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

[martybegan]

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.

What about the ones who aren't smart enough? No rights for them?

Then they GASP, walk away and go somewhere else. They don't go mewling like a wet cat to big momma government to punish those who "wronged" them.

Is that what Blacks should have done? Just gone somewhere else for lunch?

Please try to remember that counter laws were just that, laws. Woolworth had no choice in the matter.

There were Jim Crow laws that did forbid service to both blacks and whites But there were also private business's that did so on their own- that were not covered by Jim Crow laws.

Your argument is with public accommodation laws- not with the people who insist that the laws be followed.

My argument is with any asshole who gets a chubby from forcing other people to comply with their morality or face being economically ruined.

The other thing that is different in these cases is the scope of the services being denied, and the size of the population being denied.

The world will not end if a gay couple has to use another baker or photographer.

 

[bodecea]

wrong, I am all for equality in all things. I fully support the civil rights act, I want gays treated equally and fairly. Where we differ is that I do not believe that a gay union is a marraige or that society should consider gay unions equally acceptable and normal as man/woman marriages.

Thats what I believe, Last time I checked we have the right to our beliefs in this country.

What I find very dangerous is the idea that beliefs can be mandated by the government----------and thats what this whole gay marriage debate really boils down to.

No one is taking away your right to believe, simply not force others to conform to your religious belief. The argument over marriage equality is secular not religious. You won't have to marry someone of your own sex.

nope, you on the left want the government to punish anyone who does not believe as the government dictates.

have you read Orwell and Rand? they saw it coming and wrote about it, but you are too stupid to see what is being rammed up your ass.

Says one of the more stupid posters of the Board.

Marry whom you will, honey. That is not punishment. Punishment is you distorting truth and saying marriage equality harms you. The fuck it does.

I, and billions of other human beings, believe that gay marriage would harm society. Its as simple as that. You disagree and thats fine too. When free people disagree they vote on which way to go.

So, lets vote. I will accept the will of the people, will you?

Can you tell me what harm it will do to society?

Gay marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since 2004. I'm still waiting for a heterosexual couple to come forward to tell the nation how gay marriage has harmed their heterosexual marriage.

Gay marriage has been legal in my state since 2012. I'm still waiting for any evidence it has harmed society.

You're going to have to get me some honest facts and proof of your claim because as far as I can see, you're full of garbage.

I already did vote. Marriage equality was on the ballot in my state in 2012. It passed with a good margin. I voted with the majority.

He, and others like him, choose to ignore that.

 

[Syriusly]

What about the ones who aren't smart enough? No rights for them?

Then they GASP, walk away and go somewhere else. They don't go mewling like a wet cat to big momma government to punish those who "wronged" them.

Is that what Blacks should have done? Just gone somewhere else for lunch?

Please try to remember that counter laws were just that, laws. Woolworth had no choice in the matter.

There were Jim Crow laws that did forbid service to both blacks and whites But there were also private business's that did so on their own- that were not covered by Jim Crow laws.

Your argument is with public accommodation laws- not with the people who insist that the laws be followed.

My argument is with any asshole who gets a chubby from forcing other people to comply with their morality or face being economically ruined.

The other thing that is different in these cases is the scope of the services being denied, and the size of the population being denied.

The world will not end if a gay couple has to use another baker or photographer.

Your argument is with public accommodation laws- not with the people who insist that the laws be followed.

 

[martybegan]

Then they GASP, walk away and go somewhere else. They don't go mewling like a wet cat to big momma government to punish those who "wronged" them.

Is that what Blacks should have done? Just gone somewhere else for lunch?

Please try to remember that counter laws were just that, laws. Woolworth had no choice in the matter.

There were Jim Crow laws that did forbid service to both blacks and whites But there were also private business's that did so on their own- that were not covered by Jim Crow laws.

Your argument is with public accommodation laws- not with the people who insist that the laws be followed.

My argument is with any asshole who gets a chubby from forcing other people to comply with their morality or face being economically ruined.

The other thing that is different in these cases is the scope of the services being denied, and the size of the population being denied.

