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 🎁
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?
They're claiming delay but may also be testing the waters have picked up momentum in Texas, Kentucky and Alabama
JACKSON, Miss. — Mississippi's attorney general directed circuit court clerks in the state to delay granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples, an hour after the U.S. Supreme Court said gay couples have a right to marry in all 50 states....In Louisiana, Attorney General James "Buddy" Caldwell said in a statement that the Supreme Court's decision had nothing requiring it to be effective immediately. Louisiana GOP Gov. Bobby Jindal, who announced Wednesday that he is running for president, also said that the issue trampled on states' rights and vowed that he would never stop fighting for religious liberty... La. Miss. officials drag feet on issuing same-sex licenses
We'll see if they roll over and piss on themselves over Friday's unconstitutional/overreach legislative "ruling"..
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 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.
if it were just me, you might have a point. But its not. There are many constitutional scholars who have spoken up against these rulings.
But one more time, please quote the language from the 14th amendment where the words "gay marriage" are found.
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.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.
if it were just me, you might have a point. But its not. There are many constitutional scholars who have spoken up against these rulings.
But one more time, please quote the language from the 14th amendment where the words "gay marriage" are found.
why do you think you know anything about the constitution?
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.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 person is forced to be involved in any wedding.
But, if you as a business, sell product or services for weddings, you are obligated to follow business laws- which do not care what religion you are.
Christians are not exempt from business laws- they have to follow them like everyone else.
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 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.
if it were just me, you might have a point. But its not. There are many constitutional scholars who have spoken up against these rulings.
But one more time, please quote the language from the 14th amendment where the words "gay marriage" are found.
if it were just me, you might have a point. But its not. There are many constitutional scholars who have spoken up against these rulings.
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.
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.
if it were just me, you might have a point. But its not. There are many constitutional scholars who have spoken up against these rulings.
But one more time, please quote the language from the 14th amendment where the words "gay marriage" are found.
why do you think you know anything about the constitution?
interesting question. I have an MBA from Harvard, what do you have?
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.
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 person is forced to be involved in any wedding.
But, if you as a business, sell product or services for weddings, you are obligated to follow business laws- which do not care what religion you are.
Christians are not exempt from business laws- they have to follow them like everyone else.
Hmmm, unless you are a baker who is asked to bake a cake with a rebel flag on it.
you libs are so fucked up.
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.I realize I have to use words of one or two syllables for you to undertand.So, you missed the news last week when the Supreme Court said there is?Idiot. There is no right to same sex marriage. Go back to chewing gum.
But up until 20 years ago no one even thought there was a right of same sex marriage. The fact that the Court suddenly found one indicates it doesnt exist.
And in 1965 they had to "find" a right for blacks to marry whites. Before that they had to "find" that blacks could be educated with whites...and on and on.
There were stragglers then and there is you now. History will judge you the same.
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.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.
if it were just me, you might have a point. But its not. There are many constitutional scholars who have spoken up against these rulings.
But one more time, please quote the language from the 14th amendment where the words "gay marriage" are found.
LOL......still in meltdown over Friday.
I think it is time to remind everyone of Redfish's commitment to all of us:
Redfish- his OP 4/29/15
I have made my last post on a gay thread. I hope many of you will follow suit. Let the court do its job and live with the rulings
I am always happy to keep the board informed as to Redfish's commitment to the truth......
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.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.
if it were just me, you might have a point. But its not. There are many constitutional scholars who have spoken up against these rulings.
But one more time, please quote the language from the 14th amendment where the words "gay marriage" are found.
LOL......still in meltdown over Friday.
I think it is time to remind everyone of Redfish's commitment to all of us:
Redfish- his OP 4/29/15
I have made my last post on a gay thread. I hope many of you will follow suit. Let the court do its job and live with the rulings
I am always happy to keep the board informed as to Redfish's commitment to the truth......
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.
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.
if it were just me, you might have a point. But its not. There are many constitutional scholars who have spoken up against these rulings.
But one more time, please quote the language from the 14th amendment where the words "gay marriage" are found.
LOL......still in meltdown over Friday.
I think it is time to remind everyone of Redfish's commitment to all of us:
Redfish- his OP 4/29/15
I have made my last post on a gay thread. I hope many of you will follow suit. Let the court do its job and live with the rulings
I am always happy to keep the board informed as to Redfish's commitment to the truth......
I am living with the rulings. I don't recall ever saying that I would agree with them.
As to gay threads, yeah, I said one thing and did another. BFD
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.
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.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 person is forced to be involved in any wedding.
But, if you as a business, sell product or services for weddings, you are obligated to follow business laws- which do not care what religion you are.
Christians are not exempt from business laws- they have to follow them like everyone else.
Hmmm, unless you are a baker who is asked to bake a cake with a rebel flag on it.
you libs are so fucked up.
Nothing but strawmen and hypocrisy from you today eh Redfish?
No person is forced to be involved in any wedding.
But, if you as a business, sell product or services for weddings, you are obligated to follow business laws- which do not care what religion you are.
Christians are not exempt from business laws- they have to follow them like everyone els
Not disagreeing with you over having some rather extreme GLBT folks who will not be satisfied unless all churches are forced to accept SSM, but the extemists on the other side wouldn't go for just giving ANY adult couple a civil partnership, and just letting the peoples' individual churches decide whether they could be called husband or wifeNo 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.
probably true, what is also true is that if gays had not insisted on using the word 'marriage', this would have been fixed years ago.
now, we have opened a can of worms so that the definition of marriage is whatever anyone wants it to be.
Do not doubt me, polygamous marriage is next.
I realize I have to use words of one or two syllables for you to undertand.So, you missed the news last week when the Supreme Court said there is?Idiot. There is no right to same sex marriage. Go back to chewing gum.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.LOL!!! You're a trip.No. We want laws that follow the constitution. That is the only side.
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.
But up until 20 years ago no one even thought there was a right of same sex marriage. The fact that the Court suddenly found one indicates it doesnt exist.
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.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.
if it were just me, you might have a point. But its not. There are many constitutional scholars who have spoken up against these rulings.
But one more time, please quote the language from the 14th amendment where the words "gay marriage" are found.
LOL......still in meltdown over Friday.
I think it is time to remind everyone of Redfish's commitment to all of us:
Redfish- his OP 4/29/15
I have made my last post on a gay thread. I hope many of you will follow suit. Let the court do its job and live with the rulings
I am always happy to keep the board informed as to Redfish's commitment to the truth......
I am living with the rulings. I don't recall ever saying that I would agree with them.
As to gay threads, yeah, I said one thing and did another. BFD
the ruling doesn't affect you. so how are you "living" with it?
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?
