Should AZ Force Gay People To Promote Christian Ideals Against Homosexuality?

[bodecea]

Imagine that! Sil supports public accommodation laws so long as they don't cover gays. Protections for me, but not for thee. Poor little hypocrite.

Gay sex addicts, drug addicts, food addicts, those addicted to stealing (cleptomania), etc. All majority-rejected deviant behaviors have NO Constitutional protections. Please be comprehensive in your quotations mdk. Otherwise you look dishonest/lying.

Show us where those cake bakers refused to bake cakes for any of those you listed.

 

[Syriusly]

Should anyone be forced to do business with one another? The answer is no.

So you are against the law in AZ that forces the print shop to make "gay wedding" invitations against their beliefs? Why haven't you spoken out more vocally about that?

I've been against public accommodation laws for many years now. We've had this discussion on numerous occasions in the past. Hell, I said as much on the first page of this thread. Do you oppose PA laws? Or only when they cover fags?

Not sure exactly. I think they apply when they violate ACTUAL, REAL constitutional protections such as race, religion or country of origin, or gender (not what one does with one's private parts, but the actual private parts & DNA denoting "male" or "female"). I don't think it should be legal to say "I'm not serving you because you are black, or a woman, or from Lithuania originally or you're a Christian". If you're open to the public, you serve protected people. But deviant sex behaviors-as-identities are NOT protected Constitutionally. I don't give a rat's ass how many activist judges say they are, there is NO LANGUAGE that even vaguely implies protection for such behaviors calling themselves "an identity". Otherwise we'd have protections for bulimic-Americans and cleoptomaniac-Americans and drug-addict-Americans....etc. etc. in the interest of fairness.

If a compulsive addictive behavior gets to call itself "an identity" and get special protections from the Constitution (without that being actually legally done: ie legislated), then ALL compulsive addictive behaviors can have that umbrella without having to apply. We cannot express a discriminatory preference for one set of majority-rejected deviant behaviors to the disadvantage of any other majority-rejected deviant behaviors. Equality. And you know I can cite precedent on equality.

If people doing deviant sex want specific protection for themselves as a waffling, vauge, amorphic "identity" (a new class) they need to petition their representatives to LEGISLATE new protection under the Constitution for that brand spanking new class. Otherwise the judges are doing nothing but a power grab from the Legislature which is a violation of the separation of powers.

The founding fathers went to great pains to be specific in written law precisely to keep this type of bullshit from happening. They meant what they said when they wanted separation of powers. Judicial activism stealing power from the legislature is nothing but sedition. The fact that it's being done to forward a deviant sex cult's agenda on decent people who object to those values is a chunk of rock salt in that wound. That this agenda (for the first time in human history) legally separates children from either a father or mother for life as a new (illegal) institution is monstrosity beyond the pale.

Again this just shows how little Silhouette understands the Constitution and Public Accommodation laws.

Before the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed- it was perfectly legal to deny service to blacks or Jews or Mexicans- or women.

When the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed- Jews didn't get legal protection because the Constitution says that government can't discriminate based upon religion- Jews- and Christians-and women- got protection because Congress realized that it was wrong to discriminate against people because of their religious beliefs, or color, or gender or country of origin.

Most states have passed their own public accommodation laws- and some of them include protections for discrimination against the handicapped, against veterans, and also discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation.

Again what Silhouette refuses to acknowledge is that these laws protect everyone based on their sexual orientation- so in Colorado if a gay shop owner refused to sell a cantalope to Silhouette because she was flaunting her heterosexuality(maybe holding hands with a man)- that shop owner would be breaking the law.

This is all about Silhouette's obsessive hatred of homosexuals.

Sad really.

 

[Silhouette]

The Judiciary hasn't added jack. The PA law cases have all been under State Public Accommodation laws under the states power to regulate intrastate commerce. These laws were passed by State legislatures, not the Judiciary (which can't pass laws anyway). PA laws have been upheld repeatedly by the SCOTUS.

