Should people have to perform/provide services for gay weddings?

[Uncensored2008]

Ok, two responses to this one.

First is that our opinions (alone) don't matter as much as the collective opinion. And (correct me if I'm wrong), the current trend seems to be favoring my way.

Current trend of the minority forcing your opinion on the majority through illegal and unconstitutional means?

After all, the legislative actions - per the Constitution, are DOMA and Prop 8. Unelected Judges pissed in the face of the people and used unconstitutional means to simply declare law.

If your way is an authoritarian state that doesn't give a fuck about legislative or democratic methods, then indeed current trends favor you.

Secondly, your example is faulty in the sense that drunk driving hurts people in a tangible way while your two gay neighbors marrying does not.

The end of Constitutional governance hurts me. I don't give a flying shit about who has sex with who; but I do care about the rule of law - and this week of open lawlessness by the rulers of the dictatorship indeed harms me.

I don't care about your vice, gamble, drink, watch porno, suck cocks, I could care less. But don't stomp on the basic foundation of law in forcing your view on all others.

 

[KevinWestern]

I don't recall your personal stand on religion, but many people have expressed similar opinions about "belief" of homosexuals have that they are "born that way". Yet, the same people who advocate acceptance of this gay "belief" in the provenance of their condition being somehow genetically driven are the very same people who ridicule other's "belief" in some religious tenets. Why do the "beliefs" of one group (gays) require we accept on faith their contention as to their condition, while the "beliefs" of other groups (say, Christians) are reprehensible and require the force of government to eradicate such "beliefs"?

Hmm, good question. I suppose some people are hypocritical in that regard. I’ve came across some very nasty liberal people in my day who preach about acceptance and equality yet seem to think that “being Christian” somehow doesn’t fall into that same slot (and therefore can be made fun of). It’s wrong. I admit (years ago) there was a point where I was much more liberal and would do this myself, but age and experience has changed all this.

Again, I mentioned this before but with regards to what opinions are “valid” enough to shape laws comes down to how the trends are moving and how many people are believing “X” at a given time. In the current times, it’s becoming the general opinion of the society that being gay is something that we are born with & therefore the laws are changing to accommodate this opinion. I’m not claiming this is good or bad, I’m just pointing out that this is the way things are currently.

Not sure I answered your question so if you could further clarify that would be appreciated..

 

[KevinWestern]

Current trend of the minority forcing your opinion on the majority through illegal and unconstitutional means?

After all, the legislative actions - per the Constitution, are DOMA and Prop 8. Unelected Judges pissed in the face of the people and used unconstitutional means to simply declare law.

If your way is an authoritarian state that doesn't give a fuck about legislative or democratic methods, then indeed current trends favor you.

Minority? Last time I checked, a MAJORITY of Americans support gay marriage and the number is continually trending upwards.

So you're upset that the Supreme Court Justices ruled something Unconstitutional? Isn't that how things work? I realize the system isn't perfect, but this is the one we have, and it's been in place for quite some time. Would you rather the Justices be elected so that we have to worry about outside donors/influences?

The end of Constitutional governance hurts me. I don't give a flying shit about who has sex with who; but I do care about the rule of law - and this week of open lawlessness by the rulers of the dictatorship indeed harms me.

I don't care about your vice, gamble, drink, watch porno, suck cocks, I could care less. But don't stomp on the basic foundation of law in forcing your view on all others.

Uncensored, as I understand it a law was legislated and then later ruled unconstitutional so it was overturned. What is so out of the ordinary about this?

 

[koshergrl]

It allows tyrannical, well funded minority potentates to establish bad law over the will of the people.

 

[koshergrl]

It sets the judicial branch above the legislative branch.

 

[KevinWestern]

It allows tyrannical, well funded minority potentates to establish bad law over the will of the people.

Acceptance of gay marriage is arguably a majority position (hovering around 50%) and is trending upwards. You don't have to be gay to support gay marriage.

This is how it works:

We have a Constitution.
Lawmakers can make laws so long as it doesn't violate that Constitution.
If a law is made, and is ruled by the Justices to be Unconstitutional, it's overturned.

