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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Do you think repeating yourself will do any good? No one ever said that the law prevent blacks from marrying; the law prevented black from marrying whites. That is where the equal protection violation comes in and where the right to "liberty" comes in. I have explained that to you but it does not seem to be sinking in.Nobody said blacks could not marry. What about that is tough for you to comprehend?15 states at the time of the Loving Decision banned interracial marriage. That is someone saying blacks could not marry white folks. It was a crime in Virginia. You went to prison if you mixed the races.No one ever said blacks could not marry.
The state is not refusing. The AG and Governors of every state said that the state will obey the decision. What a couple of idiots have suggested is that clerks can refuse to do their job; can do precisely what the Supreme Court said that they cannot do, discriminate. Their refusal is an official act and will result in both individual liability and liability for the state. The individuals can be removed from office and forced to pay damages. They don't pay damages, they lose their homes and other property.Really? What are they going to do? Throw the state in jail?Happy, happy attorneys. It's all billable hours, that the states will be paying for. Happy days...
Fine them?
If they refuse to pay....then what? Withhold federal tax dollars?
LMAO....
They are not involved in the wedding; they are baking a cake or arranging flowers. The only people "involved" in the wedding are the couple and their guests and the officiant and no religious officiant can be compelled to officiate at a marriage that is contrary to their faith. But, baking a cake is not being involved.There is no conflict between their beliefs and their livelihood.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?
They don't want to be involved in a Same Sex wedding. at all. The State is saying either be involved, or lose your business.
How is that not a conflict?
The judicial part.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.bullshit!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.
Nice retort. try actually rebutting it, if you can.
What part of government is the Supreme Court part of?
Incorrect. Once again, read the 14th Amendment.Correct.I dont see the words "marriage", "abortion" or "privacy" anywhere there. Is there soje magic decoder ring you use?"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."Where is marriage mentioned in the Constitution? Where is a right to privacy? Where is a right to an abortion? I want the exact text that contains these.They did not "find" those rights. Those rights were set out in the Constitution. The right to substantive due process and the right to equal protection. That is what the rabbi is just not bright enough to understand. He still needs menus with pictures so he knows what to order.
Where is integrating schools in the Constitution?
There is nothing in the Constitution against Jim Crow Laws
They are not involved in the wedding; they are baking a cake or arranging flowers. The only people "involved" in the wedding are the couple and their guests and the officiant and no religious officiant can be compelled to officiate at a marriage that is contrary to their faith. But, baking a cake is not being involved.There is no conflict between their beliefs and their livelihood.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?
They don't want to be involved in a Same Sex wedding. at all. The State is saying either be involved, or lose your business.
How is that not a conflict?
The judicial part.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.bullshit!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.
Nice retort. try actually rebutting it, if you can.
What part of government is the Supreme Court part of?
So, you would have no problem with a devout Muslim stoning his daughter to death because she fornicated, in accordance with a strict interpretation of his faith? There are laws and court cases that discuss when it is alleged that there is a conflict between one's faith and one's obedience to law. Those principles determine when religious liberty rights allow a person to not follow a law that the rest of us follow. Those principles state that "Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability." So the Court decides whether the law causes a substantial burden on the exercise of one's faith. Asking a minister to be forced to officiate? Clearly creates a substantial burden. Baking a cake, probably not. But, the government, through the courts, gets to decide. That is the way it always has been.that's as it should beIn 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.No actually they do not.
yes, they do.
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.
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.
Your rant is not material to the discussion. Again, who are you and government to determine how a person practices their religion?
So we trade treating gay people as "second class citizens" with treating people of faith as "second class citizens"? So it's all about revenge, right?
