Religious conservatives will never abandon Trump

[martybegan]

Considering the male gender doesn't have a "choice" anyway in this situation, I honestly don't care.

There are plenty of pro-life women who understand exactly the point you are making, and they are still pro-life. Why do you have to frame this as a "all-men" vs "all-women" conflict?

Oh, right, because hacks gotta hack.

Being a male and a trump supporter, caring is probably too much to ask of you.

As for the supposed “conflict”, it’s a construct of your imagination. About 90% of catholic women practice contraception which was and likely still is antithetical to Church teachings. Women pretty much know the score when it comes to a bunch of people in state capitols making their healthcare decisions. This is why the contraception is used in the first place.

It’s a pretty easy scenario to understand. I’m sure if you try, you could too.

You equate caring with government overreach, or following progressive matras, typical.

Why did you have to shift to contraception of Catholics? I stated there are plenty of pro-life women, and you saw fit to ignore that?

Dodge, duck dip, dive, and dodge.

The fact that there are "pro-life" women adds nothing. The issue deals only with conditions inside a female' body. Presumably these women exercise autonomy. But plenty of women exist that are not "pro-life" and Big Government is trying to steal their autonomy.

It subtracts from the whole this is a "men vs. women" motif progressives try to play. Plenty of women are pro-life, particularly in places like Alabama and other Southern/midwestern States.

"Big Government" is really only at the federal level. What States do is more local annoying government, at least as long as they stay within the Constitution.

A state legislature deciding whom you can legally marry, what survivor benefits you’re entitled to, and prohibiting you from making your own healthcare decisions is not “big government”?

It's what the Constitution mandates. Sorry, but there is no "right" to SSM in the federal Constitution, only the "jiggery-pokery) of 5 of 9 unelected lawyers.

 

[martybegan]

They may not approve of his life, but unlike the democrats, he will not go after what is important in THEIR lives. Democrats offer nothing to Evangelicals except more attacks on their beliefs and lives.

Voting for a thrice-married, twice divorced man known for extramarital affairs, cavorting with Playboy models, vulgar talk, and an itchy Twitter trigger finger — to say nothing of the accusations of racism and sexual harassment or worse against Trump — certainly opens socially conservative Christians up to charges of hypocrisy. It also arguably makes it harder to reach other Americans, including young people, with their religious missions, or work with fellow Christians in communities of color.

But these consequences pale in comparison to voting for a party that stands opposed to the issues nearest to conservative Christians' hearts. As conservative Christian commentator Erick Erickson put it, the Democratic Party "offers me no home and is deeply hostile to people of faith. The president has shown himself to not share my faith convictions any more than the other side, but the president has shown he is willing to defend my faith convictions and is supportive of them."


Erickson didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but announced earlier this month that he plans to do so in 2020. Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee was one of the most steadfast "Never Trump" social conservatives. He too has said he will endorse Trump in 2020.

Religious conservatives will never abandon Trump

Evangelicals are religious ? Lol....I'm sorry but having Christian's friends from Catholics to Greek orthodox I think those who call themselves evangelicals are the worst (highly likely bigots or racists, supported, slavery, racism, anti immigrants and anti refugees, gave us the most immoral human being as president) they are not religious.

These people who refer to themselves as "Christians" without any further identifier are trying to mold the Christian faith according to their sickness. They are an insult to every other Christian, Catholic, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Orthodox, and all the rest..

I always find it comical that progressives are far more judgemental than the people they are bitching about being judgemental.

Far less forgiving as well.

"Hate the sinner and the sin, and make sure they are ruined for life" The progressive mantra.

I'm not pro sex marriage, also anti abortion, beleive in God almighty...but I also know for a fact that evangelicals in the US are the biggest hypocrites and assholes in the world...or at least most of them. They preach and preach, and they thrive on hate racism and bigotry...and worse they voted overwhelmingly for the most evil **** in the world.

So you call them names and then expect them to either vote for no one or some one who is part of the party of "bake that fucking cake, peasant"?

Trump as a person is someone they probably pity, Trump as President is someone who at worst doesn't try to impose his morals on them, and at best advocates policies they approve of.

