Mississippi & Louisiana Join Refusal to Honor Same Sex "Marriage"

[Syriusly]

The court also said segregation was just peachy, and a black person has no standing to sue at one time. Courts change, and things change.

and you rest your laurels on a 5-4 decision, not smart.

Yep- the courts have made bad decisions- and good decisions also.

Would I have preferred a 9-0 decision? Sure. And that only happens extremely rarely.

Bad 5:4 decisions include Bush v Gore- but I survived that.
And Citizen's United-
Both of those cases are what you would have called 'unresolved'- as in large segments of the population still consider those to be bad rulings- but guess what- they are the decisions that were made. A vote the other way would have been a 5:4 vote the other direction.

I am not 'resting my laurels' on anything- the majority of Americans now favor the right to marriage of Americans regardless of the gender of their spouse. Unlike Loving v. Virginia, the Court actually is following American opinion- in Loving v. Virginia the Court anticpated public opinion by 20 years.

And that worked out just fine.

Lets see how opinions shift when PA laws are really used to go after people, and when the activists start going after Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, and Temples.

Progressives can't stop, they have to keep going, and there is a line that once crossed will evaporate a lot of the support and sympathy being had.

I'm an example of that, considering I don't have an issue with SSM when enacted legislatively, and when people are not punished by government for their beliefs. Yet I have to take a position also held by people with far more hateful views because of the way it was enacted, and the future I see because of it. I do this because when you only support the rights of people you agree with, you really aren't supporting rights at all.

Rightwingers have been going after mosques for years.

True that- good point.

Not so much respect for 'religious freedom' when it came to allowing Muslims to build houses of worship.

One case, and did anything really come of that?

And how many bakers have been sued?

Anyway- multiple cases of Conservatives attempting to stop Mosques

Republicans Want to Seize a Mosque So Let s Start Seizing Churches

Incredibly they’ve upped the ante while sinking to a new low. Frustrated by a federal court ruling last year upholding the Muslim community’s First Amendment rights, and a Tennessee Appeals Court ruling in May of this year, which defeating a civil lawsuit filed against the mosque on September 16, 2010, they are taking their case to the state supreme court.

Thats right- Conservatives suing Muslim's to prevent them from opening a mosque......

 

[Syriusly]

They can- and probably most gay couples will.

But some customers may well ask that business's comply with the law.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

There is everything wrong with that, you just don't care because you like watching people who disagree with you get shafted.

Public Accommodation laws have been in effect- and protecting Christians- since 1965.

You don't like them- then work to overturn them- you have had 50 years to get it done.

In the case of PA laws that protect homosexuals(and Christians) in every case those laws are either State laws(suddenly you oppose State's rights to their own laws) or local city or county laws.

PA laws were meant to fight systemic economic discrimination that was the residual of government mandated discrimination, i.e. Jim Crow. PA laws also were not meant to cover every single commercial activity, but point of sale items, necessary commerce, and things involving travel (i.e hotels). In some cases they are needed, but I do not see the need to force a few bakers/wedding halls/photographers to either provide a service or go out of business.

Also, since when has a PA law been used to protect Christians? I haven;t heard many cases. Enlighten me.

As I pointed out- every PA that protects homosexuals from discrimination are most often State laws- so why exactly are you against Colorado's right to pass anti-discrimination laws?

I don't know if PA laws have been used to protect Christians- but Christians have been protected by PA laws from the passing of the very first one- unlike homosexuals.

I

because the right to free exercise of religion is in the constitution, and the bill of rights has been found to be incorporated to the States, thus Colorado's PA laws must take religion into account.
.

No actually they do not.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

o my i am honored you noted a truth in your signature line....one does not expect that of you....now do go on....tell us how gay marriage is killing and gassing people.....how are people suffering what minority....are we deporting people over ssm ...do go on

Clerks are already being sued for not issuing marriage certificates.

Good. They should be sued for not doing their fucking jobs.

Thank you for admitting this is all about punishing people for their beliefs.

Thank you for admitting that this is all about Christians wanting to be exempt from laws everyone else is supposed to obey.

I can't wait until they try to make muslims perform a same sex marriage in a mosque.

 

[Syriusly]

The court could have done that- but the court- just like it did in Loving v. Virginia- chose to recognize the fundamental right to marry.

And States do not have the right to ignore rights unless they can provide a compelling reason (i.e. denying convicted felons the right to own guns).

The court also said segregation was just peachy, and a black person has no standing to sue at one time. Courts change, and things change.

and you rest your laurels on a 5-4 decision, not smart.

