Court Rules--LEGAL To Fire Homo's!

[Skylar]

I cited speech, bearing arms, religious activities, and assembly as behaviors as well. If you don't think my citation of religion is complete, pick any of the others.

My point stands. Behaviors are protected.

Except for bearing arms, which is addressed in a different amendment, speech, assembly, petitioning, etc are extensions of belief, not sexual orientation. Personally, I think anyone who fires a person based solely what they do in their free time is a moron and such creatures are extremely rare. But when one's extracurricular activities become a source of identity politics agitated in the workplace, then that person should be fired, not for being gay but for acting like a faggot.

Sexual orientation isn't based on action. But attraction. You can act on that attraction or not. But its the attraction that defines sexual orientation.

Speech is a behavior. Religious activities are a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. Bearing arms is a behavior.

They are all protected. Rendering Sil's claims that behaviors aren't constitutionally protected provably false pseudo-legal gibberish.

Well, *more* provably false pseudo-legal gibberish.

You landed on the wrong planet. The Constitution was NEVER designed to govern the private affairs of people. It was written to restrain government.

Period.

It was amended to prevent the states from violating the rights of their citizens.

But hey, type the word 'Period' again. We'll check to see if same sex marriages magically stop happening.

Spoiler Alert. They won't.

The amendment did not empower government to regulate people's private affairs.

The States don't need to be empowered to recognize marriage. See the 10th amendment.

The constitution was amended to ensure that due process and equal protection were afforded to all state citizens. See the 14th amendment.

 

[Andylusion]

Sil is claiming that behaviors aren't constitutionally protected.

I would agree. Assuming I understand the implication of that, yes she is right.

If you have "behavior x", which the majority objects to, that suddenly gets "protection/status z", then any and all other behaviors the majority object to, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, ALL get "protection status z". What other situation could there be? How would you deny say, "behavior y"? Because the majority finds it repugnant?

Law has to make sense, particularly when citing over and over the term "equality". Setting apart just one or two behaviors for special protections/privileges when the majority finds them repugnant is discrimination against all the other behaviors in the same situation. Why is polygamy marriage illegal while gay marriage is legal? It is a logical impossibility. If "equality" is the hinge of law, then all sexual orientations, no matter who finds them repugnant, are all able to marry right now. Today. Or none of them are legal, outside just the states where they were made legal. Making all this worse for Obergefell...marriage is, therefore, by gays own admission (via excluding polygamy and incest orientations) a privilege they enjoy, but not a right. But this ushers in another problem. Who decides who gets what privilege, while others may be excluded? The US Supreme Court? Or the states?

The answer is: The states define who enjoys which privilege within their borders. And to cite precedent on that deduction, Windsor (2013) v USA stated the states are the final say on marriage. This was repeated 56 times in the Windsor Opinion. Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

The USSC made this mistake in their interpretation of the 14th. It was too narrow. Obergefell has to be redone. It is an illegal interpretation of the 14th. It discriminates against other sexual orientations. Either marriage is an immediate, applicable right for ALL sexual orientations the majority finds repugnant, or it is a privilege instead, whose parameters are set by the separate states.

The entire concept of marriage was created and ordained by G-d. Quite frankly if not for Adam and Eve, there would be no marriage.

Prove it.

I don't have to. Welcome to democracy. I don't have prove jack to you, and I still get to vote. Too bad. So sad. Sucks to be you.

Thanks for playing.... I win.

 

[Skylar]

Sil is claiming that behaviors aren't constitutionally protected.

I would agree. Assuming I understand the implication of that, yes she is right.

If you have "behavior x", which the majority objects to, that suddenly gets "protection/status z", then any and all other behaviors the majority object to, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, ALL get "protection status z". What other situation could there be? How would you deny say, "behavior y"? Because the majority finds it repugnant?

Law has to make sense, particularly when citing over and over the term "equality". Setting apart just one or two behaviors for special protections/privileges when the majority finds them repugnant is discrimination against all the other behaviors in the same situation. Why is polygamy marriage illegal while gay marriage is legal? It is a logical impossibility. If "equality" is the hinge of law, then all sexual orientations, no matter who finds them repugnant, are all able to marry right now. Today. Or none of them are legal, outside just the states where they were made legal. Making all this worse for Obergefell...marriage is, therefore, by gays own admission (via excluding polygamy and incest orientations) a privilege they enjoy, but not a right. But this ushers in another problem. Who decides who gets what privilege, while others may be excluded? The US Supreme Court? Or the states?

