Will the left leaning supreme court come back to the center by voting

[martybegan]

You want Gay marriage equal to straight marriage in a legal context. That much is obvious. What I want is the proper processed to be used to get there, Changes made by each State Legislature, not using the courts to force the issue on tenuous legal ground.

The courts striking down laws that violate the equal protection clause is the proper route and how our system was designed to work. Again, it's not about me and you have no idea what I want. Let's try sticking to the issue.

Fine, do you want gay marriage to be legally equal to straight marriage?

Again, what I want is irrelevant. The issue is should the equal protection clause apply to homosexuals or not. I've seen no valid argument against it.

Why can't you answer the question? My position is already known. I would vote for changing the marriage contract to include gay couples, but I would expect PA laws to be changed to accommodate people's religious beliefs.

Again, why can't you answer the question?

I can answer your question, but this isn't about me. It's about our laws and their constitutionality. Why can't you stick to the topic without trying make it personal? We have laws that have been passed that people feel violates the equal protection clause and they are challenging them in courts. This is how our system works. You still have not presented a case for why homosexuals should not be given equal protection as our Constitution states we are all, as US citizens, guaranteed.

And you haven't presented a reason why courts should decide legislation other than "I want it to happen"

And you still have not answered the question.

 

[Syriusly]

People don't have to accept anything they don't want to. The law, however, is supposed to equally protect us all. Currently, it does not do that. Allowing a gay couple to get married and enjoy the legal benefits of being married has no impact on your rights.

Explain that to the Bakers and Photographers that are being prosecuted for not agreeing to work a gay wedding.

This is a completely different subject, but I'll go with it. When someone starts a business they have decided to service the public. Not just the portion of the public they have something in common with or the portion they like. For a baker to refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding is just hateful. The baker doesn't have to participate in the wedding at all. However, the photographer has to attend the wedding and actually take part in it so I agree with the photographer.

Would you side with the business owners in a small town that got together and decided they would not provide their product of service to anyone who was not Islamic? How would any non-Muslim get their groceries, car serviced, cable, telephone, heat if they were on propane, hot water, etc.? Woud you tell that person that they will just have to sell their home and find someplace else to live? You see discrimination is not something to be supported, but it appears you've may have chosen to support it anyways. Have you?

One can make a reasonable exception for life-needed services, and one can easily make an exception to anything related to interstate commerce. However, using the full weight of the government to punish someone for not providing an easily replaced service is quite frankly appalling.

And as for it being hateful, would YOU want to bake a cake for a Klan rally?

Interstate would only apply to federal laws- most PA laws- all PA having to do with banning discrimination against homosexuals- are state and local laws.

I wouldn't want to bake a cake for lots of people- but its against the law for me to refuse to bake a cake just because the customer is black or Jewish or Christian.

No protection for the Klan though.

And welcome to all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. What about a Christian Identity function? You would be then discriminating against a religion.

What is a 'Christian identity function'? a KKK meeting? I can see an argument being made refusing to bake a cake for a KKK rally could be construed as refusing to bake a cake for a Christian function, but it would be a hard argument to make.

And rather than play stupid- you know why there are specified groups protected by PA laws- and it has nothing to do with whites not 'being equal' with blacks or atheists not being equal to Christians. PA are in place to respond to historic discrimination based upon race or religion or national origin or gender or homosexuality or handicap. That doesn't make those people more equal but it makes some discrimination illegal.

 

[Syriusly]

This has nothing to do with me or what I want. I haven't expressed what I want so you are speaking from a position of ignorance apparently to deflect from the point. Marriage has not always existed. Since its inception it has been changing to be more inclusive. The next logical step is to include homosexuals.

You want Gay marriage equal to straight marriage in a legal context. That much is obvious. What I want is the proper processed to be used to get there, Changes made by each State Legislature, not using the courts to force the issue on tenuous legal ground.

The courts striking down laws that violate the equal protection clause is the proper route and how our system was designed to work. Again, it's not about me and you have no idea what I want. Let's try sticking to the issue.

Fine, do you want gay marriage to be legally equal to straight marriage?

Again, what I want is irrelevant. The issue is should the equal protection clause apply to homosexuals or not. I've seen no valid argument against it.

, but I would expect PA laws to be changed to accommodate people's religious beliefs.

Why religious belief versus say philosophical belief? Or personally held convictions. Or just personal prejudices?

Frankly changing PA laws to 'accomodate religious beliefs' would gut the laws- which is maybe what you want- because anyone can use 'religious belief' to justify any discrimination.

