Obama admin admits SSM is threat to religious liberty

[bodecea]

You're right I suppose driving gay people towards drugs and suicide is not the same as a gay lynch mob. Though why the fuck your bringing up gay lynch mobs makes no sense.

Are evangelicals are cowards for trying to write their beliefs into the government then?

What do you think of Sharia law asshole? Should people be practicing that in the U.S.? Is it cowardice to make sure the government never allows it?

if you actually read the post I was responding to, it was in reply to body saying evangelicals are only held by the law from going out and killing gays. Context man, context.

I don't agree with their efforts to legislate morality either, however your side is the one running to courts, and commissions, and is the side actually trying to ruin people for their beliefs. If they manage to actually start doing it, I would be against them as well.

Sharia law is stupid as well, and I oppose it when people attempt to implement it as part of governmental law. What I don't do is try to force people to not follow sharia law voluntarily. Your side is making people choose between faith and secular law. That is the main issue.

Correct....because I learn from history and human nature.

No, you need to demonize people you disagree with to justify your own uncalled for actions.

Well, that's an ironic statement considering the years and years and years of demonizing the Far Right Religionists have done to us....calling us perverted, calling us pedophiles, calling us sub-human, calling us criminals, saying we threaten their children, saying we threaten their religious rights.....

Until a few decades ago it was pretty much everyone, all religions, and even those not so religious. And yet there were no mass executions, no purges, just social shunning, criminalization, and the occasional murder (notice I call it murder, which is a crime). All bad, and not acceptable by truly moral people, but not the "kill all the gays" pogrom you expect if the law didn't stop people from killing.

and nice use of lumping your fears with what your side is actually doing. The fact you have to use dishonesty and attempted gotcha posts shows the weakness of your argument.

So you deny gay-bashings.....shunnings....arrests....locking into mental hospitals...

Got it.

 

[martybegan]

US COnstitution be damned, eh, dum-dum?

The Supreme Court has the authority to decide whether or not same sex marriage is a right that can stand despite the whinings of the religious factions.

As usual, running to 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers. For all your purported love of democracy you sure do run to the one branch of our government that resembles oligarchy a lot.

Where would you go to ensure the 2nd amendment is adhered to?

Not a court in the State of NY, that's for sure. And again, the 2nd is explicit to arms, find me the word marriage or abortion, or even people in corporations lose their rights to free speech in the constitution and then you may have a point.

That's not an answer to the question.

Where would you go to ensure the 2nd amendment is adhered to?

It is, you just don't like the answer. Your attempted "gotcha" is a failure.

 

[martybegan]

if you actually read the post I was responding to, it was in reply to body saying evangelicals are only held by the law from going out and killing gays. Context man, context.

I don't agree with their efforts to legislate morality either, however your side is the one running to courts, and commissions, and is the side actually trying to ruin people for their beliefs. If they manage to actually start doing it, I would be against them as well.

Sharia law is stupid as well, and I oppose it when people attempt to implement it as part of governmental law. What I don't do is try to force people to not follow sharia law voluntarily. Your side is making people choose between faith and secular law. That is the main issue.

Correct....because I learn from history and human nature.

No, you need to demonize people you disagree with to justify your own uncalled for actions.

Well, that's an ironic statement considering the years and years and years of demonizing the Far Right Religionists have done to us....calling us perverted, calling us pedophiles, calling us sub-human, calling us criminals, saying we threaten their children, saying we threaten their religious rights.....

Until a few decades ago it was pretty much everyone, all religions, and even those not so religious. And yet there were no mass executions, no purges, just social shunning, criminalization, and the occasional murder (notice I call it murder, which is a crime). All bad, and not acceptable by truly moral people, but not the "kill all the gays" pogrom you expect if the law didn't stop people from killing.

and nice use of lumping your fears with what your side is actually doing. The fact you have to use dishonesty and attempted gotcha posts shows the weakness of your argument.

So you deny gay-bashings.....shunnings....arrests....locking into mental hospitals...

Got it.

I actually admitted it happened in my post. try reading it.

 

[martybegan]

Bullshit. A overwhelming majority of evangelicals want to be left alone, not go out on gay lynch parties. That you have to equate opposition to your lifestyle with a desire to kill you is both sad and disturbing.

How exactly does someone getting married on the other side of the state infringe on their lives?

