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

[paddymurphy]

The authors of the Constitution did not anticipate women voting, blacks voting, and all sorts of things when they wrote the Constitution.

Luckily the Constitution still covers everyone.

thats why they made provisions for constitutional amendments. Seriously, the best way to solve this forever would be to process and ratify a constitutional amendment saying that a marriage is defined at a union of two people, period.

No. The way to do it was to apply the 14th Amendment. That sure worked, didn't it?

for now, the problem is that a future SC could overturn that decision, if you get an amendment it prevents that as well as any kinds of multiple person marriage.

No need to amend the constitution to satisfy the bigotry of folks like you.

I am not a bigot. I have given you a solution that would secure your beliefs forever in the USA. Are you afraid that a constitutional amendment would fail?

Sure you are. Most bigots either won't admit it or don't know. Not sure which is you. There is no need to amend the constitution when it already written in a manner that takes care of the problem. The constitution prohibits the law from treating people differently absent a compelling reason for doing so and the government cannot restrict the liberty of a citizen, particularly when a fundamental right is involved, without a compelling reason to do so.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

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?

We don't serve negroes here

 

[Syriusly]

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

Speaking of stupid......

Redfish 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

bullshit, bakers and florists have been sued for refusing to participate in gay weddings. Are you living in a cave?

One Baker and One Florist who happen to live in one of the few states that actually ban discrimination against gays. You should be happy to know that in most of the Country gay people can be fired for being gay, evicted for being gay and denied services for being gay.

so can straight people be denied service --------- for no shirt, no shoes, or no reason at all. Its called freedom, something that seems a foreign concept to liberals of today

They cannot be denied because of race; they cannot be denied because of religion; they cannot be denied because of ethnicity; they cannot be denied because of gender and in those few states with laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, a straight couple cannot be denied because they are gay. How is you wanting to deny gay people the ability to marry consistent with your love of freedom?

I have said many times that I want gay couples to have all of the rights and benefits of man/woman married couples.

civil unions would have solved the issue, but no, the gay agenda had to insist on the word 'marriage'.
.

Because Americans have a legal right to marriage- not to civil unions.

Georgians could sue to overturn Georgia's ban on same gender marriage- since marriage is a right- but had no grounds to sue Georgia for its ban on Civil Unions- since there is no right to a civil union.

 

[Redfish]

bullshit, bakers and florists have been sued for refusing to participate in gay weddings. Are you living in a cave?

One Baker and One Florist who happen to live in one of the few states that actually ban discrimination against gays. You should be happy to know that in most of the Country gay people can be fired for being gay, evicted for being gay and denied services for being gay.

so can straight people be denied service --------- for no shirt, no shoes, or no reason at all. Its called freedom, something that seems a foreign concept to liberals of today

They cannot be denied because of race; they cannot be denied because of religion; they cannot be denied because of ethnicity; they cannot be denied because of gender and in those few states with laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, a straight couple cannot be denied because they are gay. How is you wanting to deny gay people the ability to marry consistent with your love of freedom?

I have said many times that I want gay couples to have all of the rights and benefits of man/woman married couples.

civil unions would have solved the issue, but no, the gay agenda had to insist on the word 'marriage'.

face it, this is not about equal rights, its about using government mandates to force societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition.

until you admit the true agenda, this will continue.

When you concede all of the argument except the use of the word 'marriage', you have by your own reasoning lost the argument.

nope, that was you who lost, the only thing that matters to you on the left is the word 'marriage'. it was never about equality or discrimination. and you fricken well know it.

 

[bendog]

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.

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?

We don't serve negroes here

Good, cause I don't eat em. (-:

 

[mdk]

The authors of the Constitution did not anticipate women voting, blacks voting, and all sorts of things when they wrote the Constitution.

Luckily the Constitution still covers everyone.

thats why they made provisions for constitutional amendments. Seriously, the best way to solve this forever would be to process and ratify a constitutional amendment saying that a marriage is defined at a union of two people, period.