 

[martybegan]

Explain that to the Bakers and Photographers that are being prosecuted for not agreeing to work a gay wedding.

This is a completely different subject, but I'll go with it. When someone starts a business they have decided to service the public. Not just the portion of the public they have something in common with or the portion they like. For a baker to refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding is just hateful. The baker doesn't have to participate in the wedding at all. However, the photographer has to attend the wedding and actually take part in it so I agree with the photographer.

Would you side with the business owners in a small town that got together and decided they would not provide their product of service to anyone who was not Islamic? How would any non-Muslim get their groceries, car serviced, cable, telephone, heat if they were on propane, hot water, etc.? Woud you tell that person that they will just have to sell their home and find someplace else to live? You see discrimination is not something to be supported, but it appears you've may have chosen to support it anyways. Have you?

One can make a reasonable exception for life-needed services, and one can easily make an exception to anything related to interstate commerce. However, using the full weight of the government to punish someone for not providing an easily replaced service is quite frankly appalling.

And as for it being hateful, would YOU want to bake a cake for a Klan rally?

Interstate would only apply to federal laws- most PA laws- all PA having to do with banning discrimination against homosexuals- are state and local laws.

I wouldn't want to bake a cake for lots of people- but its against the law for me to refuse to bake a cake just because the customer is black or Jewish or Christian.

No protection for the Klan though.

And welcome to all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. What about a Christian Identity function? You would be then discriminating against a religion.

What is a 'Christian identity function'? a KKK meeting? I can see an argument being made refusing to bake a cake for a KKK rally could be construed as refusing to bake a cake for a Christian function, but it would be a hard argument to make.

And rather than play stupid- you know why there are specified groups protected by PA laws- and it has nothing to do with whites not 'being equal' with blacks or atheists not being equal to Christians. PA are in place to respond to historic discrimination based upon race or religion or national origin or gender or homosexuality or handicap. That doesn't make those people more equal but it makes some discrimination illegal.

Again, all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Someone else's being offended is more important than me being offended (white hetero male).

Christian Identity is a religious sect with white separatism/supremacy as part of it's doctrine. One of Seawytch's gripes has always been she has to serve Christians even though she hates them due to PA laws. So I guess PA laws would force a black person to work at one of these events.

 

[martybegan]

You want Gay marriage equal to straight marriage in a legal context. That much is obvious. What I want is the proper processed to be used to get there, Changes made by each State Legislature, not using the courts to force the issue on tenuous legal ground.

The courts striking down laws that violate the equal protection clause is the proper route and how our system was designed to work. Again, it's not about me and you have no idea what I want. Let's try sticking to the issue.

Fine, do you want gay marriage to be legally equal to straight marriage?

Again, what I want is irrelevant. The issue is should the equal protection clause apply to homosexuals or not. I've seen no valid argument against it.

, but I would expect PA laws to be changed to accommodate people's religious beliefs.

Why religious belief versus say philosophical belief? Or personally held convictions. Or just personal prejudices?

Frankly changing PA laws to 'accomodate religious beliefs' would gut the laws- which is maybe what you want- because anyone can use 'religious belief' to justify any discrimination.

Yes, I want them gutted, or at least a public accommodation being defined as what it originally was, an open place of business where a person can get the same exact cookie cutter thing as anyone else. Not defined as "any business" The way the progressive Statists are defining it.

 

[Ubiquitor]

The courts striking down laws that violate the equal protection clause is the proper route and how our system was designed to work. Again, it's not about me and you have no idea what I want. Let's try sticking to the issue.

Fine, do you want gay marriage to be legally equal to straight marriage?

Again, what I want is irrelevant. The issue is should the equal protection clause apply to homosexuals or not. I've seen no valid argument against it.

Why can't you answer the question? My position is already known. I would vote for changing the marriage contract to include gay couples, but I would expect PA laws to be changed to accommodate people's religious beliefs.

Again, why can't you answer the question?

I can answer your question, but this isn't about me. It's about our laws and their constitutionality. Why can't you stick to the topic without trying make it personal? We have laws that have been passed that people feel violates the equal protection clause and they are challenging them in courts. This is how our system works. You still have not presented a case for why homosexuals should not be given equal protection as our Constitution states we are all, as US citizens, guaranteed.

And you haven't presented a reason why courts should decide legislation other than "I want it to happen"

And you still have not answered the question.

I've never said what I want. You can stop asking that irrelevant question.