When those who support those marriages use its legal existence to force them to do something they don't want to do. Its a car on the same long train between marriage and then forcing bakers to bake cakes they don't want to. Your side wants to separate the issues, similar to boiling a frog slowly, but that trick doesn't work with me, and people who think like me.

According to the Pew Research center, there are over 70,000 gay marriages in the United States.

How many same-sex marriages in the U.S. At least 71 165 probably more Pew Research Center

How many butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers have been sued? Maybe 6. I really don't pay too much attention but I bet you know the number. Feel free to enlighten us; divide that number by the number of marriages (technically 71,165) and you'll end up with less than 1% of gay marriages ever making a ripple in a pond much less headlines. Since you know the numbers better than us, would you please do the math and arrive at the actual figure?

If it is such a small number then why is the State making such a big deal over it?

The constitution applies to all people regardless of how small the number may be.

Thank you for proving my repeated point that this is such a small deal for gay couples that government action isn't warranted.

Laws protect all persons...there is no limit based on quantity.


Would you feel the same if someone wanted to stop blacks from marrying whites? It, too, is a small percentage. Should they enjoy protection from the law? If there is a difference...please explain your allowance of one group and your objection to the other.

Because race is not the same as sexual orientation, despite all your attempts and logical leaps to the contrary. And if a small amount of bakers want to not bake for gay weddings, the overall impact on other has to be taken into account, and considering there are plenty of other bakers who have no issue with this, State force is not mandated.

 

[martybegan]

Bullshit. A overwhelming majority of evangelicals want to be left alone, not go out on gay lynch parties. That you have to equate opposition to your lifestyle with a desire to kill you is both sad and disturbing.

How exactly does someone getting married on the other side of the state infringe on their lives?

When those who support those marriages use its legal existence to force them to do something they don't want to do. Its a car on the same long train between marriage and then forcing bakers to bake cakes they don't want to. Your side wants to separate the issues, similar to boiling a frog slowly, but that trick doesn't work with me, and people who think like me.

According to the Pew Research center, there are over 70,000 gay marriages in the United States.

How many same-sex marriages in the U.S. At least 71 165 probably more Pew Research Center

How many butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers have been sued? Maybe 6. I really don't pay too much attention but I bet you know the number. Feel free to enlighten us; divide that number by the number of marriages (technically 71,165) and you'll end up with less than 1% of gay marriages ever making a ripple in a pond much less headlines. Since you know the numbers better than us, would you please do the math and arrive at the actual figure?

If it is such a small number then why is the State making such a big deal over it? Thank you for proving my repeated point that this is such a small deal for gay couples that government action isn't warranted.

So if a city wanted to ban handguns and only a few dozen people were affected, that's their business?

No, because congress is prohibited from making infringements on arms, and the 14th incorporates that to the States. Since local governments get their mandate from state constitutions, it applies to them as well.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Well at least they admit it. But people paying attention already knew this.

‘It’s going to be an issue’: Obama admin admits to Supreme Court that gay ‘marriage’ threatens religious liberty

April 29, 2015 (AlbertMohler.com) -- “It is … it is going to be an issue.” With those words, spoken yesterday before the Supreme Court of the Unites States, the Solicitor General of the United States announced that religious liberty is directly threatened by the legalization of same-sex marriage. Donald Verrili, representing the Obama Administration as the nation’s highest court considered again the issue of same-sex marriage, was responding to a question from Justice Samuel Alito. His answer confirms with candor the threat we have long seen coming.

It s going to be an issue Obama admin admits to Supreme Court that gay marriage threatens religious liberty Opinion LifeSite

Civil law already forbids exercising many religious tenets and commandments. Hasn't kept anyone from being those religions though.

Can't sell daughters into slavery as the Bible permits.
Can't execute rebellious children either, also permitted by the Bible.

People clammoring for religious liberty don't know what the fuck their own religions permit.

 

[bodecea]

How exactly does someone getting married on the other side of the state infringe on their lives?

When those who support those marriages use its legal existence to force them to do something they don't want to do. Its a car on the same long train between marriage and then forcing bakers to bake cakes they don't want to. Your side wants to separate the issues, similar to boiling a frog slowly, but that trick doesn't work with me, and people who think like me.

According to the Pew Research center, there are over 70,000 gay marriages in the United States.

How many same-sex marriages in the U.S. At least 71 165 probably more Pew Research Center

How many butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers have been sued? Maybe 6. I really don't pay too much attention but I bet you know the number. Feel free to enlighten us; divide that number by the number of marriages (technically 71,165) and you'll end up with less than 1% of gay marriages ever making a ripple in a pond much less headlines. Since you know the numbers better than us, would you please do the math and arrive at the actual figure?