Why did they reserve that citation JUST for deviant sex behavior practitioners and not Christian religion practitioners? [/QUOTE]

The only case the Supreme Court has rule on regarding 'deviant sex behavior practitioners' was Lawrence v Texas- where the Supreme Court said that Government has no business policing private sex acts between consenting adults.

None of the marriage cases had anything to do with sexual behavior.

Keyword: PRIVATE. When that group of deviant sex practitioners seeks to make what they do in private a public-sanctioned event (gay marriage) that involves stripping children of the right to both a mother and father in marriage, a right they've enjoyed since time-immemorial to 2015, then Lawrence v Texas DOES NOT apply.

The act of "marrying" a person of the same sex implies the two will bed down together and seek to raise children; whether or not they actually do. A childless nonphysical relationship of cohabitation should not get incentive benefits from the state. Otherwise mere dorm roomies in college would all qualify for marriage. States give benefits to marrieds to entice them to provide a stable home of mother/father to children statistically anticipated to arrive. Otherwise a state has no fiscal reason to entice marriage at all.

 

[mdk]

Keyword: PRIVATE. When that group of deviant sex practitioners seeks to make what they do in private a public-sanctioned event (gay marriage) that involves stripping children of the right to both a mother and father in marriage, a right they've enjoyed since time-immemorial to 2015, then Lawrence v Texas DOES NOT apply.

Do you think that gay people have public sex at their weddings?

I've been to numerous gay and straight weddings. I don't recall any of them having public sex as a part of the ceremony.

 

[Silhouette]

Do you think that gay people have public sex at their weddings?

I've been to numerous gay and straight weddings. I don't recall any of them having public sex as a part of the ceremony.

No, they expect the public to sanction (with benefits and a contract) their deviant sexuality at the expense of children who used to get a mother and father both out of the marriage contract since time immemorial to 2015. (Illegal revision of a contract to the detriment of children).

 

[mdk]

Do you think that gay people have public sex at their weddings?

I've been to numerous gay and straight weddings. I don't recall any of them having public sex as a part of the ceremony.

No, they expect the public to sanction (with benefits and a contract) their deviant sexuality at the expense of children who used to get a mother and father both out of the marriage contract since time immemorial to 2015. (Illegal revision of a contract to the detriment of children).

You've made a fool of yourself on numerous occasions concerning the Infancy Doctrine and yet you continue to use it anyway. Too funny.

 

[Silhouette]

You've made a fool of yourself on numerous occasions concerning the Infancy Doctrine and yet you continue to use it anyway. Too funny.

That's an ad hominem and not a lucid rebuttal. Care to give facts a try in your argument? Shall we consult the mother/father survey again to refresh your memory on the 85% of people who believe a mother and father both are important in a growing child's life?

 

[Syriusly]

The Judiciary hasn't added jack. The PA law cases have all been under State Public Accommodation laws under the states power to regulate intrastate commerce. These laws were passed by State legislatures, not the Judiciary (which can't pass laws anyway). PA laws have been upheld repeatedly by the SCOTUS.

Why did they reserve that citation JUST for deviant sex behavior practitioners and not Christian religion practitioners? l.

They didn't.

None of these laws have anything to do with 'deviant sex behavior practitioners' and literally all of these laws apply to Christians and Jews and Muslims.

 

[Syriusly]

The Judiciary hasn't added jack. The PA law cases have all been under State Public Accommodation laws under the states power to regulate intrastate commerce. These laws were passed by State legislatures, not the Judiciary (which can't pass laws anyway). PA laws have been upheld repeatedly by the SCOTUS.

Why did they reserve that citation JUST for deviant sex behavior practitioners and not Christian religion practitioners?

The only case the Supreme Court has rule on regarding 'deviant sex behavior practitioners' was Lawrence v Texas- where the Supreme Court said that Government has no business policing private sex acts between consenting adults.