You're still trying to obfuscate the issue. I have clearly stated that the equal protection clause is meant to cover every US citizen and passing laws banning gay marriage violates that principle. Therefore, when challenged, it is the court's duty to rule on that. They may disagree with me, but the process that you are complaining about has been followed.

 

[martybegan]

Fine, do you want gay marriage to be legally equal to straight marriage?

Again, what I want is irrelevant. The issue is should the equal protection clause apply to homosexuals or not. I've seen no valid argument against it.

Why can't you answer the question? My position is already known. I would vote for changing the marriage contract to include gay couples, but I would expect PA laws to be changed to accommodate people's religious beliefs.

Again, why can't you answer the question?

I can answer your question, but this isn't about me. It's about our laws and their constitutionality. Why can't you stick to the topic without trying make it personal? We have laws that have been passed that people feel violates the equal protection clause and they are challenging them in courts. This is how our system works. You still have not presented a case for why homosexuals should not be given equal protection as our Constitution states we are all, as US citizens, guaranteed.

And you haven't presented a reason why courts should decide legislation other than "I want it to happen"

And you still have not answered the question.

I've never said what I want. You can stop asking that irrelevant question.

You're still trying to obfuscate the issue. I have clearly stated that the equal protection clause is meant to cover every US citizen and passing laws banning gay marriage violates that principle. Therefore, when challenged, it is the court's duty to rule on that. They may disagree with me, but the process that you are complaining about has been followed.

I don't know why you won't answer the question. I have. Why can't you?

 

[Ubiquitor]

Again, what I want is irrelevant. The issue is should the equal protection clause apply to homosexuals or not. I've seen no valid argument against it.

Why can't you answer the question? My position is already known. I would vote for changing the marriage contract to include gay couples, but I would expect PA laws to be changed to accommodate people's religious beliefs.

Again, why can't you answer the question?

I can answer your question, but this isn't about me. It's about our laws and their constitutionality. Why can't you stick to the topic without trying make it personal? We have laws that have been passed that people feel violates the equal protection clause and they are challenging them in courts. This is how our system works. You still have not presented a case for why homosexuals should not be given equal protection as our Constitution states we are all, as US citizens, guaranteed.

And you haven't presented a reason why courts should decide legislation other than "I want it to happen"

And you still have not answered the question.

I've never said what I want. You can stop asking that irrelevant question.

You're still trying to obfuscate the issue. I have clearly stated that the equal protection clause is meant to cover every US citizen and passing laws banning gay marriage violates that principle. Therefore, when challenged, it is the court's duty to rule on that. They may disagree with me, but the process that you are complaining about has been followed.

I don't know why you won't answer the question. I have. Why can't you?

Because what I want is irrelevant to the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. If you want to discuss that then I'm in.

 

[martybegan]

Why can't you answer the question? My position is already known. I would vote for changing the marriage contract to include gay couples, but I would expect PA laws to be changed to accommodate people's religious beliefs.

Again, why can't you answer the question?

I can answer your question, but this isn't about me. It's about our laws and their constitutionality. Why can't you stick to the topic without trying make it personal? We have laws that have been passed that people feel violates the equal protection clause and they are challenging them in courts. This is how our system works. You still have not presented a case for why homosexuals should not be given equal protection as our Constitution states we are all, as US citizens, guaranteed.

And you haven't presented a reason why courts should decide legislation other than "I want it to happen"

And you still have not answered the question.

I've never said what I want. You can stop asking that irrelevant question.

You're still trying to obfuscate the issue. I have clearly stated that the equal protection clause is meant to cover every US citizen and passing laws banning gay marriage violates that principle. Therefore, when challenged, it is the court's duty to rule on that. They may disagree with me, but the process that you are complaining about has been followed.

I don't know why you won't answer the question. I have. Why can't you?

Because what I want is irrelevant to the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. If you want to discuss that then I'm in.

Still won't answer the question. Why?

 

[Ubiquitor]

I can answer your question, but this isn't about me. It's about our laws and their constitutionality. Why can't you stick to the topic without trying make it personal? We have laws that have been passed that people feel violates the equal protection clause and they are challenging them in courts. This is how our system works. You still have not presented a case for why homosexuals should not be given equal protection as our Constitution states we are all, as US citizens, guaranteed.

And you haven't presented a reason why courts should decide legislation other than "I want it to happen"

And you still have not answered the question.

I've never said what I want. You can stop asking that irrelevant question.

