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

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

Still stuggling with this I see. The baker was just being asked to do his fucking job!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

Same bullshit different post

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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...

Constitutional law has evlolved over time. While the language of the original articles can be both ridgid and, coversly vague, the framers were wise enough to know that for the Constituion to endure, it would have to evolve. They know that times would change and that issues would arise that they could not possibly dream of. That is why they provided for amendments, and for a judiciary that would interpret the constitution in relation to new laws and new societal developments. There is nothing authoritarian about that, unless you wind up with a court that is made up of theocrats and idiologues who are willing to advance an adgenda that flys in the face of freedom and become the moral police.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.....

Blather on kid. Sound like your circling the drain. Get a grip!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

"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...

You riddiclue implied rights but here are a couple of implied rights that I don't think that you would want to give up. You have the righy to live anywhere, and to tavel anywhere that you wish. I have the right to work anywhere that you can get hird, or to form your own business. Where does it say that in the constitution. ? It does not! "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? Maybe maybe not. that But is the same basis for the implied right to privacy. Think about that. You can't have it both ways.

 

[beautress]

Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search

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

"Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.

www.newsweek.com

-------------------------------------
I just knew it would come up soon.

Ted Cruz was right.
Edit: but nobody stopped the omerta creeps who gave their addresses out so evil people could threaten to harm their families if they didn't obey the Feminazis.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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

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

They're prostitutes...there's nothing intimate about it. They sell sex for money. Its their business. But it's OK for them to refuse sex with a gay customer, because "they don't do that kind of sex", but any other business has to be forced into helping with a gay wedding or event, because.....I don't know. If not about gay sex, it's about three double standard. No, I don't expect the sex worker to have sex with someone else gay, just as I don't expect a baker to participate in an event that goes against his personal religious beliefs.

You know, I sort of enjoy fucking with your head as I watch with glee as your posts become more and more absurd.

Lol, you're entitled to your own opinion. I'm just bringing up scenarios that show how you are opposed to religious freedom and allow people to force their lifestyle onto them.

Believe what you wish.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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

Ok, so they didn't refuse service, they said they would sell them anything already made, they refused their labor to specifically make a product. You are not entitled to violate someone's constitutionally protected freedom of religion.

From Colorado PA laws, it goes into a whole list of things that are considered discriminatory, and yes, sexual orientation is one of them, but, at the bottom, it says this:

Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, it is not a discriminatory practice for a person to restrict admission to a place of public accommodation to individuals of one sex if such restriction has a bona fide relationship to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of such place of public accommodation.[_b]

That, to me, sounds like if the request violates the privileges of the business (constitutionally protected rights), then it gives them an exemption.

2016 Colorado Revised Statutes :: Title 24 - :: Government - State :: Principal Departments :: Article 34 - :: Department of Regulatory Agencies :: Part 6 - :: Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation :: § 24-34-601. Discrimination in places

law.justia.com

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

From Colorado PA laws, it goes into a whole list of things that are considered discriminatory, and yes, sexual orientation is one of them, but, at the bottom, it says this:

Hurp-Derp ! It says people one one sex, as in gender. A buisness may, for instance restrict a gym class to women only . It says notiong about discriminating on the basis of saxual orientation. Get real

 

[ThisIsMe]

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

And you'd be wrong. Because you can't ask someone to do something that violates their own constitutionally protected rights. PA laws don't overrule constitutional protections.

It is clear, however, your position. You have admitted you don't believe in God, you don't own, nor read the Bible, so, in your view, they shouldn't be afforded their rights, or their own due process. You believe that anyone with a religious beliefs should be made to compromise their values, because you simply don't believe in that stuff.

Am I close on that?

 

[ThisIsMe]

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

But you can't cite their quotes. I'm not disagreeing that there are people out there that use religion to justify all sorts of things, what I'm saying is that their views are not based in Biblical teachings, which is why I want you to post this documented evidence so I can see if they actually cite the Bible, or where they come up with these ideas.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

They're prostitutes...there's nothing intimate about it. They sell sex for money. Its their business. But it's OK for them to refuse sex with a gay customer, because "they don't do that kind of sex", but any other business has to be forced into helping with a gay wedding or event, because.....I don't know. If not about gay sex, it's about three double standard. No, I don't expect the sex worker to have sex with someone else gay, just as I don't expect a baker to participate in an event that goes against his personal religious beliefs.

