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

[ThisIsMe]

That is actually a well written and cogent explanation of what you believe and why. I agree, that while the courts are supposed to be a political and objective, that is far from the reality. Individual Judges and Justices take up extreme positions and when it becomes unbalanced in terms of the number of liberal vs. conservatives on the bench, it sets the stage for one side or the other imposing their views on the whole nation, and in some cases contrary to public opinion. Part of the answer would be to reform the court with measures such as term limits and a less partisan selection and confirmation process to ensure a better balance. I don't think that SCOTUS is bullshit, but it is fast becoming a court that is squandering their legitimacy.


I would also support a constitutional convention, but in less partisan time, to clarify the role of the federal courts, update the language and clean up some of the vague passages such as the 2nd Amendment. Maybe even the 1st Amendment.

Having said that, I will add that I vehemently disagree with your textualist/originalist preference. If we strictly adhered to that view, there would be no room for growth or evolution in keeping with changing times and values. There would be stagnation and stagnation is quicky followed by death and extinction. And strictly adhering the words of the founders would not avoid conflict since there is plenty of room for interpretation as to when some of it actually means.

I am also not a big fan of limited federal government and leaving it all to the states. The shit hole red states fuck it all up and trample on individual rights in many areas like voting rights, abortion, same sex marriage and much more. This is a constitutional Republic and a strong central government and enforcement of the Constitution is critical. Otherwise, we would Balkanized and making it hard to recognize individual states as being part of the same country.

Lastly, while you see a strong central government as taking power away from people, I see it as empowering people, especially oppressed minorities such as LGBT people and racial/religious minorities. A weak central government powers thos who are in power locally. It sets up a survival of the fittest. A culture of Social Darwinism or Libertarian values which are closely aligned with conservative Republicans

Anyway, it appears that we understand each other- to a point although to be sure we will never agree on certain things. So be it.

Ah man, can't we go back to arguing like we were, this agreeing is weird...

 

[ThisIsMe]

Planners and photographers have to be at the wedding. The cake baker just has to bake the fucking cake

Whew! Thank goodness!..

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I'm saying that constitutionally protected rights probably would have Supremacy over state laws, yes. Where there is a conflict like this, how do you resolve one person's rights over anothers? If you say the baker must be forced into violating his cotus rights, or if the gay couple have the right to enjoy the PA laws...I mean, yeah, I'd say cotus first, then everything else is left to the states.

So, in this case, freedom to exercise religion is cotus protected, so that would trump state law.

Ah, I see that you really do miss arguing. You're on. As I have said numerous times, we have differing understandings of religious rights/ freedom. There is nothing in the 1st amendment that says that someone can discriminate against another based on religious beliefs.

And I am not finished. Not withstanding your denial of the existence of implied rights, it is arguable that the right to be free of discrimination flows from the enumerated right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. So in that respect, teh rights of the gay guys are also constitutionally protected.

In any case, it it worthy of naote that no state law against discrimination-including those that include LGBT people has ever been sucessfully challanged on constitutional grounds (or any other grounds)

And I saved the best for last. You have been blathering and bloviating all along about states rights, yet now, you want the Federal government to subjugate the states ability to determine who is protected from discrimination, and how they do that. To use your own playbook it can be seen as a 10th Amendment issue in that the power to regulate buisnesses and protect it's citizenry are both powers reserved for the states, but you are willing to usurp that power when necessary to defend your ideology.

So I have to conclude that your argument for why the bakers ( made up ) right takes primacy over the rights of the gay guys is a monumental failure.

Have a good day

 

[ThisIsMe]

Ah, I see that you really do miss arguing. You're on. As I have said numerous times, we have differing understandings of religious rights/ freedom. There is nothing in the 1st amendment that says that someone can discriminate against another based on religious beliefs.

And I am not finished. Not withstanding your denial of the existence of implied rights, it is arguable that the right to be free of discrimination flows from the enumerated right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. So in that respect, teh rights of the gay guys are also constitutionally protected.

