What the SSM SCOTUS Ruling Actually Means.

[Roadrunner]

It means that the Federal and State governments of the United States has to legally recognize same-sex marriage. That's it; nothing more.

If you believe that same-sex marriage is morally or personally repugnant, you can continue to believe that way. You are not being forced to accept gay marriage. You are not being forced to accept homosexuality in anyway, at all.

The ruling isn't about redefining marriage for anyone but the government. Individual US citizens can continue to define, for themselves, that marriage is between and a man and a woman.

Let freedom ring!

Means what I and others have been saying all along: marriage as far as the government is concerned is simply a legal contract. So if two men or two women can enter into other contracts, they must be allowed to enter into others.

Everything else is irrelevant.

Why just two?

What is sacrosanct about couples?

If this pisses off enough people, the Constitution can be amended.

If not, time to get over it.

Want a 1000-person marriage more power to you. But the government should only apply the economic adjustments once.

Hey, there are extremes.

What if a person wanted to be in more than one marriage, but their partner didn't?

Could a gay man married to a gay man also marry a straight woman, so as to reproduce?

According to SCOTUS, I see no reason why mix and match in any combo should not be legal.

Can marry and live with however many you want. But the tax breaks and such will only be applied once. Wanna live alone and say you're "married" you can do that.

Who says tax breaks will only be applied once?

Who says "couples" will be the standard?

New territory here.

 

[martybegan]

It means that the Federal and State governments of the United States has to legally recognize same-sex marriage. That's it; nothing more.

If you believe that same-sex marriage is morally or personally repugnant, you can continue to believe that way. You are not being forced to accept gay marriage. You are not being forced to accept homosexuality in anyway, at all.

The ruling isn't about redefining marriage for anyone but the government. Individual US citizens can continue to define, for themselves, that marriage is between and a man and a woman.

Let freedom ring!

BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE, PEASANT!!!

Indeed, or they will call the media and destroy your business.

Wait...that's what Marty wants though. He wants the free market to handle things like "we don't serve n words here".

It's better than government doing it. and right now the "free market" doesn't handle it, shrill SJW asshats try to ruin people, and corporations buckle under without even the start of a boycott.

 

[DGS49]

My Two Cents worth:

Until now, the states defined "marriage" according to the good judgment of the state legislatures. It was more than man & wife. The legislatures baked in protections for the kids & spouses (alimony, child support, inheritance), how marriage could be ended and so on.

But the USSC has stepped in and demanded that the states include "couples" (or groups of people, if you follow their logic) who circumstances can be totally different from the couples and families envisioned by the legislatures, whether they make sense or not.

It is A.F.U.

 

[martybegan]

It means that the Federal and State governments of the United States has to legally recognize same-sex marriage. That's it; nothing more.

If you believe that same-sex marriage is morally or personally repugnant, you can continue to believe that way. You are not being forced to accept gay marriage. You are not being forced to accept homosexuality in anyway, at all.

The ruling isn't about redefining marriage for anyone but the government. Individual US citizens can continue to define, for themselves, that marriage is between and a man and a woman.

Let freedom ring!

BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE, PEASANT!!!

This is ignorant and wrong.

Public accommodations laws are authorized by the Commerce Clause, having nothing to do with Obergefell, which was a 14th Amendment case.

It's all related, and you know it. You just like punishing people who disagree with you.

And your "kitchen sink" view of the commerce clause is typical of people who love forcing people to act the way YOU want them to act.

 

[Moonglow]

It means that the Federal and State governments of the United States has to legally recognize same-sex marriage. That's it; nothing more.

If you believe that same-sex marriage is morally or personally repugnant, you can continue to believe that way. You are not being forced to accept gay marriage. You are not being forced to accept homosexuality in anyway, at all.

The ruling isn't about redefining marriage for anyone but the government. Individual US citizens can continue to define, for themselves, that marriage is between and a man and a woman.

Let freedom ring!

BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE, PEASANT!!!

With ginger?

 

[Moonglow]

It means that the Federal and State governments of the United States has to legally recognize same-sex marriage. That's it; nothing more.

If you believe that same-sex marriage is morally or personally repugnant, you can continue to believe that way. You are not being forced to accept gay marriage. You are not being forced to accept homosexuality in anyway, at all.

