First amendment hating Governor tells Christians to deal with homosexual hatred

[bodecea]

There is so much wrong with your statement... First off, whats my accusation that I can't prove? How can you compare Nazi ideas of infrastructure to your support of legislation that allows businesses to discriminate? That is a completely off base comparison. Lastly, I don't favor gays over bakers or christians, I just favor equality. If they gays owned the bakery and wouldn't serve a christian then I'd object just the same.

You called me a bigot, and a religious nut, and I asked you to prove it, and you weaseled out of it without retracting your statement.

My comparison is valid due to you lumping me in with people who have certain views due to bigotry simply because one of the end results that I want would be agreeable to them. (Actually my views on this wouldn't go far enough, according to them, making your point even more invalid).

Finally, stop hiding behind happy words like "equality". The end result of your equality being enforced is either the baker going out of business, or being forced to do something he doesn't want to do. Stop trying to sanitize government coercion you just happen to agree with, and own up to it.

If I open a business which deals with the public, I must abide by all of the zoning laws, building codes, health codes, and other legislation which governs the operation of the business. I can claim that being required to abide by the laws which govern the operation of my business impugns on my "freedom", and I'll be laughed out of court.

If you are unable to abide by the laws and regulations governing businesses, you need to find another line of work. One which doesn't involve opening a business to the public.

So if a local health department banned kosher or halal butchering, then all jewish and muslim butchers would have to go out of business? You talk of PA laws being absolute, and no law is absolute. Saying someone cannot live their live as they want to because they hurt someone else's feelings is ridiculous, and you can't see it only because you 1) hate the people you want to see punished and 2) are probably a self centered semi narcissist who only thinks their world view deserves protection and acceptance.

That's why there are courts. To sort out whether laws are good and proper, within the scope of the jurisdiction where they're enact, and are Constitutional. PA laws have passed Constitutional muster time and time again.

You keep minimizing the harm done as "hurt feelings". Southerners argued that blacks were given service. They could sit at the back of the bus, use the "blacks only" fountains, and attend segregated schools. "Separate but equal" was their rallying cry. But time and time again, the courts have indeed said that discrimination, even if no physical harm is done, is illegal. The Courts understand that refusal of service is just the tip of a rather large iceberg, most of which is unseen which does negatively affect the clasis being discriminated against.

I don't hate the bakers, or anyone else who is disrespectful of those who have done them no harm. How you can refusal service to one kind of sinner and not all sinners and then try to claim refusal of service on the grounds of sin? Would they refuse service to someone who had stolen, lied, committed blasphemy? Unless the answer is "Yes", then claiming they don't serve gays because they are sinners is a lie.

Lastly, I have shown you respect and consideration in drafting my reply to you. You respond with cheap insults and an amateur psychiatric diagnosis, based, I gather, on your inability to reasonable refute my points.

Your concession is noted.

Segregation passed "constitutional muster" for decades before being thrown out. Your appeal to the current views of 4 of 8 unlelected lawyers doesn't mean anything.

The visible discrimination was merely a cover for much deeper political and economic disenfranchisement. Separate but equal was never equal. Can you honestly tell me that these couples can't find another baker almost immediately to provide them the service they need? In the case of Jim Crow, even if the surface discrimination showed little or no harm, there hidden discrimination was causing plenty of harm. That level of discrimination simply doesn't exist anymore today.

As for your last statement, it isn't up to me, you or government to decide how a person lives their life, unless there is some actual harm, and then government can get involved. But even then the harm should be removed using the least invasive method possible.

And my cheap insults and such are just icing on the cake. Call it a response to your sides continuous use of "because because because I WANT IT" as justification for using government to get people to live how YOU want them to live. I have plenty of meat in my posts to reply to, and if you can't handle it, then walk away.

Yes it did until many good people took the time and research to prove that segregation was unConstitutional.

I've asked you again and again what it is that you are doing to take the time and research to prove that PA laws are unConstitutional. All you ever give back are excuses.

If all those against Segregation were as lazy as you....we'd still have segregation.