If it is such a small number then why is the State making such a big deal over it?

The constitution applies to all people regardless of how small the number may be.

Thank you for proving my repeated point that this is such a small deal for gay couples that government action isn't warranted.

Laws protect all persons...there is no limit based on quantity.


Would you feel the same if someone wanted to stop blacks from marrying whites? It, too, is a small percentage. Should they enjoy protection from the law? If there is a difference...please explain your allowance of one group and your objection to the other.

Because race is not the same as sexual orientation, despite all your attempts and logical leaps to the contrary. And if a small amount of bakers want to not bake for gay weddings, the overall impact on other has to be taken into account, and considering there are plenty of other bakers who have no issue with this, State force is not mandated.

You are correct that race isn't the same as sexual orientation. It's also not the same as gender. It's also not the same as religion. It's also not the same as physical ability. It's also not the same as national/cultural origin.

And yet.......all that I mentioned get the SAME Civil Rights.

 

[candycorn]

How exactly does someone getting married on the other side of the state infringe on their lives?

When those who support those marriages use its legal existence to force them to do something they don't want to do. Its a car on the same long train between marriage and then forcing bakers to bake cakes they don't want to. Your side wants to separate the issues, similar to boiling a frog slowly, but that trick doesn't work with me, and people who think like me.

According to the Pew Research center, there are over 70,000 gay marriages in the United States.

How many same-sex marriages in the U.S. At least 71 165 probably more Pew Research Center

How many butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers have been sued? Maybe 6. I really don't pay too much attention but I bet you know the number. Feel free to enlighten us; divide that number by the number of marriages (technically 71,165) and you'll end up with less than 1% of gay marriages ever making a ripple in a pond much less headlines. Since you know the numbers better than us, would you please do the math and arrive at the actual figure?

If it is such a small number then why is the State making such a big deal over it?

The constitution applies to all people regardless of how small the number may be.

Thank you for proving my repeated point that this is such a small deal for gay couples that government action isn't warranted.

Laws protect all persons...there is no limit based on quantity.


Would you feel the same if someone wanted to stop blacks from marrying whites? It, too, is a small percentage. Should they enjoy protection from the law? If there is a difference...please explain your allowance of one group and your objection to the other.

Because race is not the same as sexual orientation, despite all your attempts and logical leaps to the contrary.

You brought up the quantity of marriages....did you not? That was your objection earlier. I brought up a similar number and now you're saying it's a different reason.

And if a small amount of bakers want to not bake for gay weddings, the overall impact on other has to be taken into account, and considering there are plenty of other bakers who have no issue with this, State force is not mandated.

I'll agree that there is not always a need to sue someone who does you wrong.

However, my question was that if you're in Key West, how does someone getting married in Jacksonville, have any effect on you? Mathematically there is a less than 1 thousandth of 1% chance you'll ever hear about it and in all mathematical probability something less than a millionth of 1% chance you'll be affected by it.

You said something to the effect that it will affect you if someone sues a baker and something about a boiling frog. I'm not sure about the frog part but the mathematics doesn't support your argument.

But since you've abandoned the mathematical argument with "race is not the same as sexual orientation", I have to ask why you're not bothered by race but are bothered by sexual orientation? A follow up is this; if you're bothered...isn't that your problem and not theirs?

 

[martybegan]

When those who support those marriages use its legal existence to force them to do something they don't want to do. Its a car on the same long train between marriage and then forcing bakers to bake cakes they don't want to. Your side wants to separate the issues, similar to boiling a frog slowly, but that trick doesn't work with me, and people who think like me.

According to the Pew Research center, there are over 70,000 gay marriages in the United States.

How many same-sex marriages in the U.S. At least 71 165 probably more Pew Research Center

How many butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers have been sued? Maybe 6. I really don't pay too much attention but I bet you know the number. Feel free to enlighten us; divide that number by the number of marriages (technically 71,165) and you'll end up with less than 1% of gay marriages ever making a ripple in a pond much less headlines. Since you know the numbers better than us, would you please do the math and arrive at the actual figure?

If it is such a small number then why is the State making such a big deal over it?

The constitution applies to all people regardless of how small the number may be.

Thank you for proving my repeated point that this is such a small deal for gay couples that government action isn't warranted.

