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.
Marriage has been declared a Fundamental Right many times by SCOTUS.Legal marriage isn't a right. That's why it requires a license. Being black isn't defined by behavior.
Fucking morons!
IF the cab driver was a sole proprietor, then he should be able to refuse any customer for any reason. However, most cab drivers work for a corporation. They are required to follow the rules laid down by their superiors.You didn't address the difference between providing a cake and providing a cab ride. You just said it was too dumb to discuss. A cheap way out, IMO, hence my appraisal of why you lost the argument.I not only got out of it, I killed your argument but you aren't smart enough or honest enough to understand it.
It's a pretty stupid argument - SCOTUS declares marriage a Fundamental Right, but a civil, legal marriage is not a marriage without the license.
Derrp.
That still doesn't answer the question of what the difference is between providing a cake or a cab ride. Either way you're subjected for a time to something that some claim can violate their faith.IF the cab driver was a sole proprietor, then he should be able to refuse any customer for any reason. However, most cab drivers work for a corporation. They are required to follow the rules laid down by their superiors.
The GOP Congress should gopher it!It's a pretty stupid argument - SCOTUS declares marriage a Fundamental Right, but a civil, legal marriage is not a marriage without the license.
Derrp.
Any so-called "right" not protected by the Constitution is subject to legislation. Congress could repeal the 1964 act any time it wants to and the Court couldn't do a thing about it.
That still doesn't answer the question of what the difference is between providing a cake or a cab ride. Either way you're subjected for a time to something that some claim can violate their faith.IF the cab driver was a sole proprietor, then he should be able to refuse any customer for any reason. However, most cab drivers work for a corporation. They are required to follow the rules laid down by their superiors.
The GOP Congress should gopher it!It's a pretty stupid argument - SCOTUS declares marriage a Fundamental Right, but a civil, legal marriage is not a marriage without the license.
Derrp.
Any so-called "right" not protected by the Constitution is subject to legislation. Congress could repeal the 1964 act any time it wants to and the Court couldn't do a thing about it.
&
Maybe I next need to clue you in on how laws are passed.
Hint: It ain't just Congress that needs to approve it.
Maybe you need to watch Schoolhouse Rock again.
Like brother and sister?If two consenting adults request a marriage license, and there are no prohibitions from them marrying, and they have complied with all applicable laws - yes, the license to marry is a Right.A marriage license isn't.Marriage has been declared a Fundamental Right many times by SCOTUS.Legal marriage isn't a right. That's why it requires a license. Being black isn't defined by behavior.
Fucking morons!
If the state denies them, they have a lawsuit on their hands.
Progressives pushed for referenda on the ballot. Make yp your mind. If you have one.How is people voting "mob rule"? I'd swear you sit around 24./7 thinking up stupid things to say."Legislatively" means not by popular vote, and what the fuck does "Legislatively/Ballot" mean?
The point that started the response was the ideal that Federal courts would be imposing SSCM in all 50 states. That is false. A number of states passed SSCM on their own with out Federal Court action.
"Legislatively" means by the legislature elected by the people.
If you were familiar with the issue you would understand that Minnesota passed SSCM in two steps. First there was a ballot initiative to ban SSCM, that measure failed. As a result of that failing ballot initiative the legislature passed the law for the governor to sign which made SSCM legal in that state.
>>>>
I know what "legislatively means. I asked you what "Ballot/Legislatively" mean?
Being approved by the state legislature doesn't mean it's supported by the voters. Politicians are all sleazy weasels who will sell out their constituents for almost any consideration. A lot of state legislatures approved so-called "gay marriage" legislation and then were overruled by a referendum.
So you want mob rule.
Isn't direct democracy 'mob rule' according to nuts like you?
Non sequitur troll post.Like brother and sister?If two consenting adults request a marriage license, and there are no prohibitions from them marrying, and they have complied with all applicable laws - yes, the license to marry is a Right.A marriage license isn't.Marriage has been declared a Fundamental Right many times by SCOTUS.Legal marriage isn't a right. That's why it requires a license. Being black isn't defined by behavior.
Fucking morons!
If the state denies them, they have a lawsuit on their hands.
That's correct. In those places that require a license to own one it is not a right, which is contrary to the US Constitution. Those local laws are unconstitutional. Thanks for pointing i tout.Legal marriage isn't a right. That's why it requires a license. Being black isn't defined by behavior.
