Will the left leaning supreme court come back to the center by voting

[Synthaholic]

You have NO constitutional right to a same sex marriage.

Have to see what the Supreme Court says on that one

They would still be wrong, but because you agree with it, you are OK with it. Progressives use lawyers to supplant the people, and they are OK with it because deep down, they are all fucking Fascist Stalinist assholes.

LOL.....yeah- its just those 'fucking Fascist Stalinist assholes'....

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/st...nia-cities-over-gun-laws/stories/201501140192
Let no one accuse the National Rifle Association of being slow on the draw: It is suing Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Lancaster, just days after a new state law allowed it to challenge local gun ordinances in court.

“These municipalities have known for years that their ordinances were illegal, but there were no consequences,” said Jonathan Goldstein, a Chester County attorney representing the NRA. “Now it’s about to get expensive.”

NRA group files suit here against state gun law Claims NY-SAFE Act violates 2nd Amendment
ALBANY – In a case that backers vow to take all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, a major gun-rights group filed suit Thursday in federal court in Buffalo seeking to toss out the state’s new gun-control law on a variety of constitutional grounds.

The lawsuit by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, the state affiliate of the National Rifle Association, attacks the NY-SAFE Act on several legal fronts, including claims that it violates interstate commerce protections and the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.

The legal work for the lawsuit has been two months in the making, and Tom King, the group’s president, said he is confident the case will set a precedent.


Neighboring States Suing Colorado Over Marijuana Legalization
Republicans’ commitment to States’ Rights took an interesting turn on Thursday when Republican Attorneys General from Nebraska and Oklahoma filed a lawsuit against the state of Colorado for legalizing marijuana. E. Scott Pruitt (R-OK) and Jon Bruning (R-NE) filed a joint lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court alleging that Colorado’s law injures the ability of neighboring states to enforce their laws against marijuana.

martybegan: "States Rights for me, but not for thee"

You cut off my quote, dumbass.

I wasn't quoting you.

 

[martybegan]

You have NO constitutional right to a same sex marriage.

So far multiple courts have said that same gender couples have the same marriage rights as my wife and I enjoy- and I agree with them.

The issue will be going to the Supreme Court to decide.

The difference between you and I?

If the Supreme Court rules against marriage equality- I will say it is a bad decision- but I will recognize the Supreme Court's authority to make the decision, and the legal validity of their decision.

If the Supreme Court rules for marriage equality- you will be saying the ruling is unconstitutional and 'fascist stalinist'.

Passion in the face of tyranny is not a vice. When the court says it can magically create rights, it is also saying it can magically destroy them.

Nonsense. The right to get married exists until government magically takes it away. You are upside down on this one.

Why? Where in the document is the right to marry whoever you want explicitly given in the document? The feds have no place in this debate, it is up to the States themselves to figure it out.

Can you show any country prior to the forming of the U.S. that specified marriage be codified by law in order to be recognized?

What does that have to do with it? What you are asking for is forcing the State Marriage Contract to be changed by judicial fiat to meet your desires.

People can call themselves married all they want to, what you are asking for is judicial diktat to make States change their laws without legislative consent.

 

[Synthaholic]

Have to see what the Supreme Court says on that one

They would still be wrong, but because you agree with it, you are OK with it. Progressives use lawyers to supplant the people, and they are OK with it because deep down, they are all fucking Fascist Stalinist assholes.

Who took Obamacare to the Supreme Court?

Who took Social Security and Medicare to the Supreme Court?

Where in any of those programs does it say they are "rights"

They are entitlements, not rights. The argument is different.

Laws. Not rights. Not entitlements.

The laws in those cases created entitlements. try to keep up.

The SCOTUS rules on laws, not rights and entitlements.

I've kept up just fine, thank you.

 

[martybegan]

Will the Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage?

With the exception of three judges....Yes

If they do, then we might as well tear up the document and start over, because we would then be ruled by 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers instead of by ourselves.

We should just paint a sign on the SC Building, "All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others"

Ok. Explain to us what that phrase has to do with legalized gay marriage.