They don't have to live like him, or even approve of how he lives, for them to approve of what he does for them politically.

 

[martybegan]

They may not approve of his life, but unlike the democrats, he will not go after what is important in THEIR lives. Democrats offer nothing to Evangelicals except more attacks on their beliefs and lives.

Which kind of shows how fucked up Evangelical Christians are, doesn't it?

"He might be a creep who fucks porn stars, but he will never, ever judge my homophobia and racism! He'll encourage it!"

When you support the party of "bake that fucking cake, peasant", don't expect the peasants to just give up.

You are on the record as an anti-religious bigot, your views mean nothing on this topic because of your addled mindset.

 

[candycorn]

Way to start in the middle and misinterpret in all directions.

1) Last time I checked, there is no "individual right" to have any government entity define any contract, marital or otherwise, according to one's personal opinions.

2) Whether or not it would be "easier" for a particular individual to enter into one specific contractual arrangement rather than another is not relevant to whether or not that contractual arrangement is legally appropriate. I might think it's "easier" for me to pass on my property when I die if I marry my son (blech!) rather than write up a will, but that doesn't in any way convey some sort of "right" for me to choose the first contract rather than the second.

3) Anyone who thinks that simply getting married obviates the need for other legal arrangements in regards to wills, medical powers of attorney, etc. is a fucking moron who really needs a sit-down with an attorney and/or financial planner. I have been married for 24 years as of last month, and I can assure you that I still have both a will and a legal directive in the event of my medical incapacitation.

4) I don't personally approve of Social Security in the first place, and therefore have very little patience with the government saying, "We're going to take your money, whether you like it or not, to MAYBE give back to you when you're old, and if you die before you hit the magic age (or if you're too rich when you get there), we're just gonna keep it." I would quite frankly prefer that people's retirement funds be privatized and under their personal control to begin with.

5) If you think marriage/divorce is "simple and streamlined" in comparison to virtually any other legal arrangement to accomplish the same things, you're nuts. Getting into a marriage might be quick and easy, but nothing after that point is.

6) The point of not using the word "marriage" for things outside of its original meaning and intent is just that: words mean things. And "marriage" means a lot more things outside of the simple legislative recognition that homosexual activists pretend is their reason for demanding its redefinition. In fact, all the things it means outside of the basic legal and financial contract - which is supposed to be what the law is acknowledging - are the REAL reasons behind this fight.

Marriage is a right residing with an individual. Furthemore, no government has the right to tell anyone with whom to contract or not, and marriage contracts are treated differently than other contracts, legally speaking..

The marriage contract is easy to enter into, without all the forms. We are not talking about getting out of it. What federal form did you fill out that obligates the federal government to accept a joint tax return from you and your spouse or destribute survivor's benefits to your spouse if something happens to you?

You don't have any right to interfer with other people's civil rights just because you

The term "marriage" is statutory. If you got married in your cult ceremony, the person who offiated still had to sign a legal document, but you still got your bibble stuff even though you weren't married at the courthouse and the only thing that you signed was your license.

Your membership in a cult that you chose doesn't give you the right to interfere with anyone else's civil rights. The world doesn't revolve around you.

Was there some point at which I said, "Gosh, Lice, PLEASE state your personal screwed-all-to-hell worldview to me as established fact, because I am going to respect it just as if it came from a real person"? Because if I did, I certainly don't remember it.

Let me know when you have something meaningful to say. IF that ever happens.

You have now fully conceded that you have no arguments whatsoever and the only thing you have is condescension and hate.

Your concession is noted.

Really, have you encountered a more dreadful person on this board than Cecilie1200 ?

Dozens. But that she's a "dreadful person" means she's exactly what I know her to be: a smart conservative Christian woman who doesn't tow your line.

You know who else are "dreadful people"? Black conservatives. Hispanic conservatives. Gay conservatives. Basically any conservatives other than White Christian Men, who I have been told you are waiting to die.

Small minded people, the entire lot of you.

Total crap.

