on civil rights, it was wrong on interracial marriage, it was wrong on sodomy laws, and it was wrong on gay marriage.

And at every stage.......it required outside intervention in the form of the courts or federal legislation to force Texas to stop abusing minorities.

LBJ became a champion of civil right and today the left became a champion of so called gay rights for the same reason, political expediency. They changed their tactics for votes and to stay in power, nothing else, it is and was never about a sudden epiphany. It's all about marketing.

And yet.....they protected and defended civil rights, while your ilk fought them. They protected the rights of gays and lesbians while your ilk fought them. They ended segregation, while your ilk tried to preserve it. They championed same sex marriage while your ilk fought it. They championed an end to sodomy laws while your ilk enforced them. They championed an end to interracial marriage bans.....while your ilk enacted them.

You can imagine whatever motivations you want. But its the actions of liberals that the people remember and celebrate. And the actions of conservatives that people are ashamed of.

95% of the civil rights battles were over before I graduated from high school, I doubt we are that much different in age and for your info I didn't move to TX permanently till 1996, so don't talk about me and my ilk, I wasn't even in the picture.

So distancing yourself from Texas and her past. Wise that.

And your ilk are conservatives.

Just facts, and it's you ilk that started the KKK, jim crow and many other discrimination laws. Own it.

 

[Debra K]

Iceweasel: Your post was messy. Your attributions and quotes were out of place. My words and your words blended into each other. I did my best to fix it, but in the future please edit your post because it's very difficult and time consuming to respond.

It's clear to me that the "rule of law" is whatever they want it to be. They, being the dominate force in any given issue. There is no logical reason people in a free country should be forced to serve people they don't want to serve. That's government making demands to satisfy a political agenda, nothing more.

We elect our representatives to serve us in the political branches of government. Our elected officials make policy determinations. Our lawmakers have determined that discrimination (and the ensuing strife) causes harm or threatens harm to the common welfare of the people. Our laws address those harms or threatened harms as a matter of public policy. What you might believe to be liberty and justice for yourself (i.e., the right to discriminate) another person might believe to be a deprivation of liberty and an injustice (i.e., victimization through discrimination). Perhaps you may move freely through society and engage in business transactions with commercial enterprises, but others cannot and anguish and strife ensues. As a matter of public policy, legislatures (both federal and state) have enacted laws that prohibit discrimination in public accommodations. There is a logical reason why discrimination is against the law. Without ordered liberty, justice for vast segments of our population simply doesn't exist.

Here is a quote from the Colorado case that I linked in an earlier post: "At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are. Thus, for well over 100 years, Colorado has prohibited discrimination by businesses that offer goods and services to the public."

For those who missed the link in prior posts, here it is: Craig and Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc.

Gays have been denied service for wedding cakes and were able to sue for lack of service. Bullshit. Loss of freedom is a big deal to many people to but you can't factor that into your societal harm question for some reason. What you are doing is misapplying a law that helped black folks get food, clothing, shelter, etc. They needed the protection because they had nothing and little chance to start businesses themselves.

No one even knows if someone is homosexual unless they make it an issue. So again, it's YOUR sense of morality that's important. No one else's.

You respond with "Bullshit"? That's impolite and does not constitute a logical argument. The Colorado public accommodation law, Section 24-34-601(2), C.R.S., in relevant part provides the following:

"It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or group, because of . . . sexual orientation . . . the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation."​

Your grievance isn't with me. I don't enact laws, I just read the laws and the cases that interpret and apply the law. That's how I inform and educate myself. There exist thousands of laws in every state that regulate conduct. Everyone is presumed to know the law, and if a person violates the law, there are usually adverse consequences. I'm sure there are thousands of people sitting in jails and prisons at this very moment, and their loss of freedom is indeed a big deal to them. There are many people who may desire the freedom to discriminate against same-sex couples and do so without consequences, but some state legislatures have made that conduct unlawful.

I am not misapplying the law. I am simply informing you what the rule of law is, why it was enacted, and how it has been applied.

My sense of morality? I think I ought to keep my nose out of other people's bedrooms, and obey the law.

I do believe there was a reason back in the day when a black man couldn't open up a store but that was long ago and hardly the case any more. Sexual orientation? Where does it stop? If a rich guy has 15 whores he bangs on a regular basis and wants to have a cake commemorating the occasion are we still allowed by our caring government to refuse the job?

