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

[Seawytch]

Check? Just like I said.

You homofascists will not allow for any exceptions regarding business transactions that would directly entangle Christians in your religious rituals, and you don't care that this constitutes an unambiguous infringement, not on any civil right/protection, but on an inalienable human right, i.e., a First Amendment civil liberty? So it's not and never has been about equal treatment, but domination. You are not asserting the rule of law, but invoking the rule of the jungle.

Behold, people, the monstrously tyrranical and depraved filth that homofascists are.

Inalienable rights cannot be granted, created, revoked or transferred. They are nonnegotiable. I don't need your permission to have them, and I don't unilaterally owe you anything to have them. You're mad.

Biblical Christians will not obey the state. That's our option. We are not your slaves. So the book you're reading from to justify your subjugation of your fellow human beings is Public Accommodation, eh?

That leaves you the options to fine, to beat, to jail or to kill. Choose.

Good luck with that.

Do anti misingenationists and segregationists get your religious exemption?

 

[Seawytch]

wytchey has an agenda. she is disengenuous. do not take her seriously. She is a frustrated bull dyke with the hots for Hillary Clinton.

Actually, the poster trying to claim that people didn't use the bible to justify slaver is the one being dishonest. Are you joining in his dishonesty?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So, in United States v. Windsor, essentially, the Court held that DOMA was unconstitutional because is violated the doctrine of states' rights to grant, via the Fifth Amendment, equal marital rights/protections to all citizens regardless of orientation? That's my gist of it from memory.

I guess what I'm trying to understand, do the cases working their way up portend the Court declaring a universal right of marriage equality or are they of a different nature, only applicable to changes in the laws of the respective states?

In United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional because it violated principles of Equal Protection by treating relationships that had equal status under state law differently under federal law.


The issues before the Court were (1) whether Section 3 of DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws as applied to persons of the same sex who are legally married under the laws of their State, and (2) whether the parties before the Court had standing to appeal to the Court.



http://www.adfmedia.org/files/US-WindsorLegalAnalysis.pdf


Consequently, it was the Federal government that violated the equal protection rights of same-sex couples living in states that recognized those marriages, in violation of the Fifth Amendment, where the Federal government treated differently those lawfully married in accordance with their states' laws, which the Federal government cannot do.


The issue concerning states denying same-sex couples access to their marriage laws, however, concerns the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause requiring the states to allow all residents – who are also American citizens – access to a state's laws those residents/citizens are eligible to participate in, such as same-sex couples.


It's the consistent application of this 14th Amendment jurisprudence which is at issue, not the Court's declaring of a universal right of marriage equality, where the states may not seek to disadvantage a class of persons absent a proper legislative end, seeking only to make them different from everyone else.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Monkey invents laws that do not exist. Monkey says I want to execute people for not obeying public accommodation laws. Classic straw man fallacy.


Monkey does not see problem with WHITES ONLY and STRAIGHTS ONLY public accommodations because monkey sees no evil when it does not affect him personally.

Where did I say any of that? I simply said that I'm not going to comply. How do you propose to make me comply?

The idea I asserted was that I am not going to participate in any pagan rituals. I am not going to voluntarily relinquish my inalienable rights. Nor am I going to pay any fines for . . . practicing my inalienable rights. What others choose to do, what the government, at any level, does, well, that is out of my hands. What is in my hands are my inalienable rights. What does any of your noise have to do with me and my inalienable rights, which I'm not going to relinquish?

What's with all the ugliness? The hateful words? What's with all the mocking?

Where are you getting all these ideas? Is your head a quantum vacuum? Particles, bits, pieces of ideas, popping in and out of existence. . . .

Think again o' monstoursly insane and projecting one, all I said was that you would have to fine me, or beat me, or jail me or kill me. But I assure you that none of these things will make me comply. What don't you understand about that?

Simple.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

So, in United States v. Windsor, essentially, the Court held that DOMA was unconstitutional because is violated the doctrine of states' rights to grant, via the Fifth Amendment, equal marital rights/protections to all citizens regardless of orientation? That's my gist of it from memory.

