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.
If you object to certain kinds of legal marriages, maybe you shouldn't be in the marriage business. Just like those muslim taxi drivers who objected to carrying certain kinds of legal passengers....they shouldn't be in the taxi business.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.
The problem is we have tied laws to the contract and our federal Constitution guarantees us equal protection under the law. We could eliminate all these laws and leave it as a religious ceremony, but until then the proper interpretation is that gay marriage should be legal in all states.
By that logic you can't deny marriage to anyone, be it by age, blood ties, or number of people. Equal protection only applies to equal situations. Marriages between men and women are equal regardless of race, because race is not a factor in a marriage biologically.
IF people in a State want to extend the marriage contract to same sex couples or polygamous groups, I have no issue. My issue is with using courts to force it on them using the concept that constitutionally same sex= opposite sex.
The slippery slope fallacy rears its ugly head. Minors are not allowed to enter into contracts. There is no stipulation for "equal situations." Otherwise, one could say that poor people can't get married and only wealthy can. Blacks can't get married and only whites can. Equal protection applies to everyone. Arbitrary distinctions to declare inequality of the situation have no place in law.
The courts are there to interpret law and the Constitution. That's their job. Your issue is really in the system the founders set up. I'm personally agree with Rand Paul on this. When governments “do wrong we should overturn them,” Paul said. “There is a role for the Supreme Court to mete out justice.”
Actually minors can, with the permission of their parents, or above a certain age depending on the state. Hence the difference in ages for with parental consent and without for a marriage license. If minors can't enter into a contract, how can they go to school?
And yes, equal protection has it limits. something has to be equal first to warrant it.
Finally, my issue is that the courts currently make law, not decisions. And when they make this law they are breaking the system itself.
Okay, under very specific circumstance some minors can enter into a contract. The nit has been picked.
Everything has a limit, but the only thing required to be equal here is the protection provided by the law.
There have been instances where courts have made law, but this is not one of them. This is them ruling on whether a law is constitutional.
Which is making law, because the constitution gives this responsibility to the State Legislators.
What the fuck are you smoking? Almost none of that is right.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.
Amendments aren't created with a majority vote. Review the 5th article again and tell us what proportion of the States are required to ratify an amendment.
correct, not a simple majority, 38 states. 75%. But such a vote of 38 states could create a new amendment or repeal a previous one.
my point is that constitutional rights that we enjoy were establshed by voting, not govt decree.
The rights are part of the Constitution- and the Supreme Court decides what those rights mean.
Among the many 'rights' we enjoy that we did not 'enjoy' until the Supreme Court spelled out that we do have those rights:
- the right to remain silent
- the right to an attorney
- the right to marry
- the right for mixed race couples to marry
- the right for Americans to use contraception.
- the right for women to control their own reproduction
- the right for African Americans to have equal public education with whites.
- the right to be safe from illegal search and seizure from the police
- the right to have private consensual sex even if you are homosexual.
- the right to speech that the government finds offensive.
In every one of those cases the courts made decisions based upon the Constitution that allowed Americans to 'enjoy' our rights even though 'the people' voted otherwise.
Equal protection says a state cannot withhold the right ANY American enjoys - just because they happen to be in the wrong state for an arbitrary reason.
A man not getting maternity leave .... is that an arbitrary reason?
By that logic you can't deny marriage to anyone, be it by age, blood ties, or number of people. Equal protection only applies to equal situations. Marriages between men and women are equal regardless of race, because race is not a factor in a marriage biologically.
IF people in a State want to extend the marriage contract to same sex couples or polygamous groups, I have no issue. My issue is with using courts to force it on them using the concept that constitutionally same sex= opposite sex.
The slippery slope fallacy rears its ugly head. Minors are not allowed to enter into contracts. There is no stipulation for "equal situations." Otherwise, one could say that poor people can't get married and only wealthy can. Blacks can't get married and only whites can. Equal protection applies to everyone. Arbitrary distinctions to declare inequality of the situation have no place in law.
The courts are there to interpret law and the Constitution. That's their job. Your issue is really in the system the founders set up. I'm personally agree with Rand Paul on this. When governments “do wrong we should overturn them,” Paul said. “There is a role for the Supreme Court to mete out justice.”
Actually minors can, with the permission of their parents, or above a certain age depending on the state. Hence the difference in ages for with parental consent and without for a marriage license. If minors can't enter into a contract, how can they go to school?
And yes, equal protection has it limits. something has to be equal first to warrant it.
Finally, my issue is that the courts currently make law, not decisions. And when they make this law they are breaking the system itself.
Okay, under very specific circumstance some minors can enter into a contract. The nit has been picked.
