Gay wedding cakes at Muslim bakeries.

[Syriusly]

Just because you don't agree with them, doesn't make them unconstitutional. There is actually a process to determine their constitutionality. The Congress (or State Legislature) passes a law. The law can then be challenged on constitutional grounds up through the SCOTUS. That action has already occurred and they have been found constitutional.

The case was Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US.



>>>>

Yes, I know the process. It was the same process that said killing the baby in the womb was a matter of privacy and protected by the constitution. The SCOTUS rules often on what they see as for the "good" of the nation vice what is actually constitutional.

Actually the Supreme Court always rules on the constitutionality- just some like yourself disagree with them.

That is what they supposed to do, true enough. But they have a long history of ignoring the constitution for what they see as the "greater good". Anti-discrimination, abortion, ObamaCare and more.

Well you are entitled to your opinion- but every single one of those decisions explains how it does apply to the law and the Constitution. "Greater good" is never a justification by the Supreme Court to ignore the Constitution.

It is never the answer they give the American people, but it is often the real answer.

I have found that is how some people feel about their pet issues- but not about others. Rarely do those who feel that the Supreme Court has overstepped on say privacy- feel that the Supreme Court has overstepped on say- gun ownership.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Anyone should be allowed to choose who they serve and what they serve. Anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional as they give one group more protection than another


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

If you don’t want to serve certain classes of people, don’t go into business. If you open a business offering service to the public, you don’t get to discriminate against those you don’t like.

And need I remind you that Jesus absolutely told his followers to obey the secular laws under which they are governed.

I understand that is the law of the land, but it is not supported by the constitution.

As pointed out- the law in question is a State law.

Why are you against State's rights?

What do you have against people's rights? Why should the states to get ignore the constitution and take away the rights of the individual?

Where does the U.S. Constitution tell States that they cannot regulate a business owned by an individual?

Where does the U.S. Constitution give the government the right to tell you whom you must serve and what you must serve?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Yes, I know the process. It was the same process that said killing the baby in the womb was a matter of privacy and protected by the constitution. The SCOTUS rules often on what they see as for the "good" of the nation vice what is actually constitutional.

Actually the Supreme Court always rules on the constitutionality- just some like yourself disagree with them.

That is what they supposed to do, true enough. But they have a long history of ignoring the constitution for what they see as the "greater good". Anti-discrimination, abortion, ObamaCare and more.

Well you are entitled to your opinion- but every single one of those decisions explains how it does apply to the law and the Constitution. "Greater good" is never a justification by the Supreme Court to ignore the Constitution.

It is never the answer they give the American people, but it is often the real answer.

I have found that is how some people feel about their pet issues- but not about others. Rarely do those who feel that the Supreme Court has overstepped on say privacy- feel that the Supreme Court has overstepped on say- gun ownership.

Gun ownership is spelled out pretty well in the Constitution, not really very vague at all. Do you find the 2nd Amendment to be confusing?

Now, killing your baby being covered under the right to privacy, that took some very serious gymnastics to say the least.

 

[Lastamender]

If you don’t want to serve certain classes of people, don’t go into business. If you open a business offering service to the public, you don’t get to discriminate against those you don’t like.

And need I remind you that Jesus absolutely told his followers to obey the secular laws under which they are governed.

I understand that is the law of the land, but it is not supported by the constitution.

As pointed out- the law in question is a State law.

Why are you against State's rights?

What do you have against people's rights? Why should the states to get ignore the constitution and take away the rights of the individual?

Individuals do not figure into progressive policies.

Individuals do not figure into Conservative policies- if the individuals are Americans- and gay.

That is bullshit.

 

[Dragonlady]

Actually the Supreme Court always rules on the constitutionality- just some like yourself disagree with them.

That is what they supposed to do, true enough. But they have a long history of ignoring the constitution for what they see as the "greater good". Anti-discrimination, abortion, ObamaCare and more.

Well you are entitled to your opinion- but every single one of those decisions explains how it does apply to the law and the Constitution. "Greater good" is never a justification by the Supreme Court to ignore the Constitution.

