Hmmm...I thought churches didn't have to worry about performing gay marriages...what about this...

[WorldWatcher]

LGBTs think the word "sex" in the 14th means a verb. Unfortunately it's a noun.

Demonstrate your legal acumen and show us where the noun "sex" appears in the 14th.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.​

>>>>

I'm glad you brought up the 14th. Can you tell me good sir where in there it says that citizens have the privilege of doing business with businesses which don't want to do business with them?

Don't need to, I never claimed the 14th did any such thing.


>>>>

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

LGBTs think the word "sex" in the 14th means a verb. Unfortunately it's a noun.

Demonstrate your legal acumen and show us where the noun "sex" appears in the 14th.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.​

>>>>

I'm glad you brought up the 14th. Can you tell me good sir where in there it says that citizens have the privilege of doing business with businesses which don't want to do business with them?

Don't need to, I never claimed the 14th did any such thing.


>>>>

I know you didn't .

 

[JakeStarkey]

What you do in public is everybody's business.

We are not going back to bad times.

My business isn't the public sir. It's PRIVATE property. Know how I know? I pay the property tax.

When you are doing business in public as a service to the public, no, sir, you are not private at all.

Really? So just anyone can come anywhere on my business and I have no control over that? That's what you're claiming Jake?

Quarrel with me you will lose. Quarrel with state business accommodation law you will lose.

So, if you are going into business after your retirement, do it privately and by word of mouth.

Simply do not advertise. If you do, you are subject to PA laws.

Jake, you haven't defeated me yet, what makes you think you can this time?

I ask you again. WHERE in the COTUS does it say the government can prevent people from being mean to other people?

Wrong question, colonel? Ask what the PA laws of your state require of you.

 

[2aguy]

Public accommodation laws = modern Jim crow laws....government forced discrimination does not belong in this country....

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, they are not. Only a Jim Crow supporter would say such a thing.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

My business isn't the public sir. It's PRIVATE property. Know how I know? I pay the property tax.

When you are doing business in public as a service to the public, no, sir, you are not private at all.

Really? So just anyone can come anywhere on my business and I have no control over that? That's what you're claiming Jake?

Quarrel with me you will lose. Quarrel with state business accommodation law you will lose.

So, if you are going into business after your retirement, do it privately and by word of mouth.

Simply do not advertise. If you do, you are subject to PA laws.

Jake, you haven't defeated me yet, what makes you think you can this time?

I ask you again. WHERE in the COTUS does it say the government can prevent people from being mean to other people?

Wrong question, colonel? Ask what the PA laws of your state require of you.

I know what the PA laws state, I also know they have been ruled Constitutional . My question is how did the Court arrive at that decision, where in the COTUS is that supported?

By the way, since you insist on doing me the courtesy of addressing me by my rank (and I'm not one of those retired officers who insist on that , so Bear would be fine with me) I should do you the same courtesy, you were Army? Rank of Corporal?

 

[JakeStarkey]

As to the law. You know how it came about. What you are unhappy about is the philosophy and narrative that led to its creation.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Yes, and no.

PFC? Come on Jake tell me you were at least a Spec4

 

[Jroc]

Yes, and no.

PFC? Come on Jake tell me you were at least a Spec4

He's whatever he wants to be on this board. He claims to be a Republican while supporting and defending everything Obama does

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Yes, and no.

PFC? Come on Jake tell me you were at least a Spec4

He's whatever he wants to be on this board. He claims to be a Republican while supporting and defending everything Obama does

If Bodecea can be a gay Navy Commander from a period when gays weren't allowed to serve, Jake can be a 14 star General if he likes LOL

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have replied to you in the way I deem appropriate, STTAB.

 

[DriftingSand]

Not surprising. The US Government at every level and in almost every location no longer has any idea what morals or values are.

What's next.... A law to force me to ATTEND a same - sex wedding if invited to one?

Most can't even comprehend the very simple language of the 1st Amendment. It takes 5 seconds to read and its message is quite clear.

 

[Syriusly]

That doesn't make it a church. So the business has to follow the laws of the state.

The Constitution trumps state law. Assuming homosexuality is considered on the same level as religions and race.

I find it disgusting that you and people like you are advocating for a business to break the law and use religion to excuse it.

I find it disgusting that you are more interested in ramming homosexuality down people's throats than you are in respecting their religious views. Like I said, normal people find businesses that accommodate them, not forcing a business to accommodate them.

You christians really don't show much respect for your faith. jesus wasn't about profit. In fact, he said a camel can get through the eye of a needle much easier than a rich person can get into heaven. Your jesus also preached for the rich to sell everything they have and give it to the poor. You christians don't do that and in fact use your faith to make money. You also use that same faith to say you have the right to discriminate against you fellow human beings.

Which would disgust jesus.

I'm not a Christian. Apparently that's too much for your toggle switch brain.

You can worship the lint in your belly button for all I care.

The facts are that this isn't a church. It's a business. They perform weddings.