The answer is: The states define who enjoys which privilege within their borders. And to cite precedent on that deduction, Windsor (2013) v USA stated the states are the final say on marriage. This was repeated 56 times in the Windsor Opinion. Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

The USSC made this mistake in their interpretation of the 14th. It was too narrow. Obergefell has to be redone. It is an illegal interpretation of the 14th. It discriminates against other sexual orientations. Either marriage is an immediate, applicable right for ALL sexual orientations the majority finds repugnant, or it is a privilege instead, whose parameters are set by the separate states.

The entire concept of marriage was created and ordained by G-d. Quite frankly if not for Adam and Eve, there would be no marriage.

Prove it.

I don't have to. Welcome to democracy. I don't have prove jack to you, and I still get to vote. Too bad. So sad. Sucks to be you.

Thanks for playing.... I win.

More accurately, you can't back your claim factually. Despite it being the cornerstone of your entire argument.

And gays and lesbians are marrying despite your factually baseless assumptions. So they win.

 

[Andylusion]

I would agree. Assuming I understand the implication of that, yes she is right.

If you have "behavior x", which the majority objects to, that suddenly gets "protection/status z", then any and all other behaviors the majority object to, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, ALL get "protection status z". What other situation could there be? How would you deny say, "behavior y"? Because the majority finds it repugnant?

Law has to make sense, particularly when citing over and over the term "equality". Setting apart just one or two behaviors for special protections/privileges when the majority finds them repugnant is discrimination against all the other behaviors in the same situation. Why is polygamy marriage illegal while gay marriage is legal? It is a logical impossibility. If "equality" is the hinge of law, then all sexual orientations, no matter who finds them repugnant, are all able to marry right now. Today. Or none of them are legal, outside just the states where they were made legal. Making all this worse for Obergefell...marriage is, therefore, by gays own admission (via excluding polygamy and incest orientations) a privilege they enjoy, but not a right. But this ushers in another problem. Who decides who gets what privilege, while others may be excluded? The US Supreme Court? Or the states?

The answer is: The states define who enjoys which privilege within their borders. And to cite precedent on that deduction, Windsor (2013) v USA stated the states are the final say on marriage. This was repeated 56 times in the Windsor Opinion. Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

The USSC made this mistake in their interpretation of the 14th. It was too narrow. Obergefell has to be redone. It is an illegal interpretation of the 14th. It discriminates against other sexual orientations. Either marriage is an immediate, applicable right for ALL sexual orientations the majority finds repugnant, or it is a privilege instead, whose parameters are set by the separate states.

The entire concept of marriage was created and ordained by G-d. Quite frankly if not for Adam and Eve, there would be no marriage.

Prove it.

I don't have to. Welcome to democracy. I don't have prove jack to you, and I still get to vote. Too bad. So sad. Sucks to be you.

Thanks for playing.... I win.

More accurately, you can't back your claim factually. Despite it being the cornerstone of your entire argument.

And gays and lesbians are marrying despite your factually baseless assumptions. So they win.

I don't need to. The only reason you can even attempt this argument, is because Christian of beliefs.

So I really don't care what you think. I don't care if you think I can't back my argument. Because I don't need to. Sucks to be you. Oh well. We can vote to sparky. Not darn thing you can do about it.

 

[Skylar]

If you have "behavior x", which the majority objects to, that suddenly gets "protection/status z", then any and all other behaviors the majority object to, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, ALL get "protection status z". What other situation could there be? How would you deny say, "behavior y"? Because the majority finds it repugnant?

Law has to make sense, particularly when citing over and over the term "equality". Setting apart just one or two behaviors for special protections/privileges when the majority finds them repugnant is discrimination against all the other behaviors in the same situation. Why is polygamy marriage illegal while gay marriage is legal? It is a logical impossibility. If "equality" is the hinge of law, then all sexual orientations, no matter who finds them repugnant, are all able to marry right now. Today. Or none of them are legal, outside just the states where they were made legal. Making all this worse for Obergefell...marriage is, therefore, by gays own admission (via excluding polygamy and incest orientations) a privilege they enjoy, but not a right. But this ushers in another problem. Who decides who gets what privilege, while others may be excluded? The US Supreme Court? Or the states?

