Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage

[ThisIsMe]

Good fucking grief! Don't you ever get tire of blathering? It is all just words. It is what it is. I would acknowledge that they REPEALED CASE LAW that was considered settle law. I would not RESPECT it or ACCEPT IT because they would have overturned a decision that was based on sound constitutional grounds and which will upend coutless lives just to satisfy their idological blood lust.

What blood lust...geez, the courts are not supposed to make law. However, because we could go around and round about this forever and never get anywhere, I just hope that repubs win congress and the presidency , and I hope the supreme court has the guts to make all kinds of "laws" that you are sure to love. Then I'll come back here and read you talk about how they were wrong to do it.....

 

[ThisIsMe]

Do you own damned homework! I did enough to make my case

You do the homework lol. You're the one who says it's documented that they said these things. I'm not going to spend my time trying to verify an allegation you made. You post the proof....

 

[ThisIsMe]

So you are a textualist. and in a in a small minority of constitutional wonks . The Tenth Amendment amendment that reserves to the states is not absolute and does not allow for states to flaut either inumerated or implied rights.

It is absolute, if it weren't, then why would the Framers bothered to explain the enumerated powers, and state that everything beyond that is reserved to the states and the people?

"Implied rights"....ahh there it is, the small two word phrase that can used to make the constitution mean...whatever they want. For a group that is so against authoritarian rule and dictatorships, you sure work very hard to let government fill that role...

 

[ThisIsMe]

That is exactly what I am saying. I can't help it if your too stupid to understand the difference. The prostitute does not iengage in same sex relationships and that is her right, It is her body. The baker is not being asked to do any such thing.

The prostitute is refusing to join gay activities, the baker is also refusing to participate in a gay ceremony. You'll excuse one but not the other. You're right, I don't understand, because that would be a double standard...

 

[ThisIsMe]

Baking a fucking cake is not participating in the wedding and he did infact reject them because they are gay

No, he didn't. He said he would sell an already baked cake = he did not reject them. He told them he could not use his labor and skillset to make a cake specifically for a gay wedding = exercising his religious right.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Baking a fucking cake is not participating in the wedding and he did infact reject them because they are gay

Also, if you have a skill set and you use that skill set in service to an event, then it would be considered as participation, or, if you will, using your talents to help someone do something that your religion considers to be a sin.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Idiot! She does not do gay sex! it is about her sexual orientation. She is not refusing the lesbian out of an imosity or dislike of here as a person. I still don't know if you are really that stupid , or just playing a sick game here .

She is not refusing the lesbian out of an imosity or dislike of here as a person.

FINALLY...we are getting somewhere!!!! I'm so glad you said that, because it is what I have been saying ALL ALONG!! The baker didn't refuse the gay couple out of hate or animosity, or dislike of them as people, he just couldn't help them advance their wedding ceremony due to religious conflicts.

I think you are stuck on the idea that anything done that is anti gay has some sort of hate attached to it, and therefore is discriminatory. That's not the case in a lot of the cases.

She does not do gay sex! it is about her sexual orientation

He does not do gay weddings, it is about his religion.

 

[ThisIsMe]

That "participation" vs discrimination is just pure an d utter bullshit. The baker engaged in discrimination. Period. YOU are the hypocrit and using word games to justify it. And while you claim that your bible does not condone discrimination against gays and blacks, there are many who disagree.

The baker engaged in discrimination. Period

No, he didn't, because, as you said about the lesbian sex worker, there was no hate or animosity. He didn't refuse to sell them a cake, he just refused to make them a specialty cake.

And while you claim that your bible does not condone discrimination against gays and blacks, there are many who disagree.

Oh my gosh....once again, please post these peoples comments or links to thenm so I can see where they are getting their justification, it doesn't come from the bible, or it's teachings..

 

[AsherN]

No, he didn't. He said he would sell an already baked cake = he did not reject them. He told them he could not use his labor and skillset to make a cake specifically for a gay wedding = exercising his religious right.

They take orders to bake special cakes. The couple picked something right of of their catalog. NOBODY comes in to a bakery the day of their wedding to buy a cake.

