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.
True. Prop 8 in Cali was passed by the will of the people. Then a judge with a social agenda, who just happened to disagree with the People, suborned the will of the People.
To be precise. A gay judge that disagreed with the Will of the people.
He wasn't the first to rule thusly on Prop 8...just the last.
[
Why aren't you railing against Obama for being against gay marriage both times he ran, only to change his mind again? When I mean public accommodation, I mean anyone I find that I would rather not serve, that includes homosexuals. But back to the question. Why aren't you saying anything about Obama's changing stances on gay marriage? I love how you keep calling us bigoted and intolerant. This guy calls your bluff:
url]“Was he (Obama) a bigot 14 months ago?” Reed asked Maddow regarding Obama’s previous views, implying how difficult it would be for her to characterize other Democratic DOMA supporters such as Joe Biden and Harry Reid as “intolerant and motivated by an animus and a hatred for gays.”
RALPH REED: …this suggestion that because somebody wants to affirm the institution of marriage that they’re ipso facto intolerant? By that argument, Barack Obama was intolerant 14 months ago. By that argument, 342 members of the House, 85 members of the Senate, including, by the way, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Pat Leahy, who all voted for this law, and Bill Clinton who signed it into law, were intolerant and motivated by an animus and a hatred for gays.
url]
A state deciding to change its marriage laws via legislative action is not even remotely unconsitutional. What I dont see is a consitutional RIGHT to gay marriage. The consitution is silent with regards to marriage contracts in general.
Perhaps, but that's not up for you or me to decide; that's the job of the Supreme Court justices.
When it comes to private anti-discrimination laws what I dont see is the counsitution giving that power over contracts (which is what an employment agreement or an agreement so sell a good or service esentially is, a contract) to the feds. States may retain it, but in general I see anti-discrimination laws targeted at private businesses as governmental overreach.
Again, perhaps and I'm sure you could build a compelling case on this that would deserve some attention. Just note that I don't mind this specific overreach and would likely not join in the fight. You might find some difficulty gaining momentum to overturn this particular precedent.
Everybody who wants to listen to joeb talk about kids raise your hand.
So you think it's appropriate for children to be raised by crazy white supremicists?
Please take the bait. Please take the bait.
It may not be appropriate but it is none of your or the government God Damned buisiness.
As long as the parents dont do anything illegal they can fill thier kids heads with all the nonsense they want.
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.
[
He wasn't a bigot in 1996, when he was for gay marriage.
Then in 1998, he was undecided so he wasn't only a bigot, but a coward.
Then in 2004 he was against gay marriage for political reasons, so not just a bigot and a coward but a cravenly political animal.
Then in 2006 he was against it because of his faith. So he was a religious bigot.
But when Joe Biden put him on the spot in 2012 and his base were starting to seem a little less than enthusiastic he was suddenly not a bigot anymore. Hallelujah. The One be praised.
Moving the goalposts. I would comply with health regulations, not with being forced to serve someone I don't want to.
So why aren't you railing against public accommodation laws instead of civil marriage?
Why aren't you railing against Obama for being against gay marriage both times he ran, only to change his mind again? When I mean public accommodation, I mean anyone I find that I would rather not serve, that includes homosexuals. But back to the question. Why aren't you saying anything about Obama's changing stances on gay marriage? I love how you keep calling us bigoted and intolerant. This guy calls your bluff:
So why aren't you railing against public accommodation laws instead of civil marriage?
Why aren't you railing against Obama for being against gay marriage both times he ran, only to change his mind again? When I mean public accommodation, I mean anyone I find that I would rather not serve, that includes homosexuals. But back to the question. Why aren't you saying anything about Obama's changing stances on gay marriage? I love how you keep calling us bigoted and intolerant. This guy calls your bluff:
Your deflection from the topic is noted. President Obama, despite saying four years ago that he was opposed to marriage equality, never once tried to pass legislation to keep it from happening. He has, since the beginning of his Presidency, fought very hard for gay and lesbian civil rights saying that he wanted to end DADT (which he did) and see and end to DOMA (which he almost has).
There are degrees of bigots. President Obama was the kind I'll take any old day.
