Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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)
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)
You are right on one count.
I don’t get why you just don’t make the cake
I don’t get why you sue someone who doesn’t want to make you the cake
Just bake the damn cake or just take your business across the street. Do we have to legislate everything?
Now, if the question is the pharmacy that won’t sell you Plan B; then you may have an issue if you’re the plaintiff….
But cakes?
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)
You are right on one count.
I don’t get why you just don’t make the cake
I don’t get why you sue someone who doesn’t want to make you the cake
Just bake the damn cake or just take your business across the street. Do we have to legislate everything?
Now, if the question is the pharmacy that won’t sell you Plan B; then you may have an issue if you’re the plaintiff….
But cakes?
The issue isn't not getting it, the issue to me is always government force.
Plan B can be seen as an "immediate" need, so I can see forcing it to be kept in pharmacies, but really only in places with only 1 pharmacy, or a place where all pharmacies won't stock it. (seriously though, as an OTC item, in NY gas stations could stock it)
Also, as a point of sale item, it doesn't have the endorsement issues a custom cake does.
Considering Amazon can pretty much delivery everywhere in a day or two, technology can even make that point moot.
And it's not like the stuff goes bad in 10 days, if you are feeling randy, why not stock it?
Again, who is "we"? Just you and your rice crispies? What do "we" believe this passage refers to?
Cecile you should recognize that she will never know what “we” means. Or rather she does...and feels hatred for it.
I know that’s not pleasant but it’s true.
I’m asking who she thinks she’s speaking for because the “sperm as sacred” issue has been long debated in religion.
Not in our religion. Go ahead and quote yours again.
You're not Christian? I already told you what my religion is, it's irony. It'll never let you down.
No your religion is not irony. If it were you would have more interesting posts.
You don’t belong here.
I can’t wait until you and all the other scum are sliced up into many tiny pieces during the civil war that is coming up in 2020.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!"
You may think you are safe treating Christians like shit despite all the charities only existing because of Christians, but that is why people like me exist. To do what Christians are too nice to do.
The Republicans could not find someone who was not a mass adulterer who lies every time he opens his mouth and defrauds seniors of their retirement nest eggs and worships a KGB thug.
They could not find an honest, decent man who is also against abortion anywhere in the whoooooooooooooole party!
They had a primary, he won the primary.
Only the Democrats feel the need to rig their primary, but I have a feeling the RINO's and Never Trumpers wish they had rigged the Republican one.
Describe, in detail, how the Democratic primary was “rigged”.
Superdelegates.
Superdelegates don't "rig" the system. Those are the primary rules all candidates agree to. All voters that wanted to were allowed to vote for Bernie. 3 MILLION fewer did than voted for Hillary. A far greater margin than between Clinton and Obama.
The delegate system is set up similar to the EV system, so you do have a "dead vote" component.
You are going to be surprised in a year when the civil war happens and Antifa is shitting their pants just because of me.I can’t wait until you and all the other scum are sliced up into many tiny pieces during the civil war that is coming up in 2020.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!"
You may think you are safe treating Christians like shit despite all the charities only existing because of Christians, but that is why people like me exist. To do what Christians are too nice to do.
Christians are too nice to sit in their mothers basement and make empty threats?
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)
You are right on one count.
I don’t get why you just don’t make the cake
I don’t get why you sue someone who doesn’t want to make you the cake
Just bake the damn cake or just take your business across the street. Do we have to legislate everything?
Now, if the question is the pharmacy that won’t sell you Plan B; then you may have an issue if you’re the plaintiff….
But cakes?
The issue isn't not getting it, the issue to me is always government force.
Plan B can be seen as an "immediate" need, so I can see forcing it to be kept in pharmacies, but really only in places with only 1 pharmacy, or a place where all pharmacies won't stock it. (seriously though, as an OTC item, in NY gas stations could stock it)
Also, as a point of sale item, it doesn't have the endorsement issues a custom cake does.
Considering Amazon can pretty much delivery everywhere in a day or two, technology can even make that point moot.
And it's not like the stuff goes bad in 10 days, if you are feeling randy, why not stock it?
The Plan B episode was when we had reports of a pharmacist not dispensing it due to their moral conviction.
The Plan B product is OTC now so it’s not an issue any longer if there is no other holy roller at the cashier counter.
It wasn’t always OTC. We used to have to make it in the pharmacy.
They had a primary, he won the primary.
Only the Democrats feel the need to rig their primary, but I have a feeling the RINO's and Never Trumpers wish they had rigged the Republican one.