Do you have a better system in mind? This seems to work OK.

Also, if you're worried about well funded minorities enacting tyranny over the majority you should be investing virtually 100% of your time in fighting crony capitalism and powerful corporate lobbyists, not your two gay neighbors getting married. Priorities, priorities, my dear...

 

[bendog]

Somewhere, Adam Sandler is making a movie about this.

 

[KevinWestern]

It sets the judicial branch above the legislative branch.

Sorry, that's the system we have. The Judicial Branch has the power to rule something Constitutional or not (someone has to do it). If you have a better system in mind you should start your own movement.

 

[Spoonman]

Current trend of the minority forcing your opinion on the majority through illegal and unconstitutional means?

After all, the legislative actions - per the Constitution, are DOMA and Prop 8. Unelected Judges pissed in the face of the people and used unconstitutional means to simply declare law.

If your way is an authoritarian state that doesn't give a fuck about legislative or democratic methods, then indeed current trends favor you.

Minority? Last time I checked, a MAJORITY of Americans support gay marriage and the number is continually trending upwards.

So you're upset that the Supreme Court Justices ruled something Unconstitutional? Isn't that how things work? I realize the system isn't perfect, but this is the one we have, and it's been in place for quite some time. Would you rather the Justices be elected so that we have to worry about outside donors/influences?

The end of Constitutional governance hurts me. I don't give a flying shit about who has sex with who; but I do care about the rule of law - and this week of open lawlessness by the rulers of the dictatorship indeed harms me.

I don't care about your vice, gamble, drink, watch porno, suck cocks, I could care less. But don't stomp on the basic foundation of law in forcing your view on all others.

Uncensored, as I understand it a law was legislated and then later ruled unconstitutional so it was overturned. What is so out of the ordinary about this?

i wonder how accurate the number of people who support gay marriage really is. there seems to be a big difference between what people say in public and how they vote in private. I find it interesting that the most liberal state in the country also has the distinction of voting down gay marriage when put to a public vote. what happened to all of the openness and acceptance?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Minority? Last time I checked, a MAJORITY of Americans support gay marriage and the number is continually trending upwards.

That must be why Prop 8 failed in California and unelected judges had to declare law in contradiction to the vote of the people.

So you're upset that the Supreme Court Justices ruled something Unconstitutional? Isn't that how things work? I realize the system isn't perfect, but this is the one we have, and it's been in place for quite some time. Would you rather the Justices be elected so that we have to worry about outside donors/influences?

I oppose the trashing of the Constitution to promote a cultural goal.

Styne perfectly opined thusly;

{Having assumed the power to redefine a societal institution that predates the United States by thousands of years, Emperor Tony the All-Wise had the responsibility at least to work up the semblance of a legal argument. Instead, he struck down the Defense of Marriage Act on the grounds that those responsible for it were motivated by an “improper animus” against a “politically unpopular group” they wished to “disparage,” “demean,” and “humiliate” as “unworthy.” What stump-toothed knuckle-dragging inbred swamp-dwellers from which hellish Bible Belt redoubt would do such a thing? Well, fortunately, we have their names on the record: The DOMA legislators who were driven by their need to “harm” gay people include notorious homophobe Democrats Chuck Schumer, Pat Leahy, Harry Reid, Joe Biden, and the virulent anti-gay hater who signed it into law, Bill Clinton.

It’s good to have President Clinton’s animus against gays finally exposed by Anthony Kennedy. There’s a famous photograph of him taken round the time he signed DOMA, at a big fundraiser wearing that black-tie-and-wing-collar combo that always made him look like the maître d’ at a 19th-century bordello. He’s receiving greetings from celebrity couple Ellen DeGeneres and Anne Heche, who’d come out as gay the week before and, in the first flush of romance}

Mark Steyn on the Marriage Cases | National Review Online

Uncensored, as I understand it a law was legislated and then later ruled unconstitutional so it was overturned. What is so out of the ordinary about this?

The SCOTUS didn't even bother to make a legal argument - they ruled on social grounds in direct violation of law and Constitutions.

Piss on this dictatorship. We are not a nation of law, we are not a government of the people.