The ruling isn't about redefining marriage for anyone but the government. Individual US citizens can continue to define, for themselves, that marriage is between and a man and a woman.

Let freedom ring!

BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE, PEASANT!!!

This is ignorant and wrong.

Public accommodations laws are authorized by the Commerce Clause, having nothing to do with Obergefell, which was a 14th Amendment case.

It's all related, and you know it. You just like punishing people who disagree with you.

And your "kitchen sink" view of the commerce clause is typical of people who love forcing people to act the way YOU want them to act.

When will you be having a ghey date leading to a ghey wedding..?Cake and all...

 

[martybegan]

It means that the Federal and State governments of the United States has to legally recognize same-sex marriage. That's it; nothing more.

If you believe that same-sex marriage is morally or personally repugnant, you can continue to believe that way. You are not being forced to accept gay marriage. You are not being forced to accept homosexuality in anyway, at all.

The ruling isn't about redefining marriage for anyone but the government. Individual US citizens can continue to define, for themselves, that marriage is between and a man and a woman.

Let freedom ring!

BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE, PEASANT!!!

This is ignorant and wrong.

Public accommodations laws are authorized by the Commerce Clause, having nothing to do with Obergefell, which was a 14th Amendment case.

It's all related, and you know it. You just like punishing people who disagree with you.

And your "kitchen sink" view of the commerce clause is typical of people who love forcing people to act the way YOU want them to act.

When will you be having a ghey date leading to a ghey wedding..?Cake and all...

You deflect and dodge because you can't bring yourself to admit you like forcing people to do things they disagree with, and using government to do the forcing.

 

[Seawytch]

It means that the Federal and State governments of the United States has to legally recognize same-sex marriage. That's it; nothing more.

If you believe that same-sex marriage is morally or personally repugnant, you can continue to believe that way. You are not being forced to accept gay marriage. You are not being forced to accept homosexuality in anyway, at all.

The ruling isn't about redefining marriage for anyone but the government. Individual US citizens can continue to define, for themselves, that marriage is between and a man and a woman.

Let freedom ring!

BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE, PEASANT!!!

Indeed, or they will call the media and destroy your business.

Wait...that's what Marty wants though. He wants the free market to handle things like "we don't serve n words here".

It's better than government doing it. and right now the "free market" doesn't handle it, shrill SJW asshats try to ruin people, and corporations buckle under without even the start of a boycott.

It's great in theory...and I'm willing to try application if rules apply and an some issue/questions are addressed.

1) the business must state right up front who they don't want to serve.

What are you gonna do about rural dwellers?
Is this just for gays or do we now get to discriminate against everyone?

 

[g5000]

BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE, PEASANT!!!

BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE, PEASANT!!!

 

[g5000]

I think we should come up with some kind of badge system to make everyone wear so we know who is gay, who is Jewish, and so forth. I don't want to be accidentally serving someone I hate at my place of business, and no one should make me. Therefore, this badge system is the only thing that makes sense.

Otherwise, these evil people might trick me into making cakes for them without identifying themselves first. I don't have all day to be measuring the skulls and noses of my customers, or testing their wrist strength.

So, yeah. Badges. That's the way to go.

 

[martybegan]

It means that the Federal and State governments of the United States has to legally recognize same-sex marriage. That's it; nothing more.

If you believe that same-sex marriage is morally or personally repugnant, you can continue to believe that way. You are not being forced to accept gay marriage. You are not being forced to accept homosexuality in anyway, at all.

The ruling isn't about redefining marriage for anyone but the government. Individual US citizens can continue to define, for themselves, that marriage is between and a man and a woman.

Let freedom ring!

BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE, PEASANT!!!

Indeed, or they will call the media and destroy your business.

Wait...that's what Marty wants though. He wants the free market to handle things like "we don't serve n words here".

It's better than government doing it. and right now the "free market" doesn't handle it, shrill SJW asshats try to ruin people, and corporations buckle under without even the start of a boycott.

It's great in theory...and I'm willing to try application if rules apply and an some issue/questions are addressed.

1) the business must state right up front who they don't want to serve.

What are you gonna do about rural dwellers?
Is this just for gays or do we now get to discriminate against everyone?

Or they just have to state who they will serve, nice try in making the signage all negative.

If you live in a rural area you should be used to driving 20-30 miles to get something, and considering the majority of gay people settle in urban or suburban areas, this isn't the problem you are making it.