I guess what I'm trying to understand, do the cases working their way up portend the Court declaring a universal right of marriage equality or are they of a different nature, only applicable to changes in the laws of the respective states?

In United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional because it violated principles of Equal Protection by treating relationships that had equal status under state law differently under federal law.


The issues before the Court were (1) whether Section 3 of DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws as applied to persons of the same sex who are legally married under the laws of their State, and (2) whether the parties before the Court had standing to appeal to the Court.



http://www.adfmedia.org/files/US-WindsorLegalAnalysis.pdf


Consequently, it was the Federal government that violated the equal protection rights of same-sex couples living in states that recognized those marriages, in violation of the Fifth Amendment, where the Federal government treated differently those lawfully married in accordance with their states' laws, which the Federal government cannot do.


The issue concerning states denying same-sex couples access to their marriage laws, however, concerns the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause requiring the states to allow all residents – who are also American citizens – access to a state's laws those residents/citizens are eligible to participate in, such as same-sex couples.


It's the consistent application of this 14th Amendment jurisprudence which is at issue, not the Court's declaring of a universal right of marriage equality, where the states may not seek to disadvantage a class of persons absent a proper legislative end, seeking only to make them different from everyone else.

Okay,

So Windsor: Fifth Amendment, states rights. Check.

The other various case: in effect, universal right of marriage equality, albeit, under the 14th's Equal Protection Clause. Good eye on "who are also American citizens", of course.

Right?

 

[WorldWatcher]

The question I wanted to ask you: in those states where only a subset of rights, etc. are provided for CU/DP, is there a general consensus of what is included among the various states that have them?

No, some states provide that CU's/DP's (Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships) are equal to CM (Civil Marriage), in others it varies by state.

Then there are states that banned any CU/DP as being legally recognized.

Also, would you help me to better understand the difference between what the Court established about same-sex marriage recently and the nature of the cases currently pending.

What court? There have been, IIRC, 20-30 District court rulings and currently there is the 10th Circuit and the 4th Circuit that are being appealed to the SCOUTS. There are other cases working their way through the 7th, 9th, and 11th Circuit courts. Those cases are farther back in the pipeline then the 4th and 10th's cases so they may not be ready for the SCOTUS fall term.

All I can recommend is check out the Wiki articles on SSCM in Utah and Virginia, they will provide the case names and sometimes links directly to the briefs and decisions. If not, go to the CIrcuit Courts website and lookup the briefs/decisions.

Another good source is the SCOTUSblog this site is dedicated to indepth commentary on SCOTUS cases and in the same-sex marriage area you will find the cases and often a link to the case history providing full access to the amicus briefs and decisions.

Same-Sex Marriage Post-Windsor SCOTUSblog

>>>>

Thanks, Watcher.

So, in United States v. Windsor, essentially, the Court held that DOMA was unconstitutional because is violated the doctrine of states' rights to grant, via the Fifth Amendment, equal marital rights/protections to all citizens regardless of orientation? That's my gist of it from memory.

I guess what I'm trying to understand, do the cases working their way up portend the Court declaring a universal right of marriage equality or are they of a different nature, only applicable to changes in the laws of the respective states?

Yes Windsor contained language that struck down DOMA (Section 3, Section 2 was not addressed) but it also contained language that showed that the purpose of passing DOMA was specifically to discriminate against same-sex couple by no recognizing the protections that the state chose to extend.

What should make some nervous is text like this...

What has been explained to this point should more than
suffice to establish that the principal purpose and the
necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons
who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires
the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is
unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person
protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due
Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against
denying to any person the equal protection of the laws.
See Bolling, 347 U. S., at 499–500; Adarand Constructors,
Inc. v. Peña , 515 U. S. 200, 217–218 (1995). While the
Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from Government the
power to degrade or demean in the way this law does,
the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment
makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more
specific and all the better understood and preserved.​

For if it is unconstitutional for the federal government to target a class of persons (the SCOTUS calls them that in the next paragraph) for discrimination because it violates the Due Process and Equal Protection provisions inherent in the 5th Amendment (Federal) it lays the foundation for those same principals to be applicable from the 14th Amendment (States).