If this was a church I would be in full agreement with you. But it's not a church. It's a business. When they get that license they agree to serve the public and obey all laws of the area. The city has a law that says no one can discriminate against gay people,

If that business owner wants to have all the benefits of a church then he should turn in his business license and start a church.

If you want to bring the constitution into it, those business people are violating the 14th amendment. If they refuse to give the same business to gay people as they do to heterosexuals, they're violating the 14th amendment. Which has a lot to do with the law of that area that makes it illegal to discriminate against gay people.

No one is telling those people they can't be any religion they want. No one is violating their religious freedom. They can still worship the god of their choice while complying with the laws. I'm sure they perform a wide variety of religious ceremonies of which I'm sure the business people aren't members of all the varieties of religions they do services for. So if they can do a service of a religion that they aren't a member of, that means that not doing a ceremony of their own faith isn't keeping them from following their faith. Which means that performing any ceremony for a gay couple wouldn't keep them from following their faith.

So no one's religious freedom is being violated.

You advocate for a business owner to violate the law using religion to excuse it. Which is typical for people like you.

Seems to me that you conservatives think that you can pick and choose what laws you want to follow.

Here in the real world everyone follows all the laws. Not just those they like.

You can reply to this but I won't read it. I'm going to scroll right past your posts. I don't waste my time with people who advocate breaking the laws and violating the constitution.

They certainly are not. You will find NOWHERE in the 14th does it say you have a right to do business with people. NOWHERE

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have a right to do business at all.

Actually it does.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I know you are going to attempt to claim that self same Amendment means you have a right to do business with me, but in fact that would be horse shit and you know it. In EVERY other aspect, we aren't allowed to claim a right that over runs another person's rights, except for PA laws, why is that I wonder.

Like I said

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have a right to do business at all.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The Constitution trumps state law. Assuming homosexuality is considered on the same level as religions and race.
I find it disgusting that you are more interested in ramming homosexuality down people's throats than you are in respecting their religious views. Like I said, normal people find businesses that accommodate them, not forcing a business to accommodate them.
I'm not a Christian. Apparently that's too much for your toggle switch brain.

You can worship the lint in your belly button for all I care.

The facts are that this isn't a church. It's a business. They perform weddings.

If this was a church I would be in full agreement with you. But it's not a church. It's a business. When they get that license they agree to serve the public and obey all laws of the area. The city has a law that says no one can discriminate against gay people,

If that business owner wants to have all the benefits of a church then he should turn in his business license and start a church.

If you want to bring the constitution into it, those business people are violating the 14th amendment. If they refuse to give the same business to gay people as they do to heterosexuals, they're violating the 14th amendment. Which has a lot to do with the law of that area that makes it illegal to discriminate against gay people.

No one is telling those people they can't be any religion they want. No one is violating their religious freedom. They can still worship the god of their choice while complying with the laws. I'm sure they perform a wide variety of religious ceremonies of which I'm sure the business people aren't members of all the varieties of religions they do services for. So if they can do a service of a religion that they aren't a member of, that means that not doing a ceremony of their own faith isn't keeping them from following their faith. Which means that performing any ceremony for a gay couple wouldn't keep them from following their faith.

So no one's religious freedom is being violated.

You advocate for a business owner to violate the law using religion to excuse it. Which is typical for people like you.

Seems to me that you conservatives think that you can pick and choose what laws you want to follow.

Here in the real world everyone follows all the laws. Not just those they like.

You can reply to this but I won't read it. I'm going to scroll right past your posts. I don't waste my time with people who advocate breaking the laws and violating the constitution.

They certainly are not. You will find NOWHERE in the 14th does it say you have a right to do business with people. NOWHERE

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have a right to do business at all.

Actually it does.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I know you are going to attempt to claim that self same Amendment means you have a right to do business with me, but in fact that would be horse shit and you know it. In EVERY other aspect, we aren't allowed to claim a right that over runs another person's rights, except for PA laws, why is that I wonder.

Like I said

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have a right to do business at all.

and like I said, the 9th amendment CLEARLY states that I have the right to do business.

 

[Syriusly]

Public accommodation laws = modern Jim crow laws....government forced discrimination does not belong in this country....

Public accomodations laws= what the people who supported Jim Crows laws opposed.

 

[Syriusly]

You can worship the lint in your belly button for all I care.

The facts are that this isn't a church. It's a business. They perform weddings.

If this was a church I would be in full agreement with you. But it's not a church. It's a business. When they get that license they agree to serve the public and obey all laws of the area. The city has a law that says no one can discriminate against gay people,

If that business owner wants to have all the benefits of a church then he should turn in his business license and start a church.

If you want to bring the constitution into it, those business people are violating the 14th amendment. If they refuse to give the same business to gay people as they do to heterosexuals, they're violating the 14th amendment. Which has a lot to do with the law of that area that makes it illegal to discriminate against gay people.

No one is telling those people they can't be any religion they want. No one is violating their religious freedom. They can still worship the god of their choice while complying with the laws. I'm sure they perform a wide variety of religious ceremonies of which I'm sure the business people aren't members of all the varieties of religions they do services for. So if they can do a service of a religion that they aren't a member of, that means that not doing a ceremony of their own faith isn't keeping them from following their faith. Which means that performing any ceremony for a gay couple wouldn't keep them from following their faith.