The world will not end if a gay couple has to use another baker or photographer.

Your argument is with public accommodation laws- not with the people who insist that the laws be followed.

That's the same thing, and you know it.

Or are you using a modification of the Nuremberg Defense? "Sorry, I really don't want to be a prick, but I was just following the law"

 

[Syriusly]

Is that what Blacks should have done? Just gone somewhere else for lunch?

Please try to remember that counter laws were just that, laws. Woolworth had no choice in the matter.

There were Jim Crow laws that did forbid service to both blacks and whites But there were also private business's that did so on their own- that were not covered by Jim Crow laws.

Your argument is with public accommodation laws- not with the people who insist that the laws be followed.

My argument is with any asshole who gets a chubby from forcing other people to comply with their morality or face being economically ruined.

The other thing that is different in these cases is the scope of the services being denied, and the size of the population being denied.

The world will not end if a gay couple has to use another baker or photographer.

Your argument is with public accommodation laws- not with the people who insist that the laws be followed.

That's the same thing, and you know it.

Or are you using a modification of the Nuremberg Defense? "Sorry, I really don't want to be a prick, but I was just following the law"

So you are comparing public accommodation laws to Nazi war crimes?

Really?

It is not the same thing. No more than objecting to the income tax taking advantage of every tax break.

As long as the law is valid, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a person using the law.

 

[martybegan]

Please try to remember that counter laws were just that, laws. Woolworth had no choice in the matter.

There were Jim Crow laws that did forbid service to both blacks and whites But there were also private business's that did so on their own- that were not covered by Jim Crow laws.

Your argument is with public accommodation laws- not with the people who insist that the laws be followed.

My argument is with any asshole who gets a chubby from forcing other people to comply with their morality or face being economically ruined.

The other thing that is different in these cases is the scope of the services being denied, and the size of the population being denied.

The world will not end if a gay couple has to use another baker or photographer.

Your argument is with public accommodation laws- not with the people who insist that the laws be followed.

That's the same thing, and you know it.

Or are you using a modification of the Nuremberg Defense? "Sorry, I really don't want to be a prick, but I was just following the law"

So you are comparing public accommodation laws to Nazi war crimes?

Really?

It is not the same thing. No more than objecting to the income tax taking advantage of every tax break.

As long as the law is valid, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a person using the law.

I reference the defense, not the acts implied.

There may be nothing legally wrong, but it still makes you an asshole.

 

[Seawytch]

Please try to remember that counter laws were just that, laws. Woolworth had no choice in the matter.

There were Jim Crow laws that did forbid service to both blacks and whites But there were also private business's that did so on their own- that were not covered by Jim Crow laws.

Your argument is with public accommodation laws- not with the people who insist that the laws be followed.

My argument is with any asshole who gets a chubby from forcing other people to comply with their morality or face being economically ruined.

The other thing that is different in these cases is the scope of the services being denied, and the size of the population being denied.

The world will not end if a gay couple has to use another baker or photographer.

Your argument is with public accommodation laws- not with the people who insist that the laws be followed.

That's the same thing, and you know it.

Or are you using a modification of the Nuremberg Defense? "Sorry, I really don't want to be a prick, but I was just following the law"

So you are comparing public accommodation laws to Nazi war crimes?

Really?

It is not the same thing. No more than objecting to the income tax taking advantage of every tax break.

As long as the law is valid, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a person using the law.

The funny thing is that their argument should be for states rights when it comes to PA laws....if they were worried about consistency.

 

[martybegan]

There were Jim Crow laws that did forbid service to both blacks and whites But there were also private business's that did so on their own- that were not covered by Jim Crow laws.

Your argument is with public accommodation laws- not with the people who insist that the laws be followed.

My argument is with any asshole who gets a chubby from forcing other people to comply with their morality or face being economically ruined.

The other thing that is different in these cases is the scope of the services being denied, and the size of the population being denied.

The world will not end if a gay couple has to use another baker or photographer.

Your argument is with public accommodation laws- not with the people who insist that the laws be followed.

That's the same thing, and you know it.

