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

[bodecea]

They have been accepted on the SCOTUS docket. Look them up yourself, boy.

That isnt a law banning them from fucking other consenting adults. Man up or shut the fuck up

We're talking about marriage, ya dumb fuck.

First there is nolaw banning marrige just the legality of government recognizing it. Second dummy you didnt say marrige you specifically said sleep with

No dumb ass, the issue is the few states that passed laws banning gay marriage.
No, I didn't say "sleep with" ya liar.

No one has banned homosexuals from marrying liar

That's now true in most states.....soon to be all states.

 

[martybegan]

Again with the propensity of Progressives to defer to un-elected lawyers.

That's a brain-dead response from someone who claims to value the Constitution.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

Stop being a fucking vindictive lemming.

 

[thanatos144]

Fakie please go fuck off. Not only do i know what it is you lyig piece of trash i have posted several times where it came from and why it is a progressive tool like you.

I agree that you do not seem to know what Fascism is.....extreme right wing nationalism/militarism.

Listen carefully petey fascism is socialist like Nazism is thus it is a progressive tool. To bad you stupidly throw in with people like them who would jail or kill you if they had the power for nothing more then being a hairy homosexual

Think you are to stupid to have a statement on the mattet

LOL....your post is so wonderfully ironic......meanwhile- every time you mention 'fascism'

Your problem is you are to fucking ignorant of history to understand why you know Jack shit about fascism. You dummies dont even know what the latin even means

 

[martybegan]

So Equal protection is absolute then?

And when it does not exist in the constitution there is a remedy, convince your State legislators that what you want is a good thing.

Again, nothing is absolute. We allow straight couples to enter into a contract with each other and passed laws related to that contract. If we allow gay couples to enter into the same contract with each other then those protections will logically apply to them as well. Under what constitutional basis do you have to deny them that protection by not allowing them to enter into a contract with each other?

The Air Force is state-based?

Under what constitutional basis do you have the ability to force states to recognize they are equal? The constitution is silent on the issue.

Why are you bringing the air force into this? That being said a lot of states do indeed have Air National Guards, as allowed to under the 2nd amendment allowing states militias.

"Equal protection of the laws" is my basis and that is from the Constitution. Now I've answered your question again, but you still haven't answered mine.

Because your argument was that it doesn't exist in the Constitution. Neither does the Air Force....and many other things that we still allow through rational interpretation of the document.

The air force was created as part of the Army in the Signal Corps in 1914. It was only separated via "treaty" with the Executive Branch due to the role of nuclear power projection in 1947.

The Air force has a clear line of creation going back to the army, and the formation of an army is a task left to the federal government.

In no place in the document is any federal mandate to define the marriage contract, nor is there any explicit right to marry who you choose.

The key is "rational." What is happening now is not interpretation, it is creating things out of thin air.

Oh the Air Force is created out of thin air. The Constitution does not provide for the establishment of an Air Force- but we have one anyway.

Meanwhile- the right to marry has been confirmed over and over.

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

I gave you a valid and rational pathway for the Air Force to be created from the Army and mandated by the constitution. YOU ignore it because it doesn't fit your narrative, and you are a slimy prog hack.

You keep referencing nothing but court cases, not the actual document. You rely on the flawed comparison of race to sexual orientation.

 

[thanatos144]

That isnt a law banning them from fucking other consenting adults. Man up or shut the fuck up

We're talking about marriage, ya dumb fuck.

First there is nolaw banning marrige just the legality of government recognizing it. Second dummy you didnt say marrige you specifically said sleep with

No dumb ass, the issue is the few states that passed laws banning gay marriage.
No, I didn't say "sleep with" ya liar.

No one has banned homosexuals from marrying liar

That's now true in most states.....soon to be all states.

Bullshit. Who has been arrested for it?

 

[bodecea]

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.

It is correct until the Court overrules itself like it did in Brown v. Board of Ed.....but that was ONLY done after the lawyers for Brown put forth irrefutable evidence that Separate was NOT Equal.

 

[Ubiquitor]

Equal protection under the law is a right that exists in the document. What limitations need to be placed on it is subject to interpretation.
Again, the argument that if it doesn't exist explicitly in the Constitution then it is not a right leaves us without a lot of things we have right now.

So Equal protection is absolute then?

