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

[Seawytch]

Isn't a matter of hurt feelings. They broke the law.

Not at all. Religion is evil. Religion has never done anything good in the whole of human history.

It needs to be challenged, particularly when it is hateful, like this.

If a church continues to promote homophobia, then they need to lose their tax exemption, just like churches that promote racism do.

A law that covers hurt feelings and not actual harm is a stupid law.

and the fact that you can say "Religion has never done anything good in the whole of human history" shows your bias, and the total inability to believe anything that you type on the topic.

A church that promotes racism has lost tax exempt status because explicitly of that? Examples please.

A church, no...a university, yes.

Example?

Bob Jones University. From Wiki:

Although BJU had admitted Asians and other ethnic groups from its inception, it did not enroll Africans or African-American students until 1971. From 1971 to 1975, BJU admitted only married blacks, although the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had already determined in 1970 that "private schools with racially discriminatory admissions policies" were not entitled to federal tax exemption. In 1975, the University Board of Trustees authorized a change in policy to admit black students, a move that occurred shortly before the announcement of the Supreme Court decision in Runyon v. McCrary (427 U.S. 160 [1976]), which prohibited racial exclusion in private schools.[15] However, in May of that year, BJU expanded rules against interracial dating and marriage.[16] In 1976, the Internal Revenue Service revoked the university's tax exemption retroactively to December 1, 1970 on grounds that it was practicing racial discrimination.[17]

The Court decided it in the compelling interest of fighting systemic racial discrimination, which was still present in a dying form in the 70's.

There would be less of an argument for it if the case were heard now.

Bet the outcome would be the same.

 

[martybegan]

A law that covers hurt feelings and not actual harm is a stupid law.

and the fact that you can say "Religion has never done anything good in the whole of human history" shows your bias, and the total inability to believe anything that you type on the topic.

A church that promotes racism has lost tax exempt status because explicitly of that? Examples please.

A church, no...a university, yes.

Example?

Bob Jones University. From Wiki:

Although BJU had admitted Asians and other ethnic groups from its inception, it did not enroll Africans or African-American students until 1971. From 1971 to 1975, BJU admitted only married blacks, although the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had already determined in 1970 that "private schools with racially discriminatory admissions policies" were not entitled to federal tax exemption. In 1975, the University Board of Trustees authorized a change in policy to admit black students, a move that occurred shortly before the announcement of the Supreme Court decision in Runyon v. McCrary (427 U.S. 160 [1976]), which prohibited racial exclusion in private schools.[15] However, in May of that year, BJU expanded rules against interracial dating and marriage.[16] In 1976, the Internal Revenue Service revoked the university's tax exemption retroactively to December 1, 1970 on grounds that it was practicing racial discrimination.[17]

The Court decided it in the compelling interest of fighting systemic racial discrimination, which was still present in a dying form in the 70's.

There would be less of an argument for it if the case were heard now.

Bet the outcome would be the same.

The decision was based on a compelling government interest. Back then Jim crow still held sway. Today it is not the case.

 

[Seawytch]

A church, no...a university, yes.

Example?

Bob Jones University. From Wiki:

Although BJU had admitted Asians and other ethnic groups from its inception, it did not enroll Africans or African-American students until 1971. From 1971 to 1975, BJU admitted only married blacks, although the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had already determined in 1970 that "private schools with racially discriminatory admissions policies" were not entitled to federal tax exemption. In 1975, the University Board of Trustees authorized a change in policy to admit black students, a move that occurred shortly before the announcement of the Supreme Court decision in Runyon v. McCrary (427 U.S. 160 [1976]), which prohibited racial exclusion in private schools.[15] However, in May of that year, BJU expanded rules against interracial dating and marriage.[16] In 1976, the Internal Revenue Service revoked the university's tax exemption retroactively to December 1, 1970 on grounds that it was practicing racial discrimination.[17]

The Court decided it in the compelling interest of fighting systemic racial discrimination, which was still present in a dying form in the 70's.

There would be less of an argument for it if the case were heard now.

Bet the outcome would be the same.

The decision was based on a compelling government interest. Back then Jim crow still held sway. Today it is not the case.