No. The way to do it was to apply the 14th Amendment. That sure worked, didn't it?

for now, the problem is that a future SC could overturn that decision, if you get an amendment it prevents that as well as any kinds of multiple person marriage.

No need to amend the constitution to satisfy the bigotry of folks like you.

I am not a bigot. I have given you a solution that would secure your beliefs forever in the USA. Are you afraid that a constitutional amendment would fail?

It seems those claims of yours where you said you would live with ruling of the court was utter horseshit. Shocking!

 

[Syriusly]

No, there are not many who have. Those words do not appear there, you absolutely moronic fool. The words Liberty and Equal Protection of the Laws do. That you are too fucking stupid to understand the scope of those words is your burden.

do you think the authors of the constitution anticipated gay marriage when they wrote those words? of course not, thats why this argument has been shot down by many constitutional scholars on both sides of the aisle.

and if the insults continue, you will be reported.

The authors of the Constitution did not anticipate women voting, blacks voting, and all sorts of things when they wrote the Constitution.

Luckily the Constitution still covers everyone.

thats why they made provisions for constitutional amendments. Seriously, the best way to solve this forever would be to process and ratify a constitutional amendment saying that a marriage is defined at a union of two people, period.

Or not.

Since the issue has been resolved to my satisfaction.

We didn't need a constitutional Amendment to overturn mixed race marriage bans- we don't need an amendment to overturn gay marriage bans.

well then, get ready for all forms of multiple person marriage, the precedent is set, they will use the exact same arguments that you have successfully used.

Assuming you are against plural marriages- if you don't have an argument on why you oppose plural marriages today- then you didn't have one on Thursday.

Either you have an argument- or you don't- do you have one?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, there are not many who have. Those words do not appear there, you absolutely moronic fool. The words Liberty and Equal Protection of the Laws do. That you are too fucking stupid to understand the scope of those words is your burden.

do you think the authors of the constitution anticipated gay marriage when they wrote those words? of course not, thats why this argument has been shot down by many constitutional scholars on both sides of the aisle.

and if the insults continue, you will be reported.

The authors of the Constitution did not anticipate women voting, blacks voting, and all sorts of things when they wrote the Constitution.

Luckily the Constitution still covers everyone.

thats why they made provisions for constitutional amendments. Seriously, the best way to solve this forever would be to process and ratify a constitutional amendment saying that a marriage is defined at a union of two people, period.

No. The way to do it was to apply the 14th Amendment. That sure worked, didn't it?

for now, the problem is that a future SC could overturn that decision, if you get an amendment it prevents that as well as any kinds of multiple person marriage.

Keep fighting loudly and meanly, and you will drive nearly every millennial vote to the Dem candidate. If that happens, you will have 99% chance of never getting a shot at it. An amendment is an impossibility. A SC reversal a possibility but not a probability. But piss off the millennials, and your door is closed forever.

 

[bendog]

bullshit, bakers and florists have been sued for refusing to participate in gay weddings. Are you living in a cave?

One Baker and One Florist who happen to live in one of the few states that actually ban discrimination against gays. You should be happy to know that in most of the Country gay people can be fired for being gay, evicted for being gay and denied services for being gay.

so can straight people be denied service --------- for no shirt, no shoes, or no reason at all. Its called freedom, something that seems a foreign concept to liberals of today

They cannot be denied because of race; they cannot be denied because of religion; they cannot be denied because of ethnicity; they cannot be denied because of gender and in those few states with laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, a straight couple cannot be denied because they are gay. How is you wanting to deny gay people the ability to marry consistent with your love of freedom?

I have said many times that I want gay couples to have all of the rights and benefits of man/woman married couples.

civil unions would have solved the issue, but no, the gay agenda had to insist on the word 'marriage'.
.

Because Americans have a legal right to marriage- not to civil unions.

Georgians could sue to overturn Georgia's ban on same gender marriage- since marriage is a right- but had no grounds to sue Georgia for its ban on Civil Unions- since there is no right to a civil union.

Well that is the rub. Marriage has always been a state issue, unless it involves full faith and credit of equal protection. But, I don't see any reason a state cannot amend its laws and have civil unions for all and marriage for none.

