Court Rules--LEGAL To Fire Homo's!

[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.

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.

Since a gay man could marry a woman, there is no equal protection issue. Our Trump Supreme Court will clarify that for you when it strikes down gay marriage .

 

[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.

Since a gay man could marry a woman, there is no equal protection issue. Our Trump Supreme Court will clarify that for you when it strikes down gay marriage .

If you can provide a rational reason why to deny same sex couples the right to marry, present it. But you never could. As for equal protection, same sex couples have it when they can marry just like opposite sex couples can.

Which they can now.

As for a Trump Presidency.....you ilk are already giving us excuses for why he lost.

 

[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.

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.

Since a gay man could marry a woman, there is no equal protection issue. Our Trump Supreme Court will clarify that for you when it strikes down gay marriage .

If you can provide a rational reason why to deny same sex couples the right to marry, present it. But you never could. As for equal protection, same sex couples have it when they can marry just like opposite sex couples can.

Which they can now.

As for a Trump Presidency.....you ilk are already giving us excuses for why he lost.

Did you forget what the thread is about so quickly after criticizing me for the same?

 

[Skylar]

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.

Most people already approve of same sex marriage. You and people like you are like those who used their religion to denounce interracial marriage.

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.

Except that you're expressing your desires rather what the evidence actually suggests.

Record-High 60% of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage

Record-High 60% of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage

You've lost the majority, by far. And you'll continue to lose. Gays will continue to gain ground. And they will continue to marry and have their marriage protected and honored by the law.

And there's not a thing you can do about it.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Since a gay man could marry a woman, there is no equal protection issue. Our Trump Supreme Court will clarify that for you when it strikes down gay marriage .

If you can provide a rational reason why to deny same sex couples the right to marry, present it. But you never could. As for equal protection, same sex couples have it when they can marry just like opposite sex couples can.

Which they can now.

As for a Trump Presidency.....you ilk are already giving us excuses for why he lost.

Did you forget what the thread is about so quickly after criticizing me for the same?

Quote me criticizing you for 'forgetting the thread'.

You can't, Mikey. You're still running. Just like you did when you abandoned gay marriage, just like you did when you fled on what the constitution would permit.

Keep running.

 

[Skylar]

Laughing.....Mikey, a laugh emoji isn't a quote of me criticizing you for forgetting the thread.

You're done.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Most people already approve of same sex marriage. You and people like you are like those who used their religion to denounce interracial marriage.

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.

Except that you're expressing your desires rather what the evidence actually suggests.

Record-High 60% of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage

Record-High 60% of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage

You've lost the majority, by far. And you'll continue to lose. Gays will continue to gain ground. And they will continue to marry and have their marriage protected and honored by the law.

And there's not a thing you can do about it.

There is no race. So, that's a non-argument. I don't really care what you think I'm like. I know what I believe, and what is true. And nothing you say "your like X!" is going to change that. Your little opinion of me, matters less to me than the lint in my clothes drier.

Again, I don't care about your "evidence". We covered that. I don't know why you keep bring it back up, as if that is magically going to change any Bible believing Christian's mind.

Since when have I ever cared if I'm with the majority? When has that ever mattered to me?

G-d says it's wrong. It's wrong. Period. It's wrong whether you agree its wrong or not. It's wrong if you vote on it or not. It's wrong no matter what anyone anywhere says. It's wrong even if the poll says otherwise.

So that's a failed argument. If we all voted that slavery was legal again, would it be wrong or not? Yes it would. Doesn't matter what you say, or what dumb poll you cite, or if everyone votes on it.

You lose again. Sorry. Don't care what stupid poll you cite. As if G-d is worried "Oh myself! They voted against me! Whatever shall I do?". lol silly little pagans.

 

[Silhouette]

Well it's not just God's word anymore...a panel of federal judges have also said sexual orientation isn't a static class like race, sex or country of origin. That's where the rubber is going to meet the road

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Laughing.....Mikey, a laugh emoji isn't a quote of me criticizing you for forgetting the thread.

You're done.

I'm done? You lose every argument you get into with me and then claim victory. Do you know how pathetic that is?

 

[Skylar]

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?

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.

Most people already approve of same sex marriage. You and people like you are like those who used their religion to denounce interracial marriage.

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.

Except that you're expressing your desires rather what the evidence actually suggests.

