Four Supreme Court Justices Summarize How June's Gay-Marriage Decision Was Improper/Illegal

[Syriusly]

Then by your own admission, your entire babble about 'proving gay' is irrelevant to this thread.

Nope, there is no proof the judicial system should have been involved at all. Who was marriage between a man and woman discriminating against?

No one I guess, right?

Ah...so you say there was no discrimination because a man/woman marriage discriminated against no one? Ok....but the restrictions against man/man marriage and woman/woman marriage WAS discrimination. But I like how you think....proving that now with Obergefell, there is no discrimination because marriage between man/woman, man/man, and woman/woman discriminates against no one.

All you're proving is you think in mutually exclusive terms.

I try to be more of a progressive thinker.

All he's doing is disproving your silly claim by demonstrating that the discrimination you insist didn't exist....actually did exist.

And of course, where's 'Kim Clark's" DNA test proving she's a Christian. I mean, DNA is the only objective evidence of status you seem willing to accept as defining any status.

Nope, Obergfell never provided any evidence that he could not marry, just he did not want to marry. .

Obergefell didn't claim he could not marry- he claimed that Ohio would not recognize his legal marriage.

In June 2013, following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor, James Obergefell (pronunciation: /ˈoʊbərɡəfɛl/ OH-bər-gə-fel) and John Arthur decided to get married to obtain legal recognition of their relationship. They married in Maryland on July 11. After learning that their state of residence, Ohio, would not recognize their marriage, they filed a lawsuit, Obergefell v. Kasich, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Western Division, Cincinnati) on July 19, 2013, alleging that the state discriminates against same-sex couples who have married lawfully out-of-state

 

[Syriusly]

With the restrictions on same sex marriage found to be discrimination. Which the court established quite thoroughly.


And where is Kim Davis' DNA test proving she's a Christian?

I mean, per you she can hardly claim she's being discriminated against if she can't objectively establish her status.

Freedom of religion is the freedom to associate with groups that share your faith and to act as those within that association. Give her a call, I'm sure she can give you the address where those associated meet.

And how can you objectively prove that you hold such faith? Remember, you insisted that since there is no DNA test to 'prove' gays are gay....then there is no way to objectively verify their status.

Where is Kim Davis' DNA test to 'prove' she's a Christian?

Laughing......or are you going to treat your own standard like the garbage we all already know it is?

Can't prove the faith, just the association, which is incredibly easy.

Its faith and belief that defines religion. Not association. Visiting a mosque doesn't make you a Muslim.

And by your own standard, you can't objectively verify that faith and belief that defines religion.

How then can you discriminate against religion....if you can't prove the person is, in fact, religious?

Show us that DNA test for Kim Davis......or wipe your own ass with your own standard. As you always do.

But joining the Mosque is proof!

And BOOM, another Skylar fail

Now please, the proof of gay please.

If joining a mosque is proof of a deeply held religious belief- then joining GLAAD would be proof of being gay.

Of course neither is.

You are the one demanding definitive proof- which of course there is absolutely no requirement when it comes to any civil liberties- only that a person has been discriminated against- not that they can prove that they were 'black' or 'Jewish'.

If the law allows the State to not issue gun licenses to blacks- and a person is denied a gun for being 'black'- he doesn't have to prove that he is black to prove discrimination- only that he was discriminated by the law denying him a gun for being black.

 

[Syriusly]

All he's doing is disproving your silly claim by demonstrating that the discrimination you insist didn't exist....actually did exist.

And of course, where's 'Kim Clark's" DNA test proving she's a Christian. I mean, DNA is the only objective evidence of status you seem willing to accept as defining any status.

Nope, Obergfell never provided any evidence that he could not marry, just he did not want to marry.

With the restrictions on same sex marriage found to be discrimination. Which the court established quite thoroughly.

But why? Kind of a scuzzy looking dude, but I've known worse that could figure out how to land a lady.

Nope, never proved an inability to access the law at all.

And where is Kim Davis' DNA test proving she's a Christian?

I mean, per you she can hardly claim she's being discriminated against if she can't objectively establish her status.

Freedom of religion is the freedom to associate with groups that share your faith and to act as those within that association. Give her a call, I'm sure she can give you the address where those associated meet.

