State Takes Legal Action to Seize $135K From Bakers Who Refused to Make Cake for Lesbian Couple

[Sally Vater]

Oh, my yes. I'm really upset. So now you're gonna troll, huh.

Why would I troll when we are still on the topic of the correct ruling by the Supreme Court?

You're repeating yourself.

Not really....just pointing out that the Supreme Court made a correct ruling through a majority opinion. A happy day it was.

Yes, I'm aware of your opinion. We disagree. You're obviously upset that there are citizens who disagree. Does it bother you that right this minute exemption laws are being passed by states? Only a fool would think this is over.

And my opinion matches up with the SCOTUS decision.

Yes, for now. Things change though. Some day the court will have one more constitutionalist and then I will be right and with the majority. Neener, neener, neener.

 

[bodecea]

Why would I troll when we are still on the topic of the correct ruling by the Supreme Court?

You're repeating yourself.

Not really....just pointing out that the Supreme Court made a correct ruling through a majority opinion. A happy day it was.

Yes, I'm aware of your opinion. We disagree. You're obviously upset that there are citizens who disagree. Does it bother you that right this minute exemption laws are being passed by states? Only a fool would think this is over.

And my opinion matches up with the SCOTUS decision.

Yes, for now. Things change though. Some day the court will have one more constitutionalist and then I will be right and with the majority. Neener, neener, neener.

Yes for now. So....you think someday the Court will overrule itself?

 

[Seawytch]

Sally, you still haven't explained Zablocki v Redhail or Turner v Safley. Both 14th amendment cases having NOTHING to do with race.

The 14th amendment dealt exclusively with ex slaves and their children having full citizenship rights. The use of the 14th amendment for anything else is corrupt judicial activism in my opinion.

Finally a nutter that admits they disagree with Loving v Virginia. Thank you for your honesty.

 

[JoeB131]

You used an absolutist term, and I called you on it. You are now arguing magnitude.

And you just went Godwin. You lose.

nO, I'm arguing that the dubious claims he "brought down communism" (not a good thing and not really something he actually did) is more than blotted out by the fact he kept moving pedophiles from one parish to another without warning the parents they were there.

 

[Sally Vater]

You're repeating yourself.

Not really....just pointing out that the Supreme Court made a correct ruling through a majority opinion. A happy day it was.

Yes, I'm aware of your opinion. We disagree. You're obviously upset that there are citizens who disagree. Does it bother you that right this minute exemption laws are being passed by states? Only a fool would think this is over.

And my opinion matches up with the SCOTUS decision.

Yes, for now. Things change though. Some day the court will have one more constitutionalist and then I will be right and with the majority. Neener, neener, neener.

Yes for now. So....you think someday the Court will overrule itself?

When a decision as corrupt as this, no doubt.

 

[Sally Vater]

Sally, you still haven't explained Zablocki v Redhail or Turner v Safley. Both 14th amendment cases having NOTHING to do with race.

The 14th amendment dealt exclusively with ex slaves and their children having full citizenship rights. The use of the 14th amendment for anything else is corrupt judicial activism in my opinion.

Finally a nutter that admits they disagree with Loving v Virginia. Thank you for your honesty.

I disagree with any decision that is made by twisting and torturing the constitution. I'm not familiar with the case, but if it's regarding same-sex marriage, then yes. Is this case regarding same-sex marriage or are you just trying to use skin color like most leftist racists do?

 

[Sally Vater]

Sally, you still haven't explained Zablocki v Redhail or Turner v Safley. Both 14th amendment cases having NOTHING to do with race.

The 14th amendment dealt exclusively with ex slaves and their children having full citizenship rights. The use of the 14th amendment for anything else is corrupt judicial activism in my opinion.

Finally a nutter that admits they disagree with Loving v Virginia. Thank you for your honesty.

I never said I agreed with that decision. Read my post again. One of the citizens was descended from an ex slave. Therefore, the decision was constitutional. You're obviously desperate. The 14th amendment has nothing to do with same-sex marriage. Try again, nutbag.