 

[bodecea]

Haha, you are right, i re read and my comment and it was a pretty clear accusation that you are a nutty religious bigot, my bad. I get fired up when people stick up for discrimination and bigotry. That stuff is so ugly and it is usually entitled pricks that support this stuff. (I'm not saying you are an entitled prick) i'm just saying you sound like one when making your arguments.

The position "I disagree with your point of view, but i will defend your right to say it." used to be considered a civic virtue. I guess not so much anymore.

Thank you though for owning up to your original statement.

Unbending people often sound like "entitled pricks". Its easy to mistake stubbornness for doucheyness.

I agree with you on both points... Freedom of speech is a great thing (although it is being abused esp. in todays media and culture, thats a different conversation) But to this thread, a baker has every right to close shop and go join an anti gay marriage rally and yell their head off. When they do this in the execution of running their business and it results in a discriminatory bias for its employees or patrons then they have abused their responsibility as a manager or business owner.

And my point is why do they have to shut down over refusing one small part of their potential clientele, if there are adequate available equivalents that would be more than happy to take their money?

Again, this isn't denying gay people at the counter, or refusing them entry to the shop, its refusal to participate via provision of service for one specific ceremony they do not agree with.

By forcing them to "bake or die", the government is discriminating against their beliefs, and "hurting their feelings" (if the submit) in order to protect someone else's feelings. Why are the gay couple's feelings more important that the religious baker's feelings, and more importantly, why should they have to give up their livelihood or submit?

The other factor is, all the support the gay rights side loses when they decide to go after petty crap like this. People who were willing to support equality in the face of government are less likely to support ruining people over hurt feelings.

But has more to do with our current selfish (my views rule, your views drool) win/lose political environment than any one viewpoint or advocacy group.

In this case the gay couples feelings ARE more important because business owners carry a higher burden and standard of responsibility. Now if the couple wanted a icing photo of the couple having butt sex or doing an inverted scissor kick then they should have the right to deny that service. But as far as baking a cake?? Just put some mix in the oven and open the cash register... The owner can voice their objections to gay marriage after hours.

Why do business owners "carry a higher burden" when no real harm can be shown to the refused customer?
Why does commerce end a person's right to act according to their moral code?

What was the "real harm" for Rosa Parks to sit in the back of the bus?

What was the "real harm" for blacks to use a different water fountain?

What is the "real harm" for anyone to be refused service in an establishment because of their race, their age, their nationality, their religion, their gender, their sexual orientation?

 

[Slade3200]

Haha, you are right, i re read and my comment and it was a pretty clear accusation that you are a nutty religious bigot, my bad. I get fired up when people stick up for discrimination and bigotry. That stuff is so ugly and it is usually entitled pricks that support this stuff. (I'm not saying you are an entitled prick) i'm just saying you sound like one when making your arguments.

The position "I disagree with your point of view, but i will defend your right to say it." used to be considered a civic virtue. I guess not so much anymore.

Thank you though for owning up to your original statement.

Unbending people often sound like "entitled pricks". Its easy to mistake stubbornness for doucheyness.

I agree with you on both points... Freedom of speech is a great thing (although it is being abused esp. in todays media and culture, thats a different conversation) But to this thread, a baker has every right to close shop and go join an anti gay marriage rally and yell their head off. When they do this in the execution of running their business and it results in a discriminatory bias for its employees or patrons then they have abused their responsibility as a manager or business owner.

And my point is why do they have to shut down over refusing one small part of their potential clientele, if there are adequate available equivalents that would be more than happy to take their money?

Again, this isn't denying gay people at the counter, or refusing them entry to the shop, its refusal to participate via provision of service for one specific ceremony they do not agree with.

By forcing them to "bake or die", the government is discriminating against their beliefs, and "hurting their feelings" (if the submit) in order to protect someone else's feelings. Why are the gay couple's feelings more important that the religious baker's feelings, and more importantly, why should they have to give up their livelihood or submit?

The other factor is, all the support the gay rights side loses when they decide to go after petty crap like this. People who were willing to support equality in the face of government are less likely to support ruining people over hurt feelings.