Yep- the courts have made bad decisions- and good decisions also.

Would I have preferred a 9-0 decision? Sure. And that only happens extremely rarely.

Bad 5:4 decisions include Bush v Gore- but I survived that.
And Citizen's United-
Both of those cases are what you would have called 'unresolved'- as in large segments of the population still consider those to be bad rulings- but guess what- they are the decisions that were made. A vote the other way would have been a 5:4 vote the other direction.

I am not 'resting my laurels' on anything- the majority of Americans now favor the right to marriage of Americans regardless of the gender of their spouse. Unlike Loving v. Virginia, the Court actually is following American opinion- in Loving v. Virginia the Court anticpated public opinion by 20 years.

And that worked out just fine.

Lets see how opinions shift when PA laws are really used to go after people, and when the activists start going after Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, and Temples.

Progressives can't stop, they have to keep going, and there is a line that once crossed will evaporate a lot of the support and sympathy being had.

I'm an example of that, considering I don't have an issue with SSM when enacted legislatively, and when people are not punished by government for their beliefs. Yet I have to take a position also held by people with far more hateful views because of the way it was enacted, and the future I see because of it. I do this because when you only support the rights of people you agree with, you really aren't supporting rights at all.

Rightwingers have been going after mosques for years.

Really? I just remember the one near ground zero, and that was more of a "too soon man, too soon" thing, not a systemic attack on all Mosques.

And one law suit against one bakery is not a systemic attack on all Christians.

 

[Syriusly]

o my i am honored you noted a truth in your signature line....one does not expect that of you....now do go on....tell us how gay marriage is killing and gassing people.....how are people suffering what minority....are we deporting people over ssm ...do go on

Clerks are already being sued for not issuing marriage certificates.

Good. They should be sued for not doing their fucking jobs.

Thank you for admitting this is all about punishing people for their beliefs.

Thank you for admitting that this is all about Christians wanting to be exempt from laws everyone else is supposed to obey.

I can't wait until they try to make muslims perform a same sex marriage in a mosque.

I don't know who 'they' is but 'they' will suffer the same disappointment of anyone attempting to make any church marry any couple the church does not want to marry- no church, mosque, temple etc is required or obligated to marry anyone.

 

[The Rabbi]

abortion and gay marriage are best handled by the states so you can move rather than have the majority viewpoint shoved down your throat. American is supposed to be about freedom, not mob rule.

How is either someone's abortion being shoved down your throat? Or someone's marriage?

How does some other State banning abortion or banning same sex marriage affect you if you don't live in that State?

Well, if you are a legally married same sex couple and you travel to that state, you are no longer married

That affects you

If you're simply travelling what difference does it make?

What if you relocate to a state that does not recognize it ?

Then you'd have to deal with the consequences of your actions.
Horrors!

 

[paddymurphy]

o my i am honored you noted a truth in your signature line....one does not expect that of you....now do go on....tell us how gay marriage is killing and gassing people.....how are people suffering what minority....are we deporting people over ssm ...do go on

Clerks are already being sued for not issuing marriage certificates.

Good. They should be sued for not doing their fucking jobs.

Thank you for admitting this is all about punishing people for their beliefs.

Thank you for admitting that this is all about Christians wanting to be exempt from laws everyone else is supposed to obey.

and you want to create laws to cater to a minority view. there are two sides to this, idiot.

No. We want laws that follow the constitution. That is the only side.

 

[rightwinger]

Well, if you are a legally married same sex couple and you travel to that state, you are no longer married

That affects you

THAT is the question that should have been handled by the court, saying States would have to recognize marriages issued by other States regardless. The State would not have to issue SSM licenses, but would have to recognize out of State ones.

The court could have done that- but the court- just like it did in Loving v. Virginia- chose to recognize the fundamental right to marry.

And States do not have the right to ignore rights unless they can provide a compelling reason (i.e. denying convicted felons the right to own guns).

The court also said segregation was just peachy, and a black person has no standing to sue at one time. Courts change, and things change.

and you rest your laurels on a 5-4 decision, not smart.

The cat is out of the bag

Once same sex couples establish married relationships around the country, there will be no going back to the old rules

So just like segregation yesterday, segregation today, segregation tomorrow?

How effective has reinstituting segregation after 50 years been?

Do you think we could ever go back to Jim Crow? Same applies to same sex marriage

You can't unbreak an egg

 

[The Rabbi]

Clerks are already being sued for not issuing marriage certificates.

Good. They should be sued for not doing their fucking jobs.