 

[bodecea]

Not really....just pointing out that the Supreme Court made a correct ruling through a majority opinion. A happy day it was.

Yes, I'm aware of your opinion. We disagree. You're obviously upset that there are citizens who disagree. Does it bother you that right this minute exemption laws are being passed by states? Only a fool would think this is over.

And my opinion matches up with the SCOTUS decision.

Yes, for now. Things change though. Some day the court will have one more constitutionalist and then I will be right and with the majority. Neener, neener, neener.

Yes for now. So....you think someday the Court will overrule itself?

When a decision as corrupt as this, no doubt.

So...what will happen to all the SSMs that had happened in between?

 

[Sally Vater]

Yes, I'm aware of your opinion. We disagree. You're obviously upset that there are citizens who disagree. Does it bother you that right this minute exemption laws are being passed by states? Only a fool would think this is over.

And my opinion matches up with the SCOTUS decision.

Yes, for now. Things change though. Some day the court will have one more constitutionalist and then I will be right and with the majority. Neener, neener, neener.

Yes for now. So....you think someday the Court will overrule itself?

When a decision as corrupt as this, no doubt.

So...what will happen to all the SSMs that had happened in between?

Depends on state law in my opinion. Marriage laws are state matters, that's constitutional. You should thank me for giving you a free constitutional course.

 

[bodecea]

And my opinion matches up with the SCOTUS decision.

Yes, for now. Things change though. Some day the court will have one more constitutionalist and then I will be right and with the majority. Neener, neener, neener.

Yes for now. So....you think someday the Court will overrule itself?

When a decision as corrupt as this, no doubt.

So...what will happen to all the SSMs that had happened in between?

Depends on state law in my opinion. Marriage laws are state matters, that's constitutional. You should thank me for giving you a free constitutional course.

So..you know nothing about the ex post facto restriction in the Constitution....and you want to lecture us on Constitutionality...lol

 

[Sally Vater]

Yes, for now. Things change though. Some day the court will have one more constitutionalist and then I will be right and with the majority. Neener, neener, neener.

Yes for now. So....you think someday the Court will overrule itself?

When a decision as corrupt as this, no doubt.

So...what will happen to all the SSMs that had happened in between?

Depends on state law in my opinion. Marriage laws are state matters, that's constitutional. You should thank me for giving you a free constitutional course.

So..you know nothing about the ex post facto restriction in the Constitution....and you want to lecture us on Constitutionality...lol

Oooooo, using Latin words. You're really smart, huh. The USSC decided slavery was the law of the land. Looks like they reversed themselves. You keep talking, please. You're really helping me look good.

 

[bodecea]

Yes for now. So....you think someday the Court will overrule itself?

When a decision as corrupt as this, no doubt.

So...what will happen to all the SSMs that had happened in between?

Depends on state law in my opinion. Marriage laws are state matters, that's constitutional. You should thank me for giving you a free constitutional course.

So..you know nothing about the ex post facto restriction in the Constitution....and you want to lecture us on Constitutionality...lol

Oooooo, using Latin words. You're really smart, huh. The USSC decided slavery was the law of the land. Looks like they reversed themselves. You keep talking, please. You're really helping me look good.

The term "ex post facto" is actually in the Constitution....you're really exposing yourself here, Sally...lol

 

[Sally Vater]

When a decision as corrupt as this, no doubt.

So...what will happen to all the SSMs that had happened in between?

Depends on state law in my opinion. Marriage laws are state matters, that's constitutional. You should thank me for giving you a free constitutional course.

So..you know nothing about the ex post facto restriction in the Constitution....and you want to lecture us on Constitutionality...lol

Oooooo, using Latin words. You're really smart, huh. The USSC decided slavery was the law of the land. Looks like they reversed themselves. You keep talking, please. You're really helping me look good.

