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

[Seawytch]

it was the wrong process.

What was wrong about it?

Marty didn't like it. It's still a valid and legal process followed by couples before (like Turner v Safely and Zablocki v Redhail) but this time it's people Marty finds objectionable.

I don't like Roe V Wade even though I don't think Abortion should be legal. The same applies to Obergefell, as the method is my issue, not the end result.

You can keep saying that I hate certain people, but that is not the case. If its the only way you can comprehend my position, then I feel sorry for you.

Sorry Marty, but when you say things like "gay marriage isn't like straight marriage", It's pretty easy to suss out your position on gays.

Even if I would support and vote for legislation that would make them the same in the eyes of the State? My issue is with Judges making it happen by fiat, not with the democratic process modifying the contract via the will of the people.

You are confusing hatred for simple observation. Just saying they are not the same is not condemning one.

Gays were granted their fundamental right to marry the same way all other couples in the past have been. They won them the same way interracial couples did in Loving, the same way Divorced couples did in Turner v Safley and they same way incarcerated individuals did it in Zablocki.

Our judicial system IS part of our democratic process. Welcome to America.

 

[martybegan]

What was wrong about it?

Marty didn't like it. It's still a valid and legal process followed by couples before (like Turner v Safely and Zablocki v Redhail) but this time it's people Marty finds objectionable.

I don't like Roe V Wade even though I don't think Abortion should be legal. The same applies to Obergefell, as the method is my issue, not the end result.

You can keep saying that I hate certain people, but that is not the case. If its the only way you can comprehend my position, then I feel sorry for you.

Sorry Marty, but when you say things like "gay marriage isn't like straight marriage", It's pretty easy to suss out your position on gays.

Even if I would support and vote for legislation that would make them the same in the eyes of the State? My issue is with Judges making it happen by fiat, not with the democratic process modifying the contract via the will of the people.

You are confusing hatred for simple observation. Just saying they are not the same is not condemning one.

Gays were granted their fundamental right to marry the same way all other couples in the past have been. They won them the same way interracial couples did in Loving, the same way Divorced couples did in Turner v Safley and they same way incarcerated individuals did it in Zablocki.

Our judicial system IS part of our democratic process. Welcome to America.

Trying to equate those to SSM is a stretch, all of those involved opposite sex marriage, the definition of which has only been questioned in the past 30 years.

You got some progressive justices to drink your kool-aid, and took the easy way out. Bravo.

 

[bodecea]

Marty didn't like it. It's still a valid and legal process followed by couples before (like Turner v Safely and Zablocki v Redhail) but this time it's people Marty finds objectionable.

I don't like Roe V Wade even though I don't think Abortion should be legal. The same applies to Obergefell, as the method is my issue, not the end result.

You can keep saying that I hate certain people, but that is not the case. If its the only way you can comprehend my position, then I feel sorry for you.

Sorry Marty, but when you say things like "gay marriage isn't like straight marriage", It's pretty easy to suss out your position on gays.

Even if I would support and vote for legislation that would make them the same in the eyes of the State? My issue is with Judges making it happen by fiat, not with the democratic process modifying the contract via the will of the people.

You are confusing hatred for simple observation. Just saying they are not the same is not condemning one.

Gays were granted their fundamental right to marry the same way all other couples in the past have been. They won them the same way interracial couples did in Loving, the same way Divorced couples did in Turner v Safley and they same way incarcerated individuals did it in Zablocki.

Our judicial system IS part of our democratic process. Welcome to America.

Trying to equate those to SSM is a stretch, all of those involved opposite sex marriage, the definition of which has only been questioned in the past 30 years.

You got some progressive justices to drink your kool-aid, and took the easy way out. Bravo.

Why do I get an image of pre-teen poor sports crying about the other team cheating in a pick up baseball game whenever you snivel about legal SSM......... It's a puzzlement.

 

[paddymurphy]

This is an exact quote of that portion of the 14th:

That assumes SSM is the same as opposite sex marriage, which it is not.

It is still marriage.

30 years ago it wasn't even a concept. It only becomes "marriage if a State legislature agrees to change the terms of its marriage contract to include it.

So what? Are you advocating everything be the same as it was 30 years ago?

No, I am saying this equivalency you see between OSM and SSM is a modern construct, not something enshrined as a constitutional right.