It is never the answer they give the American people, but it is often the real answer.

I have found that is how some people feel about their pet issues- but not about others. Rarely do those who feel that the Supreme Court has overstepped on say privacy- feel that the Supreme Court has overstepped on say- gun ownership.

Gun ownership is spelled out pretty well in the Constitution, not really very vague at all. Do you find the 2nd Amendment to be confusing?

Now, killing your baby being covered under the right to privacy, that took some very serious gymnastics to say the least.

The decision to have a baby is the most personal, private matter a woman ever faces. It’s not a decision which is taken lightly or casually, nor should it be. And it’s not a decision which is anyone’s business but that of the woman who will be living with the consequences of that decision for the rest of her life.

 

[Syriusly]

Actually the Supreme Court always rules on the constitutionality- just some like yourself disagree with them.

That is what they supposed to do, true enough. But they have a long history of ignoring the constitution for what they see as the "greater good". Anti-discrimination, abortion, ObamaCare and more.

Well you are entitled to your opinion- but every single one of those decisions explains how it does apply to the law and the Constitution. "Greater good" is never a justification by the Supreme Court to ignore the Constitution.

It is never the answer they give the American people, but it is often the real answer.

I have found that is how some people feel about their pet issues- but not about others. Rarely do those who feel that the Supreme Court has overstepped on say privacy- feel that the Supreme Court has overstepped on say- gun ownership.

Gun ownership is spelled out pretty well in the Constitution, not really very vague at all. Do you find the 2nd Amendment to be confusing?

Oh i don't find it confusing at all- lets look at the language again:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Clearly that says that the right to bear 'arms' is related to being part of a well regulated militia. Or does it?

And what are 'arms'? Are machine guns arms? What about switchblades?

Until Heller the Supreme Court had not ruled on whether gun ownership was limited by the Militia reference- and that did cause disagreement. To this day, there are legal scholars who believe the Supreme Court got Heller wrong- but just like your disagreement with the Supreme Court on everything else- it is really irrelevant- I may not agree with the Supreme Court- but their rulings are constitutional.

 

[Syriusly]

Actually the Supreme Court always rules on the constitutionality- just some like yourself disagree with them.

That is what they supposed to do, true enough. But they have a long history of ignoring the constitution for what they see as the "greater good". Anti-discrimination, abortion, ObamaCare and more.

Well you are entitled to your opinion- but every single one of those decisions explains how it does apply to the law and the Constitution. "Greater good" is never a justification by the Supreme Court to ignore the Constitution.

It is never the answer they give the American people, but it is often the real answer.

I have found that is how some people feel about their pet issues- but not about others. Rarely do those who feel that the Supreme Court has overstepped on say privacy- feel that the Supreme Court has overstepped on say- gun ownership.

Now, killing your baby being covered under the right to privacy, that took some very serious gymnastics to say the least.

The Supreme Court has never okayed the killing of babies. Calling a newly fertilyzed fetus a baby takes some very serious gymnastics to say the least.

Fact is that abortion was legal for most of the history of the United States- at least until the woman felt 'quickening'- the movement of the fetus in her body. It was not until the anti-sex Evangelical movement of the 19th century that abortion was made illegal- like contraception. Indeed- contraception and abortion were considered equally 'bad' by the 19th century Christians who passed laws to regulate the sexual habits of Americans.

One of the arguments against the Bill of Rights was because of exactly what you are doing- which is saying that the woman has no 'right' to an abortion because it is not enumerated.

Which is why the 9th Amendment was passed

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

Whether you agree or not- we do have a right to privacy. We have the right to control our bodies.

 

[Syriusly]

If you don’t want to serve certain classes of people, don’t go into business. If you open a business offering service to the public, you don’t get to discriminate against those you don’t like.

And need I remind you that Jesus absolutely told his followers to obey the secular laws under which they are governed.

I understand that is the law of the land, but it is not supported by the constitution.

As pointed out- the law in question is a State law.

Why are you against State's rights?

What do you have against people's rights? Why should the states to get ignore the constitution and take away the rights of the individual?

