State Takes Legal Action to Seize $135K From Bakers Who Refused to Make Cake for Lesbian Couple

[Sally Vater]

You're lying again. I've got four justices and one of them is the Chief Justice Roberts. You only have one more than me. Now get off your self-righteous high horse.

And in the Obergefell decision, our side had 5 Justices. Our 5 beats your 4...and you DO know that the Chief Justice gets only 1 vote, right?

Well, duh. Like I said, get off your self-righteous high horse.

What exactly is self-righteous about pointing out the FACT that 5 Justices beat out 4 Justices? That's why it's called the Majority Opinion and they get to write the Court's decision. I'm not really getting where you think the losing side gets any kind of power from being the....................um............losing side.

One. You have ONE more vote. I wouldn't be feeling very secure with the decision.

The SC does not like to reverse itself and to do so and toss out all those now legal marriages, not a chance. That would be chaos. It's over and done with at the SC.

Legal schmeagle. When was the sanctuary cities policy passed?

 

[bodecea]

I think the decision should be ignored.

So, you therefore don't believe people should obey the law? Got it.

No...I don't think that's what Sally is saying....she just wishes to ignore the ruling personally.....she seems to think that it affects her in some way. So I suggested that in order to ignore it.....really ignore it....she should not have a SSM. Quite simple to do, actually.

Of course the decision affects everyone. The court has just changed the definition of marriage which has been a male and female since the dawn of civilization. Um, that's kind of a big deal and it's corrupt.

And I'm sorry to hear that that seems to adversely affect you personally in some way.

Words have a definition. If definition of words can be changed by five lawyers, what's to prevent it happening to you?

They aren't lawyers...they are Justices. There is a difference. Not only are they Justices, the Constitution makes them "the deciders" on cases of Constitutional interpretation. They did their job. That's what they are supposed to do. You don't like the decision, I get that.

 

[bodecea]

And in the Obergefell decision, our side had 5 Justices. Our 5 beats your 4...and you DO know that the Chief Justice gets only 1 vote, right?

Well, duh. Like I said, get off your self-righteous high horse.

What exactly is self-righteous about pointing out the FACT that 5 Justices beat out 4 Justices? That's why it's called the Majority Opinion and they get to write the Court's decision. I'm not really getting where you think the losing side gets any kind of power from being the....................um............losing side.

One. You have ONE more vote. I wouldn't be feeling very secure with the decision.

And....that made all the difference, didn't it. One....you have ONE less vote.

Ok, you said something interesting. Tell us how different it is to have a 5-4 decision than it is to have a 6-3 decision or a 7-2 decision? How does that effect the security of the decision? What does the Constitution say about that?

Confidence.

I'm sorry...is that an answer?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And in the Obergefell decision, our side had 5 Justices. Our 5 beats your 4...and you DO know that the Chief Justice gets only 1 vote, right?

Well, duh. Like I said, get off your self-righteous high horse.

What exactly is self-righteous about pointing out the FACT that 5 Justices beat out 4 Justices? That's why it's called the Majority Opinion and they get to write the Court's decision. I'm not really getting where you think the losing side gets any kind of power from being the....................um............losing side.

One. You have ONE more vote. I wouldn't be feeling very secure with the decision.

The SC does not like to reverse itself and to do so and toss out all those now legal marriages, not a chance. That would be chaos. It's over and done with at the SC.

Legal schmeagle. When was the sanctuary cities policy passed?

Sanctuary cities are legal. Immigration is a Federal issue.

 

[bodecea]

And in the Obergefell decision, our side had 5 Justices. Our 5 beats your 4...and you DO know that the Chief Justice gets only 1 vote, right?

Well, duh. Like I said, get off your self-righteous high horse.

What exactly is self-righteous about pointing out the FACT that 5 Justices beat out 4 Justices? That's why it's called the Majority Opinion and they get to write the Court's decision. I'm not really getting where you think the losing side gets any kind of power from being the....................um............losing side.

One. You have ONE more vote. I wouldn't be feeling very secure with the decision.

The SC does not like to reverse itself and to do so and toss out all those now legal marriages, not a chance. That would be chaos. It's over and done with at the SC.

Legal schmeagle. When was the sanctuary cities policy passed?

I see you are now talking about something totally different. So, we are done with the topic of legal SSM? Thank you for the concession.

 

[Nosmo King]

See, this is an excellent example of constitutional ignorance. There is a process to update the constitution. Can you tell the class how that's done?

It is the process you will have to follow to make gay marriage illegal again.

I think the decision should be ignored.

So, you therefore don't believe people should obey the law? Got it.

No...I don't think that's what Sally is saying....she just wishes to ignore the ruling personally.....she seems to think that it affects her in some way. So I suggested that in order to ignore it.....really ignore it....she should not have a SSM. Quite simple to do, actually.

