CENTER STAGE

[Skylar]

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.

Laughing.....dude, no one is buying your 'liberals founded the KKK' bullshit. Not even you.

Conservatives founded the KKK. The implemented jim crow laws. They imposed segregation. They fought women's rights. Gay rights. They fought virtually every significant progress toward civil rights.

And surprise, surprise.....conservatives oppose gay rights. Color me shocked. Of course they do. Just as they have minority rights for virtually the whole of our nation's history.

 

[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.

Really?

Yep.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Really?

Yep.

View attachment 44725

And as you learned while searching for that image, most wedding cakes don't include text.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Really?

Yep.

View attachment 44725

And as you learned while searching for that image, most wedding cakes don't include text.

Like I said the majority of the ones I've seen did, maybe it's been too long since I've attended a wedding.

 

[Uncensored2008]

As soon as you can place your own business on roads that are not tax payer funded, have your own fire and police department, you can make up your own rules. Until then, I suggest you get familiar with your state business laws.

Cruella Deville, you grasp that local governments build the surface streets that businesses are build next to, right? So it IS the local taxes of those businesses which build the roads of finance the police and fire protection.

You and your fellow Soros Hate Drones don't pay a fucking dime for those services, so shut your fucking yap, you drooling imbecile.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Laughing.....dude, no one is buying your 'liberals founded the KKK' bullshit. Not even you.

Conservatives founded the KKK. The implemented jim crow laws. They imposed segregation. They fought women's rights. Gay rights. They fought virtually every significant progress toward civil rights.

And surprise, surprise.....conservatives oppose gay rights. Color me shocked. Of course they do. Just as they have minority rights for virtually the whole of our nation's history.

Ah the big lie.

You Communists figure that if you tell an outrageous lie, and tell it repeatedly, you will trick the proles into believing it...

 

[Skylar]

Laughing.....dude, no one is buying your 'liberals founded the KKK' bullshit. Not even you.

Conservatives founded the KKK. The implemented jim crow laws. They imposed segregation. They fought women's rights. Gay rights. They fought virtually every significant progress toward civil rights.

And surprise, surprise.....conservatives oppose gay rights. Color me shocked. Of course they do. Just as they have minority rights for virtually the whole of our nation's history.

Ah the big lie.

You Communists figure that if you tell an outrageous lie, and tell it repeatedly, you will trick the proles into believing it...

Dude, who are you trying to convince that liberals founded the KKK? As no one is believing you.

It was conservatives. Just as it was conservatives that fought women's rights, fought for interracial marriage bans, fought against gay rights.

You can imagine otherwise. But we're not obligated to imagine with you.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Really?

Yep.

View attachment 44725

And as you learned while searching for that image, most wedding cakes don't include text.

Like I said the majority of the ones I've seen did, maybe it's been too long since I've attended a wedding.

Then you've been to a lot of sheet cake weddings. Because higher end wedding cakes generally don't include it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Dude, who are you trying to convince that liberals founded the KKK? As no one is believing you.

You are a party member - ergo a sociopath.

{Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and black Republican leaders. Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal–the reestablishment of white supremacy–fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s.}

Ku Klux Klan - Facts Summary - HISTORY.com

Did you think you were the first Soros Hate Drone to spew these filthy lies here? Really? You insects bred on the hate sites at a rapid rate. One of you scumbags is constantly stumbling in with the utterly stupid lies. It's part of the big lie effort by your filthy party to rewrite history, casting the party as hero, rather than the villain they were and are.

It was conservatives. Just as it was conservatives that fought women's rights, fought for interracial marriage bans, fought against gay rights.

You can imagine otherwise. But we're not obligated to imagine with you.

Yes, you chant the hate mantras, do you get a Soros treat for doing so?

You are an absurd little puke telling absurd little lies to promote your filthy party.

 

[Skylar]

Dude, who are you trying to convince that liberals founded the KKK? As no one is believing you.

You are a party member - ergo a sociopath.

Or someone who acknowledges reality. The founders of the KKK weren't liberals, no matter how hard you try to revise history and pretend otherwise. And good luck convincing minorities of your silliness. Its the kind of mindless drivel that only another conservative could swallow.

{Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and black Republican leaders. Though Congress passed legislation designed to curb Klan terrorism, the organization saw its primary goal–the reestablishment of white supremacy–fulfilled through Democratic victories in state legislatures across the South in the 1870s.}

Ku Klux Klan - Facts Summary - HISTORY.com

And those were conservatives. The same kind of conservatives who fought civil rights, minority rights, women's rights, gay rights.

And shocker, the same ilk who fight gay marriage today. As I said, a generation from now our people will look back at you with the same kind of shame and revulsion that we look back at segregationists with today.

You've earned it.

 

[Debra K]

The Christians: If we can't treat other people like shit, then we are being oppressed, persecuted and discriminated against!

That's quite literally their argument.

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.

You broke the post apart you dumb clit. In the future don't blame others for your stupidity. You joined the site to explain to people how backwards they are for believing in tradition marriage and obfuscate, insult and demean those that disagree with you.

Yes, gays can adopt. I was talking about reproduction, quite obviously. What the fuck is wrong with you? You're like all the other homosexual propagandists out there. You either are a liar and know better or you a too slow to follow grade school level concepts.

I know the laws are not in agreement with me. I said so repeatedly, dipshit! Your position is the law is the law, though shit. Well, the law was not for gay marriage but it needed to be changed. So you are for laws when you agree with them and against them when they aren't BUT you hypocritically refuse to accept it when someone else disagrees with the laws as they currently are.

That's all this site needed was another lying smearing asshole putting down traditional people with intellectual dishonesty. FUCK YOU!

I hear this often from people who are unhappy that it is unlawful to discriminate against historically oppressed people: "I am intolerant of your [alleged] intolerance of my intolerance."

People who voice their unhappiness with irrational arguments (often laced with abundant profanity) do their cause more harm than good. They display discriminatory animosity toward the oppressed people, intolerance of reasonable people who don't see a compelling argument to continue the oppression, and disrespect for the rule of law.

Iceweasel, I can see and hear that you're unhappy. If you disagree with the laws as they currently exist and are applied, then you have the right to petition the government for redress of your grievances. Perhaps you and other like-minded people can spearhead a campaign to repeal the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and turn back the hands of time when white male persons were dominant and the freedoms of all others were severely yoked, tethered, and chained.

In the meantime, however, I respect your right to spew hate and vitriol wherever you go (subject to whatever lawful consequences that apply).

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Really?

Yep.

View attachment 44725

And as you learned while searching for that image, most wedding cakes don't include text.

Like I said the majority of the ones I've seen did, maybe it's been too long since I've attended a wedding.

Then you've been to a lot of sheet cake weddings. Because higher end wedding cakes generally don't include it.

Not really, but feel free to keep up the digs.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Or someone who acknowledges reality.

The big lie isn't reality - it is a lie..

The founders of the KKK weren't liberals, no matter how hard you try to revise history and pretend otherwise. And good luck convincing minorities of your silliness. Its the kind of mindless drivel that only another conservative could swallow.

You are a Soros Hate Drone, you lack even a hint of integrity. Using "conservative" or "liberal" to describe the Antebellum South is at best dishonest - in your case it is sheer idiocy.

You seek to slander and libel the enemies of the party by accusing them of conducting the acts that in fact were conducted BY your filthy party.

Granted, you have no honor or ethics, if you can lie your way into smearing the opposition, you will do so.

The problem you have is that the only thing it takes to defeat the big lie, is exposure.

You are indeed lying - and demonstrating that you are lying defeats your intended purpose of reversing the roles of the players.

And those were conservatives. The same kind of conservatives who fought civil rights, minority rights, women's rights, gay rights.

Of course they were, George Washington was a tyrant and King George a patriot - all you need to do is lie repeatedly and reality changes to what you wish it to be.

And shocker, the same ilk who fight gay marriage today. As I said, a generation from now our people will look back at you with the same kind of shame and revulsion that we look back at segregationists with today.

You've earned it.

You are a moron, a Soros Hate Drone without the capacity to reason or think. You chant the big lie and other hate mantras, but lack the capacity to grasp what a fool you reveal yourself to be.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I hear this often from people who are unhappy that it is unlawful to discriminate against historically oppressed people: "I am intolerant of your [alleged] intolerance of my intolerance."