Forcing gay marriage on States that don't want it will be just the start. Soon other groups will claim "rights" that don't exist in the document, and who among you will have the standing to deny them? Next we can get rid of rights we don't like using the same logic, just like you assholes are doing with then 2nd amendment.

Your answer has absolutely nothing to do with your quote "All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others."

That's the next step when you force people to bake cakes they don't want to.

 

[martybegan]

They would still be wrong, but because you agree with it, you are OK with it. Progressives use lawyers to supplant the people, and they are OK with it because deep down, they are all fucking Fascist Stalinist assholes.

Who took Obamacare to the Supreme Court?

Who took Social Security and Medicare to the Supreme Court?

Where in any of those programs does it say they are "rights"

They are entitlements, not rights. The argument is different.

Laws. Not rights. Not entitlements.

The laws in those cases created entitlements. try to keep up.

The SCOTUS rules on laws, not rights and entitlements.

I've kept up just fine, thank you.

How were those entitlements created?

You really are not that bright.

 

[Synthaholic]

No it isn't, because the Lawsuits I agree with are supported by explicit wording in the constitution

Then, you do not support lawsuits to repeal Obamacare?

 

[bodecea]

Will the Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage?

With the exception of three judges....Yes

If they do, then we might as well tear up the document and start over, because we would then be ruled by 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers instead of by ourselves.

We should just paint a sign on the SC Building, "All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others"

Ok. Explain to us what that phrase has to do with legalized gay marriage.

Forcing gay marriage on States that don't want it will be just the start. Soon other groups will claim "rights" that don't exist in the document, and who among you will have the standing to deny them? Next we can get rid of rights we don't like using the same logic, just like you assholes are doing with then 2nd amendment.

Your answer has absolutely nothing to do with your quote "All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others."

That's the next step when you force people to bake cakes they don't want to.

That's Public Accomodation Law territory. Don't like them, get your Representative to get rid of them.....INCLUDING the part that protects members of religions when they request services from businesses.

 

[martybegan]

Have to see what the Supreme Court says on that one

They would still be wrong, but because you agree with it, you are OK with it. Progressives use lawyers to supplant the people, and they are OK with it because deep down, they are all fucking Fascist Stalinist assholes.

LOL.....yeah- its just those 'fucking Fascist Stalinist assholes'....

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/st...nia-cities-over-gun-laws/stories/201501140192
Let no one accuse the National Rifle Association of being slow on the draw: It is suing Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Lancaster, just days after a new state law allowed it to challenge local gun ordinances in court.

“These municipalities have known for years that their ordinances were illegal, but there were no consequences,” said Jonathan Goldstein, a Chester County attorney representing the NRA. “Now it’s about to get expensive.”

NRA group files suit here against state gun law Claims NY-SAFE Act violates 2nd Amendment
ALBANY – In a case that backers vow to take all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, a major gun-rights group filed suit Thursday in federal court in Buffalo seeking to toss out the state’s new gun-control law on a variety of constitutional grounds.

The lawsuit by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, the state affiliate of the National Rifle Association, attacks the NY-SAFE Act on several legal fronts, including claims that it violates interstate commerce protections and the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.

The legal work for the lawsuit has been two months in the making, and Tom King, the group’s president, said he is confident the case will set a precedent.


Neighboring States Suing Colorado Over Marijuana Legalization
Republicans’ commitment to States’ Rights took an interesting turn on Thursday when Republican Attorneys General from Nebraska and Oklahoma filed a lawsuit against the state of Colorado for legalizing marijuana. E. Scott Pruitt (R-OK) and Jon Bruning (R-NE) filed a joint lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court alleging that Colorado’s law injures the ability of neighboring states to enforce their laws against marijuana.

martybegan: "States Rights for me, but not for thee"

You cut off my quote, dumbass.

I wasn't quoting you.

No it isn't, because the Lawsuits I agree with are supported by explicit wording in the constitution

Then, you do not support lawsuits to repeal Obamacare?

I support legislative action to repeal it.

 

[Syriusly]

LOL.....yeah- its just those 'fucking Fascist Stalinist assholes'....

