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.
I sure have. We've had this discussion before, you and I. We agree to disagree.Most state public accommodation laws that protect gays predate last June's ruling. Perhaps all of them, I am not sure.
Again, I think all public accommodation laws are bullshit and businesses should be free to serve or not serve any person for any reason they see fit.
Have you thought that through?
I strongly supported gay marriage and was happy when the SCOTUS made it the law of the land (despite my personal feelings against legislating from the bench). Yet the gay marriage opposition warned us about the slippery slope:
First, it was the persecution of Christians (notice not Muslims who are free to deny fag's service) to deny serves to a gay marriage based on religious beliefs. Yet the argument was the bakery is a bigot so please carry on.
Second, it was you can't say anything to offend the sensitive people of the world or the non-tolerant left will ruin your life.
Now, they want grown men to use the same bathroom, locker rooms and showers as women and young girls. This was unthinkable even 5 yrs ago and now the left is destroying anyone who disagrees with it.
Next on agenda will be child marriage. I guarantee it will come from a Muslim who says they want to marry a child. Child marriage laws will be eroded. Sounds unthinkable, yet few years ago so was men in women's bathrooms.
Next will be bigamy. It will go hand and hand with child marriage. This one is inevitable.
I am not sure I don't still support gay marriage, but the slippery slope is getting frightening!
That's right. It just gets worse:I strongly supported gay marriage and was happy when the SCOTUS made it the law of the land (despite my personal feelings against legislating from the bench). Yet the gay marriage opposition warned us about the slippery slope:
First, it was the persecution of Christians (notice not Muslims who are free to deny fag's service) to deny serves to a gay marriage based on religious beliefs. Yet the argument was the bakery is a bigot so please carry on.
Second, it was you can't say anything to offend the sensitive people of the world or the non-tolerant left will ruin your life.
Now, they want grown men to use the same bathroom, locker rooms and showers as women and young girls. This was unthinkable even 5 yrs ago and now the left is destroying anyone who disagrees with it.
Next on agenda will be child marriage. I guarantee it will come from a Muslim who says they want to marry a child. Child marriage laws will be eroded. Sounds unthinkable, yet few years ago so was men in women's bathrooms.
Next will be bigamy. It will go hand and hand with child marriage. This one is inevitable.
I am not sure I don't still support gay marriage, but the slippery slope is getting frightening!
You haven't seen anything yet.
Will the LGBT be forced to drop support for transgenders is the next question?
If courts find that transgenders have the right to either bathroom/shower/locker room, but straight males do not, even though they are simalarily situated to the Male Lesbian types (Bruce Jenner and our very own Renae), they create a legal paradox.
That is; if the law can discriminate against similarily situated groups in one case, they will be able to in others as well and the States will be able to Ban gay marriage again.
Stay tuned folks, this will be both fun and ugly at the same time.
Your error is in supposing that when faced with such an obvious contradiction within their own ideology, that the wrong-wing will recognize that paradox, and adjust their positions, as necessary, to mitigate it. This is an ideology that has already quite solidly proven that it is either completely oblivious to such contradiction, or that it doesn't care about such contradiction; an ideology that appears to be almost completely taken over by what Orwell described and defined as “doublethink”.
“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself — that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.
The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.”
They are indeed their own worst enemies. Sociopath kinda fits
That does describe most of the homophobes and right wing nut jobs.
You'll never get better until you agree you have a problem.
I pity you cuz you are in complete denial
Will the LGBT be forced to drop support for transgenders is the next question?
If courts find that transgenders have the right to either bathroom/shower/locker room, but straight males do not, even though they are simalarily situated to the Male Lesbian types (Bruce Jenner and our very own Renae), they create a legal paradox.
That is; if the law can discriminate against similarily situated groups in one case, they will be able to in others as well and the States will be able to Ban gay marriage again.
Stay tuned folks, this will be both fun and ugly at the same time.