People who voice their unhappiness with irrational arguments (often laced with abundant profanity) do their cause more harm than good. They display discriminatory animosity toward the oppressed people, intolerance of reasonable people who don't see a compelling argument to continue the oppression, and disrespect for the rule of law.

Iceweasel, I can see and hear that you're unhappy. If you disagree with the laws as they currently exist and are applied, then you have the right to petition the government for redress of your grievances. Perhaps you and other like-minded people can spearhead a campaign to repeal the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and turn back the hands of time when white male persons were dominant and the freedoms of all others were severely yoked, tethered, and chained.

In the meantime, however, I respect your right to spew hate and vitriol wherever you go (subject to whatever lawful consequences that apply).

I assume (based on your posts) that you view the law as only that which the SCOTUS declares it to be at any given second, malleable and fluttering to the capricious whim of 9 unelected rulers?

I assume you agree with the dishonorable Chief Justice that written statute is irrelevant and that only the perceived social goals are relevant? Our Humpty Dumpty court who declares that "law means precisely what I wish it to mean, neither more, nor less."

 

[thereisnospoon]

I read the entire file. It did not change my mind except to say, in this case I believe the fine is too small. I hope other businesses learn from this experience and people will finally see that they are not better than others.

Fine? What fine?

The penalty of $135,000.

No...That was the AWARD the state gave to the lesbian couple.
I have a HUGE problem with that. Since when does the state have the right to haul someone into court for the sole purpose of confiscating money from one party and awarding it to an alleged aggrieved party? The government is does NOT exist to insert itself as an adjunct advocate.
That's why we have civil courts.
In case you missed it. The bakery owners are appealing. The couple will NEVER see a dime. Because the bakery owners will prevail..
IMO this is an outrageous over reach by government officials.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Accepting perverted behavior is hardly discrimination.

"Perverted behavior" is in your eyes, not everyone's. Just look as it as denying someone you don't like to buy your product. THAT is discrimination.

I dont give a fuck if I dont want to serve you because I dont like the color of your eyes.
It's my fucken business.

But if the law in that state says it is discriminating, you are wrong...legally. Morally you can think what ever you want. But if I were you, I wouldn't get into a business.

Great! So you're going to run off Christian business.
Go right ahead,it'll fit right in with your 15 buck an hour min wage.

Most good Christian folks don't judge others like you. They run their businesses properly and within the confines of the laws in their states.

The same should be said about 'good 'liberals. They don't judge.
And don't tell me there are not businesses owned by members of politically correct protected classes that don't discriminate against people they don't like.
Define "properly".....

 

[thereisnospoon]

Yup, discrimination is the "Christian" thing to do now, I suppose. What sad and pathetic little insecure people.[/QU
You don't get to come here and bash Christians and not expect to get backlashed.
The fact is YOUR SIDE is guilty of discrimination as well.
So shut your pie hole.

 

[thereisnospoon]

They seem to lack understanding of freedom of religion.

Discrimination is not recognized as freedom of religion.

Accepting perverted behavior is hardly discrimination.

"Perverted behavior" is in your eyes, not everyone's. Just look as it as denying someone you don't like to buy your product. THAT is discrimination.

I dont give a fuck if I dont want to serve you because I dont like the color of your eyes.
It's my fucken business.

Too bad for you. You have to follow the laws in your state or don't open a business. I don't feel sorry for you one bit. I think you are quite a pathetic insecure and sad little person actually. However, even though I don't like you, I would still bake you a stupid cake because I am an adult.

Actually there are few courts that would even attempt to interfere in private business unless someone was gravely harmed or there was some kind of negligent activity.
Asking someone to leave a business premise because of a personal or business reason is not discrimination...
You see the can of worms your side has opened?.....Now people are simply going to say "sorry you're money is no good here"...And just keep the reason to themselves.
Nice going. Should let sleeping dogs lie. But NOOOOOOOOOOOOO....Your side wants to ram your fucking radical lefty agenda down everyone's throat.
Welcome to the crops you've sown.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Su

Fuck off maggot, I've never discriminated against anyone including gays when I had my business. Of course they never tried to force me to participate in their lifestyle activities, if they had I might of had a problem with that, not because of what they are but because I don't like being forced to do anything.