Thank you for admitting this is all about punishing people for their beliefs.

Thank you for admitting that this is all about Christians wanting to be exempt from laws everyone else is supposed to obey.

and you want to create laws to cater to a minority view. there are two sides to this, idiot.

No. We want laws that follow the constitution. That is the only side.

LOL!!! You're a trip.
It took the Supreme Court inventing a right no one had heard of 20 years ago and utterly shredding the Constitution to overturn many state laws to the contrary to get this crap on the books. Laws pursuant to the Constitution are the last thing you assholes want.

 

[daws101]

false there ed you are trying to change the subject.

you first need to answer how you came to the erroneous conclusion that there has been 10.000 years of freedom on this planet and WHY SAME SEX Marriage infringes on your right to be mentally ill.

dear why so afraid to stick to the subject of OP?? for 4th time: Why does freedom and liberty now mean homosexual marriage. What does your fear teach us?? Ever see a conservative afriad of a debate?
What does that teach you?

you first need to answer how you came to the erroneous conclusion that there has been 10.000 years of freedom on this planet and WHY SAME SEX Marriage infringes on your right to be mentally ill.

dear, did you forget you're the idiot who said all scientists agree the CA drought is caused by global warming??

dodge didn't say all just the ones who are correct and that's most of them.
you can go back to masturbating NOW.

for 5th time: Why does freedom and liberty now mean homosexual marriage. What does your fear teach us?? Ever see a conservative afriad of a debate?
What does that teach you?[/QUOTE]there is nothin' to debate obviously you misread the op.
what you've post is meaningless as always.

 

[daws101]

The Heritage Foundation thinks so. You've heard of them, yes?

Reducing Poverty by Promoting Healthy Marriage

Key word is "healthy".

And you have evidence that our marriages aren't?

Common sense would tell you that two guys sticking their dicks into fecal matter, probably isn't healthy.

But........here's more.

Homosexual couples less healthy than married heterosexuals study finds News LifeSite

On The Unhealthy Homosexual Lifestyle

Facts About Youth Health Risks of the Homosexual Lifestyle

The Facts on the Gay Movement

Shigella Infections among Gay & Bisexual Men (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - April 9, 2015) - Shigella germs are present in the feces (poop) of people with shigellosis while they have diarrhea and up to a few weeks after the diarrhea has gone away. Shigella is very contagious; exposure to even a tiny amount of fecal matter with Shigella in it can cause infection. Symptoms usually start 1-2 days after exposure, but may range from 12-96 hours. Transmission of Shigella infection occurs in the following ways:
- Person-to-person contact. Shigella passes from stools or soiled fingers of one person to the mouth of another person, which can happen during sexual activity. Oral-anal sex, or oral stimulation (i.e., sucking or licking) of the anus (anilingus or "rimming"), may be especially risky.
- Eating food contaminated by someone who has shigellosis.
- Swallowing recreational or drinking water that was contaminated by infected fecal matter.

You're comparing single people to married people.

Where are the lesbians?

I'm comparing lifestyles.

The lesbians are eating at the Y.

so are "straight" guys !
oh shit you have a lot in common with lesbians.

 

[daws101]

The Constitution rules and not the Bible.

Your interp of the Bible is wrong. Sil, you lost. Get over it. It's done.

I love how progs think this is "over" when Roe V Wade was over 40 years ago, and the abortion debate is still alive and well.

Of course Wade is settled...that's why people march on SCOTUS every year to remind them not to unsettle it.

Several states have hemmed it in on several fronts. Getting an abortion now is not as easy as it was ten years ago (in some states).

It's not settled in a Clausewitzian sense, the conflict that led to the decision is still being fought, with sizable groups of people supporting both sides.

If it was "settled" you wouldn't have the continuing lawsuits and protests you still see today.

Clausewitzian sense?
damn ...cute but far of the mark there is nothing military about the ignorant assholes who want to destroy a woman's right to control her reproductive choices.

Clauswitzian, as in "the reason for the conflict has been resolved." So the end of World War 1 was not a clauswitzian "peace" as the cause of the war, german militarism and expansionism was not resolved. World War 2 resulted in a Clauswitzian peace with Germany, as those causes were removed from the equation.

Thus Roe V Wade is a non-Clauswitzian victory, as the underlying conflict, i.e. the question of abortion rights has not gone away.

And I don't want to "destroy a woman's right to off her fetus" (lets call a spade a spade here), What I don't see is the ability of the federal government to say Alabama can't make abortions illegal.

bullshit!