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/st...nia-cities-over-gun-laws/stories/201501140192
Let no one accuse the National Rifle Association of being slow on the draw: It is suing Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Lancaster, just days after a new state law allowed it to challenge local gun ordinances in court.

“These municipalities have known for years that their ordinances were illegal, but there were no consequences,” said Jonathan Goldstein, a Chester County attorney representing the NRA. “Now it’s about to get expensive.”

NRA group files suit here against state gun law Claims NY-SAFE Act violates 2nd Amendment
ALBANY – In a case that backers vow to take all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, a major gun-rights group filed suit Thursday in federal court in Buffalo seeking to toss out the state’s new gun-control law on a variety of constitutional grounds.

The lawsuit by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, the state affiliate of the National Rifle Association, attacks the NY-SAFE Act on several legal fronts, including claims that it violates interstate commerce protections and the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.

The legal work for the lawsuit has been two months in the making, and Tom King, the group’s president, said he is confident the case will set a precedent.


Neighboring States Suing Colorado Over Marijuana Legalization
Republicans’ commitment to States’ Rights took an interesting turn on Thursday when Republican Attorneys General from Nebraska and Oklahoma filed a lawsuit against the state of Colorado for legalizing marijuana. E. Scott Pruitt (R-OK) and Jon Bruning (R-NE) filed a joint lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court alleging that Colorado’s law injures the ability of neighboring states to enforce their laws against marijuana.

The SAFE act as well as NYC'd draconian handgun laws violate an EXPLICIT RIGHT in the constitution.

And as for the other states suing Colorado, its a bullshit lawsuit, regardless of which party supports it. I have been in favor of Pot being treated like alcohol (States decide legality) for a long time.

Oh so its only when 'progressives' sue to protect what they claim are their constitutional rights that they are- how did you put it so colorfully? "they are all fucking Fascist Stalinist assholes"

But not when conservatives sue to protect what they claim are their constitutional rights.

I love the double standard- and am not surprised in the least by it.

The right I am talking about is explicitly written in the document. How is that a double standard?

Here is your exact quote once again:

Progressives use lawyers to supplant the people, and they are OK with it because deep down, they are all fucking Fascist Stalinist assholes.

I highlighted the double standard there. You are all about 'the people'- but only when you agree with what the 'people' want.

People file lawsuits- whether they are the NRA or a gay couple- because they believe that the 'people'(voters or legislatures) have passed an unconstitutional law.

You call progressives who file lawsuits 'fascists stalinist assholes'- but give a pass to Conservatives who file lawsuits to overturn laws passed by the 'people'

And yes- that is the double standard.

No it isn't, because the Lawsuits I agree with are supported by explicit wording in the constitution, and the ones you support are basically "because I want to" based lawsuits.
.

Here is your exact quote once again:

Progressives use lawyers to supplant the people, and they are OK with it because deep down, they are all fucking Fascist Stalinist assholes.

I highlighted the double standard there. You are all about 'the people'- but only when you agree with what the 'people' want.

People file lawsuits- whether they are the NRA or a gay couple- because they believe that the 'people'(voters or legislatures) have passed an unconstitutional law.

You call progressives who file lawsuits 'fascists stalinist assholes'- but give a pass to Conservatives who file lawsuits to overturn laws passed by the 'people'

And yes- that is the double standard.

 

[Synthaholic]

Why? Where in the document is the right to marry whoever you want explicitly given in the document? The feds have no place in this debate, it is up to the States themselves to figure it out.

14th amendment

As soon as you say everyone can get married except for gays you are in violation

How do you know when a republican is going to loose an argument? Classical Libertarians and democrats both are on the same side of the argument standing up for liberty of individuals over the tyranny of the majority.

And I am a Strict Constructional Federalist.

Ok. I get your point, but it's wrong. Just because the majority can decide to do harm in a state against a minority group does not mean we should let that happen. But I get the idea that we should let the states decide. You'll have to change the 14th amendment to make that happen.