 

[martybegan]

BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE, PEASANT!!!

BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE, PEASANT!!!

Again, systemic government mandated economic segregation does not equal a gay couple having to spend another 1/2 hour finding another baker.

 

[martybegan]

I think we should come up with some kind of badge system to make everyone wear so we know who is gay, who is Jewish, and so forth. I don't want to be accidentally serving someone I hate at my place of business, and no one should make me. This badge system is the only thing that makes sense in this case.

Really, a holocaust reference? If that's all you have you really are out of ideas or retorts.

 

[ogibillm]

It means that the Federal and State governments of the United States has to legally recognize same-sex marriage. That's it; nothing more.

If you believe that same-sex marriage is morally or personally repugnant, you can continue to believe that way. You are not being forced to accept gay marriage. You are not being forced to accept homosexuality in anyway, at all.

The ruling isn't about redefining marriage for anyone but the government. Individual US citizens can continue to define, for themselves, that marriage is between and a man and a woman.

Let freedom ring!

BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE, PEASANT!!!

Indeed, or they will call the media and destroy your business.

Wait...that's what Marty wants though. He wants the free market to handle things like "we don't serve n words here".

It's better than government doing it. and right now the "free market" doesn't handle it, shrill SJW asshats try to ruin people, and corporations buckle under without even the start of a boycott.

capitalism at work.

 

[g5000]

Here's the system I have in mind so far.

To keep the homos from sneaking into my bakery and buying a cake, they should have some kind of pink badge.

For Jews, they obviously should wear a Star of David badge.

Anyone who has gotten a divorce should have a scarlet A badge. The A should be followed by a hyphen and then a number indicating how many marriages the person has had. So, for example, Rush Limbaugh's badge would read "A-4". Newt Gingrich's badge would read "A-3".


That's what I have so far.

Our right to keep Bible-compliant cakes from faggots must be protected with manly vigor!

 

[martybegan]

It means that the Federal and State governments of the United States has to legally recognize same-sex marriage. That's it; nothing more.

If you believe that same-sex marriage is morally or personally repugnant, you can continue to believe that way. You are not being forced to accept gay marriage. You are not being forced to accept homosexuality in anyway, at all.

The ruling isn't about redefining marriage for anyone but the government. Individual US citizens can continue to define, for themselves, that marriage is between and a man and a woman.

Let freedom ring!

BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE, PEASANT!!!

Indeed, or they will call the media and destroy your business.

Wait...that's what Marty wants though. He wants the free market to handle things like "we don't serve n words here".

It's better than government doing it. and right now the "free market" doesn't handle it, shrill SJW asshats try to ruin people, and corporations buckle under without even the start of a boycott.

capitalism at work.

Capitalism never gets the chance to work, no boycotts actually happen, not loss of revenue, because people cave at a drop of a hat.

Did capitalism work for punishing Chik-fil-A?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

So here's the system I have in mind so far.

To keep the homos from sneaking into my bakery and buying a cake, they should have some kind of pink badge.

For Jews, they obviously should wear a Star of David badge.

Anyone who has gotten a divorce should have a scarlet A badge.


That's what I have so far.

Our right to keep Bible-compliant cakes from faggots must be protected vigorously!

A better system would be to permit freedom of choice in association and service. To force one to work for another regardless of any beliefs is mere slavery.

 

[martybegan]

Here's the system I have in mind so far.

To keep the homos from sneaking into my bakery and buying a cake, they should have some kind of pink badge.

For Jews, they obviously should wear a Star of David badge.

Anyone who has gotten a divorce should have a scarlet A badge.


That's what I have so far.

Our right to keep Bible-compliant cakes from faggots must be protected with manly vigor!

have a fun dive off the deep end....

 

[g5000]

Papers! Efferyvone has zee government ID. Papers!

I am sorry, Herr Homo. Zee State has made zee buying off cakes from zee Straight Only bakery strictly verboten to you.

 

[g5000]

Again, systemic government mandated economic segregation does not equal a gay couple having to spend another 1/2 hour finding another baker.

I am sorry, Herr Homo. Zee State has made zee buying off cakes from zee Straight Only bakery strictly verboten to you.

Zee law is on zee side of zee bakery. NOW MOOF ALONG!!!