If promiscuous rich guys, as a class of persons, can demonstrate a history of discrimination in public accommodations based on who they are, then perhaps they can convince our lawmakers that they are entitled to protection under our anti-discrimination laws. Gay people, whether you consider some of them to be promiscuous and regardless of the size of their individual wealth, are entitled to protection under the law because there exists a proven history of oppression. I believe you are intelligent enough to discern the difference.

Ah, since it isn't illegal to discriminate against them it's OK to discriminate against them. That's what I thought. What a hypocrite!

Why do you find it necessary to call me a "hypocrite"? Please don't call me names. It doesn't cost anything to be civil. Again, I'm responding to your questions in accordance with my opening post ... with reason, logic, and the rule of law.

People still retain the freedom of contract and they retain the freedom to discriminate all they want unless doing so violates the law. It is unlawful in the area of public accommodations in some states to refuse goods or services to an individual because of his/her race, national origin, sexual orientation, etc.

If a similar statute exists in your state, you are free to contact your state lawmakers and encourage them to include promiscuous rich guys and exclude homosexual persons as protected classes.

I turned down Planned Parenthood because I don't want to help them kill babies, is that still allowed? And for how long? All the discussion about legal decisions is pointless to me because the bar moves when they want it to move.

Planned Parenthood is not a person falling within a class of historically oppressed persons, it is an organization ... I don't know of any law that prevents you from doing business or refusing to do business with Planned Parenthood.

Again, no gay was refused service for being gay, people don't want to be forced to participate in the celebration of their sexuality. I did discriminate against people who's lifestyle I opposed by denying service to them and their cause. You're dodging the point. Typical for you guys, you're like jello. You believe in this or that as a matter of convienience.

The decision-makers in some of the cases we're discussing don't agree with your argument. If you think Planned Parenthood people ought to be a protected class, contact your legislative representatives. I'm not dodging any point. You want to walk down a irrelevant path, and I kindly walked with you, and you thanked me by calling me jello and making an odd comment about what I allegedly believe. Please use reason and logic and the rule of law.

As far as marriage, the government should get out of any legal definition and let people define it for themselves, no government penalty or breaks. That's the only fair solution in today's world of moral relativity and government tyranny.

Abolition of the civil institution of marriage would cause chaos and grave harm to our society and the vulnerable persons who would be victimized without the vast protections and benefits that flow from marriage. That's not the "fair solution" simply because some people don't approve of other people's marriages.

Wrong. I said they can then get a contract with whoever they chose. Any contract they wanted, including anything similar to state sponsored marriage. They won't be harmed except to lose out on some government tax breaks. And in fact, since about half the population is single it's unfair to them to subsidize marriage. It WAS instituted because that's how most families formed and society benefited from the stability and norms. That's been thrown out the window so it makes zero sense to keep it around. Let's be progressive and get rid of an archaic institution that hurts some and benefits others who will never contribute future tax payers or producers.

Same sex couples have families too. You make a lot of sweeping statements that have no logical, factual, or legal support. The United States Supreme Court already ruled that same sex couples have the same right to marry that heterosexual couples have. Thus, your unsupported argument is moot.

 

[Skylar]

So you're not actually attributing any pieces of legislation to LBJ.

And of course you recognize that LBJ was a major champion on Civil Rights legislation later in his career.

Can you see why these awkward attempts to blame liberals for conservative bullshit don't convince anyone but your fellow conservatives? Again, Texas was wrong on segregation, it was wrong on civil rights, it was wrong on interracial marriage, it was wrong on sodomy laws, and it was wrong on gay marriage.

And at every stage.......it required outside intervention in the form of the courts or federal legislation to force Texas to stop abusing minorities.

LBJ became a champion of civil right and today the left became a champion of so called gay rights for the same reason, political expediency. They changed their tactics for votes and to stay in power, nothing else, it is and was never about a sudden epiphany. It's all about marketing.

And yet.....they protected and defended civil rights, while your ilk fought them. They protected the rights of gays and lesbians while your ilk fought them. They ended segregation, while your ilk tried to preserve it. They championed same sex marriage while your ilk fought it. They championed an end to sodomy laws while your ilk enforced them. They championed an end to interracial marriage bans.....while your ilk enacted them.

You can imagine whatever motivations you want. But its the actions of liberals that the people remember and celebrate. And the actions of conservatives that people are ashamed of.