Windsor was a case about DOMA, i.e. Federal law, as such it did not address whether States can target homosexuals for discrimination - it was not a question before the court. The decision itself makes note of this very fact. That will have to be addressed in a different case. Could be the 10th's case or the 4th's. They may combine them into a single ruling. Or they could delay accepting or rejecting those cases and wait for appeals to arrive from the 7th and 11th districts which might be ready late in the year.



>>>>

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Perhaps, but that is NOT what I asked for. I have REPEATEDLY asked for quotes from actual people of the time defending slavery with the Bible.

It certainly is not my problem that you and SeaWytch do not understand that a fictional book does not qualify as a direct quote from someone of that era.

The two links I posted were pages and pages of "quotes". You just ignore them.

Man, I try not to judge the intelligence of others, but you just aren't very smart are you.

First of all, your links certainly were fiction, they were quotes from fictional characters, not actual living persons from that area.

Second of all, at NO point did I say Christians back then didn't use the Bible to defend slavery. I simply asked you for quotes and have proceeded to slaughter your pitiful attempts to do so.. At this point I feel sorry for you.

Here, let me show you how it's done.

Hey can provide a quote that proves that anyone back then used the Bible to justify slavery?

Why yes I can, here you go

Methodist Ell Gertrude Clanton Thomas, a member of the planter elite in Augusta, Georgia, owned more than ninety slaves; the Civl War destroyed much of her wealth, and she and her husband were “reduced from a state of affluence to comparative poverty.”

Until emancipation, she had not realized “how intimately my faith in revelations and my faith in the institution of slavery had been woven together ... if the Bible was right then slavery must be — Slavery was done away with and my faith in God’s Holy Book was terribly shaken. For a time, I doubted God.” ...

Reluctantly she admitted, “Our cause was lost. Good men had had faith to be lost? I was bewildered — I felt all this and could not see God’s hand.”

Slavery Christianity in the Old South Blending Culture and Christianity Using Christianity to Justify Oppression Murder Slavery and Worse

See, an actual quote from an actual person. Not some anecdote in a fiction book.

 

[Vandalshandle]

"
Think again o' monstoursly insane and projecting one, all I said was that you would have to fine me, or beat me, or jail me or kill me. But I assure you that none of these things will make me comply. What don't you understand about that?"

(Rawlings)

We will hunt you down, tie you up, prop your eyelids open with toothpicks, and force you to watch old Richard Simmons tapes until you submit....

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Free-association is not a crime under God or under nature. The test is really very simple. Do both parties agree to the transaction?. If the answer is no, no deal; if yes, proceed.

The individual decides, of course, and as long as the individual is not trespassing on the life, the liberty or the property of another, what's the problem?

Sincerely. I don't see a problem.

Some things never change.

You don't see a problem: The very definition of willful blindness.

So your point regarding your imaginary problem, is to fine me, jail me, beat me or kill me because I refuse to participate in your religious rituals?

Oh, I see. I want to beat you and kill you. Yeah, okay, dickweed. How can anyone take you seriously after you throw out such a pathetic straw man like that?

So denial of equal protection of the laws is not a problem for you since you are not on the receiving end of that WHITES ONLY or STRAIGHTS ONLY sign, eh? You are unable to see a problem because it does not affect you.

You are just proving how willfully blind you really are.

Straw man? Are you saying that there is no enforcement mechanism behind Public Accommodation based on sexual orientation?

Please link to the execution and beating enforcement laws, Cheeta.

No, sir. You claimed straw man. Recall?

I do recall. Better than you, dumbshit. You said, "So your point regarding your imaginary problem, is to fine me, jail me, beat me or kill me because I refuse to participate in your religious rituals?"

Show me where the law says you can be beaten or killed for not obeying public accommodation laws.

Straw man, dickweed.

Now we're getting somewhere. See. It's not so hard. You did note the question mark at the end of that sentence, right?