No, you don't. The 14th doesn't apply blanket equality. One first has to figure out what is equal, and what is not. Evidently age isn't equal, or we couldn't prevent 10 year olds marrying. Blood relations evidently aren't equal either, although ironically homosexual incestuous relationships remove the main issue with incest, i.e. genetically damaged progeny.

You are also allying yourself with people who only believe in equality in this ONE case, and will sell your ass under the bus when it comes to the 2nd amendment, or the next big fight, public accommodation, i.e. my favorite, the forcing of the cake baking.

How are Gay people equivalent to 10 year olds, in this matter?

 

[Syriusly]

Will the Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage?

With the exception of three judges....Yes

If they do, then we might as well tear up the document and start over, because we would then be ruled by 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers instead of by ourselves.

We should just paint a sign on the SC Building, "All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others"

Or we could just accept that the ultimate authority on what is constitutional and what is not comes down to the Supreme Court.

We the people can overturn a Supreme Court decision by passing an amendment- see Dredd Scott.

 

[martybegan]

If they do, then we might as well tear up the document and start over, because we would then be ruled by 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers instead of by ourselves.

We should just paint a sign on the SC Building, "All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others"

Ok. Explain to us what that phrase has to do with legalized gay marriage.

Forcing gay marriage on States that don't want it will be just the start. Soon other groups will claim "rights" that don't exist in the document, and who among you will have the standing to deny them? Next we can get rid of rights we don't like using the same logic, just like you assholes are doing with then 2nd amendment.

Your answer has absolutely nothing to do with your quote "All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others."

That's the next step when you force people to bake cakes they don't want to.

That's Public Accomodation Law territory. Don't like them, get your Representative to get rid of them.....INCLUDING the part that protects members of religions when they request services from businesses.

Most religious people will be smart enough not to patronize people who don't want them around. Only homosexuals evidently feel the need to force their morality on people.

 

[Synthaholic]

They would still be wrong, but because you agree with it, you are OK with it. Progressives use lawyers to supplant the people, and they are OK with it because deep down, they are all fucking Fascist Stalinist assholes.

LOL.....yeah- its just those 'fucking Fascist Stalinist assholes'....

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/st...nia-cities-over-gun-laws/stories/201501140192
Let no one accuse the National Rifle Association of being slow on the draw: It is suing Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Lancaster, just days after a new state law allowed it to challenge local gun ordinances in court.

“These municipalities have known for years that their ordinances were illegal, but there were no consequences,” said Jonathan Goldstein, a Chester County attorney representing the NRA. “Now it’s about to get expensive.”

NRA group files suit here against state gun law Claims NY-SAFE Act violates 2nd Amendment
ALBANY – In a case that backers vow to take all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, a major gun-rights group filed suit Thursday in federal court in Buffalo seeking to toss out the state’s new gun-control law on a variety of constitutional grounds.

The lawsuit by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, the state affiliate of the National Rifle Association, attacks the NY-SAFE Act on several legal fronts, including claims that it violates interstate commerce protections and the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.

The legal work for the lawsuit has been two months in the making, and Tom King, the group’s president, said he is confident the case will set a precedent.


Neighboring States Suing Colorado Over Marijuana Legalization
Republicans’ commitment to States’ Rights took an interesting turn on Thursday when Republican Attorneys General from Nebraska and Oklahoma filed a lawsuit against the state of Colorado for legalizing marijuana. E. Scott Pruitt (R-OK) and Jon Bruning (R-NE) filed a joint lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court alleging that Colorado’s law injures the ability of neighboring states to enforce their laws against marijuana.

martybegan: "States Rights for me, but not for thee"

You cut off my quote, dumbass.

I wasn't quoting you.

No it isn't, because the Lawsuits I agree with are supported by explicit wording in the constitution

Then, you do not support lawsuits to repeal Obamacare?

I support legislative action to repeal it.

But not the courts?

 

[martybegan]

Will the Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage?

With the exception of three judges....Yes

If they do, then we might as well tear up the document and start over, because we would then be ruled by 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers instead of by ourselves.

We should just paint a sign on the SC Building, "All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others"

Or we could just accept that the ultimate authority on what is constitutional and what is not comes down to the Supreme Court.