The answer is: The states define who enjoys which privilege within their borders. And to cite precedent on that deduction, Windsor (2013) v USA stated the states are the final say on marriage. This was repeated 56 times in the Windsor Opinion. Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

The USSC made this mistake in their interpretation of the 14th. It was too narrow. Obergefell has to be redone. It is an illegal interpretation of the 14th. It discriminates against other sexual orientations. Either marriage is an immediate, applicable right for ALL sexual orientations the majority finds repugnant, or it is a privilege instead, whose parameters are set by the separate states.

The entire concept of marriage was created and ordained by G-d. Quite frankly if not for Adam and Eve, there would be no marriage.

Prove it.

I don't have to. Welcome to democracy. I don't have prove jack to you, and I still get to vote. Too bad. So sad. Sucks to be you.

Thanks for playing.... I win.

More accurately, you can't back your claim factually. Despite it being the cornerstone of your entire argument.

And gays and lesbians are marrying despite your factually baseless assumptions. So they win.

I don't need to. The only reason you can even attempt this argument, is because Christian of beliefs.

You can't. And thus your argument is legally irrelevant assumption.

"Its Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" isn't actually a legal argument. You get that, right?

So I really don't care what you think. I don't care if you think I can't back my argument. Because I don't need to. Sucks to be you. Oh well. We can vote to sparky. Not darn thing you can do about it.

It doesn't matter what you care about. Gays and lesbians can still marry.

They still win. Get used to the idea.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Except for bearing arms, which is addressed in a different amendment, speech, assembly, petitioning, etc are extensions of belief, not sexual orientation. Personally, I think anyone who fires a person based solely what they do in their free time is a moron and such creatures are extremely rare. But when one's extracurricular activities become a source of identity politics agitated in the workplace, then that person should be fired, not for being gay but for acting like a faggot.

Sexual orientation isn't based on action. But attraction. You can act on that attraction or not. But its the attraction that defines sexual orientation.

Speech is a behavior. Religious activities are a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. Bearing arms is a behavior.

They are all protected. Rendering Sil's claims that behaviors aren't constitutionally protected provably false pseudo-legal gibberish.

Well, *more* provably false pseudo-legal gibberish.

You landed on the wrong planet. The Constitution was NEVER designed to govern the private affairs of people. It was written to restrain government.

Period.

It was amended to prevent the states from violating the rights of their citizens.

But hey, type the word 'Period' again. We'll check to see if same sex marriages magically stop happening.

Spoiler Alert. They won't.

The amendment did not empower government to regulate people's private affairs.

The States don't need to be empowered to recognize marriage. See the 10th amendment.

The constitution was amended to ensure that due process and equal protection were afforded to all state citizens. See the 14th amendment.

None of which confers the right not to be fired by a private business. Your whole argument should be based on the 1964 CRA because the constitution doesn't validate any of it.

 

[Skylar]

Sexual orientation isn't based on action. But attraction. You can act on that attraction or not. But its the attraction that defines sexual orientation.

Speech is a behavior. Religious activities are a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. Bearing arms is a behavior.

They are all protected. Rendering Sil's claims that behaviors aren't constitutionally protected provably false pseudo-legal gibberish.

Well, *more* provably false pseudo-legal gibberish.

You landed on the wrong planet. The Constitution was NEVER designed to govern the private affairs of people. It was written to restrain government.

Period.

It was amended to prevent the states from violating the rights of their citizens.

But hey, type the word 'Period' again. We'll check to see if same sex marriages magically stop happening.

Spoiler Alert. They won't.

The amendment did not empower government to regulate people's private affairs.

The States don't need to be empowered to recognize marriage. See the 10th amendment.

The constitution was amended to ensure that due process and equal protection were afforded to all state citizens. See the 14th amendment.

None of which confers the right not to be fired by a private business.

I'm responding to Sil's claims about gay marriage. A topic you have seemingly abandoned.

Good. It was a pretty lousy argument.

Your whole argument should be based on the 1964 CRA because the constitution doesn't validate any of it.

