Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unless you don't want to bake a cake, then the government can infringe the shit out of people.
Holding people to public accommodation laws isn't 'infringing' anything. As there's no constitutional right that is lost due to PA laws. The issue has already been adjudicated.
For your argument to be valid, we'd have to accept that YOU define all legal terms that YOU define what is reasonable and that YOU define what is constitutional.
Which, obviously, no one does.
Rome has spoken, the matter is settled, right?
And it is infringing, its just infringement you like. At least be honest about that.
Its an infringement....according to you. Citing yourself. Prentend to define all legal terms, all legal standards, and speak for the constitution.
I don't accept you as doing any of that. Thus, your argument has no legal relevance.
We've done this dance before, Marty. You have nothing but your own opinion to back your argument. And ignore any legal ruling that is inconvenient to your claims. But your willful ignorance doesn't magically make those rulings disappear, or become invalid.
The people in question do not want to participate in a gay wedding. You say they have to.
Why says they are participating in a wedding? You do, citing yourself.
Who says that their rights were infringed? You do, citing yourself.
Who says that PA laws are invalid? You do, citing yourself.
Who says that any ruling you don't agree with is invalid? You do, citing yourself.
Your problem....is that I don't give a shit what your source believes. As our law isn't defined by your personal opinion.
Is there anything to your argument but you citing yourself?
Ginsburg and Kagan officiated SSMs in Maryland and D.C. Neither of the two questions before the court would have affected the law enacted in those locations, utterly destroying your false claims of bias.
You keep telling yourself that. LMAO
Sorry if those facts don't jive with your impotent rage.
Let me get this straight, how can an inanimate object like a stone inscribed with the ten commandments, or a bible sitting in a glass case in a court house be some how construed as government endorsement of a religion, yet a supreme court justice officiating a SSM not be construed as an endorsement of SSM ?
I don't believe a bible sitting in a glass case or stone inscribed with the ten commandments is a government endorsement of religion. Be that as it may, you cannot demonstrate a bias existed considering both marriages occurred in locations that would have been unaffected by the ruling. If they officiated a SSMs in Texas or Ohio, I would completely would agree with that constitutes a bias; however, they didn't.
Right, except the courts are ordering these things be removed from the public square citing the mythical constitutional separation of church and state.
This is just another example of how the right, in this case four right wing judges, are out of step with the majority. I understand their disappointment, but that's how our constitution works. Whining about the loss won't change a thing.
If this is most certainly the view of the majority, why didn't they pursue a 2/3 majority of all the states? At least this would put your argument to rest by placing this "popular" view into the hands of all our individual state's legislatures. This is what Article V of the Constitution clearly spells out in black and white, allowing (as you have said) the vast majority of the people to speak to what THEY desire for this country. Why turn to 7 Supreme Court justices to deflate your argument, and simply "say" this is will of the majority if you are so confident in your nation's position? I think you are going to find it difficult to successfully prove that argument, from only a small handful of judges who hold no term elected position and no accountability of the people to answer to. Your majority argument simply holds no weight.
Didn't need a constitutional amendment. That's what the supreme court was set up to do.
The Supreme Court was set up to interpret law in the context to which it was originally written to be interpreted, during those moments which it had been debated. Again, if you look at history the women's suffrage movement took their case of voting rights using the 14th Ansndment to establish their cause and argument for equal rights among women. That effort had failed. Their second attempt would be through the legislative process as well as seeking a majority vote from among the states.
The supreme court interprets laws as they are written. Any discussion about the law before it is passed doesn't matter. The actual wording of the law, as passed, is their only consideration.
The context of the law as it was written, and its "original intent" through the minds and purpose of those who had written the law is all that matters. To read into a law with the purpose to find "justification" beyond the "original intent" and purpose to which the issues of that law were discussed and debated to address, amounts to .. by definition .. judicial activism.
l initially wondered why his thread was in the Politics Forum as opposed to the Supreme Court or Legal Forums. Then I realized the OP Silhouette inadvertently. let the cat out of her bagh. The National Journal's headline below is much different than the Silly headline of Silhouette's.Four Supreme Court Justices Summarize How June's Gay-Marriage Decision Was Improper/Illegal
Look, if you and your two brothers like to do the nasty, go right ahead. But, since you are already related, it is not possible for you to form another familial relationship.There's no compelling reason to not allow two or three brothers to marry. Your ignorance and propensity to speak with your head firmly ensconced in your rectum is duly noted.
