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

[The Rabbi]

Uh, yes in some states it is covered by both PA and non discrimination laws.

Just for you from Scalia...


“As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by ‘ “bare . . . desire to harm” ’couples in same-sex marriages. … How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.”


In other words, it ain't over yet.

Scalia is easily the smartest man on the court. He understands that all of this has nothing to do with civil rights, equality or anything else. It is all about instituting the gay agenda.

You're right.
He's the smartest justice on the court. Of course with 3 women justices the task got easier.

 

[The Rabbi]

What would solve everything is to make a complete division. If someone has an objection to providing services to same sex couples they are permitted to refuse services. If someone has an objection to providing those same services to heterosexual couples they are permitted to do so.

That would be discriminatory and would invite absurd comparisons to blacks in the civil rights movement. The homo lobby has already demonstrated the power of co opting the civil rights movement to its own agenda. Never mind they have nothing to do with each other and many black leaders are appalled and oppoosed to gay marriage themselves.
No, the homo lobby has a definite agenda. Gay marriage is just one station on the road.

That's true. Which is why the fight against that agenda must be step up.

It will take a huge effort. Because merely having votes to pass referenda is not enough. The homos will appeal to their fellow travelers on the courts to intervene to impose by judicial fiat what they fail to do at the polls. The media will support all this with solemn pics from the civil rights era, like gays are being forced to drink from separate water fountains and such.
Personally I can see little way out of this short of secession, with the majority of states re-forming the union around the Constitution as originally written.

 

[bodecea]

Scalia is easily the smartest man on the court. He understands that all of this has nothing to do with civil rights, equality or anything else. It is all about instituting the gay agenda.

You're right.
He's the smartest justice on the court. Of course with 3 women justices the task got easier.

Are you saying that the women justices are not as smart based on being women?

 

[The Rabbi]

You're right.
He's the smartest justice on the court. Of course with 3 women justices the task got easier.

Are you saying that the women justices are not as smart based on being women?

The female justices who have been on the court have been beneficiaries of affirmative action. They have failed to produce outstanding opinions and are second rate justices. I dont doubt there are women who are capable of being first rate justices. But they haven't been appointed yet. And with Democratic presidencies as far as the eye can see they wont.

 

[bodecea]

You're right.
He's the smartest justice on the court. Of course with 3 women justices the task got easier.

Are you saying that the women justices are not as smart based on being women?

The female justices who have been on the court have been beneficiaries of affirmative action. They have failed to produce outstanding opinions and are second rate justices. I dont doubt there are women who are capable of being first rate justices. But they haven't been appointed yet. And with Democratic presidencies as far as the eye can see they wont.

^ There you have it, folks.

 

[The Rabbi]

Are you saying that the women justices are not as smart based on being women?

The female justices who have been on the court have been beneficiaries of affirmative action. They have failed to produce outstanding opinions and are second rate justices. I dont doubt there are women who are capable of being first rate justices. But they haven't been appointed yet. And with Democratic presidencies as far as the eye can see they wont.

^ There you have it, folks.

Yup. That's the size of it. Sorry. Another argument against affirmative action and political correctness.

 

[bodecea]

The female justices who have been on the court have been beneficiaries of affirmative action. They have failed to produce outstanding opinions and are second rate justices. I dont doubt there are women who are capable of being first rate justices. But they haven't been appointed yet. And with Democratic presidencies as far as the eye can see they wont.

^ There you have it, folks.

Yup. That's the size of it. Sorry. Another argument against affirmative action and political correctness.

Because, you know, women and blacks cannot make it to this level unless they cheated....er, had help.

 

[Amelia]

ALL children have a biological mother and a biological father. That pair is the only one that should be recognized.

That's a lot of adoptions, artificial inseminations and surrogacies you want to stop...by straight couples.

I didn't say to stop adoption. I simply believe that only children that are biological to a husband and wife should be deductible. Marriage is only between a man and woman for the purpose of becoming one flesh.

So people who spend extra money to bring a needy child into their home shouldn't get any tax breaks to help their good deed be more affordable. But people who pop out new kids while other children go homeless -- they deserve deductions.

wow.

 

[The Rabbi]

^ There you have it, folks.

Yup. That's the size of it. Sorry. Another argument against affirmative action and political correctness.

Because, you know, women and blacks cannot make it to this level unless they cheated....er, had help.

Are you unable to read what I said? Or do you just edit out the parts that dont follow your narrative?

 

[LittleNipper]

That's a lot of adoptions, artificial inseminations and surrogacies you want to stop...by straight couples.

I didn't say to stop adoption. I simply believe that only children that are biological to a husband and wife should be deductible. Marriage is only between a man and woman for the purpose of becoming one flesh.

So people who spend extra money to bring a needy child into their home shouldn't get any tax breaks to help their good deed be more affordable. But people who pop out new kids while other children go homeless -- they deserve deductions.

wow.