Laws protect all persons...there is no limit based on quantity.


Would you feel the same if someone wanted to stop blacks from marrying whites? It, too, is a small percentage. Should they enjoy protection from the law? If there is a difference...please explain your allowance of one group and your objection to the other.

Because race is not the same as sexual orientation, despite all your attempts and logical leaps to the contrary. And if a small amount of bakers want to not bake for gay weddings, the overall impact on other has to be taken into account, and considering there are plenty of other bakers who have no issue with this, State force is not mandated.

You are correct that race isn't the same as sexual orientation. It's also not the same as gender. It's also not the same as religion. It's also not the same as physical ability. It's also not the same as national/cultural origin.

And yet.......all that I mentioned get the SAME Civil Rights.

Some get civil rights, others get civil laws, and other evidently get to use government to beat up on people that don't agree with them.

 

[martybegan]

When those who support those marriages use its legal existence to force them to do something they don't want to do. Its a car on the same long train between marriage and then forcing bakers to bake cakes they don't want to. Your side wants to separate the issues, similar to boiling a frog slowly, but that trick doesn't work with me, and people who think like me.

According to the Pew Research center, there are over 70,000 gay marriages in the United States.

How many same-sex marriages in the U.S. At least 71 165 probably more Pew Research Center

How many butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers have been sued? Maybe 6. I really don't pay too much attention but I bet you know the number. Feel free to enlighten us; divide that number by the number of marriages (technically 71,165) and you'll end up with less than 1% of gay marriages ever making a ripple in a pond much less headlines. Since you know the numbers better than us, would you please do the math and arrive at the actual figure?

If it is such a small number then why is the State making such a big deal over it?

The constitution applies to all people regardless of how small the number may be.

Thank you for proving my repeated point that this is such a small deal for gay couples that government action isn't warranted.

Laws protect all persons...there is no limit based on quantity.


Would you feel the same if someone wanted to stop blacks from marrying whites? It, too, is a small percentage. Should they enjoy protection from the law? If there is a difference...please explain your allowance of one group and your objection to the other.

Because race is not the same as sexual orientation, despite all your attempts and logical leaps to the contrary.

You brought up the quantity of marriages....did you not? That was your objection earlier. I brought up a similar number and now you're saying it's a different reason.

And if a small amount of bakers want to not bake for gay weddings, the overall impact on other has to be taken into account, and considering there are plenty of other bakers who have no issue with this, State force is not mandated.

I'll agree that there is not always a need to sue someone who does you wrong.

However, my question was that if you're in Key West, how does someone getting married in Jacksonville, have any effect on you? Mathematically there is a less than 1 thousandth of 1% chance you'll ever hear about it and in all mathematical probability something less than a millionth of 1% chance you'll be affected by it.

You said something to the effect that it will affect you if someone sues a baker and something about a boiling frog. I'm not sure about the frog part but the mathematics doesn't support your argument.

But since you've abandoned the mathematical argument with "race is not the same as sexual orientation", I have to ask why you're not bothered by race but are bothered by sexual orientation? A follow up is this; if you're bothered...isn't that your problem and not theirs?

By your logic how does Abortion being illegal in Alabama affect you if you live in New York?

And its not what bothers me, its that others are bothered by it, and there is no compelling state interest to force them to not be bothered by it.

 

[guno]

This isn't about religious doctrine. This is about forcing penalties on religious doctrine and the religious. It is the opposite if freedom.

No one is forcing you not to grovel to your man god on two sticks

 

[bodecea]

According to the Pew Research center, there are over 70,000 gay marriages in the United States.

How many same-sex marriages in the U.S. At least 71 165 probably more Pew Research Center

How many butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers have been sued? Maybe 6. I really don't pay too much attention but I bet you know the number. Feel free to enlighten us; divide that number by the number of marriages (technically 71,165) and you'll end up with less than 1% of gay marriages ever making a ripple in a pond much less headlines. Since you know the numbers better than us, would you please do the math and arrive at the actual figure?

If it is such a small number then why is the State making such a big deal over it?

The constitution applies to all people regardless of how small the number may be.

Thank you for proving my repeated point that this is such a small deal for gay couples that government action isn't warranted.

Laws protect all persons...there is no limit based on quantity.


Would you feel the same if someone wanted to stop blacks from marrying whites? It, too, is a small percentage. Should they enjoy protection from the law? If there is a difference...please explain your allowance of one group and your objection to the other.

