Equal Protection Under The Constitution

[bravoactual]

How does a "right to marry" trump another individuals free will?

Free Will:
Noun:

The Power of acting without contraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act one's own discretion.

Given Readily; voluntary.

Your right to act out of your own free will does not give YOU the RIght to deny another person or person's their Rights under the Constitution of The United States of America.

Your Right to Free Will does not give YOU the RIght to decide indpendent of Law the Right's of others.

You do not have to like that a person or persons have the same Rights as you.
You do not have the Right to decide that because you do not like a person or persons freely engaging the Equal Right's Under The Law, that you yourself have.

You do not have the Right to constrain, prohibit, deny or impede another person or persons from engaging in their Rights as granted under Equal Protection Clause of 14th. Amendment.

It does not matter wheather or not you like the Rights being engaged in. You do not have the power or the Right to prevent those Rights from being excerised.

You cannot, under color of your Right To Freedom of Religion deny a couple a ceremony that you are more than willing to engage in or have in the engaged in.

Your Freedom of Religion cannot be used a weapon or a club to deny other's their Rights.

You don't like the idea Gays/Lesbians getting married then I most strongly urge to to avoid marrying a Gay or Lesbian.

You do not have to attend the wedding of Gay/Lesbian Couple.

But you do not have Right to deny them their Equal Rights Under The Law to marry.

No that's wrong. If you're a photographer and a gay couple wants to hire you you must attend their wedding to take the photos.
Just what we were promised wouldnt happen.

A contract for Goods and Services does not constitute "Participating" in a Gay/Lesbian Wedding Ceremony.

Participation means being a member of the Wedding Party, NOT being paid to take pictures, provide music or cater food.

Attending a Wedding as a guest does not mean participation. You are invited to watch the ceremony, not participate in the ceremony. You are sitting in Pew, in garden, on the beach, in a back yard or where ever the bride and groom wish to their Wedding Ceremony held. An invitee is NOT a participant.

A contract to deliver Goods and Services is a business agreement between the parties. That in way no constitutes "Participation" in any Ceremony, Gay or Straight. Legal Tender is exchanged to provide said Goods and Services.

Providing Flowers, Music, Photos, or Food in exchange legal tender does not make the person or persons providing the Goods and Services a participant. They are providing service.

You, as a private individual do not have to attend a Gay/Lesbian Wedding. You do not have to attend the Reception after the Wedding.

You do NOT have the Right to decide based upon your Personal/Private Belief to deny Service, it's called Public Accomdation and it is the law.

 

[Darkwind]

So we will see all forms of marriage occur as you can't say no...Right? Brother and sister? Mother and son??? 3 wifes and two husbands??? You're a bigot if you say no as it goes against equal protection.

You have a right to be ignorant of the law of the land.

But you don't have a right to impose your ignorance of the law of the land on others.

so then stop it. I'm getting pretty tired of you progressives imposing your ignorance on Me.

 

[The Rabbi]

How does a "right to marry" trump another individuals free will?

Free Will:
Noun:

The Power of acting without contraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act one's own discretion.

Given Readily; voluntary.

Your right to act out of your own free will does not give YOU the RIght to deny another person or person's their Rights under the Constitution of The United States of America.

Your Right to Free Will does not give YOU the RIght to decide indpendent of Law the Right's of others.

You do not have to like that a person or persons have the same Rights as you.
You do not have the Right to decide that because you do not like a person or persons freely engaging the Equal Right's Under The Law, that you yourself have.

You do not have the Right to constrain, prohibit, deny or impede another person or persons from engaging in their Rights as granted under Equal Protection Clause of 14th. Amendment.

It does not matter wheather or not you like the Rights being engaged in. You do not have the power or the Right to prevent those Rights from being excerised.

You cannot, under color of your Right To Freedom of Religion deny a couple a ceremony that you are more than willing to engage in or have in the engaged in.

Your Freedom of Religion cannot be used a weapon or a club to deny other's their Rights.

You don't like the idea Gays/Lesbians getting married then I most strongly urge to to avoid marrying a Gay or Lesbian.

You do not have to attend the wedding of Gay/Lesbian Couple.

But you do not have Right to deny them their Equal Rights Under The Law to marry.

No that's wrong. If you're a photographer and a gay couple wants to hire you you must attend their wedding to take the photos.
Just what we were promised wouldnt happen.

