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

[martybegan]

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

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?

So is there or isn't there a right to marry?

No... Each state has it's own marriage restrictions ,age,close relatives, you cant have more than one spouse ect...

So the SCOTUS...when they declare marriage a fundamental right on at least three occasions, were wrong?

They were wrong to extend it to SSM by judical fiat. You are not the same as an OSM, deal with it.

 

[Seawytch]

until the courts reverse the decision, or until the constitution is amended, yes, it's a settled matter.
i may disagree with it, but that doesn't change reality.

That makes you a quitter.

it makes me a resident of reality. try it some time.

Fuck off.

I guess having an opinion oppposite what a court says is something "bad" according to you. again. Fuck off.

Awww tissue? You lost..

Not even close you snivelling boil on Seawytch's hairy ass.

Wow...how did I get drug into this? Gosh Marty, getting pissy 'cause the gays are marrying? Tissue?

 

[martybegan]

I should have known this story was pretty much complete bullshit.

Legal hitch at Hitching Post - Coeur d Alene Press Local News

Let's go down the list of lies in the Todd Starnes piece in the OP:

1. The city hasn't taken any legal action whatsoever against the Knapps.
2. No complaints against them have been filed.
3. The "Alliance for Defending Freedom" is suing the city, not defending the Knapps.
4. The Knapps don't even know who the ADF lawyers are.
5. The Hitching Post chapel is registered as a for-profit LLC, not a "religious organization".

The best defense is a good offense. and again, why does the tax code trump 1st amendment rights?

Why don't you tell us? It's not like PA laws haven't gone before the SCOTUS before. Were those not 1st Amendment issues? How come they lost?

Asshole judges. and here the tax laws you keep spouting on about were set in 1954, by LBJ to silence his political opponents during a senate race.

So, in that landmark hotel case...the SCOTUS were "assholes"?

A hotel is indeed a public accommodation, bakers under contract and ministers are not. A bakery you walk into and buy a non custom product is one as well.

 

[Seawytch]

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

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?

So is there or isn't there a right to marry?

No... Each state has it's own marriage restrictions ,age,close relatives, you cant have more than one spouse ect...

So the SCOTUS...when they declare marriage a fundamental right on at least three occasions, were wrong?

They were wrong to extend it to SSM by judical fiat. You are not the same as an OSM, deal with it.

Seems like you're the one that has to "deal with" all the "asshole judges" that aren't ruling the way you want them to.

Tissue?

 

[Seawytch]

I should have known this story was pretty much complete bullshit.

Legal hitch at Hitching Post - Coeur d Alene Press Local News

Let's go down the list of lies in the Todd Starnes piece in the OP:

1. The city hasn't taken any legal action whatsoever against the Knapps.
2. No complaints against them have been filed.
3. The "Alliance for Defending Freedom" is suing the city, not defending the Knapps.
4. The Knapps don't even know who the ADF lawyers are.
5. The Hitching Post chapel is registered as a for-profit LLC, not a "religious organization".

The best defense is a good offense. and again, why does the tax code trump 1st amendment rights?

Why don't you tell us? It's not like PA laws haven't gone before the SCOTUS before. Were those not 1st Amendment issues? How come they lost?

Asshole judges. and here the tax laws you keep spouting on about were set in 1954, by LBJ to silence his political opponents during a senate race.

So, in that landmark hotel case...the SCOTUS were "assholes"?

A hotel is indeed a public accommodation, bakers under contract and ministers are not. A bakery you walk into and buy a non custom product is one as well.

Guess we'll find out when the SCOTUS takes a case...they declined the last time, leaving the lower court ruling in place...which ruled in favor of the discriminated against couple. Oh, it there was also a restaurant in one of the PA cases... not just a hotel.

 

[martybegan]

That makes you a quitter.

it makes me a resident of reality. try it some time.

Fuck off.

I guess having an opinion oppposite what a court says is something "bad" according to you. again. Fuck off.

Awww tissue? You lost..

Not even close you snivelling boil on Seawytch's hairy ass.

Wow...how did I get drug into this? Gosh Marty, getting pissy 'cause the gays are marrying? Tissue?

Not because they are marrying, but because you are using the courts wrongly, and because you are forcing people to either choose tyranny or losing their livelyhood.

Its not about the end result, its the process you fascists are using.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

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?

So is there or isn't there a right to marry?

No... Each state has it's own marriage restrictions ,age,close relatives, you cant have more than one spouse ect...

So the SCOTUS...when they declare marriage a fundamental right on at least three occasions, were wrong?

They were wrong to extend it to SSM by judical fiat. You are not the same as an OSM, deal with it.

No, they weren't, and yes, they are.

 

[martybegan]

The best defense is a good offense. and again, why does the tax code trump 1st amendment rights?

Why don't you tell us? It's not like PA laws haven't gone before the SCOTUS before. Were those not 1st Amendment issues? How come they lost?

Asshole judges. and here the tax laws you keep spouting on about were set in 1954, by LBJ to silence his political opponents during a senate race.

So, in that landmark hotel case...the SCOTUS were "assholes"?

A hotel is indeed a public accommodation, bakers under contract and ministers are not. A bakery you walk into and buy a non custom product is one as well.

Guess we'll find out when the SCOTUS takes a case...they declined the last time, leaving the lower court ruling in place...which ruled in favor of the discriminated against couple. Oh, it there was also a restaurant in one of the PA cases... not just a hotel.

Again, if you walk in for the exact same thing, public accommodation, if you want to have an event the owner does not agree with, find somewhere else.

 

[Jroc]

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

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?

So is there or isn't there a right to marry?