But has more to do with our current selfish (my views rule, your views drool) win/lose political environment than any one viewpoint or advocacy group.

In this case the gay couples feelings ARE more important because business owners carry a higher burden and standard of responsibility. Now if the couple wanted a icing photo of the couple having butt sex or doing an inverted scissor kick then they should have the right to deny that service. But as far as baking a cake?? Just put some mix in the oven and open the cash register... The owner can voice their objections to gay marriage after hours.

Why do business owners "carry a higher burden" when no real harm can be shown to the refused customer?
Why does commerce end a person's right to act according to their moral code?

Business owners carry a higher burden because thats what comes with being a business owner, that isn't a new concept. The element of harm is what is being debated. I've stated before that I would prefer a world where businesses can operate with as much freedom and with as little regulation as possible. When business owners like this idiot baker make a stink over making a stupid cake then it takes a step back for all of business owners that want the government off our backs.

 

[hazlnut]

Fear and loathing in a "Christian" nation.

What a joke America has become -- thanks to so-called "Christians".

 

[JoeB131]

So if a local health department banned kosher or halal butchering, then all jewish and muslim butchers would have to go out of business? You talk of PA laws being absolute, and no law is absolute. Saying someone cannot live their live as they want to because they hurt someone else's feelings is ridiculous, and you can't see it only because you 1) hate the people you want to see punished and 2) are probably a self centered semi narcissist who only thinks their world view deserves protection and acceptance.

THat would depend. Is Kosher preparation unhealthy or a public danger? Then you are darned right they should shut it down.

Ultimately, it's a matter of public good. Is the need for the Kleins to be superstitious bigots outweighed by the Cryer-Bowman's need to get the services they were promised and be treated with dignity. Most sensible people would say yes.

The Kleins are perfectly free to live like religious bigots, and believe in whatever backward-ass bronze age superstitions they want to. The minute they put up a sign that read, "We do wedding cakes', that went out the window.

 

[martybegan]

You called me a bigot, and a religious nut, and I asked you to prove it, and you weaseled out of it without retracting your statement.

My comparison is valid due to you lumping me in with people who have certain views due to bigotry simply because one of the end results that I want would be agreeable to them. (Actually my views on this wouldn't go far enough, according to them, making your point even more invalid).

Finally, stop hiding behind happy words like "equality". The end result of your equality being enforced is either the baker going out of business, or being forced to do something he doesn't want to do. Stop trying to sanitize government coercion you just happen to agree with, and own up to it.

If I open a business which deals with the public, I must abide by all of the zoning laws, building codes, health codes, and other legislation which governs the operation of the business. I can claim that being required to abide by the laws which govern the operation of my business impugns on my "freedom", and I'll be laughed out of court.

If you are unable to abide by the laws and regulations governing businesses, you need to find another line of work. One which doesn't involve opening a business to the public.

So if a local health department banned kosher or halal butchering, then all jewish and muslim butchers would have to go out of business? You talk of PA laws being absolute, and no law is absolute. Saying someone cannot live their live as they want to because they hurt someone else's feelings is ridiculous, and you can't see it only because you 1) hate the people you want to see punished and 2) are probably a self centered semi narcissist who only thinks their world view deserves protection and acceptance.

That's why there are courts. To sort out whether laws are good and proper, within the scope of the jurisdiction where they're enact, and are Constitutional. PA laws have passed Constitutional muster time and time again.

You keep minimizing the harm done as "hurt feelings". Southerners argued that blacks were given service. They could sit at the back of the bus, use the "blacks only" fountains, and attend segregated schools. "Separate but equal" was their rallying cry. But time and time again, the courts have indeed said that discrimination, even if no physical harm is done, is illegal. The Courts understand that refusal of service is just the tip of a rather large iceberg, most of which is unseen which does negatively affect the clasis being discriminated against.

I don't hate the bakers, or anyone else who is disrespectful of those who have done them no harm. How you can refusal service to one kind of sinner and not all sinners and then try to claim refusal of service on the grounds of sin? Would they refuse service to someone who had stolen, lied, committed blasphemy? Unless the answer is "Yes", then claiming they don't serve gays because they are sinners is a lie.

