Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[Pop23]

Don't you find it strange that the assumption that marriage (at least governmental marriage) is still assumed to be about Love, Sex, Companionship? Even after Windsor said it can be based simply on Financial reasoning?

Does the left now actually want in based on Love?

The Left wants what now? LOL!
"Windsor said"..? Who the hell cares?
Robbing banks "can be based simply on Financial reasoning"
Whatever you're smoking?.. Gotta try that some day!

Bank robbers don't ask for Governmental sanctioning. Are you really that stupid?

Are you still arguing that the Government has the right to restrict Marriage based on Sexuality?

Whaaaaaaatttttttttttt?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

SCOTUS cannot add language or meaning to the intent of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In the 2016 Decision on Hively, the Opinion said that in no way at the time had its crafters anticipated a sexual orientation other than hetero and sexual orientation wasn't even part of the wording. "Sex" is NOT equal legally to "sexual orientation". The 1964 Civil Rights Act meant "the gender one is actually born as".

No Court can add language to that Act. Congress has to. And this is what the 2016 Opinion said on it. It will take an act of Congress to elevate gay lifestylists to equal status with race, faith, country of origin and actual gender.

You can bloviate all that you want. Four (4) Federal circuit courts said differently. Forget about the 2016 Hively decision already, it was superseded by the same court the following year.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I just have to laugh my ass off when gay right supporters question if it's legal now for two straight men, or two straight women for that matter, to legally marry?

Stupid as it may sound, there is nothing that makes it illegal.

Who, exactly questioned it? Of course it's legal. There is no "gay test " to marry someone of the same sex. YOU make ME laugh

Just the most conservative member of this board Grumblenuts

If only you could quote me doing so...
Might almost resemble an honest discussion...

 

[Pop23]

I just have to laugh my ass off when gay right supporters question if it's legal now for two straight men, or two straight women for that matter, to legally marry?

Stupid as it may sound, there is nothing that makes it illegal.

Who, exactly questioned it? Of course it's legal. There is no "gay test " to marry someone of the same sex. YOU make ME laugh

Just the most conservative member of this board Grumblenuts

If only you could quote me doing so...
Might almost resemble an honest discussion...

Breaking News - Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

Want more?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Are you still arguing that the Government has the right to restrict Marriage based on Sexuality?

Never did, son. Gotta breathe now and then. Perhaps put down that pipe once in a while?

 

[Pop23]

Are you still arguing that the Government has the right to restrict Marriage based on Sexuality?

Never did, son. Gotta breathe now and then. Perhaps put down that pipe once in a while?

But you wanted cites to laws that allowed same sex heterosexuals to Marry legally.

Hiding behind stupidity just makes you look even more stupid.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I just have to laugh my ass off when gay right supporters question if it's legal now for two straight men, or two straight women for that matter, to legally marry?

Stupid as it may sound, there is nothing that makes it illegal.

Who, exactly questioned it? Of course it's legal. There is no "gay test " to marry someone of the same sex. YOU make ME laugh

Just the most conservative member of this board Grumblenuts

If only you could quote me doing so...
Might almost resemble an honest discussion...

Breaking News - Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

Want more?

More what?

 

[Pop23]

I just have to laugh my ass off when gay right supporters question if it's legal now for two straight men, or two straight women for that matter, to legally marry?

Stupid as it may sound, there is nothing that makes it illegal.

Who, exactly questioned it? Of course it's legal. There is no "gay test " to marry someone of the same sex. YOU make ME laugh

Just the most conservative member of this board Grumblenuts

If only you could quote me doing so...
Might almost resemble an honest discussion...

Breaking News - Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

Want more?

More what?

Links to your stupidity

 

[Grumblenuts]

Are you still arguing that the Government has the right to restrict Marriage based on Sexuality?

Never did, son. Gotta breathe now and then. Perhaps put down that pipe once in a while?

But you wanted cites to laws that allowed same sex heterosexuals to Marry legally.

Hiding behind stupidity just makes you look even more stupid.

No, I didn't. Clearly all I wanted was for you to find a single instance of your phrase "same sex heterosexual couple" written in any legal jurisprudence.. since you had previously demanded some use of legal jargon. Now just admit it,... still haven't found it, have you? And what does that make you?

 

[Pop23]

Are you still arguing that the Government has the right to restrict Marriage based on Sexuality?

Never did, son. Gotta breathe now and then. Perhaps put down that pipe once in a while?

But you wanted cites to laws that allowed same sex heterosexuals to Marry legally.

Hiding behind stupidity just makes you look even more stupid.

No, I didn't. Clearly all I wanted was for you to find a single instance of your phrase "same sex heterosexual couple" written in any legal jurisprudence.. since you had previously demanded some use of legal jargon. Now just admit it,... still haven't found it, have you? And what does that make you?

