Senator Marco Rubio: It's Constitutionally Valid To Refuse Services To Gay Marriages (He's Right)

[Statistikhengst]

Just think, Jewish delicatessens are not obligated to serve ham sandwiches. Halal restaurants are not obligated to serve pork chops. Is that unconstitutional?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think newspapers have the right to refuse any ad that they please.

I have to agree that Marco Rubio, a non-natural born Citizen constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of the presidency, who will announce his candidacy on April 11th, is right on this issue.

Rubio Constitutionally Valid For People to Refuse Service to Gay
Marriages - Breitbart

You're understanding of what he actually said is severely flawed, as is your understanding of his status as a natural born citizen. But, as I said in a another thread, you just can't fix stupid.

No you can't. We have some loonies here on the Left, but you have more than your share on the right. Enjoy Steve McFuckMeInTheAss, he is really quite entertaining.

If you really want to know what side is the better side to be on in a debate, just make sure you are NOT on his side, then you will have better chances, statistically speaking.

The loonies are not in short supply on either side. I do admit with a good deal of frustration that my party has been courting them more than the Democrats have. But, not being a Democrat, I really don't pay too much attention and I might be wrong on that.

Everyone has a looney moment now and then, if you ask me. The problem is with those who have them as a chronic condition....

That is the nature of a bell curve. Those ends will always be there no matter what you do. We will always have the stupid with us. The real issue is to what extent they are allowed to skew the curve.

YEPP.

 

[PratchettFan]

Just think, Jewish delicatessens are not obligated to serve ham sandwiches. Halal restaurants are not obligated to serve pork chops. Is that unconstitutional?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think newspapers have the right to refuse any ad that they please.

I have to agree that Marco Rubio, a non-natural born Citizen constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of the presidency, who will announce his candidacy on April 11th, is right on this issue.

Rubio Constitutionally Valid For People to Refuse Service to Gay Marriages - Breitbart

Rubio was born in Miami. Last I checked that's still the U.S. And that makes him a citizen, naturally born.

No he isn't. His parents were not naturalized citizens before he was born in 1971. They became naturalized U.S. citizens AFTER in 1975 meaning Rubio was born to aliens.

So you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm glad you have clarified that - again.

I know EXACTLY what I am talking about.

I'm sure you do. I am also sure that being utterly wrong won't have any impact on your knowing.

 

[The Rabbi]

Just think, Jewish delicatessens are not obligated to serve ham sandwiches. Halal restaurants are not obligated to serve pork chops. Is that unconstitutional?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think newspapers have the right to refuse any ad that they please.

I have to agree that Marco Rubio, a non-natural born Citizen constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of the presidency, who will announce his candidacy on April 11th, is right on this issue.

Rubio Constitutionally Valid For People to Refuse Service to Gay Marriages - Breitbart

Rubio was born in Miami. Last I checked that's still the U.S. And that makes him a citizen, naturally born.

No he isn't. His parents were not naturalized citizens before he was born in 1971. They became naturalized U.S. citizens AFTER in 1975 meaning Rubio was born to aliens.

So you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm glad you have clarified that - again.

McGarrett's standard seems to be anyone who isnt a WASP is ineligible.
By his reasoning Andrew Jackson, whose parents emigrated, was also ineligible.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Just think, Jewish delicatessens are not obligated to serve ham sandwiches. Halal restaurants are not obligated to serve pork chops. Is that unconstitutional?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think newspapers have the right to refuse any ad that they please.

I have to agree that Marco Rubio, a non-natural born Citizen constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of the presidency, who will announce his candidacy on April 11th, is right on this issue.

Rubio Constitutionally Valid For People to Refuse Service to Gay Marriages - Breitbart

Rubio was born in Miami. Last I checked that's still the U.S. And that makes him a citizen, naturally born.

No he isn't. His parents were not naturalized citizens before he was born in 1971. They became naturalized U.S. citizens AFTER in 1975 meaning Rubio was born to aliens.

So you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm glad you have clarified that - again.

McGarrett's standard seems to be anyone who isnt a WASP is ineligible.
By his reasoning Andrew Jackson, whose parents emigrated, was also ineligible.