A contract for Goods and Services does not constitute "Participating" in a Gay/Lesbian Wedding Ceremony.

Participation means being a member of the Wedding Party, NOT being paid to take pictures, provide music or cater food.

Attending a Wedding as a guest does not mean participation. You are invited to watch the ceremony, not participate in the ceremony. You are sitting in Pew, in garden, on the beach, in a back yard or where ever the bride and groom wish to their Wedding Ceremony held. An invitee is NOT a participant.

A contract to deliver Goods and Services is a business agreement between the parties. That in way no constitutes "Participation" in any Ceremony, Gay or Straight. Legal Tender is exchanged to provide said Goods and Services.

Providing Flowers, Music, Photos, or Food in exchange legal tender does not make the person or persons providing the Goods and Services a participant. They are providing service.

You, as a private individual do not have to attend a Gay/Lesbian Wedding. You do not have to attend the Reception after the Wedding.

You do NOT have the Right to decide based upon your Personal/Private Belief to deny Service, it's called Public Accomdation and it is the law.

That's your interpretation. And only yours.
Next.

 

[9thIDdoc]

How does a "right to marry" trump another individuals free will?

Free Will:
Noun:

The Power of acting without contraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act one's own discretion.

Given Readily; voluntary.

Your right to act out of your own free will does not give YOU the RIght to deny another person or person's their Rights under the Constitution of The United States of America.

Your Right to Free Will does not give YOU the RIght to decide indpendent of Law the Right's of others.

You do not have to like that a person or persons have the same Rights as you.
You do not have the Right to decide that because you do not like a person or persons freely engaging the Equal Right's Under The Law, that you yourself have.

You do not have the Right to constrain, prohibit, deny or impede another person or persons from engaging in their Rights as granted under Equal Protection Clause of 14th. Amendment.

It does not matter wheather or not you like the Rights being engaged in. You do not have the power or the Right to prevent those Rights from being excerised.

You cannot, under color of your Right To Freedom of Religion deny a couple a ceremony that you are more than willing to engage in or have in the engaged in.

Your Freedom of Religion cannot be used a weapon or a club to deny other's their Rights.

You don't like the idea Gays/Lesbians getting married then I most strongly urge to to avoid marrying a Gay or Lesbian.

You do not have to attend the wedding of Gay/Lesbian Couple.

But you do not have Right to deny them their Equal Rights Under The Law to marry.

I could care less one way or the other about same-sex, multiple partner, or cross species marriage. What I do care about is this silly idea that you seem to have that being unwilling to assist your getting married somehow denies one of your rights. It doesn't. You do not have the right to force me to do a dam thing I don't want to do for whatever reason I don't want to do it. You need to learn to be more tolerant. And a lot less demanding. You sound like a spoiled child. Get over yourself.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So we will see all forms of marriage occur as you can't say no...Right? Brother and sister? Mother and son??? 3 wifes and two husbands??? You're a bigot if you say no as it goes against equal protection.

You have a right to be ignorant of the law of the land.

But you don't have a right to impose your ignorance of the law of the land on others.

so then stop it. I'm getting pretty tired of you progressives imposing your ignorance on Me.

Ironic!

 

[martybegan]

Where in the constitution is there the right to a cake baked by someone who does not support SSM?

Public Accommodation laws!

Not in the constitution.

Exactly right- PA laws are not part of the Constitution- most are State laws- which the Supreme Court could overturn as unconstitutional.

But you would be against that- correct- because you support State's rights and don't think the Court should over rule State law?

State's rights stop at the bill of rights. In the recent decision I was for States having to recognize other State's SSM under full faith and credit. In the case of PA's, even at the State level,they have to take into account the 1st amendment.

State's rights are not a carte blanche, they are limited by the incorporation of the bill of rights onto the States.

 

[martybegan]

Where in the constitution is there the right to a cake baked by someone who does not support SSM?

Public Accommodation laws!

Not in the constitution.

Exactly right- PA laws are not part of the Constitution- most are State laws- which the Supreme Court could overturn as unconstitutional.

But you would be against that- correct- because you support State's rights and don't think the Court should over rule State law?

State's rights stop at the bill of rights. In the recent decision I was for States having to recognize other State's SSM under full faith and credit. In the case of PA's, even at the State level,they have to take into account the 1st amendment.