Anyway, isn’t it “toe the line”? I’m just asking. I thought “toe”ing the line meant you were being forced to do something—put your toes on the line. I don’t know what “towing the line” would be….you’re taking the line somewhere else?

Just asking.

 

[candycorn]

The fact that there are "pro-life" women adds nothing. The issue deals only with conditions inside a female' body. Presumably these women exercise autonomy. But plenty of women exist that are not "pro-life" and Big Government is trying to steal their autonomy.

It subtracts from the whole this is a "men vs. women" motif progressives try to play. Plenty of women are pro-life, particularly in places like Alabama and other Southern/midwestern States.

"Big Government" is really only at the federal level. What States do is more local annoying government, at least as long as they stay within the Constitution.

A state legislature deciding whom you can legally marry, what survivor benefits you’re entitled to, and prohibiting you from making your own healthcare decisions is not “big government”?

Yeah, I'm sure you'd like to pretend that state legislatures banned something that was previously allowed, but that's not how it worked.

The state government deciding what does and doesn't constitute a recognized marriage, for legal purposes, is actually exactly within the correct purview of government. It never stopped anyone from making binding legally-contractual arrangements of their own that just didn't happen to wear that particular label. This pretense of "without the word marriage, we couldn't write wills or medical powers of attorney!" is really old and threadbare.

Having to have the government’s blessing of your marriage is an example of having a pretty invasive government. You may think differently but then again, you’re an idiot.

More emotion. Every time you open your flapping gob, I feel like I need a shower from the storm of hormones you send flying around.

I get that you see the entire world through the prism of "You must approve of me!", but no one has ever been "getting the government's blessing" on anything. Marriage is a legal and financial contract, however much immature twits like you want to pretend it's all one big badly-written romance novel. It carries with it a wide variety of issues which may someday have to be settled by legal adjudication, just like any other contract. Therefore, just like any other contract, the law has to decide what does and does not constitute a legally binding contract in their jurisdiction. No more, no less. Ideally (meaning when it's not influenced by a bunch of sobbing teenagers masquerading as adults) the law is silent on overwrought emotional BS like you leftists keep gabbling on about.

I doubt you think differently, since I doubt you think at all.

The State not allowing you to marry someone of the same sex, a different race, etc…is an example of a large invasive government.

Zero emotion is involved in that statement.

Zero logic or common sense is involved in yours, Smokey.

 

[martybegan]

It subtracts from the whole this is a "men vs. women" motif progressives try to play. Plenty of women are pro-life, particularly in places like Alabama and other Southern/midwestern States.

"Big Government" is really only at the federal level. What States do is more local annoying government, at least as long as they stay within the Constitution.

A state legislature deciding whom you can legally marry, what survivor benefits you’re entitled to, and prohibiting you from making your own healthcare decisions is not “big government”?

Yeah, I'm sure you'd like to pretend that state legislatures banned something that was previously allowed, but that's not how it worked.

The state government deciding what does and doesn't constitute a recognized marriage, for legal purposes, is actually exactly within the correct purview of government. It never stopped anyone from making binding legally-contractual arrangements of their own that just didn't happen to wear that particular label. This pretense of "without the word marriage, we couldn't write wills or medical powers of attorney!" is really old and threadbare.

Having to have the government’s blessing of your marriage is an example of having a pretty invasive government. You may think differently but then again, you’re an idiot.

More emotion. Every time you open your flapping gob, I feel like I need a shower from the storm of hormones you send flying around.

I get that you see the entire world through the prism of "You must approve of me!", but no one has ever been "getting the government's blessing" on anything. Marriage is a legal and financial contract, however much immature twits like you want to pretend it's all one big badly-written romance novel. It carries with it a wide variety of issues which may someday have to be settled by legal adjudication, just like any other contract. Therefore, just like any other contract, the law has to decide what does and does not constitute a legally binding contract in their jurisdiction. No more, no less. Ideally (meaning when it's not influenced by a bunch of sobbing teenagers masquerading as adults) the law is silent on overwrought emotional BS like you leftists keep gabbling on about.

I doubt you think differently, since I doubt you think at all.

The State not allowing you to marry someone of the same sex, a different race, etc…is an example of a large invasive government.