In any case, it it worthy of naote that no state law against discrimination-including those that include LGBT people has ever been sucessfully challanged on constitutional grounds (or any other grounds)

And I saved the best for last. You have been blathering and bloviating all along about states rights, yet now, you want the Federal government to subjugate the states ability to determine who is protected from discrimination, and how they do that. To use your own playbook it can be seen as a 10th Amendment issue in that the power to regulate buisnesses and protect it's citizenry are both powers reserved for the states, but you are willing to usurp that power when necessary to defend your ideology.

So I have to conclude that your argument for why the bakers ( made up ) right takes primacy over the rights of the gay guys is a monumental failure.

Have a good day

I am for states rights, but the whole system of government was set up that cotus have the government certain things it could do, and certain protections in the bill of rights.

So, the federal government has its place for those things only. Everything else is a states rights issue.

So, cotus says you have the right to free exercise and practice of your religion, state PA laws state businesses have to serve everyone equally. Who's rights do we honor? How do we honor ones rights without violating the others. Are you saying the state laws trump cotus? Are you saying one person has the right to make someone else do something against their wishes?

If you say it's discrimination for the baker to refuse, is it not also discrimination for the gay couple to impose themselves on the baker?

Also, religious rights are not "made up".

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I am for states rights, but the whole system of government was set up that cotus have the government certain things it could do, and certain protections in the bill of rights.

So, the federal government has its place for those things only. Everything else is a states rights issue.

So, cotus says you have the right to free exercise and practice of your religion, state PA laws state businesses have to serve everyone equally. Who's rights do we honor? How do we honor ones rights without violating the others. Are you saying the state laws trump cotus? Are you saying one person has the right to make someone else do something against their wishes?

If you say it's discrimination for the baker to refuse, is it not also discrimination for the gay couple to impose themselves on the baker?

Also, religious rights are not "made up".

Well, a big part of the problem is that you are incredibly pig headed.. You espouse views of the Constitution and religious freedom that few others share. It is also interesting to note that you never have actually refuted anything that I have said. Rather, you just keep bleating your odd, entrenched views , albeit using a different sequence of words each time.

Now, for the 50th time, your claim that religious freedom includes the right to discriminate or impose your views on another is bullshit that I will never buy. And, saying that the gay guys were seeking to impose themselves on the baker is more bullshit. They walked through the door of a business that was open to the public and expected the same service that anyone else would get. If this baker could get away with this conduct with gays, then anyone could do it to anyone else who they disapprove of –claim it is for religious reasons-and get away with it.

Note: The SCOTUS reversed the findings of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and ruled in favor of the baker, but only some very specific issues with this case and by no means justified the action of the baker in and of itself and cannot be applied to other such instances Justice Kennedy’s 'Masterpiece' Ruling

As far as tenth amendment issue goes, I have explained ad nauseum that it is not always a neat and clear division between the powers of the federal government in relation to the states. However you seem to cling to a rather ridged and simplistic view of that.

Rights reserved to the states must be exercised in accordance with the constitution. At the same time, for the Feds to encroach on matters reserved to the states, they must show a compelling interest in doing so. Such was the case with marriage and I don’t mean just gay marriage. There were some 14 other cases that went to SCOTUS ruled on matters of marriage where states tried to place undue restrictions on who can marry. Two such cases that come to mind. One involved a state that tried to ban men who owed child support from marrying anyone other than the mother of the child. The other involved barring the incarcerated from getting married. Each time, SCOTUS ruled that marriage is a fundamental right and the states were overstepping their bounds despite the fact the marriage is primarily a state issue.

Lastly, there is no conflict between the state law against discrimination and the first amendment for the reasons that I have stated. If a state law were to be in conflict with that constitution, then the federal courts would, or at least should prevail . That is not the case here so your point is moot

Have a nice day . Try not to offend anyone. Read you bible and stay out of trouble

 

[ThisIsMe]

Well, a big part of the problem is that you are incredibly pig headed.. You espouse views of the Constitution and religious freedom that few others share. It is also interesting to note that you never have actually refuted anything that I have said. Rather, you just keep bleating your odd, entrenched views , albeit using a different sequence of words each time.