Simply saying it doesn't make it so. It's pure conjecture on both our parts. I think if BJU (the irony ) tried the same shit today, I believe the outcome would be the same. You disagree. We'll never know.

The outcome of Obergefell v Hodges does not change because you don't think it's real and your opinion on it, along with $3 can get you a cup of coffee.

PA laws have been found Constitutional to this point. I urge you to legally challenge Title II of the CRA. We'll be rooting for you.

 

[martybegan]

Example?

Bob Jones University. From Wiki:

Although BJU had admitted Asians and other ethnic groups from its inception, it did not enroll Africans or African-American students until 1971. From 1971 to 1975, BJU admitted only married blacks, although the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had already determined in 1970 that "private schools with racially discriminatory admissions policies" were not entitled to federal tax exemption. In 1975, the University Board of Trustees authorized a change in policy to admit black students, a move that occurred shortly before the announcement of the Supreme Court decision in Runyon v. McCrary (427 U.S. 160 [1976]), which prohibited racial exclusion in private schools.[15] However, in May of that year, BJU expanded rules against interracial dating and marriage.[16] In 1976, the Internal Revenue Service revoked the university's tax exemption retroactively to December 1, 1970 on grounds that it was practicing racial discrimination.[17]

The Court decided it in the compelling interest of fighting systemic racial discrimination, which was still present in a dying form in the 70's.

There would be less of an argument for it if the case were heard now.

Bet the outcome would be the same.

The decision was based on a compelling government interest. Back then Jim crow still held sway. Today it is not the case.

Simply saying it doesn't make it so. It's pure conjecture on both our parts. I think if BJU (the irony ) tried the same shit today, I believe the outcome would be the same. You disagree. We'll never know.

The outcome of Obergefell v Hodges does not change because you don't think it's real and your opinion on it, along with $3 can get you a cup of coffee.

PA laws have been found Constitutional to this point. I urge you to legally challenge Title II of the CRA. We'll be rooting for you.

The way your side did it leaves the issue open, just like Roe V Wade hasn't ended the abortion debate.

And the only challenge to Title II or the CRA would have to involve limiting PA's to actual PA's, not every business in the country.

 

[Seawytch]

Bob Jones University. From Wiki:

Although BJU had admitted Asians and other ethnic groups from its inception, it did not enroll Africans or African-American students until 1971. From 1971 to 1975, BJU admitted only married blacks, although the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had already determined in 1970 that "private schools with racially discriminatory admissions policies" were not entitled to federal tax exemption. In 1975, the University Board of Trustees authorized a change in policy to admit black students, a move that occurred shortly before the announcement of the Supreme Court decision in Runyon v. McCrary (427 U.S. 160 [1976]), which prohibited racial exclusion in private schools.[15] However, in May of that year, BJU expanded rules against interracial dating and marriage.[16] In 1976, the Internal Revenue Service revoked the university's tax exemption retroactively to December 1, 1970 on grounds that it was practicing racial discrimination.[17]

The Court decided it in the compelling interest of fighting systemic racial discrimination, which was still present in a dying form in the 70's.

There would be less of an argument for it if the case were heard now.

Bet the outcome would be the same.

The decision was based on a compelling government interest. Back then Jim crow still held sway. Today it is not the case.

Simply saying it doesn't make it so. It's pure conjecture on both our parts. I think if BJU (the irony ) tried the same shit today, I believe the outcome would be the same. You disagree. We'll never know.

The outcome of Obergefell v Hodges does not change because you don't think it's real and your opinion on it, along with $3 can get you a cup of coffee.

PA laws have been found Constitutional to this point. I urge you to legally challenge Title II of the CRA. We'll be rooting for you.

The way your side did it leaves the issue open, just like Roe V Wade hasn't ended the abortion debate.

And the only challenge to Title II or the CRA would have to involve limiting PA's to actual PA's, not every business in the country.

Uh huh...do you really think a SCOTUS will ever repeal civil marriage for gays? Come on...by the time you could even get a "conservative" justice to replace a "liberal" one...WAY too many horses will be out for there to be a closing of the barn door. You'd have to get rid of more than one 'cause despite his dissention, Roberts is in no way going to agree with repealing it.