95% of the civil rights battles were over before I graduated from high school, I doubt we are that much different in age and for your info I didn't move to TX permanently till 1996, so don't talk about me and my ilk, I wasn't even in the picture.

So distancing yourself from Texas and her past. Wise that.

And your ilk are conservatives.

Just facts, and it's you ilk that started the KKK, jim crow and many other discrimination laws. Own it.

These were all conservatives. Your ilk. You know it. I know it. Minorities know it. Which is why the 'liberals created the KKK" bullshit is something only another conservative is gullible enough to swallow.

It was your ilk, your fellow conservatives....that fought civil rights, integration, women's rights, gay rights, pretty much every significant civil rights progress in the modern era.

And mine that fought FOR civil rights, integration, women's rights, gay rights and pretty much every significant civil rights progress in the modern era.

Once again, unsurprisingly, your ilk find themselves on the wrong side of history. A generation from now our people will look back on you with the same dismay and shame that we do segregationists and jim crow proponents.

And you deserve your legacy, you deserve the shame, your ideology of pointless discrimination deserves to be abandoned. But never forgotten.

 

[OKTexas]

LBJ became a champion of civil right and today the left became a champion of so called gay rights for the same reason, political expediency. They changed their tactics for votes and to stay in power, nothing else, it is and was never about a sudden epiphany. It's all about marketing.

And yet.....they protected and defended civil rights, while your ilk fought them. They protected the rights of gays and lesbians while your ilk fought them. They ended segregation, while your ilk tried to preserve it. They championed same sex marriage while your ilk fought it. They championed an end to sodomy laws while your ilk enforced them. They championed an end to interracial marriage bans.....while your ilk enacted them.

You can imagine whatever motivations you want. But its the actions of liberals that the people remember and celebrate. And the actions of conservatives that people are ashamed of.

95% of the civil rights battles were over before I graduated from high school, I doubt we are that much different in age and for your info I didn't move to TX permanently till 1996, so don't talk about me and my ilk, I wasn't even in the picture.

So distancing yourself from Texas and her past. Wise that.

And your ilk are conservatives.

Just facts, and it's you ilk that started the KKK, jim crow and many other discrimination laws. Own it.

These were all conservatives. Your ilk. You know it. I know it. Minorities know it. Which is why the 'liberals created the KKK" bullshit is something only another conservative is gullible enough to swallow.

It was your ilk, your fellow conservatives....that fought civil rights, integration, women's rights, gay rights, pretty much every significant civil rights progress in the modern era.

And mine that fought FOR civil rights, integration, women's rights, gay rights and pretty much every significant civil rights progress in the modern era.

Once again, unsurprisingly, your ilk find themselves on the wrong side of history. A generation from now our people will look back on you with the same dismay and shame that we do segregationists and jim crow proponents.

And you deserve your legacy, you deserve the shame, your ideology of pointless discrimination deserves to be abandoned. But never forgotten.

So you bought into all the revisionist history, media hype and marketing, good to know just how gullible you really are. Night, night.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is CENTER STAGE where the rule of law prevails. We are a nation of laws, not of men (not of righties or lefties or whatever). As such, the United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. People often disagree about the interpretation of the law and/or how it applies to a particular set of facts. When such a case or controversy exists, it is the duty of our courts to review and resolve the controversy. Some of us may not agree with some judicial decisions, but history has taught us that decisions based on error do not withstand the test of time and reason.

I would like to discuss the important issues of the day using the rule of law. Can you support your position based on the law and reason?

Let's start with the actual decision issued by a state agency in the case involving "Sweetcakes by Melissa". Rather than rely on media accounts or right wing or left wing hysteria, please read the decision yourself and think about it:

In the matter of Klein, dba Sweetcakes by Melissa

If you think the decision is based on legal error, where do you find the error? If the matter is appealed, what legal grounds or precedent will the reviewing court use to reverse the decision?

The decision was based on sound, reasonable, logical, settled, and accepted legal jurisprudence: that one may not use his religious beliefs to 'excuse' or 'justify' ignoring or violating just and proper laws, such as state and local public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation.

Business owners being enjoined from discriminating against gay patrons in no way 'violates' the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and does not constitute an 'infringement' on religious liberty. (Employment Division v. Smith, City of Boerne v. Flores)