Bakers fined for not working homosexual "wedding" continue fighting for their freedoms

[Seawytch]

Where? Here in the United States. Our history is rife with legislating bigotry. Pick up a history book, "patriot".

Yeah....from your side of the aisle genius.

Wrong "patriot", it was from the conservative "side of the aisle" not the liberal one.

 

[Seawytch]

Racist bigots who feel it's a sin to serve an interracial couple either serve the couple or go out of business.

Yeah...if it's because people reject their approach to business (i.e. not serving homosexuals). It should be because the government overstepped their autority.

It is because "the people reject their approach to business" (i.e. not serving gays, interracial couples, Muslims) "The government" are representatives of the people. Title II of the Civil Rights act was "the people" deciding that discrimination in Public Accommodation based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was against the law. Local public accommodation laws are "the people" deciding that discrimination in Public Accommodation for things like veteran status and sexual orientation was against the law.

Instead of going after local laws, state's right defender, go after the grandaddy, Title II of the Civil Rights Act if you want to be able to discriminate in business.

The "people" don't decide anything. They sure as hell didn't decide to legalize gay marriage. Even radically left-wing California rejected gay marriage (remember Prop 8?). The most liberal state in the world reject gay marriage. The people had spoken. And then 9 unelected activists decided they wanted to play dictator and decide for 330 million Americans how to live their lives.

The problem is - like all progressives - you can't accept the will of the people. You want to force your unhinged views and beliefs on all of society. Instead of just living your life as you see fit and leaving me alone to live my life as I see fit.

When did the people vote for straight marriage?


Anyways, if you don't like civil marriage laws because of legalized gay marriage....get rid of them for everyone. THAT is equality.

(Oh, did I mention that religious marriage for gays has been around for at least 20 years?,,,so, getting rid of civil marriage all together will not get rid of the gays marrying)

Saw my first lesbian wedding at a Southern Baptist church in San Francisco in 1987.

 

[Pop23]

Racist bigots who feel it's a sin to serve an interracial couple either serve the couple or go out of business.

Yeah...if it's because people reject their approach to business (i.e. not serving homosexuals). It should be because the government overstepped their autority.

It is because "the people reject their approach to business" (i.e. not serving gays, interracial couples, Muslims) "The government" are representatives of the people. Title II of the Civil Rights act was "the people" deciding that discrimination in Public Accommodation based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was against the law. Local public accommodation laws are "the people" deciding that discrimination in Public Accommodation for things like veteran status and sexual orientation was against the law.

Instead of going after local laws, state's right defender, go after the grandaddy, Title II of the Civil Rights Act if you want to be able to discriminate in business.

The "people" don't decide anything. They sure as hell didn't decide to legalize gay marriage. Even radically left-wing California rejected gay marriage (remember Prop 8?). The most liberal state in the world reject gay marriage. The people had spoken. And then 9 unelected activists decided they wanted to play dictator and decide for 330 million Americans how to live their lives.

The problem is - like all progressives - you can't accept the will of the people. You want to force your unhinged views and beliefs on all of society. Instead of just living your life as you see fit and leaving me alone to live my life as I see fit.

When did the people vote for straight marriage?


Anyways, if you don't like civil marriage laws because of legalized gay marriage....get rid of them for everyone. THAT is equality.

(Oh, did I mention that religious marriage for gays has been around for at least 20 years?,,,so, getting rid of civil marriage all together will not get rid of the gays marrying)

You've stated your point quite clearly now. That by taking out the words "one man to one woman" you made the law unworkable. That was the goal of gays to start with.

When excluding multiple partners, family members and not allowing multiple partnerships are found to be unconstitutional, I guess we now know who to blame.

Hope the retaliation won't be too harsh.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Religion is not a group. And is protected in the constitution

1. I agree, religion as a behavior (which is what I said) and it is protected under Public Accommodation laws. Sil says such laws cannot protect behavior but she is wrong.