And how can you objectively prove that you hold such faith? Remember, you insisted that since there is no DNA test to 'prove' gays are gay....then there is no way to objectively verify their status.

Where is Kim Davis' DNA test to 'prove' she's a Christian?

Laughing......or are you going to treat your own standard like the garbage we all already know it is?

Can't prove the faith, just the association, which is incredibly easy.

Got a pen, jot this down. Google church in your town. Lots of em.

I got more if you'd like.

Now, give me one reliable test to prove gay.

I would love you just one day- to actually post like you demand everyone else post.

You just make crap up to troll.

 

[paddymurphy]

So.....the Bank of the United States was a violation of the Constitution? Because the 1st Congress might disagree with you.

And since there's no specific mention of the 'right to self defense with a fire arm' in the constitution......per the literalist view, it doesn't exist.

And since there is no explanation of what 'unreasonable' means, then the term is meaningless?

Its odd. You keep insisting that the constitution is simple and specific. But when I ask you to offer simple and specific explanations direct from the constitution........you can't.

Keep trying to play your games of semantics, the 9th Amendment says that the individual right spelled out in the Constitution are NOT all inclusive, even though you commies think differently. The 10th Amendment says powers not granted by the Constitution to the feds are reserved to the States and the people. So unless you can specifically show in the text of the Constitution that I don't have the right for self defense with a gun, I do.

So take your semantics games and shove it.

You do understand, don't you, that the 9th Amendment is the source of the Court's recognition of the right to Privacy? The right that led to Griswold, Roe v. Wade and the gay rights cases? The 9th Amendment means that just because there is no "right to marriage" specifically spelled out in the Constitution does not mean it does not exist. Funny, but you do not realize that your argument about there being a right to self defense despite it not being set forth specifically supports those who maintain that the Constitution has to be construed and interpreted by the Courts.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S.113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion,

The Court declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action,

Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nope, the 9th wasn't a consideration.

Of course it was.
"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id. at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. at 453-454; id. at 460, 463-465 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and childrearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation." They recognized that there was a right to privacy founded on the ninth amendment.[/QUOTE]

You keep saying the supreme court has the final word, yet you reject their not adopting the opinion of the district courts opinion based on the 9th Amendment. Why is that?

The Court declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment'sconcept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action,[/QUOTE]
There is a right to privacy. It comes from both the 14th and ninth Amendments.

 

[OKTexas]

Keep trying to play your games of semantics, the 9th Amendment says that the individual right spelled out in the Constitution are NOT all inclusive, even though you commies think differently. The 10th Amendment says powers not granted by the Constitution to the feds are reserved to the States and the people. So unless you can specifically show in the text of the Constitution that I don't have the right for self defense with a gun, I do.

So take your semantics games and shove it.

You do understand, don't you, that the 9th Amendment is the source of the Court's recognition of the right to Privacy? The right that led to Griswold, Roe v. Wade and the gay rights cases? The 9th Amendment means that just because there is no "right to marriage" specifically spelled out in the Constitution does not mean it does not exist. Funny, but you do not realize that your argument about there being a right to self defense despite it not being set forth specifically supports those who maintain that the Constitution has to be construed and interpreted by the Courts.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S.113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion,

The Court declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action,

Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nope, the 9th wasn't a consideration.

Of course it was.
"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id. at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. at 453-454; id. at 460, 463-465 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and childrearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation." They recognized that there was a right to privacy founded on the ninth amendment.[/QUOTE]

You keep saying the supreme court has the final word, yet you reject their not adopting the opinion of the district courts opinion based on the 9th Amendment. Why is that?

The Court declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment'sconcept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action,[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]There is a right to privacy. It comes from both the 14th and ninth Amendments.[/QUOTE]

The point was the 9th was not a consideration for the supreme court in Roe as you stated. I provided evidence of that and you keep trying to muddy the waters, why?

 

[paddymurphy]

All he's doing is disproving your silly claim by demonstrating that the discrimination you insist didn't exist....actually did exist.

And of course, where's 'Kim Clark's" DNA test proving she's a Christian. I mean, DNA is the only objective evidence of status you seem willing to accept as defining any status.

