Gay statists strike again...you will submit!!!!

[TemplarKormac]

Are you going to do anything other than parrot the ruling to me Doc? It's rather cumbersome on this debate.

I'm not "parroting the ruling", I'm explaining how your interpretation of the law is simply wrong.

The Fifth Amendment doesn't apply in any way, since no private property has been "taken", for use by the public, or any other way.

The Fifth Amendment now applies because the government has made a ruling on this case as it relates to the use of this property. And I may have been in the looney bin for a few days, but still "you're wrong" is not a substantial argument.

The Fifth doesn't say anything about the government ruling on how property can be used.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Are you going to do anything other than parrot the ruling to me Doc? It's rather cumbersome on this debate.

I'm not "parroting the ruling", I'm explaining how your interpretation of the law is simply wrong.

The Fifth Amendment doesn't apply in any way, since no private property has been "taken", for use by the public, or any other way.

The Fifth Amendment now applies because the government has made a ruling on this case as it relates to the use of this property. And I may have been in the looney bin for a few days, but still "you're wrong" is not a substantial argument.

The Fifth doesn't say anything about the government ruling on how property can be used.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Who has been "deprived" of life, liberty, or property?

The Giffords still own the farm.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Are you going to do anything other than parrot the ruling to me Doc? It's rather cumbersome on this debate.

I'm not "parroting the ruling", I'm explaining how your interpretation of the law is simply wrong.

The Fifth Amendment doesn't apply in any way, since no private property has been "taken", for use by the public, or any other way.

The Fifth Amendment now applies because the government has made a ruling on this case as it relates to the use of this property. And I may have been in the looney bin for a few days, but still "you're wrong" is not a substantial argument.

The Fifth doesn't say anything about the government ruling on how property can be used.

Actually, the government of New York just did make a ruling on how the property can be used. The ruling, remember?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Are you going to do anything other than parrot the ruling to me Doc? It's rather cumbersome on this debate.

I'm not "parroting the ruling", I'm explaining how your interpretation of the law is simply wrong.

The Fifth Amendment doesn't apply in any way, since no private property has been "taken", for use by the public, or any other way.

The Fifth Amendment now applies because the government has made a ruling on this case as it relates to the use of this property. And I may have been in the looney bin for a few days, but still "you're wrong" is not a substantial argument.

The Fifth doesn't say anything about the government ruling on how property can be used.

Actually, the government of New York just did make a ruling on how the property can be used. The ruling, remember?

Yes, they did.

The Fifth Amendment doesn't say they can't.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Are you going to do anything other than parrot the ruling to me Doc? It's rather cumbersome on this debate.

I'm not "parroting the ruling", I'm explaining how your interpretation of the law is simply wrong.

The Fifth Amendment doesn't apply in any way, since no private property has been "taken", for use by the public, or any other way.

The Fifth Amendment now applies because the government has made a ruling on this case as it relates to the use of this property. And I may have been in the looney bin for a few days, but still "you're wrong" is not a substantial argument.

The Fifth doesn't say anything about the government ruling on how property can be used.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Who has been "deprived" of life, liberty, or property?

The Giffords still own the farm.

Yet somehow they are to be forced to host people or events they find objectionable in their own home. That means they do not have the ability to control their own property on their own accord. I believe that violates two of the clauses in that phrase... liberty and property.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Are you going to do anything other than parrot the ruling to me Doc? It's rather cumbersome on this debate.

I'm not "parroting the ruling", I'm explaining how your interpretation of the law is simply wrong.

The Fifth Amendment doesn't apply in any way, since no private property has been "taken", for use by the public, or any other way.

The Fifth Amendment now applies because the government has made a ruling on this case as it relates to the use of this property. And I may have been in the looney bin for a few days, but still "you're wrong" is not a substantial argument.

The Fifth doesn't say anything about the government ruling on how property can be used.

Actually, the government of New York just did make a ruling on how the property can be used. The ruling, remember?

Yes, they did.

The Fifth Amendment doesn't say they can't.

I never said the Fifth Amendment did such a thing. Where did I say that?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Are you going to do anything other than parrot the ruling to me Doc? It's rather cumbersome on this debate.

I'm not "parroting the ruling", I'm explaining how your interpretation of the law is simply wrong.

The Fifth Amendment doesn't apply in any way, since no private property has been "taken", for use by the public, or any other way.

The Fifth Amendment now applies because the government has made a ruling on this case as it relates to the use of this property. And I may have been in the looney bin for a few days, but still "you're wrong" is not a substantial argument.

The Fifth doesn't say anything about the government ruling on how property can be used.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Who has been "deprived" of life, liberty, or property?

