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

[Pop23]

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

Dimwit, incest is illegal, and will remain illegal, even when the law allows family members to marry. As Windsor proved, marriage is simply a financial arrangement.

As for polygamy, there is no compelling state reason to deny anyone to marry as many partners as they wish.

Now, do you actually have an argument, or are you going to just keep us all amused with your yapping?

 

[Pop23]

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

Which works deliciously well now for family and multi partner marriage with the exclussion of "one man to one woman"

 

[rightwinger]

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

Dimwit, incest is illegal, and will remain illegal, even when the law allows family members to marry. As Windsor proved, marriage is simply a financial arrangement.

As for polygamy, there is no compelling state reason to deny anyone to marry as many partners as they wish.

Now, do you actually have an argument, or are you going to just keep us all amused with your yapping?

I have no issue with polygamy. I see no harm in a consensual relationship

Incest will never be legal

 

[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

Which works deliciously well now for family and multi partner marriage with the exclussion of "one man to one woman"

If they can convince the court like gays did.....let them

It was a long road

 

[Pop23]

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

Dimwit, incest is illegal, and will remain illegal, even when the law allows family members to marry. As Windsor proved, marriage is simply a financial arrangement.

As for polygamy, there is no compelling state reason to deny anyone to marry as many partners as they wish.

Now, do you actually have an argument, or are you going to just keep us all amused with your yapping?

I have no issue with polygamy. I see no harm in a consensual relationship

Incest will never be legal

Incest is an act. That "act" is not a requirement to a valid marriage, so I assume you have no argument that family members should not marry.

I would hate to see either allowed to marry, but it's no weirder then same sex.

Anything to make gays think they're normal, right?

 

[Iceweasel]

The law is being wrongly applied. Not one of them said they wouldn't sell them cakes for other events, just for the wedding.

They think SSM relationships are sinful, and a wedding is an open tangible celebration and affirmation of said relationship, and they want nothing to do with it.

And you are arguing the "how", i.e. The law is the law is the law, not the why. The why is what tangible benefit does government get from ruining a baker over not wanting to bake a cake, a contracted, non-immediate, non-emergency good or service.

Why does the gay couple's butt hurt override without question the baker's butt hurt?

We didn't care about racists that thought interracial marriage was sinful. Why should homophobes get special rights that racists don't?

Homosexuals are not a separate race. Repeating it over and over won't make it happen. There is no right for bisexuals to marry male and female, doesn't seem to bother you because it isn't your particular bag. Disagreeing with you isn't a phobia, it just makes you an intolerant asshole for making the claims.

Where did I say that sexual orientation was a race? Oh, that's right, I didn't. What is the same is the discrimination faced by interracial couples wanting to marry and gays wanting to marry. The similarity between the two are actually in the bigots that oppose them, not the groups themselves.

We did not allow bakers, photographers or candlestick makers to discriminate against interracial couples even thought they found their relationships sinful, abhorrent, disgusting, etc. Why should anti gay bigots get to discriminate where racist bigots did not?

You brought race into it like you always do. You did it this time too!

Sexuality is individual. There's no Constitutional definition of marriage, it was to be left up to states, and they did and still do vary. The fact that first cousin gays can't marry in those states shows how silly the whole thing is. Plus we still discriminate against all others, polygamists, incestial, bi-sexuals. It's just moving the goal posts in the hopes of normalizing homosexuality.

Except it wasn't left up to the states. There have been four rulings that contradict your claim. Loving v Virginia, Turner v Safely, Zablocki v Wisconsin and Obergerfell v Hodges. Only one of the three dealt with race.

What's that got to do with it? I said the racial issue was a constitutional matter and you keep foaming over about how states didn't decide. Your brain is hardwired wrong.

 

[Pop23]

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

Which works deliciously well now for family and multi partner marriage with the exclussion of "one man to one woman"

If they can convince the court like gays did.....let them

It was a long road

Made far easier because the arguments are now set in stone by the courts.

It will take far less time now thanks to gays.

 

[Iceweasel]

We did not allow bakers, photographers or candlestick makers to discriminate against interracial couples even thought they found their relationships sinful, abhorrent, disgusting, etc. Why should anti gay bigots get to discriminate where racist bigots did not?

Well there is some "logic". Because some idiot progressives desperate for power shredded the U.S. Constitution once, we should shred it again?