Nope, Obergfell never provided any evidence that he could not marry, just he did not want to marry.

With the restrictions on same sex marriage found to be discrimination. Which the court established quite thoroughly.

But why? Kind of a scuzzy looking dude, but I've known worse that could figure out how to land a lady.

Nope, never proved an inability to access the law at all.

And where is Kim Davis' DNA test proving she's a Christian?

I mean, per you she can hardly claim she's being discriminated against if she can't objectively establish her status.

Freedom of religion is the freedom to associate with groups that share your faith and to act as those within that association. Give her a call, I'm sure she can give you the address where those associated meet.

And how can you objectively prove that you hold such faith? Remember, you insisted that since there is no DNA test to 'prove' gays are gay....then there is no way to objectively verify their status.

Where is Kim Davis' DNA test to 'prove' she's a Christian?

Laughing......or are you going to treat your own standard like the garbage we all already know it is?

Can't prove the faith, just the association, which is incredibly easy.

Got a pen, jot this down. Google church in your town. Lots of em.

I got more if you'd like.

Now, give me one reliable test to prove gay.

But you have to prove the faith. Does not matter whether the person goes to church or temple. The point is that there is no requirement that your prove that you are black or gay or a Jew beyond you saying that you are. More importantly, if a person discriminates against you because they perceive you to be black or gay or a jew, even if you are not, that is actionable in many states. "Myron Cowher sued his New Jersey employer and supervisors because his supervisors frequently directed anti-Semitic slurs towards him. But Cowher was not Jewish, so the trial court dismissed his religious harassment claim, holding that New Jersey law did not recognize a discrimination claim based on perceived membership in such a protected class. The New Jersey Appellate Division disagreed. (Cowher v. Caron & Roberts, 2012 N.J. Super. LEXIS 55 (April 18, 2012).) Broadly interpreting the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, it held that the statute prohibited discrimination based on a protected characteristic even if the harassment victim did not possess, but was perceived to possess, the protected characteristic."

Your week long insistence that a person must "prove" they are gay objectively in order to prove discrimination is probably one to the dumbest things I have read here in a long time

 

[paddymurphy]

Keep trying to play your games of semantics, the 9th Amendment says that the individual right spelled out in the Constitution are NOT all inclusive, even though you commies think differently. The 10th Amendment says powers not granted by the Constitution to the feds are reserved to the States and the people. So unless you can specifically show in the text of the Constitution that I don't have the right for self defense with a gun, I do.

So take your semantics games and shove it.

You do understand, don't you, that the 9th Amendment is the source of the Court's recognition of the right to Privacy? The right that led to Griswold, Roe v. Wade and the gay rights cases? The 9th Amendment means that just because there is no "right to marriage" specifically spelled out in the Constitution does not mean it does not exist. Funny, but you do not realize that your argument about there being a right to self defense despite it not being set forth specifically supports those who maintain that the Constitution has to be construed and interpreted by the Courts.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S.113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion,

The Court declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action,

Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nope, the 9th wasn't a consideration.

Of course it was.
"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id. at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. at 453-454; id. at 460, 463-465 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and childrearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation." They recognized that there was a right to privacy founded on the ninth amendment.

You keep saying the supreme court has the final word, yet you reject their not adopting the opinion of the district courts opinion based on the 9th Amendment. Why is that?

The Court declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment'sconcept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action,

[/QUOTE]There is a right to privacy. It comes from both the 14th and ninth Amendments.[/QUOTE]

The point was the 9th was not a consideration for the supreme court in Roe as you stated. I provided evidence of that and you keep trying to muddy the waters, why?[/QUOTE]
IN THAT CASE, they did not need to address the other basis for the right to privacy. But there is a right to privacy. It was cited in Griswold. In Roe the court discussed the right to privacy and the several bases for it. Aren't you the one claiming that there are rights not enumerated in the Constitution that are, nevertheless, worthy of protectorate by the courts? Do you think that there are rights beyond those specifically listed or not?

 

[paddymurphy]

With the restrictions on same sex marriage found to be discrimination. Which the court established quite thoroughly.


And where is Kim Davis' DNA test proving she's a Christian?