Now, for the 50th time, your claim that religious freedom includes the right to discriminate or impose your views on another is bullshit that I will never buy. And, saying that the gay guys were seeking to impose themselves on the baker is more bullshit. They walked through the door of a business that was open to the public and expected the same service that anyone else would get. If this baker could get away with this conduct with gays, then anyone could do it to anyone else who they disapprove of –claim it is for religious reasons-and get away with it.


As far as tenth amendment issue goes, I have explained ad nauseum that it is not always a neat and clear division between the powers of the federal government in relation to the states. However you seem to cling to a rather ridged and simplistic view of that.

Rights reserved to the states must be exercised in accordance with the constitution. At the same time, for the Feds to encroach on matters reserved to the states, they must show a compelling interest in doing so. Such was the case with marriage and I don’t mean just gay marriage. There were some 14 other cases that went to SCOTUS ruled on matters of marriage where states tried to place undue restrictions on who can marry. Two such cases that come to mind. One involved a state that tried to ban men who owed child support from marrying anyone other than the mother of the child. The other involved barring the incarcerated from getting married. Each time, SCOTUS ruled that marriage is a fundamental right and the states were overstepping their bounds despite the fact the marriage is primarily a state issue.

Lastly, there is no conflict between the state law against discrimination and the first amendment for the reasons that I have stated. If a state law were to be in conflict with that constitution, then the federal courts would, or at least should prevail . That is not the case here so your point is moot

Have a nice day . Try not to offend anyone. Read you bible and stay out of trouble

Well, a big part of the problem is that you are incredibly pig headed.. You espouse views of the Constitution and religious freedom that few others share

I'd say most Christians probably agree with those views, so I'd say its not "few people".

It is also interesting to note that you never have actually refuted anything that I have said.

I we've been at this for....a week now? I've refuted everything you've said, you just agree with the answers.

However, what things do you feel.i have not addressed?

your claim that religious freedom includes the right to discriminate or impose your views on another is bullshit that I will never buy.

I don't believe anyone has the right to discriminate, I just don't believe that thus case is discrimination. Also, you're the only one who is advocating someone being able to impose their beliefs in someone. The baker is lnt trying to force Christianity on the gay couple, but the gay couple IS trying to force their lifestyle on the bakery.

And, saying that the gay guys were seeking to impose themselves on the baker is more bullshit.

That's exactly what they did. Rather than respect the rights of the owner, and choose another bakery, they decided to take them to court.

If this baker could get away with this conduct with gays, then anyone could do it to anyone else who they disapprove of –claim it is for religious reasons-and get away with it.

No, they couldn't. They'd have to have a valid biblical reason for refusing someone.

However you seem to cling to a rather ridged and simplistic view of that.

Yes, because the alternative is your version of a "fluid" cotus. That's just not good. Yes, I believe those words should be the law because if we start interpreting it for our own agend,, soon, someone is going to interpret in a way you don't like....overturning roe is a good example.

Rights reserved to the states must be exercised in accordance with the constitution

Only if the states are violating someone's cotus rights. Remember, the cotus is supposed to be a limiting document, on the federal government. Apparently you believe that the federal government is this authoritarian entity that is to rule over our lives, and they also grant a little power to the states for certain things.

It the exact opposite of that. When this country was founded, they wanted the people to have maximum freedom. They also saw a need for a federal government to handle certain things, like military, roads, postal service, border defense. They put all that in the enumerated power, then they said everything beyond those things were supposed to be decided by the states and the people.

All laws the federal government makes are supposed to be constrained to things in the enumerated powers, at least that's my understanding. The federal government was never supposed to get this big, and make laws governing our lives. How could one federal gov do that since a "one size fits all" approach would never work, because people don't agree on things they want. You can see this playing out because of the place we are at in the country. We are all at each other's throats nowadays.....because of politics. Because we want the Federal government to do things OUR way, and the other side fights against that.