Lastly, I have shown you respect and consideration in drafting my reply to you. You respond with cheap insults and an amateur psychiatric diagnosis, based, I gather, on your inability to reasonable refute my points.

Your concession is noted.

Segregation passed "constitutional muster" for decades before being thrown out. Your appeal to the current views of 4 of 8 unlelected lawyers doesn't mean anything.

The visible discrimination was merely a cover for much deeper political and economic disenfranchisement. Separate but equal was never equal. Can you honestly tell me that these couples can't find another baker almost immediately to provide them the service they need? In the case of Jim Crow, even if the surface discrimination showed little or no harm, there hidden discrimination was causing plenty of harm. That level of discrimination simply doesn't exist anymore today.

As for your last statement, it isn't up to me, you or government to decide how a person lives their life, unless there is some actual harm, and then government can get involved. But even then the harm should be removed using the least invasive method possible.

And my cheap insults and such are just icing on the cake. Call it a response to your sides continuous use of "because because because I WANT IT" as justification for using government to get people to live how YOU want them to live. I have plenty of meat in my posts to reply to, and if you can't handle it, then walk away.

Yes it did until many good people took the time and research to prove that segregation was unConstitutional.

I've asked you again and again what it is that you are doing to take the time and research to prove that PA laws are unConstitutional. All you ever give back are excuses.

If all those against Segregation were as lazy as you....we'd still have segregation.

And I have said time and time again, that asking me "what am I doing about it" is a weasel way of trying to get out of debating the topic at hand.

 

[martybegan]

The position "I disagree with your point of view, but i will defend your right to say it." used to be considered a civic virtue. I guess not so much anymore.

Thank you though for owning up to your original statement.

Unbending people often sound like "entitled pricks". Its easy to mistake stubbornness for doucheyness.

I agree with you on both points... Freedom of speech is a great thing (although it is being abused esp. in todays media and culture, thats a different conversation) But to this thread, a baker has every right to close shop and go join an anti gay marriage rally and yell their head off. When they do this in the execution of running their business and it results in a discriminatory bias for its employees or patrons then they have abused their responsibility as a manager or business owner.

And my point is why do they have to shut down over refusing one small part of their potential clientele, if there are adequate available equivalents that would be more than happy to take their money?

Again, this isn't denying gay people at the counter, or refusing them entry to the shop, its refusal to participate via provision of service for one specific ceremony they do not agree with.

By forcing them to "bake or die", the government is discriminating against their beliefs, and "hurting their feelings" (if the submit) in order to protect someone else's feelings. Why are the gay couple's feelings more important that the religious baker's feelings, and more importantly, why should they have to give up their livelihood or submit?

The other factor is, all the support the gay rights side loses when they decide to go after petty crap like this. People who were willing to support equality in the face of government are less likely to support ruining people over hurt feelings.

But has more to do with our current selfish (my views rule, your views drool) win/lose political environment than any one viewpoint or advocacy group.

In this case the gay couples feelings ARE more important because business owners carry a higher burden and standard of responsibility. Now if the couple wanted a icing photo of the couple having butt sex or doing an inverted scissor kick then they should have the right to deny that service. But as far as baking a cake?? Just put some mix in the oven and open the cash register... The owner can voice their objections to gay marriage after hours.

Why do business owners "carry a higher burden" when no real harm can be shown to the refused customer?
Why does commerce end a person's right to act according to their moral code?

What was the "real harm" for Rosa Parks to sit in the back of the bus?

What was the "real harm" for blacks to use a different water fountain?

What is the "real harm" for anyone to be refused service in an establishment because of their race, their age, their nationality, their religion, their gender, their sexual orientation?

Public busing is a government function, in the case of government, any discrimination by them can be seen as harm.

The water fountains were harm insomuch as they were always not equal.

If the only result is hurt feelings, there is no harm.

 

[martybegan]

The position "I disagree with your point of view, but i will defend your right to say it." used to be considered a civic virtue. I guess not so much anymore.