Not true. Jackson was eligible under Article 2 Section 1's grandfather clause, the only time a citizen could become president until a natural born citizen was eligible. Martin Van Buren born to two U.S. citizen parents with sole allegiance to America became the first natural born citizen president.

 

[lake avenue]

The people's rights come before a business's rights IMO

 

[PratchettFan]

The people's rights come before a business's rights IMO

What if the business is a person? Aren't they part of the people?

 

[lake avenue]

The people's rights come before a business's rights IMO

What if the business is a person? Aren't they part of the people?

I believe an individuals right to be served trumps a businesses right to serve someone, mainly because any argument that can be made for someone not to serve someone is baseless.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I'm still waiting for homos to challenge Muslims and mosques. I'll bring refreshments and watch the explosions from a safe distance.
Hypocrites. Homonazis are hypocrites deluxe.

Ah yes...the "you should be grateful we don't treat you like the Muslims" schtick.

Wrong. It's the "we are too hypocritical and afraid to challenge muslims on the same issue" schtick.

 

[bodecea]

I'm still waiting for homos to challenge Muslims and mosques. I'll bring refreshments and watch the explosions from a safe distance.
Hypocrites. Homonazis are hypocrites deluxe.

Ah yes...the "you should be grateful we don't treat you like the Muslims" schtick.

Wrong. It's the "we are too hypocritical and afraid to challenge muslims on the same issue" schtick.

Nope...I had it right the first time. I'd challenge muslims all day long. Got any I can do that to?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I'm still waiting for homos to challenge Muslims and mosques. I'll bring refreshments and watch the explosions from a safe distance.
Hypocrites. Homonazis are hypocrites deluxe.

Ah yes...the "you should be grateful we don't treat you like the Muslims" schtick.

Wrong. It's the "we are too hypocritical and afraid to challenge muslims on the same issue" schtick.

Nope...I had it right the first time. I'd challenge muslims all day long. Got any I can do that to?

Bullshit. That statement doesn't jibe with the previous statement. Or are you just schtick?

 

[PratchettFan]

The people's rights come before a business's rights IMO

What if the business is a person? Aren't they part of the people?

I believe an individuals right to be served trumps a businesses right to serve someone, mainly because any argument that can be made for someone not to serve someone is baseless.

Why?

 

[lake avenue]

The people's rights come before a business's rights IMO

What if the business is a person? Aren't they part of the people?

I believe an individuals right to be served trumps a businesses right to serve someone, mainly because any argument that can be made for someone not to serve someone is baseless.

Why?

Try to make a valid argument that a business (regardless if it's one person) has rights before the individual citizen does.

here's a few ill just throw out:

1) the business owner simply doesnt want to - baseless discrimination
2) against the business owner's religion/beliefs - the government is not affiliated with any religion or ideology (besides 'liberty and democracy' i guess) and is not allowed to pass legislation that favors any religion or belief system.

 

[PratchettFan]

The people's rights come before a business's rights IMO

What if the business is a person? Aren't they part of the people?

I believe an individuals right to be served trumps a businesses right to serve someone, mainly because any argument that can be made for someone not to serve someone is baseless.

Why?

Try to make a valid argument that a business (regardless if it's one person) has rights before the individual citizen does.

here's a few ill just throw out:

1) the business owner simply doesnt want to - baseless discrimination
2) against the business owner's religion/beliefs - the government is not affiliated with any religion or ideology (besides 'liberty and democracy' i guess) and is not allowed to pass legislation that favors any religion or belief system.

The business owner is an individual citizen. They don't lose their rights as a citizen because they own a business. There is a balance between the rights of the consumer and the rights of the business and the consumer does not automatically win. There has to be a valid reason.

So tell me, what is the compelling reason to force a photographer to take pictures of a wedding?

BTW, you example #2 is flat wrong. The government can't enforce religion or favor one religion over another, but it can certainly pass legislation in favor of religion in general. That, in fact, is what the first amendment does.

 

[lake avenue]

The people's rights come before a business's rights IMO

What if the business is a person? Aren't they part of the people?

I believe an individuals right to be served trumps a businesses right to serve someone, mainly because any argument that can be made for someone not to serve someone is baseless.

Why?

