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

[ChrisL]

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.

Yup, the court determined that it was unconstitutional to deny homosexuals, as tax-paying American citizens, the same rights and privileges as any other American citizen despite the fact that the religious zealots would like to keep them second class citizens.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

^^^^ that.

 

[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.

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?

It is a total mystery to me why that image pops into my head. Weird.

 

[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.

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.

I feel like a physician trying to explain how the kidney functions to a ten year old. The Supreme Court has the power, authority and obligation to address challenges to laws based on the constitution. If the law challenged violates the constitution, that provision of if that caused the violation is stricken. From the date of the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell, every marriage law in every state no longer contained "enforceable" provisions limiting marriage to same sex couples. Those provisions no longer have legal authority, but the rest do. And the rest had to be construed to apply to same sex couples, even if the language in the statute continued to refer to "husbands and wives".

 

[ChrisL]

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.

But because pedophilia is a specific sexual disorder, these people cannot be classified in such a way. They do not have normal sexual feelings for men or women. They desire children and most aren't very particular. If the opportunity exists . . . .

 

[paddymurphy]

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?

Love references marriage as a right in the context of the due process clause's reference to "liberty". It also found the law invalid on equal protection grounds. The actual "rights" being infringed are the rights to liberty and equal protection.

 

[paddymurphy]

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?

If you have read Marbury and understood it then you have answered your question. Marbury recognized the right of the Court to review laws to determine if they comport with the constitution. The phrase your tiny brain is looking for is "judicial review".

 

[bodecea]

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.

If they are different....what words were added to marriage laws to indicate that difference?

 

[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.

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.

How is this an "end around" the 1st Amendment?

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

No, it does not. Never has. It prohibits laws that are targeted specifically at religious expression. The law used to be that any law that substantially burdened religious exercise had to be justified by a compelling governmental interests. Sherbert v. Verner | LII / Legal Information Institute That notorious liberal, Scalia, wrote the opinion that changed that rule. In Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (494 U.S. 872) Scalia and the Court held "We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.
As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.

(Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said,

are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.

Id. at 166-167.

Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a

valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).

United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 263, n. 3 (1982)" This education is brought to you free of charge.
"

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

And adult on child is pedophilia. What is your point?

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

So, in your opinion, Justice Scalia, when he wrote for the majority in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (494 U.S. 872) that the First Amendment does not excuse compliance with a law that is generally applicable to everyone, was wrong?

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

What is the text of this new "law"?

 

[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.

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.

So again...what law was created by the Supreme Court? Either give its statute # or its text.

 

[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.

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.

Marriage has "always been" a lot of things it is no longer. Marriage "always was religious"...that is no longer always true. Marriage was "always arranged"...that is no longer true. Marriage was "always between a dominant male and subservient female" That is no longer true.

 

[bodecea]

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?

You know...you should really leave the personal insults to the other side. Just saying.

 

[ChrisL]

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?

You know...you should really leave the personal insults to the other side. Just saying.

Agree. He makes some good points that are lost in the barrage of name calling.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Let's not pay attention to the 1 in 4 girls sexually abused, frequently by fathers, step-fathers, brothers, cousins, grand-fathers and other family members and friends. Even tho there are way more of them....and those who abuse them are not only hetero...they are FAMILY.

 

[paddymurphy]

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?

You know...you should really leave the personal insults to the other side. Just saying.

Agree. He makes some good points that are lost in the barrage of name calling.

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.

Let's not pay attention to the 1 in 4 girls sexually abused, frequently by fathers, step-fathers, brothers, cousins, grand-fathers and other family members and friends. Even tho there are way more of them....and those who abuse them are not only hetero...they are FAMILY.

And you think these assholes deserve to be addressed respectfully?

 

[bodecea]

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?

You know...you should really leave the personal insults to the other side. Just saying.

Agree. He makes some good points that are lost in the barrage of name calling.

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.

Let's not pay attention to the 1 in 4 girls sexually abused, frequently by fathers, step-fathers, brothers, cousins, grand-fathers and other family members and friends. Even tho there are way more of them....and those who abuse them are not only hetero...they are FAMILY.

And you think these assholes deserve to be addressed respectfully?

It's nothing about them...it's about your presentation....you don't want to appear as they do. Rise above it.