 

[paddymurphy]

Good. They should be sued for not doing their fucking jobs.

Thank you for admitting this is all about punishing people for their beliefs.

Thank you for admitting that this is all about Christians wanting to be exempt from laws everyone else is supposed to obey.

and you want to create laws to cater to a minority view. there are two sides to this, idiot.

No. We want laws that follow the constitution. That is the only side.

LOL!!! You're a trip.
It took the Supreme Court inventing a right no one had heard of 20 years ago and utterly shredding the Constitution to overturn many state laws to the contrary to get this crap on the books. Laws pursuant to the Constitution are the last thing you assholes want.

The right to marry has been recognized for over fifty years. You have no fucking clue about the constitution or constitutional law. Go back to running around in your white sheet and burning crosses.

 

[daws101]

Thank you for admitting this is all about punishing people for their beliefs.

Thank you for admitting that this is all about Christians wanting to be exempt from laws everyone else is supposed to obey.

and you want to create laws to cater to a minority view. there are two sides to this, idiot.

No. We want laws that follow the constitution. That is the only side.

LOL!!! You're a trip.
It took the Supreme Court inventing a right no one had heard of 20 years ago and utterly shredding the Constitution to overturn many state laws to the contrary to get this crap on the books. Laws pursuant to the Constitution are the last thing you assholes want.

The right to marry has been recognized for over fifty years. You have no fucking clue about the constitution or constitutional law. Go back to running around in your white sheet and burning crosses.

the rabbid guy is a fraud.

 

[Syriusly]

Good. They should be sued for not doing their fucking jobs.

Thank you for admitting this is all about punishing people for their beliefs.

Thank you for admitting that this is all about Christians wanting to be exempt from laws everyone else is supposed to obey.

and you want to create laws to cater to a minority view. there are two sides to this, idiot.

No. We want laws that follow the constitution. That is the only side.

LOL!!! You're a trip.
It took the Supreme Court inventing a right no one had heard of 20 years ago and utterly shredding the Constitution to overturn many state laws to the contrary to get this crap on the books. Laws pursuant to the Constitution are the last thing you assholes want.

I am enjoying Rabbi's meltdown.

The Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws 4 times now- this is just the latest example.

 

[martybegan]

Yep- the courts have made bad decisions- and good decisions also.

Would I have preferred a 9-0 decision? Sure. And that only happens extremely rarely.

Bad 5:4 decisions include Bush v Gore- but I survived that.
And Citizen's United-
Both of those cases are what you would have called 'unresolved'- as in large segments of the population still consider those to be bad rulings- but guess what- they are the decisions that were made. A vote the other way would have been a 5:4 vote the other direction.

I am not 'resting my laurels' on anything- the majority of Americans now favor the right to marriage of Americans regardless of the gender of their spouse. Unlike Loving v. Virginia, the Court actually is following American opinion- in Loving v. Virginia the Court anticpated public opinion by 20 years.

And that worked out just fine.

Lets see how opinions shift when PA laws are really used to go after people, and when the activists start going after Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, and Temples.

Progressives can't stop, they have to keep going, and there is a line that once crossed will evaporate a lot of the support and sympathy being had.

I'm an example of that, considering I don't have an issue with SSM when enacted legislatively, and when people are not punished by government for their beliefs. Yet I have to take a position also held by people with far more hateful views because of the way it was enacted, and the future I see because of it. I do this because when you only support the rights of people you agree with, you really aren't supporting rights at all.

Rightwingers have been going after mosques for years.

True that- good point.

Not so much respect for 'religious freedom' when it came to allowing Muslims to build houses of worship.

One case, and did anything really come of that?

And how many bakers have been sued?

Anyway- multiple cases of Conservatives attempting to stop Mosques

Republicans Want to Seize a Mosque So Let s Start Seizing Churches

Incredibly they’ve upped the ante while sinking to a new low. Frustrated by a federal court ruling last year upholding the Muslim community’s First Amendment rights, and a Tennessee Appeals Court ruling in May of this year, which defeating a civil lawsuit filed against the mosque on September 16, 2010, they are taking their case to the state supreme court.

Thats right- Conservatives suing Muslim's to prevent them from opening a mosque......

Well i don;t support the lawsuit, but at least it gives gays a head start, they can join in because the mosque won't do SSM.

 

[martybegan]

There is everything wrong with that, you just don't care because you like watching people who disagree with you get shafted.

Public Accommodation laws have been in effect- and protecting Christians- since 1965.

You don't like them- then work to overturn them- you have had 50 years to get it done.