We the people can overturn a Supreme Court decision by passing an amendment- see Dredd Scott.

The thing is I DON'T want to ban Gay Marriage, What I want is for you assholes to use the proper procedure, i.e. State Legislative Action.

 

[martybegan]

LOL.....yeah- its just those 'fucking Fascist Stalinist assholes'....

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/st...nia-cities-over-gun-laws/stories/201501140192
Let no one accuse the National Rifle Association of being slow on the draw: It is suing Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Lancaster, just days after a new state law allowed it to challenge local gun ordinances in court.

“These municipalities have known for years that their ordinances were illegal, but there were no consequences,” said Jonathan Goldstein, a Chester County attorney representing the NRA. “Now it’s about to get expensive.”

NRA group files suit here against state gun law Claims NY-SAFE Act violates 2nd Amendment
ALBANY – In a case that backers vow to take all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, a major gun-rights group filed suit Thursday in federal court in Buffalo seeking to toss out the state’s new gun-control law on a variety of constitutional grounds.

The lawsuit by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, the state affiliate of the National Rifle Association, attacks the NY-SAFE Act on several legal fronts, including claims that it violates interstate commerce protections and the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.

The legal work for the lawsuit has been two months in the making, and Tom King, the group’s president, said he is confident the case will set a precedent.


Neighboring States Suing Colorado Over Marijuana Legalization
Republicans’ commitment to States’ Rights took an interesting turn on Thursday when Republican Attorneys General from Nebraska and Oklahoma filed a lawsuit against the state of Colorado for legalizing marijuana. E. Scott Pruitt (R-OK) and Jon Bruning (R-NE) filed a joint lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court alleging that Colorado’s law injures the ability of neighboring states to enforce their laws against marijuana.

martybegan: "States Rights for me, but not for thee"

You cut off my quote, dumbass.

I wasn't quoting you.

No it isn't, because the Lawsuits I agree with are supported by explicit wording in the constitution

Then, you do not support lawsuits to repeal Obamacare?

I support legislative action to repeal it.

But not the courts?

I haven't spent enough time reading the thing to say if its unconstitutional or not. Unlike Democratic politicians I prefer to read something before I act on it.

 

[Synthaholic]

Will the Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage?

With the exception of three judges....Yes

I bet it will be unanimously for.

Clarence Thomas? Never.

Why? Because he follows Scalia, who uses his religious beliefs to make decisions, rather than the Constitution.

 

[martybegan]

14th amendment

As soon as you say everyone can get married except for gays you are in violation

How do you know when a republican is going to loose an argument? Classical Libertarians and democrats both are on the same side of the argument standing up for liberty of individuals over the tyranny of the majority.

And I am a Strict Constructional Federalist.

Ok. I get your point, but it's wrong. Just because the majority can decide to do harm in a state against a minority group does not mean we should let that happen. But I get the idea that we should let the states decide. You'll have to change the 14th amendment to make that happen.

No, you don't. The 14th doesn't apply blanket equality. One first has to figure out what is equal, and what is not. Evidently age isn't equal, or we couldn't prevent 10 year olds marrying. Blood relations evidently aren't equal either, although ironically homosexual incestuous relationships remove the main issue with incest, i.e. genetically damaged progeny.

You are also allying yourself with people who only believe in equality in this ONE case, and will sell your ass under the bus when it comes to the 2nd amendment, or the next big fight, public accommodation, i.e. my favorite, the forcing of the cake baking.

How are Gay people equivalent to 10 year olds, in this matter?

They don't have to be equivalent, but once you recognize a State's ability to regulate marriage in one way, you open the door to other ways, and your whole argument over "due process" and equality go from absolute to a question of degree.

 

[martybegan]

Will the Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage?

With the exception of three judges....Yes

I bet it will be unanimously for.

Clarence Thomas? Never.

Why? Because he follows Scalia, who uses his religious beliefs to make decisions, rather than the Constitution.

LOL. You confuse the more strict constructional side for your side who make shit up as they go along.