Of course the decision affects everyone. The court has just changed the definition of marriage which has been a male and female since the dawn of civilization. Um, that's kind of a big deal and it's corrupt.

Does this decision erode the legitimacy of you marriage or mine? Does it effect your life personally?

What is the actual harm of marriage equality? What could be the actual objections beyond a personal disdain for homosexuals and homosexuality?

 

[Sally Vater]

Well, duh. Like I said, get off your self-righteous high horse.

What exactly is self-righteous about pointing out the FACT that 5 Justices beat out 4 Justices? That's why it's called the Majority Opinion and they get to write the Court's decision. I'm not really getting where you think the losing side gets any kind of power from being the....................um............losing side.

One. You have ONE more vote. I wouldn't be feeling very secure with the decision.

The SC does not like to reverse itself and to do so and toss out all those now legal marriages, not a chance. That would be chaos. It's over and done with at the SC.

Legal schmeagle. When was the sanctuary cities policy passed?

I see you are now talking about something totally different. So, we are done with the topic of legal SSM? Thank you for the concession.

That's an example of leftist corruption. Y'all demand the opposition bow to your corrupt law. When did sanctuary cities law get passed? Can't you answer?

 

[Sally Vater]

It is the process you will have to follow to make gay marriage illegal again.

I think the decision should be ignored.

So, you therefore don't believe people should obey the law? Got it.

No...I don't think that's what Sally is saying....she just wishes to ignore the ruling personally.....she seems to think that it affects her in some way. So I suggested that in order to ignore it.....really ignore it....she should not have a SSM. Quite simple to do, actually.

Of course the decision affects everyone. The court has just changed the definition of marriage which has been a male and female since the dawn of civilization. Um, that's kind of a big deal and it's corrupt.

Does this decision erode the legitimacy of you marriage or mine? Does it effect your life personally?

What is the actual harm of marriage equality? What could be the actual objections beyond a personal disdain for homosexuals and homosexuality?

It changes the definition. Words have a definition or they don't. If definition can be changed by five lawyers then what's the purpose of having a dictionary or a constitution? Everyone will just have their own clique and demand their rights.

 

[Nosmo King]

I think the decision should be ignored.

So, you therefore don't believe people should obey the law? Got it.

No...I don't think that's what Sally is saying....she just wishes to ignore the ruling personally.....she seems to think that it affects her in some way. So I suggested that in order to ignore it.....really ignore it....she should not have a SSM. Quite simple to do, actually.

Of course the decision affects everyone. The court has just changed the definition of marriage which has been a male and female since the dawn of civilization. Um, that's kind of a big deal and it's corrupt.

Does this decision erode the legitimacy of you marriage or mine? Does it effect your life personally?

What is the actual harm of marriage equality? What could be the actual objections beyond a personal disdain for homosexuals and homosexuality?

It changes the definition. Words have a definition or they don't. If definition can be changed by five lawyers then what's the purpose of having a dictionary or a constitution? Everyone will just have their own clique and demand their rights.

What is the purpose of having a constitution if that constitution does not provide access to justice for all Americans? Words do have definitions and those definitions expand over time. Our language is a vibrant and alive language that seems to adapt to circumstances as they change. We add words every year. We expand the definitions of words every year.

You still have yet to answer my original question: How does this decision effect you personally? Has your marriage suffered as a result? And what real harm does marriage equality present? What objections to marriage equality exist beyond homophobia?

 

[paddymurphy]

So...you don't like change. Ok....but many of us don't go into hissy fits or drop into a fetal position over change......

False rhetoric, false premise, and deflection. Let me know when you post the words of the author of the amendment and the original intent.

I posted the actual 14th amendment itself. Now...let me ask you....when the Courts are determining a case based on one of the Bill of Rights or other amendment, what do they use as a basis for their decisions.....the words of someone who helped sculpt the amendment? Or the actual amendment itself.

Would you like a hint?

We both know that there are originalist interpretations and activist interpretations. It just depends on how the justices see it.

Well, an orginalist interpretation would not result in your silly claim that it only applied to freed slaves.

Okay. Tell the class what the purpose and intent of the 14th amendment was. Go ahead.

Here is a pretty good summary"

He explained that the Amendment provided:

by express authority of the Constitution to do that by congressional enactment which hitherto they have not had the power to do, and have never even attempted to do; that is, to protect by national law the privileges and immunities of all the citizens of the Republic and the inborn rights of every person within its jurisdiction whenever the same shall be abridged or denied by the unconstitutional acts of any State. [91]

By using the word "abridge," Bingham suggested that the Amendment would not create new privileges or immunities. [92] Rather, its purpose was to protect, by creating an enforcement power, existing privileges and immunities.

