If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[Pop23]

He only makes those that were available to the public prior to the change in the law and he makes those regardless of sex, sexuality, race or ethnicity. He does not make this new product for anyone, regardless of sex, sexuality, race or ethnicity.

He made wedding cakes prior to the change in the law. Just because the law changed with Loving v. Virginia doesn't mean that people could claim religious reasons for discriminating against blacks and interracial couples. See Newman v. Piggie Park and Bob Jones Univeristy.

And you've avoided the question as to the songwriter, that has written unique wedding songs for opposite sex couples, that would refuse to write a song about a same sex marriage on the basis that he can't write songs about things or events that he can't personally relate to.

Many of these songwriters would fall under the PA law. Is he violating the law, or is he protected by the First Amendment?

Songwriters typically are not a Public Accommodation business. The are independent contractors. Not the case with Masterpiece Cakeshop which is a business that even Mr. Phillips agrees falls under Public Accommodation laws, he's just asking for special rights to discriminate against gay couples based on his religion.


.>>>>

Nope, I know at least 3 Music Studio's that have both Singers and Songwriters on staff. In all three cases they have created "Unique" songs celebrating weddings and are not independent contractors. But even if they were independent contractors that would not matter if they advertised their services.

saying that an independent contractor is exempt would simply allow the Baker to say he doesn't have to make the same sex wedding cake because all his Cakes are baked by Independent Contractors.

Tough question ain't it? A paradox

And consider THE FACT that the Baker, no different than the songwriter, consider themselves "Artists". The Baker even named the Bakery "Masterpiece".

 

[Seawytch]

The gay couple would not go running to court to sue the man to force him to start baking wedding cakes. That's because gays don't care about harassing or persecuting fellow secularists.

No, they just care about persecuting people of faith. .

Yes- of course- because there are about 3 cases that have been pursued in the entire nation- sure sounds like a vast conspiracy there.

Not as if gays are going around trying to pass laws making it illegal for people of faith to be hired as teachers. Oh right that is what people of faith did to gays- real persecution.

BAM!!!

 

[Pop23]

The gay couple would not go running to court to sue the man to force him to start baking wedding cakes. That's because gays don't care about harassing or persecuting fellow secularists.

No, they just care about persecuting people of faith. .

Yes- of course- because there are about 3 cases that have been pursued in the entire nation- sure sounds like a vast conspiracy there.

Not as if gays are going around trying to pass laws making it illegal for people of faith to be hired as teachers. Oh right that is what people of faith did to gays- real persecution.

BAM!!!

And you know why, Right? Because, being roughly 5% of the population would get you nowhere. That's called facing reality.

 

[Silhouette]

The gay couple would not go running to court to sue the man to force him to start baking wedding cakes. That's because gays don't care about harassing or persecuting fellow secularists.

No, they just care about persecuting people of faith. .

Yes- of course- because there are about 3 cases that have been pursued in the entire nation- sure sounds like a vast conspiracy there.

Not as if gays are going around trying to pass laws making it illegal for people of faith to be hired as teachers. Oh right that is what people of faith did to gays- real persecution.

BAM!!!

And you know why, Right? Because, being roughly 5% of the population would get you nowhere. That's called facing reality.

Speaking of facing reality: part of the reason administrators at schools aren't hiring gays is because the gay lifestyle includes expressing pride in public parades of deviant sex acts where kids are invited to watch and even march in said parades. Administrators have to think of the safety of children first and the nonexistant "rights" of adults to endanger those children second. Always in that order.

BAM!!!

 

[Pop23]

The gay couple would not go running to court to sue the man to force him to start baking wedding cakes. That's because gays don't care about harassing or persecuting fellow secularists.

No, they just care about persecuting people of faith. .

Yes- of course- because there are about 3 cases that have been pursued in the entire nation- sure sounds like a vast conspiracy there.

Not as if gays are going around trying to pass laws making it illegal for people of faith to be hired as teachers. Oh right that is what people of faith did to gays- real persecution.

BAM!!!

And you know why, Right? Because, being roughly 5% of the population would get you nowhere. That's called facing reality.

Speaking of facing reality: part of the reason administrators at schools aren't hiring gays is because the gay lifestyle includes expressing pride in public parades of deviant sex acts where kids are invited to watch and even march in said parades. Administrators have to think of the safety of children first and the nonexistant "rights" of adults to endanger those children second. Always in that order.