 

[KevinWestern]

i wonder how accurate the number of people who support gay marriage really is. there seems to be a big difference between what people say in public and how they vote in private. I find it interesting that the most liberal state in the country also has the distinction of voting down gay marriage when put to a public vote. what happened to all of the openness and acceptance?

It's a good point, but that's what the polls show (and therefore everything else is speculation).

At the very least, I do know this for sure; gay marriage is much, much more accepted by the young vs. the old, and I know for sure that the young will be around in 30 years while many of the old will not.

By simple mathematical principles, I can figure that gay marriage will become more widely accepted (overall) as time moves onward (based on current trends).

I don't mean this disrespectfully, but it's clear one side is winning and it's inevitable where we're headed.

.

 

[Seawytch]

Yeah I do, because I own that business, and under the 4th Amendment, I am allowed to be secure in my own property and effects. I can do with my property what I choose. So actually that doesn't tell all of the story.

Actual court cases prove you wrong.

Funny how you never posted them.

Go back and look again. I gave you a link to the legal ramifications (it had court cases in it).

http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service

 

[Uncensored2008]

Acceptance of gay marriage is arguably a majority position (hovering around 50%) and is trending upwards. You don't have to be gay to support gay marriage.

IF that were true, you would have pursued legislative means, rather than using dictatorship to force your views.

This is how it works:

We have a Constitution.
Lawmakers can make laws so long as it doesn't violate that Constitution.
If a law is made, and is ruled by the Justices to be Unconstitutional, it's overturned.

We have a Constitution, which the SCOTUS used to wipe their asses on.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Actual court cases prove you wrong.

Funny how you never posted them.

Go back and look again. I gave you a link to the legal ramifications (it had court cases in it).

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor, or Attire? | LegalZoom

A church is for its members and does not provide public accommodation.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Sorry, that's the system we have. The Judicial Branch has the power to rule something Constitutional or not (someone has to do it). If you have a better system in mind you should start your own movement.

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

 

[KevinWestern]

Acceptance of gay marriage is arguably a majority position (hovering around 50%) and is trending upwards. You don't have to be gay to support gay marriage.

IF that were true, you would have pursued legislative means, rather than using dictatorship to force your views.

This is how it works:

We have a Constitution.
Lawmakers can make laws so long as it doesn't violate that Constitution.
If a law is made, and is ruled by the Justices to be Unconstitutional, it's overturned.

We have a Constitution, which the SCOTUS used to wipe their asses on.

I didn't pursue any means to exercise my views, I'm just sharing them with you. I wasn't really actively involved in the SCOTUS case on a personal, tangible level (as in I wasn't sending letters to my Congresspeople, etc). Take it up with the Judges or those who took Prop 8 to the courts...

.

 

[Seawytch]

Funny how you never posted them.

Go back and look again. I gave you a link to the legal ramifications (it had court cases in it).

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor, or Attire? | LegalZoom

A church is for its members and does not provide public accommodation.

And?

 

[koshergrl]

It sets the judicial branch above the legislative branch.

Sorry, that's the system we have. The Judicial Branch has the power to rule something Constitutional or not (someone has to do it). If you have a better system in mind you should start your own movement.

No, the judicial branch is NOT supposed to circumvent the will of the people.

That may be the government we have NOW, but it is not the government that was conceived of, nor is it the system that made us great. What we have NOW is a petty tyranny. When the system is corrupt and systematically abused, then the system is no longer the system.

 

[Seawytch]

It sets the judicial branch above the legislative branch.

Sorry, that's the system we have. The Judicial Branch has the power to rule something Constitutional or not (someone has to do it). If you have a better system in mind you should start your own movement.

No, the judicial branch is NOT supposed to circumvent the will of the people.

That may be the government we have NOW, but it is not the government that was conceived of, nor is it the system that made us great. What we have NOW is a petty tyranny. When the system is corrupt and systematically abused, then the system is no longer the system.

If "the will of the people" is unconstitutional they are.

 

[koshergrl]

And if one does not like the way the current government operates, one certainly does have the right to complain and to lobby for change.

Not seek shelter in some other country, which is what you propose.