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.
The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.
It most certainly does, and has been since the beginning. For instance, try claiming that you have a right on religious grounds to own slaves, and then try to actually own one. Good luck with that. The Civil War is over, dude.
Slave owning is explicitly banned in the constitution, one of only two parts of the document that pertain directly to citizen actions being banned, the other one being transporting alcohol into a jurisdiction that bans it.
The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.
It most certainly does, and has been since the beginning. For instance, try claiming that you have a right on religious grounds to own slaves, and then try to actually own one. Good luck with that. The Civil War is over, dude.
Slave owning is explicitly banned in the constitution, one of only two parts of the document that pertain directly to citizen actions being banned, the other one being transporting alcohol into a jurisdiction that bans it.
You forget this part of the 14th amendment:
"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."
When you sit in the stands are you participating?There is the wedding itself...many (but not all) guests participate in that....but I never have seen the food people there participating...they are at the RECEPTION. What weddings have you been to where the caterers are in the seats at the wedding itself, witnessing the actual ceremony?
And witnessing is not "being forced to participate"
The only participants of the ceremony are the couple getting married, the two witnesses and the person performing the rite.
Not according to the definition of the words you're using.
But how cool is it that there exist this notion that words can mean anything that the user of the words feels they need to mean?
(Reader, what you're witnessing there ... is Relativism. In this case, the meaning of the words are whatever one's relative position needs the words to mean. In truth, thus in reality, IF and WHEN one agrees to service a celebration of debauchery, one lends the value of their own credibility to that celebration.)
So when you sit on your ass and watch a football game on the tube you are participating?
No you are not.
How about if you are a player but not on the field, are you participating?
How about you are a player on the field but the ball is in someone else's hands and you're on the opposite side?
See, you can draw the definition any way you want to fit your agenda.
In point of fact the baker feels he is participating by providing service for the wedding. The gay couple obviously feel the same way.
Sitting in the stands is not participating in the game
Sitting in a room or church where other people are getting marries is not participating in the ceremony
And how is it obvious that the people who order a wedding cake think the baker is participating in a wedding when the cake is for a party after the wedding?
The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.
It most certainly does, and has been since the beginning. For instance, try claiming that you have a right on religious grounds to own slaves, and then try to actually own one. Good luck with that. The Civil War is over, dude.
Slave owning is explicitly banned in the constitution, one of only two parts of the document that pertain directly to citizen actions being banned, the other one being transporting alcohol into a jurisdiction that bans it.
You forget this part of the 14th amendment:
"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."
You have to assume gay marriage and hetero marriage are equal for that to work, and unless a State legislature changes the marriage contract to make that the case, a court has no right to force it on people.
Unless you go with a absolutist view of the 14th amendment, which in that case means we can't deny a marriage contract to anyone, even single people.
The article is true in general but it ignores the main point. And that is that the government ir anyone else has no right to force anyone into participating in anything, especially if it violates their religion. Period, end of story.
It most certainly does, and has been since the beginning. For instance, try claiming that you have a right on religious grounds to own slaves, and then try to actually own one. Good luck with that. The Civil War is over, dude.
Slave owning is explicitly banned in the constitution, one of only two parts of the document that pertain directly to citizen actions being banned, the other one being transporting alcohol into a jurisdiction that bans it.
You forget this part of the 14th amendment:
"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."
You have to assume gay marriage and hetero marriage are equal for that to work, and unless a State legislature changes the marriage contract to make that the case, a court has no right to force it on people.
Unless you go with a absolutist view of the 14th amendment, which in that case means we can't deny a marriage contract to anyone, even single people.
They are equal and single people aren't denied a marriage license...undivorced married people are, not single people.
No right is absolute. Owning a gun is a right, but it's not an absolute right.
It most certainly does, and has been since the beginning. For instance, try claiming that you have a right on religious grounds to own slaves, and then try to actually own one. Good luck with that. The Civil War is over, dude.
Slave owning is explicitly banned in the constitution, one of only two parts of the document that pertain directly to citizen actions being banned, the other one being transporting alcohol into a jurisdiction that bans it.
You forget this part of the 14th amendment:
"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."
You have to assume gay marriage and hetero marriage are equal for that to work, and unless a State legislature changes the marriage contract to make that the case, a court has no right to force it on people.
Unless you go with a absolutist view of the 14th amendment, which in that case means we can't deny a marriage contract to anyone, even single people.
They are equal and single people aren't denied a marriage license...undivorced married people are, not single people.
No right is absolute. Owning a gun is a right, but it's not an absolute right.
a single person cannot marry themself, but if you go with your "because we want it" view of the 14th amendment, how do you justify denying them the benefits of marriage?