Marriage is not a constitutional right. Liberty is. Equal protection is. Both require that marriage laws that forbid gay couples from marrying be sent the way of marriage laws that prohibited couples of different races from marrying. Why is it so hard for you folks to understand that the constitution does not spell out every possible activity that is protected? There is no right to contraception spelled out in the bible but do you think that laws that would prohibit a couple from using them would not violate fundamental principles of liberty? Why are you so opposed to the notion that the Constitution protects the liberty of Americans?

 

[paddymurphy]

So, when are you all going to finally stop whining and bitching about homosexuals? Someday? Never?

Not homosexuals, progressive twats that use government to punish others for their beliefs.

So...if what you say is true...that people are using the government to punish others for their beliefs...there are not many people who believe as the Kleins do...because not many are being punished. Do you believe as the Kleins do? If so, how are you being punished by the government?

You are using their actions as an end run to punish Thought Crime.

They are not punishing thoughts. That is a lie you have repeated. They are punishing actions.

 

[paddymurphy]

Our government is not allowed to punish people for thoughts. Of course you approve of that because you are a gutless fascist thug.

No one is punishing them for their thoughts. They are being punished for their actions.

An End run, nothing more.

No. A factual statement you cannot dispute. You can think whatever you want. You can "think" you would like to have sex with a ten year old boy. That is not a crime. You can think that you would not like to pay taxes. But, unless to actually fail to pay taxes, you are fine.

 

[martybegan]

I don't like Roe V Wade even though I don't think Abortion should be legal. The same applies to Obergefell, as the method is my issue, not the end result.

You can keep saying that I hate certain people, but that is not the case. If its the only way you can comprehend my position, then I feel sorry for you.

Sorry Marty, but when you say things like "gay marriage isn't like straight marriage", It's pretty easy to suss out your position on gays.

Even if I would support and vote for legislation that would make them the same in the eyes of the State? My issue is with Judges making it happen by fiat, not with the democratic process modifying the contract via the will of the people.

You are confusing hatred for simple observation. Just saying they are not the same is not condemning one.

Gays were granted their fundamental right to marry the same way all other couples in the past have been. They won them the same way interracial couples did in Loving, the same way Divorced couples did in Turner v Safley and they same way incarcerated individuals did it in Zablocki.

Our judicial system IS part of our democratic process. Welcome to America.

Trying to equate those to SSM is a stretch, all of those involved opposite sex marriage, the definition of which has only been questioned in the past 30 years.

You got some progressive justices to drink your kool-aid, and took the easy way out. Bravo.

Why do I get an image of pre-teen poor sports crying about the other team cheating in a pick up baseball game whenever you snivel about legal SSM......... It's a puzzlement.

because you are a condescending asshat?

 

[paddymurphy]

it was the wrong process.

What was wrong about it?

Marty didn't like it. It's still a valid and legal process followed by couples before (like Turner v Safely and Zablocki v Redhail) but this time it's people Marty finds objectionable.

I don't like Roe V Wade even though I don't think Abortion should be legal. The same applies to Obergefell, as the method is my issue, not the end result.

You can keep saying that I hate certain people, but that is not the case. If its the only way you can comprehend my position, then I feel sorry for you.

Sorry Marty, but when you say things like "gay marriage isn't like straight marriage", It's pretty easy to suss out your position on gays.

Even if I would support and vote for legislation that would make them the same in the eyes of the State? My issue is with Judges making it happen by fiat, not with the democratic process modifying the contract via the will of the people.

You are confusing hatred for simple observation. Just saying they are not the same is not condemning one.

Well, then, you really do not understand the United States Constitution. The will of the people cannot deny rights protected in the constitution. You apparently would repeal the Bill of Rights, the 13th Amendment, the 14th Amendment and the 15th Amendment because you seem to think that whatever the majority wants is how it should be. So, if a majority of folks in a city, county or state were to vote to ban the private ownership of handguns, you would support that and would consider a judge who struck that down to be doing so by judicial fiat.

 

[martybegan]

That assumes SSM is the same as opposite sex marriage, which it is not.

It is still marriage.

30 years ago it wasn't even a concept. It only becomes "marriage if a State legislature agrees to change the terms of its marriage contract to include it.

So what? Are you advocating everything be the same as it was 30 years ago?

No, I am saying this equivalency you see between OSM and SSM is a modern construct, not something enshrined as a constitutional right.

Marriage is not a constitutional right. Liberty is. Equal protection is. Both require that marriage laws that forbid gay couples from marrying be sent the way of marriage laws that prohibited couples of different races from marrying. Why is it so hard for you folks to understand that the constitution does not spell out every possible activity that is protected? There is no right to contraception spelled out in the bible but do you think that laws that would prohibit a couple from using them would not violate fundamental principles of liberty? Why are you so opposed to the notion that the Constitution protects the liberty of Americans?