2nd option? A Constitutional Amendment. (cue hysterical laughter). Non starter.

So when you going to legally challenge PA laws? You going after the big dog or just the local and state ones that protect icky gays?

 

[martybegan]

The Court decided it in the compelling interest of fighting systemic racial discrimination, which was still present in a dying form in the 70's.

There would be less of an argument for it if the case were heard now.

Bet the outcome would be the same.

The decision was based on a compelling government interest. Back then Jim crow still held sway. Today it is not the case.

Simply saying it doesn't make it so. It's pure conjecture on both our parts. I think if BJU (the irony ) tried the same shit today, I believe the outcome would be the same. You disagree. We'll never know.

The outcome of Obergefell v Hodges does not change because you don't think it's real and your opinion on it, along with $3 can get you a cup of coffee.

PA laws have been found Constitutional to this point. I urge you to legally challenge Title II of the CRA. We'll be rooting for you.

The way your side did it leaves the issue open, just like Roe V Wade hasn't ended the abortion debate.

And the only challenge to Title II or the CRA would have to involve limiting PA's to actual PA's, not every business in the country.

Uh huh...do you really think a SCOTUS will ever repeal civil marriage for gays? Come on...by the time you could even get a "conservative" justice to replace a "liberal" one...WAY too many horses will be out for there to be a closing of the barn door. You'd have to get rid of more than one 'cause despite his dissention, Roberts is in no way going to agree with repealing it.

2nd option? A Constitutional Amendment. (cue hysterical laughter). Non starter.

So when you going to legally challenge PA laws? You going after the big dog or just the local and state ones that protect icky gays?

I will leave it up to the people with the free time on their hands.

 

[Seawytch]

Bet the outcome would be the same.

The decision was based on a compelling government interest. Back then Jim crow still held sway. Today it is not the case.

Simply saying it doesn't make it so. It's pure conjecture on both our parts. I think if BJU (the irony ) tried the same shit today, I believe the outcome would be the same. You disagree. We'll never know.

The outcome of Obergefell v Hodges does not change because you don't think it's real and your opinion on it, along with $3 can get you a cup of coffee.

PA laws have been found Constitutional to this point. I urge you to legally challenge Title II of the CRA. We'll be rooting for you.

The way your side did it leaves the issue open, just like Roe V Wade hasn't ended the abortion debate.

And the only challenge to Title II or the CRA would have to involve limiting PA's to actual PA's, not every business in the country.

Uh huh...do you really think a SCOTUS will ever repeal civil marriage for gays? Come on...by the time you could even get a "conservative" justice to replace a "liberal" one...WAY too many horses will be out for there to be a closing of the barn door. You'd have to get rid of more than one 'cause despite his dissention, Roberts is in no way going to agree with repealing it.

2nd option? A Constitutional Amendment. (cue hysterical laughter). Non starter.

So when you going to legally challenge PA laws? You going after the big dog or just the local and state ones that protect icky gays?

I will leave it up to the people with the free time on their hands.

Right...you're too busy whining about it on the internet to actually DO something about it.

 

[Silhouette]

PA laws have been found Constitutional to this point. I urge you to legally challenge Title II of the CRA. We'll be rooting for you.

Kim Davis is taking care of that..

In the mean time you might want to read the 9th Amendment to the Constitution and apply it to the favored horse in the "recent local PA laws vs the integral and grandfathered 1st Amendment civil right to exercise of faith" race.

You CANNOT legally require a Christian to defy a moral mandate under peril of eternal south death (Jude 1) by promoting homosexuality as "normal"...ie: for their passive refusal to do so..

In the Davis v the State of Kentucky case, the false premise of "race equals just some deviant sex behaviors" will come to the fore. You knew it had to sooner or later. Looks like it's going to be "sooner"..