Thank you though for owning up to your original statement.

Unbending people often sound like "entitled pricks". Its easy to mistake stubbornness for doucheyness.

I agree with you on both points... Freedom of speech is a great thing (although it is being abused esp. in todays media and culture, thats a different conversation) But to this thread, a baker has every right to close shop and go join an anti gay marriage rally and yell their head off. When they do this in the execution of running their business and it results in a discriminatory bias for its employees or patrons then they have abused their responsibility as a manager or business owner.

And my point is why do they have to shut down over refusing one small part of their potential clientele, if there are adequate available equivalents that would be more than happy to take their money?

Again, this isn't denying gay people at the counter, or refusing them entry to the shop, its refusal to participate via provision of service for one specific ceremony they do not agree with.

By forcing them to "bake or die", the government is discriminating against their beliefs, and "hurting their feelings" (if the submit) in order to protect someone else's feelings. Why are the gay couple's feelings more important that the religious baker's feelings, and more importantly, why should they have to give up their livelihood or submit?

The other factor is, all the support the gay rights side loses when they decide to go after petty crap like this. People who were willing to support equality in the face of government are less likely to support ruining people over hurt feelings.

But has more to do with our current selfish (my views rule, your views drool) win/lose political environment than any one viewpoint or advocacy group.

In this case the gay couples feelings ARE more important because business owners carry a higher burden and standard of responsibility. Now if the couple wanted a icing photo of the couple having butt sex or doing an inverted scissor kick then they should have the right to deny that service. But as far as baking a cake?? Just put some mix in the oven and open the cash register... The owner can voice their objections to gay marriage after hours.

Why do business owners "carry a higher burden" when no real harm can be shown to the refused customer?
Why does commerce end a person's right to act according to their moral code?

Business owners carry a higher burden because thats what comes with being a business owner, that isn't a new concept. The element of harm is what is being debated. I've stated before that I would prefer a world where businesses can operate with as much freedom and with as little regulation as possible. When business owners like this idiot baker make a stink over making a stupid cake then it takes a step back for all of business owners that want the government off our backs.

Where in the constitution does it say business owners lose certain constitutional rights "just because?"

A loss or a mitigation of a right always has to result from some compelling government interest, and even then it can only be mitigated by the government in the least intrusive manner possible.

When a couple tries to ruin a baker with government aid over "a stink over a stupid cake", they are the ones causing the real harm. Its the allure of the cheap fix over the actual fix, or god forbid, letting people live their lives as they see fit.

 

[martybegan]

So if a local health department banned kosher or halal butchering, then all jewish and muslim butchers would have to go out of business? You talk of PA laws being absolute, and no law is absolute. Saying someone cannot live their live as they want to because they hurt someone else's feelings is ridiculous, and you can't see it only because you 1) hate the people you want to see punished and 2) are probably a self centered semi narcissist who only thinks their world view deserves protection and acceptance.

THat would depend. Is Kosher preparation unhealthy or a public danger? Then you are darned right they should shut it down.

Ultimately, it's a matter of public good. Is the need for the Kleins to be superstitious bigots outweighed by the Cryer-Bowman's need to get the services they were promised and be treated with dignity. Most sensible people would say yes.

The Kleins are perfectly free to live like religious bigots, and believe in whatever backward-ass bronze age superstitions they want to. The minute they put up a sign that read, "We do wedding cakes', that went out the window.

As long as the people buying it know what they are getting, NO, it should not be shut down.

"Dignity" is not a right, especially when it comes from the ruin of someone else.

And again, no one has show me where in the constitution that a person loses their rights when they try to sell something.

 

[Seawytch]

I agree with you on both points... Freedom of speech is a great thing (although it is being abused esp. in todays media and culture, thats a different conversation) But to this thread, a baker has every right to close shop and go join an anti gay marriage rally and yell their head off. When they do this in the execution of running their business and it results in a discriminatory bias for its employees or patrons then they have abused their responsibility as a manager or business owner.

And my point is why do they have to shut down over refusing one small part of their potential clientele, if there are adequate available equivalents that would be more than happy to take their money?