Paddy:
Sex is not a requirement to marry. Please cite any law that makes it so.
Where did Paddy say that sex is a requirement of marriage?
And while you're at it, show me where I said that sex was a requirement of marriage. If you're going to troll, at least do so competently.
"Like to do the nasty" is clearly speaking of something also known as "bumping uglies"
Your assumption that "like to do the nasties" has anything to do with a law that "doing nasties" is not a qualification for.
If a state is going to establish a legal civil union between a man and a woman, then the state has to accept the legal consequences of that action as it relates to other pairs of individuals who are sufficiently similar to the man woman pair to qualify for equal protection under the law.
Why not? gay incestual marriage does not contain the risk of deformed offspring like straight incestual marriage.
After all, it's all about love, right? who are WE to judge them? They just want equality, after all.
That's why you want incest marriage?
Just using the mainstream, simplified logic used to promote acceptance of SSM.
Marty, here is your problem. The mainstream didn't promote SSM, that would have led to a discussion of its deeper implications (same sex siblings).
What they promoted was (brilliant marketing when you think about it) was that this was simply a law allowing "gay marriage). Deflecting from obvious problems.
I meant the mainstream, average supporter of SSM.
Doesn't matter, the average supporter was never given the information that same sex marriage had any other implications other than allowing gays to marry. Clearly it does.
Holding people to public accommodation laws isn't 'infringing' anything. As there's no constitutional right that is lost due to PA laws. The issue has already been adjudicated.
For your argument to be valid, we'd have to accept that YOU define all legal terms that YOU define what is reasonable and that YOU define what is constitutional.
Which, obviously, no one does.
Rome has spoken, the matter is settled, right?
And it is infringing, its just infringement you like. At least be honest about that.
Its an infringement....according to you. Citing yourself. Prentend to define all legal terms, all legal standards, and speak for the constitution.
I don't accept you as doing any of that. Thus, your argument has no legal relevance.
We've done this dance before, Marty. You have nothing but your own opinion to back your argument. And ignore any legal ruling that is inconvenient to your claims. But your willful ignorance doesn't magically make those rulings disappear, or become invalid.
The people in question do not want to participate in a gay wedding. You say they have to.
Why says they are participating in a wedding? You do, citing yourself.
Who says that their rights were infringed? You do, citing yourself.
Who says that PA laws are invalid? You do, citing yourself.
Who says that any ruling you don't agree with is invalid? You do, citing yourself.
Your problem....is that I don't give a shit what your source believes. As our law isn't defined by your personal opinion.
Is there anything to your argument but you citing yourself?
They felt that making the cake was participating in a ceremony they find sinful. Is that true or false?
Actually gheys have a problem grasping what it means and what it has already led to. Jailtime for Christians for one.Yet one more thing "conservatives" fail to understand...That's nice. Every Supreme Court decision except for unanimous ones have written dissenting opinions.From this link: http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/25...nst-supreme-courts-huge-gay-marriage-decision
Chief Justice John Roberts
Roberts’s argument centered around the need to preserve states’ rights rather than follow the turn of public opinion. In ruling in favor of gay marriage, he said, “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”
Justice Antonin Scalia
According to Scalia, the majority ruling represents a “judicial Putsch.”
Scalia wrote that while he has no personal opinions on whether the law should allow same-sex marriage, he feels very strongly that it is not the place of the Supreme Court to decide.
“Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best,” Scalia wrote. “But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.”
Justice Clarence Thomas
Thomas, echoing a grievance expressed by many conservative politicians, also lamented that the Supreme Court’s decision is enshrining a definition of marriage into the Constitution in a way that puts it “beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire nation.”
Justice Samuel Alito
Alito also reaffirmed his position that there is no way to confirm what the outcome of gay marriage may be on the institution of traditional marriage, and therefore the Court is and should not be in a position to take on the topic...“At present, no one—including social scientists, philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment,” Alito wrote. Alito said that traditional marriage has existed between a man and woman for one key reason: children.
And as to that last point by Justice Alito: Should Kids Have Had Representation at the Marriage-Contract Revision Hearing? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Now, I'm not a super powerful lawyer but it seems to me there may be simple contract case law that says if a contract is up for radical revision, the parties who are tacitly signed on to that contract, like children or the states that look after them as future citizens, must have representation at the revision-table.