Where does the U.S. Constitution tell States that they cannot regulate a business owned by an individual?

Where does the U.S. Constitution give the government the right to tell you whom you must serve and what you must serve?

See this is where you are confused. We are a Federalist system- the Bill of Rights constrains government to be sure- but States are the ones who are supposed to be in charge of regulating business's.

Where in the Constitution does it say that the State cannot regulate a business?

Can a state tell a business what days it cannot be open?
Can a state tell a business how many parking places it must have?
Can a state tell a business that it must serve people regardless of their race?

 

[miketx]

Repeating the sames lies do not make it true. No muzzie will knowingly bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Dear MikeTX (miketx)
I just answered your statement and your question, are you deliberately ignoring that?

NO, what I'm doing is called having a life and that does not involving waiting around to respond to fascists.

Repeating your lies is not called having a life- it is just called you being a good little fascist like.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

That is what they supposed to do, true enough. But they have a long history of ignoring the constitution for what they see as the "greater good". Anti-discrimination, abortion, ObamaCare and more.

Well you are entitled to your opinion- but every single one of those decisions explains how it does apply to the law and the Constitution. "Greater good" is never a justification by the Supreme Court to ignore the Constitution.

It is never the answer they give the American people, but it is often the real answer.

I have found that is how some people feel about their pet issues- but not about others. Rarely do those who feel that the Supreme Court has overstepped on say privacy- feel that the Supreme Court has overstepped on say- gun ownership.

Gun ownership is spelled out pretty well in the Constitution, not really very vague at all. Do you find the 2nd Amendment to be confusing?

Now, killing your baby being covered under the right to privacy, that took some very serious gymnastics to say the least.

The decision to have a baby is the most personal, private matter a woman ever faces. It’s not a decision which is taken lightly or casually, nor should it be. And it’s not a decision which is anyone’s business but that of the woman who will be living with the consequences of that decision for the rest of her life.

And her baby that may only have a few weeks to live if she decides it is not convenient to have it right now

 

[Harpy Eagle]

That is what they supposed to do, true enough. But they have a long history of ignoring the constitution for what they see as the "greater good". Anti-discrimination, abortion, ObamaCare and more.

Well you are entitled to your opinion- but every single one of those decisions explains how it does apply to the law and the Constitution. "Greater good" is never a justification by the Supreme Court to ignore the Constitution.

It is never the answer they give the American people, but it is often the real answer.

I have found that is how some people feel about their pet issues- but not about others. Rarely do those who feel that the Supreme Court has overstepped on say privacy- feel that the Supreme Court has overstepped on say- gun ownership.

Now, killing your baby being covered under the right to privacy, that took some very serious gymnastics to say the least.

The Supreme Court has never okayed the killing of babies. Calling a newly fertilyzed fetus a baby takes some very serious gymnastics to say the least.

Fact is that abortion was legal for most of the history of the United States- at least until the woman felt 'quickening'- the movement of the fetus in her body. It was not until the anti-sex Evangelical movement of the 19th century that abortion was made illegal- like contraception. Indeed- contraception and abortion were considered equally 'bad' by the 19th century Christians who passed laws to regulate the sexual habits of Americans.

One of the arguments against the Bill of Rights was because of exactly what you are doing- which is saying that the woman has no 'right' to an abortion because it is not enumerated.

Which is why the 9th Amendment was passed

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

Whether you agree or not- we do have a right to privacy. We have the right to control our bodies.

No gymnastics at all to know that the thing in the womb is a baby from day one. I have two children and from the moment I found out my wife was pregnant we both knew they were our babies. I have never heard a woman call the baby in her womb anything but a baby.

You can control your own body all you want, but that does not normally go along with killing an innocent human.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I understand that is the law of the land, but it is not supported by the constitution.

As pointed out- the law in question is a State law.

Why are you against State's rights?

What do you have against people's rights? Why should the states to get ignore the constitution and take away the rights of the individual?

Where does the U.S. Constitution tell States that they cannot regulate a business owned by an individual?

Where does the U.S. Constitution give the government the right to tell you whom you must serve and what you must serve?