Do you feel people who are religiously opposed to gay marriage should have to cater to gay weddings?
No. They should be able to refuse service to whom ever they want for what ever reason.
Of course not, and when these cases get to the courts they will not be enforced. Congress cannot pass laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion and forcing people to participate in any way shape or form in this perversion that is now considered marriage, if it goes against their religious beliefs, is
un-Constitutional because it prohibits them from exercising their religion.
Wrong. You can't be discriminated against for your religion, but neither can you use it as a basis to discriminate...unless you're a church.
We'll see what happens when the law suits start going through the courts. You have to face the facts that any law that prohibits the free exercise of a person's religion, and forcing people of faith to participate in a gay weddings or marriages certainly does that, is un-Constitutional. Saying you can't discriminate against some cross dressing freak or flaming homo is one thing, saying people of faith MUST participate in ceremonies that are directly forbidden by their faith is another story all together. Seems like the court cases going through now just regarding the aborticants and obamacare seems to be leaning towards it being un-Constitutional to force people of faith to act in a way that is contrary to their faith, we'll see.
On Face the Nation this morning Bob Schieffer was surprised to hear that people such as bakers and photographers are facing fines and possibly jail time for not providing their services to gay weddings. Whatever you feel about whether people should be forced to facilitate something they are religiously opposed to, it says a lot about the media coverage that Schieffer didn't even know about it.
Do you feel people who are religiously opposed to gay marriage should have to cater to gay weddings?
Obama said he won't make churches perform gay weddings. So, if we believe him, that one little corner of culture might not be forced to change. But everything else is fair game, isn't it.
Public schools will be actively attempting to make children view gay marriage as normal. Adoption agencies will be penalized for not arranging for children to be placed with gay couples. And bakers could lose thousands of dollars or go to jail if they refuse to put two plastic men on top of a wedding cake.
Why aren't you railing against Obama for being against gay marriage both times he ran, only to change his mind again? When I mean public accommodation, I mean anyone I find that I would rather not serve, that includes homosexuals. But back to the question. Why aren't you saying anything about Obama's changing stances on gay marriage? I love how you keep calling us bigoted and intolerant. This guy calls your bluff:
Your deflection from the topic is noted. President Obama, despite saying four years ago that he was opposed to marriage equality, never once tried to pass legislation to keep it from happening. He has, since the beginning of his Presidency, fought very hard for gay and lesbian civil rights saying that he wanted to end DADT (which he did) and see and end to DOMA (which he almost has).
There are degrees of bigots. President Obama was the kind I'll take any old day.
So he said one thing to not piss off his black socially conservative base while the more nuanced homosexual base realized he was just playing "I hate gay marriage" for those poor stupid black people?
You guys knew he was just playing to get his voter turnout higher, So I guess you will accept bald face lying to get what you want.
Do you feel people who are religiously opposed to gay marriage should have to cater to gay weddings?
No. They should be able to refuse service to whom ever they want for what ever reason.
Actually that is the way it should be for any business for any reason.
Wrong. You can't be discriminated against for your religion, but neither can you use it as a basis to discriminate...unless you're a church.
We'll see what happens when the law suits start going through the courts. You have to face the facts that any law that prohibits the free exercise of a person's religion, and forcing people of faith to participate in a gay weddings or marriages certainly does that, is un-Constitutional. Saying you can't discriminate against some cross dressing freak or flaming homo is one thing, saying people of faith MUST participate in ceremonies that are directly forbidden by their faith is another story all together. Seems like the court cases going through now just regarding the aborticants and obamacare seems to be leaning towards it being un-Constitutional to force people of faith to act in a way that is contrary to their faith, we'll see.
How is anyone going to be "forced to participate in a gay wedding"? The gay mafia going to shotgun you into attending weddings?
Seriously dude, what on earth are you talking about?
Can ANYONE cite a court case where a church was successfully sued into requiring to perform an interfaith wedding? How about a church that HAD TO marry an interracial couple? Anyone?