They did state that states have the power to set marriage terms. They went on to address what Windsor did not; whether those terms deny marriage to same sex couples violates the right of those couples to liberty or equal protection of the laws and found, correctly, that they did.Had they been consistent with Windsor they would have ruled that states have power to set marriage terms.Fake Rabbi is a timesuck, and probably not even a Jew. But, the "discussion," esp with Paddy and Seawytch, illustrates some of the debate among conservatives on the issue. During oral argument in Windsor, Scalia asked either Olson or Boies when did this right of homosexuals to arise, and the attorney said when did the right in Loving arise. Judges don't like questions, but it was a response - the right arose when the scotus said there was a right. THAT is not ok with judicial or constitutional conservatives. Maybe one can make the argument that Anti-miscegenation laws were never constitutional after the 14th amendment. But you can't make the same claim for gay marriage because there's no way to rationally argue that the 14th was ever intended to apply to glbt. To a constitutional conservative, an argument based on the rational that the constitution can come to mean something different is an anathema. And, I admit I'm not a real adherent to this, but I thought the scotus should have dodged this issue. Anti-miscegenation laws were not going to change for a hundred years even after their hatred and bigotry were exposed. Gay marriage was breaking out in the states faster than measles amongst white upper class new age idiots in California.
And the rational of Windsor already would have protected gays in challenging state laws that discriminated against them in taxes, healthcare decisions, estate planning, childcare, etc.
I don't think you should force them. I think that you should pick people you know and trust. And religious freedom applies to everyone. But you can only avoid complying with laws of general application if to comply would substantially burden you religious freedom. Baking a cake does not.They are not involved in the wedding; they are baking a cake or arranging flowers. The only people "involved" in the wedding are the couple and their guests and the officiant and no religious officiant can be compelled to officiate at a marriage that is contrary to their faith. But, baking a cake is not being involved.There is no conflict between their beliefs and their livelihood.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?
They don't want to be involved in a Same Sex wedding. at all. The State is saying either be involved, or lose your business.
How is that not a conflict?
All of my vendors meet with me for my wedding, they interact with me, and some of them attend the wedding. They are involved with it. Why should I force them to be involved if they do not want to be involved? Why should I make them choose between doing something they do not want to do, and going out of business?
Also, tell me where in the constitution is religious freedom only limited to officiants?
When their job is to administer the law, then it is not about their freedom; it is about their imposition of their beliefs, contrary to the law, on the citizens. They are part of the government so their refusal to do what the law requires that they do is the tyranny. These are not questions that the Courts have not already addressed numerous times. If your faith would preclude you from participating in an abortion, you might not want to work at an abortion clinic. If your faith would prevent you from participating in an execution, you might not want to work on death row. How about a family division judge. Should that Judge be permitted to deny a divorce to Catholics because he or she is Catholic and divorce is contrary to his faith?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.
Then you are not about freedom, you are about tyranny.
In practice, they did.Yes, but those marriage terms could not mean that a gay couple could not have the same economic benefits of marriage as a straight couple.Had they been consistent with Windsor they would have ruled that states have power to set marriage terms.Fake Rabbi is a timesuck, and probably not even a Jew. But, the "discussion," esp with Paddy and Seawytch, illustrates some of the debate among conservatives on the issue. During oral argument in Windsor, Scalia asked either Olson or Boies when did this right of homosexuals to arise, and the attorney said when did the right in Loving arise. Judges don't like questions, but it was a response - the right arose when the scotus said there was a right. THAT is not ok with judicial or constitutional conservatives. Maybe one can make the argument that Anti-miscegenation laws were never constitutional after the 14th amendment. But you can't make the same claim for gay marriage because there's no way to rationally argue that the 14th was ever intended to apply to glbt. To a constitutional conservative, an argument based on the rational that the constitution can come to mean something different is an anathema. And, I admit I'm not a real adherent to this, but I thought the scotus should have dodged this issue. Anti-miscegenation laws were not going to change for a hundred years even after their hatred and bigotry were exposed. Gay marriage was breaking out in the states faster than measles amongst white upper class new age idiots in California.
