The Red State War On Gay Marriage

[Stephanie]

Here we again with another damn war

Everything to a liberals is war...

Terms often heard from the Right:

"War on Christmas." War on Christmas - Fox Nation

"Culture War." Culture Warrior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"War on Marriage." The War on Marriage Is On!

ETA: Oh, and we must not forget the War on Terra.

really, that is suppose to prove terms OFTEN heard from the right?

the only war I claim is on OUR FREEDOMS by this government and the fascist who supports them

but you think you've won this war and PmsNbc has too, so give yourself a medal

 

[ScienceRocks]

Who cares? Let people marry who they damn well wish. Big government conservatives!

 

[bodecea]

Interesting how states have public accomodation laws on the books, but if they are used by gay citizens, its suddenly the gays' fault. We're only about 5% of the population....how DID we get these laws passed anywho????

 

[bendog]

Unless a state already has some law prohibiting discrimination of some kind, can't I just refuse to contract with any person for any good/bad/indifferent reason?

I mean the feds may get me on interstate commerce, but they seem too busy targeting conservatives to mind me. (-:

 

[martybegan]

Interesting how states have public accomodation laws on the books, but if they are used by gay citizens, its suddenly the gays' fault. We're only about 5% of the population....how DID we get these laws passed anywho????

The simple reason is for things like weddings, and social functions, most ethnic groups stay within merchants inside their own ethnic group. Black people don't go to white bakers, and vice versa. The gay community isn't large enough to be self sustaining, and thus they have to go outside, and they run the risk of running into people that do not approve of their lifestyle.

Public acommodation laws were designed for services such as transportation, lodging, and life nessecities. It has taken the litigious gay community to reach the point where everyone has to fall in line or get their asses sued.

 

[g5000]

Here we again with another damn war

Everything to a liberals is war...

Terms often heard from the Right:

"War on Christmas." War on Christmas - Fox Nation

"Culture War." Culture Warrior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"War on Marriage." The War on Marriage Is On!

ETA: Oh, and we must not forget the War on Terra.

really, that is suppose to prove terms OFTEN heard from the right?

Yep. They are often heard from the Right.

the only war I claim is on OUR FREEDOMS by this government and the fascist who supports them

That would be Bush. He's the one who created the DHS and the Patriot Act powers which were then passed to the current Administration. Nothing the current Administration is doing would be possible without the legislation created by Bush and the GOP Congress. Powers that have been exercised for over a decade now.

But some of you did not make a peep about any of this until January 20, 2009. Ever hear the expression, "Too little TOO LATE"?

but you think you've won this war and PmsNbc has too, so give yourself a medal

No, we lost the war. We lost the war years ago. Before Obama. Too bad the Faux Right didn't care back then and were worried more about who did or did not have a flag pin on their suit.

 

[Stephanie]

so, everything is either, tea party or conservatives that is the boogeyman for the left like Msnbc

conservative activists in states all over the country are pushing back – sponsoring legislation that would allow businesses to discriminate against same sex couples.

for we all KNOW liberals couldn't be against homosexual marriage or homosexuals...they are just so superior to everyone else

what shit biased reporting you get from that place that calls itself, a news station and nothing more than to stir up hate against the people in this country

 

[martybegan]

Unless a state already has some law prohibiting discrimination of some kind, can't I just refuse to contract with any person for any good/bad/indifferent reason?

I mean the feds may get me on interstate commerce, but they seem too busy targeting conservatives to mind me. (-:

Nope, the laws decide if your reason is good enough to refuse service.

Blacks wanted access to the counter, they didn't want the asshole behind the counter to be forced to cater their wedding.

 

[Stephanie]

Losing the freedom of press from places like Msnbc wouldn't bother me in the least

I hope that's who the FCC goes after FIRST

 

[bendog]

Unless a state already has some law prohibiting discrimination of some kind, can't I just refuse to contract with any person for any good/bad/indifferent reason?

I mean the feds may get me on interstate commerce, but they seem too busy targeting conservatives to mind me. (-:

Nope, the laws decide if your reason is good enough to refuse service.

Blacks wanted access to the counter, they didn't want the asshole behind the counter to be forced to cater their wedding.

No, Oregon (or wherever) had a specific state law on banning discrimination.

 

[RDD_1210]

Oh and its liberals war on marriage and religious rights so...if its good for you its good for them...I am not religious at all but I support them 100%.

Why?

 

[martybegan]

Unless a state already has some law prohibiting discrimination of some kind, can't I just refuse to contract with any person for any good/bad/indifferent reason?

I mean the feds may get me on interstate commerce, but they seem too busy targeting conservatives to mind me. (-:

Nope, the laws decide if your reason is good enough to refuse service.

Blacks wanted access to the counter, they didn't want the asshole behind the counter to be forced to cater their wedding.

No, Oregon (or wherever) had a specific state law on banning discrimination.

Just because a state has a law doesn't mean the law is a good idea. Public accomodation laws should not force some baker to either bake for people he doesnt want to bake for, or go out of buisiness.

 

[O.R.I.O.N]

Oh and its liberals war on marriage and religious rights so...if its good for you its good for them...I am not religious at all but I support them 100%.

Why?

Because I support a business's right to not serve anyone they don't want to. Including me!

 

[whitehall]

Everything is a freaking war to the intolerant radical left, especially the radical sissie left. The bigots love to put labels on people. If you are against marriage among sodomites it becomes a war in their pretty little empty minds.