I mean, per you she can hardly claim she's being discriminated against if she can't objectively establish her status.

Freedom of religion is the freedom to associate with groups that share your faith and to act as those within that association. Give her a call, I'm sure she can give you the address where those associated meet.

And how can you objectively prove that you hold such faith? Remember, you insisted that since there is no DNA test to 'prove' gays are gay....then there is no way to objectively verify their status.

Where is Kim Davis' DNA test to 'prove' she's a Christian?

Laughing......or are you going to treat your own standard like the garbage we all already know it is?

Can't prove the faith, just the association, which is incredibly easy.

Its faith and belief that defines religion. Not association. Visiting a mosque doesn't make you a Muslim.

And by your own standard, you can't objectively verify that faith and belief that defines religion.

How then can you discriminate against religion....if you can't prove the person is, in fact, religious?

Show us that DNA test for Kim Davis......or wipe your own ass with your own standard. As you always do.

But joining the Mosque is proof!

And BOOM, another Skylar fail

Now please, the proof of gay please.

Is not joining the mosque proof that you are not a Muslim? If I am Jewish by birth, but consider myself to be an aetheist and someone fires me or refuses to hire me because they don't like Jews, do I have to prove that I am a devout Jew. How about if I am Catholic but divorced and therefore do not attend mass. Am I, in the eyes of the law, not a Catholic and can be discriminated against? Can you prove ethnicity by DNA? Assume I am 100 percent Irish but was adopted at birth by an Italian family and raised as an Italian with a very Italian name. If someone refuses to hire me because he hates Italians, can I claim discrimination? COuld he defeat my claim by proving through DNA that I am not Italian?

 

[paddymurphy]

Keep trying to play your games of semantics, the 9th Amendment says that the individual right spelled out in the Constitution are NOT all inclusive, even though you commies think differently. The 10th Amendment says powers not granted by the Constitution to the feds are reserved to the States and the people. So unless you can specifically show in the text of the Constitution that I don't have the right for self defense with a gun, I do.

So take your semantics games and shove it.

You do understand, don't you, that the 9th Amendment is the source of the Court's recognition of the right to Privacy? The right that led to Griswold, Roe v. Wade and the gay rights cases? The 9th Amendment means that just because there is no "right to marriage" specifically spelled out in the Constitution does not mean it does not exist. Funny, but you do not realize that your argument about there being a right to self defense despite it not being set forth specifically supports those who maintain that the Constitution has to be construed and interpreted by the Courts.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S.113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion,

The Court declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action,

Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nope, the 9th wasn't a consideration.

Of course it was.
"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id. at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. at 453-454; id. at 460, 463-465 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and childrearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation." They recognized that there was a right to privacy founded on the ninth amendment.

You keep saying the supreme court has the final word, yet you reject their not adopting the opinion of the district courts opinion based on the 9th Amendment. Why is that?

The Court declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment'sconcept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action,[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]There is a right to privacy. It comes from both the 14th and ninth Amendments.[/QUOTE]

The point was the 9th was not a consideration for the supreme court in Roe as you stated. I provided evidence of that and you keep trying to muddy the waters, why?[/QUOTE]
You just keep deflecting from the point that the Ninth is the source, along with the 14th and 1st, of a right to privacy, a right not specifically mentioned in the constitution.

 

[Pop23]

Nope, there is no proof the judicial system should have been involved at all. Who was marriage between a man and woman discriminating against?

No one I guess, right?

Ah...so you say there was no discrimination because a man/woman marriage discriminated against no one? Ok....but the restrictions against man/man marriage and woman/woman marriage WAS discrimination. But I like how you think....proving that now with Obergefell, there is no discrimination because marriage between man/woman, man/man, and woman/woman discriminates against no one.

All you're proving is you think in mutually exclusive terms.

I try to be more of a progressive thinker.

All he's doing is disproving your silly claim by demonstrating that the discrimination you insist didn't exist....actually did exist.

And of course, where's 'Kim Clark's" DNA test proving she's a Christian. I mean, DNA is the only objective evidence of status you seem willing to accept as defining any status.

Nope, Obergfell never provided any evidence that he could not marry, just he did not want to marry. .

Obergefell didn't claim he could not marry- he claimed that Ohio would not recognize his legal marriage.

