SCOTUS divided over SSM

[WorldWatcher]

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.

Please explain why the court denies stay requests based on appeals from the 11th, 9th, 7th, 4th, and 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and later rejected appeals to hear the cases. In granting the stay it would have allowed the SSCM bans in states under those jurisdictions to remain active during an appeals process.

It wasn't until the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ban that an appeal to the SCOTUS that they accepted a case. (Since the 6th upheld the ban, there was no stay request to stop SSCM's from starting since their were not getting ready to start.)

The SCOTUS let SSCM's start in states when denying the appeal, if your prediction was based on logic, wouldn't the court have prevented SSCM's from starting in the first place pending the resolution of formal appeals?


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

Homophobes are gonna be homophobes. (People in this thread)

the thread is about the division in the SC. I don't really think that anyone posting in this thread is afraid of gays.

but what is quite clear is that you fear open equal debate. Because when its open and equal you always lose, your left wing bullshit always loses, your marxist collectivist bullshit always loses. In short, you are a loser.

Really? Their is literally no logical reason to oppose homosexuals getting married other then religious bullshit, or homophobia (Afraid of gays, thinking gays will destroy marriage..)

the reason is that a majority of human beings on planet earth consider it wrong. no other reason is required.

So you think it is okay to deny rights to people if the majority of human beings on earth consider it wrong?

Wow....good thing that wasn't considered when the issue of women voting rights came up.

I'm not so sure giving women the vote was a good thing.....something about the values of the weaker sex and their inclination to extort money from the producers to satiate their maternal need for security.

Not really shocking to find out that anti gay bigots are also misogynist.

 

[Seawytch]

It will go 6-3 in favor

5-4 against forcing states to change their own marriage contract.
7-2 in favor of forcing states to accept valid marriage contracts from other states, no matter what they allow.

You're probably right, but Kennedy was very quiet during the arguments made for state recognition of marriage contracts from other states - meaning either he'd already decided that he was against forcing states to change their own marriage contract laws and this was his way of sort-of straddling the issue or he'd already decided for national recognition of SSM. Or I'm reading into his silence too much...

I honestly think the 2nd argument is a no-brainer, as all States recognize other States marriage contracts no matter what the base differences in qualifications. So if you get married with your parents permission in say New Hampshire which allows for marriage by "special cause" or in reality pregnancy at 14 for males and 13 for females, (with parental permission) you are still married if you move to Washington, which requires 17 as a minimum unless a judge waives the requirement.

To me the 2nd question didn't warrant the discussion of the first, because the constitution and precedent are clear with regards to full faith and credit.

The least ruling that will come out is the striking down of the rest of DOMA...which is what is preventing the FF&C application. It remains to be seen if the current SCOTUS will strike down all marriage bans, but at the end of this, whether they like it or not, Alabama is going to have to recognize my marriage as legal and valid, even if they as a state never perform same sex marriages.

 

[Wildman]

Straights have changed the definition of marriage many times.

PROVE IT MR. FUCKWAD !!

 

[Coloradomtnman]

the thread is about the division in the SC. I don't really think that anyone posting in this thread is afraid of gays.

but what is quite clear is that you fear open equal debate. Because when its open and equal you always lose, your left wing bullshit always loses, your marxist collectivist bullshit always loses. In short, you are a loser.

Really? Their is literally no logical reason to oppose homosexuals getting married other then religious bullshit, or homophobia (Afraid of gays, thinking gays will destroy marriage..)

the reason is that a majority of human beings on planet earth consider it wrong. no other reason is required.

So you think it is okay to deny rights to people if the majority of human beings on earth consider it wrong?

Wow....good thing that wasn't considered when the issue of women voting rights came up.

I'm not so sure giving women the vote was a good thing.....something about the values of the weaker sex and their inclination to extort money from the producers to satiate their maternal need for security.

Not really shocking to find out that anti gay bigots are also misogynist.

What the hell is he talking about? Was that a serious comment? That's one of the weirdest and most ridiculous arguments against women's equality that I've ever heard.