Again, this isn't denying gay people at the counter, or refusing them entry to the shop, its refusal to participate via provision of service for one specific ceremony they do not agree with.

By forcing them to "bake or die", the government is discriminating against their beliefs, and "hurting their feelings" (if the submit) in order to protect someone else's feelings. Why are the gay couple's feelings more important that the religious baker's feelings, and more importantly, why should they have to give up their livelihood or submit?

The other factor is, all the support the gay rights side loses when they decide to go after petty crap like this. People who were willing to support equality in the face of government are less likely to support ruining people over hurt feelings.

But has more to do with our current selfish (my views rule, your views drool) win/lose political environment than any one viewpoint or advocacy group.

In this case the gay couples feelings ARE more important because business owners carry a higher burden and standard of responsibility. Now if the couple wanted a icing photo of the couple having butt sex or doing an inverted scissor kick then they should have the right to deny that service. But as far as baking a cake?? Just put some mix in the oven and open the cash register... The owner can voice their objections to gay marriage after hours.

Why do business owners "carry a higher burden" when no real harm can be shown to the refused customer?
Why does commerce end a person's right to act according to their moral code?

What was the "real harm" for Rosa Parks to sit in the back of the bus?

What was the "real harm" for blacks to use a different water fountain?

What is the "real harm" for anyone to be refused service in an establishment because of their race, their age, their nationality, their religion, their gender, their sexual orientation?

Public busing is a government function, in the case of government, any discrimination by them can be seen as harm.

The water fountains were harm insomuch as they were always not equal.

If the only result is hurt feelings, there is no harm.

Laws that protect race, religion, etc are not equal because they don't protect gays as well.

Marriage laws were not equal until DOMA was struck down and marriage equality ruled on by the SCOTUS...and yet you opposed marriage for gays.

 

[martybegan]

And my point is why do they have to shut down over refusing one small part of their potential clientele, if there are adequate available equivalents that would be more than happy to take their money?

Again, this isn't denying gay people at the counter, or refusing them entry to the shop, its refusal to participate via provision of service for one specific ceremony they do not agree with.

By forcing them to "bake or die", the government is discriminating against their beliefs, and "hurting their feelings" (if the submit) in order to protect someone else's feelings. Why are the gay couple's feelings more important that the religious baker's feelings, and more importantly, why should they have to give up their livelihood or submit?

The other factor is, all the support the gay rights side loses when they decide to go after petty crap like this. People who were willing to support equality in the face of government are less likely to support ruining people over hurt feelings.

But has more to do with our current selfish (my views rule, your views drool) win/lose political environment than any one viewpoint or advocacy group.

In this case the gay couples feelings ARE more important because business owners carry a higher burden and standard of responsibility. Now if the couple wanted a icing photo of the couple having butt sex or doing an inverted scissor kick then they should have the right to deny that service. But as far as baking a cake?? Just put some mix in the oven and open the cash register... The owner can voice their objections to gay marriage after hours.

Why do business owners "carry a higher burden" when no real harm can be shown to the refused customer?
Why does commerce end a person's right to act according to their moral code?

What was the "real harm" for Rosa Parks to sit in the back of the bus?

What was the "real harm" for blacks to use a different water fountain?

What is the "real harm" for anyone to be refused service in an establishment because of their race, their age, their nationality, their religion, their gender, their sexual orientation?

Public busing is a government function, in the case of government, any discrimination by them can be seen as harm.

The water fountains were harm insomuch as they were always not equal.

If the only result is hurt feelings, there is no harm.

Laws that protect race, religion, etc are not equal because they don't protect gays as well.

Marriage laws were not equal until DOMA was struck down and marriage equality ruled on by the SCOTUS...and yet you opposed marriage for gays.

I opposed it being directed by judicial fiat, not the end result. you keep forgetting that part.

 

[Seawytch]

In this case the gay couples feelings ARE more important because business owners carry a higher burden and standard of responsibility. Now if the couple wanted a icing photo of the couple having butt sex or doing an inverted scissor kick then they should have the right to deny that service. But as far as baking a cake?? Just put some mix in the oven and open the cash register... The owner can voice their objections to gay marriage after hours.