Your error is in supposing that when faced with such an obvious contradiction within their own ideology, that the wrong-wing will recognize that paradox, and adjust their positions, as necessary, to mitigate it. This is an ideology that has already quite solidly proven that it is either completely oblivious to such contradiction, or that it doesn't care about such contradiction; an ideology that appears to be almost completely taken over by what Orwell described and defined as “doublethink”.
“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself — that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.
The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.”
They are indeed their own worst enemies. Sociopath kinda fits
That does describe most of the homophobes and right wing nut jobs.
You'll never get better until you agree you have a problem.
I pity you cuz you are in complete denial
You sociopaths and your projections.....so sad.
Neither you nor anyone else has established a cause and effect relationship between the legalization of same sex marriage and any of the other issues. While you claim to have been in favor of marriage equality, you are now railing against matters of an entirely different nature and blaming gay marriage. In other cases, you yourself are sounding the slippery slope alarm about things that have not happened at all. I find it hard to believe that you were ever really that much in favor of marriage equality since you are now taking the initiative to say “see, I told you so” The fact that you refer to “fags” here tell me a lot about just how disingenuous you are being. You didn’t become a bigot overnight as you would have us believe.I strongly supported gay marriage and was happy when the SCOTUS made it the law of the land (despite my personal feelings against legislating from the bench). Yet the gay marriage opposition warned us about the slippery slope:
First, it was the persecution of Christians (notice not Muslims who are free to deny fag's service) to deny serves to a gay marriage based on religious beliefs. Yet the argument was the bakery is a bigot so please carry on.
Second, it was you can't say anything to offend the sensitive people of the world or the non-tolerant left will ruin your life.
Now, they want grown men to use the same bathroom, locker rooms and showers as women and young girls. This was unthinkable even 5 yrs ago and now the left is destroying anyone who disagrees with it.
Next on agenda will be child marriage. I guarantee it will come from a Muslim who says they want to marry a child. Child marriage laws will be eroded. Sounds unthinkable, yet few years ago so was men in women's bathrooms.
Next will be bigamy. It will go hand and hand with child marriage. This one is inevitable.
I am not sure I don't still support gay marriage, but the slippery slope is getting frightening!
As far as the bogus “persecution of Christians” goes, certain ones have broken the law. Plain and simple. They are acting like assholes and have a warped view of what religious liberty is by using it as an excuse to discriminate. If the issue was not about wedding cakes, photography, flowers and marriage licenses, they would find other ways to discriminate such as in public accommodations. There would still be lawsuits and Christians would still be whining about persecution. The fact that the lawsuits and criminal actions (Kim Davis) came about because gays won the right to marry does not make it the fault of gays or gay marriage. You can’t blame the victims.
As far as Muslims being “free to deny service” That is just plain stupid and I don’t know where your getting that from. The issue is discrimination and the violation of laws that prohibit discrimination. Everyone is subject to the same laws. We don’t know why there have not been any high profile cases involving Muslims so please don’t make up shit to try to explain it. Maybe Muslims understand that their jobs and their faith are separate matters.
As for you second point in which you allude to politically correct speech, you still have the same rights to free speech including bigoted speech as you did before. If there is more of a backlash now, it’s because people are evolving and social norms and standards are changing. The acceptance and legalization of same sex marriage is a result of those changes, it did not cause them.
Then you go on to bitch about transgender in bathrooms. That in and of itself is a stupid issue for many reasons which I won’t go into because it would be off topic. I will say that Transgender folks may have been inspired to assert their rights as the result of the advancements of gays. But do you actually think that the issue would not have come up if it were not for same sex marriage?