Everything has a limit, but the only thing required to be equal here is the protection provided by the law.
There have been instances where courts have made law, but this is not one of them. This is them ruling on whether a law is constitutional.
Which is making law, because the constitution gives this responsibility to the State Legislators.
No, it's ruling on existing law not creating new law.
False. That's an unreasonable expectation. I'm involved in 10s of weddings each year as a vendor and rarely have seen the bakery present at the wedding reception. They may deliver it if it is complex (for an extra charge), but the vast majority of the time the cake is picked up at the bakery by someone with the wedding.You don't know the difference between a product and a service?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?
Considering both are being sued, the point is moot. And if I am buying a cake for a few hundred dollars that person better be there when it is set up.
Um homosexual marriage is not in the constitution. So wtf are you talking now?the relevance? its very relevant because we currently have a minority view that is being forced on the majority by government dictate rather than the will of the people.
if a majority, or super majority, of americans want gay marriage, then so be it. All I want is for the people to be heard-----------------all of the people, not just those on one side.
You were saying?
approval of interracial marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage.
Good thing for you that we don't elect by polls, otherwise Romney would be president and obozo would be working with Sharpton to stir up racial unrest-------------oh wait, he is doing that.
You're contradicting yourself. Either you think the majority should rule in all things or you don't.
Discrimination based on animus is discrimination based on animus.
no contradiction here, the majority vote should prevail in all issues. otherwise we have either a dictatorship or anarchy.
We are not a Democracy- we are a Constitutional republic.
IF the majority passes a Constitutional amendment to specifically forbid same gender marriage- then no court can overturn that 'majority' decision- but short of that- the courts are required to uphold the Constitution.
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.
Except PA laws have been found Constitutional.
So was Citizens United, I guess we can never ever go back on that.
So was plessey v. Furegeson, I wonder if that decision is still in effect....
Being found constitutional does not make it actually constitutional.
Oh? Who makes that call then? Tell us more.
The Court does, but as shown in Plessey V Fergueson, the court can be wrong.
Um homosexual marriage is not in the constitution. So wtf are you talking now?
You were saying?
approval of interracial marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage.
Good thing for you that we don't elect by polls, otherwise Romney would be president and obozo would be working with Sharpton to stir up racial unrest-------------oh wait, he is doing that.
You're contradicting yourself. Either you think the majority should rule in all things or you don't.
Discrimination based on animus is discrimination based on animus.
no contradiction here, the majority vote should prevail in all issues. otherwise we have either a dictatorship or anarchy.
We are not a Democracy- we are a Constitutional republic.
IF the majority passes a Constitutional amendment to specifically forbid same gender marriage- then no court can overturn that 'majority' decision- but short of that- the courts are required to uphold the Constitution.
False. That's an unreasonable expectation. I'm involved in 10s of weddings each year as a vendor and rarely have seen the bakery present at the wedding reception. They may deliver it if it is complex (for an extra charge), but the vast majority of the time the cake is picked up at the bakery by someone with the wedding.You don't know the difference between a product and a service?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?
Considering both are being sued, the point is moot. And if I am buying a cake for a few hundred dollars that person better be there when it is set up.
1. Some companies DO provide maternity leave for fathers.By that logic you can't deny marriage to anyone, be it by age, blood ties, or number of people. Equal protection only applies to equal situations. Marriages between men and women are equal regardless of race, because race is not a factor in a marriage biologically.
IF people in a State want to extend the marriage contract to same sex couples or polygamous groups, I have no issue. My issue is with using courts to force it on them using the concept that constitutionally same sex= opposite sex.
The slippery slope fallacy rears its ugly head. Minors are not allowed to enter into contracts. There is no stipulation for "equal situations." Otherwise, one could say that poor people can't get married and only wealthy can. Blacks can't get married and only whites can. Equal protection applies to everyone. Arbitrary distinctions to declare inequality of the situation have no place in law.
The courts are there to interpret law and the Constitution. That's their job. Your issue is really in the system the founders set up. I'm personally agree with Rand Paul on this. When governments “do wrong we should overturn them,” Paul said. “There is a role for the Supreme Court to mete out justice.”
I agree with a lot of this post.
Equal protection applies to everyone.
Then why shouldn't I be allowed maternity leave? Or why should veterans get benefits from the government I do not? Or why shouldn't I get medicare when I am under 65? Or why can't I get a driver's license at 14 if I can meet all the other legal requirements?
Why can't you get maternity leave? Veteran's benefits are part of contract they signed. Sign the same contract and you'll get them, too. Medicare is for elderly people, but just wait a bit and we'll all be getting the same health benefits. Society has decided that a 14 year old is not mature enough to drive a vehicle. A driver's license isn't the same thing as hospital visitation rights either.
