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

[Plasmaball]

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.

Really? Voting to amend a constitution to ban Samesex marriage is using the fucking government to force your opinion on something.
Using the courts is not forcing their opinion. Its saying you can't vote to strip people of their rights.

Jesus you people are morons. Its just embarrassing now.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Conservative Activists, like Liberal Activists, have every right to challenge court.

That this was a deliberate operation is obvious.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let's get this stragiht.

Both sides are Progressive, conservative and liberal; they are using big government to try to get their way.

 

[Syriusly]

[
A conservative with a spine, willing to do civil disobedience? And you thought they were extinct! Next I want to see adoption agents refuse to adopt to two dudes pretending to be adequate "mom and dad" to orphans.

Seriously you need to learn what 'civil disobediance' is.

No one is threatening these business people with arrest.
Conservative activists have filed a lawsuit on their behalf- i.e. they are using the courts to claim that a law is unconstitutional.

If this is 'civil disobediance' then you should be applauding every gay couple who has filed lawsuits against laws that prohibit marriages between two people of the same gender.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Really? Voting to amend a constitution to ban Samesex marriage is using the fucking government to force your opinion on something.
Using the courts is not forcing their opinion. Its saying you can't vote to strip people of their rights.

Jesus you people are morons. Its just embarrassing now.

If you go through an amendment process, you CAN get government to not protect certain rights, that's actually the process to use. We got rid of the right to own slaves that way.

Whether a right is inherent or only government granted is another argument.

 

[Syriusly]

Conservative Activists, like Liberal Activists, have every right to challenge court.

That this was a deliberate operation is obvious.

Absolutely- and I support their right to fight this in court.

Just as I support the right of gay couples to fight laws they consider to be unjust in court.

 

[Plasmaball]

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.

Really? Voting to amend a constitution to ban Samesex marriage is using the fucking government to force your opinion on something.
Using the courts is not forcing their opinion. Its saying you can't vote to strip people of their rights.

Jesus you people are morons. Its just embarrassing now.

If you go through an amendment process, you CAN get government to not protect certain rights, that's actually the process to use. We got rid of the right to own slaves that way.

Whether a right is inherent or only government granted is another argument.

slavery stripped people of their rights....Perhaps you should think this argument over, seeing how its not working the way you want it too.

Dumbass

 

[Plasmaball]

Let's get this stragiht.

Both sides are Progressive, conservative and liberal; they are using big government to try to get their way.

hardly...Least not in this case.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Really? Voting to amend a constitution to ban Samesex marriage is using the fucking government to force your opinion on something.
Using the courts is not forcing their opinion. Its saying you can't vote to strip people of their rights.

Jesus you people are morons. Its just embarrassing now.

If you go through an amendment process, you CAN get government to not protect certain rights, that's actually the process to use. We got rid of the right to own slaves that way.

Whether a right is inherent or only government granted is another argument.

slavery stripped people of their rights....Perhaps you should think this argument over, seeing how its not working the way you want it too.

Dumbass

Slavery stripped certain people of their rights, however until the amendments passed, stripping owners of their slaves was near impossible, as per the Dread Scott decision.

I see the nuances of constitutional law escape you.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The homosexuals are being petty.

The city is filing the suit. No "homosexual" sued.

So the city is filing suit for what? Did they deny a homosexual couple a service?
If not, I think the city is being stupid, how can they sue if no violations have occurred?

The homosexuals are being petty.

The city is filing the suit. No "homosexual" sued.

So the city is filing suit for what? Did they deny a homosexual couple a service?
If not, I think the city is being stupid, how can they sue if no violations have occurred?

Yes they did deny a gay couple a wedding.

Here's a part of the article:

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.

So, I thought charges had to be pressed for the city to take action. So the homosexual couple must have filed a complaint and pressed charges. Which goes back to my point is that the homosexuals are being petty.

The city hasn't taken any "action", no complaints have been filed against them. No "charges" have been filed.

A Conservative legal group is suing the city on behalf of the Knapps.

 

[Seawytch]

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

Conservatives would go Bat guano crazy over it.

Probably blame the Muslims or Atheists and then predict natural disasters.

Again, why would anyone go where they are not welcome?

If a restaurant put up a sign saying blacks not welcome, I would not eat there, they are telling me about their true feelings n an issue. Why would I want a minister marry me if he/she didn't support my marriage.

You tell me where you stand and I will make my decisions based on that.

If they put up the sign, they'd be breaking FEDERAL law.

Either repeal ALL Public Accommodation laws or quit bitching because SOME states and localities ALSO protect gays (like they protect blacks and Christians)

 

[martybegan]

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

Conservatives would go Bat guano crazy over it.

Probably blame the Muslims or Atheists and then predict natural disasters.

Again, why would anyone go where they are not welcome?

If a restaurant put up a sign saying blacks not welcome, I would not eat there, they are telling me about their true feelings n an issue. Why would I want a minister marry me if he/she didn't support my marriage.

You tell me where you stand and I will make my decisions based on that.

If they put up the sign, they'd be breaking FEDERAL law.

Either repeal ALL Public Accommodation laws or quit bitching because SOME states and localities ALSO protect gays (like they protect blacks and Christians)

Or just restrict PA laws to actual public accommodations, not "everything"

 

[Seawytch]

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

Conservatives would go Bat guano crazy over it.

Probably blame the Muslims or Atheists and then predict natural disasters.

Again, why would anyone go where they are not welcome?

If a restaurant put up a sign saying blacks not welcome, I would not eat there, they are telling me about their true feelings n an issue. Why would I want a minister marry me if he/she didn't support my marriage.

You tell me where you stand and I will make my decisions based on that.

If they put up the sign, they'd be breaking FEDERAL law.

Either repeal ALL Public Accommodation laws or quit bitching because SOME states and localities ALSO protect gays (like they protect blacks and Christians)

Or just restrict PA laws to actual public accommodations, not "everything"

Right, sure...just call your Congressman...let us know how it goes.

 

[martybegan]

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

Conservatives would go Bat guano crazy over it.

Probably blame the Muslims or Atheists and then predict natural disasters.

Again, why would anyone go where they are not welcome?

If a restaurant put up a sign saying blacks not welcome, I would not eat there, they are telling me about their true feelings n an issue. Why would I want a minister marry me if he/she didn't support my marriage.

You tell me where you stand and I will make my decisions based on that.

If they put up the sign, they'd be breaking FEDERAL law.

Either repeal ALL Public Accommodation laws or quit bitching because SOME states and localities ALSO protect gays (like they protect blacks and Christians)

Or just restrict PA laws to actual public accommodations, not "everything"

Right, sure...just call your Congressman...let us know how it goes.

So your solution is to change the laws, even though you assume it is impossible to change the laws...

What a vindictive twat.

 

[Silhouette]

Either repeal ALL Public Accommodation laws or quit bitching because SOME states and localities ALSO protect gays (like they protect blacks and Christians)

Which category are you placing LGBTs into? Race or religion? So far as I know, a category protecting certain deviant sexual behaviors [but not others] repugnant to the majority has not been added to the 14th Amendment.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, you know nothing.

 

[martybegan]

Sil, you know nothing.

If you are not going to use the quote function to let a person know you are replying, at least use the mention function.

Anything else is chickenshit.

 

[Ravi]

Bullshit.

 

[martybegan]

Bullshit.

well ain't you a 'tard.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, you know nothing.

If you are not going to use the quote function to let a person know you are replying, at least use the mention function.

Anything else is chickenshit.

martytranslation: I didn't know there wasn't a needed quote.

Starkeyobservation: marty is stupider than tard.

Sil is making an observation that has nothing to with the OP.