Because race is not the same as sexual orientation, despite all your attempts and logical leaps to the contrary. And if a small amount of bakers want to not bake for gay weddings, the overall impact on other has to be taken into account, and considering there are plenty of other bakers who have no issue with this, State force is not mandated.

You are correct that race isn't the same as sexual orientation. It's also not the same as gender. It's also not the same as religion. It's also not the same as physical ability. It's also not the same as national/cultural origin.

And yet.......all that I mentioned get the SAME Civil Rights.

Some get civil rights, others get civil laws, and other evidently get to use government to beat up on people that don't agree with them.

Well then...explain the difference between "civil rights" and "civil laws".

 

[candycorn]

According to the Pew Research center, there are over 70,000 gay marriages in the United States.

How many same-sex marriages in the U.S. At least 71 165 probably more Pew Research Center

How many butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers have been sued? Maybe 6. I really don't pay too much attention but I bet you know the number. Feel free to enlighten us; divide that number by the number of marriages (technically 71,165) and you'll end up with less than 1% of gay marriages ever making a ripple in a pond much less headlines. Since you know the numbers better than us, would you please do the math and arrive at the actual figure?

If it is such a small number then why is the State making such a big deal over it?

The constitution applies to all people regardless of how small the number may be.

Thank you for proving my repeated point that this is such a small deal for gay couples that government action isn't warranted.

Laws protect all persons...there is no limit based on quantity.


Would you feel the same if someone wanted to stop blacks from marrying whites? It, too, is a small percentage. Should they enjoy protection from the law? If there is a difference...please explain your allowance of one group and your objection to the other.

Because race is not the same as sexual orientation, despite all your attempts and logical leaps to the contrary.

You brought up the quantity of marriages....did you not? That was your objection earlier. I brought up a similar number and now you're saying it's a different reason.

And if a small amount of bakers want to not bake for gay weddings, the overall impact on other has to be taken into account, and considering there are plenty of other bakers who have no issue with this, State force is not mandated.

I'll agree that there is not always a need to sue someone who does you wrong.

However, my question was that if you're in Key West, how does someone getting married in Jacksonville, have any effect on you? Mathematically there is a less than 1 thousandth of 1% chance you'll ever hear about it and in all mathematical probability something less than a millionth of 1% chance you'll be affected by it.

You said something to the effect that it will affect you if someone sues a baker and something about a boiling frog. I'm not sure about the frog part but the mathematics doesn't support your argument.

But since you've abandoned the mathematical argument with "race is not the same as sexual orientation", I have to ask why you're not bothered by race but are bothered by sexual orientation? A follow up is this; if you're bothered...isn't that your problem and not theirs?

By your logic how does Abortion being illegal in Alabama affect you if you live in New York?

If my company wants to move to Alabama and I am a female, it affects me. I lose my livelihood or my right to privacy.

And its not what bothers me, its that others are bothered by it, and there is no compelling state interest to force them to not be bothered by it.

"To force them not to be bothered"? Not sure that makes any sense whatsoever. But lets unpack that. What if they were to open a mosque in your neighborhood....or if homosexuals moved in next door.

Are you saying that the State has an interest in protecting you if you just do not like Muslims or homosexuals--or as in the way you put it...if you're bothered by them?

Your argument sort of reminds me of this video I saw on my facebook feed once:

 

[martybegan]

If it is such a small number then why is the State making such a big deal over it?

The constitution applies to all people regardless of how small the number may be.

Thank you for proving my repeated point that this is such a small deal for gay couples that government action isn't warranted.

Laws protect all persons...there is no limit based on quantity.


Would you feel the same if someone wanted to stop blacks from marrying whites? It, too, is a small percentage. Should they enjoy protection from the law? If there is a difference...please explain your allowance of one group and your objection to the other.

Because race is not the same as sexual orientation, despite all your attempts and logical leaps to the contrary. And if a small amount of bakers want to not bake for gay weddings, the overall impact on other has to be taken into account, and considering there are plenty of other bakers who have no issue with this, State force is not mandated.

You are correct that race isn't the same as sexual orientation. It's also not the same as gender. It's also not the same as religion. It's also not the same as physical ability. It's also not the same as national/cultural origin.

And yet.......all that I mentioned get the SAME Civil Rights.

Some get civil rights, others get civil laws, and other evidently get to use government to beat up on people that don't agree with them.

Well then...explain the difference between "civil rights" and "civil laws".

