SCOTUS divided over SSM

[The Rabbi]

That you consider SSM the same thing as Opposite sex marriage. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

The above statement put into the way back machine:

That you consider interracial marriage the same thing as white marriages. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

no matter how much you try to make it the same, race and sexual orientation are not the same. different tribes intermarried in the past, marriages between ethnic groups at the royal level were common as methods diplomacy, and the Brits and especially Spaniards had no issues interbreeding with the locals during colonialism (except for Americans who got a bug up their asses due to extended slavery).

One thing you say is correct "race and sexual orientation are not the same"...but civil rights for American citizens SHOULD be the same, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, handicap. You are simply trying to do down the same road that those against women's civil rights did in the late 70s.....making a fail argument that race and gender are not the same, therefore women do not get the same civil rights minorities have.

gender and orientation are not the same either.

They aren't being compared. Bigots and discrimination are. Those are the same.

As usual you are wrong.
We discriminate against people in marriaeg based on blood relationship and based on present marital status. That is discrimination. Bigotry is what the pro gay marriage people want to write into law.

 

[Skylar]

The above statement put into the way back machine:

That you consider interracial marriage the same thing as white marriages. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

no matter how much you try to make it the same, race and sexual orientation are not the same. different tribes intermarried in the past, marriages between ethnic groups at the royal level were common as methods diplomacy, and the Brits and especially Spaniards had no issues interbreeding with the locals during colonialism (except for Americans who got a bug up their asses due to extended slavery).

One thing you say is correct "race and sexual orientation are not the same"...but civil rights for American citizens SHOULD be the same, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, handicap. You are simply trying to do down the same road that those against women's civil rights did in the late 70s.....making a fail argument that race and gender are not the same, therefore women do not get the same civil rights minorities have.

gender and orientation are not the same either.

They aren't being compared. Bigots and discrimination are. Those are the same.

As usual you are wrong.
We discriminate against people in marriaeg based on blood relationship and based on present marital status. That is discrimination. Bigotry is what the pro gay marriage people want to write into law.

By that rather bizarre interpretation......you want to bigotry to stay in the law.

 

[The Rabbi]

That you consider SSM the same thing as Opposite sex marriage. Precedent says it is not, as no civilization has ever considered it as marriage in any shape or form.

Where did I say SSM is the same thing as Hetero sexual marriage? Please cite.

Of course it's different, duh! The question isn't whether it's different or not. The question is whether or not the states can "constitutionally" discriminate against the life of gays because of this difference.

The whole crux of the 14th amendment argument is equal protection under the law. If they are not equal, then the whole 14th amendment argument goes away.

ROFL Equal protection of ALL CITIZENS BLACK, WHITE, GAY, ... Equal protection does not mean if you are heterosexual or if you are white.

Equal protection under the law, the law is a marriage contract, so if you want to use the 14th to extended it to gay couples, SSM and OSM have to be equal.

Incorrect.

Same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts; to seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

That is stunningly wrong. Or it would be stunning if a regular poster had said it. IN your case it's par for the course. You are wrong in almost every post.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, IT DOES WORK, your argument works marvelously! Don't you get it, it works SOOOOOO well, that it MUST work for EVERYONE

And when you're ready to discuss same sex marriage or the Obergefell case, I'll be here.

Until then, keep running.

I am discussing same sex marriage. SSSM.

No one in the Obergefell case is related. Making it irrelevant to our discussion. Just because you're obsessed with incest doesn't mean I'm obligated to abandon the thread topic.

Try again.

From what I see a lot of it is related, and again, 161 pages, the main points have been repeated ad nauseum by all sides.

Smiling....sure. But we're right.

No, you are not. and for saying that I should be persecuted, and your side seems to love doing that these days.

Holding you to generally applicable law isn't 'persecuting' you. Especially when that law is merely that you treat your customers fairly and equally.

So those people from Memories Pizza who had to go into hiding when asked a theoretical question were being treated fairly and equitably?

So a $150k fine and loss of their business for those bakers in Oregon was fair and equitable?

Its persecuting people, no matter how much you try to candy coat it.

The same thing would have happened to bigots pizza if they had proclaimed that they would refuse to cater a Jewish, interracial or a disabled persons wedding...there just might not have been as much $$$ in support.

You have absolutely no way of knowing that.
Recall that Brendan Eich was forced out by gay activists because he contributed money to a cause that Obama and Hillary had supported up until 2009.

