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.
Legally they are. So you don't have the RIGHT to keep us from the same legal rights you have.Because they are not the same, no matter how much ones wants them to be.
Why do you have the RIGHT to force people to accept them as equal?
So your rights trump the rights of others because why?
People don't have to accept anything they don't want to. The law, however, is supposed to equally protect us all. Currently, it does not do that. Allowing a gay couple to get married and enjoy the legal benefits of being married has no impact on your rights.
Explain that to the Bakers and Photographers that are being prosecuted for not agreeing to work a gay wedding.
This is a completely different subject, but I'll go with it. When someone starts a business they have decided to service the public. Not just the portion of the public they have something in common with or the portion they like. For a baker to refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding is just hateful. The baker doesn't have to participate in the wedding at all. However, the photographer has to attend the wedding and actually take part in it so I agree with the photographer.
Would you side with the business owners in a small town that got together and decided they would not provide their product of service to anyone who was not Islamic? How would any non-Muslim get their groceries, car serviced, cable, telephone, heat if they were on propane, hot water, etc.? Woud you tell that person that they will just have to sell their home and find someplace else to live? You see discrimination is not something to be supported, but it appears you've may have chosen to support it anyways. Have you?
Uhmm, listen nimrod, can I call you nimrod? Not only is it in the document, I quoted the document. Not only does the portion I cited have bearing, it is also well understood that the bill of rights are not really a listing of rights but rather a listing of restrictive clauses that apply to the federal government to restrict the power of the federal government.No sir. First off that's not even close to what I said.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.
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.
I know it's hard to believe that you don't know everything about such an important document, but there it is nonetheless.
I'm not a statist. Not by any measure.
Do you have a right to keep and bear arms? Yes. That is a natural right. That natural right can't be taken from you by the federal government, per the 2nd amendment. However, each individual state, and cities, and private owners can restrict this right within their jurisdiction.
Do I like that states can do this? No. But that's why we have a republic. Do I like that individual can restrict it within their property? Yes within reason.
The 2nd amendment, unlike the first, does not specifically list congress as being unable to impact what is in the amendment. It gives the people the right, a right they have as US citizens. As the Federal Constitution has supremacy, it overrides any State law or constitutional statute that says contrary.
The 1st and and 4th at a minimum have been incorporated via the 14th amendment, and slowly the 2nd is as well. If not, how are decisions such as Heller and McDonald even possible?
Apology for the long answer.
No. You are upside down again. Federal laws override state laws. All restrictions on federal lawmakers do not apply necessarily to restrictions on state lawmakers. Try to keep up. The restrictions that do apply are explicitly listed. A restriction on lawmakers making certain types of laws is not the same as a certain type of law.
Unless an amendment restricting the power of the federal government specifically mentions states it does not apply as a restriction to the states. This is why it has ALWAYS BEEN THE PERVUE OF THE STATES TO DO WRITE LAWS RESTRICTING GUN OWNERSHIP. You are implying that the thousands of laws in the various states that currently restrict gun ownership are all unconstitutional and the states have been just getting away with it for hundreds of years. After the 14th due process clause, this may be true but it has not gone to the court yet.
This is the essentially the same problem you had the other day when you could not tell the difference between stopping someone from harming others and harming others. Not sure why you think these are the same thing.
WRT to incorporation by the 14th. The 14th explicitly states that the states also can not restrict life, liberty, or property without due process. But this clause is somewhat vague in the minds of the court. Thus, through incorporation of various elements of the prior amendments the court has pontificated/specified what life, liberty, and property means with respect to the restrictions on the federal government for restricting same.
For example, your religious choices are a part of life and liberty... so the states can't make any laws respecting establishment of or prohibiting religion. There ya go.
On the issue of property.. one could argue a gun is property. Thus in theory, the scotus could in fact incorporate property through the 2nd amendment as a type of property that the states are not allowed to restrict, "AT ALL," or at least not without due process. But as far as I know no state has been dumb enough, yet, to prosecute someone without due process for not adhering to their restrictions on said property (guns). Thus no harm no foul, and the SCOTUS won't listen to the case till harm by a state is established by the lower courts.
For example, if the guy's a criminal, not letting a known criminal have a gun.. due process. However if you are not insane, you are a good standing citizen, you know how to use a gun, well then they don't have an excuse to say due process then do they? Thus NYC takes your gun cause that's the law, then apologizes and gives it back, so you can't claim harm to the SCOTUS.