You're still trying to obfuscate the issue. I have clearly stated that the equal protection clause is meant to cover every US citizen and passing laws banning gay marriage violates that principle. Therefore, when challenged, it is the court's duty to rule on that. They may disagree with me, but the process that you are complaining about has been followed.

I don't know why you won't answer the question. I have. Why can't you?

Because what I want is irrelevant to the constitutionality of gay marriage bans. If you want to discuss that then I'm in.

Still won't answer the question. Why?

Already said why I have not answered your question. Have a nice day.

 

[Syriusly]

This is a completely different subject, but I'll go with it. When someone starts a business they have decided to service the public. Not just the portion of the public they have something in common with or the portion they like. For a baker to refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding is just hateful. The baker doesn't have to participate in the wedding at all. However, the photographer has to attend the wedding and actually take part in it so I agree with the photographer.

Would you side with the business owners in a small town that got together and decided they would not provide their product of service to anyone who was not Islamic? How would any non-Muslim get their groceries, car serviced, cable, telephone, heat if they were on propane, hot water, etc.? Woud you tell that person that they will just have to sell their home and find someplace else to live? You see discrimination is not something to be supported, but it appears you've may have chosen to support it anyways. Have you?

One can make a reasonable exception for life-needed services, and one can easily make an exception to anything related to interstate commerce. However, using the full weight of the government to punish someone for not providing an easily replaced service is quite frankly appalling.

And as for it being hateful, would YOU want to bake a cake for a Klan rally?

Interstate would only apply to federal laws- most PA laws- all PA having to do with banning discrimination against homosexuals- are state and local laws.

I wouldn't want to bake a cake for lots of people- but its against the law for me to refuse to bake a cake just because the customer is black or Jewish or Christian.

No protection for the Klan though.

And welcome to all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. What about a Christian Identity function? You would be then discriminating against a religion.

What is a 'Christian identity function'? a KKK meeting? I can see an argument being made refusing to bake a cake for a KKK rally could be construed as refusing to bake a cake for a Christian function, but it would be a hard argument to make.

And rather than play stupid- you know why there are specified groups protected by PA laws- and it has nothing to do with whites not 'being equal' with blacks or atheists not being equal to Christians. PA are in place to respond to historic discrimination based upon race or religion or national origin or gender or homosexuality or handicap. That doesn't make those people more equal but it makes some discrimination illegal.

Again, all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Someone else's being offended is more important than me being offended (white hetero male).

Christian Identity is a religious sect with white separatism/supremacy as part of it's doctrine. One of Seawytch's gripes has always been she has to serve Christians even though she hates them due to PA laws. So I guess PA laws would force a black person to work at one of these events.

PA would logically require business people who offer their services to groups to offer them to religious groups regardless how offensive they found them- perhaps a more on point example would be the Westboro Baptist Church if they asked a veteran or homosexual to cater their services next Sunday.

And yes- PA laws would apply.

 

[Synthaholic]

would YOU want to bake a cake for a Klan rally?

This is where, again, there is a difference between offering products for sale and a service for sale.

The baker should have to bake the cake.

The person renting a hall should be able to refuse.

 

[bendog]

would YOU want to bake a cake for a Klan rally?

This is where, again, there is a difference between offering products for sale and a service for sale.

The baker should have to bake the cake.

The person renting a hall should be able to refuse.

Or perhaps people should be able to choose for themselves what they do with their own private property and goods.

 

[RKMBrown]

No sir. First off that's not even close to what I said.

Second, these ten amendments include declaratory clauses and restrictive clauses.
You should read the entire transcript for the bill of rights amendments, not just the amendments. The restrictive clauses in the bill of rights apply restrictions to the federal government not to the states, except and unless it states that the restriction applies to the states. More particularly the 10th stated that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." IOW if they 2nd amendment were to be applied to the feds and the states as you so imagine, then the 2nd would have had to say "shall not be infringed by congress or the states." But clearly it does not and clearly the states have been restricting our right to keep and bear arms before, during, and after the bill of rights were signed into law.

I'm not being a fake asshole, I'm a gun proponent that's telling you a fact about the 2nd amendment that not to many understand.

If it isn't in the document, what bearing does it have besides a view into intent, which is debatable.

And if you are not a fake, then you are not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination. You are a statist. Not as bad as Farkey over there, but in the same ballpark.

Uhmm, listen nimrod, can I call you nimrod? Not only is it in the document, I quoted the document. Not only does the portion I cited have bearing, it is also well understood that the bill of rights are not really a listing of rights but rather a listing of restrictive clauses that apply to the federal government to restrict the power of the federal government.