Record-High 60% of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage

Record-High 60% of Americans Support Same-Sex Marriage

You've lost the majority, by far. And you'll continue to lose. Gays will continue to gain ground. And they will continue to marry and have their marriage protected and honored by the law.

And there's not a thing you can do about it.

There is no race. So, that's a non-argument.

And yet the religious bigots still found it in their hearts to make the same horseshit argument you are, based on the same made up 'evidence'.

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Sound familiar? He 'knew what he believed' too. He couldn't prove his imaginary nonsense either.

And just like Judge Bazile......your ilk are dwindling. And rightly so.

 

[Skylar]

Laughing.....Mikey, a laugh emoji isn't a quote of me criticizing you for forgetting the thread.

You're done.

I'm done? You lose every argument you get into with me and then claim victory. Do you know how pathetic that is?

Laughing......says the poor soul that still has his tail between his legs, having abandoned the gay marriage argument. And you abandoned your 'what the constitution includes' argument. And all your random strawmen.

But hey....maybe you've got another emoji.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Laughing.....Mikey, a laugh emoji isn't a quote of me criticizing you for forgetting the thread.

You're done.

I'm done? You lose every argument you get into with me and then claim victory. Do you know how pathetic that is?

Laughing......says the poor soul that still has his tail between his legs, having abandoned the gay marriage argument. And you abandoned your 'what the constitution includes' argument. And all your random strawmen.

But hey....maybe you've got another emoji.

You're done.

See? I can do that too.

 

[Skylar]

Well it's not just God's word anymore...a panel of federal judges have also said sexual orientation isn't a static class like race, sex or country of origin.

Which federal judge are you referring to? Because the OP judge doesn't say this.

That's where the rubber is going to meet the road

And yet Obergefell found that same sex marriage was a constitutional right. In explicit contradiction of your assumption. Demonstrating elegantly what your legal assumptions are worth.

 

[Skylar]

Laughing.....Mikey, a laugh emoji isn't a quote of me criticizing you for forgetting the thread.

You're done.

I'm done? You lose every argument you get into with me and then claim victory. Do you know how pathetic that is?

Laughing......says the poor soul that still has his tail between his legs, having abandoned the gay marriage argument. And you abandoned your 'what the constitution includes' argument. And all your random strawmen.

But hey....maybe you've got another emoji.

You're done.

See? I can do that too.

You certainly abandoned the gay marriage debate. And your arguments on what is included in the constitution. Nor could you ever find a single quote of mine claiming that Title VII protected sexual orientation.

And that's why you're done, Mikey: there's no argument left that you haven't already run from.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Laughing.....Mikey, a laugh emoji isn't a quote of me criticizing you for forgetting the thread.

You're done.

I'm done? You lose every argument you get into with me and then claim victory. Do you know how pathetic that is?

Laughing......says the poor soul that still has his tail between his legs, having abandoned the gay marriage argument. And you abandoned your 'what the constitution includes' argument. And all your random strawmen.

But hey....maybe you've got another emoji.

You're done.

See? I can do that too.

You certainly abandoned the gay marriage debate. And your arguments on what is included in the constitution. Nor could you ever find a single quote of mine claiming that Title VII protected sexual orientation.

And that's why you're done, Mikey: there's no argument left that you haven't already run from.

I didn't abandon anything, I just don't beat my head against a wall over something that will likely never be walked back. I also try to stick to the topic which you have steered into the only topic on USMB you ever discuss. This thread is about firing homos, not homo nuptials.

 

[Skylar]

Laughing.....Mikey, a laugh emoji isn't a quote of me criticizing you for forgetting the thread.

You're done.

I'm done? You lose every argument you get into with me and then claim victory. Do you know how pathetic that is?

Laughing......says the poor soul that still has his tail between his legs, having abandoned the gay marriage argument. And you abandoned your 'what the constitution includes' argument. And all your random strawmen.

But hey....maybe you've got another emoji.

You're done.

See? I can do that too.

You certainly abandoned the gay marriage debate. And your arguments on what is included in the constitution. Nor could you ever find a single quote of mine claiming that Title VII protected sexual orientation.

And that's why you're done, Mikey: there's no argument left that you haven't already run from.

I didn't abandon anything, I just don't beat my head against a wall over something that will likely never be walked back. I also try to stick to the topic which you have steered into the only topic on USMB you ever discuss. This thread is about firing homos, not homo nuptials.

