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

[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.

What is the text of this new "law"?

Exactly.

 

[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.

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.

They created law without name or text, and that's the point.

 

[martybegan]

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.

After 190+ pages the name calling is the only thing keeping this going.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Actually after 190 pages of the same thing being slapped across the table like a dented ping pong ball, the points are lost into the ether of the internet.

 

[martybegan]

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?

As the main asshole for my side of the debate you can address me however you wish, dicktard. (new word!!! new word!!!)

 

[martybegan]

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.

I don't appear anything like them. They are hateful of people based on who they are. I hate these fucks for the same reason I hate anyone who exists to harm others.

You keep looking for hate, does anyone who disagees with you have to have that as their motivation?

 

[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.

Again, then why is SSM now the "law of the land"?

Marriage is now the law of the land and government is no longer allowed to restrict SSM. Getting rid of a restriction is NOT the same as creating new law. It's really basic stuff here.

 

[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?

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?

it's being ignored.

How is it being ignored? People still have the right to practice their religion, speech, press, petition, and assembly without government restraint.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Again, then why is SSM now the "law of the land"?

Marriage is now the law of the land and government is no longer allowed to restrict SSM. Getting rid of a restriction is NOT the same as creating new law. It's really basic stuff here.

Actually it is. when you create a concept that NEVER existed as a concept in a States law, you are creating it.

 

[bodecea]

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.

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.

There were plenty of states where blacks were free.

Maybe free, but not equal.

 

[martybegan]

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?

it's being ignored.

How is it being ignored? People still have the right to practice their religion, speech, press, petition, and assembly without government restraint.

Only if you think someone has to lose all of their religion or morals once money changes hands.

 

[martybegan]

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.

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.

There were plenty of states where blacks were free.

Maybe free, but not equal.

Yes, but that still negates paddy-boi's statement.

 

[bodecea]

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.

The restrictions were only added to clarify what was already fact, that only a man and a woman could marry.

And those restrictions are now gone. No new law was created. Glad you now see that.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Lol Marty's so butthurt

 

[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?

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?

it's being ignored.

How is it being ignored? People still have the right to practice their religion, speech, press, petition, and assembly without government restraint.

Only if you think someone has to lose all of their religion or morals once money changes hands.

No one "has to lose" anything. But if one chooses to have a certain kind of employment, they follow the business laws of that state if they want a license. Same with safety and health laws. Do you think a state would allow a business owner to not follow a safety or health law based on so-called "religious freedom"?

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

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.

There were plenty of states where blacks were free.

Maybe free, but not equal.

Yes, but that still negates paddy-boi's statement.

My statement was that "whites could not marry blacks in most states..." Do you understand the word "most"? Do you know it is different from the word "all"?

 

[bodecea]

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.

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.

There were plenty of states where blacks were free.

Maybe free, but not equal.

Yes, but that still negates paddy-boi's statement.

How does it do that? Even in states with no slavery, there were still laws forbidding interracial marriage.

 

[Sally Vater]

Lefties murder babies, ignore the constitution, and vote for corrupt politicians like Hillary, but if you refuse to bake a wedding cake for queers then you're in big trouble.

I am a Leftie and have never murdered a baby in my life. Nor do I know any Lefties that have done so. And I do not ignore the Constitution....in fact, I seem to know what's in it more than many RWrs here. And I have yet to even have the opportunity to vote for Hillary let alone choose to vote for her.

And if you have a cake baking BUSINESS, best know the business laws in your state. It's prudent.

I don't give a damn who you know. The truth is the left supports abortion and corruption, yet has no problem using government in a tyrannical manner on citizens who refuse to bow to your queer agenda.

 

[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.

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.

They created law without name or text, and that's the point.

Nope...that doesn't exist. Maybe you want to call it a "ghost law"?

 

[bodecea]

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.

After 190+ pages the name calling is the only thing keeping this going.

No....not really.