Not only did that not happen for children and the states' interest in protecting them and their own fiscal future directly impacted by what happens to them growing up, but when adult children raised in gay homes submitted amicus briefs to that revision tribunal, the tribunal (The Fascist-Five) flatly ignored their pleas that they longed for both a mother and father in their home; and that longing damaged them.
Not one word that I know of in June's Opinion addressed these contract parties' concerns. Nor were there attorneys present at the hearing as guardians ad litem for childrens' voices at the table. The most important parties to the marriage contract were systematically barred from the table discussing its radical revision. Not only would contract case law come into play here, but also federal child endangerment statutes. Neglecting to allow a child's voice to cry out in protest is still neglect.
Thomas writes further:
“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well,” Thomas wrote. “Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”
And what do you know? Several cases are on their way back to the Court in less than 6 months time on that precise loggerhead of Law. The crap will really hit the fan when Chuck & Dave go to suing a catholic adoption agency for refusing to adopt little boys to them.
.
Holding people to public accommodation laws isn't 'infringing' anything. As there's no constitutional right that is lost due to PA laws. The issue has already been adjudicated.
For your argument to be valid, we'd have to accept that YOU define all legal terms that YOU define what is reasonable and that YOU define what is constitutional.
Which, obviously, no one does.
Rome has spoken, the matter is settled, right?
And it is infringing, its just infringement you like. At least be honest about that.
Its an infringement....according to you. Citing yourself. Prentend to define all legal terms, all legal standards, and speak for the constitution.
I don't accept you as doing any of that. Thus, your argument has no legal relevance.
We've done this dance before, Marty. You have nothing but your own opinion to back your argument. And ignore any legal ruling that is inconvenient to your claims. But your willful ignorance doesn't magically make those rulings disappear, or become invalid.
The people in question do not want to participate in a gay wedding. You say they have to. Their rights are being infringed, even if you don't think they are. The more correct version of your sides argument is to say infringing on their rights is outweighed by the rights of the gay couple to get the cake they want, not that no infringement is occurring at all.
They are participating in a gay wedding as a business, for profit. They are a business open to the public. They are accountable to business laws.
Ah, but this is Marty. And law he doesn't like is invalid. Any ruling he disagrees with is invalid. Any legal term he doesn't agree with, he ignores. Any legal standard that's inconvenient to his argument, his ignores.
The law doesn't. Which is why Marty's insistence of what the law 'really' says so rarely matches what it actually does say. His is an argument of glorious irrelevance. As its based on standards that the law simply doesn't use: Marty's opinion being irrefutable law.
If this is most certainly the view of the majority, why didn't they pursue a 2/3 majority of all the states? At least this would put your argument to rest by placing this "popular" view into the hands of all our individual state's legislatures. This is what Article V of the Constitution clearly spells out in black and white, allowing (as you have said) the vast majority of the people to speak to what THEY desire for this country. Why turn to 7 Supreme Court justices to deflate your argument, and simply "say" this is will of the majority if you are so confident in your nation's position? I think you are going to find it difficult to successfully prove that argument, from only a small handful of judges who hold no term elected position and no accountability of the people to answer to. Your majority argument simply holds no weight.
Didn't need a constitutional amendment. That's what the supreme court was set up to do.
The Supreme Court was set up to interpret law in the context to which it was originally written to be interpreted, during those moments which it had been debated. Again, if you look at history the women's suffrage movement took their case of voting rights using the 14th Ansndment to establish their cause and argument for equal rights among women. That effort had failed. Their second attempt would be through the legislative process as well as seeking a majority vote from among the states.
The supreme court interprets laws as they are written. Any discussion about the law before it is passed doesn't matter. The actual wording of the law, as passed, is their only consideration.
The context of the law as it was written, and its "original intent" through the minds and purpose of those who had written the law is all that matters. To read into a law with the purpose to find "justification" beyond the "original intent" and purpose to which the issues of that law were discussed and debated to address, amounts to .. by definition .. judicial activism.
The actual words of the Constitution as written is what is the law- not what anyone can aruge is the 'intent' or 'context' of a law.