Describe, in detail, how the Democratic primary was “rigged”.
Superdelegates.
Superdelegates don't "rig" the system. Those are the primary rules all candidates agree to. All voters that wanted to were allowed to vote for Bernie. 3 MILLION fewer did than voted for Hillary. A far greater margin than between Clinton and Obama.
The delegate system is set up similar to the EV system, so you do have a "dead vote" component.
It's still not a rigged system. Every voter that wanted to vote for Sanders could. 3 MILLION fewer did so.
Same sex marriage is not a concept which began only in the last few decades. It may be rare, but there is evidence of same sex unions as far back as ancient Rome.
As a mainstream legal construct is is only a creation of the past few decades.
The "evidence" isn't about State sanctioning, it's about people buggering others of the same sex, which of course has occurred throughout the millennia.
Even in those cases the relationships were not seen as equal to heterosexual relationships, which had the required ability to procreate, and back then since infant mortality and life spans were so short, procreating had to be done "early and often" to assure enough people in the next generation to continue a given culture/tribe/family/nation etc.
It's about a bit more than "people buggering other of the same sex." I said it was rare, certainly not a mainstream legal construct. I simply pointed out that the concept of same sex marriage is not only from the past few decades, as you stated.
One or two random cases does not a precedent make. The current concept of it being equal to opposite sex marriage, or that there was even something besides opposite sex marriage is a new construct.
I didn't make any claims about precedent. Again, I simply pointed out that your statement saying the concept of same sex marriage has only begun in the last few decades is false. If you said that the concept of same sex marriage as an equal legal contract to opposite sex marriage is recent, that would probably be accurate. On the other hand, there were apparently some tribes in Africa in pre-colonial times that allowed women to marry and treated it similarly to opposite-sex marriages.
History of Same Sex Marriage
For the purposes of this thread, how about 'same sex marriage is a recent idea in the US'?
The concept as a broad mainstream reality is recent. Sorry but 1-2 maybe sort of probable cases does not make a case for precedent.
In Africa, those cases probably involved widows or women from families with no men, and it had to do with property, not sex.
There is a similar concept found in the Balkans, (Albania I think), but again that has all to do with keeping family property in the family.
If all you are going to do is nit-pick, when my statement is 98% accurate, then go play somewhere else.
As a mainstream legal construct is is only a creation of the past few decades.
The "evidence" isn't about State sanctioning, it's about people buggering others of the same sex, which of course has occurred throughout the millennia.
Even in those cases the relationships were not seen as equal to heterosexual relationships, which had the required ability to procreate, and back then since infant mortality and life spans were so short, procreating had to be done "early and often" to assure enough people in the next generation to continue a given culture/tribe/family/nation etc.
It's about a bit more than "people buggering other of the same sex." I said it was rare, certainly not a mainstream legal construct. I simply pointed out that the concept of same sex marriage is not only from the past few decades, as you stated.
One or two random cases does not a precedent make. The current concept of it being equal to opposite sex marriage, or that there was even something besides opposite sex marriage is a new construct.
I didn't make any claims about precedent. Again, I simply pointed out that your statement saying the concept of same sex marriage has only begun in the last few decades is false. If you said that the concept of same sex marriage as an equal legal contract to opposite sex marriage is recent, that would probably be accurate. On the other hand, there were apparently some tribes in Africa in pre-colonial times that allowed women to marry and treated it similarly to opposite-sex marriages.
History of Same Sex Marriage
For the purposes of this thread, how about 'same sex marriage is a recent idea in the US'?
The concept as a broad mainstream reality is recent. Sorry but 1-2 maybe sort of probable cases does not make a case for precedent.
In Africa, those cases probably involved widows or women from families with no men, and it had to do with property, not sex.
There is a similar concept found in the Balkans, (Albania I think), but again that has all to do with keeping family property in the family.
If all you are going to do is nit-pick, when my statement is 98% accurate, then go play somewhere else.
Feel free to stop replying. I never claimed that SSM is or has been common, nor that any precedents were set, nor that it was a mainstream legal construct. I simply pointed out that a statement you made, the way you stated it, was false. Since then, you've repeatedly tried to make that into something it is not.
I was just looking to fix a slight inaccuracy in a post you made. Why you want to assume that I'm making statements about same sex marriage that I am not, I'm not sure. Hell, you could have just said the current concept of SSM began in the last few decades and that would have been fine.
Maybe you really hate accepting any sort of correction to your posts, however minor.