Try to make a valid argument that a business (regardless if it's one person) has rights before the individual citizen does.

here's a few ill just throw out:

1) the business owner simply doesnt want to - baseless discrimination
2) against the business owner's religion/beliefs - the government is not affiliated with any religion or ideology (besides 'liberty and democracy' i guess) and is not allowed to pass legislation that favors any religion or belief system.

The business owner is an individual citizen. They don't lose their rights as a citizen because they own a business. There is a balance between the rights of the consumer and the rights of the business and the consumer does not automatically win. There has to be a valid reason.

exactly, there has to be a valid reason that you're denying someone service. and their race, gender, religion, and sexuality are not valid reasons.

So tell me, what is the compelling reason to force a photographer to take pictures of a wedding?

There is none, however there is compelling reason to force the photographer to give them an estimate/review of their wedding.

BTW, you example #2 is flat wrong. The government can't enforce religion or favor one religion over another, but it can certainly pass legislation in favor of religion in general. That, in fact, is what the first amendment does.

protecting freedom of religion isn't supporting religion, it's supporting individual rights. that's what the first amendment does.

 

[PratchettFan]

What if the business is a person? Aren't they part of the people?

I believe an individuals right to be served trumps a businesses right to serve someone, mainly because any argument that can be made for someone not to serve someone is baseless.

Why?

Try to make a valid argument that a business (regardless if it's one person) has rights before the individual citizen does.

here's a few ill just throw out:

1) the business owner simply doesnt want to - baseless discrimination
2) against the business owner's religion/beliefs - the government is not affiliated with any religion or ideology (besides 'liberty and democracy' i guess) and is not allowed to pass legislation that favors any religion or belief system.

The business owner is an individual citizen. They don't lose their rights as a citizen because they own a business. There is a balance between the rights of the consumer and the rights of the business and the consumer does not automatically win. There has to be a valid reason.

exactly, there has to be a valid reason that you're denying someone service. and their race, gender, religion, and sexuality are not valid reasons.

So tell me, what is the compelling reason to force a photographer to take pictures of a wedding?

There is none, however there is compelling reason to force the photographer to give them an estimate/review of their wedding.

BTW, you example #2 is flat wrong. The government can't enforce religion or favor one religion over another, but it can certainly pass legislation in favor of religion in general. That, in fact, is what the first amendment does.

protecting freedom of religion isn't supporting religion, it's supporting individual rights. that's what the first amendment does.

What is the compelling reason for an estimate?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

What if the business is a person? Aren't they part of the people?

I believe an individuals right to be served trumps a businesses right to serve someone, mainly because any argument that can be made for someone not to serve someone is baseless.

Why?

Try to make a valid argument that a business (regardless if it's one person) has rights before the individual citizen does.

here's a few ill just throw out:

1) the business owner simply doesnt want to - baseless discrimination
2) against the business owner's religion/beliefs - the government is not affiliated with any religion or ideology (besides 'liberty and democracy' i guess) and is not allowed to pass legislation that favors any religion or belief system.

The business owner is an individual citizen. They don't lose their rights as a citizen because they own a business. There is a balance between the rights of the consumer and the rights of the business and the consumer does not automatically win. There has to be a valid reason.

exactly, there has to be a valid reason that you're denying someone service. and their race, gender, religion, and sexuality are not valid reasons.

So tell me, what is the compelling reason to force a photographer to take pictures of a wedding?

There is none, however there is compelling reason to force the photographer to give them an estimate/review of their wedding.

BTW, you example #2 is flat wrong. The government can't enforce religion or favor one religion over another, but it can certainly pass legislation in favor of religion in general. That, in fact, is what the first amendment does.

protecting freedom of religion isn't supporting religion, it's supporting individual rights. that's what the first amendment does.

Denying a service to those acting on a sexuality -- per religious beliefs -- is legit. Denying service to an acknowledged pedophile is the same thing.

 

[lake avenue]

I believe an individuals right to be served trumps a businesses right to serve someone, mainly because any argument that can be made for someone not to serve someone is baseless.

Why?

Try to make a valid argument that a business (regardless if it's one person) has rights before the individual citizen does.

here's a few ill just throw out:

1) the business owner simply doesnt want to - baseless discrimination
2) against the business owner's religion/beliefs - the government is not affiliated with any religion or ideology (besides 'liberty and democracy' i guess) and is not allowed to pass legislation that favors any religion or belief system.

