Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Except PA laws have been found Constitutional.
yes, they have. So what? That has nothing to do with SCOTUS and gay marriage.
I was, however, directly responding to a post about PA laws.
You're right though....(for once)...despite anti gay bigots trying to conflate the two issues, they have nothing to do with each other.
yes, they do, because now we will see a flurry of lawsuits across more states.
I wonder how the Dems will handle it when gay people start suing black businesses that don't want to participate in gay weddings.
And yet the current cases all dealt with states that had no marriage equality, but DID have PA laws.
Nobody has to "participate" in a wedding other than the wedding party and the happy couple. Baking a cake or taking a photograph is not "participating".
Yes, it is, especially for the photographer.
Are you really so spiteful that you want to force someone who doesn't want to be there to work and attend your wedding?
Great way to win hearts and minds.
Of course letting the government be your enforcer is the easy way out, typical for progressive statists.
yes, they have. So what? That has nothing to do with SCOTUS and gay marriage.
I was, however, directly responding to a post about PA laws.
You're right though....(for once)...despite anti gay bigots trying to conflate the two issues, they have nothing to do with each other.
yes, they do, because now we will see a flurry of lawsuits across more states.
I wonder how the Dems will handle it when gay people start suing black businesses that don't want to participate in gay weddings.
And yet the current cases all dealt with states that had no marriage equality, but DID have PA laws.
Nobody has to "participate" in a wedding other than the wedding party and the happy couple. Baking a cake or taking a photograph is not "participating".
Its not? How about renting a hall or a limo or a tux? participating? and using your erroneous interpretation of the law, forced to participate.
A person is not a rental hall nor is a person a tuxedo. The hall and the tuxedo are participating, not a person. Why are you being so silly?
yes, they have. So what? That has nothing to do with SCOTUS and gay marriage.
I was, however, directly responding to a post about PA laws.
You're right though....(for once)...despite anti gay bigots trying to conflate the two issues, they have nothing to do with each other.
yes, they do, because now we will see a flurry of lawsuits across more states.
I wonder how the Dems will handle it when gay people start suing black businesses that don't want to participate in gay weddings.
And yet the current cases all dealt with states that had no marriage equality, but DID have PA laws.
Nobody has to "participate" in a wedding other than the wedding party and the happy couple. Baking a cake or taking a photograph is not "participating".
Yes, it is, especially for the photographer.
Are you really so spiteful that you want to force someone who doesn't want to be there to work and attend your wedding?
Great way to win hearts and minds.
Of course letting the government be your enforcer is the easy way out, typical for progressive statists.
I cannot discriminate against a Christian in all 50 states. Why are Christians so spiteful as to make the Federal Government force me to serve them, photograph them, bake for them, etc in all 50 states?
The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT...not just little states and localities like the PA laws that protect gays (some "states rights" advocate YOU are).
yes, they have. So what? That has nothing to do with SCOTUS and gay marriage.
I was, however, directly responding to a post about PA laws.
You're right though....(for once)...despite anti gay bigots trying to conflate the two issues, they have nothing to do with each other.
yes, they do, because now we will see a flurry of lawsuits across more states.
I wonder how the Dems will handle it when gay people start suing black businesses that don't want to participate in gay weddings.
And yet the current cases all dealt with states that had no marriage equality, but DID have PA laws.
Nobody has to "participate" in a wedding other than the wedding party and the happy couple. Baking a cake or taking a photograph is not "participating".
Yes, it is, especially for the photographer.
Are you really so spiteful that you want to force someone who doesn't want to be there to work and attend your wedding?
Great way to win hearts and minds.
Of course letting the government be your enforcer is the easy way out, typical for progressive statists.
I cannot discriminate against a Christian in all 50 states. Why are Christians so spiteful as to make the Federal Government force me to serve them, photograph them, bake for them, etc in all 50 states?
The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT...not just little states and localities like the PA laws that protect gays (some "states rights" advocate YOU are).
I was, however, directly responding to a post about PA laws.
You're right though....(for once)...despite anti gay bigots trying to conflate the two issues, they have nothing to do with each other.
yes, they do, because now we will see a flurry of lawsuits across more states.
I wonder how the Dems will handle it when gay people start suing black businesses that don't want to participate in gay weddings.
And yet the current cases all dealt with states that had no marriage equality, but DID have PA laws.
Nobody has to "participate" in a wedding other than the wedding party and the happy couple. Baking a cake or taking a photograph is not "participating".
Its not? How about renting a hall or a limo or a tux? participating? and using your erroneous interpretation of the law, forced to participate.
A person is not a rental hall nor is a person a tuxedo. The hall and the tuxedo are participating, not a person. Why are you being so silly?
If I rent you my hall or my tux, I am participating. My property is being used in the wedding. I should not be forced to do so.
yes, they do, because now we will see a flurry of lawsuits across more states.
I wonder how the Dems will handle it when gay people start suing black businesses that don't want to participate in gay weddings.
And yet the current cases all dealt with states that had no marriage equality, but DID have PA laws.