 

[Syriusly]

Why? Where in the document is the right to marry whoever you want explicitly given in the document? The feds have no place in this debate, it is up to the States themselves to figure it out.

14th amendment

As soon as you say everyone can get married except for gays you are in violation

How do you know when a republican is going to loose an argument? Classical Libertarians and democrats both are on the same side of the argument standing up for liberty of individuals over the tyranny of the majority.

And I am a Strict Constructional Federalist.

Ok. I get your point, but it's wrong. Just because the majority can decide to do harm in a state against a minority group does not mean we should let that happen. But I get the idea that we should let the states decide. You'll have to change the 14th amendment to make that happen.

No, you don't. The 14th doesn't apply blanket equality. One first has to figure out what is equal, and what is not. Evidently age isn't equal, or we couldn't prevent 10 year olds marrying. Blood relations evidently aren't equal either, although ironically homosexual incestuous relationships remove the main issue with incest, i.e. genetically damaged progeny.

You are also allying yourself with people who only believe in equality in this ONE case, and will sell your ass under the bus when it comes to the 2nd amendment, or the next big fight, public accommodation, i.e. my favorite, the forcing of the cake baking.

The 14th does apply blanket equality- all Americans are entitled to them.

If a state wants to deny rights to anyone- then the State must have a compelling argument to deny that right.

I think we all agree that an individual has the right to own a gun. The 14th Amendment among other things says that States cannot ignore that right and are subject to the Constitution also- but the State can deny individuals the right to own guns- such as convicted felons- when there is a compelling state interest in doing so.

What states have not been able to do is provide any compelling interest in:
a) preventing mixed race couples from marrying
b) preventing a parent who owes child support from marrying
c) preventing a prisoner from marrying
d) preventing same gender couples from marrying.

The Supreme Court has ruled on a-c- and will be ruling on d.

 

[RKMBrown]

How do you know when a republican is going to loose an argument? Classical Libertarians and democrats both are on the same side of the argument standing up for liberty of individuals over the tyranny of the majority.

And I am a Strict Constructional Federalist.

Ok. I get your point, but it's wrong. Just because the majority can decide to do harm in a state against a minority group does not mean we should let that happen. But I get the idea that we should let the states decide. You'll have to change the 14th amendment to make that happen.

No, you don't. The 14th doesn't apply blanket equality. One first has to figure out what is equal, and what is not. Evidently age isn't equal, or we couldn't prevent 10 year olds marrying. Blood relations evidently aren't equal either, although ironically homosexual incestuous relationships remove the main issue with incest, i.e. genetically damaged progeny.

You are also allying yourself with people who only believe in equality in this ONE case, and will sell your ass under the bus when it comes to the 2nd amendment, or the next big fight, public accommodation, i.e. my favorite, the forcing of the cake baking.

It's an issue of whether the right to life includes marriage, which it does, and whether gays are consenting adults, which they are, and whether the states may by majority opinion draft laws taking the right to life away from gays simply because the people in the state are spiteful toward gay people living in their state.

Public accommodation laws... liberty is not the liberty to do others harm. The question for the baking incident is who is being harmed the baker in being asked to bake a cake or the baker's customer in being asked to move along because this baker doesn't bake cakes for gay people, black people, jewish people or any other type of person they are bigoted against.

If you can justify forcing someone to either bake a cake for something they do not want to or go out of business/face sanctions, you have ZERO right to call yourself ANY form of libertarian, be it small "l" or big "L".

That goes double for your apparent belief that a government mandated contract being denied someone somehow deprives them of their right to life.

Public accommodation laws are the law. It's pretty basic stuff. If you don't want to sell to everyone in the public, then you don't make your products available to the general public. It's a pretty simple concept. WRT the liberty issue this is a situation where one person wants to do harm to another it's pretty obvious. However, you being a person that hates gays sees harming that gay person by pushing them out of the public marketplace as a good thing. In fact you see that gay person demanding the right to buy in the public marketplace just like any other citizen is the person causing you harm. IOW you are upside down on this one to. And apparently for the same reason. Someone told you gays are bad, thus you think doing harm to gays is good.