The law says I have a right to practice my religion as I see fit - including avoiding homosexuality if I feel that it is a sin that I do not wish to support or assist. Sorry wytch - you lose. The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says so.

No it is not "as you see fit". Rastafarians don't get to practice their religion"as they see fit". You can practice your religion within the confines of the law. Racist bigots who feel it's a sin to serve an interracial couple either serve the couple or go out of business. In some places (states rights guy) same goes for gays.

That's the crux of the matter. Your opinion is supposed to somehow override others' religious beliefs and you can't see how wrong that is.

 

[IsaacNewton]

What if someone walked in and said "I want you to bake a cake with a file in it". Would they bake it?

 

[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

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

Dimwit, incest is illegal, and will remain illegal, even when the law allows family members to marry. As Windsor proved, marriage is simply a financial arrangement.

As for polygamy, there is no compelling state reason to deny anyone to marry as many partners as they wish.

Now, do you actually have an argument, or are you going to just keep us all amused with your yapping?

I have no issue with polygamy. I see no harm in a consensual relationship

Incest will never be legal

Incest is an act. That "act" is not a requirement to a valid marriage, so I assume you have no argument that family members should not marry.

I would hate to see either allowed to marry, but it's no weirder then same sex.

Anything to make gays think they're normal, right?

Just calling it like I see it

I can see polygamy being legal.....not incest

 

[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

Which works deliciously well now for family and multi partner marriage with the exclussion of "one man to one woman"

If they can convince the court like gays did.....let them

It was a long road

Made far easier because the arguments are now set in stone by the courts.

It will take far less time now thanks to gays.

You might as well thank interracial marriage.....they laid the legal groundwork

 

[Silhouette]

You might as well thank interracial marriage.....they laid the legal groundwork

For what? Behaviors? Not so says the 7th Circuit court of appeals in Hively v Ivy Tech (2016)...

 

[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.

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

Bwahahahaha! It's not their argument to make. The federal government has exactly 0 jurisdiction over marriage. Any other false narratives you want to try? Watching you throw shit at the wall and praying something sticks is fall down hilarious.

 

[P@triot]

Just calling it like I see it. I can see polygamy being legal.....not incest

Typical hypocrite liberal. "Love wins" except when they don't want it to. They cry about how people can't help who they love and nobody should attempt to tell them - and then they say "incest shouldn't be legal".

 

[rightwinger]

You might as well thank interracial marriage.....they laid the legal groundwork

For what? Behaviors? Not so says the 7th Circuit court of appeals in Hively v Ivy Tech (2016)...

Doesn't apply to the Supreme Court Decision allowing gay marriage does it?

 

[rightwinger]

Just calling it like I see it. I can see polygamy being legal.....not incest

Typical hypocrite liberal. "Love wins" except when they don't want it to. They cry about how people can't help who they love and nobody should attempt to tell them - and then they say "incest shouldn't be legal".

I'm just saying I doubt incest will ever be legal......do you disagree?

 

[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

Bwahahahaha! It's not their argument to make. The federal government has exactly 0 jurisdiction over marriage. Any other false narratives you want to try? Watching you throw shit at the wall and praying something sticks is fall down hilarious.

Federal Government has jurisdiction of equal protection of our laws

 

[WorldWatcher]

You might as well thank interracial marriage.....they laid the legal groundwork

For what? Behaviors? Not so says the 7th Circuit court of appeals in Hively v Ivy Tech (2016)...

Which has nothing to do with the Oregon State Public Accommodation law that specifically lists various behaviors like religion and deciding to marry or not. It also specifically specifies sexual orientation (whether you consider it a "behavior" or "innate characteristic" is not a factor).


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Federal Government has jurisdiction of equal protection of our laws

Which has nothing to do with this case as the bakers violated State Public Accommodation laws.



>>>>

 

[P@triot]

Just calling it like I see it. I can see polygamy being legal.....not incest

Typical hypocrite liberal. "Love wins" except when they don't want it to. They cry about how people can't help who they love and nobody should attempt to tell them - and then they say "incest shouldn't be legal".

I'm just saying I doubt incest will ever be legal......do you disagree?

Sadly...no. Progressives are so sick and twisted, I have no doubt they will get it legalized through other illegal methods (just as they did with gay marriage). Right now they are working on getting pedophilia legalized. I'm sure within a decade they will get that done somehow.