Christian bakers who refused to make cake for homosexual "wedding" break gag order

[mdk]

Please quote where the Constituion allows you to use the First Amendment to ignore any law that doesn't jive with your religious beliefs.

No one is claiming that.

What the First Amendment does do is to prohibit Congress* from making laws which violate religious freedom, as well as the other freedoms stated and implied in the First Amendment.

[* And by incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment, all levels of government.]​

It's not that one's religion gives one an exemption from the law; it is that such laws that violate these rights are invalid and unconstitutional.

The Constitution is the highest law in this nation, and government is not exempt from it, nor otherwise allowed to violate it.

You clearly do not have much knowledge of Sil's post history. lol.

 

[Silhouette]

I wonder what the Klein's attorney would post here about the merits of the case?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I wonder what the Klein's attorney would post here about the merits of the case?

There aren't any. Serve one, serve all. It's mot complicated...

 

[Silhouette]

I wonder what the Klein's attorney would post here about the merits of the case?

There aren't any. Serve one, serve all. It's mot complicated...

It gets complicated when a "law" was written by the Judicial branch and forced on the states. Instead of being interpreted, which is what the SCOTUS is limited to..

A "law" arrived at illegally is not a binding law. Sorry.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I wonder what the Klein's attorney would post here about the merits of the case?

There aren't any. Serve one, serve all. It's mot complicated...

It gets complicated when a "law" was written by the Judicial branch and forced on the states. Instead of being interpreted, which is what the SCOTUS is limited to..

A "law" arrived at illegally is not a binding law. Sorry.

Nothing about Gay Marriage was done illegally, and PA laws are constitutional. You just hate the fact that the homosexual minority is protected like other minorities. Too bad for you, little homophobe.

The SC is not limited BTW. They have the last say on what is or isn't constitutional. That is our system. No matter the law, they have the final say, and you lost...

 

[mdk]

I wonder what the Klein's attorney would post here about the merits of the case?

I am not sure crayon appears on the forum.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Please quote where the Constituion allows you to use the First Amendment to ignore any law that doesn't jive with your religious beliefs.

No one is claiming that.

What the First Amendment does do is to prohibit Congress* from making laws which violate religious freedom, as well as the other freedoms stated and implied in the First Amendment.

[* And by incorporation under the Fourteenth Amendment, all levels of government.]​

It's not that one's religion gives one an exemption from the law; it is that such laws that violate these rights are invalid and unconstitutional.

The Constitution is the highest law in this nation, and government is not exempt from it, nor otherwise allowed to violate it.

Wrong.

Public accommodations laws do not violate the Free Exercise Clause:

“We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.”

Employment Division v. Smith

Commerce is clearly conduct the state is free to regulate, including that of public accommodations (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US), where laws regulating the markets are valid and Constitutional, and in no way violate the right to religious expression.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Like so, kids:

Alabama Supreme Court refuses challenge to gay marriage
"BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — The Alabama Supreme Court refused Friday to defy the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that effectively legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, cutting off a conservative bid to prevent gay weddings in the state.

The court issued a one-sentence order dismissing a challenge by a probate judge and a conservative policy group that wanted the state to bar gay marriage despite the landmark federal decision.

In one of several written opinions accompanying the order, Justice Greg Shaw called the decision a “clear refusal” to ignore the Supreme Court ruling last June.

Several other state justices railed against the high court’s ruling while noting they can’t overturn it."

 

[WorldWatcher]

It gets complicated when a "law" was written by the Judicial branch and forced on the states. Instead of being interpreted, which is what the SCOTUS is limited to..

A "law" arrived at illegally is not a binding law. Sorry.

The law which the Klein's violated was written by the Oregon State Legislature. The SCOTUS has not been involved with it all all at this stage. The case is currently on appeal to the Oregon Court of Appeals.


>>>>

 

[Inevitable]

Which might have some relevance if you were being 'harrassed'. You're merely being contradicted.
We've systematically demonstrated your pseudo-legal gibberish for the nonsense it is. As no law nor court recognizes anything you've said about contract laws in marriage. Nor can you cite any legal source that does....You made it all up. And you citing you is gloriously irrelevant to any law, court case, or marriage.

Who is "we've"? And what is "systematically"? It almost sounds like a group of you are here working in concert to beat back my points opposed to gay marriage?

You can make points that support your opposition to same sex marriage. They may even be good points. I don't think the argument against them will ever go away.

 

[Skylar]

I wonder what the Klein's attorney would post here about the merits of the case?

I wonder why you haven't figured out that Klein's attorney doesn't know you're alive. And could care less if he did. As nothing posted here has any relevance to his client's case.

 

[Skylar]

I wonder what the Klein's attorney would post here about the merits of the case?

There aren't any. Serve one, serve all. It's mot complicated...

It gets complicated when a "law" was written by the Judicial branch and forced on the states. Instead of being interpreted, which is what the SCOTUS is limited to..

A "law" arrived at illegally is not a binding law. Sorry.