See this is where you are confused. We are a Federalist system- the Bill of Rights constrains government to be sure- but States are the ones who are supposed to be in charge of regulating business's.

Where in the Constitution does it say that the State cannot regulate a business?

Can a state tell a business what days it cannot be open?
Can a state tell a business how many parking places it must have?
Can a state tell a business that it must serve people regardless of their race?

The states can regulate business.
yes
yes
no.

 

[miketx]

As pointed out- the law in question is a State law.

Why are you against State's rights?

What do you have against people's rights? Why should the states to get ignore the constitution and take away the rights of the individual?

Where does the U.S. Constitution tell States that they cannot regulate a business owned by an individual?

Where does the U.S. Constitution give the government the right to tell you whom you must serve and what you must serve?

See this is where you are confused. We are a Federalist system- the Bill of Rights constrains government to be sure- but States are the ones who are supposed to be in charge of regulating business's.

Where in the Constitution does it say that the State cannot regulate a business?

Can a state tell a business what days it cannot be open?
Can a state tell a business how many parking places it must have?
Can a state tell a business that it must serve people regardless of their race?

The states can regulate business.
yes
yes
no.

They didn't regulate my business. I did just what I wanted and if I didn't want to do work for someone, I didn't.

 

[Syriusly]

As pointed out- the law in question is a State law.

Why are you against State's rights?

What do you have against people's rights? Why should the states to get ignore the constitution and take away the rights of the individual?

Where does the U.S. Constitution tell States that they cannot regulate a business owned by an individual?

Where does the U.S. Constitution give the government the right to tell you whom you must serve and what you must serve?

See this is where you are confused. We are a Federalist system- the Bill of Rights constrains government to be sure- but States are the ones who are supposed to be in charge of regulating business's.

Where in the Constitution does it say that the State cannot regulate a business?

Can a state tell a business what days it cannot be open?
Can a state tell a business how many parking places it must have?
Can a state tell a business that it must serve people regardless of their race?

The states can regulate business.
yes
yes
no.

And why can they regulate the first two- and not the third?

 

[Syriusly]

Repeating the sames lies do not make it true. No muzzie will knowingly bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Dear MikeTX (miketx)
I just answered your statement and your question, are you deliberately ignoring that?

NO, what I'm doing is called having a life and that does not involving waiting around to respond to fascists.

Repeating your lies is not called having a life- it is just called you being a good little fascist like.

View attachment 164655

Ah- your hero Goebbels.

Always please when a little fascist like you shows your heros

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Repeating the sames lies do not make it true. No muzzie will knowingly bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Dear MikeTX (miketx)
I just answered your statement and your question, are you deliberately ignoring that?

NO, what I'm doing is called having a life and that does not involving waiting around to respond to fascists.

So, you don't actually have anything to say about my response, you're just anxious to let me know you have a life.
I think it's wonderful that you have a life, Mike.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Repeating the sames lies do not make it true. No muzzie will knowingly bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Dear MikeTX (miketx)
I just answered your statement and your question, are you deliberately ignoring that?

NO, what I'm doing is called having a life and that does not involving waiting around to respond to fascists.

Repeating your lies is not called having a life- it is just called you being a good little fascist like.

View attachment 164655

Ah- your hero Goebbels.

Always please when a little fascist like you shows your heros

He thinks I'm a fascist....LOL

 

[Syriusly]

Well you are entitled to your opinion- but every single one of those decisions explains how it does apply to the law and the Constitution. "Greater good" is never a justification by the Supreme Court to ignore the Constitution.

It is never the answer they give the American people, but it is often the real answer.

I have found that is how some people feel about their pet issues- but not about others. Rarely do those who feel that the Supreme Court has overstepped on say privacy- feel that the Supreme Court has overstepped on say- gun ownership.

Now, killing your baby being covered under the right to privacy, that took some very serious gymnastics to say the least.

The Supreme Court has never okayed the killing of babies. Calling a newly fertilyzed fetus a baby takes some very serious gymnastics to say the least.