2. The Constitution protects religion from GOVERNMENT interference. It does not protect against other private interference. Public Accommodation laws limit discrimination based on religion in commerce, not the Constitution.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Worldy is only saying that because he doesn't want a gay graphic designer to be forced to go against his deeply held beliefs and be made to print, under threat of financial or licensing duress, a huge highway billboard sign for a Christian customer that says "Homosexuality is a sin unto God"
......then all of a sudden "PA laws just don't make sense anymore!"...

That is false.

My first (and I'm still there was the Hannity board) and I joined in 2004, I've been on this board since 2010. My position has been that Public Accommodation laws should be repealed has been consistent and predates the bakers or your silly (pun intended) question.

My position has not changed.


>>>>

 

[rightwinger]

Racist bigots who feel it's a sin to serve an interracial couple either serve the couple or go out of business.

Yeah...if it's because people reject their approach to business (i.e. not serving homosexuals). It should be because the government overstepped their autority.

It is because "the people reject their approach to business" (i.e. not serving gays, interracial couples, Muslims) "The government" are representatives of the people. Title II of the Civil Rights act was "the people" deciding that discrimination in Public Accommodation based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was against the law. Local public accommodation laws are "the people" deciding that discrimination in Public Accommodation for things like veteran status and sexual orientation was against the law.

Instead of going after local laws, state's right defender, go after the grandaddy, Title II of the Civil Rights Act if you want to be able to discriminate in business.

The "people" don't decide anything. They sure as hell didn't decide to legalize gay marriage. Even radically left-wing California rejected gay marriage (remember Prop 8?). The most liberal state in the world reject gay marriage. The people had spoken. And then 9 unelected activists decided they wanted to play dictator and decide for 330 million Americans how to live their lives.

The problem is - like all progressives - you can't accept the will of the people. You want to force your unhinged views and beliefs on all of society. Instead of just living your life as you see fit and leaving me alone to live my life as I see fit.

When did the people vote for straight marriage?


Anyways, if you don't like civil marriage laws because of legalized gay marriage....get rid of them for everyone. THAT is equality.

(Oh, did I mention that religious marriage for gays has been around for at least 20 years?,,,so, getting rid of civil marriage all together will not get rid of the gays marrying)

You've stated your point quite clearly now. That by taking out the words "one man to one woman" you made the law unworkable. That was the goal of gays to start with.

When excluding multiple partners, family members and not allowing multiple partnerships are found to be unconstitutional, I guess we now know who to blame.

Hope the retaliation won't be too harsh.

Is that the same "slippery slope" we were going to get when blacks were allowed to marry whites 50 years ago?

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Blacks are a race of people. Homosexuals are just many different types of people doing homosexual acts. The two aren't related at all. So found in Hively v Ivy Tech (2016, 7th circuit)

Religion is not a group. And is protected in the constitution

1. I agree, religion as a behavior (which is what I said) and it is protected under Public Accommodation laws. Sil says such laws cannot protect behavior but she is wrong.

2. The Constitution protects religion from GOVERNMENT interference. It does not protect against other private interference. Public Accommodation laws limit discrimination based on religion in commerce, not the Constitution.


>>>>

No, religion is the only behavior specifically mentioned with it's own special protections as to "class of people". Sexual behaviors are not mentioned, nor even implied in the Constitution or its subsequent Acts. (see Hively v Ivy Tech 2016). Neither is any parameter for the PRIVILEGE of marriage. Yes, it's still an exclusive state-defined privilege until ALL children of unmarried parents can experience the benefits of marriage...

The chickens are coming home to roost as we speak on the "states cannot define marriage to exclude homosexuals but still can define marriage to exclude people such as polygamists" discriminatory Ruling....The Brown polygamy family's brief is being examined by Justice Sotomayor as we speak. And it will be a matter of mere legal minutes before their sharp attorney Jonathan Turley is citing Obergefell...

 

[Pop23]

Yeah...if it's because people reject their approach to business (i.e. not serving homosexuals). It should be because the government overstepped their autority.