It's about a bit more than "people buggering other of the same sex." I said it was rare, certainly not a mainstream legal construct. I simply pointed out that the concept of same sex marriage is not only from the past few decades, as you stated.
One or two random cases does not a precedent make. The current concept of it being equal to opposite sex marriage, or that there was even something besides opposite sex marriage is a new construct.
I didn't make any claims about precedent. Again, I simply pointed out that your statement saying the concept of same sex marriage has only begun in the last few decades is false. If you said that the concept of same sex marriage as an equal legal contract to opposite sex marriage is recent, that would probably be accurate. On the other hand, there were apparently some tribes in Africa in pre-colonial times that allowed women to marry and treated it similarly to opposite-sex marriages.
History of Same Sex Marriage
For the purposes of this thread, how about 'same sex marriage is a recent idea in the US'?
The concept as a broad mainstream reality is recent. Sorry but 1-2 maybe sort of probable cases does not make a case for precedent.
In Africa, those cases probably involved widows or women from families with no men, and it had to do with property, not sex.
There is a similar concept found in the Balkans, (Albania I think), but again that has all to do with keeping family property in the family.
If all you are going to do is nit-pick, when my statement is 98% accurate, then go play somewhere else.
Feel free to stop replying. I never claimed that SSM is or has been common, nor that any precedents were set, nor that it was a mainstream legal construct. I simply pointed out that a statement you made, the way you stated it, was false. Since then, you've repeatedly tried to make that into something it is not.
I was just looking to fix a slight inaccuracy in a post you made. Why you want to assume that I'm making statements about same sex marriage that I am not, I'm not sure. Hell, you could have just said the current concept of SSM began in the last few decades and that would have been fine.
Maybe you really hate accepting any sort of correction to your posts, however minor.
And I clarified, but you keep harping on the same point over and over, so I have to assume you are just bringing up chickenshit to be annoying.
I'm sure someone had an idea for a computer back in antiquity, but we don't say computers go back to then. (probably involving boulders and slides)
Someone having an idea, and an idea being accepted or applied are two different things.
One or two random cases does not a precedent make. The current concept of it being equal to opposite sex marriage, or that there was even something besides opposite sex marriage is a new construct.
I didn't make any claims about precedent. Again, I simply pointed out that your statement saying the concept of same sex marriage has only begun in the last few decades is false. If you said that the concept of same sex marriage as an equal legal contract to opposite sex marriage is recent, that would probably be accurate. On the other hand, there were apparently some tribes in Africa in pre-colonial times that allowed women to marry and treated it similarly to opposite-sex marriages.
History of Same Sex Marriage
For the purposes of this thread, how about 'same sex marriage is a recent idea in the US'?
The concept as a broad mainstream reality is recent. Sorry but 1-2 maybe sort of probable cases does not make a case for precedent.
In Africa, those cases probably involved widows or women from families with no men, and it had to do with property, not sex.
There is a similar concept found in the Balkans, (Albania I think), but again that has all to do with keeping family property in the family.
If all you are going to do is nit-pick, when my statement is 98% accurate, then go play somewhere else.
Feel free to stop replying. I never claimed that SSM is or has been common, nor that any precedents were set, nor that it was a mainstream legal construct. I simply pointed out that a statement you made, the way you stated it, was false. Since then, you've repeatedly tried to make that into something it is not.
I was just looking to fix a slight inaccuracy in a post you made. Why you want to assume that I'm making statements about same sex marriage that I am not, I'm not sure. Hell, you could have just said the current concept of SSM began in the last few decades and that would have been fine.
Maybe you really hate accepting any sort of correction to your posts, however minor.
And I clarified, but you keep harping on the same point over and over, so I have to assume you are just bringing up chickenshit to be annoying.
I'm sure someone had an idea for a computer back in antiquity, but we don't say computers go back to then. (probably involving boulders and slides)
Someone having an idea, and an idea being accepted or applied are two different things.
I agree. Never claimed otherwise.
Your clarification was fine with me, except that you seemed to both dismiss the evidence of previous same sex unions as not counting, or being just about sex, and that you seemed to indicate that I was arguing more than just that the concept of same sex marriage is older than a few decades. I've been "harping" because I don't want to seem to accept that my argument was something other than what it was.
I'm fine with accepting your clarification and dropping this little side discussion.
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.
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.
The ruling didn't claim the Constitution gives a right to same sex marriage, did it? I thought the ruling was that Equal Protection covered same sex marriage, so that if marriage is legal for opposite sex couples, it must therefor be legal for same sex couples. I believe the court did state that there is a right to marry based on previous rulings, though.