Fact is that abortion was legal for most of the history of the United States- at least until the woman felt 'quickening'- the movement of the fetus in her body. It was not until the anti-sex Evangelical movement of the 19th century that abortion was made illegal- like contraception. Indeed- contraception and abortion were considered equally 'bad' by the 19th century Christians who passed laws to regulate the sexual habits of Americans.

One of the arguments against the Bill of Rights was because of exactly what you are doing- which is saying that the woman has no 'right' to an abortion because it is not enumerated.

Which is why the 9th Amendment was passed

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

Whether you agree or not- we do have a right to privacy. We have the right to control our bodies.

No gymnastics at all to know that the thing in the womb is a baby from day one. I have two children and from the moment I found out my wife was pregnant we both knew they were our babies. I have never heard a woman call the baby in her womb anything but a baby.

You can control your own body all you want, but that does not normally go along with killing an innocent human.

Well since we are talking about the Constitution- when the Constitution was written- nobody believed what you believe.

The prevailing belief at the time was that 'life' didn't start in the womb until the woman could feel movement in her body- roughly at 4.5 months.

Abortion was completely legal prior to that. Do you believe that our Founding Fathers thought they were killing babies?

And yes it is gymnastics. You don't approve- and you don't agree- but your interpretation of the abortion and when life begins is a very recent phenomenon.

I am curious- do you think if abortion is made illegal again- should all of the women who have had abortions be prosecuted? What about the doctors that performed them?

What about women who smoke during pregnancy? Should they be prosecuted for child abuse? Women who drink while pregnant? What about women smokers who miscarry- should they be prosecuted for manslaughter?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

What do you have against people's rights? Why should the states to get ignore the constitution and take away the rights of the individual?

Where does the U.S. Constitution tell States that they cannot regulate a business owned by an individual?

Where does the U.S. Constitution give the government the right to tell you whom you must serve and what you must serve?

See this is where you are confused. We are a Federalist system- the Bill of Rights constrains government to be sure- but States are the ones who are supposed to be in charge of regulating business's.

Where in the Constitution does it say that the State cannot regulate a business?

Can a state tell a business what days it cannot be open?
Can a state tell a business how many parking places it must have?
Can a state tell a business that it must serve people regardless of their race?

The states can regulate business.
yes
yes
no.

And why can they regulate the first two- and not the third?

Way back in the day Sesame Street used to have a little game called "one of these things is not like the others".

The state can tell me how fast I can drive going to my house.
The state can tell me how the house has to built according to safety standards.
The state cannot tell me who to live with in that house.

 

[Dragonlady]

Well you are entitled to your opinion- but every single one of those decisions explains how it does apply to the law and the Constitution. "Greater good" is never a justification by the Supreme Court to ignore the Constitution.

It is never the answer they give the American people, but it is often the real answer.

I have found that is how some people feel about their pet issues- but not about others. Rarely do those who feel that the Supreme Court has overstepped on say privacy- feel that the Supreme Court has overstepped on say- gun ownership.

Gun ownership is spelled out pretty well in the Constitution, not really very vague at all. Do you find the 2nd Amendment to be confusing?

Now, killing your baby being covered under the right to privacy, that took some very serious gymnastics to say the least.

The decision to have a baby is the most personal, private matter a woman ever faces. It’s not a decision which is taken lightly or casually, nor should it be. And it’s not a decision which is anyone’s business but that of the woman who will be living with the consequences of that decision for the rest of her life.

And her baby that may only have a few weeks to live if she decides it is not convenient to have it right now

Babies aren’t generally aborted simply for “convenience”. They’re aborted because of money. 80% of women who have abortions are living below or just slightly above the poverty line. More than half of them are married or in a committed relationship, and most already have one or more children.

Republicans oppose every measure that would enable poor women to continue their pregnancies: higher minimum wages, mandated maternity leaves, job protections for pregnant women, access to health care, and access to licensed, subsidized Day care.

In Canada we have all of these things and one other thing - free abortions. Despite the free abortions, our rate of abortion is half what yours is. Coincidence? I think not.

So when you’re ready to talk about what you’re prepared to do to encourage poor women to have those babies, let me know.