BAM!!!

Thank you again for being another voice of reason.

Have you noticed how the other side has ignored this post I made earlier?:

"Let's look at this a bit differently.

A Customer comes into a Restaurant that the Owner knows from many previous visits. This customer is Black and a known Muslim. The Restaurant owner knows this because he always orders a BLT without the Bacon and has told the owner that the reason he orders the sandwich without Bacon is because he is a Muslim, and eating Bacon would be a sin.

Today the Owner takes the Man's order, but today the Muslim orders a BLT with Bacon.

The Owner tells the Man that he won't make him, or any known Muslim an order that includes Bacon. The Muslim insists. The Owner asks why? The Muslim says it's none of the Owners business and, since he makes BLT's for others, he demands he makes a BLT for him.

The Owner refuses and tells the Customer that he will not participate in another Man's Sin, that he feels that would make him a Sinner and violates, not the Customers religious freedom, but his, the Owner. (and WW, if you wan't to make this a hamburger/Bacon burger, feel free).

Should the Owner of the Cafe be held legally liable?"

I find this incredibly interesting. You?

 

[Silhouette]

Thank you again for being another voice of reason.

Have you noticed how the other side has ignored this post I made earlier?:

I find this incredibly interesting. You?

1. You're welcome. My pleasure.

2. Yes, this is what they always do when they have no rebuttal.

3. It's interesting in the view of cold strategy. In other words, they know what you and I are saying makes perfect sense to the logical mind. But since many of them are here posting as pay-per-post bloggers for the LGBT cult, probably ultimately on Soros' dime, they aren't interested in logic. Cults rarely are. The function of you speaking the truth will never be to convert them to logical thinking. That was lost long ago. I mean they're behind people chopping their dicks off and then requiring the world to call them "women" fer crissakes So the service you're really doing is exposing their cult-tactics online to the rest of the ghosting world so that they can really see what's going on and vote/write their representatives accordingly. This is why the more liberal moderators will always try to "dungeon" threads that they don't like where the topic is heading: mass-exposure and logical/rational dissection.

Our function is a largely thankless job without any immediate results. But in the end it is a good cause and I urge more people to do it for the sheer sake of sanity at this point. For one thing, the recent USSC Decision seems to reflect a delayed "trickling up" of rationality in the form of them putting some braking on a runaway freight train of judicial-activism to blindly further the goals of a cult. So, chalk one up for the tireless logicians debating this stuff with the whack-jobs online.

 

[koshergrl]

The gay couple would not go running to court to sue the man to force him to start baking wedding cakes. That's because gays don't care about harassing or persecuting fellow secularists.

No, they just care about persecuting people of faith. .

Yes- of course- because there are about 3 cases that have been pursued in the entire nation- sure sounds like a vast conspiracy there.

Not as if gays are going around trying to pass laws making it illegal for people of faith to be hired as teachers. Oh right that is what people of faith did to gays- real persecution.

BAM!!!

And you know why, Right? Because, being roughly 5% of the population would get you nowhere. That's called facing reality.

Speaking of facing reality: part of the reason administrators at schools aren't hiring gays is because the gay lifestyle includes expressing pride in public parades of deviant sex acts where kids are invited to watch and even march in said parades. Administrators have to think of the safety of children first and the nonexistant "rights" of adults to endanger those children second. Always in that order.

BAM!!!

The reality is that school admin always think of their needs first, though.
Their needs and wants supercede the safety of children.

There are a lot of homos in the schools.

 

[Silhouette]

The reality is that school admin always think of their needs first, though.
Their needs and wants supercede the safety of children.

There are a lot of homos in the schools.

Yes I know. I met some of them: two lesbians. My daughter had them as TAs in her classes over a couple of years. My daughter reported the lesbians openly hitting on the girls in the class; especially one developmentally-challenged girl with shall we say, "advanced puberty" for her age (heavy up top). She reported one of the lesbians always "patting or grabbing the butts" of her classmates. Always outside the view of other adults at the school.

So yes, I'm familiar with the special rights and privileges of LGBT school employees and the fear of administrators for 1. Refusing to hire them and 2. Firing them for those special rights and privileges. The administrators read about the lawsuits in the news too you know. It's sick but many adults will shelve their good and protective instincts towards children in order to save their own hides. And personally I think this is the main function of these very public lawsuits. Think about how insidious that is: "We will access kids through force of fear in their custodial protectors USING the court system". And the dumbfuck judges and Justices play right along with it as if they've never heard of or seen a public gay pride parade where children are invited to watch and march along.