And when it does not exist in the constitution there is a remedy, convince your State legislators that what you want is a good thing.

Again, nothing is absolute. We allow straight couples to enter into a contract with each other and passed laws related to that contract. If we allow gay couples to enter into the same contract with each other then those protections will logically apply to them as well. Under what constitutional basis do you have to deny them that protection by not allowing them to enter into a contract with each other?

The Air Force is state-based?

Under what constitutional basis do you have the ability to force states to recognize they are equal? The constitution is silent on the issue.

Why are you bringing the air force into this? That being said a lot of states do indeed have Air National Guards, as allowed to under the 2nd amendment allowing states militias.

"Equal protection of the laws" is my basis and that is from the Constitution. Now I've answered your question again, but you still haven't answered mine.

Because your argument was that it doesn't exist in the Constitution. Neither does the Air Force....and many other things that we still allow through rational interpretation of the document.

The air force was created as part of the Army in the Signal Corps in 1914. It was only separated via "treaty" with the Executive Branch due to the role of nuclear power projection in 1947.

The Air force has a clear line of creation going back to the army, and the formation of an army is a task left to the federal government.

In no place in the document is any federal mandate to define the marriage contract, nor is there any explicit right to marry who you choose.

The key is "rational." What is happening now is not interpretation, it is creating things out of thin air.

So just as the Air Force has "a clear line of creation going back to the Army" gay marriage has one from heterosexual marriage.

There is nothing irrational about allowing homosexuals to enter into a contract exactly as heterosexuals do.

 

[bodecea]

We're talking about marriage, ya dumb fuck.

First there is nolaw banning marrige just the legality of government recognizing it. Second dummy you didnt say marrige you specifically said sleep with

No dumb ass, the issue is the few states that passed laws banning gay marriage.
No, I didn't say "sleep with" ya liar.

No one has banned homosexuals from marrying liar

That's now true in most states.....soon to be all states.

Bullshit. Who has been arrested for it?

It's not bullshit.....it's now true in most states...soon to be all states.

 

[bodecea]

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.

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.

Or they just have to advertise they only cater to a certain clientele.

Ok, put that sign up.

 

[Ubiquitor]

Again, nothing is absolute. We allow straight couples to enter into a contract with each other and passed laws related to that contract. If we allow gay couples to enter into the same contract with each other then those protections will logically apply to them as well. Under what constitutional basis do you have to deny them that protection by not allowing them to enter into a contract with each other?

The Air Force is state-based?

Under what constitutional basis do you have the ability to force states to recognize they are equal? The constitution is silent on the issue.

Why are you bringing the air force into this? That being said a lot of states do indeed have Air National Guards, as allowed to under the 2nd amendment allowing states militias.

"Equal protection of the laws" is my basis and that is from the Constitution. Now I've answered your question again, but you still haven't answered mine.

Because your argument was that it doesn't exist in the Constitution. Neither does the Air Force....and many other things that we still allow through rational interpretation of the document.

The air force was created as part of the Army in the Signal Corps in 1914. It was only separated via "treaty" with the Executive Branch due to the role of nuclear power projection in 1947.

The Air force has a clear line of creation going back to the army, and the formation of an army is a task left to the federal government.

In no place in the document is any federal mandate to define the marriage contract, nor is there any explicit right to marry who you choose.

The key is "rational." What is happening now is not interpretation, it is creating things out of thin air.

Oh the Air Force is created out of thin air. The Constitution does not provide for the establishment of an Air Force- but we have one anyway.

Meanwhile- the right to marry has been confirmed over and over.

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

I gave you a valid and rational pathway for the Air Force to be created from the Army and mandated by the constitution. YOU ignore it because it doesn't fit your narrative, and you are a slimy prog hack.

You keep referencing nothing but court cases, not the actual document. You rely on the flawed comparison of race to sexual orientation.

What exactly is flawed about comparing sexuality and race?

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

Fine, I assume you agree the photographer has to be there.

The photographer is providing a service, not a product. He can only be in one place at a time, so he is either available or he isn't. Now, whether he lies about his availability on that date is a different matter from what we are discussing.

That's different from a bakery which does not bake cakes in real time. Or a Tux rental place, who doesn't manufacture tux' on demand, and does not only have one tux to rent.