As far as “child marriage” goes, allow me to point out that the legal age of consent varies considerably among the states and in some of the southern yahoo states- that age, at least with the permission of a parent or a judge- is quite young. However, that has been the case since long before marriage equality. Furthermore, there has not been any push to lower that age any more, or to loosen any restriction on them. In addition, there has not been any push to lower it in other states and there is no reason to think that there will be. The courts and the legislatures are not going to bow to any creeps who claim they have the right to marry a child, whether is based on religion or anything else. This is just a bunch of bogus made up bovine excrement.
Bigamy? I’m surprised that you didn’t say polygamy like most of the slippery slope nut jobs say. You might also want to throw in polyandry and polyamory. Again there is no serious movement to bring these things about. In addition, they are separate issues that involve much different legal and social implications. If we were to move in that direction, it would be due to changing norms and values and ideas about family and sexuality- the same forces that brought about same sex marriage. It would not be the fault of marriage.
In conclusion, your OP is a major fail wrought with logical fallacies and strange ideas, and grossly dishonest as well.
It's not a fail at all, you're just too ignorant to connect the dots. It's an agenda but this time the freaks went too far. Normal people are not going to allow this shit
Your error is in supposing that when faced with such an obvious contradiction within their own ideology, that the wrong-wing will recognize that paradox, and adjust their positions, as necessary, to mitigate it. This is an ideology that has already quite solidly proven that it is either completely oblivious to such contradiction, or that it doesn't care about such contradiction; an ideology that appears to be almost completely taken over by what Orwell described and defined as “doublethink”.
“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself — that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.
The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.”
They are indeed their own worst enemies. Sociopath kinda fits
That does describe most of the homophobes and right wing nut jobs.
You'll never get better until you agree you have a problem.
I pity you cuz you are in complete denial
You sociopaths and your projections.....so sad.
You realize that sounds like something a sociopath would post, right?
That's right. It just gets worse:I strongly supported gay marriage and was happy when the SCOTUS made it the law of the land (despite my personal feelings against legislating from the bench). Yet the gay marriage opposition warned us about the slippery slope:
First, it was the persecution of Christians (notice not Muslims who are free to deny fag's service) to deny serves to a gay marriage based on religious beliefs. Yet the argument was the bakery is a bigot so please carry on.
Second, it was you can't say anything to offend the sensitive people of the world or the non-tolerant left will ruin your life.
Now, they want grown men to use the same bathroom, locker rooms and showers as women and young girls. This was unthinkable even 5 yrs ago and now the left is destroying anyone who disagrees with it.
Next on agenda will be child marriage. I guarantee it will come from a Muslim who says they want to marry a child. Child marriage laws will be eroded. Sounds unthinkable, yet few years ago so was men in women's bathrooms.
Next will be bigamy. It will go hand and hand with child marriage. This one is inevitable.
I am not sure I don't still support gay marriage, but the slippery slope is getting frightening!
You haven't seen anything yet.
A Future History Lesson by The Progressive Patriot 5.7.14
While people continue to wring their hands and agonize over same sex marriage, I thought that I would offer some thoughts about what might lie ahead and what we might do to smooth the way. We must realize that down the road anything can happen. Any number of issues, foreseen or not can arise. I frequently rail against slippery slope predictions-such as plural marriage- that are injected into the same sex marriage debate. However, I do so not because I dismiss the possibility that a redefinition of marriage now, can lead to other changes later. Nor am I voicing a moral objection. Rather, I believe that we must deal with further change at the right time, learn from history, and be smarter going forward in order to avoid, or at least minimize the anguish that has plagued the gay marriage debate. I believe that we first have to deal with marriage equality in the here and now and new issues as they arise, spontaneously, in the future. Here is a time line of how it might all play out:
2015: While the debate over same sex marriage continues and more states allow it, intersexual people, those who are not clearly male or female are revealing themselves and begin to assert their rights. In a state that does not recognize same sex marriage, a couple applies for a marriage license. One of them, who wants to marry a male, has the biological and chromosomal characteristic of both a male and a female. This person has an androgynous name and appearance and refuses to identify as male or female. In fact many government forms that ask for “gender” have an option for “other” which this person chooses. The license request is rejected on the basis of marriage still being between a man and a woman.