The Giffords still own the farm.

Yet somehow they are to be forced to host people or events they find objectionable in their own home. That means they do not have the ability to control their own property on their own accord. I believe that violates two of the clauses in that phrase... liberty and property.

They are not being "forced" to do anything. They are being fined for discriminating.

And the Fifth Amendment doesn't say anything about being able to do whatever you want on your "property", it just says the government can't steal it from you without due process.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Are you going to do anything other than parrot the ruling to me Doc? It's rather cumbersome on this debate.

I'm not "parroting the ruling", I'm explaining how your interpretation of the law is simply wrong.

The Fifth Amendment doesn't apply in any way, since no private property has been "taken", for use by the public, or any other way.

The Fifth Amendment now applies because the government has made a ruling on this case as it relates to the use of this property. And I may have been in the looney bin for a few days, but still "you're wrong" is not a substantial argument.

The Fifth doesn't say anything about the government ruling on how property can be used.

Actually, the government of New York just did make a ruling on how the property can be used. The ruling, remember?

Yes, they did.

The Fifth Amendment doesn't say they can't.

I never said the Fifth Amendment did such a thing. Where did I say that?

Your entire argument is based on the claim that the Fifth Amendment prevents states from ruling on how property can be used.

 

[TemplarKormac]

My eyes say no, my brain says yes... my eyes win. Time for bed, for real this time.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

My eyes say no, my brain says yes... my eyes win. Time for bed, for real this time.

Goodnight, man. We'll continue this tomorrow.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Are you going to do anything other than parrot the ruling to me Doc? It's rather cumbersome on this debate.

I'm not "parroting the ruling", I'm explaining how your interpretation of the law is simply wrong.

The Fifth Amendment doesn't apply in any way, since no private property has been "taken", for use by the public, or any other way.

The Fifth Amendment now applies because the government has made a ruling on this case as it relates to the use of this property. And I may have been in the looney bin for a few days, but still "you're wrong" is not a substantial argument.

The Fifth doesn't say anything about the government ruling on how property can be used.

Actually, the government of New York just did make a ruling on how the property can be used. The ruling, remember?

Yes, they did.

The Fifth Amendment doesn't say they can't.

I never said the Fifth Amendment did such a thing. Where did I say that?

Your entire argument is based on the claim that the Fifth Amendment prevents states from ruling on how property can be used.

No it isn't. Where did I say anything about 'the states'?

 

[TemplarKormac]

My eyes say no, my brain says yes... my eyes win. Time for bed, for real this time.

Goodnight, man. We'll continue this tomorrow.

Night bro!

 

[Seawytch]

Yet you whinged about it doing just that after the Hobby Lobby decision.

Interesting.

And you can link to this post of mine, naturally? I'll be waiting...

Oh, and what is "whinged" exactly?

 

[martybegan]

Freedom of religion is a right that supersedes any state law...but why quibble over inalienable rights when the ability to force people to do what we want because they don't like us is popular right now....

You have freedom of religion. Your business doesn't. businesses don't have religion.

What part of "free exercise thereof" don't you get?

So...Mormons have the free exercise of polygamy? So...religions have the free exercise of human sacrifice?

They can and do, they just can't get a government marriage license. Human sacrifice involves a homicide, which is a crime in and of itself, even if a person does it willingly because of laws against suicide.

Try harder with your arguments next time.

Exactly...they cannot get the government marriage license....and you put your finger on why we do not get complete freedom of religion............when it hurts others. Thanks for helping my point along.

No, I didn't. What DOESN'T happen is other people being able to sue their asses or whine to some Human Rights Junta about it and fuck them over because of it.

Their religion doesn't require them to get government recognition of their marriage, they seem perfectly happy just doing it without government interference.

 

[martybegan]

Freedom of religion is a right that supersedes any state law...but why quibble over inalienable rights when the ability to force people to do what we want because they don't like us is popular right now....

You have freedom of religion. Your business doesn't. businesses don't have religion.

What part of "free exercise thereof" don't you get?

The part where it isn't a free ride to disobey laws you don't like.

But we don't even need to go that far. These owners are perfectly free to believe that homosexuality is wrong. BUt they don't have a right to refuse service to gays through their business. Their business is not an "establishment of religion", nor does it have religious beliefs.

You are still restricting free exercise thereof.

I'd be happy if all religion is banned, so you are barking up the wrong tree here, bud.

Businesses don't have religion. Businesses aren't people.

People have a religion, and people run businesses, especially small ones like this. And your anti-constitutional side again shows.