Oh, obviously. That's why you're in your 4th post that doesn't include any mention of your arguments.

Your gay marriage argument? Abandoned. Your 'what the constitution includes' argument? Abandoned. Nor could you ever able to find any post where I claimed TItle VII protected sexual orientation.

You ran, Mikey. I know your tells. When you know you've lost.....you start spewing strawmen.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I'm done? You lose every argument you get into with me and then claim victory. Do you know how pathetic that is?

Laughing......says the poor soul that still has his tail between his legs, having abandoned the gay marriage argument. And you abandoned your 'what the constitution includes' argument. And all your random strawmen.

But hey....maybe you've got another emoji.

You're done.

See? I can do that too.

You certainly abandoned the gay marriage debate. And your arguments on what is included in the constitution. Nor could you ever find a single quote of mine claiming that Title VII protected sexual orientation.

And that's why you're done, Mikey: there's no argument left that you haven't already run from.

I didn't abandon anything, I just don't beat my head against a wall over something that will likely never be walked back. I also try to stick to the topic which you have steered into the only topic on USMB you ever discuss. This thread is about firing homos, not homo nuptials.

Oh, obviously. That's why you're in your 4th post that doesn't include any mention of your arguments.

Your gay marriage argument? Abandoned. Your 'what the constitution includes' argument? Abandoned. Nor could you ever able to find any post where I claimed TItle VII protected sexual orientation.

You ran, Mikey. I know your tells. When you know you've lost.....you start spewing strawmen.

Start your own thread on homo marriage and see if anyone bites. This thread is on an entirely different topic.

 

[Skylar]

Laughing......says the poor soul that still has his tail between his legs, having abandoned the gay marriage argument. And you abandoned your 'what the constitution includes' argument. And all your random strawmen.

But hey....maybe you've got another emoji.

You're done.

See? I can do that too.

You certainly abandoned the gay marriage debate. And your arguments on what is included in the constitution. Nor could you ever find a single quote of mine claiming that Title VII protected sexual orientation.

And that's why you're done, Mikey: there's no argument left that you haven't already run from.

I didn't abandon anything, I just don't beat my head against a wall over something that will likely never be walked back. I also try to stick to the topic which you have steered into the only topic on USMB you ever discuss. This thread is about firing homos, not homo nuptials.

Oh, obviously. That's why you're in your 4th post that doesn't include any mention of your arguments.

Your gay marriage argument? Abandoned. Your 'what the constitution includes' argument? Abandoned. Nor could you ever able to find any post where I claimed TItle VII protected sexual orientation.

You ran, Mikey. I know your tells. When you know you've lost.....you start spewing strawmen.

Start your own thread on homo marriage and see if anyone bites. This thread is on an entirely different topic.

Laughing...I'm not the one that brought it up. I'm merely the one that tore the argument to shreds. I'm still waiting for you to quote me ever claiming that Title VII protects sexual orientation.

Keep running.

 

[Silhouette]

I didn't abandon anything, I just don't beat my head against a wall over something that will likely never be walked back. I also try to stick to the topic which you have steered into the only topic on USMB you ever discuss. This thread is about firing homos, not homo nuptials.

Well...actually...Skylar is correct discussing "gay marriage" here. And the reason is that he knows Obergefell is challengeable on multiple levels. That it isn't based on any "rights" granted anywhere that apply "sexual orientation" to "sex" in the 14th Amendment, is but one blow to its credibility. This latest decision by the federal appeals courts says that sex IS NOT legally equivalent to sexual orientation (a behavior). That perhaps is the worst blow of all so far since this is the false premise the cult of LGBT has been leaning on so heavily in all their advances.

Others are that children are implied sharers to the marriage contract, yet they were not invited to the revision; and it was revised to strip them of either a mother or father for life.

Another vulnerability to Obergefell is that two of the Justices brazenly advertised their Opinions months in advance of the actual hearing, to a Public they are mandated to not demonstrate bias in front of.

Another is that marriage cannot be denied polygamists, incest or any other sexual orientation, once sexual orientation of any description can dictate to the majority "how it's going to be" in the various states. The fact that marriage is still denied to polygamists and any other orientation defies the spirit of the 14th Amendment upon which the Court relied.

Another vulnerability is that the Court made up that marriage is a right; where it is mentioned nowhere as such in the Constitution. It is, as Windsor said 56 times, a privilege defined by only the power of the separate states.