 

[Stephanie]

Everything is a freaking war to the intolerant radical left, especially the radical sissie left. The bigots love to put labels on people. If you are against marriage among sodomites it becomes a war in their pretty little empty minds.

now now, they tell us they are Tolerant ones

 

[TheOldSchool]

Wishful thinking. Racism has zero religious basis to it. Tenets against homosexual behavior are part of most major religions.

And they can continue practicing that way. For example no Pope will ever condone gay marriage and that's fine.

again, should a lesbian couple be able to force a baker to bake a cake for their wedding? No ramblings about a glorious future where this won't even be an issue. Yes, or No.

[MENTION=23094]martybegan[/MENTION]

Yes. That precedent has been established and will continue to be upheld. If their business operates in the public domain they cannot discriminate based on race, religion, or sexual preference.

These are excerpts from the Judge's statement on last year's Colorado case:

"Respondents’ refusal to provide a cake for Complainants’ same-sex wedding is distinctly the type of conduct that the Supreme Court has repeatedly found subject to legitimate regulation. Such discrimination is against the law; it adversely affects the rights of Complainants to be free from discrimination in the marketplace; and the impact upon Respondents is incidental to the state’s legitimate regulation of commercial activity. Respondents therefore have no valid claim that barring them from discriminating against same-sex customers violates their right to free exercise of religion. Conceptually, Respondents’ refusal to serve a same-sex couple due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage. However, that argument was struck down long ago in Bob Jones Univ. v. United States."

"Respondents argue that if they are compelled to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, then a black baker could not refuse to make a cake bearing a white-supremacist message for a member of the Aryan Nation; and an Islamic baker could not refuse to make a cake denigrating the Koran for the Westboro Baptist Church. However, neither of these fanciful hypothetical situations proves Respondents’ point. In both cases, it is the explicit, unmistakable, offensive message that the bakers are asked to put on the cake that gives rise to the bakers’ free speech right to refuse. That, however, is not the case here, where Respodnents refused to bake any cake for Complainants regardless of what was written on it or what it looked like. Respondents have no free speech right to refuse because they were only asked to bake a cake, not make a speech."

I'm assuming your response will be that the government will try to force Churches to conduct gay weddings. That has happened in some countries in Europe but they are not America. America has rights set aside for Churches that cannot be infringed upon which is why religious institutions are right now winning in the courts against some of Obamacare's provisions.

Bakeries are not Churches.

 

[The Rabbi]

And they can continue practicing that way. For example no Pope will ever condone gay marriage and that's fine.

again, should a lesbian couple be able to force a baker to bake a cake for their wedding? No ramblings about a glorious future where this won't even be an issue. Yes, or No.

[MENTION=23094]martybegan[/MENTION]

Yes. That precedent has been established and will continue to be upheld. If their business operates in the public domain they cannot discriminate based on race, religion, or sexual preference.

These are excerpts from the Judge's statement on last year's Colorado case:

"Respondents’ refusal to provide a cake for Complainants’ same-sex wedding is distinctly the type of conduct that the Supreme Court has repeatedly found subject to legitimate regulation. Such discrimination is against the law; it adversely affects the rights of Complainants to be free from discrimination in the marketplace; and the impact upon Respondents is incidental to the state’s legitimate regulation of commercial activity. Respondents therefore have no valid claim that barring them from discriminating against same-sex customers violates their right to free exercise of religion. Conceptually, Respondents’ refusal to serve a same-sex couple due to religious objection to same-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a biracial couple because of religious objection to biracial marriage. However, that argument was struck down long ago in Bob Jones Univ. v. United States."

"Respondents argue that if they are compelled to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, then a black baker could not refuse to make a cake bearing a white-supremacist message for a member of the Aryan Nation; and an Islamic baker could not refuse to make a cake denigrating the Koran for the Westboro Baptist Church. However, neither of these fanciful hypothetical situations proves Respondents’ point. In both cases, it is the explicit, unmistakable, offensive message that the bakers are asked to put on the cake that gives rise to the bakers’ free speech right to refuse. That, however, is not the case here, where Respodnents refused to bake any cake for Complainants regardless of what was written on it or what it looked like. Respondents have no free speech right to refuse because they were only asked to bake a cake, not make a speech."

I'm assuming your response will be that the government will try to force Churches to conduct gay weddings. That has happened in some countries in Europe but they are not America. America has rights set aside for Churches that cannot be infringed upon which is why religious institutions are right now winning in the courts against some of Obamacare's provisions.

Bakeries are not Churches.

So there you are. The Left and its neo-fascist elements in all its glory. You will do what we tell you. You will think what we tell you. Dissent will be crushed.
Fuck you. Fuck the judge in that case. Fuck the faggots.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Obama Administration has eviscerated any idea of religious exemption in Obamacare, forcing Catholic institutions to offer health plans with contraceptives and abortion. It is a tiny stretch of the imagination to say they will force churches to perform gay weddings too.

 

[TheOldSchool]

So there you are. The Left and its neo-fascist elements in all its glory. You will do what we tell you. You will think what we tell you. Dissent will be crushed.
Fuck you. Fuck the judge in that case. Fuck the faggots.

This is possibly the worst response I've ever seen to anything.

 

[Avatar4321]

Progressive seem to think everyone is out to get them. I guess they find it easier to mobilize people to do things they don't want to do when they convince them that people are attacking them.

waging a war on gay marriage makes about as much sense as waging a war on round squares and feathered mammals