In June 2015, the US Supreme Court erred in its verdict by wrongly presuming that just some deviant sex behaviors constitute "a class of people". Behaviors cannot be a class, unless they are a religion. And you can't say "just some of these behaviors but not others...like polygamy or incest...have special rights". Equality forbids that. So the Court erred. Either the states can regulate all marriages or they can regulate none of them. Anything less would be discrimination against the polygamists and incest pairings.

What gives SCOTUS the right to say "sodomites may marry but polygamists may not"? Why can a state bar or ban polygamy if sodomy is federally legal? Is a state allowed to regulate any sexual behaviors or marriage behavior at this point? The answer of course is "no". States no longer can bar any person from having sex with whoever they want, however they want, whenever they want and to carry that sexual relationship forward and call it "married". So says Equality from the mouth of the lady wearing a blindfold carrying the scales..

 

[martybegan]

The decision was based on a compelling government interest. Back then Jim crow still held sway. Today it is not the case.

Simply saying it doesn't make it so. It's pure conjecture on both our parts. I think if BJU (the irony ) tried the same shit today, I believe the outcome would be the same. You disagree. We'll never know.

The outcome of Obergefell v Hodges does not change because you don't think it's real and your opinion on it, along with $3 can get you a cup of coffee.

PA laws have been found Constitutional to this point. I urge you to legally challenge Title II of the CRA. We'll be rooting for you.

The way your side did it leaves the issue open, just like Roe V Wade hasn't ended the abortion debate.

And the only challenge to Title II or the CRA would have to involve limiting PA's to actual PA's, not every business in the country.

Uh huh...do you really think a SCOTUS will ever repeal civil marriage for gays? Come on...by the time you could even get a "conservative" justice to replace a "liberal" one...WAY too many horses will be out for there to be a closing of the barn door. You'd have to get rid of more than one 'cause despite his dissention, Roberts is in no way going to agree with repealing it.

2nd option? A Constitutional Amendment. (cue hysterical laughter). Non starter.

So when you going to legally challenge PA laws? You going after the big dog or just the local and state ones that protect icky gays?

I will leave it up to the people with the free time on their hands.

Right...you're too busy whining about it on the internet to actually DO something about it.

No, i'm voicing my opinion on it, something you seem to have an issue with. But it's easier for those like you to attack the ability of someone to have an opinion (in your view) than the opinion itself.

 

[Debra K]

PA laws have been found Constitutional to this point. I urge you to legally challenge Title II of the CRA. We'll be rooting for you.

Kim Davis is taking care of that..

In the mean time you might want to read the 9th Amendment to the Constitution and apply it to the favored horse in the "recent local PA laws vs the integral and grandfathered 1st Amendment civil right to exercise of faith" race.

You CANNOT legally require a Christian to defy a moral mandate under peril of eternal south death (Jude 1) by promoting homosexuality as "normal"...ie: for their passive refusal to do so..

In the Davis v the State of Kentucky case, the false premise of "race equals just some deviant sex behaviors" will come to the fore. You knew it had to sooner or later. Looks like it's going to be "sooner"..

In June 2015, the US Supreme Court erred in its verdict by wrongly presuming that just some deviant sex behaviors constitute "a class of people". Behaviors cannot be a class, unless they are a religion. And you can't say "just some of these behaviors but not others...like polygamy or incest...have special rights". Equality forbids that. So the Court erred. Either the states can regulate all marriages or they can regulate none of them. Anything less would be discrimination against the polygamists and incest pairings.

What gives SCOTUS the right to say "sodomites may marry but polygamists may not"? Why can a state bar or ban polygamy if sodomy is federally legal? Is a state allowed to regulate any sexual behaviors or marriage behavior at this point? The answer of course is "no". States no longer can bar any person from having sex with whoever they want, however they want, whenever they want and to carry that sexual relationship forward and call it "married". So says Equality from the mouth of the lady wearing a blindfold carrying the scales..

Silhouette: Your argument is illogical. You created a straw man argument and then you attack the straw man. You have not demonstrated that you actually read the Obergefell decision or, if you did read it, you have not demonstrated that you understand it. Your concocted fallacy will never be true, no matter how many times you repeat it.

 

[Nosmo King]

PA laws have been found Constitutional to this point. I urge you to legally challenge Title II of the CRA. We'll be rooting for you.

