Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's not about cake, its about forcing morality on others under the guise of public accommodation laws. It's about progressives not being satisfied with winning when it comes to the law and government, but having to force people to either break their moral code or go out of business.
Cry me a river
We can't discuss anything about gay marriage because it may lead to...........cakes
How is this stopping the conversation? Its a related topic. Are you also unable to walk and chew gum at the same time?
Every freak'n thread about gay marriage you have to divert it into a discussion of......But....sob.....What about the cakes?
Its a minor issue that will be resolved. Get over it
Awww, not keeping to the talking points you want?
You don't get to define the parameters of the debate
Aren't you the one telling everyone we can't call it marriage equality?
It's not about cake, its about forcing morality on others under the guise of public accommodation laws. It's about progressives not being satisfied with winning when it comes to the law and government, but having to force people to either break their moral code or go out of business.
Cry me a river
We can't discuss anything about gay marriage because it may lead to...........cakes
How is this stopping the conversation? Its a related topic. Are you also unable to walk and chew gum at the same time?
Every freak'n thread about gay marriage you have to divert it into a discussion of......But....sob.....What about the cakes?
Its a minor issue that will be resolved. Get over it
The most ridiculous aspect of that fact is that none of the states where bakers or photographers were sued, were marriage equality states. The issues of PA laws and marriage equality are completely unrelated.
Actually they are very related, and like most Engineers I don't just thing of the current issue, but several issues ahead.PA laws exist and protect gays in non marriage equality states (the most recent high profile baker and photographer cases were in states without marriage equality). There are probably, now, marriage equality states with no PA protections for gays. They are unrelated
You do note that I don't have issues with gay marriage in states that voted on it legislatively.
Interracial marriage must REALLY piss you off then.
Judicial review and interpretation are not rewriting. Get that out of your head.One, Marty recognizes the right of courts to redress problems in society.
Two, dilloduck accepts marriage equality.
Three, weasel still falsely believes that plural unions are somehow the bottom of a slippery slope involving marriage equality.
Redressing problems in society does not mean allowing them to rewrite law. Its almost as if you would prefer an Oligarchy vs. a Republic.
Judicial review is meant for clarification, and to remove laws that are completely against the written intent of the constitution, not for creating new law, which is happening now.
And I note you gloss over my accusation of being an Oligarch-o-phile.
Why do you feel the need to be ruled by unelected lawyers?
Judicial review and interpretation are not rewriting. Get that out of your head.One, Marty recognizes the right of courts to redress problems in society.
Two, dilloduck accepts marriage equality.
Three, weasel still falsely believes that plural unions are somehow the bottom of a slippery slope involving marriage equality.
Redressing problems in society does not mean allowing them to rewrite law. Its almost as if you would prefer an Oligarchy vs. a Republic.
Judicial review is meant for clarification, and to remove laws that are completely against the written intent of the constitution, not for creating new law, which is happening now.
And I note you gloss over my accusation of being an Oligarch-o-phile.
Why do you feel the need to be ruled by unelected lawyers?
Judicial review and interpretation are not rewriting. Get that out of your head.One, Marty recognizes the right of courts to redress problems in society.
Two, dilloduck accepts marriage equality.
Three, weasel still falsely believes that plural unions are somehow the bottom of a slippery slope involving marriage equality.
Redressing problems in society does not mean allowing them to rewrite law. Its almost as if you would prefer an Oligarchy vs. a Republic.
Judicial review is meant for clarification, and to remove laws that are completely against the written intent of the constitution, not for creating new law, which is happening now.
And I note you gloss over my accusation of being an Oligarch-o-phile.
Why do you feel the need to be ruled by unelected lawyers?
You are mistaken the role of courts, obviously, endorsing a very twisted, limited role unintended by the Founders.
There is no written intent in the Constitution that restricts marriage to that of opposite sex. Show me where it does if I have missed it, Marty.
Judicial review and interpretation are not rewriting. Get that out of your head.One, Marty recognizes the right of courts to redress problems in society.
Two, dilloduck accepts marriage equality.
Three, weasel still falsely believes that plural unions are somehow the bottom of a slippery slope involving marriage equality.
Redressing problems in society does not mean allowing them to rewrite law. Its almost as if you would prefer an Oligarchy vs. a Republic.
Judicial review is meant for clarification, and to remove laws that are completely against the written intent of the constitution, not for creating new law, which is happening now.
