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.
The issue is the law goes beyond that, and only protects Clergy, Churches, and Religious organizations, not normal people exercising their 1st amendment rights.
If it just made State governments recognize SSM's issued by other States, I would be fine with it, that's what I thought Obergfell should do.
Which was what? If there was anything worth responding to I must have missed it, but I don't miss muchI think I’ve expressed several very sound and well thought out reasons, but my latest wasn’t included in your quote. Why?
Again, try to have a nice day.
I think he claims Dems are evil in general.
The "evil" is in the wording that federalizes possibly forcing State level anti-discrimination via PA laws in situations where it isn't warranted, where it is not a case of economics or politics, but simply butthurt.
That's my answer.
Now answer my question.
Again, why would it be evil to defend same sex marriage? Its clearly being targeted by conservatives....despite their spectacular failure to demonstrate any coherent why.
Which is again, why they lost the gay marriage debate. The rest of us couldn't think of a coherent reason to outlaw same sex marriage either.
".......But those same sex, the reasons are not so clear"? Really, so for reasons that you can't articulate, you would deprive that group of all of the benefits and rights of marriage? You would punish their children by depriving them of the chance to have the security of two legal parents. Just like that. You sure are a fuzzy thinking selfish prick. At least your inching towards some degree of honesty
It's against the morality of people of most of the mainline religions. He can call it evil. I don't.
Now tell me why it's MORAL to ruin a baker over not wanting to bake a wedding cake for a SSM celebration.
If you ignore the entire context of his post, sure.
But why would a rational person ever do this.....unless they were trying to avoid the topic of the thread?
Keep running. You demonstrate my point every time you flee from my cartoon simple question:
'Why is it 'evil' to protect same sex marriage?'
'Cuz Jesus said so' is hardly a good reason to deny someone their rights.
How am I "running" if I respond to every one of your posts?
Again, why is it moral to ruin a baker over them not wanting to provide a cake for an event celebrating something they find sinful?
What rights?
Who has the right to force someone else to perform labor they don't want to?
People have the right to free exercise. They also have the right to commerce, but neither is absolute.
You kept fleeing from the question I posed to the OP and the thread about the topic.
And demonstrated my point: the reason that your ilk lost the gay marriage debate is because when pressed for why gay marriage is wrong, you change the topic.
You finally, finally addressed the issue head on with your 'Cuz Jesus said so' argument. Which is a piss poor reason to deny someone their rights.
The right to marry.
I answered it, you just don't like or comprehend the answer. On you, not me.
It's wrong to some people. To me the only wrong thing was forcing States to issue SSM licenses instead of just making them recognize ones issued by other States.
The other wrong thing is using PA laws on non PA's, as well as treating limited circumstances of free exercise the same as systemic attempts at denying someone commerce.
They can marry, they just can't have a wedding cake from this one baker. or photographs by this one photographer.
You finally did try....with your 'Cuz Jesus said so' claims. But its a piss poor argument for denying someone their rights.
Which again, is why your ilk lost.
Free exercise gives people the right to say "because Jesus said so"
Again, what right? Are you saying everyone has a right to a specific wedding cake even if the person doesn't want to provide it?
They can now that the right to same sex marriage has been codified into both law and supreme court precedent.
That is a right conservatives would strip from them if they could. And are actively trying to.
Thus, the bill the OP railed against.
It was not clear that you were talking about closly related opposite sex couples. You by your own admission can't articulate why gay couples can't marryI can’t articulate why opposite sex couples should not be married if they are to closely related?
But stripping someone of the right to marry 'cuz Jesus said so' isn't a free exercise of rights.
Nor is it 'evil' to defend the right to marry.
All removing Obergfell would do is stop States from being forced to issue SSM licenses.
And to me Obergfell should still have forced States to accept SSM's from States that issue them already under full faith and credit.
The law just passed doesn't force States to issue SSM's if Obergfell is overturned.
My issue is the wording of the law goes past government directives, and may proceed to directing people without giving them free exercise protections. the free exercise protections in the bill are limited to clergy, churches, and religious organizations, and the 1st amendment was never designed to be limited to just those items.