And the actual words of the 14th Amendment are very clear
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
political arguments on the law usually end up in a vicious circle jerk and this is a political forum threadIf this is most certainly the view of the majority, why didn't they pursue a 2/3 majority of all the states? At least this would put your argument to rest by placing this "popular" view into the hands of all our individual state's legislatures. This is what Article V of the Constitution clearly spells out in black and white, allowing (as you have said) the vast majority of the people to speak to what THEY desire for this country. Why turn to 7 Supreme Court justices to deflate your argument, and simply "say" this is will of the majority if you are so confident in your nation's position? I think you are going to find it difficult to successfully prove that argument, from only a small handful of judges who hold no term elected position and no accountability of the people to answer to. Your majority argument simply holds no weight.
Didn't need a constitutional amendment. That's what the supreme court was set up to do.
The Supreme Court was set up to interpret law in the context to which it was originally written to be interpreted, during those moments which it had been debated. Again, if you look at history the women's suffrage movement took their case of voting rights using the 14th Ansndment to establish their cause and argument for equal rights among women. That effort had failed. Their second attempt would be through the legislative process as well as seeking a majority vote from among the states.
The supreme court interprets laws as they are written. Any discussion about the law before it is passed doesn't matter. The actual wording of the law, as passed, is their only consideration.
The context of the law as it was written, and its "original intent" through the minds and purpose of those who had written the law is all that matters. To read into a law with the purpose to find "justification" beyond the "original intent" and purpose to which the issues of that law were discussed and debated to address, amounts to .. by definition .. judicial activism.
The actual words of the Constitution as written is what is the law- not what anyone can aruge is the 'intent' or 'context' of a law.
And the actual words of the 14th Amendment are very clear
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Rome has spoken, the matter is settled, right?
And it is infringing, its just infringement you like. At least be honest about that.
Its an infringement....according to you. Citing yourself. Prentend to define all legal terms, all legal standards, and speak for the constitution.
I don't accept you as doing any of that. Thus, your argument has no legal relevance.
We've done this dance before, Marty. You have nothing but your own opinion to back your argument. And ignore any legal ruling that is inconvenient to your claims. But your willful ignorance doesn't magically make those rulings disappear, or become invalid.
The people in question do not want to participate in a gay wedding. You say they have to.
Why says they are participating in a wedding? You do, citing yourself.
Who says that their rights were infringed? You do, citing yourself.
Who says that PA laws are invalid? You do, citing yourself.
Who says that any ruling you don't agree with is invalid? You do, citing yourself.
Your problem....is that I don't give a shit what your source believes. As our law isn't defined by your personal opinion.
Is there anything to your argument but you citing yourself?
They felt that making the cake was participating in a ceremony they find sinful. Is that true or false?
What relevance do their 'feelings' have to do with the law? Is the law based on their 'feelings'?
Nope. Your 'legal standard' isn't. You're offering us what you think the case was SUPPOSED to be based on rather than what it actually was.
Sigh....citing yourself. Do you have any argument that isn't you citing you? Because your source is clearly inadequate to carry your argument.
That's why you want incest marriage?
Just using the mainstream, simplified logic used to promote acceptance of SSM.
Marty, here is your problem. The mainstream didn't promote SSM, that would have led to a discussion of its deeper implications (same sex siblings).
What they promoted was (brilliant marketing when you think about it) was that this was simply a law allowing "gay marriage). Deflecting from obvious problems.
I meant the mainstream, average supporter of SSM.
Doesn't matter, the average supporter was never given the information that same sex marriage had any other implications other than allowing gays to marry. Clearly it does.
That's why you want incest marriage?
Just using the mainstream, simplified logic used to promote acceptance of SSM.
Marty, here is your problem. The mainstream didn't promote SSM, that would have led to a discussion of its deeper implications (same sex siblings).
What they promoted was (brilliant marketing when you think about it) was that this was simply a law allowing "gay marriage). Deflecting from obvious problems.
I meant the mainstream, average supporter of SSM.
Doesn't matter, the average supporter was never given the information that same sex marriage had any other implications other than allowing gays to marry. Clearly it does.
That is irrelevant. Legalizing opposite sex marriage clearly had the implication of allowing same sex marriage, as has now been proven in the courts.
ONLY AN IDIOT WOULD ARGUE THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS SET UP TO DIVINE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLEYes, because 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers is a great sample set to find out the "will of the majority"
Progressives only protect the rights of the minority when it suits their goals.