Zero emotion is involved in that statement.

Zero logic or common sense is involved in yours, Smokey.

You can pretty much marry whoever you want, and call it whatever you want. Government recognition is the issue here. One could also handle most of the things, except the tax code that marriage gives via the government via power of attorney contracts. Or Civil Unions could have been allowed, which was the original concept.

But SSM advocates want the word "marriage" because the end goal is forced acceptance, not just tolerance.

The Constitution is mute when it comes to detailing contracts, which is left up to State law.

 

[RealDave]

Yes, obviously.

Congress is elected based on the population.

Every State gets two Senators.

Thus, people in small states have more say that people in larger states.

You think that Delaware & California should get equal votes?

Yes. California as a State can make whatever laws it wants for people in their State via the State government. Why should California, New York, and even Texas be able to make rules for everyone, when it comes to things inside a State, when small States don't want it?

This is a symptom of the federal government doing things outside it's scope and Constitutional mandate.

You mean like PA laws that protect gays along with race and religion? Okay!

PA laws that apply to actual PA's, and of course the States are still bound by the right to free exercise.

As always the government has to have a compelling reason to deny free exercise, and butt hurt is not a compelling reason.

My, my...such a study in contradictions you are. You're all for states rights...until its an issue you disagree with like gays being protected equally with race and religion.

State's rights end at the rights of US Citizens via the Federal Constitution and their own Constitutions. The 14th Amendment has incorporated the bill of Rights to the States, the issue is progressives use the 14th to make additional crap up.

The right to free exercise is explicit in the constitution, I find no such right to a cake from a specific baker.

Marty loves discrimination.

 

[martybegan]

Yes. California as a State can make whatever laws it wants for people in their State via the State government. Why should California, New York, and even Texas be able to make rules for everyone, when it comes to things inside a State, when small States don't want it?

This is a symptom of the federal government doing things outside it's scope and Constitutional mandate.

You mean like PA laws that protect gays along with race and religion? Okay!

PA laws that apply to actual PA's, and of course the States are still bound by the right to free exercise.

As always the government has to have a compelling reason to deny free exercise, and butt hurt is not a compelling reason.

My, my...such a study in contradictions you are. You're all for states rights...until its an issue you disagree with like gays being protected equally with race and religion.

State's rights end at the rights of US Citizens via the Federal Constitution and their own Constitutions. The 14th Amendment has incorporated the bill of Rights to the States, the issue is progressives use the 14th to make additional crap up.

The right to free exercise is explicit in the constitution, I find no such right to a cake from a specific baker.

Marty loves discrimination.

I actually don't like it. What I like less is government force over something as stupid as a wedding cake.

You support discrimination by government against people you don't like. You are the authoritarian asshole here.

 

[RealDave]

Dumbshit. The 14th Amendment applies to everyone. If you want a heterosexual marriage, nobody is stopping you. Same-sex marriage does not effect you in any way. I don't lose any sleep over how many times that trump or gingrich have been married. How do the marriages of people you don't know effect you? You people who fret about the lives of people you don't know are just kooks.

The 14th amendment's equal protection under the law is not absolute. If it was I would be able to sue NY to allow me to own guns as easy as people can in Texas, or say Arkansas, as the 2nd gives me the RKBA uninfringed.

SSM is a concept from only the past few decades, as such the proper way to deal with it would be to get State legislatures to allow it State by State, and then force all States to recognize them, under full faith and credit, as is done now One doesn't have to meet other requirements, (age, cousin status, etc) is a State you move to if you already have a license from another state that has different ones. SSM in that case, after the license is issued, would be equal, and thus protected.

The issue is forcing States to issue a license that really isn't equal, unlike mixed-race marriages, which have plenty of precedent going back millenia, and were only banned for a relatively short period of time, thus making something that was equal in violation of the 14th.

The issue is not of forcing states to do anything except to recognize the rights belonging to each individual citizen of the state, which are not subject to majority rule.

So NYC should not be allowed to have a law which requires me to wait 3-6 months and pay over $500 in fees just to keep a handgun in my own apartment?