The business owner is an individual citizen. They don't lose their rights as a citizen because they own a business. There is a balance between the rights of the consumer and the rights of the business and the consumer does not automatically win. There has to be a valid reason.

exactly, there has to be a valid reason that you're denying someone service. and their race, gender, religion, and sexuality are not valid reasons.

So tell me, what is the compelling reason to force a photographer to take pictures of a wedding?

There is none, however there is compelling reason to force the photographer to give them an estimate/review of their wedding.

BTW, you example #2 is flat wrong. The government can't enforce religion or favor one religion over another, but it can certainly pass legislation in favor of religion in general. That, in fact, is what the first amendment does.

protecting freedom of religion isn't supporting religion, it's supporting individual rights. that's what the first amendment does.

What is the compelling reason for an estimate?

There is no reason to not give them an estimate. However there are various reasons to not actually give them a shoot; location and price differences come off the top of my head.

 

[lake avenue]

I believe an individuals right to be served trumps a businesses right to serve someone, mainly because any argument that can be made for someone not to serve someone is baseless.

Why?

Try to make a valid argument that a business (regardless if it's one person) has rights before the individual citizen does.

here's a few ill just throw out:

1) the business owner simply doesnt want to - baseless discrimination
2) against the business owner's religion/beliefs - the government is not affiliated with any religion or ideology (besides 'liberty and democracy' i guess) and is not allowed to pass legislation that favors any religion or belief system.

The business owner is an individual citizen. They don't lose their rights as a citizen because they own a business. There is a balance between the rights of the consumer and the rights of the business and the consumer does not automatically win. There has to be a valid reason.

exactly, there has to be a valid reason that you're denying someone service. and their race, gender, religion, and sexuality are not valid reasons.

So tell me, what is the compelling reason to force a photographer to take pictures of a wedding?

There is none, however there is compelling reason to force the photographer to give them an estimate/review of their wedding.

BTW, you example #2 is flat wrong. The government can't enforce religion or favor one religion over another, but it can certainly pass legislation in favor of religion in general. That, in fact, is what the first amendment does.

protecting freedom of religion isn't supporting religion, it's supporting individual rights. that's what the first amendment does.

Denying a service to those acting on a sexuality -- per religious beliefs -- is legit. Denying service to an acknowledged pedophile is the same thing.

Denying a service to those acting on christianity -- per religious beliefs -- is legit. Denying service to an acknowledged white person is the same thing.

see how that statement doesn't make an argument? it kinda just says something without backing. That's your logic, only changing two words. and it's shit. make an argument.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Why?

Try to make a valid argument that a business (regardless if it's one person) has rights before the individual citizen does.

here's a few ill just throw out:

1) the business owner simply doesnt want to - baseless discrimination
2) against the business owner's religion/beliefs - the government is not affiliated with any religion or ideology (besides 'liberty and democracy' i guess) and is not allowed to pass legislation that favors any religion or belief system.

The business owner is an individual citizen. They don't lose their rights as a citizen because they own a business. There is a balance between the rights of the consumer and the rights of the business and the consumer does not automatically win. There has to be a valid reason.

exactly, there has to be a valid reason that you're denying someone service. and their race, gender, religion, and sexuality are not valid reasons.

So tell me, what is the compelling reason to force a photographer to take pictures of a wedding?

There is none, however there is compelling reason to force the photographer to give them an estimate/review of their wedding.

BTW, you example #2 is flat wrong. The government can't enforce religion or favor one religion over another, but it can certainly pass legislation in favor of religion in general. That, in fact, is what the first amendment does.

protecting freedom of religion isn't supporting religion, it's supporting individual rights. that's what the first amendment does.

Denying a service to those acting on a sexuality -- per religious beliefs -- is legit. Denying service to an acknowledged pedophile is the same thing.

Denying a service to those acting on christianity -- per religious beliefs -- is legit. Denying service to an acknowledged white person is the same thing.

see how that statement doesn't make an argument? it kinda just says something without backing. That's your logic, only changing two words. and it's shit. make an argument.

I could change the two words to murderer and woman and it would as much lack sense as your attempt.
Skin color and gender are not ideologies or behavior choices.

 

[norwegen]

In a Progresive America, government forces our associations on us.



Yay, freedom.