Slave owning is explicitly banned in the constitution, one of only two parts of the document that pertain directly to citizen actions being banned, the other one being transporting alcohol into a jurisdiction that bans it.
You forget this part of the 14th amendment:
"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."
You have to assume gay marriage and hetero marriage are equal for that to work, and unless a State legislature changes the marriage contract to make that the case, a court has no right to force it on people.
Unless you go with a absolutist view of the 14th amendment, which in that case means we can't deny a marriage contract to anyone, even single people.
They are equal and single people aren't denied a marriage license...undivorced married people are, not single people.
No right is absolute. Owning a gun is a right, but it's not an absolute right.
a single person cannot marry themself, but if you go with your "because we want it" view of the 14th amendment, how do you justify denying them the benefits of marriage?
No, I'm going with the reasonable person and no societal harm standard. Single people aren't denied the benefits of marriage any more than I'm denied the benefits of an airplane owners tax deduction.
You forget this part of the 14th amendment:
"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."
You have to assume gay marriage and hetero marriage are equal for that to work, and unless a State legislature changes the marriage contract to make that the case, a court has no right to force it on people.
Unless you go with a absolutist view of the 14th amendment, which in that case means we can't deny a marriage contract to anyone, even single people.
They are equal and single people aren't denied a marriage license...undivorced married people are, not single people.
No right is absolute. Owning a gun is a right, but it's not an absolute right.
a single person cannot marry themself, but if you go with your "because we want it" view of the 14th amendment, how do you justify denying them the benefits of marriage?
No, I'm going with the reasonable person and no societal harm standard. Single people aren't denied the benefits of marriage any more than I'm denied the benefits of an airplane owners tax deduction.
and you throw that standard out the window when you go after bakers who don't want to bake cakes for you. Got it.
You have to assume gay marriage and hetero marriage are equal for that to work, and unless a State legislature changes the marriage contract to make that the case, a court has no right to force it on people.
Unless you go with a absolutist view of the 14th amendment, which in that case means we can't deny a marriage contract to anyone, even single people.
They are equal and single people aren't denied a marriage license...undivorced married people are, not single people.
No right is absolute. Owning a gun is a right, but it's not an absolute right.
a single person cannot marry themself, but if you go with your "because we want it" view of the 14th amendment, how do you justify denying them the benefits of marriage?
No, I'm going with the reasonable person and no societal harm standard. Single people aren't denied the benefits of marriage any more than I'm denied the benefits of an airplane owners tax deduction.
and you throw that standard out the window when you go after bakers who don't want to bake cakes for you. Got it.
Ah, now we're conflating issues. Public Accommodation and civil marriage are unrelated. Yes, we know you don't like PA laws. That does not change their existence nor does it change that they have been found to be Constitutional. The Federal PA law at that. PA laws that protect gays are passed at the local level...you know, states rights kinds stuff ya'll usually go for.
When you sit in the stands are you participating?And witnessing is not "being forced to participate"
The only participants of the ceremony are the couple getting married, the two witnesses and the person performing the rite.
Not according to the definition of the words you're using.
But how cool is it that there exist this notion that words can mean anything that the user of the words feels they need to mean?
(Reader, what you're witnessing there ... is Relativism. In this case, the meaning of the words are whatever one's relative position needs the words to mean. In truth, thus in reality, IF and WHEN one agrees to service a celebration of debauchery, one lends the value of their own credibility to that celebration.)
So when you sit on your ass and watch a football game on the tube you are participating?
No you are not.
How about if you are a player but not on the field, are you participating?
How about you are a player on the field but the ball is in someone else's hands and you're on the opposite side?
See, you can draw the definition any way you want to fit your agenda.
In point of fact the baker feels he is participating by providing service for the wedding. The gay couple obviously feel the same way.
Sitting in the stands is not participating in the game
Sitting in a room or church where other people are getting marries is not participating in the ceremony
And how is it obvious that the people who order a wedding cake think the baker is participating in a wedding when the cake is for a party after the wedding?
Because SP, there is no real reason other than they simply don't like gay people and want to discriminate against them. There is no biblical reason for this. Anyone who has actually read the bible and knows about Jesus could never turn away anyone from their business because Jesus wouldn't have turned anyone away.[/QUOTE]
The entire religious argument is ridiculous because these pious people bake cakes and cater functions for all manner of sinners.
The only ones that seem to bother them are the gay sinners.
It most certainly does, and has been since the beginning. For instance, try claiming that you have a right on religious grounds to own slaves, and then try to actually own one. Good luck with that. The Civil War is over, dude.