I know it's hard to believe that you don't know everything about such an important document, but there it is nonetheless.

I'm not a statist. Not by any measure.

Do you have a right to keep and bear arms? Yes. That is a natural right. That natural right can't be taken from you by the federal government, per the 2nd amendment. However, each individual state, and cities, and private owners can restrict this right within their jurisdiction.

Do I like that states can do this? No. But that's why we have a republic. Do I like that individual can restrict it within their property? Yes within reason.

The 2nd amendment, unlike the first, does not specifically list congress as being unable to impact what is in the amendment. It gives the people the right, a right they have as US citizens. As the Federal Constitution has supremacy, it overrides any State law or constitutional statute that says contrary.

The 1st and and 4th at a minimum have been incorporated via the 14th amendment, and slowly the 2nd is as well. If not, how are decisions such as Heller and McDonald even possible?

Apology for the long answer.

No. You are upside down again. Federal laws override state laws. All restrictions on federal lawmakers do not apply necessarily to restrictions on state lawmakers. Try to keep up. The restrictions that do apply are explicitly listed. A restriction on lawmakers making certain types of laws is not the same as a certain type of law.

Unless an amendment restricting the power of the federal government specifically mentions states it does not apply as a restriction to the states. This is why it has ALWAYS BEEN THE PERVUE OF THE STATES TO DO WRITE LAWS RESTRICTING GUN OWNERSHIP. You are implying that the thousands of laws in the various states that currently restrict gun ownership are all unconstitutional and the states have been just getting away with it for hundreds of years. After the 14th due process clause, this may be true but it has not gone to the court yet.

This is the essentially the same problem you had the other day when you could not tell the difference between stopping someone from harming others and harming others. Not sure why you think these are the same thing.

WRT to incorporation by the 14th. The 14th explicitly states that the states also can not restrict life, liberty, or property without due process. But this clause is somewhat vague in the minds of the court. Thus, through incorporation of various elements of the prior amendments the court has pontificated/specified what life, liberty, and property means with respect to the restrictions on the federal government for restricting same.

For example, your religious choices are a part of life and liberty... so the states can't make any laws respecting establishment of or prohibiting religion. There ya go.

On the issue of property.. one could argue a gun is property. Thus in theory, the scotus could in fact incorporate property through the 2nd amendment as a type of property that the states are not allowed to restrict, "AT ALL," or at least not without due process. But as far as I know no state has been dumb enough, yet, to prosecute someone without due process for not adhering to their restrictions on said property (guns). Thus no harm no foul, and the SCOTUS won't listen to the case till harm by a state is established by the lower courts.

For example, if the guy's a criminal, not letting a known criminal have a gun.. due process. However if you are not insane, you are a good standing citizen, you know how to use a gun, well then they don't have an excuse to say due process then do they? Thus NYC takes your gun cause that's the law, then apologizes and gives it back, so you can't claim harm to the SCOTUS.

NYC prevents you from getting the gun in the first place. And the issue is not restrictions such as for criminals and the mentally deficient.

A police officer can carry off duty "just because." I on the other hand can have the exact same criminal record (none) pass the same background check, and be denied "just because."

A police officer is a peace officer, a civilian just like me, how can he get a CCW equivalent automatically and I be denied one?

How does NYC prevent you from getting a gun? This I've got to hear. I mean do they inject some sort of device in your head the prevents you from being able to get a gun? How does it work?

The Cop gets approved because it's a part of his job to carry. Same for security folk.

 

[thanatos144]

You want a act to be treated as a condition?

I haven't expressed what I want at all.

You have because homosexuality is a act not a condition.

Homosexuality is neither an act or a condition. Homosexuality is attraction to the same gender- nothing more- nothing less.

That's a act dummy

So heterosexuality is an act too.

Yep

 

[RKMBrown]

would YOU want to bake a cake for a Klan rally?

This is where, again, there is a difference between offering products for sale and a service for sale.

The baker should have to bake the cake.

The person renting a hall should be able to refuse.

Or perhaps people should be able to choose for themselves what they do with their own private property and goods.

Never happen. Besides the heads of the authoritarians would explode.

 

[bendog]

would YOU want to bake a cake for a Klan rally?

This is where, again, there is a difference between offering products for sale and a service for sale.

The baker should have to bake the cake.

The person renting a hall should be able to refuse.

Or perhaps people should be able to choose for themselves what they do with their own private property and goods.