 

[jc456]

it is a contract. as such is binding.

And more than 2 people can be parties to a contract.

show me a marriage contract with more than two.

 

[koshergrl]

Not as if gays are going around trying to pass laws making it illegal for people of faith to be hired as teachers. Oh right that is what people of faith did to gays- real persecution.

Well maybe school administrators have been to gay "pride" parades .

Silly Sillhouette.

Conservative Christians were busy trying to ban gays from teaching long before the first 'gay pride parade'- matter of fact you can probably do a timeline from efforts of Conservative Christians persecution of gays- by trying to deny them employment- to the first real gay pride parades which celebrated gays refusing to allow Christian Conservative persecution any more.

The homophobic bigots like to ignore the fact that gays in America suffered actual persecution from Conservative Christians- actual legal persecution intended to deny them employment- statewide laws to deny all gays employment- federal hiring practices- not to mention laws which could put gays in jail for having private consensual sex.

I don't think anyone should be persecuted for their faith- or for who they love.

But Christians being asked to follow the same law that protects Christians from discrimination? That is not persecution. If gays passed a law that said Christians couldn't teach in public schools- now that would be persecution.

Unfortunately, homosexuality is typically a sign of significant mental health issues.

Nobody wants crazy people around their kids.

 

[Seawytch]

The gay couple would not go running to court to sue the man to force him to start baking wedding cakes. That's because gays don't care about harassing or persecuting fellow secularists.

No, they just care about persecuting people of faith. .

Yes- of course- because there are about 3 cases that have been pursued in the entire nation- sure sounds like a vast conspiracy there.

Not as if gays are going around trying to pass laws making it illegal for people of faith to be hired as teachers. Oh right that is what people of faith did to gays- real persecution.

BAM!!!

And you know why, Right? Because, being roughly 5% of the population would get you nowhere. That's called facing reality.

Oh? The Jewish lobby seems pretty powerful and influential with roughly the same numbers...

 

[Pop23]

The gay couple would not go running to court to sue the man to force him to start baking wedding cakes. That's because gays don't care about harassing or persecuting fellow secularists.

No, they just care about persecuting people of faith. .

Yes- of course- because there are about 3 cases that have been pursued in the entire nation- sure sounds like a vast conspiracy there.

Not as if gays are going around trying to pass laws making it illegal for people of faith to be hired as teachers. Oh right that is what people of faith did to gays- real persecution.

BAM!!!

And you know why, Right? Because, being roughly 5% of the population would get you nowhere. That's called facing reality.

Oh? The Jewish lobby seems pretty powerful and influential with roughly the same numbers...

Oh? The Jewish lobby seems pretty powerful and influential with HISTORICALLY the same numbers..

Fixed it for ya

 

[Pop23]

it is a contract. as such is binding.

And more than 2 people can be parties to a contract.

show me a marriage contract with more than two.

Can't yet, but the argument is that State Sanctioned Marriage no longer includes a pretense (at least one that could hold water in court now). It becomes no different than any legal contract. And there are no other legal contracts that I know of that mandates a strict number of participants.

 

[jc456]

The point is almost always to attack the legality of gay marriage rather than any sincere concern for a father wanting to be able to marry his daughter.

I know, and it is total bullshit. I don't think Pop23 is making that argument.

Yes- I can think of reasons why the State could have compelling interests to prevent the legal marriage of between more than two people- would they hold up in court? No idea.

What would be the compelling reason? Why wouldn't such an arrangement hold up in Court? Courts deal with multiple parties all the time. How would it be any different?

The courts have already expressed support for the idea that there are valid compelling state reasons to prevent incestuous marriages- such as say a father marrying his daughter- but I don't think that there is much of a compelling argument there for first cousins.

What compelling interest in stopping a father marrying a daughter?

If a daughter is of age, and has the capacity to consent, there should be no barrier. It's disgusting to me, but so is shoving my cock up another man's ass hole. Either way, who am I to deny them?