That only assumes that SSM and OSM are exactly the same, and they are not. when race was made a condition is was adding an imposition on a clearly established contract, i.e. OSM.

What I am opposed to is creating rights out of thin air that eliminate the people's right to legislate laws as they see fit. Also, a court that can create a right can just as easily remove one, such as the left's current effort to erase the 2nd amendment.

 

[paddymurphy]

Marty didn't like it. It's still a valid and legal process followed by couples before (like Turner v Safely and Zablocki v Redhail) but this time it's people Marty finds objectionable.

I don't like Roe V Wade even though I don't think Abortion should be legal. The same applies to Obergefell, as the method is my issue, not the end result.

You can keep saying that I hate certain people, but that is not the case. If its the only way you can comprehend my position, then I feel sorry for you.

Sorry Marty, but when you say things like "gay marriage isn't like straight marriage", It's pretty easy to suss out your position on gays.

Even if I would support and vote for legislation that would make them the same in the eyes of the State? My issue is with Judges making it happen by fiat, not with the democratic process modifying the contract via the will of the people.

You are confusing hatred for simple observation. Just saying they are not the same is not condemning one.

The role and authority of the Supreme Court is enshrined in our Constitution. If the people of the U.S. believed that branch of government was acting in a manner not in accordance with the Constitution, the people could rectify that. We never have because most believe the Supreme Court functions within the guidelines of the Constitution. The Supreme Court acted within its jurisdiction on Obergefell.

The Court is making law, not interpreting it. The proper decision would have been to allow the states to issue marriage licenses as they see fit, but force states to recognize all licenses issued by other States.

All your side has is appeal to authority.

They are not limited to "interpreting"law. Once again, your abject ignorance of the constitution rears its ugly head. They are empowered to determine if any law passed violates a provision of the Constitution. If that laws does, the Supreme Court is obligated to strike it.

 

[martybegan]

So, when are you all going to finally stop whining and bitching about homosexuals? Someday? Never?

Not homosexuals, progressive twats that use government to punish others for their beliefs.

So...if what you say is true...that people are using the government to punish others for their beliefs...there are not many people who believe as the Kleins do...because not many are being punished. Do you believe as the Kleins do? If so, how are you being punished by the government?

You are using their actions as an end run to punish Thought Crime.

They are not punishing thoughts. That is a lie you have repeated. They are punishing actions.

Again, nothing but an end run around the 1st amendment, and the fine is to stifle other's in their beliefs.

This is only the first shot your side is firing on making Thought Crime an actual crime.

 

[martybegan]

Our government is not allowed to punish people for thoughts. Of course you approve of that because you are a gutless fascist thug.

No one is punishing them for their thoughts. They are being punished for their actions.

An End run, nothing more.

No. A factual statement you cannot dispute. You can think whatever you want. You can "think" you would like to have sex with a ten year old boy. That is not a crime. You can think that you would not like to pay taxes. But, unless to actually fail to pay taxes, you are fine.

Keep trying to justify it if you feel better about it. These people were ruined for their beliefs.

 

[paddymurphy]

Sorry Marty, but when you say things like "gay marriage isn't like straight marriage", It's pretty easy to suss out your position on gays.

Even if I would support and vote for legislation that would make them the same in the eyes of the State? My issue is with Judges making it happen by fiat, not with the democratic process modifying the contract via the will of the people.

You are confusing hatred for simple observation. Just saying they are not the same is not condemning one.

Gays were granted their fundamental right to marry the same way all other couples in the past have been. They won them the same way interracial couples did in Loving, the same way Divorced couples did in Turner v Safley and they same way incarcerated individuals did it in Zablocki.

Our judicial system IS part of our democratic process. Welcome to America.

Trying to equate those to SSM is a stretch, all of those involved opposite sex marriage, the definition of which has only been questioned in the past 30 years.

You got some progressive justices to drink your kool-aid, and took the easy way out. Bravo.

Why do I get an image of pre-teen poor sports crying about the other team cheating in a pick up baseball game whenever you snivel about legal SSM......... It's a puzzlement.

because you are a condescending asshat?

No, because that is precisely how you are acting. Do you think the Supreme Court had the authority to hold in Hobby Lobby that the law that required that they provide contraceptive coverage to their employees violated the religious rights of the stockholders?

 

[martybegan]

I don't like Roe V Wade even though I don't think Abortion should be legal. The same applies to Obergefell, as the method is my issue, not the end result.