If we had just stuck to the original idea, where power for governing people was at the state level, you'd have more control, and we wouldn't have this massive anger and animosity that we currently have.


As to the cases you cite, I have no knowledge of them, so, I'd have to known the constitutional reason they used for making their decisions, because ALL scotus decisions should be based on cotus principles. If they ruled against the states, they would have had to have shown a where their decision violated cotus. The cotus protects our civil rights, so in those cases, I'd agree that it would have been within their jurisdiction to make those rulings.

What we have in this case is about the rights of a baker to exercise religion vs a gay couple trying to enforce PA laws.

Nobody is trying to deny their right to be gay.

 

[Blaster]

 

[ThisIsMe]

Well, a big part of the problem is that you are incredibly pig headed.. You espouse views of the Constitution and religious freedom that few others share. It is also interesting to note that you never have actually refuted anything that I have said. Rather, you just keep bleating your odd, entrenched views , albeit using a different sequence of words each time.

Now, for the 50th time, your claim that religious freedom includes the right to discriminate or impose your views on another is bullshit that I will never buy. And, saying that the gay guys were seeking to impose themselves on the baker is more bullshit. They walked through the door of a business that was open to the public and expected the same service that anyone else would get. If this baker could get away with this conduct with gays, then anyone could do it to anyone else who they disapprove of –claim it is for religious reasons-and get away with it.


As far as tenth amendment issue goes, I have explained ad nauseum that it is not always a neat and clear division between the powers of the federal government in relation to the states. However you seem to cling to a rather ridged and simplistic view of that.

Rights reserved to the states must be exercised in accordance with the constitution. At the same time, for the Feds to encroach on matters reserved to the states, they must show a compelling interest in doing so. Such was the case with marriage and I don’t mean just gay marriage. There were some 14 other cases that went to SCOTUS ruled on matters of marriage where states tried to place undue restrictions on who can marry. Two such cases that come to mind. One involved a state that tried to ban men who owed child support from marrying anyone other than the mother of the child. The other involved barring the incarcerated from getting married. Each time, SCOTUS ruled that marriage is a fundamental right and the states were overstepping their bounds despite the fact the marriage is primarily a state issue.

Lastly, there is no conflict between the state law against discrimination and the first amendment for the reasons that I have stated. If a state law were to be in conflict with that constitution, then the federal courts would, or at least should prevail . That is not the case here so your point is moot

Have a nice day . Try not to offend anyone. Read you bible and stay out of trouble

Also, if discrimination was present in the court case between the couple, and the bakery, then why did scotus overturn the commissions ruling, citing the commission showed hostility toward the bakers religious freedom.

This was a 7-2 decision, at a time when then court was 5-4, as far as i recall, which means 2 of the liberal justices had to come into agreement with the bakery.

 

[ThisIsMe]

They look happy and content

 

[ThisIsMe]

Also, why is there a pool table in their office. That room looks way to small to be able to actually play a game of pool in....

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Also, if discrimination was present in the court case between the couple, and the bakery, then why did scotus overturn the commissions ruling, citing the commission showed hostility toward the bakers religious freedom.

This was a 7-2 decision, at a time when then court was 5-4, as far as i recall, which means 2 of the liberal justices had to come into agreement with the bakery.

If you bothered to follow the link that I posted you would know why

Justice Kennedy’s 'Masterpiece' Ruling

The Supreme Court found in favor of a baker who refused to sell a cake to a same-sex couple, but used a rationale that sheds little light on the case’s larger civil-rights implications.

www.theatlantic.com

On Monday, a majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy listed the reasons why this case turned out to be a lemon. First, is what the couple asked for—a cake for a private celebration—really “speech” or “free exercise of religion” at all? Second, the record was unclear whether Phillips refused only to bake a cake with a “wedding” message or refused to provide any cake at all for Craig and Mullins’s celebration. Third, the events occurred before the Court’s decision, in Obergefell v. Hodges, that same-sex couples have a right to marry. Thus, Phillips in part based his denial on the fact that, at the time, Colorado did not permit same-sex marriage—that “the potential customers ‘were doing something illegal.’” Fourth, as Justice Kennedy pointed out at oral argument, the record was muddled by anti-religious statements made by state officials who considered the case below.