Slave owning is explicitly banned in the constitution, one of only two parts of the document that pertain directly to citizen actions being banned, the other one being transporting alcohol into a jurisdiction that bans it.
You forget this part of the 14th amendment:
"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."
You have to assume gay marriage and hetero marriage are equal for that to work, and unless a State legislature changes the marriage contract to make that the case, a court has no right to force it on people.
Unless you go with a absolutist view of the 14th amendment, which in that case means we can't deny a marriage contract to anyone, even single people.
They are equal and single people aren't denied a marriage license...undivorced married people are, not single people.
No right is absolute. Owning a gun is a right, but it's not an absolute right.
a single person cannot marry themself, but if you go with your "because we want it" view of the 14th amendment, how do you justify denying them the benefits of marriage?
Right and wrong have nothing to do with legalitiesThey are equal and single people aren't denied a marriage license...undivorced married people are, not single people.
No right is absolute. Owning a gun is a right, but it's not an absolute right.
a single person cannot marry themself, but if you go with your "because we want it" view of the 14th amendment, how do you justify denying them the benefits of marriage?
No, I'm going with the reasonable person and no societal harm standard. Single people aren't denied the benefits of marriage any more than I'm denied the benefits of an airplane owners tax deduction.
and you throw that standard out the window when you go after bakers who don't want to bake cakes for you. Got it.
Ah, now we're conflating issues. Public Accommodation and civil marriage are unrelated. Yes, we know you don't like PA laws. That does not change their existence nor does it change that they have been found to be Constitutional. The Federal PA law at that. PA laws that protect gays are passed at the local level...you know, states rights kinds stuff ya'll usually go for.
Actually you are conflating standards to suit your own interest, but after a few years on this message board, I am not surprised by that.
And again, "Constitutional" does not mean right. Plessey V Furgeson was constitutional, do you think it was right? Citizens united means massive outside spending on elections is constitutional, do you think that is right?
Slave owning is explicitly banned in the constitution, one of only two parts of the document that pertain directly to citizen actions being banned, the other one being transporting alcohol into a jurisdiction that bans it.
You forget this part of the 14th amendment:
"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."
You have to assume gay marriage and hetero marriage are equal for that to work, and unless a State legislature changes the marriage contract to make that the case, a court has no right to force it on people.
Unless you go with a absolutist view of the 14th amendment, which in that case means we can't deny a marriage contract to anyone, even single people.
They are equal and single people aren't denied a marriage license...undivorced married people are, not single people.
No right is absolute. Owning a gun is a right, but it's not an absolute right.
a single person cannot marry themself, but if you go with your "because we want it" view of the 14th amendment, how do you justify denying them the benefits of marriage?
Marriage is a contract and by definition at least two parties must be involved.
They are equal and single people aren't denied a marriage license...undivorced married people are, not single people.
No right is absolute. Owning a gun is a right, but it's not an absolute right.
a single person cannot marry themself, but if you go with your "because we want it" view of the 14th amendment, how do you justify denying them the benefits of marriage?
No, I'm going with the reasonable person and no societal harm standard. Single people aren't denied the benefits of marriage any more than I'm denied the benefits of an airplane owners tax deduction.
and you throw that standard out the window when you go after bakers who don't want to bake cakes for you. Got it.
Ah, now we're conflating issues. Public Accommodation and civil marriage are unrelated. Yes, we know you don't like PA laws. That does not change their existence nor does it change that they have been found to be Constitutional. The Federal PA law at that. PA laws that protect gays are passed at the local level...you know, states rights kinds stuff ya'll usually go for.
Actually you are conflating standards to suit your own interest, but after a few years on this message board, I am not surprised by that.
And again, "Constitutional" does not mean right. Plessey V Furgeson was constitutional, do you think it was right? Citizens united means massive outside spending on elections is constitutional, do you think that is right?
Right and wrong have nothing to do with legalitiesa single person cannot marry themself, but if you go with your "because we want it" view of the 14th amendment, how do you justify denying them the benefits of marriage?
No, I'm going with the reasonable person and no societal harm standard. Single people aren't denied the benefits of marriage any more than I'm denied the benefits of an airplane owners tax deduction.
and you throw that standard out the window when you go after bakers who don't want to bake cakes for you. Got it.
Ah, now we're conflating issues. Public Accommodation and civil marriage are unrelated. Yes, we know you don't like PA laws. That does not change their existence nor does it change that they have been found to be Constitutional. The Federal PA law at that. PA laws that protect gays are passed at the local level...you know, states rights kinds stuff ya'll usually go for.