Or are you using a modification of the Nuremberg Defense? "Sorry, I really don't want to be a prick, but I was just following the law"

So you are comparing public accommodation laws to Nazi war crimes?

Really?

It is not the same thing. No more than objecting to the income tax taking advantage of every tax break.

As long as the law is valid, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a person using the law.

The funny thing is that their argument should be for states rights when it comes to PA laws....if they were worried about consistency.

The only thing your side does consistently is shit on the constitution when it suits you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marty, if you are arguing what the hetero-fascists have against marriage equality, your side will lose, period.

"My" side is the side of using the constitution properly. If you want "my" side to lose, then you are an anti-american fuckwad.

Under your skin, hmm. Nope, your terms and definitions are not based in the American narrative and American law, including the Constitution.

Marty, you can have your own opinion, but not your own terms, definitions, and facts.

So I guess my views don't fit "the narrative" eh, comrade?

You can stay with the Party. No, your views do not fit the American story at all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What about the ones who aren't smart enough? No rights for them?

Then they GASP, walk away and go somewhere else. They don't go mewling like a wet cat to big momma government to punish those who "wronged" them.

Is that what Blacks should have done? Just gone somewhere else for lunch?

Please try to remember that counter laws were just that, laws. Woolworth had no choice in the matter.

There were Jim Crow laws that did forbid service to both blacks and whites But there were also private business's that did so on their own- that were not covered by Jim Crow laws.

Your argument is with public accommodation laws- not with the people who insist that the laws be followed.

My argument is with any asshole who gets a chubby from forcing other people to comply with their morality or face being economically ruined.

The other thing that is different in these cases is the scope of the services being denied, and the size of the population being denied.

The world will not end if a gay couple has to use another baker or photographer.

PA laws, as written by the states, are fine as long as they meet the Constitutional requirements.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right and libertarians are never concerned about the law or the Constitution in getting their way.

 

[RKMBrown]

It's just anger. I'm a hetero libertarian right wing christian conservative. He's mad cause his bigotry is being exposed. Where before it was the norm.

I'm just as guilty as the next guy about getting angry. Question is angry about ... what?

How can I be a bigot if I have been on record as saying that I have no issue if Gay marriage goes on the book via State legislative action, and that I would probably vote for it?

YOU were talking about public accommodation laws, try to keep up.

And I wouldn't have an issue working at a Gay wedding either. What I don't feel is the need to force my morality on others, more importantly I detest those who use the government to do it instead of doing it themselves.

I'm sorry, just exactly how do you want gays to force their states to hand them marriage licenses? Guns?

By convincing enough of their fellow citizens to vote people in who will change marriage laws.

Ok. Well both are happening. IMO suing for injury is a perfectly valid way to address a grievance. Interesting that you think all grievances against the state should be addressed by elected officials. Interesting, but I like our system as is. Mostly cause I don't trust our elected political party representatives to do their jobs.

 

[martybegan]

Marty, if you are arguing what the hetero-fascists have against marriage equality, your side will lose, period.

"My" side is the side of using the constitution properly. If you want "my" side to lose, then you are an anti-american fuckwad.

Under your skin, hmm. Nope, your terms and definitions are not based in the American narrative and American law, including the Constitution.

Marty, you can have your own opinion, but not your own terms, definitions, and facts.

So I guess my views don't fit "the narrative" eh, comrade?

You can stay with the Party. No, your views do not fit the American story at all.

Keep living in that cloud cuckoo land you occupy, where progressive positions are popular without all the lying your side does.

 

[martybegan]

Then they GASP, walk away and go somewhere else. They don't go mewling like a wet cat to big momma government to punish those who "wronged" them.

Is that what Blacks should have done? Just gone somewhere else for lunch?

Please try to remember that counter laws were just that, laws. Woolworth had no choice in the matter.

There were Jim Crow laws that did forbid service to both blacks and whites But there were also private business's that did so on their own- that were not covered by Jim Crow laws.

Your argument is with public accommodation laws- not with the people who insist that the laws be followed.

My argument is with any asshole who gets a chubby from forcing other people to comply with their morality or face being economically ruined.