Civil rights involve government interaction and are explicit in the constitution. Civil laws involve government and are not mentioned in the constitution. Neither allow you to force other private citizens to do something against their will just because your feeewwwiiinngs are hurt.

 

[bodecea]

The constitution applies to all people regardless of how small the number may be.

Laws protect all persons...there is no limit based on quantity.


Would you feel the same if someone wanted to stop blacks from marrying whites? It, too, is a small percentage. Should they enjoy protection from the law? If there is a difference...please explain your allowance of one group and your objection to the other.

Because race is not the same as sexual orientation, despite all your attempts and logical leaps to the contrary. And if a small amount of bakers want to not bake for gay weddings, the overall impact on other has to be taken into account, and considering there are plenty of other bakers who have no issue with this, State force is not mandated.

You are correct that race isn't the same as sexual orientation. It's also not the same as gender. It's also not the same as religion. It's also not the same as physical ability. It's also not the same as national/cultural origin.

And yet.......all that I mentioned get the SAME Civil Rights.

Some get civil rights, others get civil laws, and other evidently get to use government to beat up on people that don't agree with them.

Well then...explain the difference between "civil rights" and "civil laws".

Civil rights involve government interaction and are explicit in the constitution. Civil laws involve government and are not mentioned in the constitution. Neither allow you to force other private citizens to do something against their will just because your feeewwwiiinngs are hurt.

Are you now going to tell us that the 14th amendment (which is referred to successfully in all gay marriage cases) isn't part of the Constitution? Here is the key portion of the 14th:

Section 1. 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.

The Equal Protection of the Laws. Laws like PA laws.....Laws like Marriage laws.

Now, explain to us why the 14th Amendment isn't part of the Constitution. Good luck.

 

[martybegan]

If it is such a small number then why is the State making such a big deal over it?

The constitution applies to all people regardless of how small the number may be.

Thank you for proving my repeated point that this is such a small deal for gay couples that government action isn't warranted.

Laws protect all persons...there is no limit based on quantity.


Would you feel the same if someone wanted to stop blacks from marrying whites? It, too, is a small percentage. Should they enjoy protection from the law? If there is a difference...please explain your allowance of one group and your objection to the other.

Because race is not the same as sexual orientation, despite all your attempts and logical leaps to the contrary.

You brought up the quantity of marriages....did you not? That was your objection earlier. I brought up a similar number and now you're saying it's a different reason.

And if a small amount of bakers want to not bake for gay weddings, the overall impact on other has to be taken into account, and considering there are plenty of other bakers who have no issue with this, State force is not mandated.

I'll agree that there is not always a need to sue someone who does you wrong.

However, my question was that if you're in Key West, how does someone getting married in Jacksonville, have any effect on you? Mathematically there is a less than 1 thousandth of 1% chance you'll ever hear about it and in all mathematical probability something less than a millionth of 1% chance you'll be affected by it.

You said something to the effect that it will affect you if someone sues a baker and something about a boiling frog. I'm not sure about the frog part but the mathematics doesn't support your argument.

But since you've abandoned the mathematical argument with "race is not the same as sexual orientation", I have to ask why you're not bothered by race but are bothered by sexual orientation? A follow up is this; if you're bothered...isn't that your problem and not theirs?

By your logic how does Abortion being illegal in Alabama affect you if you live in New York?

If my company wants to move to Alabama and I am a female, it affects me. I lose my livelihood or my right to privacy.

And its not what bothers me, its that others are bothered by it, and there is no compelling state interest to force them to not be bothered by it.

"To force them not to be bothered"? Not sure that makes any sense whatsoever. But lets unpack that. What if they were to open a mosque in your neighborhood....or if homosexuals moved in next door.

Are you saying that the State has an interest in protecting you if you just do not like Muslims or homosexuals--or as in the way you put it...if you're bothered by them?

Your argument sort of reminds me of this video I saw on my facebook feed once:

What is the argument you progressives always use vis a vis the baker question? Oh yes, "You can always find another line of work"


The state doesn't have to protect "me" but it doesn't have the right to punish me either. You are no better than those Moral Majority cranks who tried to force their crap on others.

 

[martybegan]

Because race is not the same as sexual orientation, despite all your attempts and logical leaps to the contrary. And if a small amount of bakers want to not bake for gay weddings, the overall impact on other has to be taken into account, and considering there are plenty of other bakers who have no issue with this, State force is not mandated.