The term "ex post facto" is actually in the Constitution....you're really exposing yourself here, Sally...lol

Is it really? You're really smart. You're desperately trying to make a case that the USSC has never reversed itself. It has. Your throwing up Latin now so you think it makes you sound smart. The USSC once decided slavery was the law of the land. What happened to that decision?

 

[bodecea]

So...what will happen to all the SSMs that had happened in between?

Depends on state law in my opinion. Marriage laws are state matters, that's constitutional. You should thank me for giving you a free constitutional course.

So..you know nothing about the ex post facto restriction in the Constitution....and you want to lecture us on Constitutionality...lol

Oooooo, using Latin words. You're really smart, huh. The USSC decided slavery was the law of the land. Looks like they reversed themselves. You keep talking, please. You're really helping me look good.

The term "ex post facto" is actually in the Constitution....you're really exposing yourself here, Sally...lol

Is it really? You're really smart. You're desperately trying to make a case that the USSC has never reversed itself. It has. Your throwing up Latin now so you think it makes you sound smart. The USSC once decided slavery was the law of the land. What happened to that decision?

I'm trying to make a case that the Supreme Court never reverses itself?....You want to really stand by that statement? Sure?

 

[Sally Vater]

Depends on state law in my opinion. Marriage laws are state matters, that's constitutional. You should thank me for giving you a free constitutional course.

So..you know nothing about the ex post facto restriction in the Constitution....and you want to lecture us on Constitutionality...lol

Oooooo, using Latin words. You're really smart, huh. The USSC decided slavery was the law of the land. Looks like they reversed themselves. You keep talking, please. You're really helping me look good.

The term "ex post facto" is actually in the Constitution....you're really exposing yourself here, Sally...lol

Is it really? You're really smart. You're desperately trying to make a case that the USSC has never reversed itself. It has. Your throwing up Latin now so you think it makes you sound smart. The USSC once decided slavery was the law of the land. What happened to that decision?

I'm trying to make a case that the Supreme Court never reverses itself?....You want to really stand by that statement? Sure?

I think your intent is to create as much misdirection and confusion as possible. You're dishonest. Please continue. I'm beginning to enjoy playing with you. Make your point.

 

[bodecea]

So..you know nothing about the ex post facto restriction in the Constitution....and you want to lecture us on Constitutionality...lol

Oooooo, using Latin words. You're really smart, huh. The USSC decided slavery was the law of the land. Looks like they reversed themselves. You keep talking, please. You're really helping me look good.

The term "ex post facto" is actually in the Constitution....you're really exposing yourself here, Sally...lol

Is it really? You're really smart. You're desperately trying to make a case that the USSC has never reversed itself. It has. Your throwing up Latin now so you think it makes you sound smart. The USSC once decided slavery was the law of the land. What happened to that decision?

I'm trying to make a case that the Supreme Court never reverses itself?....You want to really stand by that statement? Sure?

I think your intent is to create as much misdirection and confusion as possible. You're dishonest. Please continue. I'm beginning to enjoy playing with you. Make your point.

You accused me of trying to claim the Supreme Court never reversed itself...are you going to stand by that accusation? Or will you try to weasel out of you own words?

 

[Sally Vater]

The 11 Most Devastating Quotes From John Roberts' Gay Marriage Dissent

 

[bodecea]

Here Are The 11 Most Devastating Quotes From John Roberts’ Gay Marriage Dissent.

Ah. Dodging now.....yeah.

 

[Sally Vater]

Here Are The 11 Most Devastating Quotes From John Roberts’ Gay Marriage Dissent.

Ah. Dodging now.....yeah.

Trolling. Make your point.
The 11 Most Devastating Quotes From John Roberts' Gay Marriage Dissent

 

[bodecea]

Here Are The 11 Most Devastating Quotes From John Roberts’ Gay Marriage Dissent.

Ah. Dodging now.....yeah.

Trolling. Make your point.
The 11 Most Devastating Quotes From John Roberts' Gay Marriage Dissent

So...you accused me of trying to claim that the Supreme Court never reverses itself...you did. Gonna stand by that or weasel out?