Kim Davis is taking care of that..

In the mean time you might want to read the 9th Amendment to the Constitution and apply it to the favored horse in the "recent local PA laws vs the integral and grandfathered 1st Amendment civil right to exercise of faith" race.

You CANNOT legally require a Christian to defy a moral mandate under peril of eternal south death (Jude 1) by promoting homosexuality as "normal"...ie: for their passive refusal to do so..

In the Davis v the State of Kentucky case, the false premise of "race equals just some deviant sex behaviors" will come to the fore. You knew it had to sooner or later. Looks like it's going to be "sooner"..

In June 2015, the US Supreme Court erred in its verdict by wrongly presuming that just some deviant sex behaviors constitute "a class of people". Behaviors cannot be a class, unless they are a religion. And you can't say "just some of these behaviors but not others...like polygamy or incest...have special rights". Equality forbids that. So the Court erred. Either the states can regulate all marriages or they can regulate none of them. Anything less would be discrimination against the polygamists and incest pairings.

What gives SCOTUS the right to say "sodomites may marry but polygamists may not"? Why can a state bar or ban polygamy if sodomy is federally legal? Is a state allowed to regulate any sexual behaviors or marriage behavior at this point? The answer of course is "no". States no longer can bar any person from having sex with whoever they want, however they want, whenever they want and to carry that sexual relationship forward and call it "married". So says Equality from the mouth of the lady wearing a blindfold carrying the scales..

Your arguments involving polygamy and incest are false premise. The marriage license is, in effect, a state sanctioned contract through which a new legal entity is formed. This new legal entity establishes a next of kin relationship where no such relationship previously existed. That shoots the incest argument down.

Further, the state marriage license is an exclusive contract between two consenting adults. More than two partners calls for a separate contract that may or may not provide the protections and requirements of the marriage contract. In marriage the total of the assets of both partners are melded together under the auspices of the new partnership. Perhaps a contract establishing polygamy does not provide this aspect. Perhaps a contract that established polygamy does not create the next of kin relationship among all the parties to that contract.

Homosexuals wanting to get married should have the same legal access to contract law as,any other responsible adult citizen. The only objections heard over same sex marriage are from a personal perception of what a same sex committed relationship looks like. And from personal sexual hang ups of a bigoted class of citizens who, while suffering no ill effects on their own personal relationships, seek to deny marriage to others.

There is no religious exemption or proviso to deny equality to sober, responsible adult citizens. Those who seek to find legal cover for their personal bigotry are, in essence, committing religious fraud. I am a Christian and I have never heard my minister admonish the congregation to not engage in commerce with homosexuals. Rather, he preached as Christ preached to love one another, to judge not lest we be judged and to not cast the first stone as we all bear sin.

Recently, some of these bigots claiming to practice that loving and forgiving faith have found bits of scripture that, they believe, exempts them from the basic tenets of Christianity. They seek to twist a faith of love and forgiveness into a legal shield so that they might perpetuate fear and hatred and hurtful stereotypes. I find that shameful and embarrassing as a Christian.

Our laws are secular laws. We are not bound by scriptural interpretations to determine lawfulness and unlawfulness. If we adhered to God's law, which manner of adherence would be most appropriate? The manner by which the Amish interpret scripture? Or perhaps the manner Orthodox Jews interpret scripture? Or is Sharia law a manner you would embrace? Which scripture and how deep an adherence would you prescribe, considering we shall pass no laws establishing or promoting religion?

 

[Pop23]

PA laws have been found Constitutional to this point. I urge you to legally challenge Title II of the CRA. We'll be rooting for you.

Kim Davis is taking care of that..

In the mean time you might want to read the 9th Amendment to the Constitution and apply it to the favored horse in the "recent local PA laws vs the integral and grandfathered 1st Amendment civil right to exercise of faith" race.

You CANNOT legally require a Christian to defy a moral mandate under peril of eternal south death (Jude 1) by promoting homosexuality as "normal"...ie: for their passive refusal to do so..