You can keep saying that I hate certain people, but that is not the case. If its the only way you can comprehend my position, then I feel sorry for you.

Sorry Marty, but when you say things like "gay marriage isn't like straight marriage", It's pretty easy to suss out your position on gays.

Even if I would support and vote for legislation that would make them the same in the eyes of the State? My issue is with Judges making it happen by fiat, not with the democratic process modifying the contract via the will of the people.

You are confusing hatred for simple observation. Just saying they are not the same is not condemning one.

The role and authority of the Supreme Court is enshrined in our Constitution. If the people of the U.S. believed that branch of government was acting in a manner not in accordance with the Constitution, the people could rectify that. We never have because most believe the Supreme Court functions within the guidelines of the Constitution. The Supreme Court acted within its jurisdiction on Obergefell.

The Court is making law, not interpreting it. The proper decision would have been to allow the states to issue marriage licenses as they see fit, but force states to recognize all licenses issued by other States.

All your side has is appeal to authority.

They are not limited to "interpreting"law. Once again, your abject ignorance of the constitution rears its ugly head. They are empowered to determine if any law passed violates a provision of the Constitution. If that laws does, the Supreme Court is obligated to strike it.

Yes, they are. Only the legislature can create law. Your side seems to think the other branches can do it if it fits your agenda.

Marriage was always seen as between a man and a woman, the laws were only changed when people tried to register other types, with no historical precedence.

 

[paddymurphy]

It is still marriage.

30 years ago it wasn't even a concept. It only becomes "marriage if a State legislature agrees to change the terms of its marriage contract to include it.

So what? Are you advocating everything be the same as it was 30 years ago?

No, I am saying this equivalency you see between OSM and SSM is a modern construct, not something enshrined as a constitutional right.

Marriage is not a constitutional right. Liberty is. Equal protection is. Both require that marriage laws that forbid gay couples from marrying be sent the way of marriage laws that prohibited couples of different races from marrying. Why is it so hard for you folks to understand that the constitution does not spell out every possible activity that is protected? There is no right to contraception spelled out in the bible but do you think that laws that would prohibit a couple from using them would not violate fundamental principles of liberty? Why are you so opposed to the notion that the Constitution protects the liberty of Americans?

That only assumes that SSM and OSM are exactly the same, and they are not. when race was made a condition is was adding an imposition on a clearly established contract, i.e. OSM.

What I am opposed to is creating rights out of thin air that eliminate the people's right to legislate laws as they see fit. Also, a court that can create a right can just as easily remove one, such as the left's current effort to erase the 2nd amendment.

Race was not "added". And, for the millionth time, the right recognized in Loving is the same right recognized in Obergefell. And it is not the right to marry; it is the right to equal protection of the laws governing marriage and the right to liberty; the liberty to make an important decision about your life without government intrusion.

 

[martybegan]

Even if I would support and vote for legislation that would make them the same in the eyes of the State? My issue is with Judges making it happen by fiat, not with the democratic process modifying the contract via the will of the people.

You are confusing hatred for simple observation. Just saying they are not the same is not condemning one.

Gays were granted their fundamental right to marry the same way all other couples in the past have been. They won them the same way interracial couples did in Loving, the same way Divorced couples did in Turner v Safley and they same way incarcerated individuals did it in Zablocki.

Our judicial system IS part of our democratic process. Welcome to America.

Trying to equate those to SSM is a stretch, all of those involved opposite sex marriage, the definition of which has only been questioned in the past 30 years.

You got some progressive justices to drink your kool-aid, and took the easy way out. Bravo.

Why do I get an image of pre-teen poor sports crying about the other team cheating in a pick up baseball game whenever you snivel about legal SSM......... It's a puzzlement.

because you are a condescending asshat?

No, because that is precisely how you are acting. Do you think the Supreme Court had the authority to hold in Hobby Lobby that the law that required that they provide contraceptive coverage to their employees violated the religious rights of the stockholders?

Owners, not Stockholders. Hobby Lobby was limited to privately owned companies.

 

[bodecea]

Marty didn't like it. It's still a valid and legal process followed by couples before (like Turner v Safely and Zablocki v Redhail) but this time it's people Marty finds objectionable.

I don't like Roe V Wade even though I don't think Abortion should be legal. The same applies to Obergefell, as the method is my issue, not the end result.

You can keep saying that I hate certain people, but that is not the case. If its the only way you can comprehend my position, then I feel sorry for you.