It is because "the people reject their approach to business" (i.e. not serving gays, interracial couples, Muslims) "The government" are representatives of the people. Title II of the Civil Rights act was "the people" deciding that discrimination in Public Accommodation based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was against the law. Local public accommodation laws are "the people" deciding that discrimination in Public Accommodation for things like veteran status and sexual orientation was against the law.

Instead of going after local laws, state's right defender, go after the grandaddy, Title II of the Civil Rights Act if you want to be able to discriminate in business.

The "people" don't decide anything. They sure as hell didn't decide to legalize gay marriage. Even radically left-wing California rejected gay marriage (remember Prop 8?). The most liberal state in the world reject gay marriage. The people had spoken. And then 9 unelected activists decided they wanted to play dictator and decide for 330 million Americans how to live their lives.

The problem is - like all progressives - you can't accept the will of the people. You want to force your unhinged views and beliefs on all of society. Instead of just living your life as you see fit and leaving me alone to live my life as I see fit.

When did the people vote for straight marriage?


Anyways, if you don't like civil marriage laws because of legalized gay marriage....get rid of them for everyone. THAT is equality.

(Oh, did I mention that religious marriage for gays has been around for at least 20 years?,,,so, getting rid of civil marriage all together will not get rid of the gays marrying)

You've stated your point quite clearly now. That by taking out the words "one man to one woman" you made the law unworkable. That was the goal of gays to start with.

When excluding multiple partners, family members and not allowing multiple partnerships are found to be unconstitutional, I guess we now know who to blame.

Hope the retaliation won't be too harsh.

Is that the same "slippery slope" we were going to get when blacks were allowed to marry whites 50 years ago?

Not at all. The law, and you advocated for it, now excludes the biological necessary term "one man to one woman"

Since no law in any state requires sex to have a valid partnership, any rational legal argument would require a reason to limit the number of participants and a reason to exclude family members.

Find that will ya?

 

[rightwinger]

It is because "the people reject their approach to business" (i.e. not serving gays, interracial couples, Muslims) "The government" are representatives of the people. Title II of the Civil Rights act was "the people" deciding that discrimination in Public Accommodation based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was against the law. Local public accommodation laws are "the people" deciding that discrimination in Public Accommodation for things like veteran status and sexual orientation was against the law.

Instead of going after local laws, state's right defender, go after the grandaddy, Title II of the Civil Rights Act if you want to be able to discriminate in business.

The "people" don't decide anything. They sure as hell didn't decide to legalize gay marriage. Even radically left-wing California rejected gay marriage (remember Prop 8?). The most liberal state in the world reject gay marriage. The people had spoken. And then 9 unelected activists decided they wanted to play dictator and decide for 330 million Americans how to live their lives.

The problem is - like all progressives - you can't accept the will of the people. You want to force your unhinged views and beliefs on all of society. Instead of just living your life as you see fit and leaving me alone to live my life as I see fit.

When did the people vote for straight marriage?


Anyways, if you don't like civil marriage laws because of legalized gay marriage....get rid of them for everyone. THAT is equality.

(Oh, did I mention that religious marriage for gays has been around for at least 20 years?,,,so, getting rid of civil marriage all together will not get rid of the gays marrying)

You've stated your point quite clearly now. That by taking out the words "one man to one woman" you made the law unworkable. That was the goal of gays to start with.

When excluding multiple partners, family members and not allowing multiple partnerships are found to be unconstitutional, I guess we now know who to blame.

Hope the retaliation won't be too harsh.

Is that the same "slippery slope" we were going to get when blacks were allowed to marry whites 50 years ago?

Not at all. The law, and you advocated for it, now excludes the biological necessary term "one man to one woman"

Since no law in any state requires sex to have a valid partnership, any rational legal argument would require a reason to limit the number of participants and a reason to exclude family members.

Find that will ya?