2015: Later that year, SCOTUS has ruled that same sex people have the same right to marry as heterosexuals as they are now a protected class as well as deserving of equal protection under the 14th Amendment. States that refuse to legislate it are forced by federal courts to allow it. However, there is still the matter of intersexual people. Is he/she / whatever the same or opposite sex as his/her partner. Where do they fit in? Even now that same sex marriage is legal, with the court having found that discrimination against same sex couples is unconstitutional, intersexual people may fall between the cracks. They may not be exactly the same sex, nor the opposite sex of their partner. It’s a gray area, and many jurisdictions are unsure of how to deal with it. Furthermore, while gays and same sex marriage is generally accepted, inter-sexuals are regarded as freaks and are being denied other rights as well.
2020: The concept of polyamory-or group marriage, which has been around a while, is gaining in popularity. A heterosexual couple applies for a marriage license to marry another heterosexual couple. At the same time, another couple consisting of a man and a bi sexual woman seek to marry another bi sexual woman. Both applications are rejected and a long and arduous national debate and many court cases ensues. Meanwhile the issue concerning that intersexual situation rages on with some states refusing to be more inclusive.
2025: Inter-sexual people have become rather vocal and militant in demanding rights. More and more of them are choosing to live openly rather than in the closet- pretending to be exclusively male or female. Some, including gays, are accusing them of being bullies in demanding the same rights as “normal’ people, i.e. male or female. As a result of the relentless pushing of the intersexual agenda, some states are changing their laws to include them while others are seeking to ban marriages that include any person who is not clearly male or female. There are also a number of lawsuits pending in state and federal courts.
2030: Group marriage among heterosexuals gains more popular and acceptance, and some states, through legislation or court rulings, are beginning to allow it. Courts find that there is no rational basis for states to deny these marriages. However, all of the cases to date were brought by heterosexual couples who argued that large families of men and women are in keeping with tradition and create the most efficient and efficacious environment for children . They begin to win in court but ruling were narrowly tailored to only include married heterosexual couples or singles marrying other married heterosexual couples or singles. Gays and intersexual people are left out in the cold.
Almost immediately, gay couples are taking notice. They want “equality” –the ability to marry other gay couples and gay singles. More years of debate and legal maneuvering ensue. Rulings go constantly against gay couples. The basis for these rulings is concern for children. While it has been established by this time that gay parenting by a couple does not harm children, studies have emerged-sponsored by the Family Research Council which now supports heterosexual group marriage- that show that a child’s exposure to more than two gay parent figures at a time is in fact harmful, and that is the basis for opposing group marriage for gays. Meanwhile the issue of intersexual people is still unresolved.
2035: The SCOTUS finally decides that marriage is between any two consenting adults solving the problem of what to do about intersexual people. However, group marriage involving gay married couples still is a divisive issue. Furthermore, groups of people-married and single- of different gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity are seeking the right to marry and further complicating the issue.
2040: SCOTUS determines that marriage is a universal natural right and that everyone –including intersexuals haves the right to marry as many people as they wish. There is no rational basis or compelling government reason for restricting marriage at all.
Could the road to 2040 have been less arduous? It would have helped if the issue of same sex marriage as it is before us today was resolved sooner, before other alternative lifestyles came to the fore. Even now, the waters are being muddied by those who bring up plural marriage as an invented issue. It can only get worse if it becomes a real issue before the current debate is laid to rest. I will add, that to push the envelope on issues before their time serves no one’s interest, but we must be prepared to address them at the appropriate time in history and cultural evolution. And in dealing with those future issues, it is important that we build on the lessons that were hopefully learned from the earlier matters. However, that will only happen if we can get over the moronic, puritanical and ridged positions that we hold and think more about what actually makes sense and what’s important and relevant in the current cultural and legal environment.