ONLY AN IDIOT WOULD ARGUE THAT THE SUPREME COURT IS SET UP TO DIVINE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLEYes, because 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers is a great sample set to find out the "will of the majority"
Progressives only protect the rights of the minority when it suits their goals.
Poor political arguments make for lousy law
Its an infringement....according to you. Citing yourself. Prentend to define all legal terms, all legal standards, and speak for the constitution.
I don't accept you as doing any of that. Thus, your argument has no legal relevance.
We've done this dance before, Marty. You have nothing but your own opinion to back your argument. And ignore any legal ruling that is inconvenient to your claims. But your willful ignorance doesn't magically make those rulings disappear, or become invalid.
The people in question do not want to participate in a gay wedding. You say they have to.
Why says they are participating in a wedding? You do, citing yourself.
Who says that their rights were infringed? You do, citing yourself.
Who says that PA laws are invalid? You do, citing yourself.
Who says that any ruling you don't agree with is invalid? You do, citing yourself.
Your problem....is that I don't give a shit what your source believes. As our law isn't defined by your personal opinion.
Is there anything to your argument but you citing yourself?
They felt that making the cake was participating in a ceremony they find sinful. Is that true or false?
What relevance do their 'feelings' have to do with the law? Is the law based on their 'feelings'?
Nope. Your 'legal standard' isn't. You're offering us what you think the case was SUPPOSED to be based on rather than what it actually was.
Sigh....citing yourself. Do you have any argument that isn't you citing you? Because your source is clearly inadequate to carry your argument.
What right does government have in deciding how a person exercises their religion, unless such exercise causes actual harm?
That's why you want incest marriage?
Just using the mainstream, simplified logic used to promote acceptance of SSM.
Marty, here is your problem. The mainstream didn't promote SSM, that would have led to a discussion of its deeper implications (same sex siblings).
What they promoted was (brilliant marketing when you think about it) was that this was simply a law allowing "gay marriage). Deflecting from obvious problems.
I meant the mainstream, average supporter of SSM.
Doesn't matter, the average supporter was never given the information that same sex marriage had any other implications other than allowing gays to marry. Clearly it does.
Save that none of your 'implications' have every played out. I think the word you're looking for is 'assumption'.
And one perfectly contradicted by history. As nothing you've claimed must happen....has happened. Not a single state has legalized polygamy. Not a single state has legalized incest. Nor incest marriage.
Your record of failure is perfect.
Ginsburg and Kagan officiated SSMs in Maryland and D.C. Neither of the two questions before the court would have affected the law enacted in those locations, utterly destroying your false claims of bias.
You keep telling yourself that. LMAO
Sorry if those facts don't jive with your impotent rage.
Let me get this straight, how can an inanimate object like a stone inscribed with the ten commandments, or a bible sitting in a glass case in a court house be some how construed as government endorsement of a religion, yet a supreme court justice officiating a SSM not be construed as an endorsement of SSM ?
I don't believe a bible sitting in a glass case or stone inscribed with the ten commandments is a government endorsement of religion. Be that as it may, you cannot demonstrate a bias existed considering both marriages occurred in locations that would have been unaffected by the ruling. If they officiated a SSMs in Texas or Ohio, I would completely would agree with that constitutes a bias; however, they didn't.
Right, except the courts are ordering these things be removed from the public square citing the mythical constitutional separation of church and state. But you think a judge with the full knowledge they will be considering a case on SSM couldn't possibly be endorsing SSM by officiating such a marriage before the case ever reaches the court. Could your bias be getting in the way of your common sense?
Just using the mainstream, simplified logic used to promote acceptance of SSM.
Marty, here is your problem. The mainstream didn't promote SSM, that would have led to a discussion of its deeper implications (same sex siblings).
What they promoted was (brilliant marketing when you think about it) was that this was simply a law allowing "gay marriage). Deflecting from obvious problems.
I meant the mainstream, average supporter of SSM.
Doesn't matter, the average supporter was never given the information that same sex marriage had any other implications other than allowing gays to marry. Clearly it does.
That is irrelevant. Legalizing opposite sex marriage clearly had the implication of allowing same sex marriage, as has now been proven in the courts.
Except the law stated that those too closely related could not.
Possible reason for that?