Isn't that infringement of the 2nd amendment, and thus not subject to "majority rule"

I think you're safe now that Republicans passed a law that lets the mentally ill run around with loaded weapons.

Nice lie.

Sorry, but just because someone has their finances taken in Trust doesn't mean the person is mentally incompetent.

That was the crux of that legislation. It requires a court to determine a person is mentally deficient, not some bureaucrat at the social security administration.

So they are so mentally deficient that they can't pay their own bills, but they can carry a loaded weapon.

 

[RealDave]

You mean like PA laws that protect gays along with race and religion? Okay!

PA laws that apply to actual PA's, and of course the States are still bound by the right to free exercise.

As always the government has to have a compelling reason to deny free exercise, and butt hurt is not a compelling reason.

My, my...such a study in contradictions you are. You're all for states rights...until its an issue you disagree with like gays being protected equally with race and religion.

State's rights end at the rights of US Citizens via the Federal Constitution and their own Constitutions. The 14th Amendment has incorporated the bill of Rights to the States, the issue is progressives use the 14th to make additional crap up.

The right to free exercise is explicit in the constitution, I find no such right to a cake from a specific baker.

Marty loves discrimination.

I actually don't like it. What I like less is government force over something as stupid as a wedding cake.

You support discrimination by government against people you don't like. You are the authoritarian asshole here.

You love discrimination. I know how much it must piss you off that companies are not allowed to discriminate.

Wedding Cake or a seat at the lunch counter.

 

[martybegan]

The 14th amendment's equal protection under the law is not absolute. If it was I would be able to sue NY to allow me to own guns as easy as people can in Texas, or say Arkansas, as the 2nd gives me the RKBA uninfringed.

SSM is a concept from only the past few decades, as such the proper way to deal with it would be to get State legislatures to allow it State by State, and then force all States to recognize them, under full faith and credit, as is done now One doesn't have to meet other requirements, (age, cousin status, etc) is a State you move to if you already have a license from another state that has different ones. SSM in that case, after the license is issued, would be equal, and thus protected.

The issue is forcing States to issue a license that really isn't equal, unlike mixed-race marriages, which have plenty of precedent going back millenia, and were only banned for a relatively short period of time, thus making something that was equal in violation of the 14th.

The issue is not of forcing states to do anything except to recognize the rights belonging to each individual citizen of the state, which are not subject to majority rule.

So NYC should not be allowed to have a law which requires me to wait 3-6 months and pay over $500 in fees just to keep a handgun in my own apartment?

Isn't that infringement of the 2nd amendment, and thus not subject to "majority rule"

I think you're safe now that Republicans passed a law that lets the mentally ill run around with loaded weapons.

Nice lie.

Sorry, but just because someone has their finances taken in Trust doesn't mean the person is mentally incompetent.

That was the crux of that legislation. It requires a court to determine a person is mentally deficient, not some bureaucrat at the social security administration.

So they are so mentally deficient that they can't pay their own bills, but they can carry a loaded weapon.

No, in some cases the property and their bills are placed in trust to prevent the loss of the property if the person goes infirm.

Since you have to do that 5 years before the infirmity happens, plenty of people have power of attorney over them when they are perfectly functional physically and mentally.

These people can still be declared mentally incompetent by a court, and the family can request that.

All the law you stated does is prevent some Social Security administrator from having a say over a constitutional right.

Should the administrator be able to deny them the right to vote as well?

It's a due process thing, something progressives like you love to ignore.

 

[martybegan]

PA laws that apply to actual PA's, and of course the States are still bound by the right to free exercise.

As always the government has to have a compelling reason to deny free exercise, and butt hurt is not a compelling reason.

My, my...such a study in contradictions you are. You're all for states rights...until its an issue you disagree with like gays being protected equally with race and religion.

State's rights end at the rights of US Citizens via the Federal Constitution and their own Constitutions. The 14th Amendment has incorporated the bill of Rights to the States, the issue is progressives use the 14th to make additional crap up.

The right to free exercise is explicit in the constitution, I find no such right to a cake from a specific baker.

Marty loves discrimination.