It goes back to that selfishness thing. I want liberty for all. It goes against my principles to deny a father from marrying his consenting adult daughter.

your point becomes useless because you're putting an age limit on it. what difference does it make if someone is of age or not if there is no outside interference from society, why stop at an age? why not just make the statement anyone can marry anyone and fk you all? That is what you're saying. And sorry, that isn't liberty that is chaos and created from a place of selfishness. and it is unacceptable in society. So, you must either limit liberty or have mass chaos per your own definitions. age is a definition, however you don't want in any definition in a liberty idea so age gets thrown out.

 

[Pop23]

The point is almost always to attack the legality of gay marriage rather than any sincere concern for a father wanting to be able to marry his daughter.

I know, and it is total bullshit. I don't think Pop23 is making that argument.

Yes- I can think of reasons why the State could have compelling interests to prevent the legal marriage of between more than two people- would they hold up in court? No idea.

What would be the compelling reason? Why wouldn't such an arrangement hold up in Court? Courts deal with multiple parties all the time. How would it be any different?

The courts have already expressed support for the idea that there are valid compelling state reasons to prevent incestuous marriages- such as say a father marrying his daughter- but I don't think that there is much of a compelling argument there for first cousins.

What compelling interest in stopping a father marrying a daughter?

If a daughter is of age, and has the capacity to consent, there should be no barrier. It's disgusting to me, but so is shoving my cock up another man's ass hole. Either way, who am I to deny them?


It goes back to that selfishness thing. I want liberty for all. It goes against my principles to deny a father from marrying his consenting adult daughter.

your point becomes useless because you're putting an age limit on it. what difference does it make if someone is of age or not if there is no outside interference from society, why stop at an age? why not just make the statement anyone can marry anyone and fk you all? That is what you're saying. And sorry, that isn't liberty that is chaos and created from a place of selfishness. and it is unacceptable in society. So, you must either limit liberty or have mass chaos per your own definitions. age is a definition which you don't want in any liberty idea.

Actually, there is no reason that a state licensed marriage license can't be obtained by anyone (at least the denial would have to be for a rational legal basis and be able to withstand the "states compelling interest" test, which is nearly impossible.)

That, however is where the statement, why limit age question fails. The Government asserts that minors (at that age is set by the State's), suffer from Diminished Capability, thus making them incapable of entering into these types of agreements or contracts.

Just feel lucky we still have that as legal reality OR KATIE BAR THE DOOR!

 

[jc456]

The point is almost always to attack the legality of gay marriage rather than any sincere concern for a father wanting to be able to marry his daughter.

I know, and it is total bullshit. I don't think Pop23 is making that argument.

Yes- I can think of reasons why the State could have compelling interests to prevent the legal marriage of between more than two people- would they hold up in court? No idea.

What would be the compelling reason? Why wouldn't such an arrangement hold up in Court? Courts deal with multiple parties all the time. How would it be any different?

The courts have already expressed support for the idea that there are valid compelling state reasons to prevent incestuous marriages- such as say a father marrying his daughter- but I don't think that there is much of a compelling argument there for first cousins.

What compelling interest in stopping a father marrying a daughter?

If a daughter is of age, and has the capacity to consent, there should be no barrier. It's disgusting to me, but so is shoving my cock up another man's ass hole. Either way, who am I to deny them?


It goes back to that selfishness thing. I want liberty for all. It goes against my principles to deny a father from marrying his consenting adult daughter.

your point becomes useless because you're putting an age limit on it. what difference does it make if someone is of age or not if there is no outside interference from society, why stop at an age? why not just make the statement anyone can marry anyone and fk you all? That is what you're saying. And sorry, that isn't liberty that is chaos and created from a place of selfishness. and it is unacceptable in society. So, you must either limit liberty or have mass chaos per your own definitions. age is a definition which you don't want in any liberty idea.

Actually, there is no reason that a state licensed marriage license can't be obtained by anyone (at least the denial would have to be for a rational legal basis and be able to withstand the "states compelling interest" test, which is nearly impossible.

That, however is where the statement, why limit age question fails. The Government asserts that minors (at that age is set by the State's), suffer from Diminished Capability, thus making them incapable of entering into these types of agreements or contracts.

Just feel lucky we still have that as legal reality OR KATIE BAR THE DOOR!

there is no difference. It was determined by society. can't have it both ways. We are either a society or we are not. there is no grey area.

 

[Pop23]

The point is almost always to attack the legality of gay marriage rather than any sincere concern for a father wanting to be able to marry his daughter.