Sorry Marty, but when you say things like "gay marriage isn't like straight marriage", It's pretty easy to suss out your position on gays.

Even if I would support and vote for legislation that would make them the same in the eyes of the State? My issue is with Judges making it happen by fiat, not with the democratic process modifying the contract via the will of the people.

You are confusing hatred for simple observation. Just saying they are not the same is not condemning one.

The role and authority of the Supreme Court is enshrined in our Constitution. If the people of the U.S. believed that branch of government was acting in a manner not in accordance with the Constitution, the people could rectify that. We never have because most believe the Supreme Court functions within the guidelines of the Constitution. The Supreme Court acted within its jurisdiction on Obergefell.

The Court is making law, not interpreting it. The proper decision would have been to allow the states to issue marriage licenses as they see fit, but force states to recognize all licenses issued by other States.

All your side has is appeal to authority.

What is the statute # of the law they made? Or the text of it?

 

[martybegan]

30 years ago it wasn't even a concept. It only becomes "marriage if a State legislature agrees to change the terms of its marriage contract to include it.

So what? Are you advocating everything be the same as it was 30 years ago?

No, I am saying this equivalency you see between OSM and SSM is a modern construct, not something enshrined as a constitutional right.

Marriage is not a constitutional right. Liberty is. Equal protection is. Both require that marriage laws that forbid gay couples from marrying be sent the way of marriage laws that prohibited couples of different races from marrying. Why is it so hard for you folks to understand that the constitution does not spell out every possible activity that is protected? There is no right to contraception spelled out in the bible but do you think that laws that would prohibit a couple from using them would not violate fundamental principles of liberty? Why are you so opposed to the notion that the Constitution protects the liberty of Americans?

That only assumes that SSM and OSM are exactly the same, and they are not. when race was made a condition is was adding an imposition on a clearly established contract, i.e. OSM.

What I am opposed to is creating rights out of thin air that eliminate the people's right to legislate laws as they see fit. Also, a court that can create a right can just as easily remove one, such as the left's current effort to erase the 2nd amendment.

Race was not "added". And, for the millionth time, the right recognized in Loving is the same right recognized in Obergefell. And it is not the right to marry; it is the right to equal protection of the laws governing marriage and the right to liberty; the liberty to make an important decision about your life without government intrusion.

Race was added as a restriction, there were plenty of marriage contract laws that did not state race. None out there ever assumed two people of the same sex could marry each other.

Loving reference marriage as a right, how can you compare the current case if you deny that it is part of it as well?

 

[martybegan]

I don't like Roe V Wade even though I don't think Abortion should be legal. The same applies to Obergefell, as the method is my issue, not the end result.

You can keep saying that I hate certain people, but that is not the case. If its the only way you can comprehend my position, then I feel sorry for you.

Sorry Marty, but when you say things like "gay marriage isn't like straight marriage", It's pretty easy to suss out your position on gays.

Even if I would support and vote for legislation that would make them the same in the eyes of the State? My issue is with Judges making it happen by fiat, not with the democratic process modifying the contract via the will of the people.

You are confusing hatred for simple observation. Just saying they are not the same is not condemning one.

The role and authority of the Supreme Court is enshrined in our Constitution. If the people of the U.S. believed that branch of government was acting in a manner not in accordance with the Constitution, the people could rectify that. We never have because most believe the Supreme Court functions within the guidelines of the Constitution. The Supreme Court acted within its jurisdiction on Obergefell.

The Court is making law, not interpreting it. The proper decision would have been to allow the states to issue marriage licenses as they see fit, but force states to recognize all licenses issued by other States.

All your side has is appeal to authority.

What is the statute # of the law they made? Or the text of it?

exactly.

 

[paddymurphy]

So, when are you all going to finally stop whining and bitching about homosexuals? Someday? Never?

Not homosexuals, progressive twats that use government to punish others for their beliefs.

So...if what you say is true...that people are using the government to punish others for their beliefs...there are not many people who believe as the Kleins do...because not many are being punished. Do you believe as the Kleins do? If so, how are you being punished by the government?

You are using their actions as an end run to punish Thought Crime.

They are not punishing thoughts. That is a lie you have repeated. They are punishing actions.

Again, nothing but an end run around the 1st amendment, and the fine is to stifle other's in their beliefs.

This is only the first shot your side is firing on making Thought Crime an actual crime.

. The first amendment does not permit people to act contrary to the law on the basis of their religion. Only laws that specifically target religious expression are unconstitutional. How can one be so stupid as to not understand the difference between thought and action?