It was a question, not a claim. Come on now. You can read and write. No need for the underline. What's that about anyway? Wow. Right for the jugular, eh? Now I can respect that. Truly. Watch those Freudian slips though, don't give too much away at this juncture. Hold your cards. It was just a question.

Right. So I'll take that as a no on the really rough stuff, for now, but you didn't exclude fines or jailing. So those are fair game. Right?

Okay, so I'm going to be fined for refusing to participate in pagan rituals, right? I'm going to be fined for practicing my inalienable rights. And if I refuse to pay the fine, jail? I'll be jailed for refusing to pay a fine for practicing my inalienable rights, eh?

Yes? No? Where are we at?

You say, "Blow me." I say, "No."
You say, "Pay me." I say, "Blow."
You say, "Jail time." I say, "So?"

And when I'm back out and still refuse to comply, now what?

Do you see the problem yet, as this historically unprecedented and obviously unconstitutional assault on religious liberty, this disease, spreads across the country? First there's me and then them, then all those folks here and over there, folks spouting up everywhere, hundreds, thousands, millions. "We're not going to comply, not now, not ever!"

You don't believe that? You think this is going to be simple, easy, a piece of cake? How about a slice of pie?

Guys, you don't get it yet because it's no big deal to you. But it is to Christians. You're notions are not irrelevant. Yeah. Many will cave. But out of tens of millions, including millions of blacks. . . . Yeah. That'll look good. What kind of shine are you race baiters gonna put on those shoes. Got white face? They will not betray their God. They will not betray their Savior. They will not condone, celebrate or in any way, shape or form participate in homosexuality. It is evil. Sinful. A lie. Violent. Tyrannical. Call it marriage, call it a civil union. Call it whatever you please. Do whatever you please. But they will not serve you in violation of their inalienable rights. No dice.

Things will get ugly.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

wytchey has an agenda. she is disengenuous. do not take her seriously. She is a frustrated bull dyke with the hots for Hillary Clinton.

Actually, the poster trying to claim that people didn't use the bible to justify slaver is the one being dishonest. Are you joining in his dishonesty?

LOL OMG you actually are illiterate I'm so sorry.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

"
Think again o' monstoursly insane and projecting one, all I said was that you would have to fine me, or beat me, or jail me or kill me. But I assure you that none of these things will make me comply. What don't you understand about that?"

(Rawlings)

We will hunt you down, tie you up, prop your eyelids open with toothpicks, and force you to watch old Richard Simmons tapes until you submit....

No, please, anything but that.

Liberal Quest to ‘Rehabilitate’ Christians – The Homofascist Rainbow Shirts Are At It AgainOregon’s


Bureau of Labor and Industries’ civil rights division will investigate to determine if the business violated the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, which protects the rights of gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people in employment, housing and public accommodations. …

“We are committed to a fair and thorough investigation to determine whether there’s substantial evidence of unlawful discrimination,” said Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian. …”

Mr. Avakian then revealed what he views as a “fair and thorough investigation” — “Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate,” he said.

Here’s the kicker. Read it closely:

“‘The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate,’ Avakian said. ‘For those who do violate the law, we want them to learn from that experience and have a good, successful business in Oregon.’”

George Orwell much?

Get the not-so-thinly-veiled threat? Christians have a right to own a “successful business” in Oregon, so long as they avoid, well, being Christian – so long as they shelve their faith and submit to our ever-”progressive” government’s anti-Christian demands. “The goal is never to shut down a business,” but either you abandon the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic and dutifully observe postmodern sexual relativism, or government will shut you down in a Sodom and Gomorrah minute.

Left-wing bullies need to get this straight (so to speak): The godless left has been trying to “rehabilitate” Christians for over 2,000 years. We haven’t caved yet. What makes you think we will now? Those of us who wish to remain obedient to God will not – indeed, cannot – accommodate you and play along with your sin-centric “gay marriage” delusion.

Ain’t gonna happen.

Ever.

Liberal Quest to Rehabilitate Christians 8211 The Homofascist Rainbow Shirts Are At It Again TheBlaze.com

 

[g5000]

I will exclude all the bloviations and get to the meat of the matter:

Okay, so I'm going to be fined for refusing to participate in pagan rituals, right?