In the Davis v the State of Kentucky case, the false premise of "race equals just some deviant sex behaviors" will come to the fore. You knew it had to sooner or later. Looks like it's going to be "sooner"..

In June 2015, the US Supreme Court erred in its verdict by wrongly presuming that just some deviant sex behaviors constitute "a class of people". Behaviors cannot be a class, unless they are a religion. And you can't say "just some of these behaviors but not others...like polygamy or incest...have special rights". Equality forbids that. So the Court erred. Either the states can regulate all marriages or they can regulate none of them. Anything less would be discrimination against the polygamists and incest pairings.

What gives SCOTUS the right to say "sodomites may marry but polygamists may not"? Why can a state bar or ban polygamy if sodomy is federally legal? Is a state allowed to regulate any sexual behaviors or marriage behavior at this point? The answer of course is "no". States no longer can bar any person from having sex with whoever they want, however they want, whenever they want and to carry that sexual relationship forward and call it "married". So says Equality from the mouth of the lady wearing a blindfold carrying the scales..

Your arguments involving polygamy and incest are false premise. The marriage license is, in effect, a state sanctioned contract through which a new legal entity is formed. This new legal entity establishes a next of kin relationship where no such relationship previously existed. That shoots the incest argument down.

Further, the state marriage license is an exclusive contract between two consenting adults. More than two partners calls for a separate contract that may or may not provide the protections and requirements of the marriage contract. In marriage the total of the assets of both partners are melded together under the auspices of the new partnership. Perhaps a contract establishing polygamy does not provide this aspect. Perhaps a contract that established polygamy does not create the next of kin relationship among all the parties to that contract.

Homosexuals wanting to get married should have the same legal access to contract law as,any other responsible adult citizen. The only objections heard over same sex marriage are from a personal perception of what a same sex committed relationship looks like. And from personal sexual hang ups of a bigoted class of citizens who, while suffering no ill effects on their own personal relationships, seek to deny marriage to others.

There is no religious exemption or proviso to deny equality to sober, responsible adult citizens. Those who seek to find legal cover for their personal bigotry are, in essence, committing religious fraud. I am a Christian and I have never heard my minister admonish the congregation to not engage in commerce with homosexuals. Rather, he preached as Christ preached to love one another, to judge not lest we be judged and to not cast the first stone as we all bear sin.

Recently, some of these bigots claiming to practice that loving and forgiving faith have found bits of scripture that, they believe, exempts them from the basic tenets of Christianity. They seek to twist a faith of love and forgiveness into a legal shield so that they might perpetuate fear and hatred and hurtful stereotypes. I find that shameful and embarrassing as a Christian.

Our laws are secular laws. We are not bound by scriptural interpretations to determine lawfulness and unlawfulness. If we adhered to God's law, which manner of adherence would be most appropriate? The manner by which the Amish interpret scripture? Or perhaps the manner Orthodox Jews interpret scripture? Or is Sharia law a manner you would embrace? Which scripture and how deep an adherence would you prescribe, considering we shall pass no laws establishing or promoting religion?

So many assumptions are being made in this post its hard to know where to start

Polygamy:

There is no other contract between consenting adults limiting its participants to two.

What is the States compelling interest in denying individuals the right to increase the size of participation?

Incest: marriage is not only a set of rights and benefits, it bestows dignity to those children brought into the relationship. Obviously incest is illegal. But it is illegal whether the participants are married or not. But the assumption that you make, that is in great error is that marriage somehow requires that the individual perform sex acts with each other. No such qualification exists in any statute that I can find. No act, no incest.

You would deny these rights, dignity and benefits based on tradition and without due process.

Without the qualification that marriage is between a man and a women, nor that marriage requires sex, the rest of the law is arbitrary at best and would not hold constitutional water.

 

[Skylar]

Is Pop still arguing for polygamy and incest marriage? I've never understood his obsession. When you ask him to make his case for incest marriage....he abandons it.

Yet its virtually the only topic he'll discuss.

 

[bodecea]

I see you are still whining on the internet instead of doing something to change things in your state.

And I see you are still out of actual debating points on the topic at hand, and are still resorting to attacking my right to even have my opinions.

