SCOTUS divided over SSM

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Its not rocket science, Christians are not going to disobey God and burn in hell.

Wait, how the hell will legal same sex marriage or selling cakes lead to god burning people in hell?

People go to hell for not choosing God's love and forgiveness. Every sin has the capacity to separate us from God, but through Jesus Christ, we are offered complete forgiveness and redemption. Hell is a choice we make when we decline forgiveness.

They can make up any reason not to bake the cake, but it will always be presented by the far left as it being because they were gay!

The far Left walks in darkness and speaks the language of lies. Christian business owners don't turn people away because they're gay, but when asked to specifically cater to the gay lifestyle, such as baking a cake for a gay wedding, Christians are pressed with a conflict of interest that is not present when providing normal services to gay people that have nothing to do with gay marriage.

dude, most of the Right cannot distinguish the difference between morality and amorality in public policy decisions.

An ignorant opinion that can't be proved in a rational discussion.

 

[Muhammed]

Looks like SCOTUS ruling in favor of SSM isn't the lock the homos led everyone to believe. Roberts nailed it. Kennedy is all over the map, he's obviously conflicted.

Gay Marriage Arguments Divide Supreme Court Justices

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that Ms. Bonauto was asking the court to do something radical.

“You’re not seeking to join the institution,” he said. “You’re seeking to change what the institution is.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html

It's pretty much a done deal. You can marry your dog or your monkey or grandma or a dozen idiot clowns.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Looks like SCOTUS ruling in favor of SSM isn't the lock the homos led everyone to believe. Roberts nailed it. Kennedy is all over the map, he's obviously conflicted.

Gay Marriage Arguments Divide Supreme Court Justices

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that Ms. Bonauto was asking the court to do something radical.

“You’re not seeking to join the institution,” he said. “You’re seeking to change what the institution is.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html

It's pretty much a done deal. You can marry your dog or your monkey or grandma or a dozen idiot clowns.

Or we can do like your people and arrange marriages that have nothing to do with love. As much distaste as I have for gay marriage, I still prefer freedom over your backward Sh'ria control over who marries who.

 

[danielpalos]

There is nothing to get huffy about considering you have offered nothing. I am sure if the SCOTUS rules against your position you will be mocked and laughed at as well.

Negative, I don't give a rats ass about any gay issue. But I recognize over reach when I see it and the type of behavior that would give the SCOTUS pause. $135,000 damage award for refusing to bake a cake? Yes that is precisely how gays are shooting themselves in the foot.

Is the baker some religious authority; or, is the Right overreaching under color of religious authority, again.

I didn't see that in the 1st Amendment, that the protection was only given to religious authorities.

Only religious authorities should enjoin morals on others; Persons in Commerce should just abstain from infidel-ism, protestant-ism, and renegade-ism to their profit motive as merchants in Commerce..

Where do you read in the Bill of Rights that religious protections are forfeited when one owns a business? And where do you get the insane notion that only religious clergy are agents of morality?

Certain rights are forfeited for the privileges of serving the public via public accommodations. Profit seeking is a legal requirement for Firms that are for-profit.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Negative, I don't give a rats ass about any gay issue. But I recognize over reach when I see it and the type of behavior that would give the SCOTUS pause. $135,000 damage award for refusing to bake a cake? Yes that is precisely how gays are shooting themselves in the foot.

Is the baker some religious authority; or, is the Right overreaching under color of religious authority, again.

I didn't see that in the 1st Amendment, that the protection was only given to religious authorities.

Only religious authorities should enjoin morals on others; Persons in Commerce should just abstain from infidel-ism, protestant-ism, and renegade-ism to their profit motive as merchants in Commerce..

Where do you read in the Bill of Rights that religious protections are forfeited when one owns a business? And where do you get the insane notion that only religious clergy are agents of morality?

Certain rights are forfeited for the privileges of serving the public via public accommodations. Profit seeking is a legal requirement for Firms that are for-profit.

Really? Where does the Bill of Rights say that the rights they guarantee are forfeited when someone owns a business? I must have missed that.

You already know you're not going to win this argument.

 

[defcon4]

People go to hell for not choosing God's love and forgiveness. Every sin has the capacity to separate us from God, but through Jesus Christ, we are offered complete forgiveness and redemption. Hell is a choice we make when we decline forgiveness.

How does serving cakes to a gay couple deny gods love? How do you know what god will do? How do you know giving cakes to gays is a sin? How do you know jesus hated gay people?

All your questions are based on ignorance, defined as ignoring what I just posted as well as the basic tenants of Christianity.

I read through your post, and I've read much of the new and old testament, I used to be a devout christian, although I still respect the teachings of Jesus, they are good, but they don't have anything to do with hating others who happen to be gay.

I agree. When I find somebody who hates others who happen to be gay, I'll pass that along.

It seems like wanting to deny gays rights, calling them sinners if they decide to love their partner is hatred..