And finally, though the Court did not discuss this aspect, Phillips’s attorneys (from the religious-right legal powerhouse Alliance Defending Freedom) and the Trump administration made extravagant claims. They suggested that the Court skip the religious-freedom issue altogether and decide the case on pure free-speech grounds. Had it done so, a decision for Phillips would have given constitutional protection to an unknown number of discriminations against LGBT people and couples, and indeed—by the government’s own concession—called into question laws protecting women and racial minorities.

Instead, the Court decided the case, but on the narrowest grounds imaginable—that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission during its consideration of the case had shown anti-religious bias. The result was a decision that provides almost no guidance for lower courts facing similar cases. “

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I'd say most Christians probably agree with those views, so I'd say its not "few people".

OK More than a few. Religious psychosis is a growing problem

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I we've been at this for....a week now? I've refuted everything you've said, you just agree with the answers.

Bullshit! I states that the first Amendment does not include the right to discriminate on the basis of religion. Where /when did you refute that?
I stated that in people are allowed tio discriminate on the basis of religion, that would open the door for anyone to discriminate against anybody who they disapproved of by invoking religious rights. Where/when did you refute that?

I stated the separtion of powers as per the tenth amendment is complicated and not clear cut. You just keep repeating your simplistic mantra that is clear and refuse to reccognise the responsibilities of the state to comply with the rest of the constitution in excercising those powers. That is not refuting anything.

I could go on but I have better things to do,

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I don't believe anyone has the right to discriminate, I just don't believe that thus case is discrimination. Also, you're the only one who is advocating someone being able to impose their beliefs in someone. The baker is lnt trying to force Christianity on the gay couple, but the gay couple IS trying to force their lifestyle on the bakery.

Complete and utter horseshit! They are forcing their gay lifestyle on the baker.? When and how did they try to make Phillips gay

You said "I don't believe anyone has the right to discriminate," and that this is not discrimination. More bullshit. State law says that it is discrimination.

 

[ThisIsMe]

If you bothered to follow the link that I posted you would know why

Justice Kennedy’s 'Masterpiece' Ruling

The Supreme Court found in favor of a baker who refused to sell a cake to a same-sex couple, but used a rationale that sheds little light on the case’s larger civil-rights implications.

www.theatlantic.com

Ahh ok, so, the scotus never really got to the issue of free exercise of religion, or discrimination, they basically threw the case based on the fact that the Colorado commission screwed up the case by showing hostility to religion.


That's unfortunate. I'd have liked to see this case decided on freedom of religion vs civil rights.

 

[ThisIsMe]

OK More than a few. Religious psychosis is a growing problem

And that's why we argue. You don't view people's religion as worthy of rights and thus are adverse to it being protected. You're view of it being a "psycosis" shows that you put zero value in the religious views if others. It's that exact reason why scotus overruled the Colorado commission.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Ahh ok, so, the scotus never really got to the issue of free exercise of religion, or discrimination, they basically threw the case based on the fact that the Colorado commission screwed up the case by showing hostility to religion.


That's unfortunate. I'd have liked to see this case decided on freedom of religion vs civil rights.

Bottom line. They did not rule that there was no discrimination. Another such case is likely to have a different outcome at SCOTUS

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

And that's why we argue. You don't view people's religion as worthy of rights and thus are adverse to it being protected. You're view of it being a "psycosis" shows that you put zero value in the religious views if others. It's that exact reason why scotus overruled the Colorado commission.