Now tell me where I got it wrong, did or did they not have every protection afforded to every other person of their gender?

Given your complete lack of understanding of the laws regarding business, I don't believe that you ever owned a business. You are much too ignorant.

All I can say about your tantrums is boo-effing-hoo. You sound like a toddler, seriously. Why don't you go stomp you feet and throw yourself on the floor too?

Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything, you dummy. Get a grip on yourself. If your religion prevents you from following the law, then you don't have a "right" to open a business and disobey the laws in your state. The states make the rules regarding business practice, not you.

Ok, now answer my question.

You didn't ask me to answer, but I don't think it was a matter of "protection." as much as freedom. The two girls wanted their products because they liked it, but the store owner refused to sell their product to them. Think about it as blacks and a white baker. Wouldn't it be denying the black couple their product and shutting down their freedom of buying it?

Blacks and gays have nothing in common here, blacks are black because of genetics, they have no choice in the matter, being gay is not genetic, it is lifestyle, actions and preferences. If you can ever prove gays are the way they are because of genetics, I'll be happy to revisit my opinion. But in the mean time, the rabbit hole our society has opened by granting rights on non-tangible, purely subjective standards is something I think we will live to regret.

You cannot open a business and discriminate against ANYONE. Your personal opinions have no bearing on the law, thank geebus.

Sure you can.....A business owner cannot be compelled to enter into a contract/business transaction with anyone for any reason. They don't have to say why they decline either.

 

[Debra K]

I hear this often from people who are unhappy that it is unlawful to discriminate against historically oppressed people: "I am intolerant of your [alleged] intolerance of my intolerance."

People who voice their unhappiness with irrational arguments (often laced with abundant profanity) do their cause more harm than good. They display discriminatory animosity toward the oppressed people, intolerance of reasonable people who don't see a compelling argument to continue the oppression, and disrespect for the rule of law.

Iceweasel, I can see and hear that you're unhappy. If you disagree with the laws as they currently exist and are applied, then you have the right to petition the government for redress of your grievances. Perhaps you and other like-minded people can spearhead a campaign to repeal the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and turn back the hands of time when white male persons were dominant and the freedoms of all others were severely yoked, tethered, and chained.

In the meantime, however, I respect your right to spew hate and vitriol wherever you go (subject to whatever lawful consequences that apply).

I assume (based on your posts) that you view the law as only that which the SCOTUS declares it to be at any given second, malleable and fluttering to the capricious whim of 9 unelected rulers?

I assume you agree with the dishonorable Chief Justice that written statute is irrelevant and that only the perceived social goals are relevant? Our Humpty Dumpty court who declares that "law means precisely what I wish it to mean, neither more, nor less."

If you read my posts, then you wouldn't have to make assumptions. History has shown that erroneous decisions do not stand the test of time. If you have a problem with the United States Supreme Court, then place your blame on those who framed and ratified our federal constitution and thus provided us with a judicial branch of federal government that is not subject to the whims and hostilities of shifting factions of the people. Our Supreme Court justices are appointed by our elected President subject to the consent of our elected representatives. The justices must decide cases and controversies based on the law and not upon the volatile public opinions that change whenever the wind blows. We are a nation of laws, not of men. If the Obergefell decision was based on legal error, then it will not stand the test of time and will be overruled. Until that possible time, however, it is the law of land no matter who favors or disfavors it.

If you believe the Obergefell decision was erroneous based on a reasonable interpretation and logical application of the facts and law, please present your argument for discussion. If some people who contribute to this thread want to slosh around in the gutter and fling about profanity, I don't want to go there with them. I don't mind if you get a little snarky ... if it's clever and relevant.

If a written statute on its face or as applied conflicts with the U.S. Constitution, then it is the duty of the Court to say so and declare the statute unconstitutional on its face or as applied. Your unsupported declarations about a "Humpty Dumpty court" constitutes a mere whine and means nothing to me. If you want to discuss any particular case, please bring it to the table. Set forth your premises and conclusion.