I know, and it is total bullshit. I don't think Pop23 is making that argument.

Yes- I can think of reasons why the State could have compelling interests to prevent the legal marriage of between more than two people- would they hold up in court? No idea.

What would be the compelling reason? Why wouldn't such an arrangement hold up in Court? Courts deal with multiple parties all the time. How would it be any different?

The courts have already expressed support for the idea that there are valid compelling state reasons to prevent incestuous marriages- such as say a father marrying his daughter- but I don't think that there is much of a compelling argument there for first cousins.

What compelling interest in stopping a father marrying a daughter?

If a daughter is of age, and has the capacity to consent, there should be no barrier. It's disgusting to me, but so is shoving my cock up another man's ass hole. Either way, who am I to deny them?


It goes back to that selfishness thing. I want liberty for all. It goes against my principles to deny a father from marrying his consenting adult daughter.

your point becomes useless because you're putting an age limit on it. what difference does it make if someone is of age or not if there is no outside interference from society, why stop at an age? why not just make the statement anyone can marry anyone and fk you all? That is what you're saying. And sorry, that isn't liberty that is chaos and created from a place of selfishness. and it is unacceptable in society. So, you must either limit liberty or have mass chaos per your own definitions. age is a definition which you don't want in any liberty idea.

Actually, there is no reason that a state licensed marriage license can't be obtained by anyone (at least the denial would have to be for a rational legal basis and be able to withstand the "states compelling interest" test, which is nearly impossible.

That, however is where the statement, why limit age question fails. The Government asserts that minors (at that age is set by the State's), suffer from Diminished Capability, thus making them incapable of entering into these types of agreements or contracts.

Just feel lucky we still have that as legal reality OR KATIE BAR THE DOOR!

there is no difference. It was determined by society. can't have it both ways. We are either a society or we are not. there is no grey area.

Except that there is no grey area, at least as age is concerned. And it's not just Marriage, it is prevailing law on all matters in which someone judged to have "diminished capabilities' are concerned. It is long standing and has withstood challenge every time in court. It would take a change hundreds of times greater than that of the change created in Obergfell to chance this area of the law. And that is nearly impossible.

Now, can adult siblings marry? What would be the sound legal reason that could withstand the "State's compelling interest standard". As appalling as I think it would be, I can't come up with the legal argument against it since Obergfell.

 

[jc456]

The point is almost always to attack the legality of gay marriage rather than any sincere concern for a father wanting to be able to marry his daughter.

I know, and it is total bullshit. I don't think Pop23 is making that argument.

Yes- I can think of reasons why the State could have compelling interests to prevent the legal marriage of between more than two people- would they hold up in court? No idea.

What would be the compelling reason? Why wouldn't such an arrangement hold up in Court? Courts deal with multiple parties all the time. How would it be any different?

The courts have already expressed support for the idea that there are valid compelling state reasons to prevent incestuous marriages- such as say a father marrying his daughter- but I don't think that there is much of a compelling argument there for first cousins.

What compelling interest in stopping a father marrying a daughter?

If a daughter is of age, and has the capacity to consent, there should be no barrier. It's disgusting to me, but so is shoving my cock up another man's ass hole. Either way, who am I to deny them?


It goes back to that selfishness thing. I want liberty for all. It goes against my principles to deny a father from marrying his consenting adult daughter.

your point becomes useless because you're putting an age limit on it. what difference does it make if someone is of age or not if there is no outside interference from society, why stop at an age? why not just make the statement anyone can marry anyone and fk you all? That is what you're saying. And sorry, that isn't liberty that is chaos and created from a place of selfishness. and it is unacceptable in society. So, you must either limit liberty or have mass chaos per your own definitions. age is a definition which you don't want in any liberty idea.

Actually, there is no reason that a state licensed marriage license can't be obtained by anyone (at least the denial would have to be for a rational legal basis and be able to withstand the "states compelling interest" test, which is nearly impossible.

That, however is where the statement, why limit age question fails. The Government asserts that minors (at that age is set by the State's), suffer from Diminished Capability, thus making them incapable of entering into these types of agreements or contracts.

Just feel lucky we still have that as legal reality OR KATIE BAR THE DOOR!

there is no difference. It was determined by society. can't have it both ways. We are either a society or we are not. there is no grey area.