Another vulnerability is that even in Windsor (2013), the Court itself contradicted Obergefell 56 times. So, Obergefell in effect overturned Windsor. Because the 56 reiterations in Windsor said that marriage is up to the states to define. Obergefell overturned Windsor because Windsor's entire win was based on the fact that New York, "after careful deliberation" within its power and jurisdiction on the question, made gay marriage legal. Windsor said, ironically, that DOMA could be overturned...BECAUSE THE FED HAD NO BUSINESS REGULATING MARRIAGE! How's that for legal matter and anti-matter? I guess if it comes to gay marriage, the fed can define marriage, but not for polygamy or incest...both equally viable sexual orientations. But when it comes to awarding a lesbian money, then the fed cannot define marriage for a state. Or more precisely: the US Supreme Court can do as it pleases. But when the Congress wants to regulate marriage, particularly a conservative Congress, then the Court steps in to say "you have no power here!".. That's reserved only for THEM.

The Supreme Court effectively stepped in and on the same question walked both sides of the fence, while simultaneously castrating Congress and naming Itself "the vetoers of Congressional acts, on it's Supreme Whims".

So, Skylar is correct worrying about "gay marriage" because the federal decision from the OP just shot perhaps the final death-arrow in Obergefell. Skylar's only hope at this point is that two new corrupt Justices, blatantly political towards the cult of LGBT, get confirmed. Because if conservative ones do, Obergefell is toast.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I didn't abandon anything, I just don't beat my head against a wall over something that will likely never be walked back. I also try to stick to the topic which you have steered into the only topic on USMB you ever discuss. This thread is about firing homos, not homo nuptials.

Well...actually...Skylar is correct discussing "gay marriage" here. And the reason is that he knows Obergefell is challengeable on multiple levels. That it isn't based on any "rights" granted anywhere that apply "sexual orientation" to "sex" in the 14th Amendment, is but one blow to its credibility. This latest decision by the federal appeals courts says that sex IS NOT legally equivalent to sexual orientation (a behavior). That perhaps is the worst blow of all so far since this is the false premise the cult of LGBT has been leaning on so heavily in all their advances.

Others are that children are implied sharers to the marriage contract, yet they were not invited to the revision; and it was revised to strip them of either a mother or father for life.

Another vulnerability to Obergefell is that two of the Justices brazenly advertised their Opinions months in advance of the actual hearing, to a Public they are mandated to not demonstrate bias in front of.

Another is that marriage cannot be denied polygamists, incest or any other sexual orientation, once sexual orientation of any description can dictate to the majority "how it's going to be" in the various states. The fact that marriage is still denied to polygamists and any other orientation defies the spirit of the 14th Amendment upon which the Court relied.

Another vulnerability is that the Court made up that marriage is a right; where it is mentioned nowhere as such in the Constitution. It is, as Windsor said 56 times, a privilege defined by only the power of the separate states.

Another vulnerability is that even in Windsor (2013), the Court itself contradicted Obergefell 56 times. So, Obergefell in effect overturned Windsor. Because the 56 reiterations in Windsor said that marriage is up to the states to define. Obergefell overturned Windsor because Windsor's entire win was based on the fact that New York, "after careful deliberation" within its power and jurisdiction on the question, made gay marriage legal. Windsor said, ironically, that DOMA could be overturned...BECAUSE THE FED HAD NO BUSINESS REGULATING MARRIAGE! How's that for legal matter and anti-matter? I guess if it comes to gay marriage, the fed can define marriage, but not for polygamy or incest...both equally viable sexual orientations. But when it comes to awarding a lesbian money, then the fed cannot define marriage for a state. Or more precisely: the US Supreme Court can do as it pleases. But when the Congress wants to regulate marriage, particularly a conservative Congress, then the Court steps in to say "you have no power here!".. That's reserved only for THEM.

So, Skylar is correct worrying about "gay marriage" because the federal decision from the OP just shot perhaps the final death-arrow in Obergefell. Skylar's only hope at this point is that two new corrupt Justices, blatantly political towards the cult of LGBT, get confirmed. Because if conservative ones do, Obergefell is toast.

Which is why I think our Republican congress should be praised for holding the line against confirmation hearings in spite of the Left's loud, obnoxious protest gyrations. Yes, they approved Obama's obscene budget, but they stopped short of throwing the entire country over a cliff by confirming his candidate.