Only People who earn a wage and are taxed should get deductions. People who bring needy children into their home should do it because they want to and not to get additional tax deductions. However, people do get deductions for donations to charity.

 

[Amelia]

I didn't say to stop adoption. I simply believe that only children that are biological to a husband and wife should be deductible. Marriage is only between a man and woman for the purpose of becoming one flesh.

So people who spend extra money to bring a needy child into their home shouldn't get any tax breaks to help their good deed be more affordable. But people who pop out new kids while other children go homeless -- they deserve deductions.

wow.

Only People who earn a wage and are taxed should get deductions. People who bring needy children into their home should do it because they want to and not to get additional tax deductions. However, people do get deductions for donations to charity.

That didn't address the point.

Parents of adopted children deserve the dependent deduction every bit as much as parents of natural born children do. They may even deserve it more. But they deserve it at least as much.

Luckily your point of view won't be enacted into law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Reason and Logic would suggest that the Definition of Marriage, here, in the US, be a Union of a Man and a Woman, that the Court really has no grounds to declare differently. Unless it is the role of the Court to redefine the meanings of words, which it surely must do here, to show credibility. I would ask, under what authority does the Court have the Right to do that, or to legislate from the bench.
In the interest of Equality, does the Court have a Duty to create a term for a Union between Same Sex Couples, under any other name, granting it the same legal rights, as a Straight Married couple? Arguably? That is understandable. Why wasn't that the course? Why the attack, or the perceived attack on the concept of Traditional Marriage? Is the argument about fair resolution, or is there another agenda, more in line with an assault on Traditional Values, in the interest of forcing conformity to the will of the State, whom, at times confuses it's role with that of Supreme Authority? Is it that the State is looking for balance in the interest of justice, or are these just mind games, which both, divide the Community further, and impose greater control over our lives?

There have always been de facto marriages between people of the same sex, whether they were legally recognized by some particular government or not,

so, no, there is no redefining of 'marriage' going on here.

All that is going on is settling the question of whether this type of marriage can be rightfully excluded from the same recognition that under the law is afforded to the type of marriage that involves one man and one woman.

 

[bodecea]

That's a lot of adoptions, artificial inseminations and surrogacies you want to stop...by straight couples.

I didn't say to stop adoption. I simply believe that only children that are biological to a husband and wife should be deductible. Marriage is only between a man and woman for the purpose of becoming one flesh.

So people who spend extra money to bring a needy child into their home shouldn't get any tax breaks to help their good deed be more affordable. But people who pop out new kids while other children go homeless -- they deserve deductions.

wow.

On this we can agree.....wow, indeed!

 

[bodecea]

Yup. That's the size of it. Sorry. Another argument against affirmative action and political correctness.

Because, you know, women and blacks cannot make it to this level unless they cheated....er, had help.

Are you unable to read what I said? Or do you just edit out the parts that dont follow your narrative?

You want to accuse me of editing your post? Go right ahead. I left all your misogynist comments up for anyone to read.

 

[The Rabbi]

Because, you know, women and blacks cannot make it to this level unless they cheated....er, had help.

Are you unable to read what I said? Or do you just edit out the parts that dont follow your narrative?

You want to accuse me of editing your post? Go right ahead. I left all your misogynist comments up for anyone to read.

Wow. You have a tough time with reality, don't you?
Of course I am dealing with someone who doesn't recognize that Flap A goes in Slot B.

 

[hjmick]

Should they have to? No, probably not...


Should they want to? Yes, probably. It's going to be big business...

 

[The Rabbi]

Should they have to? No, probably not...


Should they want to? Yes, probably. It's going to be big business...

It's a business decision. I can respect someone making it either way.
I cannot respect forcing someone to engage in commerce against his will. This is the homo movement. They want first to cram it down our throats, then to cram it up our asses.

 

[Unkotare]

So now you're just lying. I provided you statements from the guy who ran the fucking place at the time. He stated, in plain English, that if they wanted the GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS...good old taxpayer money, they had to abide by the laws of the state.

They had two choices...pull out of the program or continue to place children in same sex households...just as they had been doing.

You provided plagiarism. I explained the reality of the situation.

Already linked.

What you did was make shit up contrary to facts so that they fit your agenda.

You posted words as if they were your own. I lived in Massachusetts as all this was going down and it was analyzed, dissected, and debated to death at the time.

Stay on the left coast where you belong.

 

[thanatos144]

Should they have to? No, probably not...


Should they want to? Yes, probably. It's going to be big business...

How do you figure seeing as homosexuals are a very small percentage of the population?

 

[The Rabbi]

Should they have to? No, probably not...


Should they want to? Yes, probably. It's going to be big business...

How do you figure seeing as homosexuals are a very small percentage of the population?

They tend to be bright and with no kids lots of disposable income they liek to spend on themselves. Because homosexuality is just another form of narcissism.