In the case of PA laws that protect homosexuals(and Christians) in every case those laws are either State laws(suddenly you oppose State's rights to their own laws) or local city or county laws.

PA laws were meant to fight systemic economic discrimination that was the residual of government mandated discrimination, i.e. Jim Crow. PA laws also were not meant to cover every single commercial activity, but point of sale items, necessary commerce, and things involving travel (i.e hotels). In some cases they are needed, but I do not see the need to force a few bakers/wedding halls/photographers to either provide a service or go out of business.

Also, since when has a PA law been used to protect Christians? I haven;t heard many cases. Enlighten me.

As I pointed out- every PA that protects homosexuals from discrimination are most often State laws- so why exactly are you against Colorado's right to pass anti-discrimination laws?

I don't know if PA laws have been used to protect Christians- but Christians have been protected by PA laws from the passing of the very first one- unlike homosexuals.

I

because the right to free exercise of religion is in the constitution, and the bill of rights has been found to be incorporated to the States, thus Colorado's PA laws must take religion into account.
.

No actually they do not.

yes, they do.

 

[The Rabbi]

Thank you for admitting this is all about punishing people for their beliefs.

Thank you for admitting that this is all about Christians wanting to be exempt from laws everyone else is supposed to obey.

and you want to create laws to cater to a minority view. there are two sides to this, idiot.

No. We want laws that follow the constitution. That is the only side.

LOL!!! You're a trip.
It took the Supreme Court inventing a right no one had heard of 20 years ago and utterly shredding the Constitution to overturn many state laws to the contrary to get this crap on the books. Laws pursuant to the Constitution are the last thing you assholes want.

The right to marry has been recognized for over fifty years. You have no fucking clue about the constitution or constitutional law. Go back to running around in your white sheet and burning crosses.

Idiot. There is no right to same sex marriage. Go back to chewing gum.

 

[martybegan]

The court also said segregation was just peachy, and a black person has no standing to sue at one time. Courts change, and things change.

and you rest your laurels on a 5-4 decision, not smart.

Yep- the courts have made bad decisions- and good decisions also.

Would I have preferred a 9-0 decision? Sure. And that only happens extremely rarely.

Bad 5:4 decisions include Bush v Gore- but I survived that.
And Citizen's United-
Both of those cases are what you would have called 'unresolved'- as in large segments of the population still consider those to be bad rulings- but guess what- they are the decisions that were made. A vote the other way would have been a 5:4 vote the other direction.

I am not 'resting my laurels' on anything- the majority of Americans now favor the right to marriage of Americans regardless of the gender of their spouse. Unlike Loving v. Virginia, the Court actually is following American opinion- in Loving v. Virginia the Court anticpated public opinion by 20 years.

And that worked out just fine.

Lets see how opinions shift when PA laws are really used to go after people, and when the activists start going after Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, and Temples.

Progressives can't stop, they have to keep going, and there is a line that once crossed will evaporate a lot of the support and sympathy being had.

I'm an example of that, considering I don't have an issue with SSM when enacted legislatively, and when people are not punished by government for their beliefs. Yet I have to take a position also held by people with far more hateful views because of the way it was enacted, and the future I see because of it. I do this because when you only support the rights of people you agree with, you really aren't supporting rights at all.

Rightwingers have been going after mosques for years.

Really? I just remember the one near ground zero, and that was more of a "too soon man, too soon" thing, not a systemic attack on all Mosques.

And one law suit against one bakery is not a systemic attack on all Christians.

It's coming. Do you support making people choose between their livelihood and their beliefs?

 

[martybegan]

THAT is the question that should have been handled by the court, saying States would have to recognize marriages issued by other States regardless. The State would not have to issue SSM licenses, but would have to recognize out of State ones.

The court could have done that- but the court- just like it did in Loving v. Virginia- chose to recognize the fundamental right to marry.

And States do not have the right to ignore rights unless they can provide a compelling reason (i.e. denying convicted felons the right to own guns).

The court also said segregation was just peachy, and a black person has no standing to sue at one time. Courts change, and things change.

and you rest your laurels on a 5-4 decision, not smart.

The cat is out of the bag

Once same sex couples establish married relationships around the country, there will be no going back to the old rules

So just like segregation yesterday, segregation today, segregation tomorrow?

How effective has reinstituting segregation after 50 years been?

Do you think we could ever go back to Jim Crow? Same applies to same sex marriage

You can't unbreak an egg

Who want's to re implement government mandated segregation?

getting rid of it took 70 years or so. That egg got unbroken.