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

[martybegan]

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!

Nice retort. try actually rebutting it, if you can.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

In this case, yes, CO PA laws must incorporate religious liberty with other civil rights. There is a frisson that can be resolved, maybe to both sides most happy hopes, but so that the essential liberties of both are protected.

Let's be clear. 1st Amendment religious liberty is no less protected than the right to marry

Check the Utah compromise law put together by LGBT and religious groupos, then passed by the legislature.

 

[daws101]

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.

true ,however there is a right that all adults can marry the person of their choosing sexuality is no longer a factor.
don't forget to iron your hood.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Fuck off. That is the only answer to clowns who will not learn. Fuck off.

 

[daws101]

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!

Nice retort. try actually rebutting it, if you can.

already have ..

 

[martybegan]

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.

In this case, yes, CO PA laws must incorporate religious liberty with other civil rights. There is a frisson that can be resolved, maybe to both sides most happy hopes, but so that the essential liberties of both are protected.

Let's be clear. 1st Amendment religious liberty is no less protected than the right to marry

Check the Utah compromise law put together by LGBT and religious groupos, then passed by the legislature.

That view was rejected in both the New Mexico Case and others. They found that religious liberty took a back seat to PA.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

So, you missed the news last week when the Supreme Court said there is?

 

[paddymurphy]

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?

There is no conflict between their beliefs and their livelihood.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

In this case, yes, CO PA laws must incorporate religious liberty with other civil rights. There is a frisson that can be resolved, maybe to both sides most happy hopes, but so that the essential liberties of both are protected.

Let's be clear. 1st Amendment religious liberty is no less protected than the right to marry

Check the Utah compromise law put together by LGBT and religious groupos, then passed by the legislature.

That view was rejected in both the New Mexico Case and others. They found that religious liberty took a back seat to PA.

That's interesting. Then it would be a matter of rewriting the PA law, modeled on the Utah law.

 

[paddymurphy]

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!

Nice retort. try actually rebutting it, if you can.

The federal government did not say that Alabama can't make Abortions illegal. The Supreme Court held that that such laws violate the Constitution, which Alabama, despite their claims otherwise, is bound by. The federal government cannot ban abortions if it wanted to.

 

[daws101]

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.

In this case, yes, CO PA laws must incorporate religious liberty with other civil rights. There is a frisson that can be resolved, maybe to both sides most happy hopes, but so that the essential liberties of both are protected.

Let's be clear. 1st Amendment religious liberty is no less protected than the right to marry

Check the Utah compromise law put together by LGBT and religious groupos, then passed by the legislature.

That view was rejected in both the New Mexico Case and others. They found that religious liberty took a back seat to PA.

that's as it should be
the irony is that all these so called Christian businesses only started using the against my religion ploy when Obama got elected and when the majority of Americans realized gay folk were being treated as second class citizens.
funny it didn't seem to matter when "they" (the religious liberty wankers) "unknowingly "were doing business with gays.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Odd...you brought the issue up

Seems we will never go back to Jim Crow just like we will never go back to blocking same sex marriage

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

In this case, yes, CO PA laws must incorporate religious liberty with other civil rights. There is a frisson that can be resolved, maybe to both sides most happy hopes, but so that the essential liberties of both are protected.

Let's be clear. 1st Amendment religious liberty is no less protected than the right to marry

Check the Utah compromise law put together by LGBT and religious groupos, then passed by the legislature.

That view was rejected in both the New Mexico Case and others. They found that religious liberty took a back seat to PA.

that's as it should be
the irony is that all these so called Christian businesses only started using the against my religion ploy when Obama got elected and when the majority of Americans realized gay folk were being treated as second class citizens.
funny it didn't seem to matter when "they" (the religious liberty wankers) "unknowingly "were doing business with gays.

Or with divorced people, or people living in sin, or others engaging in conduct contrary to the bible.

 

[daws101]

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.

So, you missed the news last week when the Supreme Court said there is?

rabid guy doesn't recognize the legitimacy of scotus.

 

[daws101]

No actually they do not.

yes, they do.

In this case, yes, CO PA laws must incorporate religious liberty with other civil rights. There is a frisson that can be resolved, maybe to both sides most happy hopes, but so that the essential liberties of both are protected.

Let's be clear. 1st Amendment religious liberty is no less protected than the right to marry

Check the Utah compromise law put together by LGBT and religious groupos, then passed by the legislature.

That view was rejected in both the New Mexico Case and others. They found that religious liberty took a back seat to PA.

that's as it should be
the irony is that all these so called Christian businesses only started using the against my religion ploy when Obama got elected and when the majority of Americans realized gay folk were being treated as second class citizens.
funny it didn't seem to matter when "they" (the religious liberty wankers) "unknowingly "were doing business with gays.

Or with divorced people, or people living in sin, or others engaging in conduct contrary to the bible.

the bible is only a ruse with those guys.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Well you're wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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 14th amendment is well over a hundred years old.

 

[NYcarbineer]

our backwards republican christian county is issuing ssm licenses.....didnt hear a peep from the clerks..they just did their jobs and went on

Kind of like the clerks processing Jews for transport to Auschwitz. They were just doing their jobs.

Yes I can see how you would equate clerks issuing marriage licenses to clerks sending Jews off to the Holocaust......

Conservative ignorance on display.

our backwards republican christian county is issuing ssm licenses.....didnt hear a peep from the clerks..they just did their jobs and went on

Kind of like the clerks processing Jews for transport to Auschwitz. They were just doing their jobs.

Yes I can see how you would equate clerks issuing marriage licenses to clerks sending Jews off to the Holocaust......

Conservative ignorance on display.

Maybe we just ask Six-weeks-ago Rabbi what he thinks of such a comparison...

Rabbi?

The GOP is seriously mentally ill Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Yes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Libertarian dislike of SCOTUS is well known and meaningless.