That may seem to be "jiggery-pokery," but isn't that often how court rulings are come to?
I always thought the gender discrimination argument could have been a strong one (if you allow a man to marry a woman, but don't allow a woman to marry a woman, it's discrimination based on gender), but I can understand where the USSC ruling came from. I'd have much preferred same sex marriage passing through legislation.
Here we go again.....if someone has a business license, are they or are they not obligated to follow the business, safety, and health laws of the state they get the license in?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 never explain how anything they complain about other people doing or believing affects their own lives, and then scream "persecution!" They are free to choose whatever lifestyle they wish, but it seems that their actual goal is to control the lives and choices of other people. They essentially want to impose a theocracy on the entire country, in complete disregard of the rights of others and the Constitution itself.
Evangelicals are not immune from criticism. They certainly feel free tp criticise others; other people's beliefs, lifestyles, and personal choices.
The fact that they are willing to cause substantial damage to our nation, our security, our reputation, our rights, and our legal system is downright despicable.
That you have to demonize people for the "crime" of not thinking like you do show how much of a worthless fascist hack you are.
Please show me the ones that want to impose a "theocracy", and find a group bigger than 50 or so morons in some basement somewhere.
On the other hand progressive scum like you have no issue using government to force your own morals on others.
"Bake that fucking cake, peasant"
What do you mean by demonize? Nobody is using government to force their "morals" on others except for right-wing "Christians," who are perfectly free to live as they choose and live according to what they perceive as their "morals" as long as they meet their legal obligations and not interfere with other people's rights to make their own choices. It is the right-wingers who want to impose their particular brand of morality on the public through legislation.
Your name-calling reveals exactly what you are.
BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE PEASANT.
It's amazing that you don't see this as force, simply because you hate the people it is being applied to.
Sorry, but free exercise in this case trumps a person's wish to have a specific cake from a specific baker.
Heck, they couldn't even get inter-racial marriage to pass thru legislation......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.
The ruling didn't claim the Constitution gives a right to same sex marriage, did it? I thought the ruling was that Equal Protection covered same sex marriage, so that if marriage is legal for opposite sex couples, it must therefor be legal for same sex couples. I believe the court did state that there is a right to marry based on previous rulings, though.
That may seem to be "jiggery-pokery," but isn't that often how court rulings are come to?
I always thought the gender discrimination argument could have been a strong one (if you allow a man to marry a woman, but don't allow a woman to marry a woman, it's discrimination based on gender), but I can understand where the USSC ruling came from. I'd have much preferred same sex marriage passing through legislation.
Here we go again.....if someone has a business license, are they or are they not obligated to follow the business, safety, and health laws of the state they get the license in?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.
Religious conservatives will never abandon Trump
Evangelicals never explain how anything they complain about other people doing or believing affects their own lives, and then scream "persecution!" They are free to choose whatever lifestyle they wish, but it seems that their actual goal is to control the lives and choices of other people. They essentially want to impose a theocracy on the entire country, in complete disregard of the rights of others and the Constitution itself.
Evangelicals are not immune from criticism. They certainly feel free tp criticise others; other people's beliefs, lifestyles, and personal choices.
The fact that they are willing to cause substantial damage to our nation, our security, our reputation, our rights, and our legal system is downright despicable.
That you have to demonize people for the "crime" of not thinking like you do show how much of a worthless fascist hack you are.
Please show me the ones that want to impose a "theocracy", and find a group bigger than 50 or so morons in some basement somewhere.
On the other hand progressive scum like you have no issue using government to force your own morals on others.
"Bake that fucking cake, peasant"
What do you mean by demonize? Nobody is using government to force their "morals" on others except for right-wing "Christians," who are perfectly free to live as they choose and live according to what they perceive as their "morals" as long as they meet their legal obligations and not interfere with other people's rights to make their own choices. It is the right-wingers who want to impose their particular brand of morality on the public through legislation.
Your name-calling reveals exactly what you are.
BAKE THAT FUCKING CAKE PEASANT.
It's amazing that you don't see this as force, simply because you hate the people it is being applied to.
Sorry, but free exercise in this case trumps a person's wish to have a specific cake from a specific baker.
Yes or No?
PERFECT!I can’t wait until you and all the other scum are sliced up into many tiny pieces during the civil war that is coming up in 2020.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!"
You may think you are safe treating Christians like shit despite all the charities only existing because of Christians, but that is why people like me exist. To do what Christians are too nice to do.
Christians are too nice to sit in their mothers basement and make empty threats?