Legally they are. So you don't have the RIGHT to keep us from the same legal rights you have.Because they are not the same, no matter how much ones wants them to be.
Why do you have the RIGHT to force people to accept them as equal?
So your rights trump the rights of others because why?
People don't have to accept anything they don't want to. The law, however, is supposed to equally protect us all. Currently, it does not do that. Allowing a gay couple to get married and enjoy the legal benefits of being married has no impact on your rights.
Explain that to the Bakers and Photographers that are being prosecuted for not agreeing to work a gay wedding.
Explain why they are subject to the same law as applies to ever other business owner in their state?
Do you think it is right to force a devout Christian Photographer to either work a gay wedding or face fines/go out of business?
Again, your beef is with PA laws.Legally they are. So you don't have the RIGHT to keep us from the same legal rights you have.
Why do you have the RIGHT to force people to accept them as equal?
So your rights trump the rights of others because why?
People don't have to accept anything they don't want to. The law, however, is supposed to equally protect us all. Currently, it does not do that. Allowing a gay couple to get married and enjoy the legal benefits of being married has no impact on your rights.
Explain that to the Bakers and Photographers that are being prosecuted for not agreeing to work a gay wedding.
Explain why they are subject to the same law as applies to ever other business owner in their state?
Being subject to, and the law being right are two different things.
Do you think it is right to force a devout Christian Photographer to either work a gay wedding or face fines/go out of business?
Of course there is. There was no precedent or historical backing for the Air Force in any form either and yet we have one that is not state-based.
I see. So you have no actual argument against state marriage, it's just that you don't want the SCOTUS to rule on the constitutionality of legislating a ban on it at the state level. Like I said a while ago, that is the system our founders set up so your issue really is with the system.
Army leads to air force. There is a clear trail between the two. You can even show each type of aircraft has an army precedent.
Bombers-Artillery
Fighters-Cavalry
Cargo Aircraft-Transports
Missiles-Artillery
AWACS- Scouting/Signals
My issue is not with the system as set up, it is with the current ignorance of the system by the very people running it an using it. They are bastardizing it to get what they want, and people like you let them because you agree with the end result.
Heterosexual marriage leads to homosexual marriage. The "trail" is just as clear.
The courts are ruling on challenges of constitutionality exactly as it was designed to do. I see this is going to become personal now. That's a shame. I support it because it's exactly how it's supposed to function. I only hope that we get the right interpretation unlike what we got regarding the ACA. However, this is not about me.
You are just making crap up because you "want" the end result. There is ZERO precedence in history for same sex marriages, and condoned relationships in antiquity were not solemnized legally.
They are trying to create something new that did not exist in any shape or form.
This has nothing to do with me or what I want. I haven't expressed what I want so you are speaking from a position of ignorance apparently to deflect from the point. Marriage has not always existed. Since its inception it has been changing to be more inclusive. The next logical step is to include homosexuals.
You want Gay marriage equal to straight marriage in a legal context. That much is obvious. What I want is the proper processed to be used to get there, Changes made by each State Legislature, not using the courts to force the issue on tenuous legal ground.
Do you think it is right to force a devout Christian Photographer to either work a gay wedding or face fines/go out of business?
Personally? No.
But then I don't think it is right to force a gay shop owner to either work a devout Christian Photographer wedding or face fines/go out of business?
But then I don't think it is right to force a Muslim shop owner to either work a Jewish wedding or face fines/go out of business?
But then I don't think it is right to force a racist shop owner to either work a black wedding or face fines/go out of business?
But then I don't think it is right to force a devout Jewish owner to either work an interfaith wedding or face fines/go out of business?
But then I don't think it is right to force a devout Catholic owner to either work a wedding for a divorcee or face fines/go out of business?
But there is a difference in discussing how the real world works and what should be.
>>>>
Again, your beef is with PA laws.Why do you have the RIGHT to force people to accept them as equal?
So your rights trump the rights of others because why?
People don't have to accept anything they don't want to. The law, however, is supposed to equally protect us all. Currently, it does not do that. Allowing a gay couple to get married and enjoy the legal benefits of being married has no impact on your rights.
Explain that to the Bakers and Photographers that are being prosecuted for not agreeing to work a gay wedding.
Explain why they are subject to the same law as applies to ever other business owner in their state?
Being subject to, and the law being right are two different things.
Do you think it is right to force a devout Christian Photographer to either work a gay wedding or face fines/go out of business?
