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

[Uncensored2008]

You have not read that you lying prick.

Male public school teacher diddling little boys is homosexual - fact.

That you scumbags lie and claim that male on male sex is heterosexual doesn't alter reality.

 

[ChrisL]

You have not read that you lying prick.

Male public school teacher diddling little boys is homosexual - fact.

That you scumbags lie and claim that male on male sex is heterosexual doesn't alter reality.

Well, the thing is that some pedophiles do not differentiate between male and female children. They are attracted to CHILDREN of either sex. Their fetish is age related.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You are a fucking idiot. 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?

Actually stupid, the 1st amendment prohibits the MAKING of laws that violate the expression of religion by people.

You totalitarians piss on the 1st and the rest of the BOR.

 

[bodecea]

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.

So...you don't have it. Because this new law doesn't really exist.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, the thing is that some pedophiles do not differentiate between male and female children. They are attracted to CHILDREN of either sex. Their fetish is age related.

The homosexual lobby makes that claim, despite any supporting evidence. Male on male, or female on female is homosexual. Politics do not trump reality.

 

[martybegan]

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.

You are a fucking idiot. 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?

I'm just calling you out on your bigotry.

and the 1st amendment would prevent laws like this in the first place if it was properly applied, or allow an exception when there is no Compelling government interest to the contrary.

Sorry, but you can justify your fascism all you want, you just can sugar coat it.

 

[bodecea]

You are a fucking idiot. 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?

Actually stupid, the 1st amendment prohibits the MAKING of laws that violate the expression of religion by people.

You totalitarians piss on the 1st and the rest of the BOR.

What new law(s) were made? What is the statute # and or text of this new law?

 

[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.

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.

So...you don't have it. Because this new law doesn't really exist.

The court is overstepping its bounds by making law, just as in Roe, your attempt at minutiae is just that, an attempt.

 

[bodecea]

Well, the thing is that some pedophiles do not differentiate between male and female children. They are attracted to CHILDREN of either sex. Their fetish is age related.

The homosexual lobby makes that claim, despite any supporting evidence. Male on male, or female on female is homosexual. Politics do not trump reality.

Wait....."the homosexual lobby"? Not medical and psychological experts?

 

[ChrisL]

Well, the thing is that some pedophiles do not differentiate between male and female children. They are attracted to CHILDREN of either sex. Their fetish is age related.

The homosexual lobby makes that claim, despite any supporting evidence. Male on male, or female on female is homosexual. Politics do not trump reality.

It's true. Pedophilia is a disease. Remember that crazy pediatric dentist a few years back? He was molesting both boy and girl patients. I also remember another story not too long about about a man who molested a brother and sister.

 

[bodecea]

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.

So...you don't have it. Because this new law doesn't really exist.

The court is overstepping its bounds by making law, just as in Roe, your attempt at minutiae is just that, an attempt.

If the court had made law, you'd be able to give us either a statute # or at least the text of the new law. As of yet, you have not.

 

[martybegan]

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.

So...you don't have it. Because this new law doesn't really exist.

The court is overstepping its bounds by making law, just as in Roe, your attempt at minutiae is just that, an attempt.

If the court had made law, you'd be able to give us either a statute # or at least the text of the new law. As of yet, you have not.

Then how is SSM now " the law of the land"?

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Izzatsew?

Enlighten us sploogy, with the article or amendment from the Constitution that so empowers the court?

Tell me, you drooling retard, have you heard of "Marbury V. Madison?" Do you have any idea what the relevance of the ruling was?

 

[bodecea]

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.

You are a fucking idiot. 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?

I'm just calling you out on your bigotry.

and the 1st amendment would prevent laws like this in the first place if it was properly applied, or allow an exception when there is no Compelling government interest to the contrary.

Sorry, but you can justify your fascism all you want, you just can sugar coat it.

How is the 1st Amendment not being properly applied?

 

[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.

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

They are ruined for their actions.

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?

Race was "added" after the Civil War. Before that, whites could not marry blacks in most states any more than they could marry their cattle because blacks were not considered as anything more than chattel.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

Izzatsew?

Enlighten us sploogy, with the article or amendment from the Constitution that so empowers the court?

Tell me, you drooling retard, have you heard of "Marbury V. Madison?" Do you have any idea what the relevance of the ruling was?

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society's need for order and the individual's right to freedom. To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government.

The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.

While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.

Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people. And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.

Despite this background the Court's power of judicial review was not confirmed until 1803, when it was invoked by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. In this decision, the Chief Justice asserted that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That oath could not be fulfilled any other way. "It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is," he declared.

In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions. As Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own application "would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. . . . Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves."

 

[bodecea]

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

exactly.

So...you don't have it. Because this new law doesn't really exist.

The court is overstepping its bounds by making law, just as in Roe, your attempt at minutiae is just that, an attempt.

If the court had made law, you'd be able to give us either a statute # or at least the text of the new law. As of yet, you have not.

Then how is SSM now " the law of the land"?

Legal marriage has been "the law of the land"...restrictions against SSM have been removed. Nothing new added, just restrictions removed which is TOTALLY within the purvey of the Courts.

 

[bodecea]

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.

If they were punishing thoughts....why wouldn't Marty be punished for the same thoughts?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

exactly.

So...you don't have it. Because this new law doesn't really exist.

The court is overstepping its bounds by making law, just as in Roe, your attempt at minutiae is just that, an attempt.

If the court had made law, you'd be able to give us either a statute # or at least the text of the new law. As of yet, you have not.

Then how is SSM now " the law of the land"?

Because laws against have been found to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL...

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's true. Pedophilia is a disease. Remember that crazy pediatric dentist a few years back? He was molesting both boy and girl patients. I also remember another story not too long about about a man who molested a brother and sister.

Every perversion is a "disease" and not the fault of the perpetrator..

Those who are attracted to both genders are termed "bisexual."

I will agree on one level, sexual predators seek power over others more than anything else. It is rape and a means of bringing others under their control.