 

[Redfish]

The fact that they are not enumerated rights does not mean that they are not rights. Constitutional law has long recognised unenmerated rights that flow from the explicit rights

The bans on abortion were found to be inviolation the right to privacy which is implicit in liberty guarantee of the due process clause of the 14th amendment

Marriage equality is also derived from the due process claue as well as the requirement of equal protection under the law

that is the lib mantra on it. but if you are so sure of yourself, why not put it to a vote of the citizens and let the majority view prevail? I think its called democracy.

 

[Redfish]

What blood lust...geez, the courts are not supposed to make law. However, because we could go around and round about this forever and never get anywhere, I just hope that repubs win congress and the presidency , and I hope the supreme court has the guts to make all kinds of "laws" that you are sure to love. Then I'll come back here and read you talk about how they were wrong to do it.....

The SC ruling did not repeal anything. all it said is the abortion is not a federal constitutional issue and therefore should be settled by the individual states by vote of their citizens or legislatures.

 

[ThisIsMe]

They take orders to bake special cakes. The couple picked something right of of their catalog. NOBODY comes in to a bakery the day of their wedding to buy a cake.

Didn't say anyone would. They didn't refuses to sell them a cake, they just refused to bake one specifically for a gay wedding.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The SC ruling did not repeal anything. all it said is the abortion is not a federal constitutional issue and therefore should be settled by the individual states by vote of their citizens or legislatures.

Correct.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Ok, let's go at it like this. Let's say it wasn't a gay couple. Let's say someone walks into the bakery and says they need them to make a cake for an event honoring Satan. They want satanic symbols and stuff on the cake. Do you think the baker is obligated to make that cake?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The prostitute is refusing to join gay activities, the baker is also refusing to participate in a gay ceremony. You'll excuse one but not the other. You're right, I don't understand, because that would be a double standard...

Another false equivalency logical fallacy as well as a non sequitur fallacy. You know, I sort of enjoy fucking with your head as I watch with glee as your posts become more and more absurd.
On the other hand is I beginning to tire of your stupidity and nonsensical responses. This case where you try to compare the lesbian sex worker who you in vented to the baker is a good example

Refusing sex- the most intimate and personal act that a person can engage in- because you just don’t do the kind of sex that they want is a reasonable decision

Refusing a service to someone –a service that off to others without question-because you disapprove of what they do sexually with others, is not reasonable at all

 

[Blues Man]

Ok, let's go at it like this. Let's say it wasn't a gay couple. Let's say someone walks into the bakery and says they need them to make a cake for an event honoring Satan. They want satanic symbols and stuff on the cake. Do you think the baker is obligated to make that cake?

Why not?

Public accommodation laws clearly state that there shall be no discrimination in admission or treatment of anyone based on race, sex, sexual orientation etc

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Ok, let's go at it like this. Let's say it wasn't a gay couple. Let's say someone walks into the bakery and says they need them to make a cake for an event honoring Satan. They want satanic symbols and stuff on the cake. Do you think the baker is obligated to make that cake

Well most if not all states have laws against discrimination and all of those laws include a ban on discrimination based on religion. Satan worship is arguably a religion. So there is your answer. Next stupid question . I amd loving this! You are not nearly as smart as you think that you are. This underscores your pathetic inability to think critically. You expected a gut-knee jerk answere of "oh no-not Satan" because YOU DON'T THINK WELL

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

that is the lib mantra on it. but if you are so sure of yourself, why not put it to a vote of the citizens and let the majority view prevail? I think its called democracy.

No it is not democractic. It would be the tyranny or a majority. You do not get to vote on the rights of others.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No, he didn't, because, as you said about the lesbian sex worker, there was no hate or animosity. He didn't refuse to sell them a cake, he just refused to make them a specialty cake.



Oh my gosh....once again, please post these peoples comments or links to thenm so I can see where they are getting their justification, it doesn't come from the bible, or it's teachings..

Look kid. Not happening. What these people believe and stand for has been well documented. Deal with it!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

FINALLY...we are getting somewhere!!!! I'm so glad you said that, because it is what I have been saying ALL ALONG!! The baker didn't refuse the gay couple out of hate or animosity, or dislike of them as people, he just couldn't help them advance their wedding ceremony due to religious conflicts.

I think you are stuck on the idea that anything done that is anti gay has some sort of hate attached to it, and therefore is discriminatory. That's not the case in a lot of the cases.



He does not do gay weddings, it is about his religion.

Its about his bastardized and perverted interpretation of religious freedom. It is about Weaponized religion