Army leads to air force. There is a clear trail between the two. You can even show each type of aircraft has an army precedent.
Bombers-Artillery
Fighters-Cavalry
Cargo Aircraft-Transports
Missiles-Artillery
AWACS- Scouting/Signals
My issue is not with the system as set up, it is with the current ignorance of the system by the very people running it an using it. They are bastardizing it to get what they want, and people like you let them because you agree with the end result.
Heterosexual marriage leads to homosexual marriage. The "trail" is just as clear.
The courts are ruling on challenges of constitutionality exactly as it was designed to do. I see this is going to become personal now. That's a shame. I support it because it's exactly how it's supposed to function. I only hope that we get the right interpretation unlike what we got regarding the ACA. However, this is not about me.
You are just making crap up because you "want" the end result. There is ZERO precedence in history for same sex marriages, and condoned relationships in antiquity were not solemnized legally.
They are trying to create something new that did not exist in any shape or form.
This has nothing to do with me or what I want. I haven't expressed what I want so you are speaking from a position of ignorance apparently to deflect from the point. Marriage has not always existed. Since its inception it has been changing to be more inclusive. The next logical step is to include homosexuals.
You want Gay marriage equal to straight marriage in a legal context. That much is obvious. What I want is the proper processed to be used to get there, Changes made by each State Legislature, not using the courts to force the issue on tenuous legal ground.
The courts striking down laws that violate the equal protection clause is the proper route and how our system was designed to work. Again, it's not about me and you have no idea what I want. Let's try sticking to the issue.
Fine, do you want gay marriage to be legally equal to straight marriage?
Heterosexual marriage leads to homosexual marriage. The "trail" is just as clear.
The courts are ruling on challenges of constitutionality exactly as it was designed to do. I see this is going to become personal now. That's a shame. I support it because it's exactly how it's supposed to function. I only hope that we get the right interpretation unlike what we got regarding the ACA. However, this is not about me.
You are just making crap up because you "want" the end result. There is ZERO precedence in history for same sex marriages, and condoned relationships in antiquity were not solemnized legally.
They are trying to create something new that did not exist in any shape or form.
This has nothing to do with me or what I want. I haven't expressed what I want so you are speaking from a position of ignorance apparently to deflect from the point. Marriage has not always existed. Since its inception it has been changing to be more inclusive. The next logical step is to include homosexuals.
You want Gay marriage equal to straight marriage in a legal context. That much is obvious. What I want is the proper processed to be used to get there, Changes made by each State Legislature, not using the courts to force the issue on tenuous legal ground.
The courts striking down laws that violate the equal protection clause is the proper route and how our system was designed to work. Again, it's not about me and you have no idea what I want. Let's try sticking to the issue.
Fine, do you want gay marriage to be legally equal to straight marriage?
You want a act to be treated as a condition?You are just making crap up because you "want" the end result. There is ZERO precedence in history for same sex marriages, and condoned relationships in antiquity were not solemnized legally.
They are trying to create something new that did not exist in any shape or form.
This has nothing to do with me or what I want. I haven't expressed what I want so you are speaking from a position of ignorance apparently to deflect from the point. Marriage has not always existed. Since its inception it has been changing to be more inclusive. The next logical step is to include homosexuals.
You want Gay marriage equal to straight marriage in a legal context. That much is obvious. What I want is the proper processed to be used to get there, Changes made by each State Legislature, not using the courts to force the issue on tenuous legal ground.
The courts striking down laws that violate the equal protection clause is the proper route and how our system was designed to work. Again, it's not about me and you have no idea what I want. Let's try sticking to the issue.
Fine, do you want gay marriage to be legally equal to straight marriage?
Again, what I want is irrelevant. The issue is should the equal protection clause apply to homosexuals or not. I've seen no valid argument against it.
Hey dummy i didnt say so the constitution says so. You know the document you are shitting on?I dont need to prove you wrong the constitution does that alreadyPlease go take a civics classYou are clueless
The courts interpret the Constitution- and can overturn laws created by Congress.
Congress cannot overturn a decision by the Supreme Court- but it can pass legislation to attempt to re-write a law to make it pass Constitutional muster with the Supreme Court.
The only way to overturn a Supreme Court decision is with either a subsequent SOTC decision or a Constitutional Amendment
Please feel free to prove me wrong.
Show me an example of Congress passing a law- that actually and specifically over-rides a Supreme Court decision- rather than just re-wording the law to make it able to pass Supreme Court review.