So the photographer should be allowed to say "no thanks" to a gay wedding without an issue?

Legally, just because it's a Gay wedding? No.

But in order to convict you would have to prove in court that he actually wasn't previously engaged to be somewhere else - and that doesn't have to even be in a professional capacity. He could have been on vacation, or made plans to attend his kid's baseball game. Or he could have just decided that he wasn't going to do any work on that Saturday.

Like I said, it's the difference between a service and a product that you sell to the public.

So instead of just saying a person can withhold a non-necessary service, we make them lie. Why not just allow them "choice"

Saying "I'm not available" is not necessarily a lie. You would have to prove that it is, and that cannot be proven.

Not the same as a baker who says "I'm not baking".

 

[bodecea]

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.

What the fuck are you smoking? Almost none of that is right.

They are ALL correct, all decided thru court cases..NONE of them mentioned specifically in the Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

The problem is any court that is allowed such a wide breadth to create new rights can just as easily take away existing ones. The court has gone from narrowly interpreting the constitution to tailor it to changes in the times to basically making whole new things up, and saying the document "says it" when it does not.

When has the Court TAKEN AWAY rights?

NY courts have upheld NYC's unconstitutional gun laws. .

Clearly they are not unconstitutional then.

I understand that you consider them to be so- but your opinion is a personal opinion that really has no legal weight.

The courts upheld the laws, and that was upheld all the way to the Supreme Court- which could have- but did not- reverse them.

So yes the laws are Constitutional.

Again with the propensity of Progressives to defer to un-elected lawyers. So because 5 of 9 robed idiots say something is "the truth" we are just supposed to meekly submit to it?

You are a fucking lemming.

Again with the propensity of Right wing nutjobs to believe that their opinions are more important than our Constitution and laws.

 

[Synthaholic]

Again with the propensity of Progressives to defer to un-elected lawyers.

That's a brain-dead response from someone who claims to value the Constitution.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

Stop being a fucking vindictive lemming.

How am I being a lemming by pointing out that you are a hypocrite when you claim to want to follow the Constitution?

The Constitution proscribes the "unelected judges", does it not?

 

[thanatos144]

First there is nolaw banning marrige just the legality of government recognizing it. Second dummy you didnt say marrige you specifically said sleep with

No dumb ass, the issue is the few states that passed laws banning gay marriage.
No, I didn't say "sleep with" ya liar.

No one has banned homosexuals from marrying liar

That's now true in most states.....soon to be all states.

Bullshit. Who has been arrested for it?

It's not bullshit.....it's now true in most states...soon to be all states.

Who has been arrested for it ,Chewbacca?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

What I get is that you disagree with discrimination based on race but are fine with discrimination based on gender. The SCOTUS had to go against the "will of the people" when they ruled on Loving. You're fine with that.

Overturning unconstitutional laws is the role of the judiciary. It's very constitutional.

 

[thanatos144]

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.

What the fuck are you smoking? Almost none of that is right.

They are ALL correct, all decided thru court cases..NONE of them mentioned specifically in the Constitution.

You do know the court is not the constitution right? You do know they can be overturned by congress ?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Nope, but that's not what I was talking about.

Having to go to another baker is sometimes in violation of local PA laws. States rights and all...

 

[martybegan]

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.

It is correct until the Court overrules itself like it did in Brown v. Board of Ed.....but that was ONLY done after the lawyers for Brown put forth irrefutable evidence that Separate was NOT Equal.

No, it is NOT correct, it was still wrong both legally and morally. That it was allowed to happen and stand was a travesty. But it was allowed to happen because people WANTED it to happen, just like what we are seeing now. Desire is trumping logic.

 

[bodecea]

Thanatos has no idea what is fascism.

Fakie please go fuck off. Not only do i know what it is you lyig piece of trash i have posted several times where it came from and why it is a progressive tool like you.

I agree that you do not seem to know what Fascism is.....extreme right wing nationalism/militarism.

Listen carefully petey fascism is socialist like Nazism is thus it is a progressive tool. To bad you stupidly throw in with people like them who would jail or kill you if they had the power for nothing more then being a hairy homosexual

Nazism was (is) Fascism....extreme right wing nationalism/militarism. And it seems you can only resort to personal attacks due to the collapse of any factual argument on your part.