Except that there is no grey area, at least as age is concerned. And it's not just Marriage, it is prevailing law on all matters in which someone judged to have "diminished capabilities' are concerned. It is long standing and has withstood challenge every time in court. It would take a change hundreds of times greater than that of the change created in Obergfell to chance this area of the law. And that is nearly impossible.

it's still a law enacted by society. and if your wishes are to eliminate society in all matters related to any one thing, then precedence suggest it open for all things. that fking precedence thingy gets in the way of everything. once you head down the slope, then there is no way to stop the ride until it ends.

 

[Pop23]

I know, and it is total bullshit. I don't think Pop23 is making that argument.

What would be the compelling reason? Why wouldn't such an arrangement hold up in Court? Courts deal with multiple parties all the time. How would it be any different?

What compelling interest in stopping a father marrying a daughter?

If a daughter is of age, and has the capacity to consent, there should be no barrier. It's disgusting to me, but so is shoving my cock up another man's ass hole. Either way, who am I to deny them?


It goes back to that selfishness thing. I want liberty for all. It goes against my principles to deny a father from marrying his consenting adult daughter.

your point becomes useless because you're putting an age limit on it. what difference does it make if someone is of age or not if there is no outside interference from society, why stop at an age? why not just make the statement anyone can marry anyone and fk you all? That is what you're saying. And sorry, that isn't liberty that is chaos and created from a place of selfishness. and it is unacceptable in society. So, you must either limit liberty or have mass chaos per your own definitions. age is a definition which you don't want in any liberty idea.

Actually, there is no reason that a state licensed marriage license can't be obtained by anyone (at least the denial would have to be for a rational legal basis and be able to withstand the "states compelling interest" test, which is nearly impossible.

That, however is where the statement, why limit age question fails. The Government asserts that minors (at that age is set by the State's), suffer from Diminished Capability, thus making them incapable of entering into these types of agreements or contracts.

Just feel lucky we still have that as legal reality OR KATIE BAR THE DOOR!

there is no difference. It was determined by society. can't have it both ways. We are either a society or we are not. there is no grey area.

Except that there is no grey area, at least as age is concerned. And it's not just Marriage, it is prevailing law on all matters in which someone judged to have "diminished capabilities' are concerned. It is long standing and has withstood challenge every time in court. It would take a change hundreds of times greater than that of the change created in Obergfell to chance this area of the law. And that is nearly impossible.

it's still a law enacted by society. and if your wishes are to eliminate society in all matters related to anyone thing, then precedence suggest it open for all things. that fking precedence thingy gets in the way of everything. once you head down the slope, then there is no way to stop the ride until it ends.

Again, it has withstood numerous legal challenges and will withstand all comers.

 

[jc456]

your point becomes useless because you're putting an age limit on it. what difference does it make if someone is of age or not if there is no outside interference from society, why stop at an age? why not just make the statement anyone can marry anyone and fk you all? That is what you're saying. And sorry, that isn't liberty that is chaos and created from a place of selfishness. and it is unacceptable in society. So, you must either limit liberty or have mass chaos per your own definitions. age is a definition which you don't want in any liberty idea.

Actually, there is no reason that a state licensed marriage license can't be obtained by anyone (at least the denial would have to be for a rational legal basis and be able to withstand the "states compelling interest" test, which is nearly impossible.

That, however is where the statement, why limit age question fails. The Government asserts that minors (at that age is set by the State's), suffer from Diminished Capability, thus making them incapable of entering into these types of agreements or contracts.

Just feel lucky we still have that as legal reality OR KATIE BAR THE DOOR!

there is no difference. It was determined by society. can't have it both ways. We are either a society or we are not. there is no grey area.

Except that there is no grey area, at least as age is concerned. And it's not just Marriage, it is prevailing law on all matters in which someone judged to have "diminished capabilities' are concerned. It is long standing and has withstood challenge every time in court. It would take a change hundreds of times greater than that of the change created in Obergfell to chance this area of the law. And that is nearly impossible.

it's still a law enacted by society. and if your wishes are to eliminate society in all matters related to anyone thing, then precedence suggest it open for all things. that fking precedence thingy gets in the way of everything. once you head down the slope, then there is no way to stop the ride until it ends.

Again, it has withstood numerous legal challenges and will withstand all comers.

I bet someone would have said that with gay marriage eh?