The other thing that is different in these cases is the scope of the services being denied, and the size of the population being denied.

The world will not end if a gay couple has to use another baker or photographer.

PA laws, as written by the states, are fine as long as they meet the Constitutional requirements.

Another person who loves fucking over people who disagree with them.

Instead of trying to convince the person they are wrong, you cowardly let big daddy government do it.

You are a fucking COWARD, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[martybegan]

How can I be a bigot if I have been on record as saying that I have no issue if Gay marriage goes on the book via State legislative action, and that I would probably vote for it?

YOU were talking about public accommodation laws, try to keep up.

And I wouldn't have an issue working at a Gay wedding either. What I don't feel is the need to force my morality on others, more importantly I detest those who use the government to do it instead of doing it themselves.

I'm sorry, just exactly how do you want gays to force their states to hand them marriage licenses? Guns?

By convincing enough of their fellow citizens to vote people in who will change marriage laws.

Ok. Well both are happening. IMO suing for injury is a perfectly valid way to address a grievance. Interesting that you think all grievances against the state should be addressed by elected officials. Interesting, but I like our system as is. Mostly cause I don't trust our elected political party representatives to do their jobs.

If you are such a sissy that you think having to get another baker is "injury" I suggest posting your balls on the back of a milk carton.

 

[martybegan]

The far right and libertarians are never concerned about the law or the Constitution in getting their way.

Nice hypocrisy there fucktard.

 

[bodecea]

Is that what Blacks should have done? Just gone somewhere else for lunch?

Please try to remember that counter laws were just that, laws. Woolworth had no choice in the matter.

There were Jim Crow laws that did forbid service to both blacks and whites But there were also private business's that did so on their own- that were not covered by Jim Crow laws.

Your argument is with public accommodation laws- not with the people who insist that the laws be followed.

My argument is with any asshole who gets a chubby from forcing other people to comply with their morality or face being economically ruined.

The other thing that is different in these cases is the scope of the services being denied, and the size of the population being denied.

The world will not end if a gay couple has to use another baker or photographer.

PA laws, as written by the states, are fine as long as they meet the Constitutional requirements.

Another person who loves fucking over people who disagree with them.

Instead of trying to convince the person they are wrong, you cowardly let big daddy government do it.

You are a fucking COWARD, nothing more, nothing less.

Here you go again.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes. NYC is not the federal government. Cities and states have been restricting guns owners since the start of this nation.

So the 14th amendment somehow ONLY applies to gay marriage?

If the 14th does incorporate the bill of rights onto the States, and The States control municipalities, how can NYC tell me I can't carry a handgun?

First, the 14th does not only apply to gay marriage. Not sure why you asked that silly question.

Second, the 14th does not incorporation all of the federal restrictions to the states. If it incorporated the 2nd amendment it would have also said something like, nor shall the states infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

Third, you "ask how can NYC tell me I can't carry a handgun." The same way any city sets up laws. It passes a law stating that you can't carry a handgun within the city limits then it enforces that law.

The wording of the 2nd amendment states the people's rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the 14th amendment precludes the States from "make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." If that is the case, how can a State "infringe" on my right to carry a firearm. I'm not talking about making me get a CCW permit as infringing, NYC states I have to have a reason THEY approve of.

Easy. The 2nd amendment is a restriction on the federal government stating that the federal government can't infringe, not a right granted by the federal government that can't be infringed. As much as I dislike it, the states, cities and such have always infringed on this right.

The document says nothing about restrictions by just the feds, it says the rights of the people cannot be infringed.

Its amazing you are arguing in favor of government power.

And btw, if this is all a snark attempt by a libertarian trying to be all smart, go fuck yourself. We have enough fake assholes on this site.

No sir. First off that's not even close to what I said.