Why would it be there in the first place dumbass? Then, why ask for something you knew wouldn't exist unless you didn't think heterosexuals being legally able to marry was legal?

You do not cover your ass well (and just the thought of your uncovered ass would make anyone vomit)

 

[Grumblenuts]

why ask for something you knew wouldn't exist unless you didn't think heterosexuals being legally able to marry was legal?

Asked and answered already. To be crystal, it's obviously always been a distinct possibility and rare occurrence. Question remains, why get married simply for money where chasing the almighty dollar already likely consumes most of people's free time? What's there to formally unite and celebrate over? Your mutual greed? Why not just live together?

 

[Pop23]

why ask for something you knew wouldn't exist unless you didn't think heterosexuals being legally able to marry was legal?

Asked and answered already. To be crystal, it's obviously always been a distinct possibility and rare occurrence. Question remains, why get married simply for money where chasing the almighty dollar already likely consumes most of people's free time? What's there to formally unite and celebrate over? Your mutual greed? Why not just live together?

None of that is relevant, and you know this.

Heterosexuals are JUST AS legally able to marry those of the same sex as homosexuals are under the current standard. And the Baker is treating Homosexuals equally to Heterosexuals. There is no discrimination in this case.

 

[Pop23]

why ask for something you knew wouldn't exist unless you didn't think heterosexuals being legally able to marry was legal?

Asked and answered already. To be crystal, it's obviously always been a distinct possibility and rare occurrence. Question remains, why get married simply for money where chasing the almighty dollar already likely consumes most of people's free time? What's there to formally unite and celebrate over? Your mutual greed? Why not just live together?

This is maybe the funniest post of all ^^^^^^^^

You question why anyone would want to marry another. Same argument was made a few years ago. Why would one man want to marry another?

You can't make this bigoted shit up if you tried! And from a marriage equality supporter none the less!

 

[Grumblenuts]

Heterosexuals are JUST AS legally able to marry those of the same sex as homosexuals are under the current standard. And the Baker is treating Homosexuals equally to Heterosexuals. There is no discrimination in this case.

If that's all you meant to assert, could've saved a lot of time just saying so in the first place! The baker treated two homosexuals like crap in this case. Obviously. Speculating about how he may treat two same sex heterosexuals instead is just that.

 

[Grumblenuts]

why ask for something you knew wouldn't exist unless you didn't think heterosexuals being legally able to marry was legal?

Asked and answered already. To be crystal, it's obviously always been a distinct possibility and rare occurrence. Question remains, why get married simply for money where chasing the almighty dollar already likely consumes most of people's free time? What's there to formally unite and celebrate over? Your mutual greed? Why not just live together?

This is maybe the funniest post of all ^^^^^^^^

You question why anyone would want to marry another. Same argument was made a few years ago. Why would one man want to marry another?

You can't make this bigoted shit up if you tried! And from a marriage equality supporter none the less!

I hear you accusing and guffawing like an idiot there as usual. And still no actual substance to offer...

 

[Pop23]

Heterosexuals are JUST AS legally able to marry those of the same sex as homosexuals are under the current standard. And the Baker is treating Homosexuals equally to Heterosexuals. There is no discrimination in this case.

If that's all you meant to assert, could've saved a lot of time just saying so in the first place! The baker treated two homosexuals like crap in this case. Obviously. Speculating about how he may treat two same sex heterosexuals instead is just that.

The policy would be the same regardless. And yes, I stated that a dozen times

 

[Grumblenuts]

Why would one man want to marry another?

We've covered love, sex, and greed so far. What else you wanna plop on the table?

 

[Pop23]

why ask for something you knew wouldn't exist unless you didn't think heterosexuals being legally able to marry was legal?

Asked and answered already. To be crystal, it's obviously always been a distinct possibility and rare occurrence. Question remains, why get married simply for money where chasing the almighty dollar already likely consumes most of people's free time? What's there to formally unite and celebrate over? Your mutual greed? Why not just live together?

This is maybe the funniest post of all ^^^^^^^^

You question why anyone would want to marry another. Same argument was made a few years ago. Why would one man want to marry another?

You can't make this bigoted shit up if you tried! And from a marriage equality supporter none the less!

I hear you accusing and guffawing like an idiot there as usual. And still no actual substance to offer...

What substance did you require except the Law? Which you tried to deny existed?

You are a funny lil conservative.

 

[Pop23]

Why would one man want to marry another?

We've covered love, sex, and greed so far. What else you wanna plop on the table?

Being dishonest by not including the entire quote I see.

 

[Grumblenuts]

What substance did you require except the Law? Which you tried to deny existed?

Again with vacuous accusations. Try addressing the questions?