State's rights are not a carte blanche, they are limited by the incorporation of the bill of rights onto the States.

 

[Wildman]

Equal Protection Under The Law

so then if a minister refuses to marry any LGBT/other, that minister/preacher/other also has "Equal Protection" ????

 

[Wildman]

Equal Protection Under The Law

so then if a minister refuses to marry any LGBT/other, that minister/preacher/other also has "Equal Protection" ????

 

[martybegan]

Where in the constitution is there the right to a cake baked by someone who does not support SSM?

Public Accommodation laws!

Not in the constitution.

Exactly right- PA laws are not part of the Constitution- most are State laws- which the Supreme Court could overturn as unconstitutional.

But you would be against that- correct- because you support State's rights and don't think the Court should over rule State law?

State's Rights end at the People's rights, i.e. the Bill of Rights. A PA law cannot interfere with a person's exercise of religion unless there is an overwhelming governmental interest.

 

[martybegan]

We the People are irrelevant, only 5 opinions count today.

Inane deflection that exposes your appalling ignorance of the OP topic.

Inane deflection, how about you prove that the folks who proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment in 1868 intended to void the marriage laws of every state in the union.

Marriage laws have not been voided in "every state in the union".

Yes, they have, and rewritten by 5 judges.

21 States and DC all had one form or another of SSM already in compliance with the latest SC ruling.

So obviously you are wrong.

How many of them were by legislative action only?

 

[martybegan]

How does a "right to marry" trump another individuals free will?

Free Will:
Noun:

The Power of acting without contraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act one's own discretion.

Given Readily; voluntary.

Your right to act out of your own free will does not give YOU the RIght to deny another person or person's their Rights under the Constitution of The United States of America.

Your Right to Free Will does not give YOU the RIght to decide indpendent of Law the Right's of others.

You do not have to like that a person or persons have the same Rights as you.
You do not have the Right to decide that because you do not like a person or persons freely engaging the Equal Right's Under The Law, that you yourself have.

You do not have the Right to constrain, prohibit, deny or impede another person or persons from engaging in their Rights as granted under Equal Protection Clause of 14th. Amendment.

It does not matter wheather or not you like the Rights being engaged in. You do not have the power or the Right to prevent those Rights from being excerised.

You cannot, under color of your Right To Freedom of Religion deny a couple a ceremony that you are more than willing to engage in or have in the engaged in.

Your Freedom of Religion cannot be used a weapon or a club to deny other's their Rights.

You don't like the idea Gays/Lesbians getting married then I most strongly urge to to avoid marrying a Gay or Lesbian.

You do not have to attend the wedding of Gay/Lesbian Couple.

But you do not have Right to deny them their Equal Rights Under The Law to marry.

No that's wrong. If you're a photographer and a gay couple wants to hire you you must attend their wedding to take the photos.
Just what we were promised wouldnt happen.

A contract for Goods and Services does not constitute "Participating" in a Gay/Lesbian Wedding Ceremony.

Participation means being a member of the Wedding Party, NOT being paid to take pictures, provide music or cater food.

Attending a Wedding as a guest does not mean participation. You are invited to watch the ceremony, not participate in the ceremony. You are sitting in Pew, in garden, on the beach, in a back yard or where ever the bride and groom wish to their Wedding Ceremony held. An invitee is NOT a participant.

A contract to deliver Goods and Services is a business agreement between the parties. That in way no constitutes "Participation" in any Ceremony, Gay or Straight. Legal Tender is exchanged to provide said Goods and Services.

Providing Flowers, Music, Photos, or Food in exchange legal tender does not make the person or persons providing the Goods and Services a participant. They are providing service.

You, as a private individual do not have to attend a Gay/Lesbian Wedding. You do not have to attend the Reception after the Wedding.

You do NOT have the Right to decide based upon your Personal/Private Belief to deny Service, it's called Public Accomdation and it is the law.

What a freaking stretch you take all in the name of forcing people to do something they do not want to do.

Guest at my wedding are sure as hell participating in it, Vendors are as well.

 

[bravoactual]

So we will see all forms of marriage occur as you can't say no...Right? Brother and sister? Mother and son??? 3 wifes and two husbands??? You're a bigot if you say no as it goes against equal protection.

You have a right to be ignorant of the law of the land.

But you don't have a right to impose your ignorance of the law of the land on others.

so then stop it. I'm getting pretty tired of you progressives imposing your ignorance on Me.