In June 2013, following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor, James Obergefell (pronunciation: /ˈoʊbərɡəfɛl/ OH-bər-gə-fel) and John Arthur decided to get married to obtain legal recognition of their relationship. They married in Maryland on July 11. After learning that their state of residence, Ohio, would not recognize their marriage, they filed a lawsuit, Obergefell v. Kasich, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Western Division, Cincinnati) on July 19, 2013, alleging that the state discriminates against same-sex couples who have married lawfully out-of-state

Oh, okie Dokie then.

 

[Pop23]

Freedom of religion is the freedom to associate with groups that share your faith and to act as those within that association. Give her a call, I'm sure she can give you the address where those associated meet.

And how can you objectively prove that you hold such faith? Remember, you insisted that since there is no DNA test to 'prove' gays are gay....then there is no way to objectively verify their status.

Where is Kim Davis' DNA test to 'prove' she's a Christian?

Laughing......or are you going to treat your own standard like the garbage we all already know it is?

Can't prove the faith, just the association, which is incredibly easy.

Its faith and belief that defines religion. Not association. Visiting a mosque doesn't make you a Muslim.

And by your own standard, you can't objectively verify that faith and belief that defines religion.

How then can you discriminate against religion....if you can't prove the person is, in fact, religious?

Show us that DNA test for Kim Davis......or wipe your own ass with your own standard. As you always do.

But joining the Mosque is proof!

And BOOM, another Skylar fail

Now please, the proof of gay please.

Is not joining the mosque proof that you are not a Muslim? If I am Jewish by birth, but consider myself to be an aetheist and someone fires me or refuses to hire me because they don't like Jews, do I have to prove that I am a devout Jew. How about if I am Catholic but divorced and therefore do not attend mass. Am I, in the eyes of the law, not a Catholic and can be discriminated against? Can you prove ethnicity by DNA? Assume I am 100 percent Irish but was adopted at birth by an Italian family and raised as an Italian with a very Italian name. If someone refuses to hire me because he hates Italians, can I claim discrimination? COuld he defeat my claim by proving through DNA that I am not Italian?

Your ethnicity is by birth, not by who raised you. Good lord dude

 

[Pop23]

Freedom of religion is the freedom to associate with groups that share your faith and to act as those within that association. Give her a call, I'm sure she can give you the address where those associated meet.

And how can you objectively prove that you hold such faith? Remember, you insisted that since there is no DNA test to 'prove' gays are gay....then there is no way to objectively verify their status.

Where is Kim Davis' DNA test to 'prove' she's a Christian?

Laughing......or are you going to treat your own standard like the garbage we all already know it is?

Can't prove the faith, just the association, which is incredibly easy.

Its faith and belief that defines religion. Not association. Visiting a mosque doesn't make you a Muslim.

And by your own standard, you can't objectively verify that faith and belief that defines religion.

How then can you discriminate against religion....if you can't prove the person is, in fact, religious?

Show us that DNA test for Kim Davis......or wipe your own ass with your own standard. As you always do.

But joining the Mosque is proof!

And BOOM, another Skylar fail

Now please, the proof of gay please.

Is not joining the mosque proof that you are not a Muslim? If I am Jewish by birth, but consider myself to be an aetheist and someone fires me or refuses to hire me because they don't like Jews, do I have to prove that I am a devout Jew. How about if I am Catholic but divorced and therefore do not attend mass. Am I, in the eyes of the law, not a Catholic and can be discriminated against? Can you prove ethnicity by DNA? Assume I am 100 percent Irish but was adopted at birth by an Italian family and raised as an Italian with a very Italian name. If someone refuses to hire me because he hates Italians, can I claim discrimination? COuld he defeat my claim by proving through DNA that I am not Italian?

Nope, on the Muslim question. But that was one single test. I could give more, but you first. A reliable test to prove gay.

 

[Pop23]

So you are still upset about Loving v. Virginia?

What does race have to do with sexual behaviors?

Race can be proven by reliable testing

Can gay?

Can religion? Can ethnicity or national origin? Can perceived disability? These are all classes that are protected by anti-discrimination laws.

Religion is association, not behavior.