Never happen. Besides the heads of the authoritarians would explode.

yep, both parties want the authorities to tell people to stop doing things with their own stuff. The beat goes on.

 

[thanatos144]

Explain that to the Bakers and Photographers that are being prosecuted for not agreeing to work a gay wedding.

This is a completely different subject, but I'll go with it. When someone starts a business they have decided to service the public. Not just the portion of the public they have something in common with or the portion they like. For a baker to refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding is just hateful. The baker doesn't have to participate in the wedding at all. However, the photographer has to attend the wedding and actually take part in it so I agree with the photographer.

Would you side with the business owners in a small town that got together and decided they would not provide their product of service to anyone who was not Islamic? How would any non-Muslim get their groceries, car serviced, cable, telephone, heat if they were on propane, hot water, etc.? Woud you tell that person that they will just have to sell their home and find someplace else to live? You see discrimination is not something to be supported, but it appears you've may have chosen to support it anyways. Have you?

One can make a reasonable exception for life-needed services, and one can easily make an exception to anything related to interstate commerce. However, using the full weight of the government to punish someone for not providing an easily replaced service is quite frankly appalling.

And as for it being hateful, would YOU want to bake a cake for a Klan rally?

Interstate would only apply to federal laws- most PA laws- all PA having to do with banning discrimination against homosexuals- are state and local laws.

I wouldn't want to bake a cake for lots of people- but its against the law for me to refuse to bake a cake just because the customer is black or Jewish or Christian.

No protection for the Klan though.

And welcome to all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. What about a Christian Identity function? You would be then discriminating against a religion.

What is a 'Christian identity function'? a KKK meeting? I can see an argument being made refusing to bake a cake for a KKK rally could be construed as refusing to bake a cake for a Christian function, but it would be a hard argument to make.

And rather than play stupid- you know why there are specified groups protected by PA laws- and it has nothing to do with whites not 'being equal' with blacks or atheists not being equal to Christians. PA are in place to respond to historic discrimination based upon race or religion or national origin or gender or homosexuality or handicap. That doesn't make those people more equal but it makes some discrimination illegal.

The kkk is a democrat thing

 

[Seawytch]

would YOU want to bake a cake for a Klan rally?

This is where, again, there is a difference between offering products for sale and a service for sale.

The baker should have to bake the cake.

The person renting a hall should be able to refuse.

Or perhaps people should be able to choose for themselves what they do with their own private property and goods.

Never happen. Besides the heads of the authoritarians would explode.

yep, both parties want the authorities to tell people to stop doing things with their own stuff. The beat goes on.

Yeah...like Woolworths with their lunch counter....

 

[bodecea]

This is a completely different subject, but I'll go with it. When someone starts a business they have decided to service the public. Not just the portion of the public they have something in common with or the portion they like. For a baker to refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding is just hateful. The baker doesn't have to participate in the wedding at all. However, the photographer has to attend the wedding and actually take part in it so I agree with the photographer.

Would you side with the business owners in a small town that got together and decided they would not provide their product of service to anyone who was not Islamic? How would any non-Muslim get their groceries, car serviced, cable, telephone, heat if they were on propane, hot water, etc.? Woud you tell that person that they will just have to sell their home and find someplace else to live? You see discrimination is not something to be supported, but it appears you've may have chosen to support it anyways. Have you?

One can make a reasonable exception for life-needed services, and one can easily make an exception to anything related to interstate commerce. However, using the full weight of the government to punish someone for not providing an easily replaced service is quite frankly appalling.

And as for it being hateful, would YOU want to bake a cake for a Klan rally?

Interstate would only apply to federal laws- most PA laws- all PA having to do with banning discrimination against homosexuals- are state and local laws.

I wouldn't want to bake a cake for lots of people- but its against the law for me to refuse to bake a cake just because the customer is black or Jewish or Christian.

No protection for the Klan though.

And welcome to all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. What about a Christian Identity function? You would be then discriminating against a religion.

What is a 'Christian identity function'? a KKK meeting? I can see an argument being made refusing to bake a cake for a KKK rally could be construed as refusing to bake a cake for a Christian function, but it would be a hard argument to make.

And rather than play stupid- you know why there are specified groups protected by PA laws- and it has nothing to do with whites not 'being equal' with blacks or atheists not being equal to Christians. PA are in place to respond to historic discrimination based upon race or religion or national origin or gender or homosexuality or handicap. That doesn't make those people more equal but it makes some discrimination illegal.

The kkk is a democrat thing

Like big federal government suspending habeas corpus is a republican thing.