None of the 'requirements' that you insist the Supreme Court violated actually exist. You hallucinated them.

Sorry.

 

[Silhouette]

I wonder what the Klein's attorney would post here about the merits of the case?

I wonder why you haven't figured out that Klein's attorney doesn't know you're alive. And could care less if he did. As nothing posted here has any relevance to his client's case.

That's not the reason I said that. I said that because you were saying "this case has no merit" when apparently some legal experts think that it does. And I for one would love to hear the angles they're going to argue..

 

[Uncensored2008]

you really shouldn't pretend you know anything about the constitution.... or anything else, near as I can tell...

well, except for being vicious and insulting, that you're pretty good at.

I'm not you Jillian, I don't have to pretend, I have actual knowledge.

 

[Silhouette]

Well in the end to be sure, the real experts are going to be in the High Courts. And so they'll have to decide if Christians can be forced to enable the spread of a gay sex cult into the core of the fabric of society (marriage), even depriving children of either a mother or father for life doing so, or if they are legally allowed to passively say "no, this far and no farther"..?

 

[Skylar]

Well in the end to be sure, the real experts are going to be in the High Courts.

Given that the Supreme Court has already denied cert for *every* of these fallacious 'religious liberty cases' surrounding gay marriage, there's zero indication that the Supreme Court has any interest in this case or any like it.

And so they'll have to decide if Christians can be forced to enable the spread of a gay sex cult into the core of the fabric of society (marriage), even depriving children of either a mother or father for life doing so, or if they are legally allowed to passively say "no, this far and no farther"..?

I'm not sure if you're trying to quote Job or Captain Picard.

Either way, its unlikely the court will be swayed to overturn themselves.

 

[Disgruntled_American]

Well in the end to be sure, the real experts are going to be in the High Courts. And so they'll have to decide if Christians can be forced to enable the spread of a gay sex cult into the core of the fabric of society (marriage), even depriving children of either a mother or father for life doing so, or if they are legally allowed to passively say "no, this far and no farther"..?

Its funny you claim gay marriage deprives a child of either a mother or father when you say and do NOTHING about divorce, single parents, etc. Typical anti-gay hypocrite.

 

[Skylar]

Well in the end to be sure, the real experts are going to be in the High Courts. And so they'll have to decide if Christians can be forced to enable the spread of a gay sex cult into the core of the fabric of society (marriage), even depriving children of either a mother or father for life doing so, or if they are legally allowed to passively say "no, this far and no farther"..?

Its funny you claim gay marriage deprives a child of either a mother or father when you say and do NOTHING about divorce, single parents, etc. Typical anti-gay hypocrite.

Sil was a single mom. So clearly she gives them a pass. Its only the gays that are subjected to her imaginary 'standards'. Never straights.

 

[Silhouette]

Its funny you claim gay marriage deprives a child of either a mother or father when you say and do NOTHING about divorce, single parents, etc. Typical anti-gay hypocrite.

Well that's just the thing. See, marriage was a contract invented over a thousand years ago to CURE the ills of single parenthood and not lead to breakups.
You don't torpedo a contract because the ills it was created to cure are running rampant. Very odd logic.

Even still, when courts handle divorces, which the do so reluctantly, it is because the atmosphere of the home is harmful to children, among other reasons. And they strive to keep the kids in contact with the mother and father until they are of age regardless. As I said before, anyone divorced with kids will tell you that they are not really divorced until the children are of age. Many of the marital obligations live on precisely because of the kids and for no other reason.

So tell me again how children don't enjoy unique rights to the marriage contract?!

 

[Disgruntled_American]

Its funny you claim gay marriage deprives a child of either a mother or father when you say and do NOTHING about divorce, single parents, etc. Typical anti-gay hypocrite.

Well that's just the thing. See, marriage was a contract invented over a thousand years ago to CURE the ills of single parenthood and not lead to breakups.
You don't torpedo a contract because the ills it was created to cure are running rampant. Very odd logic.

Even still, when courts handle divorces, which the do so reluctantly, it is because the atmosphere of the home is harmful to children, among other reasons. And they strive to keep the kids in contact with the mother and father until they are of age regardless. As I said before, anyone divorced with kids will tell you that they are not really divorced until the children are of age. Many of the marital obligations live on precisely because of the kids and for no other reason.

So tell me again how children don't enjoy unique rights to the marriage contract?!

You are the one that made the claim that gay marriage deprives a child of a mother and father. I simply pointed out that in MANY cases so does heterosexual divorce. You being a single parent deprived your child of that. Using your logic, you should have had your child taken away.

As for marriage and tradition, guess what, your traditions are not mine. You don't hold a monopoly on marriage and with the SCOTUS rulings it is a done deal. I have seen gay couples raise HETEROSEXUAL children that have led productive and successful lives. The proof is there to see, but your anti-gay bigotry blinds you to any possibility that you are wrong. I don't have to change your mind, but now you cant force your morals on everyone else like a Christian Taliban.