I've never made any such argument. In fact, I've corrected Sil when he cited Title VII as the basis of court rulings that protect gays and lesbians. Romer, Lawerence, Windsor and Obergefell all cited either the 5th or 14th amendment as their bases.

Not the 1964 CRA.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You landed on the wrong planet. The Constitution was NEVER designed to govern the private affairs of people. It was written to restrain government.

Period.

It was amended to prevent the states from violating the rights of their citizens.

But hey, type the word 'Period' again. We'll check to see if same sex marriages magically stop happening.

Spoiler Alert. They won't.

The amendment did not empower government to regulate people's private affairs.

The States don't need to be empowered to recognize marriage. See the 10th amendment.

The constitution was amended to ensure that due process and equal protection were afforded to all state citizens. See the 14th amendment.

None of which confers the right not to be fired by a private business.

I'm responding to Sil's claims about gay marriage. A topic you have seemingly abandoned.

Good. It was a pretty lousy argument.

Your whole argument should be based on the 1964 CRA because the constitution doesn't validate any of it.

I've never made any such argument. In fact, I've corrected Sil when he cited Title VII as the basis of court rulings that protect gays and lesbians. Romer, Lawerence, Windsor and Obergefell all cited either the 5th or 14th amendment as their bases.

Not the 1964 CRA.

Typical Leftist, unable to distinguish the Constitution from court rulings. By that logic, the Constitution condones the Democrat practice of slavery and Japanese internment.

 

[Skylar]

It was amended to prevent the states from violating the rights of their citizens.

But hey, type the word 'Period' again. We'll check to see if same sex marriages magically stop happening.

Spoiler Alert. They won't.

The amendment did not empower government to regulate people's private affairs.

The States don't need to be empowered to recognize marriage. See the 10th amendment.

The constitution was amended to ensure that due process and equal protection were afforded to all state citizens. See the 14th amendment.

None of which confers the right not to be fired by a private business.

I'm responding to Sil's claims about gay marriage. A topic you have seemingly abandoned.

Good. It was a pretty lousy argument.

Your whole argument should be based on the 1964 CRA because the constitution doesn't validate any of it.

I've never made any such argument. In fact, I've corrected Sil when he cited Title VII as the basis of court rulings that protect gays and lesbians. Romer, Lawerence, Windsor and Obergefell all cited either the 5th or 14th amendment as their bases.

Not the 1964 CRA.

Typical Leftist, unable to distinguish the Constitution from court rulings. By that logic, the Constitution condones the Democrat practice of slavery and Japanese internment.

Laughing.....there is just strawman stuffing everywhere. Quote me ever citing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as protecting sexual orientation. In this thread or any other.

You can't. You've hallucinated it.

You lost on gay marriage, abandoning it entirely. And now you're beating a strawman about the CSA of 1964. Any other fallacies you'd like to flee to?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The amendment did not empower government to regulate people's private affairs.

The States don't need to be empowered to recognize marriage. See the 10th amendment.

The constitution was amended to ensure that due process and equal protection were afforded to all state citizens. See the 14th amendment.

None of which confers the right not to be fired by a private business.

I'm responding to Sil's claims about gay marriage. A topic you have seemingly abandoned.

Good. It was a pretty lousy argument.

Your whole argument should be based on the 1964 CRA because the constitution doesn't validate any of it.

I've never made any such argument. In fact, I've corrected Sil when he cited Title VII as the basis of court rulings that protect gays and lesbians. Romer, Lawerence, Windsor and Obergefell all cited either the 5th or 14th amendment as their bases.

Not the 1964 CRA.

Typical Leftist, unable to distinguish the Constitution from court rulings. By that logic, the Constitution condones the Democrat practice of slavery and Japanese internment.

Laughing.....there is just strawman stuffing everywhere. Quote me ever citing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as protecting sexual orientation. In this thread or any other.

You can't. You've hallucinated it.

You lost on gay marriage, abandoning it entirely. And now you're beating a strawman about the CSA of 1964. Any other fallacies you'd like to flee to?

Strawman? Did you not read the court's decision? It was all about the 1964 CRA.

Silly goose!

 

[AvgGuyIA]

I believe if Trump is President and installs conservative judges, we can overturn gay marriage. Men marrying men is an absurd notion. They can live together and use the courts to protect their interest is things like Inheritance.j

If you think this is an absurd notion to repeal gay marriage then you don't believe a liberal court appointed by Hillary will repeal Citizen's United. That's exactly what they'll do.