 

[martybegan]

[


Dumbest argument ever. So because they rely like the rest of us on police protection that allows the government to direct everything they can do?

What if a health inspector decides all donuts are bad for you? does he get to close the bakery down if they sell donuts?

It's not just police protection.

It's courts and laws that enforce contracts.

It's safety regulations that keep the baker from getting ingredients that contaminated.

It's roads that allow commerce to come to your storefront.

Hence- PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION.

So everything is a public accommodation because you think it is, and the progressive assholes in some states like the concept to fuck people over.

I guess your next step is to deny these things to individuals who don't agree with your worldview.

 

[Seawytch]

Shut the hell up, punk. I won't be lectured by fascist thugs like you. I slap the piss out of cowardly punks like you . . . verbally speaking, you understand. Hmm. Unless of course you in get in my face, you know, invade my space, then I'm liable to kick your ass to the curb, literally.

A number of cases are already being adjudicated, on their way toward to the Supreme Court out of Colorado, New Mexico, California and other states. The Court had better get this right. I've personally been sued by a homofascist whore like you as I don't play the dodge game. I'm past that song and dance. That depraved sissy lost and was ordered to reimburse me for my legal expenses. But I haven't gotten a dime of that back and probably never will. I've put my assets on the line to defend liberty and have donated thousands to the various legal funds fighting this crap. Years ago I put my life on the line to defend liberty.

All punks like you have ever done all your lives is tear the Republic down and attack the inalienable rights of the people.

I'm in Arizona. I donated time, money and energy to pass The Arizona "Religious Rights" bill (Senate Bill 1062), vetoed by that cowardly bitch Brewer. That bill's coming back up when that statist bootlick is gone, and we will get it passed.

I will engage in civil disobedience if necessary, and I will take up arms if necessary.

Oh, and once again, shut the hell up, you mindless, bootlicking statist.

Wow...you've got a lot of anger penned up inside you. I'd suggest therapy, but I'm sure that's just too "french and gay" for you, right? That was a lot of butthurt in one post.

So, you really don't care to get rid of all Public Accommodation laws, just the ones that protect the gheys like Christians and blacks are protected?

So, braggart, what was your lawsuit about? Couldn't have been a Public Accommodation lawsuit since gays aren't protected in Arizona against discrimination in Public Accommodation. You knew that already, right?

 

[Seawytch]

My eyes say no, my brain says yes... my eyes win. Time for bed, for real this time.

Maybe sleep will help you understand that residing on property for which you have obtained a business license does not preclude that business from having business laws applied to it.

 

[bodecea]

Did you not post that the article did not say the issue was that the wedding was to be held in a home/house? Did your account get hacked again?

That was the "issue" according to the interview with the owner, not according to the complaint or judgement.

They were denied having their ceremony there at all, not just in the "house". The owners wouldn't allow them to have the ceremony outside, either.

Which is well within her rights to do. If it is anywhere on her property, she gets to dictate what persons can be there.

Well, no. The fact that they live on the premises doesn't invalidate public accommodations laws.

Uh yeah, it does. If it's their property, it's their home, and thusly, Public Accomodation laws don't apply to a home or a place of permanent residence. See where this is going, Doc? That fine line between discrimination and faith has been crossed. You now have a homeowner refusing to conduct activities that violate her faith on her own property. The lesbians wanted this wedding to happen on the property, the lady said no; being said owner of this property, as well as a resident of said property, means she gets has discretion over who and what sets foot in or on her property. Or does her Constitutional rights no longer apply here?

 

[bodecea]

Did you not post that the article did not say the issue was that the wedding was to be held in a home/house? Did your account get hacked again?

That was the "issue" according to the interview with the owner, not according to the complaint or judgement.

They were denied having their ceremony there at all, not just in the "house". The owners wouldn't allow them to have the ceremony outside, either.

Which is well within her rights to do. If it is anywhere on her property, she gets to dictate what persons can be there.

Well, no. The fact that they live on the premises doesn't invalidate public accommodations laws.

Uh yeah, it does. If it's their property, it's their home, and thusly, Public Accomodation laws don't apply to a home or a place of permanent residence. See where this is going, Doc? That fine line between discrimination and faith has been crossed. You now have a homeowner refusing to conduct activities that violate her faith on her own property. The lesbians wanted this wedding to happen on the property, the lady said no; being said owner of this property, as well as a resident of said property, means she gets has discretion over who and what sets foot in or on her property. Or does her Constitutional rights no longer apply here?

Where does the Public Accomodation Law say that? If the place of business is also a home...it still applies....just like Health Dept Laws still apply.