2045: All is well. The angst of the culture wars is a fading memory. Marital bliss for all. But wait! Farmer Brown in Montana wants to marry his flock of sheep. That same year, space aliens who have been living among us for centuries reveal themselves to us. Young people are fascinated by them and “hooking up” and marrying them becomes a fast moving fad. However, marriage is only for and among humans. The fight begins anew. Pat Robertson literally turns in his grave and Michelle Bachman, now 92, comes out of retirement and teams up with Rick Perry 95 and Rick Santorum 93, to start a clinic to cure people of wanting to have sex with aliens, legal or other wise. At the same time, congressional Republicans introduce a constitutional amendment against (space) alien marriage and adopt a party platform to encourage them to self deport. Pope Francis II says “Maybe civil unions”
2048- Republican Presidential candidate Senator William Paul, son of former Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, stated in a speech today that "If not for Republican and conservative support for gay rights, Democrats and liberals would have prevented gay couples from enjoying full rights and benefits of marriage."
They are indeed their own worst enemies. Sociopath kinda fits
That does describe most of the homophobes and right wing nut jobs.
You'll never get better until you agree you have a problem.
I pity you cuz you are in complete denial
You sociopaths and your projections.....so sad.
You realize that sounds like something a sociopath would post, right?
You are admitting that you are a sociopath then- right?
Are you a Cruz supporter? My guess is yes.I strongly supported gay marriage and was happy when the SCOTUS made it the law of the land (despite my personal feelings against legislating from the bench). Yet the gay marriage opposition warned us about the slippery slope:
First, it was the persecution of Christians (notice not Muslims who are free to deny fag's service) to deny serves to a gay marriage based on religious beliefs. Yet the argument was the bakery is a bigot so please carry on.
Second, it was you can't say anything to offend the sensitive people of the world or the non-tolerant left will ruin your life.
Now, they want grown men to use the same bathroom, locker rooms and showers as women and young girls. This was unthinkable even 5 yrs ago and now the left is destroying anyone who disagrees with it.
Next on agenda will be child marriage. I guarantee it will come from a Muslim who says they want to marry a child. Child marriage laws will be eroded. Sounds unthinkable, yet few years ago so was men in women's bathrooms.
Next will be bigamy. It will go hand and hand with child marriage. This one is inevitable.
I am not sure I don't still support gay marriage, but the slippery slope is getting frightening!
Ted Cruz Won't Stop Lying About LGBT People Submitted by Brian Tashman on Friday, 4/22/2016 11:50 am As Sen. Ted Cruz began emerging as the favorite of establishment Republicans looking to stop Donald Trump from winning the party's presidential nomination, there was a brief period in which Cruz unconvincingly attempted to portray himself as more mainstream than he actually is. The maneuvering didn’t last long, as Cruz is now attacking Trump from the right for not being anti-LGBT enough. Cruz released an online ad along with a blistering statement yesterday attacking the GOP presidential frontrunner for criticizing a radical new anti-LGBT law in North Carolina, which he claimed would allow "grown men" to "use little girls' public restrooms": - See more at: Ted Cruz Won't Stop Lying About LGBT People
Someone else who you might know:I strongly supported gay marriage and was happy when the SCOTUS made it the law of the land (despite my personal feelings against legislating from the bench). Yet the gay marriage opposition warned us about the slippery slope:
First, it was the persecution of Christians (notice not Muslims who are free to deny fag's service) to deny serves to a gay marriage based on religious beliefs. Yet the argument was the bakery is a bigot so please carry on.
Second, it was you can't say anything to offend the sensitive people of the world or the non-tolerant left will ruin your life.
Now, they want grown men to use the same bathroom, locker rooms and showers as women and young girls. This was unthinkable even 5 yrs ago and now the left is destroying anyone who disagrees with it.
