Breaking News: Supreme Court Has Chosen Not To Hear Any Of The 7 Marriage Equality Cases.

[Anathema]

Guess what? It takes more than the sociopathic ramblings of some anonymous internet wannabe tough guy to make me even a little nervous, let alone afraid.

I would, however, suggest that it may be time to talk to your shrink about upping your meds.

No doctors. No medication. No need for any of it.

Tell that to the people in the OKC Federal Building. The people in the Twin Towers. The kids at Columbine High School.

 

[martybegan]

wonderful news for individual rights

The right loves the government controlling them. Liking saying who they can marry. They just love big government.

LOL.

Progressives love making people live they way the progressives want them to live, or else face government sanction or shaming.

Yeah, like we let gays marry because it benefits us.

No, its because you are insufferable busybodies about other people's lives. You are also usually hypocrites because the second government or people try to go after things you hold dear, you start bitching about freedom, and keeping the government out of people's bedrooms.

Says the guy who supports the party that endorsed government mandated trans-vaginal probes, and still endorses government mandated sonograms, and endorses telling people who they can, and cannot marry. Dude! You don't get to support the party that endorses these things, and then talk about others being "busybodies". Wellll...I mean, you do, obviously. You just did. But you don't get to do that, and expect to be taken seriously!!!

I don't support any of those things. What i support is the right of local state governments to regulate things that are not explicitly given as 1) rights in the bill of rights or 2) given explicitly to the federal government.

I live in NY, if a gay marriage bill came up, I would vote for it, if a bill making those abortion restrictions legal came up, I would vote against it. If some yahoo's in Mississippi want to enact them via the state legislature, let them go ahead and do it.

Both parties suck, its just republicans suck less.

 

[Nosmo King]

marriage equality

liberal/commie speak. run when equality is spoken by them

When did equality become an exclusively communist trait? This is America, zipperhead! Equality is what we're supposed to be all about!

How the dim witted get confused.

 

[RKMBrown]

So the second I try to sell something, you somehow get the right to shit on my moral compass?

The only fanatics here are those equating supposed "equality" with the ability to force people to live their lives how YOU want them to.

The only fanatics here are those in favor of government jackboots on the necks of those who disagree with them.

I'm sure you look dashing in a quasi-nazi uniform.

First of all, no one is "shitting" on anything. You are allowed to have any views you want - in your private life. your professional life isn't your private life. If you want to be able to pick, and choose to whom you will sell, it is really simple - don't open a public business. Keep your business private, and only work with referrals from, say, your church. Then you are not subject to the public accommodation laws. However, the minute you make the choice to become open to the public - either through a store, or online - then you know longer get to use your personal beliefs as an excuse to discriminate. That is the law. It is constitutional, and the Supreme Court already ruled on this.

Why does the government get to dictate down to that level one's professional life? What is the government's compelling interest in forcing non essential products and services to be open to PA laws? I know it fits your interest in shitting on anyone who disagrees with you, but by what right to you claim the use of government force to impose your own agenda?

Because discrimination actually does violate people's right to free enterprise.

Also, Citizen's united is also "constitutional" because the "court said so" I wonder what you think about that one....

Oh! It is! I have never suggested otherwise. I disagree with the ruling, but the ruling is what it is. So, now, it is up to Congress to pass an amendment that more clearly defines "speech", if they wish to change that. In the meantime, I fully support Democrats taking full advantage of the ruling.

I agree with your point on discrimination..

But I think your nutz to be against the first amendment, as being against the SCOTUS ruling on CU is the same as being against the first amendment.

Oh! I'm not against the first amendment. I just don't think money is speech. Money is property; there's a difference.

Yes, money is property. However, spending your money to publish your speech is to the first amendment.

 

[Czernobog]

Oh! And martybegan, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what marriage equality is making you do now that you didn't have to do before.

 

[martybegan]

Why does the government get to dictate down to that level one's professional life? What is the government's compelling interest in forcing non essential products and services to be open to PA laws? I know it fits your interest in shitting on anyone who disagrees with you, but by what right to you claim the use of government force to impose your own agenda?

Because discrimination actually does violate people's right to free enterprise.

Also, Citizen's united is also "constitutional" because the "court said so" I wonder what you think about that one....

Oh! It is! I have never suggested otherwise. I disagree with the ruling, but the ruling is what it is. So, now, it is up to Congress to pass an amendment that more clearly defines "speech", if they wish to change that. In the meantime, I fully support Democrats taking full advantage of the ruling.

I agree with your point on discrimination..

But I think your nutz to be against the first amendment, as being against the SCOTUS ruling on CU is the same as being against the first amendment.

Oh! I'm not against the first amendment. I just don't think money is speech. Money is property; there's a difference.