 

[Redfish]

bullshit, bakers and florists have been sued for refusing to participate in gay weddings. Are you living in a cave?

One Baker and One Florist who happen to live in one of the few states that actually ban discrimination against gays. You should be happy to know that in most of the Country gay people can be fired for being gay, evicted for being gay and denied services for being gay.

so can straight people be denied service --------- for no shirt, no shoes, or no reason at all. Its called freedom, something that seems a foreign concept to liberals of today

I look forward to the Conservative campaign to end the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and telling America that no one deserves protection against discrimination based upon their race, religion, national origin or gender.

Should help the Republicans in amazing ways.

first, no one has proposed or suggested something that stupid
second, the civil rights was passed by republicans while dems tried to fillibuster it.

So you are against PA laws- such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act- but you don't want to end them- well as consistent as anything you have ever posted.

And the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed by Democrats- with Republican support- with Southern opposition- every Democratic and Republican Senator from the South.

again, quote the language from the civil rights act where the words "gay marriage" are used.

Robert KKK Byrd was a democrat, so was Al Gore Sr. sorry but you cannot change that piece of history.

 

[Redfish]

do you think the authors of the constitution anticipated gay marriage when they wrote those words? of course not, thats why this argument has been shot down by many constitutional scholars on both sides of the aisle.

and if the insults continue, you will be reported.

The authors of the Constitution did not anticipate women voting, blacks voting, and all sorts of things when they wrote the Constitution.

Luckily the Constitution still covers everyone.

thats why they made provisions for constitutional amendments. Seriously, the best way to solve this forever would be to process and ratify a constitutional amendment saying that a marriage is defined at a union of two people, period.

No. The way to do it was to apply the 14th Amendment. That sure worked, didn't it?

for now, the problem is that a future SC could overturn that decision, if you get an amendment it prevents that as well as any kinds of multiple person marriage.

Keep fighting loudly and meanly, and you will drive nearly every millennial vote to the Dem candidate. If that happens, you will have 99% chance of never getting a shot at it. An amendment is an impossibility. A SC reversal a possibility but not a probability. But piss off the millennials, and your door is closed forever.

an amendment would prevent a reversal. thats all I am saying. I'm trying to help you.

 

[Syriusly]

No, there are not many who have. Those words do not appear there, you absolutely moronic fool. The words Liberty and Equal Protection of the Laws do. That you are too fucking stupid to understand the scope of those words is your burden.

do you think the authors of the constitution anticipated gay marriage when they wrote those words? of course not, thats why this argument has been shot down by many constitutional scholars on both sides of the aisle.

and if the insults continue, you will be reported.

The authors of the Constitution did not anticipate women voting, blacks voting, and all sorts of things when they wrote the Constitution.

Luckily the Constitution still covers everyone.

thats why they made provisions for constitutional amendments. Seriously, the best way to solve this forever would be to process and ratify a constitutional amendment saying that a marriage is defined at a union of two people, period.

No. The way to do it was to apply the 14th Amendment. That sure worked, didn't it?

for now, the problem is that a future SC could overturn that decision, if you get an amendment it prevents that as well as any kinds of multiple person marriage.

A future Supreme Court could overturn Loving v. Virginia- or the courts decision on overturning bans on contraceptives.

But we haven't needed amendments- and don't need one now.

 

[Syriusly]

The authors of the Constitution did not anticipate women voting, blacks voting, and all sorts of things when they wrote the Constitution.

Luckily the Constitution still covers everyone.

thats why they made provisions for constitutional amendments. Seriously, the best way to solve this forever would be to process and ratify a constitutional amendment saying that a marriage is defined at a union of two people, period.

No. The way to do it was to apply the 14th Amendment. That sure worked, didn't it?

for now, the problem is that a future SC could overturn that decision, if you get an amendment it prevents that as well as any kinds of multiple person marriage.