 

[Andylusion]

The entire concept of marriage was created and ordained by G-d. Quite frankly if not for Adam and Eve, there would be no marriage.

Prove it.

I don't have to. Welcome to democracy. I don't have prove jack to you, and I still get to vote. Too bad. So sad. Sucks to be you.

Thanks for playing.... I win.

More accurately, you can't back your claim factually. Despite it being the cornerstone of your entire argument.

And gays and lesbians are marrying despite your factually baseless assumptions. So they win.

I don't need to. The only reason you can even attempt this argument, is because Christian of beliefs.

You can't. And thus your argument is legally irrelevant assumption.

"Its Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" isn't actually a legal argument. You get that, right?

So I really don't care what you think. I don't care if you think I can't back my argument. Because I don't need to. Sucks to be you. Oh well. We can vote to sparky. Not darn thing you can do about it.

It doesn't matter what you care about. Gays and lesbians can still marry.

They still win. Get used to the idea.

You missed it. I don't care if it's a legal argument or not. See this is the part that you people missed.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.​

Now if you DO believe in the Creator, then he created marriage, not you.

If you DO NOT believe in the Creator...... then all those "rights" that you claim? They are just man made. Just like the law is man made. Just like everything you cling to, is man made.

And if it's man made.... then you don't have "rights"..... You were given privileges, and those privileges can be taken away.

You are either endowed by your creator with rights, or you were given privileges invented by men, and can be revoked by men. One or the other dude. Can't be both. At least not in a rational world, which I'm about to find out if you are in.

So either way.... I don't care what you think... I don't care about your 'legal arguments', and nothing you say will ever change my views on this, and that goes for most of the 2.2 Billion Christians in the world, and for most of the 280 Million Christians in the United States of America.

And quite frankly, we don't give crap what you think of us, of our views, or whether you think our beliefs are legal. We get to vote. You don't have a choice in the matter. Oh well. Too bad. Sucks to be you. We have a voice, and a vote too.

 

[Skylar]

Prove it.

I don't have to. Welcome to democracy. I don't have prove jack to you, and I still get to vote. Too bad. So sad. Sucks to be you.

Thanks for playing.... I win.

More accurately, you can't back your claim factually. Despite it being the cornerstone of your entire argument.

And gays and lesbians are marrying despite your factually baseless assumptions. So they win.

I don't need to. The only reason you can even attempt this argument, is because Christian of beliefs.

You can't. And thus your argument is legally irrelevant assumption.

"Its Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" isn't actually a legal argument. You get that, right?

So I really don't care what you think. I don't care if you think I can't back my argument. Because I don't need to. Sucks to be you. Oh well. We can vote to sparky. Not darn thing you can do about it.

It doesn't matter what you care about. Gays and lesbians can still marry.

They still win. Get used to the idea.

You missed it. I don't care if it's a legal argument or not. See this is the part that you people missed.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.​

Now if you DO believe in the Creator, then he created marriage, not you.

Unless he didn't. Remember, you're citing your own creation myth as the basis of your entire argument. But you can't factually establish any of it. And there are plenty of creation myths.

What you think, what you believe, what you care about......doesn't change the fact that gays and lesbians can marry. Your conception of rights, your belief in who gives them, your assumptions and creation myths don't change the fact that gays and lesbians can marry.

As the right to marry under the constitution is a legal one. Not a religious one.

Get used to the idea.

 

[Skylar]

The States don't need to be empowered to recognize marriage. See the 10th amendment.

The constitution was amended to ensure that due process and equal protection were afforded to all state citizens. See the 14th amendment.

None of which confers the right not to be fired by a private business.

I'm responding to Sil's claims about gay marriage. A topic you have seemingly abandoned.

Good. It was a pretty lousy argument.

Your whole argument should be based on the 1964 CRA because the constitution doesn't validate any of it.

I've never made any such argument. In fact, I've corrected Sil when he cited Title VII as the basis of court rulings that protect gays and lesbians. Romer, Lawerence, Windsor and Obergefell all cited either the 5th or 14th amendment as their bases.

Not the 1964 CRA.