Holy shit! You're like a wack -a-mole. You keep popping up only to get smacked down. You must like it. The difference is that your prostitute is being asked to use her own body in a way that she may find revolting and may not even be able to do it. That does not compare to asking someone to bake a cake. You should quit while your behind

 

[ThisIsMe]

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

No its not. Lol. You just said the important part, that I think you are hung up on. It's not about hate or animosity, it's about providing a service that conflicts with his own rights.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

And you'd be wrong. Because you can't ask someone to do something that violates their own constitutionally protected rights. PA laws don't overrule constitutional protections.

At least you're consistent in your twisted ideas of what is constitutionally protected

 

[ThisIsMe]

You riddiclue implied rights but here are a couple of implied rights that I don't think that you would want to give up. You have the righy to live anywhere, and to tavel anywhere that you wish. I have the right to work anywhere that you can get hird, or to form your own business. Where does it say that in the constitution. ? It does not! "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? Maybe maybe not. that But is the same basis for the implied right to privacy. Think about that. You can't have it both ways.

You're right, it doesn't say that in the Constitution, because getting a job, or traveling is not a constitutionally protected right. Actually, I think the right to travel is on the cotus, I'm not sure.

Anyway, this thing about, if it's not in the cotus, then it goes to the states and then to the people.

You can't have implied rights in the cotus because people will say it means all sorts of things. You forget, the cotus was designed to only regulate certain things, most it is a protection of the people by placing limits on government.

The cotus gives us certain rights, limits the government, and gives everything else to the states and the people.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It is clear, however, your position. You have admitted you don't believe in God, you don't own, nor read the Bible, so, in your view, they shouldn't be afforded their rights, or their own due process. You believe that anyone with a religious beliefs should be made to compromise their values, because you simply don't believe in that stuff.

It has nothing to do with my religious beliefs or lack of same. It has to do with our divergent beliefs about what religious freedom is and is not,, and its apparent that that will never be resolved

 

[ThisIsMe]

Hurp-Derp ! It says people one one sex, as in gender. A buisness may, for instance restrict a gym class to women only . It says notiong about discriminating on the basis of saxual orientation. Get real

True, but then now that doesn't even apply, because you can identify as whatever gender you want.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Hurp-Derp ! It says people one one sex, as in gender. A buisness may, for instance restrict a gym class to women only . It says notiong about discriminating on the basis of saxual orientation. Get real

Also, why would they be allowed to restrict a gym class to women only? As long as they have separate locker room, shouldn't men be able to participate in the same activities?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Holy shit! You're like a wack -a-mole. You keep popping up only to get smacked down. You must like it. The difference is that your prostitute is being asked to use her own body in a way that she may find revolting and may not even be able to do it. That does not compare to asking someone to bake a cake. You should quit while your behind

I'm not getting smacked down in anything. We just have a disagreement on things. You are showing a double standard here. If she advertised sex for sale, but says no to gay people, because she may find it revolting, but a baker has no right to simply exercise his rights. You would say she is not discriminating because she doesn't have to use her "skills" if she finds gay sex to be revolting, but the baker IS discriminating if he refuses to use HIS skills to do what he feels is participating in a gay ceremony.

By the way, I marvel at your choice of words there. If she finds it "revolting", and you use that in describing rejection of a gay person as if that's somehow ok. Perhaps if she can't accommodate everyone equally, she should find another line of work?

 

[ThisIsMe]

At least you're consistent in your twisted ideas of what is constitutionally protected

Not twisted. I mean, if we were to go with your version of this, we might as well just do away with the freedom to exercise ones religion to a business owner, because anyone could come in and demand they compromise their values, because, you would say a states PA laws could overrule the constitution.

Again, cotus says you have the right to free exercise of religion, everything else goes to the states and the people. That does not mean a state can come along and make a law forcing someone to violate their constitutionally protected rights. I mean, isn't that why scotus overturned the commissions decision of masterpiece bakery? Because their decision showed hostility toward the owners religious rights? Something like that?