If those involved in polygamy and incest are that interested in obtaining legal marriage, let them engage in the same fight as gays had to make

It was not easy

 

[mdk]

^^ Blacks are a race of people. Homosexuals are just many different types of people doing homosexual acts. The two aren't related at all. So found in Hively v Ivy Tech (2016, 7th circuit)

Religion is not a group. And is protected in the constitution

1. I agree, religion as a behavior (which is what I said) and it is protected under Public Accommodation laws. Sil says such laws cannot protect behavior but she is wrong.

2. The Constitution protects religion from GOVERNMENT interference. It does not protect against other private interference. Public Accommodation laws limit discrimination based on religion in commerce, not the Constitution.


>>>>

No, religion is the only behavior specifically mentioned with it's own special protections as to "class of people". Sexual behaviors are not mentioned, nor even implied in the Constitution or its subsequent Acts. (see Hively v Ivy Tech 2016). Neither is any parameter for the PRIVILEGE of marriage. Yes, it's still an exclusive state-defined privilege until ALL children of unmarried parents can experience the benefits of marriage...

The chickens are coming home to roost as we speak on the "states cannot define marriage to exclude homosexuals but still can define marriage to exclude people such as polygamists" discriminatory Ruling....The Brown polygamy family's brief is being examined by Justice Sotomayor as we speak. And it will be a matter of mere legal minutes before their sharp attorney Jonathan Turley is citing Obergefell...

The Brown family is citing their right to privacy and their religious freedoms makes prohibiting polygamous marriages unconstitutional. You are all for religious freedoms when it comes to Kim Davis and Sweet Cakes, but not when it comes to the Brown family. Apparently some religious freedoms are more equal than others.

 

[Pop23]

The "people" don't decide anything. They sure as hell didn't decide to legalize gay marriage. Even radically left-wing California rejected gay marriage (remember Prop 8?). The most liberal state in the world reject gay marriage. The people had spoken. And then 9 unelected activists decided they wanted to play dictator and decide for 330 million Americans how to live their lives.

The problem is - like all progressives - you can't accept the will of the people. You want to force your unhinged views and beliefs on all of society. Instead of just living your life as you see fit and leaving me alone to live my life as I see fit.

When did the people vote for straight marriage?


Anyways, if you don't like civil marriage laws because of legalized gay marriage....get rid of them for everyone. THAT is equality.

(Oh, did I mention that religious marriage for gays has been around for at least 20 years?,,,so, getting rid of civil marriage all together will not get rid of the gays marrying)

You've stated your point quite clearly now. That by taking out the words "one man to one woman" you made the law unworkable. That was the goal of gays to start with.

When excluding multiple partners, family members and not allowing multiple partnerships are found to be unconstitutional, I guess we now know who to blame.

Hope the retaliation won't be too harsh.

Is that the same "slippery slope" we were going to get when blacks were allowed to marry whites 50 years ago?

Not at all. The law, and you advocated for it, now excludes the biological necessary term "one man to one woman"

Since no law in any state requires sex to have a valid partnership, any rational legal argument would require a reason to limit the number of participants and a reason to exclude family members.

Find that will ya?

If those involved in polygamy and incest are that interested in obtaining legal marriage, let them engage in the same fight as gays had to make

It was not easy

That's your argument? That you have none.

And obviously you found a marriage law that requires sex since you brought up incest.

Which one is that?

Do you think a family LLC also is incestous?

 

[Pop23]

^^ Blacks are a race of people. Homosexuals are just many different types of people doing homosexual acts. The two aren't related at all. So found in Hively v Ivy Tech (2016, 7th circuit)

Religion is not a group. And is protected in the constitution

1. I agree, religion as a behavior (which is what I said) and it is protected under Public Accommodation laws. Sil says such laws cannot protect behavior but she is wrong.

2. The Constitution protects religion from GOVERNMENT interference. It does not protect against other private interference. Public Accommodation laws limit discrimination based on religion in commerce, not the Constitution.