Actually DNA testing is quite reliable in deteiming national origin (as are birth certificates - lineage) same with ethnicity

"perceived disability". Not sure where you're going with that, but in the disability hearings I've been in, yes the courts do require proof.

Really?

So you think that DNA would be able to identify whether I am American or Australian?

Tell me more again about the DNA test which would tell you whether someone is Caucasian or African American or Asian.

And the DNA test for identifying someone's religion.

That's nationality, not ethnicity. For nationality all one needs is a birth certificate search or a passport search. Reliable indeed.

 

[Pop23]

Nope, Obergfell never provided any evidence that he could not marry, just he did not want to marry.

With the restrictions on same sex marriage found to be discrimination. Which the court established quite thoroughly.

But why? Kind of a scuzzy looking dude, but I've known worse that could figure out how to land a lady.

Nope, never proved an inability to access the law at all.

And where is Kim Davis' DNA test proving she's a Christian?

I mean, per you she can hardly claim she's being discriminated against if she can't objectively establish her status.

Freedom of religion is the freedom to associate with groups that share your faith and to act as those within that association. Give her a call, I'm sure she can give you the address where those associated meet.

And how can you objectively prove that you hold such faith? Remember, you insisted that since there is no DNA test to 'prove' gays are gay....then there is no way to objectively verify their status.

Where is Kim Davis' DNA test to 'prove' she's a Christian?

Laughing......or are you going to treat your own standard like the garbage we all already know it is?

Can't prove the faith, just the association, which is incredibly easy.

Got a pen, jot this down. Google church in your town. Lots of em.

I got more if you'd like.

Now, give me one reliable test to prove gay.

Why? Are you trolling for dates? (that was a serious question)

I've known all along you were hot for me.

Believe me, I could make you switch sides.

But I'm happily married so you're out of luck!

 

[paddymurphy]

And how can you objectively prove that you hold such faith? Remember, you insisted that since there is no DNA test to 'prove' gays are gay....then there is no way to objectively verify their status.

Where is Kim Davis' DNA test to 'prove' she's a Christian?

Laughing......or are you going to treat your own standard like the garbage we all already know it is?

Can't prove the faith, just the association, which is incredibly easy.

Its faith and belief that defines religion. Not association. Visiting a mosque doesn't make you a Muslim.

And by your own standard, you can't objectively verify that faith and belief that defines religion.

How then can you discriminate against religion....if you can't prove the person is, in fact, religious?

Show us that DNA test for Kim Davis......or wipe your own ass with your own standard. As you always do.

But joining the Mosque is proof!

And BOOM, another Skylar fail

Now please, the proof of gay please.

Is not joining the mosque proof that you are not a Muslim? If I am Jewish by birth, but consider myself to be an aetheist and someone fires me or refuses to hire me because they don't like Jews, do I have to prove that I am a devout Jew. How about if I am Catholic but divorced and therefore do not attend mass. Am I, in the eyes of the law, not a Catholic and can be discriminated against? Can you prove ethnicity by DNA? Assume I am 100 percent Irish but was adopted at birth by an Italian family and raised as an Italian with a very Italian name. If someone refuses to hire me because he hates Italians, can I claim discrimination? COuld he defeat my claim by proving through DNA that I am not Italian?

Your ethnicity is by birth, not by who raised you. Good lord dude

So you ignore the rest of the comment that proves your asinine demand of DNA proof of being gay to be asinine? If an employer refuses to hire me because he believes, based on my very Italian name, that I am Italian, that is illegal discrimination even if a DNA test proves me to be of other ethnic derivation or if it turns out I was adopted. You do not have to proof your ethnicity, you have to prove that the hiring decision was motivated by animus towards your ethnicity or perceived ethnicity.

 

[paddymurphy]

What does race have to do with sexual behaviors?

Race can be proven by reliable testing

Can gay?

Can religion? Can ethnicity or national origin? Can perceived disability? These are all classes that are protected by anti-discrimination laws.

Religion is association, not behavior.

Actually DNA testing is quite reliable in deteiming national origin (as are birth certificates - lineage) same with ethnicity

"perceived disability". Not sure where you're going with that, but in the disability hearings I've been in, yes the courts do require proof.

Really?