Your inability to provide anything more compelling than "Because I said so" is noted.
You want a act to be treated as a condition?This has nothing to do with me or what I want. I haven't expressed what I want so you are speaking from a position of ignorance apparently to deflect from the point. Marriage has not always existed. Since its inception it has been changing to be more inclusive. The next logical step is to include homosexuals.
You want Gay marriage equal to straight marriage in a legal context. That much is obvious. What I want is the proper processed to be used to get there, Changes made by each State Legislature, not using the courts to force the issue on tenuous legal ground.
The courts striking down laws that violate the equal protection clause is the proper route and how our system was designed to work. Again, it's not about me and you have no idea what I want. Let's try sticking to the issue.
Fine, do you want gay marriage to be legally equal to straight marriage?
Again, what I want is irrelevant. The issue is should the equal protection clause apply to homosexuals or not. I've seen no valid argument against it.
It isnt a long document. Why dont you read it and learn what you seem to hateHey dummy i didnt say so the constitution says so. You know the document you are shitting on?I dont need to prove you wrong the constitution does that alreadyPlease go take a civics class
Please feel free to prove me wrong.
Show me an example of Congress passing a law- that actually and specifically over-rides a Supreme Court decision- rather than just re-wording the law to make it able to pass Supreme Court review.
Your inability to provide anything more compelling than "Because I said so" is noted.
Your inability to provide anything more compelling than "Because I said the Constitution says so" and not you know- actually anything from the Constitution- is noted again.
You have because homosexuality is a act not a condition.You want a act to be treated as a condition?You want Gay marriage equal to straight marriage in a legal context. That much is obvious. What I want is the proper processed to be used to get there, Changes made by each State Legislature, not using the courts to force the issue on tenuous legal ground.
The courts striking down laws that violate the equal protection clause is the proper route and how our system was designed to work. Again, it's not about me and you have no idea what I want. Let's try sticking to the issue.
Fine, do you want gay marriage to be legally equal to straight marriage?
Again, what I want is irrelevant. The issue is should the equal protection clause apply to homosexuals or not. I've seen no valid argument against it.
I haven't expressed what I want at all.
Again, your beef is with PA laws. That is not the topic of this thread, no matter how much you want it to be.Again, your beef is with PA laws.People don't have to accept anything they don't want to. The law, however, is supposed to equally protect us all. Currently, it does not do that. Allowing a gay couple to get married and enjoy the legal benefits of being married has no impact on your rights.
Explain that to the Bakers and Photographers that are being prosecuted for not agreeing to work a gay wedding.
Explain why they are subject to the same law as applies to ever other business owner in their state?
Being subject to, and the law being right are two different things.
Do you think it is right to force a devout Christian Photographer to either work a gay wedding or face fines/go out of business?
Answer the question. Do you think it is right to force a devout Christian Photographer to either work a gay wedding or face fines/go out of business?
Yes or no will suffice. you can explain after.
Nope. It doesnt since the law is applied equally no matter race or religon or sexHowever, that is the EXACT 14th amendment sticking point. Surely you see that. If the government offers 1000 + benefits and protections to group A of law-abiding citizens....how can the government NOT afford the SAME 1000+ benefits and protections to group B of law-abiding citizens? At least without some valid, convincing reason why Group A gets something that Group B does not.Not being recognized by some government doesnt mean illegalSo...gay marriages are legal with all the rights and privileges of straight marriages.Bullshit. Who has been arrested for it?That's now true in most states.....soon to be all states......Ok then (of course that is now true in most states.....how about that?)
A legal act, let me remind you.You have because homosexuality is a act not a condition.You want a act to be treated as a condition?The courts striking down laws that violate the equal protection clause is the proper route and how our system was designed to work. Again, it's not about me and you have no idea what I want. Let's try sticking to the issue.
Fine, do you want gay marriage to be legally equal to straight marriage?
Again, what I want is irrelevant. The issue is should the equal protection clause apply to homosexuals or not. I've seen no valid argument against it.
I haven't expressed what I want at all.
You have because homosexuality is a act not a condition.You want a act to be treated as a condition?The courts striking down laws that violate the equal protection clause is the proper route and how our system was designed to work. Again, it's not about me and you have no idea what I want. Let's try sticking to the issue.
Fine, do you want gay marriage to be legally equal to straight marriage?
Again, what I want is irrelevant. The issue is should the equal protection clause apply to homosexuals or not. I've seen no valid argument against it.
I haven't expressed what I want at all.