Next on agenda will be child marriage. I guarantee it will come from a Muslim who says they want to marry a child. Child marriage laws will be eroded. Sounds unthinkable, yet few years ago so was men in women's bathrooms.
Next will be bigamy. It will go hand and hand with child marriage. This one is inevitable.
I am not sure I don't still support gay marriage, but the slippery slope is getting frightening!
Linda Harvey: LGBT Movement Helping Turn Kids Into 'Sexual Barbarians'
Submitted by Miranda Blue on Friday, 4/22/2016 3:14 pm
Back in March, Sen. Ted Cruz's presidential campaign proudly announced the endorsements of "some of Ohio's top conservative leaders," including Mission America's Linda Harvey and Cleveland Right to Life's Molly Smith. Harvey is one of the most extreme anti-LGBT activists in the country, while Smith lastgarnered national attention when she a ngered some of her fellow anti-abortion activists by working against the reelection of Sen. Rob Portman when he came out in favor of marriage equality.
In January, Harvey joined Smith on her daily radio program for an interview thatSmith recently re-posted on her website, in which they discussed how LGBT rights will turn children into "selfish" "sexual barbarians" and repeated unfounded claims about a link between homosexuality and pedophilia.
Smith lamented that "we are destroying our children" by failing to "recognize the devastation that is happening to our children through promoting this unhealthy, abomination style of sexual contact." Harvey agreed that "we are looking at a generation of kids that are coming up who will have, who will be such, or at least a fair number of them will be such sexual barbarians."
- See more at: Linda Harvey: LGBT Movement Helping Turn Kids Into 'Sexual Barbarians'
True and not true. States are free to pass laws allowing plural marriage. None have YET. US marital law must recognize marriages in other jurisdictions, including foreign nations, unless the state deems the union to be UNCONSCIONABLE. This was the grounds for states to deny child marriages, plural marriage and previous gay marriage.“Next will be bigamy. It will go hand and hand with child marriage. This one is inevitable.”
Wrong.
More ignorance and stupidity.
Bigamy is fraud, and prohibiting a person already married to marry another is perfectly Constitutional.
Again, Obergefell in no way ‘changed’ any state’s marriage law, it acknowledged the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts as that contract law is currently written – unchanged, unaltered, and not ‘redefined.’
I see that you are a lawyer, so I am puzzled as why you don't know that Obergefell simply gave same sex couples the right to be married and the right to have those marriages recognized in all states within the parameters of the laws governing opposite sex marriages. Nothing more and nothing less. Whatever the law said about plural marriages, age of consent or the recognition of various forms of marriages - aside from same sex marriages- it is the same after Obergefell. Really very simple. Still pushing your slippery slope fallacy?True and not true. States are free to pass laws allowing plural marriage. None have YET. US marital law must recognize marriages in other jurisdictions, including foreign nations, unless the state deems the union to be UNCONSCIONABLE. This was the grounds for states to deny child marriages, plural marriage and previous gay marriage.“Next will be bigamy. It will go hand and hand with child marriage. This one is inevitable.”
Wrong.
More ignorance and stupidity.
Bigamy is fraud, and prohibiting a person already married to marry another is perfectly Constitutional.
Again, Obergefell in no way ‘changed’ any state’s marriage law, it acknowledged the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts as that contract law is currently written – unchanged, unaltered, and not ‘redefined.’
Get a clue, you are not a lawyer.
Most state public accommodation laws that protect gays predate last June's ruling. Perhaps all of them, I am not sure.
Again, I think all public accommodation laws are bullshit and businesses should be free to serve or not serve any person for any reason they see fit.
Obergefell had NOTHING to do with public accommodations laws which are justified and necessary to keep the bigots from inconveniencing, demeaning and humiliating people who they disapprove of.Most state public accommodation laws that protect gays predate last June's ruling. Perhaps all of them, I am not sure.
Again, I think all public accommodation laws are bullshit and businesses should be free to serve or not serve any person for any reason they see fit.