Keep fighting loudly and meanly, and you will drive nearly every millennial vote to the Dem candidate. If that happens, you will have 99% chance of never getting a shot at it. An amendment is an impossibility. A SC reversal a possibility but not a probability. But piss off the millennials, and your door is closed forever.

an amendment would prevent a reversal. thats all I am saying. I'm trying to help you.

Anyone else checking to make sure Redfish's hand isn't in their wallet as he was saying 'I'm trying to help you'?

 

[Syriusly]

One Baker and One Florist who happen to live in one of the few states that actually ban discrimination against gays. You should be happy to know that in most of the Country gay people can be fired for being gay, evicted for being gay and denied services for being gay.

so can straight people be denied service --------- for no shirt, no shoes, or no reason at all. Its called freedom, something that seems a foreign concept to liberals of today

I look forward to the Conservative campaign to end the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and telling America that no one deserves protection against discrimination based upon their race, religion, national origin or gender.

Should help the Republicans in amazing ways.

first, no one has proposed or suggested something that stupid
second, the civil rights was passed by republicans while dems tried to fillibuster it.

So you are against PA laws- such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act- but you don't want to end them- well as consistent as anything you have ever posted.

And the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed by Democrats- with Republican support- with Southern opposition- every Democratic and Republican Senator from the South.

again, quote the language from the civil rights act where the words "gay marriage" are used.

You have a real problem with internal consistency- as in you have none.

You are against PA laws- when they apply to homosexuals- are you against PA laws- such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act- just because it doesn't apply to homosexuals?

 

[mdk]

One Baker and One Florist who happen to live in one of the few states that actually ban discrimination against gays. You should be happy to know that in most of the Country gay people can be fired for being gay, evicted for being gay and denied services for being gay.

so can straight people be denied service --------- for no shirt, no shoes, or no reason at all. Its called freedom, something that seems a foreign concept to liberals of today

They cannot be denied because of race; they cannot be denied because of religion; they cannot be denied because of ethnicity; they cannot be denied because of gender and in those few states with laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, a straight couple cannot be denied because they are gay. How is you wanting to deny gay people the ability to marry consistent with your love of freedom?

I have said many times that I want gay couples to have all of the rights and benefits of man/woman married couples.

civil unions would have solved the issue, but no, the gay agenda had to insist on the word 'marriage'.

face it, this is not about equal rights, its about using government mandates to force societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition.

until you admit the true agenda, this will continue.

When you concede all of the argument except the use of the word 'marriage', you have by your own reasoning lost the argument.

nope, that was you who lost, the only thing that matters to you on the left is the word 'marriage'. it was never about equality or discrimination. and you fricken well know it.

Oh bullshit! The instant states started offering civil unions to gay couples the social cons in quite a few states banned them and refused to recognize them from other states. It was too close to marriage for their liking. That is when the gay marriage movement picked up steam and went into overdrive.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

do you think the authors of the constitution anticipated gay marriage when they wrote those words? of course not, thats why this argument has been shot down by many constitutional scholars on both sides of the aisle.

and if the insults continue, you will be reported.

The authors of the Constitution did not anticipate women voting, blacks voting, and all sorts of things when they wrote the Constitution.

Luckily the Constitution still covers everyone.

thats why they made provisions for constitutional amendments. Seriously, the best way to solve this forever would be to process and ratify a constitutional amendment saying that a marriage is defined at a union of two people, period.

Or not.

Since the issue has been resolved to my satisfaction.

We didn't need a constitutional Amendment to overturn mixed race marriage bans- we don't need an amendment to overturn gay marriage bans.

well then, get ready for all forms of multiple person marriage, the precedent is set, they will use the exact same arguments that you have successfully used.

Assuming you are against plural marriages- if you don't have an argument on why you oppose plural marriages today- then you didn't have one on Thursday.

Either you have an argument- or you don't- do you have one?

Why not be tolerant and inclusive and let Mississippi exercise its long standing religious rights rather the subject it too the whims of a judge 1000 miles away.