 

[Seawytch]

Straights have changed the definition of marriage many times.

PROVE IT MR. FUCKWAD !!

Women are no longer considered property in a marriage. Women can own their own property within a marriage. Blacks can now marry whites...

How Marriage Has Changed Over the Centuries

 

[bodecea]

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"

Wow! Just wow! You just equated having sex with rape, with no distinction between consentual and non-consentual.

 

[konradv]

Women are no longer considered property in a marriage. Women can own their own property within a marriage. Blacks can now marry whites...
How Marriage Has Changed Over the Centuries

Divorce has gone from being forbidden to being a legal right.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Yes, I do; and, it is why I have a clue and a Cause; unlike the Right.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Dude, only the Right appeals to Ignorance of this merchant in Commerce issue.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

the thread is about the division in the SC. I don't really think that anyone posting in this thread is afraid of gays.

but what is quite clear is that you fear open equal debate. Because when its open and equal you always lose, your left wing bullshit always loses, your marxist collectivist bullshit always loses. In short, you are a loser.

Really? Their is literally no logical reason to oppose homosexuals getting married other then religious bullshit, or homophobia (Afraid of gays, thinking gays will destroy marriage..)

the reason is that a majority of human beings on planet earth consider it wrong. no other reason is required.

So you think it is okay to deny rights to people if the majority of human beings on earth consider it wrong?

Wow....good thing that wasn't considered when the issue of women voting rights came up.

I'm not so sure giving women the vote was a good thing.....something about the values of the weaker sex and their inclination to extort money from the producers to satiate their maternal need for security.

Not really shocking to find out that anti gay bigots are also misogynist.

What does that have to do with me?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

Only in your dreams

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Dude, only the Right appeals to Ignorance of this merchant in Commerce issue.

Dude, put down the bong now.

 

[defcon4]

Women are no longer considered property in a marriage. Women can own their own property within a marriage. Blacks can now marry whites...
How Marriage Has Changed Over the Centuries

Divorce has gone from being forbidden to being a legal right.

Your assumption of getting married is a right based on what? Based on a marriage license or inalienable?
If you don't get married you cannot divorce, can you?

 

[konradv]

Divorce has gone from being forbidden to being a legal right.

Your assumption of getting married is a right based on what? Based on a marriage license or inalienable? If you don't get married you cannot divorce, can you?

Don't get your question. My comment was based on how marriage has changed. Once upon a time, forever. Now, not so much.

 

[defcon4]

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"

Wow! Just wow! You just equated having sex with rape, with no distinction between consentual and non-consentual.

Don't fucking spin it biatch. You know what I am talking about. If it is a RIGHT I do not need you consentual bullshit.

 

[Syriusly]

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"

Wow! Just wow! You just equated having sex with rape, with no distinction between consentual and non-consentual.

Don't fucking spin it biatch. You know what I am talking about. If it is a RIGHT I do not need you consentual bullshit.

LOL.....why are the homophobes so often potty mouthed 13 year olds?

 

[Syriusly]

Straights have changed the definition of marriage many times.

PROVE IT MR. FUCKWAD !!

Why are so many homophobes potty mouthed 13 year olds?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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"

Wow! Just wow! You just equated having sex with rape, with no distinction between consentual and non-consentual.

Don't fucking spin it biatch. You know what I am talking about. If it is a RIGHT I do not need you consentual bullshit.

LOL.....why are the homophobes so often potty mouthed 13 year olds?

You should find one and ask them.

 

[bodecea]

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"

Wow! Just wow! You just equated having sex with rape, with no distinction between consentual and non-consentual.

Don't fucking spin it biatch. You know what I am talking about. If it is a RIGHT I do not need you consentual bullshit.

I highlighted what you said....In fact I'll quote it again:

Having sex is not a right. If it were, then rape as such would not be crime.

You equate sex with rape....with no distinction between consensual sex and rape..........just like some posters here have a problem seeing the difference between consensual sex between adults and forcing oneself on a non-consenting child.