And I note you gloss over my accusation of being an Oligarch-o-phile.
Why do you feel the need to be ruled by unelected lawyers?
So it was a "new law" that allowed blacks to marry whites? Interesting take on Loving. Very unique.
A look at history and the whole "traditional marriage" argument falls apart.
Not to mention that government has no place in our private lives.
There is no written intent in the Constitution that restricts marriage to that of opposite sex. Show me where it does if I have missed it, Marty.
Doesn't have to be in there, if its not referred as a federal power, or left to the people, it is the realm of the State Legislatures, pure and simple.
A look at history and the whole "traditional marriage" argument falls apart.
Not to mention that government has no place in our private lives.
Then why are you advocating for the government to force people into homos' private lives?
Geez, democrats are so stupid. They should not be allowed to vote.
Any homos who are legally married in the name of their homosexuality. Legal marriage forces recognition, subsidization and concessions in the name of homo buttfucking/muffdiving. Why must we all be forced into that activity?A look at history and the whole "traditional marriage" argument falls apart.
Not to mention that government has no place in our private lives.
Then why are you advocating for the government to force people into homos' private lives?
Geez, democrats are so stupid. They should not be allowed to vote.
Whose homosexual life into which you are being forced, Rosh?
There is no written intent in the Constitution that restricts marriage to that of opposite sex. Show me where it does if I have missed it, Marty.
Doesn't have to be in there, if its not referred as a federal power, or left to the people, it is the realm of the State Legislatures, pure and simple.
That argument left the house in 1868.
Are you that dense? Read my post again.Not at all. Into whose life are you being forced? Answer the question.
If you are merely wahing that "I don't want to be part of a country that has marriage equality," well, then, it sux to be you.
You really don't seem to understand how the process works. You're right. There is a process for modifying the Constitution. Then, once it has been modified, there is an entire branch of the government whose job it is to decide if the new modification is Constitutionally valid, or not. If it is, then the modification stands. If it isn't, then that branch of the government tells everyone they made a mistake with their new amendment.Judicial review and interpretation are not rewriting. Get that out of your head.One, Marty recognizes the right of courts to redress problems in society.
Two, dilloduck accepts marriage equality.
Three, weasel still falsely believes that plural unions are somehow the bottom of a slippery slope involving marriage equality.
Redressing problems in society does not mean allowing them to rewrite law. Its almost as if you would prefer an Oligarchy vs. a Republic.
Judicial review is meant for clarification, and to remove laws that are completely against the written intent of the constitution, not for creating new law, which is happening now.
And I note you gloss over my accusation of being an Oligarch-o-phile.
Why do you feel the need to be ruled by unelected lawyers?
You are mistaken the role of courts, obviously, endorsing a very twisted, limited role unintended by the Founders.
The only one twisting the roles of the court is your ilk. The founders gave a process to modify the constitution, the amendment process. Only government loving ninnies prefer 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers over their fellow citizens.
Which is perfectly fine, right up until you run into the 14th amendment. At that point, the states lose the right to make rules about marriage that treats one group of citizens differently than another. If you have a problem with that, you should lobby to have the 14th repealed. Good luck with that.There is no written intent in the Constitution that restricts marriage to that of opposite sex. Show me where it does if I have missed it, Marty.
Doesn't have to be in there, if its not referred as a federal power, or left to the people, it is the realm of the State Legislatures, pure and simple.
So, telling you that you do not get to mandate who a gay person does, and does not marry is "forcing government into homos' lives"?A look at history and the whole "traditional marriage" argument falls apart.
Not to mention that government has no place in our private lives.
Then why are you advocating for the government to force people into homos' private lives?
Geez, democrats are so stupid. They should not be allowed to vote.
Why does this offend you so much? What effect does this have on your marriage?Any homos who are legally married in the name of their homosexuality. Legal marriage forces recognition, subsidization and concessions in the name of homo buttfucking/muffdiving. Why must we all be forced into that activity?A look at history and the whole "traditional marriage" argument falls apart.
Not to mention that government has no place in our private lives.
Then why are you advocating for the government to force people into homos' private lives?
Geez, democrats are so stupid. They should not be allowed to vote.
Whose homosexual life into which you are being forced, Rosh?
Right------that's why the word "sexual preference" gets thrown about. Who are you kidding ? Marriage has everything to do with sex.Katzndogz thinks marriage is about sexuality rather than the love of two people that bind them together.
It is not the sex, it is the love, katzndogz.