Your deflection from the topic is noted. President Obama, despite saying four years ago that he was opposed to marriage equality, never once tried to pass legislation to keep it from happening. He has, since the beginning of his Presidency, fought very hard for gay and lesbian civil rights saying that he wanted to end DADT (which he did) and see and end to DOMA (which he almost has).
There are degrees of bigots. President Obama was the kind I'll take any old day.
So he said one thing to not piss off his black socially conservative base while the more nuanced homosexual base realized he was just playing "I hate gay marriage" for those poor stupid black people?
You guys knew he was just playing to get his voter turnout higher, So I guess you will accept bald face lying to get what you want.
Oh, look who just woke up and smelled the politics. Welcome to America. Been here long?
So he said one thing to not piss off his black socially conservative base while the more nuanced homosexual base realized he was just playing "I hate gay marriage" for those poor stupid black people?
You guys knew he was just playing to get his voter turnout higher, So I guess you will accept bald face lying to get what you want.
Oh, look who just woke up and smelled the politics. Welcome to America. Been here long?
The Ends justify the means. You are completely and utterly morally bankrupt, and that has nothing to do with who you are currently buggering.
Oh, look who just woke up and smelled the politics. Welcome to America. Been here long?
The Ends justify the means. You are completely and utterly morally bankrupt, and that has nothing to do with who you are currently buggering.
Wait a minute....let me get this (pardon the pun) straight. I'm morally bankrupt for voting for the guy that still wanted to give me equal rights even though he used to be personally opposed to gay marriage?
Yeah, go with that.
We'll see what happens when the law suits start going through the courts. You have to face the facts that any law that prohibits the free exercise of a person's religion, and forcing people of faith to participate in a gay weddings or marriages certainly does that, is un-Constitutional. Saying you can't discriminate against some cross dressing freak or flaming homo is one thing, saying people of faith MUST participate in ceremonies that are directly forbidden by their faith is another story all together. Seems like the court cases going through now just regarding the aborticants and obamacare seems to be leaning towards it being un-Constitutional to force people of faith to act in a way that is contrary to their faith, we'll see.
How is anyone going to be "forced to participate in a gay wedding"? The gay mafia going to shotgun you into attending weddings?
Seriously dude, what on earth are you talking about?
Can ANYONE cite a court case where a church was successfully sued into requiring to perform an interfaith wedding? How about a church that HAD TO marry an interracial couple? Anyone?
Were you born this stupid or do you work at it? The whole topic is business owners, like bakers who make wedding cakes, hall owners who rent reception halls, photographers that take wedding pictures, wedding planners, and the 101 other businesses that specialize in wedding related goods and services being forced by law to include offering these goods and services to sodomites and dykes who get legally married in jurisdictions that have gay "marriage" or get sued for discriminating against them. This has ALREADY happened dumbass, If you are telling bakers they have to bake a wedding cake for two sodomites that are getting married or they get sued, or if you tell a wedding planner that if they turn down two faggots or dykes just because they are faggots or dykes and you don't believe in gay marriage that they can be sued, or if you tell a person that rents out halls for wedding receptions that if they refuse to rent the hall to deviants who wish to celebrate their reception at your hall only because he believes gay marriage is immoral and against his religious beliefs he can be sued, you are forcing them to participate in a gay marriage/wedding. Damn you're an idiot.
[
Were you born this stupid or do you work at it? The whole topic is business owners, like bakers who make wedding cakes, hall owners who rent reception halls, photographers that take wedding pictures, wedding planners, and the 101 other businesses that specialize in wedding related goods and services being forced by law to include offering these goods and services to sodomites and dykes who get legally married in jurisdictions that have gay "marriage" or get sued for discriminating against them. This has ALREADY happened dumbass, If you are telling bakers they have to bake a wedding cake for two sodomites that are getting married or they get sued, or if you tell a wedding planner that if they turn down two faggots or dykes just because they are faggots or dykes and you don't believe in gay marriage that they can be sued, or if you tell a person that rents out halls for wedding receptions that if they refuse to rent the hall to deviants who wish to celebrate their reception at your hall only because he believes gay marriage is immoral and against his religious beliefs he can be sued, you are forcing them to participate in a gay marriage/wedding. Damn you're an idiot.