You are correct that race isn't the same as sexual orientation. It's also not the same as gender. It's also not the same as religion. It's also not the same as physical ability. It's also not the same as national/cultural origin.

And yet.......all that I mentioned get the SAME Civil Rights.

Some get civil rights, others get civil laws, and other evidently get to use government to beat up on people that don't agree with them.

Well then...explain the difference between "civil rights" and "civil laws".

Civil rights involve government interaction and are explicit in the constitution. Civil laws involve government and are not mentioned in the constitution. Neither allow you to force other private citizens to do something against their will just because your feeewwwiiinngs are hurt.

Are you now going to tell us that the 14th amendment (which is referred to successfully in all gay marriage cases) isn't part of the Constitution? Here is the key portion of the 14th:

Section 1. 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.

The Equal Protection of the Laws. Laws like PA laws.....Laws like Marriage laws.

Now, explain to us why the 14th Amendment isn't part of the Constitution. Good luck.

it's part of it, its just not the catch all "I get what I want, neener neener" panacea your side claims it is.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well at least they admit it. But people paying attention already knew this.

‘It’s going to be an issue’: Obama admin admits to Supreme Court that gay ‘marriage’ threatens religious liberty

April 29, 2015 (AlbertMohler.com) -- “It is … it is going to be an issue.” With those words, spoken yesterday before the Supreme Court of the Unites States, the Solicitor General of the United States announced that religious liberty is directly threatened by the legalization of same-sex marriage. Donald Verrili, representing the Obama Administration as the nation’s highest court considered again the issue of same-sex marriage, was responding to a question from Justice Samuel Alito. His answer confirms with candor the threat we have long seen coming.

It s going to be an issue Obama admin admits to Supreme Court that gay marriage threatens religious liberty Opinion LifeSite

Civil law already forbids exercising many religious tenets and commandments. Hasn't kept anyone from being those religions though.

Can't sell daughters into slavery as the Bible permits.
Can't execute rebellious children either, also permitted by the Bible.

People clammoring for religious liberty don't know what the fuck their own religions permit.

Is there anyone in the world who sells his daughter in pursuit of the Biblical commandment?
Is there anyone who executes his rebellious child in pursuit of that? You understand that actually no one was ever executed under that law, right?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Supreme Court has the authority to decide whether or not same sex marriage is a right that can stand despite the whinings of the religious factions.

As usual, running to 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers. For all your purported love of democracy you sure do run to the one branch of our government that resembles oligarchy a lot.

Where would you go to ensure the 2nd amendment is adhered to?

Not a court in the State of NY, that's for sure. And again, the 2nd is explicit to arms, find me the word marriage or abortion, or even people in corporations lose their rights to free speech in the constitution and then you may have a point.

That's not an answer to the question.

Where would you go to ensure the 2nd amendment is adhered to?

It is, you just don't like the answer. Your attempted "gotcha" is a failure.

No, I asked you where you'd go, and you wouldn't answer. You wouldn't answer because you know you would go to the Supreme Court,

and you've already delegitimized the Supreme Court in this thread as unelected oligarchical lawyers.

The 2nd Amendment depends on the Supreme Court, and you can't admit it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well at least they admit it. But people paying attention already knew this.

‘It’s going to be an issue’: Obama admin admits to Supreme Court that gay ‘marriage’ threatens religious liberty

April 29, 2015 (AlbertMohler.com) -- “It is … it is going to be an issue.” With those words, spoken yesterday before the Supreme Court of the Unites States, the Solicitor General of the United States announced that religious liberty is directly threatened by the legalization of same-sex marriage. Donald Verrili, representing the Obama Administration as the nation’s highest court considered again the issue of same-sex marriage, was responding to a question from Justice Samuel Alito. His answer confirms with candor the threat we have long seen coming.

It s going to be an issue Obama admin admits to Supreme Court that gay marriage threatens religious liberty Opinion LifeSite

Civil law already forbids exercising many religious tenets and commandments. Hasn't kept anyone from being those religions though.

Can't sell daughters into slavery as the Bible permits.
Can't execute rebellious children either, also permitted by the Bible.

People clammoring for religious liberty don't know what the fuck their own religions permit.

Is there anyone in the world who sells his daughter in pursuit of the Biblical commandment?
Is there anyone who executes his rebellious child in pursuit of that? You understand that actually no one was ever executed under that law, right?

Ask the Mormons what happened to their religious practice of polygamy when it went up against the Constitution.