No, you are against it for people who disagree with you. I'm sure you are just all hunky dory when unions spend money on ads.

I am now. Hell. You guys won. You set the rules for what is acceptable. Why shouldn't we take advantage of the same standards that you guys set, and crow about as being perfectly reasonable? Why was this never a problem when you thought it was just gonna be folks like the Koch brothers doing it? Why, now that the unions are playing by your rules, is this suddenly a problem?

Nope, its just your side is known for skewing the rules. Any move you make against corporate campaign spending is sure to leave loopholes so your butt buddies can keep spending, while you cripple the other side.

 

[martybegan]

Oh! And martybegan, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what marriage equality is making you do now that you didn't have to do before.

It's not what it does not me, its what it does to the Republic when it is enforced by judicial fiat and not through the actions of State Legislatures changing the laws that establish the marriage contract.

 

[Czernobog]

First of all, no one is "shitting" on anything. You are allowed to have any views you want - in your private life. your professional life isn't your private life. If you want to be able to pick, and choose to whom you will sell, it is really simple - don't open a public business. Keep your business private, and only work with referrals from, say, your church. Then you are not subject to the public accommodation laws. However, the minute you make the choice to become open to the public - either through a store, or online - then you know longer get to use your personal beliefs as an excuse to discriminate. That is the law. It is constitutional, and the Supreme Court already ruled on this.

Why does the government get to dictate down to that level one's professional life? What is the government's compelling interest in forcing non essential products and services to be open to PA laws? I know it fits your interest in shitting on anyone who disagrees with you, but by what right to you claim the use of government force to impose your own agenda?

Because discrimination actually does violate people's right to free enterprise.

Also, Citizen's united is also "constitutional" because the "court said so" I wonder what you think about that one....

Oh! It is! I have never suggested otherwise. I disagree with the ruling, but the ruling is what it is. So, now, it is up to Congress to pass an amendment that more clearly defines "speech", if they wish to change that. In the meantime, I fully support Democrats taking full advantage of the ruling.

I agree with your point on discrimination..

But I think your nutz to be against the first amendment, as being against the SCOTUS ruling on CU is the same as being against the first amendment.

Oh! I'm not against the first amendment. I just don't think money is speech. Money is property; there's a difference.

Yes, money is property. However, spending your money to publish your speech is to the first amendment.

mmmneehhhh...I think that might be stretching the concept of speech a bit. However, like I said, since that is how the Supreme Court ruled, I am more than happy to play by those rules. At least, unless, or until someone comes along, and changes the rules.

 

[Czernobog]

Oh! And martybegan, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what marriage equality is making you do now that you didn't have to do before.

It's not what it does not me, its what it does to the Republic when it is enforced by judicial fiat and not through the actions of State Legislatures changing the laws that establish the marriage contract.

Except that isn't what happened. It was you guys who all went rushing to your state legislatures to change the marriage laws to include a restriction - "one man, one woman" - that was never there before, because you didn't like those icky icky fags marrying each other. All the courts have done is said, "Nope. You don't get to change the law just because you don't like who happens to be taking advantage of it,"

Also, "The Republic" isn't a person. Your claim was that we force people to behave according to our beliefs. That means that we are actually forcing people to behave differently than they were before. So, either give us an example of how "we" are doing that, or feel free to find a different argument - preferably one that isn't quite so retarded.

 

[Anathema]

Nosmo, some of us go out if our way to.avoid dealing with low or no morals individuals. That becomes much mire difficult when the Government steps in and starts forcing us to do so by eroding our right of NON-association.

 

[RKMBrown]

Why does the government get to dictate down to that level one's professional life? What is the government's compelling interest in forcing non essential products and services to be open to PA laws? I know it fits your interest in shitting on anyone who disagrees with you, but by what right to you claim the use of government force to impose your own agenda?

Because discrimination actually does violate people's right to free enterprise.

Also, Citizen's united is also "constitutional" because the "court said so" I wonder what you think about that one....

Oh! It is! I have never suggested otherwise. I disagree with the ruling, but the ruling is what it is. So, now, it is up to Congress to pass an amendment that more clearly defines "speech", if they wish to change that. In the meantime, I fully support Democrats taking full advantage of the ruling.

I agree with your point on discrimination..

But I think your nutz to be against the first amendment, as being against the SCOTUS ruling on CU is the same as being against the first amendment.

Oh! I'm not against the first amendment. I just don't think money is speech. Money is property; there's a difference.

Yes, money is property. However, spending your money to publish your speech is to the first amendment.

mmmneehhhh...I think that might be stretching the concept of speech a bit. However, like I said, since that is how the Supreme Court ruled, I am more than happy to play by those rules. At least, unless, or until someone comes along, and changes the rules.