 

[Pop23]

no matter how much you try to make it the same, race and sexual orientation are not the same. different tribes intermarried in the past, marriages between ethnic groups at the royal level were common as methods diplomacy, and the Brits and especially Spaniards had no issues interbreeding with the locals during colonialism (except for Americans who got a bug up their asses due to extended slavery).

One thing you say is correct "race and sexual orientation are not the same"...but civil rights for American citizens SHOULD be the same, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, handicap. You are simply trying to do down the same road that those against women's civil rights did in the late 70s.....making a fail argument that race and gender are not the same, therefore women do not get the same civil rights minorities have.

gender and orientation are not the same either.

They aren't being compared. Bigots and discrimination are. Those are the same.

As usual you are wrong.
We discriminate against people in marriaeg based on blood relationship and based on present marital status. That is discrimination. Bigotry is what the pro gay marriage people want to write into law.

By that rather bizarre interpretation......you want to bigotry to stay in the law.

As apparently you do too.

 

[kaz]

There was some feeling during the discussion that they were exceeding their authority on this one. I hope that becomes the dominant opinion.
While I oppose gay marriage as bad policy I recognize that states can enact bad policy if they want. Too bad the gay marriage proponents dont want to extend that freedom to others.

The 'freedom' to strip others of rights?

The conservative conception of 'freedom' continues to leave a brown streak on the bowl as it swirls downward.

There is no stripping anyone of rights, except stripping voters of the right to decide policy questions. Which is what you want, shit-stain.

All the laws that the judiciary, both state and federal, have overturned says otherwise. A law being voted in doesn't make it constitutional. That laws adherence to and compatibility with the constitution makes it constitutional.

Any law that abrogates rights is already invalid. And marriage is most definitely a right.

Still lost huh? I'll shine a flashlight. Turn off all the lights and see if you can find it

Huh? Kaz, if you have nothing relevant to say, don't post.

Um...that was my message to you. When you find gay in the Constitution let me know, in the mean time, keep your hand out of your pants

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The 'freedom' to strip others of rights?

The conservative conception of 'freedom' continues to leave a brown streak on the bowl as it swirls downward.

There is no stripping anyone of rights, except stripping voters of the right to decide policy questions. Which is what you want, shit-stain.

All the laws that the judiciary, both state and federal, have overturned says otherwise. A law being voted in doesn't make it constitutional. That laws adherence to and compatibility with the constitution makes it constitutional.

Any law that abrogates rights is already invalid. And marriage is most definitely a right.

Still lost huh? I'll shine a flashlight. Turn off all the lights and see if you can find it

Huh? Kaz, if you have nothing relevant to say, don't post.

Um...that was my message to you. When you find gay in the Constitution let me know, in the mean time, keep your hand out of your pants

What's in the Constitution are men, all of whom are created equally, therefore to be treated equally, which fucks you good sine that's the last thing you'd support...

 

[kaz]

There is no stripping anyone of rights, except stripping voters of the right to decide policy questions. Which is what you want, shit-stain.

All the laws that the judiciary, both state and federal, have overturned says otherwise. A law being voted in doesn't make it constitutional. That laws adherence to and compatibility with the constitution makes it constitutional.

Any law that abrogates rights is already invalid. And marriage is most definitely a right.

Still lost huh? I'll shine a flashlight. Turn off all the lights and see if you can find it

Huh? Kaz, if you have nothing relevant to say, don't post.

Um...that was my message to you. When you find gay in the Constitution let me know, in the mean time, keep your hand out of your pants

What's in the Constitution are men, all of whom are created equally...

They thought that because they hadn't met you

 

[PaintMyHouse]

All the laws that the judiciary, both state and federal, have overturned says otherwise. A law being voted in doesn't make it constitutional. That laws adherence to and compatibility with the constitution makes it constitutional.

Any law that abrogates rights is already invalid. And marriage is most definitely a right.

Still lost huh? I'll shine a flashlight. Turn off all the lights and see if you can find it

Huh? Kaz, if you have nothing relevant to say, don't post.

Um...that was my message to you. When you find gay in the Constitution let me know, in the mean time, keep your hand out of your pants

What's in the Constitution are men, all of whom are created equally...

They thought that because they hadn't met you

That's correct, because I make them look like stupid schoolgirls...

 

[Kosh]

no matter how much you try to make it the same, race and sexual orientation are not the same. different tribes intermarried in the past, marriages between ethnic groups at the royal level were common as methods diplomacy, and the Brits and especially Spaniards had no issues interbreeding with the locals during colonialism (except for Americans who got a bug up their asses due to extended slavery).