After the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, Bingham, speaking on behalf of a majority of the House Judiciary Committee, summarized his constitutional theory:

The fourteenth amendment, it is believed, did not add to the privileges or immunities before mentioned, but was deemed necessary for their enforcement as an express limitation upon the powers of the States. It had been judicially determined that the first eight articles of amendment of the Constitution were not limitations on the power of the States, and it was apprehended that the same might be held of the provision of the second section, fourth article. [93] [Page 74]

In March, 1871, Bingham stated explicitly that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. Noting that the first eight amendments "chiefly defined" the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizenship, Bingham stated, "These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment." [94]" Guess who said this?

 

[paddymurphy]

I think the decision should be ignored.

So, you therefore don't believe people should obey the law? Got it.

No...I don't think that's what Sally is saying....she just wishes to ignore the ruling personally.....she seems to think that it affects her in some way. So I suggested that in order to ignore it.....really ignore it....she should not have a SSM. Quite simple to do, actually.

Of course the decision affects everyone. The court has just changed the definition of marriage which has been a male and female since the dawn of civilization. Um, that's kind of a big deal and it's corrupt.

Does this decision erode the legitimacy of you marriage or mine? Does it effect your life personally?

What is the actual harm of marriage equality? What could be the actual objections beyond a personal disdain for homosexuals and homosexuality?

It changes the definition. Words have a definition or they don't. If definition can be changed by five lawyers then what's the purpose of having a dictionary or a constitution? Everyone will just have their own clique and demand their rights.

It no more changed the definition than Loving did.

 

[Sally Vater]

So, you therefore don't believe people should obey the law? Got it.

No...I don't think that's what Sally is saying....she just wishes to ignore the ruling personally.....she seems to think that it affects her in some way. So I suggested that in order to ignore it.....really ignore it....she should not have a SSM. Quite simple to do, actually.

Of course the decision affects everyone. The court has just changed the definition of marriage which has been a male and female since the dawn of civilization. Um, that's kind of a big deal and it's corrupt.

Does this decision erode the legitimacy of you marriage or mine? Does it effect your life personally?

What is the actual harm of marriage equality? What could be the actual objections beyond a personal disdain for homosexuals and homosexuality?

It changes the definition. Words have a definition or they don't. If definition can be changed by five lawyers then what's the purpose of having a dictionary or a constitution? Everyone will just have their own clique and demand their rights.

What is the purpose of having a constitution if that constitution does not provide access to justice for all Americans? Words do have definitions and those definitions expand over time. Our language is a vibrant and alive language that seems to adapt to circumstances as they change. We add words every year. We expand the definitions of words every year.

You still have yet to answer my original question: How does this decision effect you personally? Has your marriage suffered as a result? And what real harm does marriage equality present? What objections to marriage equality exist beyond homophobia?

Five lawyers don't change definitions for me.

 

[paddymurphy]

This will be over the head of the two lefty monkeys here, but a good explanation for the scholars.

Constitution interpretation: Originalism v. Activism

First, fuck you inbred little shit. You don't know a fucking thing about the constitution. You read some blog by a similarly ignorant piece of shit and that carries more weight than 200 plus years of Supreme and Lower Court opinions by judges, all of whom are smarter than anyone you have ever met.

 

[paddymurphy]

This will be over the head of the two lefty monkeys here, but a good explanation for the scholars.

Constitution interpretation: Originalism v. Activism

We don't live 230 years ago, nor did the Founders expect us to.

Then why keep the constitution. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't believe in it.

We totally believe in the Constitution, its Amendments and Supreme Court decisions. You've got...............blogs.

You're lying again. I've got four justices and one of them is the Chief Justice Roberts. You only have one more than me. Now get off your self-righteous high horse.

You got Roberts on this case, not on your moronic claim that the 14th Amendment only applied to freed slaves and their descendants.

 

[paddymurphy]

See, this is an excellent example of constitutional ignorance. There is a process to update the constitution. Can you tell the class how that's done?

It is the process you will have to follow to make gay marriage illegal again.

I think the decision should be ignored.

So, you therefore don't believe people should obey the law? Got it.

No...I don't think that's what Sally is saying....she just wishes to ignore the ruling personally.....she seems to think that it affects her in some way. So I suggested that in order to ignore it.....really ignore it....she should not have a SSM. Quite simple to do, actually.

Of course the decision affects everyone. The court has just changed the definition of marriage which has been a male and female since the dawn of civilization. Um, that's kind of a big deal and it's corrupt.

What is corrupt is that grey matter between your ears.

 

[Sally Vater]

So, you therefore don't believe people should obey the law? Got it.