Nobody has to "participate" in a wedding other than the wedding party and the happy couple. Baking a cake or taking a photograph is not "participating".
Its not? How about renting a hall or a limo or a tux? participating? and using your erroneous interpretation of the law, forced to participate.
A person is not a rental hall nor is a person a tuxedo. The hall and the tuxedo are participating, not a person. Why are you being so silly?
If I rent you my hall or my tux, I am participating. My property is being used in the wedding. I should not be forced to do so.
A Unique Religious Exemption From Antidiscrimination Laws in the Case of Gays? Putting the Call for Exemptions for Those Who Discriminate Against Married or Marrying Gays in Context
When ‘Religious Liberty’ Was Used To Justify Racism Instead Of Homophobia
I was, however, directly responding to a post about PA laws.
You're right though....(for once)...despite anti gay bigots trying to conflate the two issues, they have nothing to do with each other.
yes, they do, because now we will see a flurry of lawsuits across more states.
I wonder how the Dems will handle it when gay people start suing black businesses that don't want to participate in gay weddings.
And yet the current cases all dealt with states that had no marriage equality, but DID have PA laws.
Nobody has to "participate" in a wedding other than the wedding party and the happy couple. Baking a cake or taking a photograph is not "participating".
Yes, it is, especially for the photographer.
Are you really so spiteful that you want to force someone who doesn't want to be there to work and attend your wedding?
Great way to win hearts and minds.
Of course letting the government be your enforcer is the easy way out, typical for progressive statists.
I cannot discriminate against a Christian in all 50 states. Why are Christians so spiteful as to make the Federal Government force me to serve them, photograph them, bake for them, etc in all 50 states?
The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT...not just little states and localities like the PA laws that protect gays (some "states rights" advocate YOU are).
When has a Christian made you work at an event that is against your moral upbringing?
And yet the current cases all dealt with states that had no marriage equality, but DID have PA laws.
Nobody has to "participate" in a wedding other than the wedding party and the happy couple. Baking a cake or taking a photograph is not "participating".
Its not? How about renting a hall or a limo or a tux? participating? and using your erroneous interpretation of the law, forced to participate.
A person is not a rental hall nor is a person a tuxedo. The hall and the tuxedo are participating, not a person. Why are you being so silly?
If I rent you my hall or my tux, I am participating. My property is being used in the wedding. I should not be forced to do so.
A Unique Religious Exemption From Antidiscrimination Laws in the Case of Gays? Putting the Call for Exemptions for Those Who Discriminate Against Married or Marrying Gays in Context
When ‘Religious Liberty’ Was Used To Justify Racism Instead Of Homophobia
give it a rest wytch. We are never going to agree on this. And in the USA disagreeing is OK. For now.
yes, they do, because now we will see a flurry of lawsuits across more states.
I wonder how the Dems will handle it when gay people start suing black businesses that don't want to participate in gay weddings.
And yet the current cases all dealt with states that had no marriage equality, but DID have PA laws.
Nobody has to "participate" in a wedding other than the wedding party and the happy couple. Baking a cake or taking a photograph is not "participating".
Yes, it is, especially for the photographer.
Are you really so spiteful that you want to force someone who doesn't want to be there to work and attend your wedding?
Great way to win hearts and minds.
Of course letting the government be your enforcer is the easy way out, typical for progressive statists.
I cannot discriminate against a Christian in all 50 states. Why are Christians so spiteful as to make the Federal Government force me to serve them, photograph them, bake for them, etc in all 50 states?
The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT...not just little states and localities like the PA laws that protect gays (some "states rights" advocate YOU are).
When has a Christian made you work at an event that is against your moral upbringing?
My reason for wanting to discriminate is not relevant. I am prevented from doing so by Federal Law...not state or local law like PA protections for gays, but laws at a Federal level prevent me from discriminating on the basis of an individuals religion.
Its not? How about renting a hall or a limo or a tux? participating? and using your erroneous interpretation of the law, forced to participate.
A person is not a rental hall nor is a person a tuxedo. The hall and the tuxedo are participating, not a person. Why are you being so silly?
If I rent you my hall or my tux, I am participating. My property is being used in the wedding. I should not be forced to do so.
A Unique Religious Exemption From Antidiscrimination Laws in the Case of Gays? Putting the Call for Exemptions for Those Who Discriminate Against Married or Marrying Gays in Context
When ‘Religious Liberty’ Was Used To Justify Racism Instead Of Homophobia
give it a rest wytch. We are never going to agree on this. And in the USA disagreeing is OK. For now.
No, we aren't ever going to agree. You think I should have 2nd class citizenship status and I disagree. And yes, disagreeing is fine in the US. You can believe that my civil marriage license is not valid and the law can disagree with you.
you just don't get it, I have no issue with your california "marriage" license, well I really do because the people of cal voted against it twice and a couple judges with an agenda overturned the will of the people. Whereas in other states the will of the people has been upheld, that is where the inequality exists. Either we live by the constitution and the citizens vote on such issues or we live in a dictatorship where laws are made or ignored by the legislative branch.Its not? How about renting a hall or a limo or a tux? participating? and using your erroneous interpretation of the law, forced to participate.