Typical Leftist, unable to distinguish the Constitution from court rulings. By that logic, the Constitution condones the Democrat practice of slavery and Japanese internment.

Laughing.....there is just strawman stuffing everywhere. Quote me ever citing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as protecting sexual orientation. In this thread or any other.

You can't. You've hallucinated it.

You lost on gay marriage, abandoning it entirely. And now you're beating a strawman about the CSA of 1964. Any other fallacies you'd like to flee to?

Strawman? Did you not read the court's decision? It was all about the 1964 CRA.

Silly goose!

Laughing......the court decision stated that the 1964 CRA did NOT protect sexual orientation. Did you even read it?

You're just running, Mikey. Like you always do. Which begs the question: if you knew you were going to flee, why did you even jump into the conversation?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I believe if Trump is President and installs conservative judges, we can overturn gay marriage. Men marrying men is an absurd notion. They can live together and use the courts to protect their interest is things like Inheritance.

You know that even if the SCOTUS reverses the Obergefel decision, that SSCM will still exist in (IIRC) 17 jurisdictions (16 States + DC) because SSCM was passed by state action, not federal action. A SCOTUS reversal would have no impact on states with SSCM based on State Constitution court action, State Legislative action, or State ballot action.

And the Federal government will still recognize the Civil Marriages from those jurisdictions.


>>>>

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

None of which confers the right not to be fired by a private business.

I'm responding to Sil's claims about gay marriage. A topic you have seemingly abandoned.

Good. It was a pretty lousy argument.

Your whole argument should be based on the 1964 CRA because the constitution doesn't validate any of it.

I've never made any such argument. In fact, I've corrected Sil when he cited Title VII as the basis of court rulings that protect gays and lesbians. Romer, Lawerence, Windsor and Obergefell all cited either the 5th or 14th amendment as their bases.

Not the 1964 CRA.

Typical Leftist, unable to distinguish the Constitution from court rulings. By that logic, the Constitution condones the Democrat practice of slavery and Japanese internment.

Laughing.....there is just strawman stuffing everywhere. Quote me ever citing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as protecting sexual orientation. In this thread or any other.

You can't. You've hallucinated it.

You lost on gay marriage, abandoning it entirely. And now you're beating a strawman about the CSA of 1964. Any other fallacies you'd like to flee to?

Strawman? Did you not read the court's decision? It was all about the 1964 CRA.

Silly goose!

Laughing......the court decision stated that the 1964 CRA did NOT protect sexual orientation. Did you even read it?

You're just running, Mikey. Like you always do. Which begs the question: if you knew you were going to flee, why did you even jump into the conversation?

That's the whole point. The only merit that homo workplace protections would have is if it was listed as a protected status in the CRA. It doesn't. That means neither the Constitution or US statute afford such a protection.

 

[Skylar]

I'm responding to Sil's claims about gay marriage. A topic you have seemingly abandoned.

Good. It was a pretty lousy argument.

I've never made any such argument. In fact, I've corrected Sil when he cited Title VII as the basis of court rulings that protect gays and lesbians. Romer, Lawerence, Windsor and Obergefell all cited either the 5th or 14th amendment as their bases.

Not the 1964 CRA.

Typical Leftist, unable to distinguish the Constitution from court rulings. By that logic, the Constitution condones the Democrat practice of slavery and Japanese internment.

Laughing.....there is just strawman stuffing everywhere. Quote me ever citing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as protecting sexual orientation. In this thread or any other.

You can't. You've hallucinated it.

You lost on gay marriage, abandoning it entirely. And now you're beating a strawman about the CSA of 1964. Any other fallacies you'd like to flee to?

Strawman? Did you not read the court's decision? It was all about the 1964 CRA.

Silly goose!

Laughing......the court decision stated that the 1964 CRA did NOT protect sexual orientation. Did you even read it?

You're just running, Mikey. Like you always do. Which begs the question: if you knew you were going to flee, why did you even jump into the conversation?

That's the whole point. The only merit that homo workplace protections would have is if it was listed as a protected status in the CRA. It doesn't. That means neither the Constitution or US statute afford such a protection.

Who has said otherwise? Quote me claiming that the Title VII of the CRA protects sexual orientation...or admit you're beating a strawman.

As the argument you're railing against.....isn't mine.