Having sex is not a right. If it were, then rape as such would not be crime.
Love is not a right it is an emotion. If it were, one could take somebody else's loved one by force based on the reason of loving.
What I am saying is that there is no such thing as "gay right"

 

[BluesLegend]

There is nothing to get huffy about considering you have offered nothing. I am sure if the SCOTUS rules against your position you will be mocked and laughed at as well.

Negative, I don't give a rats ass about any gay issue. But I recognize over reach when I see it and the type of behavior that would give the SCOTUS pause. $135,000 damage award for refusing to bake a cake? Yes that is precisely how gays are shooting themselves in the foot.

Is the baker some religious authority; or, is the Right overreaching under color of religious authority, again.

I didn't see that in the 1st Amendment, that the protection was only given to religious authorities.

Only religious authorities should enjoin morals on others; Persons in Commerce should just abstain from infidel-ism, protestant-ism, and renegade-ism to their profit motive as merchants in Commerce..

Where do you read in the Bill of Rights that religious protections are forfeited when one owns a business? And where do you get the insane notion that only religious clergy are agents of morality?

I'd like to know why gays are intentionally targeting Christian business owners trying to entrap them, and in collaboration with government agencies that then unleash legal attacks on the business owner in an attempt to the destroy the business and the owner financially? Does that sound like something God would be okay with? Hell no.

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Commerce Clause it is not a Bill of Rights issue.

 

[danielpalos]

Negative, I don't give a rats ass about any gay issue. But I recognize over reach when I see it and the type of behavior that would give the SCOTUS pause. $135,000 damage award for refusing to bake a cake? Yes that is precisely how gays are shooting themselves in the foot.

Is the baker some religious authority; or, is the Right overreaching under color of religious authority, again.

I didn't see that in the 1st Amendment, that the protection was only given to religious authorities.

Only religious authorities should enjoin morals on others; Persons in Commerce should just abstain from infidel-ism, protestant-ism, and renegade-ism to their profit motive as merchants in Commerce..

Where do you read in the Bill of Rights that religious protections are forfeited when one owns a business? And where do you get the insane notion that only religious clergy are agents of morality?

I'd like to know why gays are intentionally targeting Christian business owners trying to entrap them, and in collaboration with government agencies that then unleash legal attacks on the business owner in an attempt to the destroy the business and the owner financially? Does that sound like something God would be okay with? Hell no.

Lousy Capitalists with alleged moral obligations should only use not-for-profit status.

 

[danielpalos]

Is the baker some religious authority; or, is the Right overreaching under color of religious authority, again.

I didn't see that in the 1st Amendment, that the protection was only given to religious authorities.

Only religious authorities should enjoin morals on others; Persons in Commerce should just abstain from infidel-ism, protestant-ism, and renegade-ism to their profit motive as merchants in Commerce..

Where do you read in the Bill of Rights that religious protections are forfeited when one owns a business? And where do you get the insane notion that only religious clergy are agents of morality?

Certain rights are forfeited for the privileges of serving the public via public accommodations. Profit seeking is a legal requirement for Firms that are for-profit.

Really? Where does the Bill of Rights say that the rights they guarantee are forfeited when someone owns a business? I must have missed that.

You already know you're not going to win this argument.

I win all of my arguments on these forums.

We have a Commerce Clause it is not a Bill of Rights issue.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Is the baker some religious authority; or, is the Right overreaching under color of religious authority, again.

I didn't see that in the 1st Amendment, that the protection was only given to religious authorities.

Only religious authorities should enjoin morals on others; Persons in Commerce should just abstain from infidel-ism, protestant-ism, and renegade-ism to their profit motive as merchants in Commerce..

Where do you read in the Bill of Rights that religious protections are forfeited when one owns a business? And where do you get the insane notion that only religious clergy are agents of morality?

I'd like to know why gays are intentionally targeting Christian business owners trying to entrap them, and in collaboration with government agencies that then unleash legal attacks on the business owner in an attempt to the destroy the business and the owner financially? Does that sound like something God would be okay with? Hell no.

Lousy Capitalists with alleged moral obligations should only use not-for-profit status.

That's your bigoted opinion and it's at variance with the Bill of Rights.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I didn't see that in the 1st Amendment, that the protection was only given to religious authorities.

Only religious authorities should enjoin morals on others; Persons in Commerce should just abstain from infidel-ism, protestant-ism, and renegade-ism to their profit motive as merchants in Commerce..

Where do you read in the Bill of Rights that religious protections are forfeited when one owns a business? And where do you get the insane notion that only religious clergy are agents of morality?

Certain rights are forfeited for the privileges of serving the public via public accommodations. Profit seeking is a legal requirement for Firms that are for-profit.

Really? Where does the Bill of Rights say that the rights they guarantee are forfeited when someone owns a business? I must have missed that.

You already know you're not going to win this argument.

I win all of my arguments on these forums.

We have a Commerce Clause it is not a Bill of Rights issue.

The Commerce Clause does not render the Bill of Rights null and void.