A person is not a rental hall nor is a person a tuxedo. The hall and the tuxedo are participating, not a person. Why are you being so silly?
If I rent you my hall or my tux, I am participating. My property is being used in the wedding. I should not be forced to do so.
A Unique Religious Exemption From Antidiscrimination Laws in the Case of Gays? Putting the Call for Exemptions for Those Who Discriminate Against Married or Marrying Gays in Context
When ‘Religious Liberty’ Was Used To Justify Racism Instead Of Homophobia
give it a rest wytch. We are never going to agree on this. And in the USA disagreeing is OK. For now.
No, we aren't ever going to agree. You think I should have 2nd class citizenship status and I disagree. And yes, disagreeing is fine in the US. You can believe that my civil marriage license is not valid and the law can disagree with you.
So you are against Judicial Review of any kind.you just don't get it, I have no issue with your california "marriage" license, well I really do because the people of cal voted against it twice and a couple judges with an agenda overturned the will of the people. Whereas in other states the will of the people has been upheld, that is where the inequality exists. Either we live by the constitution and the citizens vote on such issues or we live in a dictatorship where laws are made or ignored by the legislative branch.A person is not a rental hall nor is a person a tuxedo. The hall and the tuxedo are participating, not a person. Why are you being so silly?
If I rent you my hall or my tux, I am participating. My property is being used in the wedding. I should not be forced to do so.
A Unique Religious Exemption From Antidiscrimination Laws in the Case of Gays? Putting the Call for Exemptions for Those Who Discriminate Against Married or Marrying Gays in Context
When ‘Religious Liberty’ Was Used To Justify Racism Instead Of Homophobia
give it a rest wytch. We are never going to agree on this. And in the USA disagreeing is OK. For now.
No, we aren't ever going to agree. You think I should have 2nd class citizenship status and I disagree. And yes, disagreeing is fine in the US. You can believe that my civil marriage license is not valid and the law can disagree with you.
Why didn't those students just go to another restaurant in Nashville?A person is not a rental hall nor is a person a tuxedo. The hall and the tuxedo are participating, not a person. Why are you being so silly?
If I rent you my hall or my tux, I am participating. My property is being used in the wedding. I should not be forced to do so.
A Unique Religious Exemption From Antidiscrimination Laws in the Case of Gays? Putting the Call for Exemptions for Those Who Discriminate Against Married or Marrying Gays in Context
When ‘Religious Liberty’ Was Used To Justify Racism Instead Of Homophobia
give it a rest wytch. We are never going to agree on this. And in the USA disagreeing is OK. For now.
No, we aren't ever going to agree. You think I should have 2nd class citizenship status and I disagree. And yes, disagreeing is fine in the US. You can believe that my civil marriage license is not valid and the law can disagree with you.
Having to go to another baker does not make you a 2nd class citizen.
So you are against Judicial Review of any kind.you just don't get it, I have no issue with your california "marriage" license, well I really do because the people of cal voted against it twice and a couple judges with an agenda overturned the will of the people. Whereas in other states the will of the people has been upheld, that is where the inequality exists. Either we live by the constitution and the citizens vote on such issues or we live in a dictatorship where laws are made or ignored by the legislative branch.If I rent you my hall or my tux, I am participating. My property is being used in the wedding. I should not be forced to do so.
A Unique Religious Exemption From Antidiscrimination Laws in the Case of Gays? Putting the Call for Exemptions for Those Who Discriminate Against Married or Marrying Gays in Context
When ‘Religious Liberty’ Was Used To Justify Racism Instead Of Homophobia
give it a rest wytch. We are never going to agree on this. And in the USA disagreeing is OK. For now.
No, we aren't ever going to agree. You think I should have 2nd class citizenship status and I disagree. And yes, disagreeing is fine in the US. You can believe that my civil marriage license is not valid and the law can disagree with you.
You will live by the Constitution, Redfish, you do not get to authorize what is Constitutional, and that's the end of it. Other than you can yell and smell about it.
Why didn't those students just go to another restaurant in Nashville?If I rent you my hall or my tux, I am participating. My property is being used in the wedding. I should not be forced to do so.
A Unique Religious Exemption From Antidiscrimination Laws in the Case of Gays? Putting the Call for Exemptions for Those Who Discriminate Against Married or Marrying Gays in Context
When ‘Religious Liberty’ Was Used To Justify Racism Instead Of Homophobia
give it a rest wytch. We are never going to agree on this. And in the USA disagreeing is OK. For now.
No, we aren't ever going to agree. You think I should have 2nd class citizenship status and I disagree. And yes, disagreeing is fine in the US. You can believe that my civil marriage license is not valid and the law can disagree with you.
Having to go to another baker does not make you a 2nd class citizen.
I agree. Marriage Equality is constitutional.
I agree. Marriage Equality is constitutional.
No one ever said it was unconstitutional, what is unconstitutional is using courts to force it on States.