No...I don't think that's what Sally is saying....she just wishes to ignore the ruling personally.....she seems to think that it affects her in some way. So I suggested that in order to ignore it.....really ignore it....she should not have a SSM. Quite simple to do, actually.

Of course the decision affects everyone. The court has just changed the definition of marriage which has been a male and female since the dawn of civilization. Um, that's kind of a big deal and it's corrupt.

Does this decision erode the legitimacy of you marriage or mine? Does it effect your life personally?

What is the actual harm of marriage equality? What could be the actual objections beyond a personal disdain for homosexuals and homosexuality?

It changes the definition. Words have a definition or they don't. If definition can be changed by five lawyers then what's the purpose of having a dictionary or a constitution? Everyone will just have their own clique and demand their rights.

It no more changed the definition than Loving did.

Marriage

It is the process you will have to follow to make gay marriage illegal again.

I think the decision should be ignored.

So, you therefore don't believe people should obey the law? Got it.

No...I don't think that's what Sally is saying....she just wishes to ignore the ruling personally.....she seems to think that it affects her in some way. So I suggested that in order to ignore it.....really ignore it....she should not have a SSM. Quite simple to do, actually.

Of course the decision affects everyone. The court has just changed the definition of marriage which has been a male and female since the dawn of civilization. Um, that's kind of a big deal and it's corrupt.

What is corrupt is that grey matter between your ears.

Um, there's the loser today.

 

[paddymurphy]

This will be over the head of the two lefty monkeys here, but a good explanation for the scholars.

Constitution interpretation: Originalism v. Activism

Do you know that you posted a blog from a college student? Did you read about LeontesD? That is your source? Some pimple faced undergrad at South University, a for profit online school owned by Education Management Corporation? I suppose that carries more weight than this from the Georgetown Law School, written by a Yale Law graduate? http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/pdf/99-2/Lash.pdf

 

[Sally Vater]

This will be over the head of the two lefty monkeys here, but a good explanation for the scholars.

Constitution interpretation: Originalism v. Activism

We don't live 230 years ago, nor did the Founders expect us to.

Then why keep the constitution. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't believe in it.

We totally believe in the Constitution, its Amendments and Supreme Court decisions. You've got...............blogs.

You're lying again. I've got four justices and one of them is the Chief Justice Roberts. You only have one more than me. Now get off your self-righteous high horse.

You got Roberts on this case, not on your moronic claim that the 14th Amendment only applied to freed slaves and their descendants.

Go ahead, make your case. Show the intent of the amendment. Show some historical fact.

 

[paddymurphy]

No...I don't think that's what Sally is saying....she just wishes to ignore the ruling personally.....she seems to think that it affects her in some way. So I suggested that in order to ignore it.....really ignore it....she should not have a SSM. Quite simple to do, actually.

Of course the decision affects everyone. The court has just changed the definition of marriage which has been a male and female since the dawn of civilization. Um, that's kind of a big deal and it's corrupt.

Does this decision erode the legitimacy of you marriage or mine? Does it effect your life personally?

What is the actual harm of marriage equality? What could be the actual objections beyond a personal disdain for homosexuals and homosexuality?

It changes the definition. Words have a definition or they don't. If definition can be changed by five lawyers then what's the purpose of having a dictionary or a constitution? Everyone will just have their own clique and demand their rights.

It no more changed the definition than Loving did.

Marriage

I think the decision should be ignored.

So, you therefore don't believe people should obey the law? Got it.

No...I don't think that's what Sally is saying....she just wishes to ignore the ruling personally.....she seems to think that it affects her in some way. So I suggested that in order to ignore it.....really ignore it....she should not have a SSM. Quite simple to do, actually.

Of course the decision affects everyone. The court has just changed the definition of marriage which has been a male and female since the dawn of civilization. Um, that's kind of a big deal and it's corrupt.

What is corrupt is that grey matter between your ears.

Um, there's the loser today.

The loser? You cite to two blogs, one by an undergrad at an online university while I cite to the actual Supreme Court opinions; the actual statements of Senator Bingham and law review articles and you think you won the argument?

 

[paddymurphy]

This will be over the head of the two lefty monkeys here, but a good explanation for the scholars.

Constitution interpretation: Originalism v. Activism

That's nice. Another blog. How much legal weight does THAT one carry?

A blog from this legal scholar:
About leontesd
Passionate about learning; reading; contemporary political, legal, and social issues. Based on his outstanding academic performance, Leontes has been regularly named, semester after semester, to the South University Dean's List from 2007 to 2009.The Dean of Academic Affairs at South University, Professor Bruce Mallard, Ph.D. states that "This is an honor that is not easily accomplished, specially in light of the various demands placed on our students." Leontes is working towards his Master Science in Business at University of Mary