I actually don't like it. What I like less is government force over something as stupid as a wedding cake.

You support discrimination by government against people you don't like. You are the authoritarian asshole here.

You love discrimination. I know how much it must piss you off that companies are not allowed to discriminate.

Wedding Cake or a seat at the lunch counter.

A seat at the counter is an Actual Public Accomodation, and if you have read my previous posts, I support PA laws when applied to actual PA's.

A contracted cake for a specific event is not a PA, and thus should not follow PA laws. A restaurant that allows the public to enter and eat is a PA and thus must follow PA laws.

 

[RealDave]

My, my...such a study in contradictions you are. You're all for states rights...until its an issue you disagree with like gays being protected equally with race and religion.

State's rights end at the rights of US Citizens via the Federal Constitution and their own Constitutions. The 14th Amendment has incorporated the bill of Rights to the States, the issue is progressives use the 14th to make additional crap up.

The right to free exercise is explicit in the constitution, I find no such right to a cake from a specific baker.

Marty loves discrimination.

I actually don't like it. What I like less is government force over something as stupid as a wedding cake.

You support discrimination by government against people you don't like. You are the authoritarian asshole here.

You love discrimination. I know how much it must piss you off that companies are not allowed to discriminate.

Wedding Cake or a seat at the lunch counter.

A seat at the counter is an Actual Public Accomodation, and if you have read my previous posts, I support PA laws when applied to actual PA's.

A contracted cake for a specific event is not a PA, and thus should not follow PA laws. A restaurant that allows the public to enter and eat is a PA and thus must follow PA laws.

So, you are claiming we can't discriminate at a food place where you sit but can at a food place you walk in to buy?

What if the baker had a table & you could sit & taste different cakes?

 

[candycorn]

A state legislature deciding whom you can legally marry, what survivor benefits you’re entitled to, and prohibiting you from making your own healthcare decisions is not “big government”?

Yeah, I'm sure you'd like to pretend that state legislatures banned something that was previously allowed, but that's not how it worked.

The state government deciding what does and doesn't constitute a recognized marriage, for legal purposes, is actually exactly within the correct purview of government. It never stopped anyone from making binding legally-contractual arrangements of their own that just didn't happen to wear that particular label. This pretense of "without the word marriage, we couldn't write wills or medical powers of attorney!" is really old and threadbare.

Having to have the government’s blessing of your marriage is an example of having a pretty invasive government. You may think differently but then again, you’re an idiot.

More emotion. Every time you open your flapping gob, I feel like I need a shower from the storm of hormones you send flying around.

I get that you see the entire world through the prism of "You must approve of me!", but no one has ever been "getting the government's blessing" on anything. Marriage is a legal and financial contract, however much immature twits like you want to pretend it's all one big badly-written romance novel. It carries with it a wide variety of issues which may someday have to be settled by legal adjudication, just like any other contract. Therefore, just like any other contract, the law has to decide what does and does not constitute a legally binding contract in their jurisdiction. No more, no less. Ideally (meaning when it's not influenced by a bunch of sobbing teenagers masquerading as adults) the law is silent on overwrought emotional BS like you leftists keep gabbling on about.

I doubt you think differently, since I doubt you think at all.

The State not allowing you to marry someone of the same sex, a different race, etc…is an example of a large invasive government.

Zero emotion is involved in that statement.

Zero logic or common sense is involved in yours, Smokey.

You can pretty much marry whoever you want, and call it whatever you want. Government recognition is the issue here. One could also handle most of the things, except the tax code that marriage gives via the government via power of attorney contracts. Or Civil Unions could have been allowed, which was the original concept.

But SSM advocates want the word "marriage" because the end goal is forced acceptance, not just tolerance.

The Constitution is mute when it comes to detailing contracts, which is left up to State law.

Again…

If you’re married to a same-sex partner in NY and are offered a job in Birmingham, Alabama…where your marriage won’t be recognized….do you take the job and end your marriage?

This is why the backwards people of the conquered confederacy (and a few other states who were not around when the rebs were making noise) shouldn’t be allowed to make laws that run counter to the more studied and learned states that defeated them.