So no one's religious freedom is being violated.

You advocate for a business owner to violate the law using religion to excuse it. Which is typical for people like you.

Seems to me that you conservatives think that you can pick and choose what laws you want to follow.

Here in the real world everyone follows all the laws. Not just those they like.

You can reply to this but I won't read it. I'm going to scroll right past your posts. I don't waste my time with people who advocate breaking the laws and violating the constitution.

They certainly are not. You will find NOWHERE in the 14th does it say you have a right to do business with people. NOWHERE

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have a right to do business at all.

Actually it does.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I know you are going to attempt to claim that self same Amendment means you have a right to do business with me, but in fact that would be horse shit and you know it. In EVERY other aspect, we aren't allowed to claim a right that over runs another person's rights, except for PA laws, why is that I wonder.

Like I said

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have a right to do business at all.

and like I said, the 9th amendment CLEARLY states that I have the right to do business.

Feel free to point me to the word that says "Business" or any synonym thereof

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

They certainly are not. You will find NOWHERE in the 14th does it say you have a right to do business with people. NOWHERE

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have a right to do business at all.

Actually it does.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I know you are going to attempt to claim that self same Amendment means you have a right to do business with me, but in fact that would be horse shit and you know it. In EVERY other aspect, we aren't allowed to claim a right that over runs another person's rights, except for PA laws, why is that I wonder.

Like I said

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have a right to do business at all.

and like I said, the 9th amendment CLEARLY states that I have the right to do business.

Feel free to point me to the word that says "Business" or any synonym thereof

It clearly says that just because something isn't enumerated in the COTUS doesn't mean I don't have a right to it.

It's quite fucking sad that you're so dishonest that you are arguing both that you have a right to "fag marriage" and that i don't have a right to do business. Are you fucking stupid? I mean seriously, are you fucking stupid?

 

[Syriusly]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have a right to do business at all.

Actually it does.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I know you are going to attempt to claim that self same Amendment means you have a right to do business with me, but in fact that would be horse shit and you know it. In EVERY other aspect, we aren't allowed to claim a right that over runs another person's rights, except for PA laws, why is that I wonder.

Like I said

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have a right to do business at all.

and like I said, the 9th amendment CLEARLY states that I have the right to do business.

Feel free to point me to the word that says "Business" or any synonym thereof

It clearly says that just because something isn't enumerated in the COTUS doesn't mean I don't have a right to it.

It's quite fucking sad that you're so dishonest that you are arguing both that you have a right to "fag marriage" and that i don't have a right to do business. Are you fucking stupid? I mean seriously, are you fucking stupid?

LOL....I love it when Conservative get so frothing at the mouth crazy that they are reduced to swearing like 8th graders. (and my apologies if you are an 8th grader and you consider that an insult).

I don't have a right to 'fag marriage' whatever that is- I guess the equivalent of N****r marriage- my wife and I have the right to marry, something we have enjoyed the privilage of for over 20 years.

I was enjoying pointing out that indeed- we can have rights that are not clearly enumerated in the Constitution- such as the right of two people of the same gender to marriage and the right to run a business- even when they are not spelled out in the Constitution.

So are we in agreement that neither same gender marriage or running a business are specifically spelled out in the Constitution, but still exist?

 

[Pepkay]

It is all supposed to be about tolerance of other people...except when that means leaving religious people alone...the first attempts to go after churches are happening and are being beaten back...but this is just the start...like when the lawyers wanted the sermons of ministers...but then they backed off...for now...how about this threat...?

The PJ Tatler Idaho City Threatens to Jail Ministers for Not Performing Gay Weddings

Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.

“The city somehow expects ordained pastors to flip a switch and turn off all faithfulness to their God and their vows,” explained ADF Legal Counsel Jonathan Scruggs. “The U.S. Constitution as well as federal and state law clearly stand against that. The city cannot mandate across-the-board conformity to its interpretation of a city ordinance in utter disregard for the guaranteed freedoms Americans treasure in our society.”

Can't arrest a Pastor for not performing gay marriages. It violates separation of church and state.

 

[Syriusly]

It is all supposed to be about tolerance of other people...except when that means leaving religious people alone...the first attempts to go after churches are happening and are being beaten back...but this is just the start...like when the lawyers wanted the sermons of ministers...but then they backed off...for now...how about this threat...?

The PJ Tatler Idaho City Threatens to Jail Ministers for Not Performing Gay Weddings

Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.

“The city somehow expects ordained pastors to flip a switch and turn off all faithfulness to their God and their vows,” explained ADF Legal Counsel Jonathan Scruggs. “The U.S. Constitution as well as federal and state law clearly stand against that. The city cannot mandate across-the-board conformity to its interpretation of a city ordinance in utter disregard for the guaranteed freedoms Americans treasure in our society.”

Can't arrest a Pastor for not performing gay marriages. It violates separation of church and state.

And no one is threatening to arrest anyone.

All just a gimmick ginned up by conservative activists.