No... Each state has it's own marriage restrictions ,age,close relatives, you cant have more than one spouse ect...

So the SCOTUS...when they declare marriage a fundamental right on at least three occasions, were wrong?

Ideologues..absolutely wrong, just as they were wrong in the Dread Scott discussion, and Roe v wade. It's not their job to "declare" anything actually. it's their job to interpret the Constitution.

 

[martybegan]

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

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?

So is there or isn't there a right to marry?

No... Each state has it's own marriage restrictions ,age,close relatives, you cant have more than one spouse ect...

So the SCOTUS...when they declare marriage a fundamental right on at least three occasions, were wrong?

They were wrong to extend it to SSM by judical fiat. You are not the same as an OSM, deal with it.

No, they weren't, and yes, they are.

Thats your wrong opinion, nothing more.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anyone who opens a trendy restaurant in SLC advertising that Christians are not welcome, watch all hell bust loose.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

So is there or isn't there a right to marry?

No... Each state has it's own marriage restrictions ,age,close relatives, you cant have more than one spouse ect...

So the SCOTUS...when they declare marriage a fundamental right on at least three occasions, were wrong?

They were wrong to extend it to SSM by judical fiat. You are not the same as an OSM, deal with it.

No, they weren't, and yes, they are.

Thats your wrong opinion, nothing more.

It's your opinion that is wrong, Marty.

 

[martybegan]

No... Each state has it's own marriage restrictions ,age,close relatives, you cant have more than one spouse ect...

So the SCOTUS...when they declare marriage a fundamental right on at least three occasions, were wrong?

They were wrong to extend it to SSM by judical fiat. You are not the same as an OSM, deal with it.

No, they weren't, and yes, they are.

Thats your wrong opinion, nothing more.

It's your opinion that is wrong, Marty.

The difference is I am not trying to use government to force my opinion on YOU. Your side is doing exactly that.

 

[martybegan]

Anyone who opens a trendy restaurant in SLC advertising that Christians are not welcome, watch all hell bust loose.

Let the market handle it, not some judge or bureaucrat.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Anyone who opens a trendy restaurant in SLC advertising that Christians are not welcome, watch all hell bust loose.

and that would be wrong as well Jake, businesses should be able to advertise that anyone is not welcome. Let the market take care of them,not the government.

 

[Seawytch]

it makes me a resident of reality. try it some time.

Fuck off.

I guess having an opinion oppposite what a court says is something "bad" according to you. again. Fuck off.

Awww tissue? You lost..

Not even close you snivelling boil on Seawytch's hairy ass.

Wow...how did I get drug into this? Gosh Marty, getting pissy 'cause the gays are marrying? Tissue?

Not because they are marrying, but because you are using the courts wrongly, and because you are forcing people to either choose tyranny or losing their livelyhood.

Its not about the end result, its the process you fascists are using.

Right...PA laws in effect since 1967...but it's TYRANNY now that the gheys are doing it.

Hurry up and get 'em repealed Marty...I want those kooky Evangelicals out of my business. Get on it!

 

[Seawytch]

Why don't you tell us? It's not like PA laws haven't gone before the SCOTUS before. Were those not 1st Amendment issues? How come they lost?

Asshole judges. and here the tax laws you keep spouting on about were set in 1954, by LBJ to silence his political opponents during a senate race.

So, in that landmark hotel case...the SCOTUS were "assholes"?

A hotel is indeed a public accommodation, bakers under contract and ministers are not. A bakery you walk into and buy a non custom product is one as well.

Guess we'll find out when the SCOTUS takes a case...they declined the last time, leaving the lower court ruling in place...which ruled in favor of the discriminated against couple. Oh, it there was also a restaurant in one of the PA cases... not just a hotel.

Again, if you walk in for the exact same thing, public accommodation, if you want to have an event the owner does not agree with, find somewhere else.

A wedding cake is a wedding cake is a wedding cake, Marty.

 

[Seawytch]

Anyone who opens a trendy restaurant in SLC advertising that Christians are not welcome, watch all hell bust loose.

and that would be wrong as well Jake, businesses should be able to advertise that anyone is not welcome. Let the market take care of them,not the government.

So, how did the call with your Congressman go?

 

[martybegan]

Asshole judges. and here the tax laws you keep spouting on about were set in 1954, by LBJ to silence his political opponents during a senate race.

So, in that landmark hotel case...the SCOTUS were "assholes"?

A hotel is indeed a public accommodation, bakers under contract and ministers are not. A bakery you walk into and buy a non custom product is one as well.

Guess we'll find out when the SCOTUS takes a case...they declined the last time, leaving the lower court ruling in place...which ruled in favor of the discriminated against couple. Oh, it there was also a restaurant in one of the PA cases... not just a hotel.

Again, if you walk in for the exact same thing, public accommodation, if you want to have an event the owner does not agree with, find somewhere else.

A wedding cake is a wedding cake is a wedding cake, Marty.

Nope, not when you contract specifics and delivery to a ceremony.

 

[martybegan]

Fuck off.

I guess having an opinion oppposite what a court says is something "bad" according to you. again. Fuck off.

Awww tissue? You lost..

Not even close you snivelling boil on Seawytch's hairy ass.

Wow...how did I get drug into this? Gosh Marty, getting pissy 'cause the gays are marrying? Tissue?

Not because they are marrying, but because you are using the courts wrongly, and because you are forcing people to either choose tyranny or losing their livelyhood.

Its not about the end result, its the process you fascists are using.

Right...PA laws in effect since 1967...but it's TYRANNY now that the gheys are doing it.

Hurry up and get 'em repealed Marty...I want those kooky Evangelicals out of my business. Get on it!

How can you tell they are evangelicals?