 

[Syriusly]

One Baker and One Florist who happen to live in one of the few states that actually ban discrimination against gays. You should be happy to know that in most of the Country gay people can be fired for being gay, evicted for being gay and denied services for being gay.

so can straight people be denied service --------- for no shirt, no shoes, or no reason at all. Its called freedom, something that seems a foreign concept to liberals of today

I look forward to the Conservative campaign to end the 1964 Civil Rights Act- and telling America that no one deserves protection against discrimination based upon their race, religion, national origin or gender.

Should help the Republicans in amazing ways.

first, no one has proposed or suggested something that stupid
second, the civil rights was passed by republicans while dems tried to fillibuster it.

So you are against PA laws- such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act- but you don't want to end them- well as consistent as anything you have ever posted.

And the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed by Democrats- with Republican support- with Southern opposition- every Democratic and Republican Senator from the South.

Robert KKK Byrd was a democrat, so was Al Gore Sr. sorry but you cannot change that piece of history.

History is pretty clear- glad to provide the dates and numbers- which you will ignore as the truth is inconvenient to your agenda:

June 1963- President John F. Kennedy (Democrat) proposes the first form of what will become the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
November 1963- President Kennedy assasinated.
November 1963- Lyndon Johnson(Democrat)- pushes for passage of the bill in a joint session of Congress

When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.

After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Everett Dirksen (R-IL), Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), and Mike Mansfield (D-MT) introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican swing votes to end the filibuster. T

And finally signed by Lyndon Johnson- Democrat

Vote count:
Senate:
Democrats: 46-21
Republicans: 27-6

House
Democrats: 153-91
Republicans: 136-35

As I said- passed by Democrats- with Republican support- and with Democratic opposition.

Proposed by Democrats, pushed through Congress by Democrats and Republicans, with more Democrats voting yes, than Republicans voting yes.

 

[Syriusly]

The authors of the Constitution did not anticipate women voting, blacks voting, and all sorts of things when they wrote the Constitution.

Luckily the Constitution still covers everyone.

thats why they made provisions for constitutional amendments. Seriously, the best way to solve this forever would be to process and ratify a constitutional amendment saying that a marriage is defined at a union of two people, period.

Or not.

Since the issue has been resolved to my satisfaction.

We didn't need a constitutional Amendment to overturn mixed race marriage bans- we don't need an amendment to overturn gay marriage bans.

well then, get ready for all forms of multiple person marriage, the precedent is set, they will use the exact same arguments that you have successfully used.

Assuming you are against plural marriages- if you don't have an argument on why you oppose plural marriages today- then you didn't have one on Thursday.

Either you have an argument- or you don't- do you have one?

Why not be tolerant and inclusive and let Mississippi exercise its long standing religious rights rather the subject it too the whims of a judge 1000 miles away.

Assuming you are against plural marriages- if you don't have an argument on why you oppose plural marriages today- then you didn't have one on Thursday.

Either you have an argument- or you don't- do you have one?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Wow! 54 pages of gnashing and wailing just on this thread and nothing has even changed for any of them. The Cons should thank us for talking them through their grief.

 

[bendog]

so can straight people be denied service --------- for no shirt, no shoes, or no reason at all. Its called freedom, something that seems a foreign concept to liberals of today

They cannot be denied because of race; they cannot be denied because of religion; they cannot be denied because of ethnicity; they cannot be denied because of gender and in those few states with laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, a straight couple cannot be denied because they are gay. How is you wanting to deny gay people the ability to marry consistent with your love of freedom?

I have said many times that I want gay couples to have all of the rights and benefits of man/woman married couples.

civil unions would have solved the issue, but no, the gay agenda had to insist on the word 'marriage'.

face it, this is not about equal rights, its about using government mandates to force societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition.

until you admit the true agenda, this will continue.

When you concede all of the argument except the use of the word 'marriage', you have by your own reasoning lost the argument.

nope, that was you who lost, the only thing that matters to you on the left is the word 'marriage'. it was never about equality or discrimination. and you fricken well know it.

Oh bullshit! The instant states started offering civil unions to gay couples the social cons in quite a few states banned them and refused to recognize them from other states. It was too close to marriage for their liking. That is when the gay marriage movement picked up steam and went into overdrive.