One thing you say is correct "race and sexual orientation are not the same"...but civil rights for American citizens SHOULD be the same, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, handicap. You are simply trying to do down the same road that those against women's civil rights did in the late 70s.....making a fail argument that race and gender are not the same, therefore women do not get the same civil rights minorities have.

gender and orientation are not the same either.

They aren't being compared. Bigots and discrimination are. Those are the same.

As usual you are wrong.
We discriminate against people in marriaeg based on blood relationship and based on present marital status. That is discrimination. Bigotry is what the pro gay marriage people want to write into law.

By that rather bizarre interpretation......you want to bigotry to stay in the law.

As you vote for bigotry every time you vote far left.

 

[kaz]

Still lost huh? I'll shine a flashlight. Turn off all the lights and see if you can find it

Huh? Kaz, if you have nothing relevant to say, don't post.

Um...that was my message to you. When you find gay in the Constitution let me know, in the mean time, keep your hand out of your pants

What's in the Constitution are men, all of whom are created equally...

They thought that because they hadn't met you

That's correct, because I make them look like stupid schoolgirls...

Playground, your normal fare. Somehow I don't think they would be impressed. My favorite is how you disagree with everything they did, and you consider that to be proof you are them 200+ years removed, that you think they were wrong on everything

 

[Pop23]

No, IT DOES WORK, your argument works marvelously! Don't you get it, it works SOOOOOO well, that it MUST work for EVERYONE

And when you're ready to discuss same sex marriage or the Obergefell case, I'll be here.

Until then, keep running.

I am discussing same sex marriage. SSSM.

No one in the Obergefell case is related. Making it irrelevant to our discussion. Just because you're obsessed with incest doesn't mean I'm obligated to abandon the thread topic.

Try again.

From what I see a lot of it is related, and again, 161 pages, the main points have been repeated ad nauseum by all sides.

Smiling....sure. But we're right.

No, you are not. and for saying that I should be persecuted, and your side seems to love doing that these days.

Holding you to generally applicable law isn't 'persecuting' you. Especially when that law is merely that you treat your customers fairly and equally.

So those people from Memories Pizza who had to go into hiding when asked a theoretical question were being treated fairly and equitably?

That's private citizen v. private citizen. It has nothing to do with the government or same sex marriage. And who is advocating that private citizens should be threatened with violence for what they say on facebook?

Not me. Who then are you citing?

So a $150k fine and loss of their business for those bakers in Oregon was fair and equitable?

That's the penalty for violating Public Accommodation laws in their state.

Its persecuting people, no matter how much you try to candy coat it.

The latter is holding folks accountable to the law of their State. A law that requires that they treat their customers fairly and equally. If the same bakers had said they wouldn't serve black folks, they'd have received the same fine.

That's not 'persecution'. No matter how you slice it.

And this has what to do with the SSM case before the SC? You're pretty selective aintcha?

 

[Skylar]

And when you're ready to discuss same sex marriage or the Obergefell case, I'll be here.

Until then, keep running.

I am discussing same sex marriage. SSSM.

No one in the Obergefell case is related. Making it irrelevant to our discussion. Just because you're obsessed with incest doesn't mean I'm obligated to abandon the thread topic.

Try again.

Smiling....sure. But we're right.

No, you are not. and for saying that I should be persecuted, and your side seems to love doing that these days.

Holding you to generally applicable law isn't 'persecuting' you. Especially when that law is merely that you treat your customers fairly and equally.

So those people from Memories Pizza who had to go into hiding when asked a theoretical question were being treated fairly and equitably?

That's private citizen v. private citizen. It has nothing to do with the government or same sex marriage. And who is advocating that private citizens should be threatened with violence for what they say on facebook?

Not me. Who then are you citing?

So a $150k fine and loss of their business for those bakers in Oregon was fair and equitable?

That's the penalty for violating Public Accommodation laws in their state.

Its persecuting people, no matter how much you try to candy coat it.

The latter is holding folks accountable to the law of their State. A law that requires that they treat their customers fairly and equally. If the same bakers had said they wouldn't serve black folks, they'd have received the same fine.

That's not 'persecution'. No matter how you slice it.

And this has what to do with the SSM case before the SC? You're pretty selective aintcha?

Actual cases, actual instances, actual law. Compared to your irrelevancies which exist only in your head.