None of the marriage cases had anything to do with sexual behavior.

Keyword: PRIVATE. When that group of deviant sex practitioners .[/QUOTE]

Again

None of the marriage cases had anything to do with sexual behavior.

And Lawrence is not one of the marriage cases.

 

[Syriusly]

The Judiciary hasn't added jack. The PA law cases have all been under State Public Accommodation laws under the states power to regulate intrastate commerce. These laws were passed by State legislatures, not the Judiciary (which can't pass laws anyway). PA laws have been upheld repeatedly by the SCOTUS.

Why did they reserve that citation JUST for deviant sex behavior practitioners and not Christian religion practitioners?

The only case the Supreme Court has rule on regarding 'deviant sex behavior practitioners' was Lawrence v Texas- where the Supreme Court said that Government has no business policing private sex acts between consenting adults.

None of the marriage cases had anything to do with sexual behavior.

The act of "marrying" a person of the same sex implies the two will bed down together and seek to raise children; .[/QUOTE]

Not at all- marrying doesn't imply 'bedding down'- or raising children.

As I pointed out neither of the couples in Windsor or Obergefell had children or raised children.

Nor does the marriage of my 80 year old uncle to his 70 old bride imply that they will seek to raise children together.

 

[mdk]

You've made a fool of yourself on numerous occasions concerning the Infancy Doctrine and yet you continue to use it anyway. Too funny.

That's an ad hominem and not a lucid rebuttal. Care to give facts a try in your argument? Shall we consult the mother/father survey again to refresh your memory on the 85% of people who believe a mother and father both are important in a growing child's life?

The Infancy Doctrine does not apply to contract between adults, nor has it ever been used to overturn one. You know this. I know this, but you're hoping no one else does.

A household having a mother and father is very important for children, unless it's yours.

 

[Syriusly]

Do you think that gay people have public sex at their weddings?

I've been to numerous gay and straight weddings. I don't recall any of them having public sex as a part of the ceremony.

No, they expect the public to sanction (with benefits and a contract) their deviant sexuality at the expense of children who used to get a mother and father both out of the marriage contract since time immemorial to 2015. (Illegal revision of a contract to the detriment of children).

And there you go again- the bugaboo you have is with the 'deviant sexuality' as you call it.

Frankly no different than those who a problem with the 'deviant faith' of the Jews.

You are just a bigot who promotes your bigotry- no different than those who post the Jewish blood libel.

 

[Syriusly]

You've made a fool of yourself on numerous occasions concerning the Infancy Doctrine and yet you continue to use it anyway. Too funny.

. Care to give facts a try in your argument? Shall we consult the mother/father survey

LOL

Having you tell someone else to use 'facts' is just very ironic.

Since the only thing 'factual' about your survey is the number of posters who responded- not your fantasy interpretation.

 

[Lysistrata]

There is no such thing as "Christian ideals against homosexuality." The source of these ideas comes from a place very far distant from any faith in the teachings of Jesus.

 

[Silhouette]

You've made a fool of yourself on numerous occasions concerning the Infancy Doctrine and yet you continue to use it anyway. Too funny.

That's an ad hominem and not a lucid rebuttal. Care to give facts a try in your argument? Shall we consult the mother/father survey again to refresh your memory on the 85% of people who believe a mother and father both are important in a growing child's life?

The Infancy Doctrine does not apply to contract between adults, nor has it ever been used to overturn one. You know this. I know this, but you're hoping no one else does.

A household having a mother and father is very important for children, unless it's yours.

No, that has never been tested in law...yet... But as the objections to Obegefell mount, it very likely will be. And when it is, they'll have the Infancy Doctrine to cite to see if an implied contract (as legally enforceable as a written one) can be revised to the detriment of children; especially without their having representation at the revision table.