>>>>

No, religion is the only behavior specifically mentioned with it's own special protections as to "class of people". Sexual behaviors are not mentioned, nor even implied in the Constitution or its subsequent Acts. (see Hively v Ivy Tech 2016). Neither is any parameter for the PRIVILEGE of marriage. Yes, it's still an exclusive state-defined privilege until ALL children of unmarried parents can experience the benefits of marriage...

The chickens are coming home to roost as we speak on the "states cannot define marriage to exclude homosexuals but still can define marriage to exclude people such as polygamists" discriminatory Ruling....The Brown polygamy family's brief is being examined by Justice Sotomayor as we speak. And it will be a matter of mere legal minutes before their sharp attorney Jonathan Turley is citing Obergefell...

The Brown family is citing their right to privacy and their religious freedoms makes prohibiting polygamous marriages unconstitutional. You are all for religious freedoms when it comes to Kim Davis and Sweet Cakes, but not when it comes to the Brown family. Apparently some religious freedoms are more equal than others.

Well, that was a lost cause before Obergfell, tried and defeated, now?

Can't see a sound legal reason.

You?

 

[mdk]

^^ Blacks are a race of people. Homosexuals are just many different types of people doing homosexual acts. The two aren't related at all. So found in Hively v Ivy Tech (2016, 7th circuit

No, Hively found that the word 'sex' in the Civil Rights Act does not include sexual orientation. A correct ruling b/c it doesn't. Your inane prattle and imaginary findings concerning Hively are a figment of your addled imagination.

 

[mdk]

^^ Blacks are a race of people. Homosexuals are just many different types of people doing homosexual acts. The two aren't related at all. So found in Hively v Ivy Tech (2016, 7th circuit)

Religion is not a group. And is protected in the constitution

1. I agree, religion as a behavior (which is what I said) and it is protected under Public Accommodation laws. Sil says such laws cannot protect behavior but she is wrong.

2. The Constitution protects religion from GOVERNMENT interference. It does not protect against other private interference. Public Accommodation laws limit discrimination based on religion in commerce, not the Constitution.


>>>>

No, religion is the only behavior specifically mentioned with it's own special protections as to "class of people". Sexual behaviors are not mentioned, nor even implied in the Constitution or its subsequent Acts. (see Hively v Ivy Tech 2016). Neither is any parameter for the PRIVILEGE of marriage. Yes, it's still an exclusive state-defined privilege until ALL children of unmarried parents can experience the benefits of marriage...

The chickens are coming home to roost as we speak on the "states cannot define marriage to exclude homosexuals but still can define marriage to exclude people such as polygamists" discriminatory Ruling....The Brown polygamy family's brief is being examined by Justice Sotomayor as we speak. And it will be a matter of mere legal minutes before their sharp attorney Jonathan Turley is citing Obergefell...

The Brown family is citing their right to privacy and their religious freedoms makes prohibiting polygamous marriages unconstitutional. You are all for religious freedoms when it comes to Kim Davis and Sweet Cakes, but not when it comes to the Brown family. Apparently some religious freedoms are more equal than others.

Well, that was a lost cause before Obergfell, tried and defeated, now?

Can't see a sound legal reason.

You?

I hope the Brown family wins their case concerning their religious freedoms.

 

[P@triot]

If those involved in polygamy and incest are that interested in obtaining legal marriage, let them engage in the same fight as gays had to make. It was not easy

What? It was extremely easy. All they did was stack the Supreme Court with some radical political activists (instead of actual justices) and they in turn simply bypassed the people, the law, and the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Silhouette]

If those involved in polygamy and incest are that interested in obtaining legal marriage, let them engage in the same fight as gays had to make. It was not easy

What? It was extremely easy. All they did was stack the Supreme Court with some radical political activists (instead of actual justices) and they in turn simply bypassed the people, the law, and the U.S. Constitution.

And when the Brown's polygamy case makes it's way Up, all this will be brought out in the open...if Judge Moore of Alabama doesn't expose it all first in his legal defense strategy..