Second, these ten amendments include declaratory clauses and restrictive clauses.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

You should read the entire transcript for the bill of rights amendments, not just the amendments. The restrictive clauses in the bill of rights apply restrictions to the federal government not to the states, except and unless it states that the restriction applies to the states. More particularly the 10th stated that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." IOW if the 2nd amendment were to be applied to the feds and the states as you so imagine, then the 2nd would have had to say "shall not be infringed by congress or the states." But clearly it does not and clearly the states have been restricting our right to keep and bear arms before, during, and after the bill of rights were signed into law.

I'm not being a fake asshole, I'm a gun proponent that's telling you a fact about the 2nd amendment that not to many understand. This is why the various CC laws of the various states pass muster for constitutionality. If however the feds tried to set one CC law for all the states, then that would not be constitutional, because the feds are not allowed to restrict, only the states or people are. For example, you have the right to restrict guns in/on your private property. That said, exceptions are made for times of war regarding all of our rights and said restrictions. That's why the feds like to declare national emergencies, and call the drug interdiction a "war." They are trying to provide cover for doing things that are otherwise unconstitutional.

 

[martybegan]

So the 14th amendment somehow ONLY applies to gay marriage?

If the 14th does incorporate the bill of rights onto the States, and The States control municipalities, how can NYC tell me I can't carry a handgun?

First, the 14th does not only apply to gay marriage. Not sure why you asked that silly question.

Second, the 14th does not incorporation all of the federal restrictions to the states. If it incorporated the 2nd amendment it would have also said something like, nor shall the states infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

Third, you "ask how can NYC tell me I can't carry a handgun." The same way any city sets up laws. It passes a law stating that you can't carry a handgun within the city limits then it enforces that law.

The wording of the 2nd amendment states the people's rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the 14th amendment precludes the States from "make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." If that is the case, how can a State "infringe" on my right to carry a firearm. I'm not talking about making me get a CCW permit as infringing, NYC states I have to have a reason THEY approve of.

Easy. The 2nd amendment is a restriction on the federal government stating that the federal government can't infringe, not a right granted by the federal government that can't be infringed. As much as I dislike it, the states, cities and such have always infringed on this right.

The document says nothing about restrictions by just the feds, it says the rights of the people cannot be infringed.

Its amazing you are arguing in favor of government power.

And btw, if this is all a snark attempt by a libertarian trying to be all smart, go fuck yourself. We have enough fake assholes on this site.

No sir. First off that's not even close to what I said.

Second, these ten amendments include declaratory clauses and restrictive clauses.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

You should read the entire transcript for the bill of rights amendments, not just the amendments. The restrictive clauses in the bill of rights apply restrictions to the federal government not to the states, except and unless it states that the restriction applies to the states. More particularly the 10th stated that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." IOW if they 2nd amendment were to be applied to the feds and the states as you so imagine, then the 2nd would have had to say "shall not be infringed by congress or the states." But clearly it does not and clearly the states have been restricting our right to keep and bear arms before, during, and after the bill of rights were signed into law.

I'm not being a fake asshole, I'm a gun proponent that's telling you a fact about the 2nd amendment that not to many understand.

If it isn't in the document, what bearing does it have besides a view into intent, which is debatable.

And if you are not a fake, then you are not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination. You are a statist. Not as bad as Farkey over there, but in the same ballpark.

 

[Redfish]

Ruling against constitutionally guaranteed rights is not centrist action.

Citizens United was not a liberal ruling.

ACA ruling was not a conservative ruling.

Your premise is severely flawed.

how were those "constitutional guaranteed rights" established? Any idea? Did they exist in this country before the constitution was ratified? Do they exist in north korea?

By a group of men that got together and wrote them. How would constitutionally guaranteed rights exist before the Constitution was ratified? No, NK has not adopted the US Constitution. What does any of that have to do with voting against rights guaranteed by the Constitution today?

my point, which many of you seem to have a hard time grasping, is that the rights we enjoy were established by a majority vote, not by minority dictate.

But in the case of gay marriage, the left wants the decision made by judicial dictate, that is what is unconstitutional.

You could always just state your point rather than dance around asking vague questions. People would probably get your point much easier that way.

Short of a constitutional amendment, those rights are not removable by a simple majority vote.

true, what I am trying to get the libs to understand is that those rights were created by a majority vote.