And the rational of Windsor already would have protected gays in challenging state laws that discriminated against them in taxes, healthcare decisions, estate planning, childcare, etc.
No. We want laws that follow the constitution. That is the only side.Thank you for admitting this is all about punishing people for their beliefs.Good. They should be sued for not doing their fucking jobs.Clerks are already being sued for not issuing marriage certificates.
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.
They are not involved in the wedding; they are baking a cake or arranging flowers. The only people "involved" in the wedding are the couple and their guests and the officiant and no religious officiant can be compelled to officiate at a marriage that is contrary to their faith. But, baking a cake is not being involved.There is no conflict between their beliefs and their livelihood.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?
They don't want to be involved in a Same Sex wedding. at all. The State is saying either be involved, or lose your business.
How is that not a conflict?
All of my vendors meet with me for my wedding, they interact with me, and some of them attend the wedding. They are involved with it. Why should I force them to be involved if they do not want to be involved? Why should I make them choose between doing something they do not want to do, and going out of business?
Also, tell me where in the constitution is religious freedom only limited to officiants?
No. We want laws that follow the constitution. That is the only side.Thank you for admitting this is all about punishing people for their beliefs.Good. They should be sued for not doing their fucking jobs.
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.
the rulings last week by the SC do not follow the constitution. They decided those cases based on politics, not the law. They should all be impeached.
And since you have no fucking clue what the constitution states or what the hundreds of Supreme Court decisions addressing the 14th Amendment provide, your opinion is useless.No. We want laws that follow the constitution. That is the only side.Thank you for admitting this is all about punishing people for their beliefs.Good. They should be sued for not doing their fucking jobs.
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.
the rulings last week by the SC do not follow the constitution. They decided those cases based on politics, not the law. They should all be impeached.
Had they been decided on politics, your side would have won.No. We want laws that follow the constitution. That is the only side.Thank you for admitting this is all about punishing people for their beliefs.Good. They should be sued for not doing their fucking jobs.
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.
the rulings last week by the SC do not follow the constitution. They decided those cases based on politics, not the law. They should all be impeached.
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
No they did not. Gay couples don't have equality in healthcare decisions, childrearing, estate planning, etc. If the idiot state politician bigots would have fixed the law, the scotus opinion wouldn't have happened.In practice, they did.Yes, but those marriage terms could not mean that a gay couple could not have the same economic benefits of marriage as a straight couple.Had they been consistent with Windsor they would have ruled that states have power to set marriage terms.Fake Rabbi is a timesuck, and probably not even a Jew. But, the "discussion," esp with Paddy and Seawytch, illustrates some of the debate among conservatives on the issue. During oral argument in Windsor, Scalia asked either Olson or Boies when did this right of homosexuals to arise, and the attorney said when did the right in Loving arise. Judges don't like questions, but it was a response - the right arose when the scotus said there was a right. THAT is not ok with judicial or constitutional conservatives. Maybe one can make the argument that Anti-miscegenation laws were never constitutional after the 14th amendment. But you can't make the same claim for gay marriage because there's no way to rationally argue that the 14th was ever intended to apply to glbt. To a constitutional conservative, an argument based on the rational that the constitution can come to mean something different is an anathema. And, I admit I'm not a real adherent to this, but I thought the scotus should have dodged this issue. Anti-miscegenation laws were not going to change for a hundred years even after their hatred and bigotry were exposed. Gay marriage was breaking out in the states faster than measles amongst white upper class new age idiots in California.
And the rational of Windsor already would have protected gays in challenging state laws that discriminated against them in taxes, healthcare decisions, estate planning, childcare, etc.
And since you have no fucking clue what the constitution states or what the hundreds of Supreme Court decisions addressing the 14th Amendment provide, your opinion is useless.No. We want laws that follow the constitution. That is the only side.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.
the rulings last week by the SC do not follow the constitution. They decided those cases based on politics, not the law. They should all be impeached.