The argument would be of course, that children are IMPLICIT PARTNERS AND BENEFICIARIES to and of the marriage contract since time immemorial. Also, that marriage was created precisely to benefit them predominantly, society secondarily and the actual adults in the marriage tertiarily. Marriage was created way way way back when and maintained until 2015 predominantly to secure a stable mother/father home environment so the little darlings would not grow up to be miscreants that then would go out and rampage the culture they lived in. Long ago people saw what happened when little ones lacked a mother or father. The idea was to entice those two to snuggle up for the benefit of the kids and by extension, the society those kids would one day join. The adults are sort of an afterthought, seen in that light.

Good luck arguing otherwise.

 

[Syriusly]

You've made a fool of yourself on numerous occasions concerning the Infancy Doctrine and yet you continue to use it anyway. Too funny.

That's an ad hominem and not a lucid rebuttal. Care to give facts a try in your argument? Shall we consult the mother/father survey again to refresh your memory on the 85% of people who believe a mother and father both are important in a growing child's life?

The Infancy Doctrine does not apply to contract between adults, nor has it ever been used to overturn one. You know this. I know this, but you're hoping no one else does.

A household having a mother and father is very important for children, unless it's yours.

No, that has never been tested in law...yet... But as the objections to Obegefell mount, .

If the 'infancy doctrine' applied to marriage- the first place it would be tested would be with divorce law- because if the 'infancy doctrine' applied to marriage, then children would be a part of the contract- and the courts would deny any divorce that was not in the interest of children.

Instead the states have gone the other way with no-fault divorce- making divorce easier- and with no restrictions on the divorce itself- based upon the childrens interest.

 

[mdk]

No, that has never been tested in law...yet... But as the objections to Obegefell mount, it very likely will be. And when it is, they'll have the Infancy Doctrine to cite to see if an implied contract (as legally enforceable as a written one) can be revised to the detriment of children; especially without their having representation at the revision table.

The argument would be of course, that children are IMPLICIT PARTNERS AND BENEFICIARIES to and of the marriage contract since time immemorial. Also, that marriage was created precisely to benefit them predominantly, society secondarily and the actual adults in the marriage tertiarily. Marriage was created way way way back when and maintained until 2015 predominantly to secure a stable mother/father home environment so the little darlings would not grow up to be miscreants that then would go out and rampage the culture they lived in. Long ago people saw what happened when little ones lacked a mother or father. The idea was to entice those two to snuggle up for the benefit of the kids and by extension, the society those kids would one day join. The adults are sort of an afterthought, seen in that light.

Good luck arguing otherwise.

How can children that not exist be an "implicit partner" to a marriage contract? Hint: They can't.

Why wasn't the Infancy Doctrine used in any of the oral arguments in the numerous state and federal cases arguing aganist gay marriage? Hint: Because it doesn't apply. Also, it's retarded.

I don't need luck to argue otherwise. I have facts and you have your vivid imagination.

 

[Silhouette]

How can children that not exist be an "implicit partner" to a marriage contract? Hint: They can't.

Yes, they can, when one considers marriage is an institution with regards to all children born or unborn as yet. American children are implicit partners as a whole to the marriage contract.

 

[mdk]

How can children that not exist be an "implicit partner" to a marriage contract? Hint: They can't.

Yes, they can, when one considers marriage is an institution with regards to all children born or unborn as yet. American children are implicit partners as a whole to the marriage contract.

No, they can't and we've never done so in this nation. It's why you've never heard anyone but you argue that children are an implicit partner in a marriage contract. People that don't exist can't be a party to a contract.

 

[bodecea]

Do you think that gay people have public sex at their weddings?

I've been to numerous gay and straight weddings. I don't recall any of them having public sex as a part of the ceremony.

No, they expect the public to sanction (with benefits and a contract) their deviant sexuality at the expense of children who used to get a mother and father both out of the marriage contract since time immemorial to 2015. (Illegal revision of a contract to the detriment of children).

How interesting that people like you look at couples and all you see is them in bed having sex.