Why do business owners "carry a higher burden" when no real harm can be shown to the refused customer?
Why does commerce end a person's right to act according to their moral code?

What was the "real harm" for Rosa Parks to sit in the back of the bus?

What was the "real harm" for blacks to use a different water fountain?

What is the "real harm" for anyone to be refused service in an establishment because of their race, their age, their nationality, their religion, their gender, their sexual orientation?

Public busing is a government function, in the case of government, any discrimination by them can be seen as harm.

The water fountains were harm insomuch as they were always not equal.

If the only result is hurt feelings, there is no harm.

Laws that protect race, religion, etc are not equal because they don't protect gays as well.

Marriage laws were not equal until DOMA was struck down and marriage equality ruled on by the SCOTUS...and yet you opposed marriage for gays.

I opposed it being directed by judicial fiat, not the end result. you keep forgetting that part.

Right...the exact same way interracial marriage was "directed". You opposed that too?

 

[martybegan]

Why do business owners "carry a higher burden" when no real harm can be shown to the refused customer?
Why does commerce end a person's right to act according to their moral code?

What was the "real harm" for Rosa Parks to sit in the back of the bus?

What was the "real harm" for blacks to use a different water fountain?

What is the "real harm" for anyone to be refused service in an establishment because of their race, their age, their nationality, their religion, their gender, their sexual orientation?

Public busing is a government function, in the case of government, any discrimination by them can be seen as harm.

The water fountains were harm insomuch as they were always not equal.

If the only result is hurt feelings, there is no harm.

Laws that protect race, religion, etc are not equal because they don't protect gays as well.

Marriage laws were not equal until DOMA was struck down and marriage equality ruled on by the SCOTUS...and yet you opposed marriage for gays.

I opposed it being directed by judicial fiat, not the end result. you keep forgetting that part.

Right...the exact same way interracial marriage was "directed". You opposed that too?

Race and sexuality are very different things, despite your attempt to lump them together for convenience.

Plenty of precedent was out there for mixed race marriages, both in the US and worldwide.

Government sanctioned SSM had none of this, and thus the change to accept it should be through the legislatures, not the courts. At most, the courts are able to force States to recognize any marriage granted by another State, under full faith and credit.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Race and sexuality are very different things, despite your attempt to lump them together for convenience.

Plenty of precedent was out there for mixed race marriages, both in the US and worldwide.

Government sanctioned SSM had none of this, and thus the change to accept it should be through the legislatures, not the courts. At most, the courts are able to force States to recognize any marriage granted by another State, under full faith and credit.

Prior to the Obergefel decision, there was plenty of precedent for SSCM. It had been achieved in (IIRC) 17 jurisdictions without federal action. 13 States had passed it through legislative or ballot processes.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

What was the "real harm" for Rosa Parks to sit in the back of the bus?

What was the "real harm" for blacks to use a different water fountain?

What is the "real harm" for anyone to be refused service in an establishment because of their race, their age, their nationality, their religion, their gender, their sexual orientation?

Public busing is a government function, in the case of government, any discrimination by them can be seen as harm.

The water fountains were harm insomuch as they were always not equal.

If the only result is hurt feelings, there is no harm.

Laws that protect race, religion, etc are not equal because they don't protect gays as well.

Marriage laws were not equal until DOMA was struck down and marriage equality ruled on by the SCOTUS...and yet you opposed marriage for gays.

I opposed it being directed by judicial fiat, not the end result. you keep forgetting that part.

Right...the exact same way interracial marriage was "directed". You opposed that too?

Race and sexuality are very different things, despite your attempt to lump them together for convenience.

Plenty of precedent was out there for mixed race marriages, both in the US and worldwide.

Government sanctioned SSM had none of this, and thus the change to accept it should be through the legislatures, not the courts. At most, the courts are able to force States to recognize any marriage granted by another State, under full faith and credit.

And there we have it. You don't actually think gays are equal.