Put another way... do you think the feds should be allowed to restrict news, advertising, web pages, books, pamphlets, or are these protected by free speech. Or still more particularly what part of:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

... are you proposing we throw out.

 

[Czernobog]

Nosmo, some of us go out if our way to.avoid dealing with low or no morals individuals. That becomes much mire difficult when the Government steps in and starts forcing us to do so by eroding our right of NON-association.

The constitution guarantees no such right. Next...

 

[Nosmo King]

Nosmo, some of us go out if our way to.avoid dealing with low or no morals individuals. That becomes much mire difficult when the Government steps in and starts forcing us to do so by eroding our right of NON-association.

Low or no morals, eh? Who arbitrates morality in your world? Who has the final judgment? What law forces you to associate with anyone else? What rights have actually been eroded? Are you forced to hang with colored boys due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Did those darkies muck up your world?

I'm only guessing here because there must be some precedent leading to the warped, dull and thoroughly un-American attitude you are openly displaying.

 

[Czernobog]

Because discrimination actually does violate people's right to free enterprise.

Oh! It is! I have never suggested otherwise. I disagree with the ruling, but the ruling is what it is. So, now, it is up to Congress to pass an amendment that more clearly defines "speech", if they wish to change that. In the meantime, I fully support Democrats taking full advantage of the ruling.

I agree with your point on discrimination..

But I think your nutz to be against the first amendment, as being against the SCOTUS ruling on CU is the same as being against the first amendment.

Oh! I'm not against the first amendment. I just don't think money is speech. Money is property; there's a difference.

Yes, money is property. However, spending your money to publish your speech is to the first amendment.

mmmneehhhh...I think that might be stretching the concept of speech a bit. However, like I said, since that is how the Supreme Court ruled, I am more than happy to play by those rules. At least, unless, or until someone comes along, and changes the rules.

Put another way... do you think the feds should be allowed to restrict news, advertising, web pages, books, pamphlets, or are these protected by free speech. Or still more particularly what part of:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

... are you proposing we throw out.

No. However, all of those require a certain level of transparency. We know who wites new paper article - their name is right there in the byline. We know - or, at least can find out relatively easily, who owns a newspaper - it's a matter of public record. We know who authors, and publishes webpages, books, and pamphlets. I have a problem with "Citizens United" allowing people - on the Right, or the Left - being allowed to dump shitloads of money into campaigns all while hiding what they are doing. I just don't see that kind of manipulation as a function of "free speech".

 

[Anathema]

The constitution guarantees no such right. Next...

The First Amendment guarantees the Right of Free Association and Assembly. By extension I have a Right to choose NOT to associate with people as well.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The Supreme court just decided it will not hear the Same Sex Marriage cases from IN, OK, UT, VA, or WI. So that means two things.

First, since, in all of those cases, the lower court ruling was to strike down the state ban on Same Sex Marriage, that now means that Marriage Equality is now the "Law of the Land" in those 7 states.

Second, and more importantly, all of those states had a stay on their rulings until the Supreme Court acted. Well, guess what? It just did. So, the stays in all of those states are about to run out.

Bad news for the religious fanatics.

Supreme Court declines to hear gay marriages case in surprise move

Nice.


Now if we can just get some of that freedom spread around the rest of the place, things will start looking up

 

[Nosmo King]

The constitution guarantees no such right. Next...

The First Amendment guarantees the Right of Free Association and Assembly. By extension I have a Right to choose NOT to associate with people as well.

True. You have the right to be a hermit. But if you are in a service business, particularly a business dealing with weddings, you do not have the 'right' to discriminate based on you personal fears and suspicions. If you bake wedding cakes and a same sex couple wants your services, you have NO 'RIGHT" to refuse them because they are gay. Just as you have no 'right' to refuse services to Blacks, Asian, Latinos or any other group. In other words, if you're open to the public, you must be OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

 

[jillian]

The Republican Party Convention in 2016 has a problem. Do they cling to endorsing a gay marriage ban that most of the nation opposes, just to appease their crazy base?

That depends, do they want to have a party after the 2016 election? If so they need to appease that base.

no they don't. they would do better to dump the wacko fringe and expand the bredth of their appeal. because right now, they're on a path to extinction.

 

[jillian]

QUOTE=Anathema
"If the Courts won't correct the issue then maybe it's time to appeal to a Higher Court and see what Justices Colt, Winchester, Smith, Wesson, Remington, etc..... have to say on the matter"

We have not yet begun to FIGHT. Let's see how many churches, Justices of the Peace, Town Clerks, etc.... are willing to be involved in thus when they start turning up like abortion doctors..... dead.

That sounds like a serious threat to do harm to innocent people.

yes. yes it does.

 

[Pop23]

Now let's change the tax code so that only households that raise(d) the future generations get tax breaks.

Then we can talk equity.