I don't have to whine. Our side worked hard WITHIN THE SYSTEM for decades to get legalized gay marriage. AKA....we won.

You used the wrong system. The right way would have been to get state legislatures to change the contracts, and have the courts enforce full faith and credit. What you did is got lawyers who shit on the constitution who happen to be judges to agree with you because of "feels".

We used the wrong system? We used the legal system. You apparently are not from the U.S. or familiar with the U.S. Constitution then. No wonder you do nothing but whine.

The court overstepped its bounds, like it as done numerous times the past decade.

And you are a legal expert? Link your credentials.

 

[Skylar]

And I see you are still out of actual debating points on the topic at hand, and are still resorting to attacking my right to even have my opinions.

I don't have to whine. Our side worked hard WITHIN THE SYSTEM for decades to get legalized gay marriage. AKA....we won.

You used the wrong system. The right way would have been to get state legislatures to change the contracts, and have the courts enforce full faith and credit. What you did is got lawyers who shit on the constitution who happen to be judges to agree with you because of "feels".

We used the wrong system? We used the legal system. You apparently are not from the U.S. or familiar with the U.S. Constitution then. No wonder you do nothing but whine.

The court overstepped its bounds, like it as done numerous times the past decade.

And you are a legal expert? Link your credentials.

No, you're not getting it. Marty quotes himself as the law. And then insists that unless you accept him as an infallible authority on the law, you're using the 'appeal to authority' fallacy.

You have to accept Marty's pseudo-legal definitions, any assessment he makes on degree of the law, or about the constitution. See, in Marty's world the only way to avoid the appeal to authority fallacy...

...is to accept Marty as the sole legal authority.

 

[bodecea]

I don't have to whine. Our side worked hard WITHIN THE SYSTEM for decades to get legalized gay marriage. AKA....we won.

You used the wrong system. The right way would have been to get state legislatures to change the contracts, and have the courts enforce full faith and credit. What you did is got lawyers who shit on the constitution who happen to be judges to agree with you because of "feels".

We used the wrong system? We used the legal system. You apparently are not from the U.S. or familiar with the U.S. Constitution then. No wonder you do nothing but whine.

The court overstepped its bounds, like it as done numerous times the past decade.

And you are a legal expert? Link your credentials.

No, you're not getting it. Marty quotes himself as the law. And then insists that unless you accept him as an infallible authority on the law, you're using the 'appeal to authority' fallacy.

You have to accept Marty's pseudo-legal definitions, any assessment he makes on degree of the law, or about the constitution. See, in Marty's world the only way to avoid the appeal to authority fallacy...

...is to accept Marty as the sole legal authority.

Plus it seems to me that he wants us to hold his "opinion" as the equivalent of The Truth.

 

[JoeB131]

A law that covers hurt feelings and not actual harm is a stupid law.

and the fact that you can say "Religion has never done anything good in the whole of human history" shows your bias, and the total inability to believe anything that you type on the topic.

A church that promotes racism has lost tax exempt status because explicitly of that? Examples please.

Bob Jones universtiy lost its tax exemption because they didn't allow interracial dating until 2000.

And, no, religion has never accomplished anything good, not once, not even by fucking accident.

Sorry, there was actual harm done to the Bowman-Cryers.

 

[JoeB131]

It's an observation on your metal state, and it is accurate. You are a drive by thug, using government to hurt people you don't like.

And your statement of vendor vs. consumer is comical, and of course self serving in your quest to force people to do things they don't want to do, because being an asshole gives you a chubby.

Once again. I've known gay people who've been fired for being gay, I've known gay people who have been beaten up by bigots for being gay.

Making someone provide a service they will be paid for and offered publically is nowhere near that level of being an asshole.

I just can't get worked up because the Klein Family had to do their job.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Notice how the homosexual mafia targets only Christian businesses, never Muslim businesses.

How many Muslim florists, photographers or bakers do you think there are? Probably not many.

Go to the right city and there are actually plenty. (I drive past a halal bakery-along with a halal butcher shop & several halal markets-every week while working.)

 

[Sally Vater]

Here you go. Very entertaining.