So you think that DNA would be able to identify whether I am American or Australian?

Tell me more again about the DNA test which would tell you whether someone is Caucasian or African American or Asian.

And the DNA test for identifying someone's religion.

That's nationality, not ethnicity. For nationality all one needs is a birth certificate search or a passport search. Reliable indeed.

Religion is not association. You can be a Jew and never set foot ina synagogue. Or a Catholic or a Buddhist or a Muslim and not be devout and still be protected from discrimination. The point is that all you need to do is assert that you are of a particular faith and prove that you were discriminated against based on that. And DNA cannot prove your ethnicity. If a hundred years ago my great grandfather left France with his wife and settled in Ireland where she gave birth to my grandfather who was raised there and then emigrated here, my DNA would say I am French but I might very well consider myself Irish. And if you have never heard the term perceived disability, you know very Little about discrimination law. The ADA bans discrimination based on a real or perceived disability. Thus, if you fire me because you think I have Aids, that is actionable even if I don't.

 

[paddymurphy]

And how can you objectively prove that you hold such faith? Remember, you insisted that since there is no DNA test to 'prove' gays are gay....then there is no way to objectively verify their status.

Where is Kim Davis' DNA test to 'prove' she's a Christian?

Laughing......or are you going to treat your own standard like the garbage we all already know it is?

Can't prove the faith, just the association, which is incredibly easy.

Its faith and belief that defines religion. Not association. Visiting a mosque doesn't make you a Muslim.

And by your own standard, you can't objectively verify that faith and belief that defines religion.

How then can you discriminate against religion....if you can't prove the person is, in fact, religious?

Show us that DNA test for Kim Davis......or wipe your own ass with your own standard. As you always do.

But joining the Mosque is proof!

And BOOM, another Skylar fail

Now please, the proof of gay please.

Is not joining the mosque proof that you are not a Muslim? If I am Jewish by birth, but consider myself to be an aetheist and someone fires me or refuses to hire me because they don't like Jews, do I have to prove that I am a devout Jew. How about if I am Catholic but divorced and therefore do not attend mass. Am I, in the eyes of the law, not a Catholic and can be discriminated against? Can you prove ethnicity by DNA? Assume I am 100 percent Irish but was adopted at birth by an Italian family and raised as an Italian with a very Italian name. If someone refuses to hire me because he hates Italians, can I claim discrimination? COuld he defeat my claim by proving through DNA that I am not Italian?

Nope, on the Muslim question. But that was one single test. I could give more, but you first. A reliable test to prove gay.

The only thing that would be needed in a court in a case where it is alleged that the discrimination is based on the plaintiff's sexual orientation would be for the plaintiff to state, under oath, that they were gay.

 

[bodecea]

Can't prove the faith, just the association, which is incredibly easy.

Its faith and belief that defines religion. Not association. Visiting a mosque doesn't make you a Muslim.

And by your own standard, you can't objectively verify that faith and belief that defines religion.

How then can you discriminate against religion....if you can't prove the person is, in fact, religious?

Show us that DNA test for Kim Davis......or wipe your own ass with your own standard. As you always do.

But joining the Mosque is proof!

And BOOM, another Skylar fail

Now please, the proof of gay please.

Is not joining the mosque proof that you are not a Muslim? If I am Jewish by birth, but consider myself to be an aetheist and someone fires me or refuses to hire me because they don't like Jews, do I have to prove that I am a devout Jew. How about if I am Catholic but divorced and therefore do not attend mass. Am I, in the eyes of the law, not a Catholic and can be discriminated against? Can you prove ethnicity by DNA? Assume I am 100 percent Irish but was adopted at birth by an Italian family and raised as an Italian with a very Italian name. If someone refuses to hire me because he hates Italians, can I claim discrimination? COuld he defeat my claim by proving through DNA that I am not Italian?

Nope, on the Muslim question. But that was one single test. I could give more, but you first. A reliable test to prove gay.

The only thing that would be needed in a court in a case where it is alleged that the discrimination is based on the plaintiff's sexual orientation would be for the plaintiff to state, under oath, that they were gay.

It doesn't matter if someone is gay or not...if they are discriminated against because someone thought they were gay, that is enough. Gay bashing crime isn't only presecuted if the bashed person is really gay.