1. Because I am a guy. If equal protection was absolute, it would not matter.
2. What about people the military rejects? If Equal protection is absolute, that would be a violation, as that person does not have equal access.
3. Again, what does age have to do with equality if it is absolute?
4. Same thing.
Equal protection says a state cannot withhold the right ANY American enjoys - just because they happen to be in the wrong state for an arbitrary reason.
A man not getting maternity leave .... is that an arbitrary reason?
By that logic you can't deny marriage to anyone, be it by age, blood ties, or number of people. Equal protection only applies to equal situations. Marriages between men and women are equal regardless of race, because race is not a factor in a marriage biologically.
IF people in a State want to extend the marriage contract to same sex couples or polygamous groups, I have no issue. My issue is with using courts to force it on them using the concept that constitutionally same sex= opposite sex.
The slippery slope fallacy rears its ugly head. Minors are not allowed to enter into contracts. There is no stipulation for "equal situations." Otherwise, one could say that poor people can't get married and only wealthy can. Blacks can't get married and only whites can. Equal protection applies to everyone. Arbitrary distinctions to declare inequality of the situation have no place in law.
The courts are there to interpret law and the Constitution. That's their job. Your issue is really in the system the founders set up. I'm personally agree with Rand Paul on this. When governments “do wrong we should overturn them,” Paul said. “There is a role for the Supreme Court to mete out justice.”
I agree with a lot of this post.
Equal protection applies to everyone.
Then why shouldn't I be allowed maternity leave? Or why should veterans get benefits from the government I do not? Or why shouldn't I get medicare when I am under 65? Or why can't I get a driver's license at 14 if I can meet all the other legal requirements?
Why can't you get maternity leave? Veteran's benefits are part of contract they signed. Sign the same contract and you'll get them, too. Medicare is for elderly people, but just wait a bit and we'll all be getting the same health benefits. Society has decided that a 14 year old is not mature enough to drive a vehicle. A driver's license isn't the same thing as hospital visitation rights either.
1. Because I am a guy. If equal protection was absolute, it would not matter.
2. What about people the military rejects? If Equal protection is absolute, that would be a violation, as that person does not have equal access.
3. Again, what does age have to do with equality if it is absolute?
4. Same thing.
The only thing your side does consistently is shit on the constitution when it suits you.
Except PA laws have been found Constitutional.
So was Citizens United, I guess we can never ever go back on that.
So was plessey v. Furegeson, I wonder if that decision is still in effect....
Being found constitutional does not make it actually constitutional.
Oh? Who makes that call then? Tell us more.
The Court does, but as shown in Plessey V Fergueson, the court can be wrong.
The Court can make horrible decisions- but they are by definition Constitutional.
The Supreme Court is far from perfect- but we will never agree on interpretations of the Constitution. People on both sides love to say that the wording for this or that is very clear- but Congress- and States regularly pass laws that groups and individuals think are unconstitutional.
Absent courts review, there would be no recourse for abuses by legislatures- from gun laws to contraceptive laws.
Equal protection says a state cannot withhold the right ANY American enjoys - just because they happen to be in the wrong state for an arbitrary reason.
A man not getting maternity leave .... is that an arbitrary reason?
Is maternity leave a right?
If there is a legal contract to show up, he/she better.False. That's an unreasonable expectation. I'm involved in 10s of weddings each year as a vendor and rarely have seen the bakery present at the wedding reception. They may deliver it if it is complex (for an extra charge), but the vast majority of the time the cake is picked up at the bakery by someone with the wedding.You don't know the difference between a product and a service?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?
Considering both are being sued, the point is moot. And if I am buying a cake for a few hundred dollars that person better be there when it is set up.
Fine, I assume you agree the photographer has to be there.
Equal protection says a state cannot withhold the right ANY American enjoys - just because they happen to be in the wrong state for an arbitrary reason.
A man not getting maternity leave .... is that an arbitrary reason?
Is maternity leave a right?
If there is a legal contract to show up, he/she better.False. That's an unreasonable expectation. I'm involved in 10s of weddings each year as a vendor and rarely have seen the bakery present at the wedding reception. They may deliver it if it is complex (for an extra charge), but the vast majority of the time the cake is picked up at the bakery by someone with the wedding.You don't know the difference between a product and a service?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?
Considering both are being sued, the point is moot. And if I am buying a cake for a few hundred dollars that person better be there when it is set up.
Fine, I assume you agree the photographer has to be there.
Equal protection says a state cannot withhold the right ANY American enjoys - just because they happen to be in the wrong state for an arbitrary reason.
A man not getting maternity leave .... is that an arbitrary reason?
Is maternity leave a right?