Actually you are conflating standards to suit your own interest, but after a few years on this message board, I am not surprised by that.
And again, "Constitutional" does not mean right. Plessey V Furgeson was constitutional, do you think it was right? Citizens united means massive outside spending on elections is constitutional, do you think that is right?
You forget this part of the 14th amendment:
"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."
You have to assume gay marriage and hetero marriage are equal for that to work, and unless a State legislature changes the marriage contract to make that the case, a court has no right to force it on people.
Unless you go with a absolutist view of the 14th amendment, which in that case means we can't deny a marriage contract to anyone, even single people.
They are equal and single people aren't denied a marriage license...undivorced married people are, not single people.
No right is absolute. Owning a gun is a right, but it's not an absolute right.
a single person cannot marry themself, but if you go with your "because we want it" view of the 14th amendment, how do you justify denying them the benefits of marriage?
Marriage is a contract and by definition at least two parties must be involved.
So there is no example at all of a Contract with ones self?
How to Write a Contract With Yourself 9 Steps eHow
The entire religious argument is ridiculous because these pious people bake cakes and cater functions for all manner of sinners.
The only ones that seem to bother them are the gay sinners.
You forget this part of the 14th amendment:
"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."
You have to assume gay marriage and hetero marriage are equal for that to work, and unless a State legislature changes the marriage contract to make that the case, a court has no right to force it on people.
Unless you go with a absolutist view of the 14th amendment, which in that case means we can't deny a marriage contract to anyone, even single people.
They are equal and single people aren't denied a marriage license...undivorced married people are, not single people.
No right is absolute. Owning a gun is a right, but it's not an absolute right.
a single person cannot marry themself, but if you go with your "because we want it" view of the 14th amendment, how do you justify denying them the benefits of marriage?
Marriage is a contract and by definition at least two parties must be involved.
So there is no example at all of a Contract with ones self?
How to Write a Contract With Yourself 9 Steps eHow
Right and wrong have nothing to do with legalitiesNo, I'm going with the reasonable person and no societal harm standard. Single people aren't denied the benefits of marriage any more than I'm denied the benefits of an airplane owners tax deduction.
and you throw that standard out the window when you go after bakers who don't want to bake cakes for you. Got it.
Ah, now we're conflating issues. Public Accommodation and civil marriage are unrelated. Yes, we know you don't like PA laws. That does not change their existence nor does it change that they have been found to be Constitutional. The Federal PA law at that. PA laws that protect gays are passed at the local level...you know, states rights kinds stuff ya'll usually go for.
Actually you are conflating standards to suit your own interest, but after a few years on this message board, I am not surprised by that.
And again, "Constitutional" does not mean right. Plessey V Furgeson was constitutional, do you think it was right? Citizens united means massive outside spending on elections is constitutional, do you think that is right?
When debating with Seawytch, apparently it does. If a court has ruled on it, and she agrees with it, she runs right to the old "its constitutional, so shut up" line of argument.
a single person cannot marry themself, but if you go with your "because we want it" view of the 14th amendment, how do you justify denying them the benefits of marriage?
No, I'm going with the reasonable person and no societal harm standard. Single people aren't denied the benefits of marriage any more than I'm denied the benefits of an airplane owners tax deduction.
and you throw that standard out the window when you go after bakers who don't want to bake cakes for you. Got it.
Ah, now we're conflating issues. Public Accommodation and civil marriage are unrelated. Yes, we know you don't like PA laws. That does not change their existence nor does it change that they have been found to be Constitutional. The Federal PA law at that. PA laws that protect gays are passed at the local level...you know, states rights kinds stuff ya'll usually go for.
Actually you are conflating standards to suit your own interest, but after a few years on this message board, I am not surprised by that.
And again, "Constitutional" does not mean right. Plessey V Furgeson was constitutional, do you think it was right? Citizens united means massive outside spending on elections is constitutional, do you think that is right?
No, I'm not conflating standards. Gays and lesbians want equal access to civil marriage. Marriage being a fundamental right cannot be denied gays because you don't think their partnerships are equal, because gays are icky or because your bible tells you so. There must be a societal harm in allowing gays to civilly marry each other. None can be found so courts are finding in favor of gays having access to a fundamental right.
Public Accommodation laws, which have been in effect since the 60s, have zero to do with civil marriage. They are laws passed by legislators or people's initiatives and they have been challenged more than once to the SCOTUS. You're free to challenge them again. Until such a time, these laws are in effect and a business can follow them or suffer the consequences. Where is my conflated standard?