 

[candycorn]

State's rights end at the rights of US Citizens via the Federal Constitution and their own Constitutions. The 14th Amendment has incorporated the bill of Rights to the States, the issue is progressives use the 14th to make additional crap up.

The right to free exercise is explicit in the constitution, I find no such right to a cake from a specific baker.

Marty loves discrimination.

I actually don't like it. What I like less is government force over something as stupid as a wedding cake.

You support discrimination by government against people you don't like. You are the authoritarian asshole here.

You love discrimination. I know how much it must piss you off that companies are not allowed to discriminate.

Wedding Cake or a seat at the lunch counter.

A seat at the counter is an Actual Public Accomodation, and if you have read my previous posts, I support PA laws when applied to actual PA's.

A contracted cake for a specific event is not a PA, and thus should not follow PA laws. A restaurant that allows the public to enter and eat is a PA and thus must follow PA laws.

So, you are claiming we can't discriminate at a food place where you sit but can at a food place you walk in to buy?

What if the baker had a table & you could sit & taste different cakes?

What if they didn’t have chairs? You could taste the cakes but you can’t sit down. Supplying he chair implies they wanted you to sit down. Making your customers stand is inconvenient BUT it gets around the “we’re open for business” implication of having a chair. See? LOL.

The conservatives get more and more ridiculous every day; don’t they?

 

[martybegan]

State's rights end at the rights of US Citizens via the Federal Constitution and their own Constitutions. The 14th Amendment has incorporated the bill of Rights to the States, the issue is progressives use the 14th to make additional crap up.

The right to free exercise is explicit in the constitution, I find no such right to a cake from a specific baker.

Marty loves discrimination.

I actually don't like it. What I like less is government force over something as stupid as a wedding cake.

You support discrimination by government against people you don't like. You are the authoritarian asshole here.

You love discrimination. I know how much it must piss you off that companies are not allowed to discriminate.

Wedding Cake or a seat at the lunch counter.

A seat at the counter is an Actual Public Accomodation, and if you have read my previous posts, I support PA laws when applied to actual PA's.

A contracted cake for a specific event is not a PA, and thus should not follow PA laws. A restaurant that allows the public to enter and eat is a PA and thus must follow PA laws.

So, you are claiming we can't discriminate at a food place where you sit but can at a food place you walk in to buy?

What if the baker had a table & you could sit & taste different cakes?

No, point of sale is still a PA, you are walking into the property and ordering something fungible.

Then the walk in service would be a PA, and the contracted remainder of the business would not be.

 

[martybegan]

Yeah, I'm sure you'd like to pretend that state legislatures banned something that was previously allowed, but that's not how it worked.

The state government deciding what does and doesn't constitute a recognized marriage, for legal purposes, is actually exactly within the correct purview of government. It never stopped anyone from making binding legally-contractual arrangements of their own that just didn't happen to wear that particular label. This pretense of "without the word marriage, we couldn't write wills or medical powers of attorney!" is really old and threadbare.

Having to have the government’s blessing of your marriage is an example of having a pretty invasive government. You may think differently but then again, you’re an idiot.

More emotion. Every time you open your flapping gob, I feel like I need a shower from the storm of hormones you send flying around.

I get that you see the entire world through the prism of "You must approve of me!", but no one has ever been "getting the government's blessing" on anything. Marriage is a legal and financial contract, however much immature twits like you want to pretend it's all one big badly-written romance novel. It carries with it a wide variety of issues which may someday have to be settled by legal adjudication, just like any other contract. Therefore, just like any other contract, the law has to decide what does and does not constitute a legally binding contract in their jurisdiction. No more, no less. Ideally (meaning when it's not influenced by a bunch of sobbing teenagers masquerading as adults) the law is silent on overwrought emotional BS like you leftists keep gabbling on about.

I doubt you think differently, since I doubt you think at all.

The State not allowing you to marry someone of the same sex, a different race, etc…is an example of a large invasive government.

Zero emotion is involved in that statement.

Zero logic or common sense is involved in yours, Smokey.