There was plenty of precedent out there for SSM as well both in the US and worldwide.

 

[martybegan]

Race and sexuality are very different things, despite your attempt to lump them together for convenience.

Plenty of precedent was out there for mixed race marriages, both in the US and worldwide.

Government sanctioned SSM had none of this, and thus the change to accept it should be through the legislatures, not the courts. At most, the courts are able to force States to recognize any marriage granted by another State, under full faith and credit.

Prior to the Obergefel decision, there was plenty of precedent for SSCM. It had been achieved in (IIRC) 17 jurisdictions without federal action. 13 States had passed it through legislative or ballot processes.


>>>>

10-15 years vs. millennia of otherwise does not a precedent make.

 

[martybegan]

Public busing is a government function, in the case of government, any discrimination by them can be seen as harm.

The water fountains were harm insomuch as they were always not equal.

If the only result is hurt feelings, there is no harm.

Laws that protect race, religion, etc are not equal because they don't protect gays as well.

Marriage laws were not equal until DOMA was struck down and marriage equality ruled on by the SCOTUS...and yet you opposed marriage for gays.

I opposed it being directed by judicial fiat, not the end result. you keep forgetting that part.

Right...the exact same way interracial marriage was "directed". You opposed that too?

Race and sexuality are very different things, despite your attempt to lump them together for convenience.

Plenty of precedent was out there for mixed race marriages, both in the US and worldwide.

Government sanctioned SSM had none of this, and thus the change to accept it should be through the legislatures, not the courts. At most, the courts are able to force States to recognize any marriage granted by another State, under full faith and credit.

And there we have it. You don't actually think gays are equal.

There was plenty of precedent out there for SSM as well both in the US and worldwide.

I noticed you aren't listing any of the the precedents. and things within the past 20 years or so isn't really precedent.

The act of SSM isn't "equal" enough to warrant court action. My thoughts on it don't matter when it comes to the process.

If I would vote for it to be added to marriage contracts, you would have to assume I think it equal enough to warrant that.

 

[WorldWatcher]

10-15 years vs. millennia of otherwise does not a precedent make.

Sure it does. It was passed with no federal input by States/DC legislative action and at the ballot, that sets a precedent.

And if you want to go with millennia, then you advocate for polygamy right? It's been around for thousands of years.

Interracial marriage bans were constitutional, the first time they were struck down in court (IIRC) was in 1948. Progress occurred and the Loving decision came down in 1968. That was only 20-years.


>>>>

 

[martybegan]

10-15 years vs. millennia of otherwise does not a precedent make.

Sure it does. It was passed with no federal input by States/DC legislative action and at the ballot, that sets a precedent.

Interracial marriage bans were constitutional, the first time they were struck down in court (IIRC) was in 1948. Progress occurred and the Loving decision came down in 1968. That was only 20-years.


>>>>

The bans were in conflict with the reconstruction amendments, and only allowed due to a piss poor SC decision, namely plessey.

If the States were passing these things anyway, the Courts should have left it to them, and just enforced full faith and credit on the States that didn't want to go along with it (at this time).

 

[JoeB131]

As long as the people buying it know what they are getting, NO, it should not be shut down.

Except how do they know what they are "getting"? The one thing I've learned in running my own humble business is that there are a LOT of shysters, snakes and dishonest people out there. If anything, the government doesn't do ENOUGH to protect businesses from unscruplous business people.

The Kleins said they made Wedding Cakes. The Kleins invited the Cryer-Bowman's to their store. Just can't get worked up that they are being held to account because they probably did a hundred shitty things they weren't held to account for.

"Dignity" is not a right, especially when it comes from the ruin of someone else.

And again, no one has show me where in the constitution that a person loses their rights when they try to sell something.

businesses aren't people. Businesses don't have rights, they have obligations - to their customers, to the public, to the regulations that govern their business. American Business law is not based on Caveat Emptor but Caveat Vendor. The obligations on them were to know what the law was and follow it.

The Kleins are entitled to beleive whatever they want, but their business still has to follow the law. We've been explaining this to you for 20 pages now.