 

[Skylar]

One thing you say is correct "race and sexual orientation are not the same"...but civil rights for American citizens SHOULD be the same, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, handicap. You are simply trying to do down the same road that those against women's civil rights did in the late 70s.....making a fail argument that race and gender are not the same, therefore women do not get the same civil rights minorities have.

gender and orientation are not the same either.

They aren't being compared. Bigots and discrimination are. Those are the same.

As usual you are wrong.
We discriminate against people in marriaeg based on blood relationship and based on present marital status. That is discrimination. Bigotry is what the pro gay marriage people want to write into law.

By that rather bizarre interpretation......you want to bigotry to stay in the law.

As apparently you do too.

I don't consider expanding marriage to be an act of bigotry.

 

[Pop23]

I am discussing same sex marriage. SSSM.

No one in the Obergefell case is related. Making it irrelevant to our discussion. Just because you're obsessed with incest doesn't mean I'm obligated to abandon the thread topic.

Try again.

No, you are not. and for saying that I should be persecuted, and your side seems to love doing that these days.

Holding you to generally applicable law isn't 'persecuting' you. Especially when that law is merely that you treat your customers fairly and equally.

So those people from Memories Pizza who had to go into hiding when asked a theoretical question were being treated fairly and equitably?

That's private citizen v. private citizen. It has nothing to do with the government or same sex marriage. And who is advocating that private citizens should be threatened with violence for what they say on facebook?

Not me. Who then are you citing?

So a $150k fine and loss of their business for those bakers in Oregon was fair and equitable?

That's the penalty for violating Public Accommodation laws in their state.

Its persecuting people, no matter how much you try to candy coat it.

The latter is holding folks accountable to the law of their State. A law that requires that they treat their customers fairly and equally. If the same bakers had said they wouldn't serve black folks, they'd have received the same fine.

That's not 'persecution'. No matter how you slice it.

And this has what to do with the SSM case before the SC? You're pretty selective aintcha?

Actual cases, actual instances, actual law. Compared to your irrelevancies which exist only in your head.

ANOTHER EXCUSE!

 

[Pop23]

gender and orientation are not the same either.

They aren't being compared. Bigots and discrimination are. Those are the same.

As usual you are wrong.
We discriminate against people in marriaeg based on blood relationship and based on present marital status. That is discrimination. Bigotry is what the pro gay marriage people want to write into law.

By that rather bizarre interpretation......you want to bigotry to stay in the law.

As apparently you do too.

I don't consider expanding marriage to be an act of bigotry.

Except with the SSSM community.

 

[danielpalos]

gender and orientation are not the same either.

They aren't being compared. Bigots and discrimination are. Those are the same.

As usual you are wrong.
We discriminate against people in marriaeg based on blood relationship and based on present marital status. That is discrimination. Bigotry is what the pro gay marriage people want to write into law.

By that rather bizarre interpretation......you want to bigotry to stay in the law.

As apparently you do too.

I don't consider expanding marriage to be an act of bigotry.

expanding marriage to what?

 

[Pop23]

They aren't being compared. Bigots and discrimination are. Those are the same.

As usual you are wrong.
We discriminate against people in marriaeg based on blood relationship and based on present marital status. That is discrimination. Bigotry is what the pro gay marriage people want to write into law.

By that rather bizarre interpretation......you want to bigotry to stay in the law.

As apparently you do too.

I don't consider expanding marriage to be an act of bigotry.

expanding marriage to what?

Inclusion of same sex? Where you been?

 

[Skylar]

They aren't being compared. Bigots and discrimination are. Those are the same.

As usual you are wrong.
We discriminate against people in marriaeg based on blood relationship and based on present marital status. That is discrimination. Bigotry is what the pro gay marriage people want to write into law.

By that rather bizarre interpretation......you want to bigotry to stay in the law.

As apparently you do too.

I don't consider expanding marriage to be an act of bigotry.

expanding marriage to what?

To include gays and lesbians.

 

[Skylar]

They aren't being compared. Bigots and discrimination are. Those are the same.

As usual you are wrong.
We discriminate against people in marriaeg based on blood relationship and based on present marital status. That is discrimination. Bigotry is what the pro gay marriage people want to write into law.

By that rather bizarre interpretation......you want to bigotry to stay in the law.

As apparently you do too.

I don't consider expanding marriage to be an act of bigotry.

Except with the SSSM community.

Ah, red herrings. There's really nothing else to you, is there?

Just remember: you had to abandon your same sex marriage arguments. You can't even discuss same sex marriage now your claims have collapsed so utterly.

If your arguments are so week that all you can do is run from them....let them die.