You can pretty much marry whoever you want, and call it whatever you want. Government recognition is the issue here. One could also handle most of the things, except the tax code that marriage gives via the government via power of attorney contracts. Or Civil Unions could have been allowed, which was the original concept.

But SSM advocates want the word "marriage" because the end goal is forced acceptance, not just tolerance.

The Constitution is mute when it comes to detailing contracts, which is left up to State law.

Again…

If you’re married to a same-sex partner in NY and are offered a job in Birmingham, Alabama…where your marriage won’t be recognized….do you take the job and end your marriage?

This is why the backwards people of the conquered confederacy (and a few other states who were not around when the rebs were making noise) shouldn’t be allowed to make laws that run counter to the more studied and learned states that defeated them.

If you have read my previous posts, what Obergfell should have decided is to force States to recognize any marriage issued by another State, as they currently do now, regardless of the requirements of the State issuing their own marriage licenses. Some States forbid you to marry various levels of cousin, some allow it, but even if you enter a State that doesn't allow your level of cousin marriage, your license is still valid under full faith and credit, same as with driver's licenses.

 

[basquebromance]

Trump postured like Caesar easily crossing the rubicon when he 1st came down that escalator

 

[martybegan]

Marty loves discrimination.

I actually don't like it. What I like less is government force over something as stupid as a wedding cake.

You support discrimination by government against people you don't like. You are the authoritarian asshole here.

You love discrimination. I know how much it must piss you off that companies are not allowed to discriminate.

Wedding Cake or a seat at the lunch counter.

A seat at the counter is an Actual Public Accomodation, and if you have read my previous posts, I support PA laws when applied to actual PA's.

A contracted cake for a specific event is not a PA, and thus should not follow PA laws. A restaurant that allows the public to enter and eat is a PA and thus must follow PA laws.

So, you are claiming we can't discriminate at a food place where you sit but can at a food place you walk in to buy?

What if the baker had a table & you could sit & taste different cakes?

What if they didn’t have chairs? You could taste the cakes but you can’t sit down. Supplying he chair implies they wanted you to sit down. Making your customers stand is inconvenient BUT it gets around the “we’re open for business” implication of having a chair. See? LOL.

The conservatives get more and more ridiculous every day; don’t they?

You just don't understand or won't understand this isn't a black/white issue.

Sorry, but when the easy button is via government force, then the government is required to take the harder road when it comes to Constitutional rights.

This guy doesn't deny point of sale non-customized cakes to anyone. He is also pretty consistent, where he doesn't do Satan Cakes, or dildo cakes (yes some activist is trying to make him create them). or even Halloween cakes.

You want a plain cake and you are a lesbian nazi hooker abducted by aliens, and forced into a weight loss clinic? You get your cake.

You want a cake celebrating you are a lesbian nazi hooker abducted by aliens, and forced into a weight loss clinic? Sorry, please go to another baker, (and then you still get your cake)

 

[Norman]

They may not approve of his life, but unlike the democrats, he will not go after what is important in THEIR lives. Democrats offer nothing to Evangelicals except more attacks on their beliefs and lives.

Voting for a thrice-married, twice divorced man known for extramarital affairs, cavorting with Playboy models, vulgar talk, and an itchy Twitter trigger finger — to say nothing of the accusations of racism and sexual harassment or worse against Trump — certainly opens socially conservative Christians up to charges of hypocrisy. It also arguably makes it harder to reach other Americans, including young people, with their religious missions, or work with fellow Christians in communities of color.

But these consequences pale in comparison to voting for a party that stands opposed to the issues nearest to conservative Christians' hearts. As conservative Christian commentator Erick Erickson put it, the Democratic Party "offers me no home and is deeply hostile to people of faith. The president has shown himself to not share my faith convictions any more than the other side, but the president has shown he is willing to defened my faith convictions and is supportive of them."


Erickson didn't vote for Trump in 2016, but announced earlier this month that he plans to do so in 2020. Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee was one of the most steadfast "Never Trump" social conservatives. He too has said he will endorse Trump in 2020.

Religious conservatives will never abandon Trump

Same is true for Americans. Especially as the never Trumpers and democrats grow more and more anti-American people.