Pagan rituals like letting ******* eat at Whites Only lunch counters?

Or do you mean getting a fine for refusing to participate in a pagan ritual such as a negro marrying a white negro lover?

Oh, look. I used a question mark.

 

[g5000]

I would like to thank all the anti-gay bigots for blowing Silhouette's claim out of the water that there are no similarities between the gay rights movement and the civil rights movement.

WHITES ONLY.

STRAIGHTS ONLY.

Good job, folks. Thanks much!

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I will exclude all the bloviations and get to the meat of the matter:

Okay, so I'm going to be fined for refusing to participate in pagan rituals, right?

Pagan rituals like letting ******* eat at Whites Only lunch counters?

Or do you mean getting a fine for refusing to participate in a pagan ritual such as a negro marrying a white negro lover?

Oh, look. I used a question mark.

Let's continue with your analogy shall we.

After Loving, were interracial couples suing private businesses which didn't want to take part in their wedding ceremonies?

I can't find a single example of such.

 

[g5000]

Okay, so I'm going to be fined for refusing to participate in pagan rituals, right? I'm going to be fined for practicing my inalienable rights. And if I refuse to pay the fine, jail? I'll be jailed for refusing to pay a fine for practicing my inalienable rights, eh?

Yes? No? Where are we at?

You say, "Blow me." I say, "No."
You say, "Pay me." I say, "Blow."
You say, "Jail time." I say, "So?"

And when I'm back out and still refuse to comply, now what?

Do you see the problem yet, as this historically unprecedented and obviously unconstitutional assault on religious liberty, this disease, spreads across the country? First there's me and then them, then all those folks here and over there, folks spouting up everywhere, hundreds, thousands, millions. "We're not going to comply, not now, not ever!"

You are incredibly ignorant for thinking this is unprecedented. You are echoing the IDENTICAL rhetoric of the segregationists. Identical. It is so similar, it is getting comical.

"We're not going to comply, not now, not ever!" Holy shit, you could not have echoed Wallace's "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" more identically if you had deliberately tried.

Not only is your bigoted bullshit not unprecedented, it is quite stale. And just like the racist assholes, you, too, will one day be looked upon as the ignorant, backward, hateful wretches you are.


Now show me where a segregationist was executed for not complying with the public accommodation laws, dipshit.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I will exclude all the bloviations and get to the meat of the matter:

Okay, so I'm going to be fined for refusing to participate in pagan rituals, right?

Pagan rituals like letting ******* eat at Whites Only lunch counters?

Or do you mean getting a fine for refusing to participate in a pagan ritual such as a negro marrying a white negro lover?

Oh, look. I used a question mark.

Let's continue with your analogy shall we.

After Loving, were interracial couples suing private businesses which didn't want to take part in their wedding ceremonies?

I can't find a single example of such.

1. You are confusing the Loving decision (which impacted government actors) and State Public Accommodation laws (such as the topic of this tread). The two are not the same.

2. But if you actually had access to the appropriate state agencies the likelihood is you would find such complaints. (Complaints being the more accurate term because under PA laws individuals don't "Sue" they file a complaint. After the complaint is filed the responsible state agency takes over and investigates and processes the complaint.)



>>>>

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I will exclude all the bloviations and get to the meat of the matter:

Okay, so I'm going to be fined for refusing to participate in pagan rituals, right?

Pagan rituals like letting ******* eat at Whites Only lunch counters?

Or do you mean getting a fine for refusing to participate in a pagan ritual such as a negro marrying a white negro lover?

Oh, look. I used a question mark.

Let's continue with your analogy shall we.

After Loving, were interracial couples suing private businesses which didn't want to take part in their wedding ceremonies?

I can't find a single example of such.

1. You are confusing the Loving decision (which impacted government actors) and State Public Accommodation laws (such as the topic of this tread). The two are not the same.