Really, because you Cons have no problem imposing your hate on others.

 

[The Rabbi]

So we will see all forms of marriage occur as you can't say no...Right? Brother and sister? Mother and son??? 3 wifes and two husbands??? You're a bigot if you say no as it goes against equal protection.

You have a right to be ignorant of the law of the land.

But you don't have a right to impose your ignorance of the law of the land on others.

so then stop it. I'm getting pretty tired of you progressives imposing your ignorance on Me.

Really, because you Cons have no problem imposing your hate on others.

Actually that would be you libs imposing your hatred of Christianity on others, by seeking out vendors knwon to be Christians opposed to gay marriage adn then entrapping them into lawsuits by trying to hire their services for gay weddings.
Despicable.

 

[bravoactual]

Wherein did I? write that I have "Hatred of Christanity"?

Your the one injecting Religion into this.

What part of "Equal Rights Under The Law" do you fail to comprehend?

Your Freedom of Religion does not give you the Right to decided who does and does not Equal Rights or give you the right to deny that Rights to others.

 

[bravoactual]

Rabbi-

You do know that Nathan Bedford Forrest was aVirulent Anti-Semite?

You use the title of a Jewish Religious Leader, and then use the avatar of a man who hated Jews.....

 

[PratchettFan]

Rather than engage is personal attacks that have on real logical, sound basis in fact how understanding instead.

Equal Protection means exactly that.

Your Rights just as Protected as my Rights.

The Torets Syndrome remark was merely a tongue-in-cheek reference to you repeated use of the term "Equal Protection Under the Law." Otherwise your "argument" sounds more like a Buddhist chant than an exercise in logic.

If marriage is a Constitutionally protected fundamental right, then states are prohibited from denying this right to any person or persons, absent a compelling governmental interest (strict scrutiny). What compelling interest is served by denying this right to multiple and/or related persons? Prohibitions against plural marriage are religiously based, and incestuous pregnancy is easily terminated, so why deny these people their civil rights?

You tell us why, now that you've conceded that equal protection is a legitimate Constitutional right.

I have NOT conceded a damn thing.

I believe in Equal Rights Under The Law as spelled out in 14th. Amendment.

Your arguments regarding Incest have no validity. Your using RW Talking Points.

Why do YOU refuse to accept that Gay/Lebians have the same Rights that YOU have?

Stop with the Incest and Sex with Animals....really old and not very relevent.

Gays and lsbians alwayts had the same rights as I did. Now they have additional rights.

How so. You can marry someone of the same sex if you like.

 

[The Rabbi]

Rather than engage is personal attacks that have on real logical, sound basis in fact how understanding instead.

Equal Protection means exactly that.

Your Rights just as Protected as my Rights.

The Torets Syndrome remark was merely a tongue-in-cheek reference to you repeated use of the term "Equal Protection Under the Law." Otherwise your "argument" sounds more like a Buddhist chant than an exercise in logic.

If marriage is a Constitutionally protected fundamental right, then states are prohibited from denying this right to any person or persons, absent a compelling governmental interest (strict scrutiny). What compelling interest is served by denying this right to multiple and/or related persons? Prohibitions against plural marriage are religiously based, and incestuous pregnancy is easily terminated, so why deny these people their civil rights?

You tell us why, now that you've conceded that equal protection is a legitimate Constitutional right.

I have NOT conceded a damn thing.

I believe in Equal Rights Under The Law as spelled out in 14th. Amendment.

Your arguments regarding Incest have no validity. Your using RW Talking Points.

Why do YOU refuse to accept that Gay/Lebians have the same Rights that YOU have?

Stop with the Incest and Sex with Animals....really old and not very relevent.

Gays and lsbians alwayts had the same rights as I did. Now they have additional rights.

Yes I could. A right I did not have last week.
How so. You can marry someone of the same sex if you like.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Right to Marry granted by the State, NOT by the Church.

-Someone- does not understand that he just disproved his position that marriage is a right.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have NOT conceded a damn thing.
I believe in Equal Rights Under The Law as spelled out in 14th. Amendment.
The 14th. Amendment protects ALL AMERICANS....NOT JUST A SELECT FEW.
Who are YOU to deny Rights to select group of people?

In my state, I have the right to carry a gun.
How can another state deny me that right?