 

[Seawytch]

And as the 9th amendment makes ludicrously clear.....you don't have to for it to be a right.

Though you demonstrate why we have a 9th amendment. Those founders that called for it worried about people just like you. Folks that would assume that the bill of rights and constitution were an exhaustive list of rights.

Which it isn't. Nor was ever meant to be.

For it to be protected by the federal constitution, it has to be explicit, what the 9th does is prevent the government from saying "no more rights, ever!".

Says who? Who says that for a right to be protected by the federal constitution it has to be explicit?

And the 9th amendment explicitly rejects your premise:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You insist that that enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people.

Citing yourself of course. As the constitution never says this. Nor does any founder. Its just you. And as is so often the case......you citing you is functionally meaningless.

And as the 9th amendment makes ludicrously clear.....you don't have to for it to be a right.

Though you demonstrate why we have a 9th amendment. Those founders that called for it worried about people just like you. Folks that would assume that the bill of rights and constitution were an exhaustive list of rights.

Which it isn't. Nor was ever meant to be.

For it to be protected by the federal constitution, it has to be explicit, what the 9th does is prevent the government from saying "no more rights, ever!".

Says who? Who says that for a right to be protected by the federal constitution it has to be explicit?

And the 9th amendment explicitly rejects your premise:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You insist that that enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people.

Citing yourself of course. As the constitution never says this. Nor does any founder. Its just you. And as is so often the case......you citing you is functionally meaningless.

it says the people can have additional rights, it says nothing about the method of using federal power to protect or enforce them.

My position is that the federal government can only enforce rights it is explicitly told it can interact with.

But the 14th amendment also says that the government has to give EQUAL protection under the law. Does a marriage license issued by the government provide some protections? Yes or no? And if the answer is yes....then the government has to provide those protections equally. It's quite clear.

So if Obamacare provides coverage for mamograms, I need to be covered as well? equal access and all.

It does.

National Coverage Determination (NCD) for Mammograms (220.4)

 

[Seawytch]

Says who? Who says that for a right to be protected by the federal constitution it has to be explicit?

And the 9th amendment explicitly rejects your premise:

You insist that that enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people.

Citing yourself of course. As the constitution never says this. Nor does any founder. Its just you. And as is so often the case......you citing you is functionally meaningless.

Says who? Who says that for a right to be protected by the federal constitution it has to be explicit?

And the 9th amendment explicitly rejects your premise:

You insist that that enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people.

Citing yourself of course. As the constitution never says this. Nor does any founder. Its just you. And as is so often the case......you citing you is functionally meaningless.

it says the people can have additional rights, it says nothing about the method of using federal power to protect or enforce them.

It explicitly contradicts your insistence that explicit enumeration defines all rights. Again, read it:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

You've insisted that ONLY enumeration is the ONLY method that a right can be retained by the people. The 9th amendment contradicts you, stating the exact opposite.

And when I ask who you're citing in your claim that ONLY enumeration establishe rights.......you've got nobody.

Marty....its the same shit with every argument. You make up something, pulled sideways out of your ass. And then you insist that all of the law, the constitution, the courts, the very concept of rights itself is bound to whatever you just imagined.

Laughing.....um, no.
My position is that the federal government can only enforce rights it is explicitly told it can interact with.

Then I guess if I declare pissing into a storm drain in front of your house a right, the 9th makes the government protect me when I want to do it.

And who says that you declaring something defines a reserve right?

Again, you're backing pseudo-legal gibberish with pseudo-legal gibberish. With you citing yourself, citing yourself.

And when I ask you who states that rights must be enumerated to be retained by the people.......you cite yourself. Citing yourself.

Its turtles - all the way down.

You declare marriage is a right, its not in the document, you run to the 9th amendment for it. I do the same and you can't answer why my right (although exaggerated) doesn't count.[/QUOTE]

Supreme Court rulings you claim you agree with declared marriage a fundamental right.

Loving v Virginia, Turner v Safely and Zablocki v Redhail..

And then the gay one you disagree with, Obergefell v Hodges. And you disagree with THAT ruling because only straight couples get to use the judiciary...gays have to have a popularity contest.