2. But if you actually had access to the appropriate state agencies the likelihood is you would find such complaints. (Complaints being the more accurate term because under PA laws individuals don't "Sue" they file a complaint. After the complaint is filed the responsible state agency takes over and investigates and processes the complaint.)



>>>>

I'm not confusing anything. I'm flat saying that this difference proves that the the goals of people who wanted interracial marriage were pure and the goals of gay marriage proponents by and large are not.

I seriously doubt you would find that anywhere close to the number of people who had interracial marriages in the early day sued, and yes sued is the correct word, businesses who wouldn't take part in their marriages the way gays are doing.

MOST gays are not just wanting to get married. If all you wanted was to get married, when the law was passed near you, you would rush out and find someone to do it, you wouldn't ruin your "special day" by dealing with peole who want nothing to do with you.

It's a fucking agenda and you know it

Further proof is the fact that some like the 2 liars in this thread can't be honest about anything even remotely related to their quest for gay marriage

 

[bodecea]

wytchey has an agenda. she is disengenuous. do not take her seriously. She is a frustrated bull dyke with the hots for Hillary Clinton.

Actually, the poster trying to claim that people didn't use the bible to justify slaver is the one being dishonest. Are you joining in his dishonesty?

LOL OMG you actually are illiterate I'm so sorry.

Well...That's Ironic.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The question I wanted to ask you: in those states where only a subset of rights, etc. are provided for CU/DP, is there a general consensus of what is included among the various states that have them?

No, some states provide that CU's/DP's (Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships) are equal to CM (Civil Marriage), in others it varies by state.

Then there are states that banned any CU/DP as being legally recognized.

Also, would you help me to better understand the difference between what the Court established about same-sex marriage recently and the nature of the cases currently pending.

What court? There have been, IIRC, 20-30 District court rulings and currently there is the 10th Circuit and the 4th Circuit that are being appealed to the SCOUTS. There are other cases working their way through the 7th, 9th, and 11th Circuit courts. Those cases are farther back in the pipeline then the 4th and 10th's cases so they may not be ready for the SCOTUS fall term.

All I can recommend is check out the Wiki articles on SSCM in Utah and Virginia, they will provide the case names and sometimes links directly to the briefs and decisions. If not, go to the CIrcuit Courts website and lookup the briefs/decisions.

Another good source is the SCOTUSblog this site is dedicated to indepth commentary on SCOTUS cases and in the same-sex marriage area you will find the cases and often a link to the case history providing full access to the amicus briefs and decisions.

Same-Sex Marriage Post-Windsor SCOTUSblog

>>>>

Thanks, Watcher.

So, in United States v. Windsor, essentially, the Court held that DOMA was unconstitutional because is violated the doctrine of states' rights to grant, via the Fifth Amendment, equal marital rights/protections to all citizens regardless of orientation? That's my gist of it from memory.

I guess what I'm trying to understand, do the cases working their way up portend the Court declaring a universal right of marriage equality or are they of a different nature, only applicable to changes in the laws of the respective states?

Yes Windsor contained language that struck down DOMA (Section 3, Section 2 was not addressed) but it also contained language that showed that the purpose of passing DOMA was specifically to discriminate against same-sex couple by no recognizing the protections that the state chose to extend.

What should make some nervous is text like this...

What has been explained to this point should more than
suffice to establish that the principal purpose and the
necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons
who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires
the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is
unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person
protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due
Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against
denying to any person the equal protection of the laws.
See Bolling, 347 U. S., at 499–500; Adarand Constructors,
Inc. v. Peña , 515 U. S. 200, 217–218 (1995). While the
Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from Government the
power to degrade or demean in the way this law does,
the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment
makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more
specific and all the better understood and preserved.​

For if it is unconstitutional for the federal government to target a class of persons (the SCOTUS calls them that in the next paragraph) for discrimination because it violates the Due Process and Equal Protection provisions inherent in the 5th Amendment (Federal) it lays the foundation for those same principals to be applicable from the 14th Amendment (States).