 

[Pop23]

^^ Blacks are a race of people. Homosexuals are just many different types of people doing homosexual acts. The two aren't related at all. So found in Hively v Ivy Tech (2016, 7th circuit)

Religion is not a group. And is protected in the constitution

1. I agree, religion as a behavior (which is what I said) and it is protected under Public Accommodation laws. Sil says such laws cannot protect behavior but she is wrong.

2. The Constitution protects religion from GOVERNMENT interference. It does not protect against other private interference. Public Accommodation laws limit discrimination based on religion in commerce, not the Constitution.


>>>>

No, religion is the only behavior specifically mentioned with it's own special protections as to "class of people". Sexual behaviors are not mentioned, nor even implied in the Constitution or its subsequent Acts. (see Hively v Ivy Tech 2016). Neither is any parameter for the PRIVILEGE of marriage. Yes, it's still an exclusive state-defined privilege until ALL children of unmarried parents can experience the benefits of marriage...

The chickens are coming home to roost as we speak on the "states cannot define marriage to exclude homosexuals but still can define marriage to exclude people such as polygamists" discriminatory Ruling....The Brown polygamy family's brief is being examined by Justice Sotomayor as we speak. And it will be a matter of mere legal minutes before their sharp attorney Jonathan Turley is citing Obergefell...

The Brown family is citing their right to privacy and their religious freedoms makes prohibiting polygamous marriages unconstitutional. You are all for religious freedoms when it comes to Kim Davis and Sweet Cakes, but not when it comes to the Brown family. Apparently some religious freedoms are more equal than others.

Well, that was a lost cause before Obergfell, tried and defeated, now?

Can't see a sound legal reason.

You?

I hope the Brown family wins their case concerning their religious freedoms.

It won't be won on that basis, it will however be won on the "compelling state interest to deny"

Deny a group from a partnership license that does not require sexual contact?

Answer, there is none.

 

[WorldWatcher]

A behavior cannot be a protected class.

religion is the only behavior specifically mentioned... with it's own special protections as to "class of people".

You said that behavior cannot be a protected class, then agreed with me that religion is a behavior and is a protected class.

You appear confused.


(BTW - the Constitution limits the government from interfering (within reason) with religion, it does not limit discrimination by private individuals in their ability to discriminate for religious reasons.)


>>>>

 

[rightwinger]

When did the people vote for straight marriage?


Anyways, if you don't like civil marriage laws because of legalized gay marriage....get rid of them for everyone. THAT is equality.

(Oh, did I mention that religious marriage for gays has been around for at least 20 years?,,,so, getting rid of civil marriage all together will not get rid of the gays marrying)

You've stated your point quite clearly now. That by taking out the words "one man to one woman" you made the law unworkable. That was the goal of gays to start with.

When excluding multiple partners, family members and not allowing multiple partnerships are found to be unconstitutional, I guess we now know who to blame.

Hope the retaliation won't be too harsh.

Is that the same "slippery slope" we were going to get when blacks were allowed to marry whites 50 years ago?

Not at all. The law, and you advocated for it, now excludes the biological necessary term "one man to one woman"

Since no law in any state requires sex to have a valid partnership, any rational legal argument would require a reason to limit the number of participants and a reason to exclude family members.

Find that will ya?

If those involved in polygamy and incest are that interested in obtaining legal marriage, let them engage in the same fight as gays had to make

It was not easy

That's your argument? That you have none.

And obviously you found a marriage law that requires sex since you brought up incest.

Which one is that?

Do you think a family LLC also is incestous?

Polygamy is illegal, incest is illegal

Homosexuality is not

 

[rightwinger]

If those involved in polygamy and incest are that interested in obtaining legal marriage, let them engage in the same fight as gays had to make. It was not easy

What? It was extremely easy. All they did was stack the Supreme Court with some radical political activists (instead of actual justices) and they in turn simply bypassed the people, the law, and the U.S. Constitution.

We have had a conservative court since the 70's

They ruled in the favor of same sex marriage because they had an overwhelming argument