Not true. I value religious rights, I just have a different understanding of what that means. That is why we will never agree and why this whole thing is an excercise in futility. My reference to religous psychosis is about extreme religosity whhich you seem to represent

 

[ThisIsMe]

Bullshit! I states that the first Amendment does not include the right to discriminate on the basis of religion. Where /when did you refute that?
I stated that in people are allowed tio discriminate on the basis of religion, that would open the door for anyone to discriminate against anybody who they disapproved of by invoking religious rights. Where/when did you refute that?

I stated the separtion of powers as per the tenth amendment is complicated and not clear cut. You just keep repeating your simplistic mantra that is clear and refuse to reccognise the responsibilities of the state to comply with the rest of the constitution in excercising those powers. That is not refuting anything.

I could go on but I have better things to do,

Bullshit! I states that the first Amendment does not include the right to discriminate on the basis of religion. Where /when did you refute that?

I've stated several times that I don't view it as discrimination because there's no evidence of animosity. I've also said that cotus protects free exercise of religion. Those are how I've refuted your arguments.

You never answered my question of how we are to settle the cotus right of free exercise vs state PA laws. Is it your position that anyone who is Christian should not go into business because some day, someone may come into your shop and ask you to do something that violates your religious convictions and cotus rights?

I stated that in people are allowed tio discriminate on the basis of religion, that would open the door for anyone to discriminate against anybody who they disapproved of by invoking religious rights. Where/when did you refute that?

And I stated that, first, I don't view it as discrimination because there is not evidence of animosity, and second, Your claim that it would open the door, I've refuted by stating that any claim would have to be grounded in biblical teachings, not just because they just didn't want to perform the service.

I view discrimination as an act of hate, an act where there has to be hate, animosity, or malice must be present. If those things are not there, then it's not discrimination. If he said 'I won't bake you a cake because I don't like gay people", then I'd agree, it's discrimination. If he says "my Bible says homosexuality is a sin, and therefore using my labor in service to that sin is against my religious beliefs". It's no different than if someone walked in and ask him to bake a cake for a swingers convention. They'd use the same religious philosophy for that. "Sorry, but committing adultery is a sin, so therfore I can't use my labor in service of a sin".

I stated the separtion of powers as per the tenth amendment is complicated and not clear cut. You just keep repeating your simplistic mantra that is clear and refuse to reccognise the responsibilities of the state to comply with the rest of the constitution in excercising those powers. That is not refuting anything.

Again, I have refuted this. I wrote a couple paragraphs on this one. I said that the 10th is absolute. The federal government is not this authoritarian entity that was set up to rule our lives, and they allow the states to have a little power, its the opposites. The cotus was set up to designate certain powers to the government, things that it could do, and everything else is a states rights issue.

Yes, we have certain protections in the cotus, and in those things, the cotus trumps all else, but, everything else is designed to be a states rights issue.

I wrote quite a bit on this. Perhaps you should revisit that post.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

OK More than a few. Religious psychosis is a growing problem

And that's why we argue. You don't view people's religion as worthy of rights and thus are adverse to it being protected. You're view of it being a "psycosis" [sic] shows that you put zero value in the religious views if [sic] others. It's that exact reason why scotus overruled the Colorado commission.

Have you seen his essay, expressing a fantasy about space aliens offering to impose their rule over Earth?

The first condition he envisions them imposing, in order to create his idea of a utopian world, is…

1.All religious expression and thought of religion-yes thought- will be abolished. They have developed a drug to cleanse the mind of all such primitive thought patterns which, they know, causes so much strife in our world. Houses of worship will become centers for performing arts, or museums funded by the government. Some will be converted to housing.​

​

First step toward TheOppressiveFaggot's ideal world is drug-based brainwashing to “cleanse the mind” of religious beliefs.

This, in and of itself, tells us just about all we need to know of the mental and moral character of one who would conceive such a fantasy, and try to depict it in a positive way.

The rest of his essay doesn't get any better.​