Windsor was a case about DOMA, i.e. Federal law, as such it did not address whether States can target homosexuals for discrimination - it was not a question before the court. The decision itself makes note of this very fact. That will have to be addressed in a different case. Could be the 10th's case or the 4th's. They may combine them into a single ruling. Or they could delay accepting or rejecting those cases and wait for appeals to arrive from the 7th and 11th districts which might be ready late in the year.



>>>>

Thanks. Ironically, this is one of the areas in case law where I have little reading and perhaps even less interest. It's been clear to me for nearly two decades that we would soon be where we are today. My main interest is in immigration and nationality law and as I'm sure you're aware the 14th is central, and for sure the groundwork for the 14th is significant and would be decisive in this instance. Between what you and Clayton explained I feel that I'm sufficiently up to speed.

This phrase always gets me: "For if it is unconstitutional for the federal government to target a class of persons for discrimination. . . ."

Targeted? Homosexuals have never been targeted for discrimination in any sense with regard to their fundamental, natural rights, and the essence of homosexuality in cultural practice is relativism and domination. The threat to liberty in the business sector is the least of it. It's the madness to come in the state schools that's the biggest threat to liberty. Mobocracy is the Republic's future for sure now. .

What class? An artificial class raised to an artificial status alongside the indisputably proper order of things. Funny how it suddenly became both after more than 200 years, utterly beyond the legitimate power of the federal government, the brainchild of judicial oligarchy, the end of religious liberty before the storm. Truly, the decline and fall of the Republic. How do all these lawyers become judges as if they've never cracked a history book.

Lefty will not allow for live and let live. Eventually, it will be a crime to even say that homosexuality is evil, as it is in much of Europe today, especially in England, which should tell us all something about its nature. How could it be legitimate if its legitimization destroys liberty? Weird, eh?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Okay, so I'm going to be fined for refusing to participate in pagan rituals, right? I'm going to be fined for practicing my inalienable rights. And if I refuse to pay the fine, jail? I'll be jailed for refusing to pay a fine for practicing my inalienable rights, eh?

Yes? No? Where are we at?

You say, "Blow me." I say, "No."
You say, "Pay me." I say, "Blow."
You say, "Jail time." I say, "So?"

And when I'm back out and still refuse to comply, now what?

Do you see the problem yet, as this historically unprecedented and obviously unconstitutional assault on religious liberty, this disease, spreads across the country? First there's me and then them, then all those folks here and over there, folks spouting up everywhere, hundreds, thousands, millions. "We're not going to comply, not now, not ever!"

You are incredibly ignorant for thinking this is unprecedented. You are echoing the IDENTICAL rhetoric of the segregationists. Identical. It is so similar, it is getting comical.

"We're not going to comply, not now, not ever!" Holy shit, you could not have echoed Wallace's "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" more identically if you had deliberately tried.

Not only is your bigoted bullshit not unprecedented, it is quite stale. And just like the racist assholes, you, too, will one day be looked upon as the ignorant, backward, hateful wretches you are.


Now show me where a segregationist was executed for not complying with the public accommodation laws, dipshit.

The cheese has slid off your cracker. You realize this it utter madness, right? Put down that pink and Sieg Heiling thing and step away from the implement. You know earlier I wrote that you were making sense several months ago. Now I'm thinking I just coincidentally encountered your posts from time to time at the right moment, when you weren't off your meds.

g5000, everyone who's been on this thread awhile and is not a liar, knows, that in spite of my rhetoric at times for effect, which never touched on homosexuals as such, I have no animus toward homosexuals as such. I don't even hate you. What I hate with a passion is tyranny. It's really that simple. That's what I hate. Evil. It sort of messes everything up. All I'm asking of you as a fellow citizen of the Republic is to not allow the government to wipe out the distinction between civil rights and civil liberties on paper, as of course it cannot do so in reality. Notwithstanding, that piece paper has slaughtered tens of millions around the world in the last 90 years or so. Think about that number for a moment. It's a simple matter really. Live and let live.


I never made a claim in regard to anything of that nature.

I wrote variously along this line: So the solution to your obvious blindness is to fine me, jail me, beat me or kill me?

At the end of that sentence, there's a question mark. Did you see it? Boo! There's another one.