 

[danielpalos]

I didn't see that in the 1st Amendment, that the protection was only given to religious authorities.

Only religious authorities should enjoin morals on others; Persons in Commerce should just abstain from infidel-ism, protestant-ism, and renegade-ism to their profit motive as merchants in Commerce..

Where do you read in the Bill of Rights that religious protections are forfeited when one owns a business? And where do you get the insane notion that only religious clergy are agents of morality?

I'd like to know why gays are intentionally targeting Christian business owners trying to entrap them, and in collaboration with government agencies that then unleash legal attacks on the business owner in an attempt to the destroy the business and the owner financially? Does that sound like something God would be okay with? Hell no.

Lousy Capitalists with alleged moral obligations should only use not-for-profit status.

That's your bigoted opinion and it's at variance with the Bill of Rights.

Nope; it is your bigoted opinion that clouds the soundness of your reason. It is about a merchant in Commerce providing lousy customer service on a for-profit basis via the secular and temporal privilege and immunity of public accommodation.

 

[martybegan]

Only religious authorities should enjoin morals on others; Persons in Commerce should just abstain from infidel-ism, protestant-ism, and renegade-ism to their profit motive as merchants in Commerce..

Where do you read in the Bill of Rights that religious protections are forfeited when one owns a business? And where do you get the insane notion that only religious clergy are agents of morality?

I'd like to know why gays are intentionally targeting Christian business owners trying to entrap them, and in collaboration with government agencies that then unleash legal attacks on the business owner in an attempt to the destroy the business and the owner financially? Does that sound like something God would be okay with? Hell no.

Lousy Capitalists with alleged moral obligations should only use not-for-profit status.

That's your bigoted opinion and it's at variance with the Bill of Rights.

Nope; it is your bigoted opinion that clouds the soundness of your reason. It is about a merchant in Commerce providing lousy customer service on a for-profit basis via the secular and temporal privilege and immunity of public accommodation.

 

[The Rabbi]

I didn't see that in the 1st Amendment, that the protection was only given to religious authorities.

Only religious authorities should enjoin morals on others; Persons in Commerce should just abstain from infidel-ism, protestant-ism, and renegade-ism to their profit motive as merchants in Commerce..

Where do you read in the Bill of Rights that religious protections are forfeited when one owns a business? And where do you get the insane notion that only religious clergy are agents of morality?

Certain rights are forfeited for the privileges of serving the public via public accommodations. Profit seeking is a legal requirement for Firms that are for-profit.

Really? Where does the Bill of Rights say that the rights they guarantee are forfeited when someone owns a business? I must have missed that.

You already know you're not going to win this argument.

I win all of my arguments on these forums.

We have a Commerce Clause it is not a Bill of Rights issue.

You aer an ignoramus. You win the "Stupidest Poster on USMB" argument.
The commerce clause does not dictate individual behavior in business. You can argue businesses ought to be focused on making money. And I wont disagree with you. But you cannot argue business have some kind of legal obligation to make money to the detriment of the owners.

 

[JoeB131]

The real question here is whether homosexuality is a normal human condition. The marriage issue is just a dodge of the real issue.

Society as a whole should decide this, not 9 old farts in black robes.

Would you want any right you have put up to a popular vote?

 

[JoeB131]

They will decide they cannot dictate social policy to all the states and overturn 1000 years of western tradition. That would be proper judicial restraint.

38 states have already legalize gay marriage. The court is not going to overturn what is ALREADY an accepted institution.

I think it will go 5-4 in favor of gay marriage. Maybe 6-3 if Roberts doesn't want the history books to say bad stuff about him.

 

[The Rabbi]

They will decide they cannot dictate social policy to all the states and overturn 1000 years of western tradition. That would be proper judicial restraint.

38 states have already legalize gay marriage. The court is not going to overturn what is ALREADY an accepted institution.

I think it will go 5-4 in favor of gay marriage. Maybe 6-3 if Roberts doesn't want the history books to say bad stuff about him.

Wrong. Most of the those states had legalization imposed on them.
I think it will go 9-0 that homos need to get back into the fucking closet. Thats as valid as any prediction you ever make.

 

[konradv]

I think the court will regard same-sex marriage as a fait accompli and rule in favor on the grounds that marriages in one state must be recognized by the others and because the first amendment protects us from the imposition of religion on our lives.

 

[rightwinger]

They will decide they cannot dictate social policy to all the states and overturn 1000 years of western tradition. That would be proper judicial restraint.

38 states have already legalize gay marriage. The court is not going to overturn what is ALREADY an accepted institution.

I think it will go 5-4 in favor of gay marriage. Maybe 6-3 if Roberts doesn't want the history books to say bad stuff about him.

I think that in spite of his grumblings during testimony, Roberts will be concerned about his legacy. He has seen the writing on the wall and realizes gay marriage is a done deal
While he wants to go down as conservative, he does not want to be on record as opposing gay marriage