Next fallacy, please.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I believe if Trump is President and installs conservative judges, we can overturn gay marriage. Men marrying men is an absurd notion. They can live together and use the courts to protect their interest is things like Inheritance.

You know that even if the SCOTUS reverses the Obergefel decision, that SSCM will still exist in (IIRC) 17 jurisdictions (16 States + DC) because SSCM was passed by state action, not federal action. A SCOTUS reversal would have no impact on states with SSCM based on State Constitution court action, State Legislative action, or State ballot action.


>>>>

Good. I have no problem with that. Same with abortion. The Constitution does not give the federal government jurisdiction in these affairs.

 

[Skylar]

I believe if Trump is President and installs conservative judges, we can overturn gay marriage. Men marrying men is an absurd notion. They can live together and use the courts to protect their interest is things like Inheritance.

You know that even if the SCOTUS reverses the Obergefel decision, that SSCM will still exist in (IIRC) 17 jurisdictions (16 States + DC) because SSCM was passed by state action, not federal action. A SCOTUS reversal would have no impact on states with SSCM based on State Constitution court action, State Legislative action, or State ballot action.


>>>>

Good. I have no problem with that. Same with abortion. The Constitution does not give the federal government jurisdiction in these affairs.

The 14th amendment is part of the constitution. And it absolutely gives the the Federal government the authority to prevent the States from violating the rights of federal citizens.....or denying them due process or equal protection under the law.

Which is exactly what the USSC cited when they ruled that States laws denying marriage to same sex couples were unconstitutional.

That's your cue to run, Mikey.

 

[Andylusion]

I don't have to. Welcome to democracy. I don't have prove jack to you, and I still get to vote. Too bad. So sad. Sucks to be you.

Thanks for playing.... I win.

More accurately, you can't back your claim factually. Despite it being the cornerstone of your entire argument.

And gays and lesbians are marrying despite your factually baseless assumptions. So they win.

I don't need to. The only reason you can even attempt this argument, is because Christian of beliefs.

You can't. And thus your argument is legally irrelevant assumption.

"Its Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" isn't actually a legal argument. You get that, right?

So I really don't care what you think. I don't care if you think I can't back my argument. Because I don't need to. Sucks to be you. Oh well. We can vote to sparky. Not darn thing you can do about it.

It doesn't matter what you care about. Gays and lesbians can still marry.

They still win. Get used to the idea.

You missed it. I don't care if it's a legal argument or not. See this is the part that you people missed.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.​

Now if you DO believe in the Creator, then he created marriage, not you.

Unless he didn't. Remember, you're citing your own creation myth as the basis of your entire argument. But you can't factually establish any of it. And there are plenty of creation myths.

What you think, what you believe, what you care about......doesn't change the fact that gays and lesbians can marry. Your conception of rights, your belief in who gives them, your assumptions and creation myths don't change the fact that gays and lesbians can marry.

As the right to marry under the constitution is a legal one. Not a religious one.

Get used to the idea.

No. I refuse, and most Christians will too. You can get a little bit of paper from the state. What you can't get is respect from the 70% of the country, and 2.2 Billion in the world that do not, will not, and refuse to recognize that marriage. And if I have to choose between going out of buisness, and following your BS.... I'll go out of business, and start up elsewhere, and follow my faith, regardless of your laws. G-d can take care of his people, and if not, you'll have to kill us.

Because we're not going away, and we're not going to follow your Bull. So whacha going to do? Huh? I know what I'm going to do. I'm going to stand for my faith. You have no choice in what I do. So what are you going to do about it?

Daniel 3:16-17
Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego replied to him, "King Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to defend ourselves before you in this matter. If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to deliver us from it, and he will deliver us from Your Majesty's hand. But even if he does not, we want you to know, Your Majesty, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up."

So I say to you, and all your legal crap followers, and all the homo-nazis demanding we recognize their made up myth of a marriage.....

We do not need to defend ourselves before you in this matter. If we are fined, jailed, or even sentenced to die, G-d can deliver us from it. But even if he does not, we want you to know, we will not serve your rules and laws, or worship the homo-marriage you setup.

So I don't care about your BS. Spew it to someone else. We're not going to get used to it. It's not going to be part of our lives. And there is nothing you can do about. Do whatever you want. We're not changing for you. Oh well.