Fucking morons!
Owning some guns requires a license in some states. I guess owning a gun isn't a right.
Anything requiring a permit by definition is not a right. A marriage license is such a permit. Ergo it is not a right.If two consenting adults request a marriage license, and there are no prohibitions from them marrying, and they have complied with all applicable laws - yes, the license to marry is a Right.A marriage license isn't.Marriage has been declared a Fundamental Right many times by SCOTUS.Legal marriage isn't a right. That's why it requires a license. Being black isn't defined by behavior.
Fucking morons!
If the state denies them, they have a lawsuit on their hands.
The GOP Congress should gopher it!It's a pretty stupid argument - SCOTUS declares marriage a Fundamental Right, but a civil, legal marriage is not a marriage without the license.
Derrp.
Any so-called "right" not protected by the Constitution is subject to legislation. Congress could repeal the 1964 act any time it wants to and the Court couldn't do a thing about it.
&
Maybe I next need to clue you in on how laws are passed.
Hint: It ain't just Congress that needs to approve it.
Maybe you need to watch Schoolhouse Rock again.
Congress didn't approve the 1964 PA laws?
Please do explain how laws are passed. I'm dying to know what you believe.
The stupidity is yours, as usual.It's a pretty stupid argument - SCOTUS declares marriage a Fundamental Right, but a civil, legal marriage is not a marriage without the license.
Derrp.
The GOP Congress should gopher it!It's a pretty stupid argument - SCOTUS declares marriage a Fundamental Right, but a civil, legal marriage is not a marriage without the license.
Derrp.
Any so-called "right" not protected by the Constitution is subject to legislation. Congress could repeal the 1964 act any time it wants to and the Court couldn't do a thing about it.
&
Maybe I next need to clue you in on how laws are passed.
Hint: It ain't just Congress that needs to approve it.
Maybe you need to watch Schoolhouse Rock again.
Congress didn't approve the 1964 PA laws?
Please do explain how laws are passed. I'm dying to know what you believe.
lol.
You really do need a lesson by Schoolhouse Rock, donchew?
What comes after Congress passes a bill, lil chump?
^ Stoopid on a stick.Anything requiring a permit by definition is not a right. A marriage license is such a permit. Ergo it is not a right.If two consenting adults request a marriage license, and there are no prohibitions from them marrying, and they have complied with all applicable laws - yes, the license to marry is a Right.A marriage license isn't.Marriage has been declared a Fundamental Right many times by SCOTUS.Legal marriage isn't a right. That's why it requires a license. Being black isn't defined by behavior.
Fucking morons!
If the state denies them, they have a lawsuit on their hands.
Yes, yes you are. Prove it every exchange where you get your ass kicked 10 ways from Sunday.^ Stoopid on a stick.Anything requiring a permit by definition is not a right. A marriage license is such a permit. Ergo it is not a right.If two consenting adults request a marriage license, and there are no prohibitions from them marrying, and they have complied with all applicable laws - yes, the license to marry is a Right.A marriage license isn't.Marriage has been declared a Fundamental Right many times by SCOTUS.Legal marriage isn't a right. That's why it requires a license. Being black isn't defined by behavior.
Fucking morons!
If the state denies them, they have a lawsuit on their hands.
Hey buster, you're the one that brought it up with this nonsense:The GOP Congress should gopher it!It's a pretty stupid argument - SCOTUS declares marriage a Fundamental Right, but a civil, legal marriage is not a marriage without the license.
Derrp.
Any so-called "right" not protected by the Constitution is subject to legislation. Congress could repeal the 1964 act any time it wants to and the Court couldn't do a thing about it.
&
Maybe I next need to clue you in on how laws are passed.
Hint: It ain't just Congress that needs to approve it.
Maybe you need to watch Schoolhouse Rock again.
Congress didn't approve the 1964 PA laws?
Please do explain how laws are passed. I'm dying to know what you believe.
lol.
You really do need a lesson by Schoolhouse Rock, donchew?
What comes after Congress passes a bill, lil chump?
The bottom line is that Congress has to pass any legislation, big dumbass.
Your point seems to be that Obama would veto it. Unfortunately for your idiotic response is that it's a hypothetical. There is no actual bill in Congress.
