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

[Pop23]

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

But Loving left in the biological reasoning of "one man to one woman"

See the compelling state reason why family members were denied. Hmmmm Einstein?

Or has no one taught you the birds and the bees?

 

[Silhouette]

But Loving left in the biological reasoning of "one man to one woman"

See the compelling state reason why family members were denied. Hmmmm Einstein?

Or has no one taught you the birds and the bees?

Compelling reason numero uno: A child's implicit right in from the marriage contract (the reason it was created thousands of years ago) to provide the child with BOTH a mother and father. "Gay marriage" completely torpedoed the reason marriage was started in the first place.

 

[dblack]

It's unfortunate that these threads always devolve into a pissing match between homophobes and misguided civil rights activists. PA laws were a bad solution and need to be reconsidered.

 

[rightwinger]

....if the majority of the People didn't want gay marriage to be legal...

What do you mean "if"? Aside from the polls which shows the American people overwhelmingly reject it, all one has to do is look at Proposition 8 in California. When the most liberal state in the union votes down gay marriage, it's pretty clear that American people reject it.

What - have you really convinced yourself in your mind that the people of Utah, Texas, and Florida are supporting it while Californians aren't?

Gay federal judge and later SCOTUS overturned the will of the people.

Over 50 percent supported gay marriage

Over 99.999% of "statistics" by rightwinger are 100% fake.

Which statistics would those be?

 

[martybegan]

....if the majority of the People didn't want gay marriage to be legal...

What do you mean "if"? Aside from the polls which shows the American people overwhelmingly reject it, all one has to do is look at Proposition 8 in California. When the most liberal state in the union votes down gay marriage, it's pretty clear that American people reject it.

What - have you really convinced yourself in your mind that the people of Utah, Texas, and Florida are supporting it while Californians aren't?

Gay federal judge and later SCOTUS overturned the will of the people.

Over 50 percent supported gay marriage

Over 99.999% of "statistics" by rightwinger are 100% fake.

Which statistics would those be?

While I agree on the trends, the poll is biased due to the use of the words legal and illegal. People will skew towards the happy word rather than the unhappy word.

Not enough to change the trends, but enough to skew it a few percentage points in both directions.

 

[rightwinger]

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

But Loving left in the biological reasoning of "one man to one woman"

See the compelling state reason why family members were denied. Hmmmm Einstein?

Or has no one taught you the birds and the bees?

Loving removed the "one man to one woman of the same race"
It set the standard to require the state to identify a compelling reason to restrict marriage

The biological argument was provided but the court asked a simple question......what additional children will be born by denying same sex couples the right to marry? Married gay couples do not have biological children, neither do unmarried ones

The court also asked the state to answer if the ability to procreate is so essential to a marriage, why aren't fertility tests required for marriage? Why are elderly couples allowed to marry?

 

[rightwinger]

What do you mean "if"? Aside from the polls which shows the American people overwhelmingly reject it, all one has to do is look at Proposition 8 in California. When the most liberal state in the union votes down gay marriage, it's pretty clear that American people reject it.

What - have you really convinced yourself in your mind that the people of Utah, Texas, and Florida are supporting it while Californians aren't?

Gay federal judge and later SCOTUS overturned the will of the people.

Over 50 percent supported gay marriage

Over 99.999% of "statistics" by rightwinger are 100% fake.

Which statistics would those be?

While I agree on the trends, the poll is biased due to the use of the words legal and illegal. People will skew towards the happy word rather than the unhappy word.

Not enough to change the trends, but enough to skew it a few percentage points in both directions.

Any way the question was asked after 2010 yielded the same result. If the question were asked now, you would have 70% favoring it

 

[Pop23]

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

But Loving left in the biological reasoning of "one man to one woman"

See the compelling state reason why family members were denied. Hmmmm Einstein?

Or has no one taught you the birds and the bees?

Loving removed the "one man to one woman of the same race"
It set the standard to require the state to identify a compelling reason to restrict marriage

The biological argument was provided but the court asked a simple question......what additional children will be born by denying same sex couples the right to marry? Married gay couples do not have biological children, neither do unmarried ones

The court also asked the state to answer if the ability to procreate is so essential to a marriage, why aren't fertility tests required for marriage? Why are elderly couples allowed to marry?

All true, the questions were asked, but that is a simple deflection of the argument isn't it?

The law makes zero references to sex being a requirement to a valid marriage.

We know that entering into a contract for illegal purposes invalidates the contract and since incest (the act) is illegal, no family members should be excluded.

It also doesn't explain why this partnership can be limited to two when no other legal partnership is limited in such a manner.

 

[rightwinger]

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

But Loving left in the biological reasoning of "one man to one woman"

See the compelling state reason why family members were denied. Hmmmm Einstein?

Or has no one taught you the birds and the bees?

Loving removed the "one man to one woman of the same race"
It set the standard to require the state to identify a compelling reason to restrict marriage

The biological argument was provided but the court asked a simple question......what additional children will be born by denying same sex couples the right to marry? Married gay couples do not have biological children, neither do unmarried ones

The court also asked the state to answer if the ability to procreate is so essential to a marriage, why aren't fertility tests required for marriage? Why are elderly couples allowed to marry?

All true, the questions were asked, but that is a simple deflection of the argument isn't it?

The law makes zero references to sex being a requirement to a valid marriage.

We know that entering into a contract for illegal purposes invalidates the contract and since incest (the act) is illegal, no family members should be excluded.

It also doesn't explain why this partnership can be limited to two when no other legal partnership is limited in such a manner.

Personally, I have no objection to polygamy
I couldn't handle that type of relationship, but I see no reason why I should deny it to others

But that is a fight for polygamists to fight, just like gays had to fight for their rights

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Bwahahahaha! The "patriot" says the Federal government has no jurisdiction over marriage...and yet the SCOTUS has ruled on four major marriage court cases. Now who should we believe, the Supreme Court of the United States or some random guy on the internet that keeps changing his screen name? Hmmm, decisions, decisions.

 

[bodecea]

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

But Loving left in the biological reasoning of "one man to one woman"

See the compelling state reason why family members were denied. Hmmmm Einstein?

Or has no one taught you the birds and the bees?

Quote the "left in the biological reasoning" from Loving.

 

[bodecea]

What do you mean "if"? Aside from the polls which shows the American people overwhelmingly reject it, all one has to do is look at Proposition 8 in California. When the most liberal state in the union votes down gay marriage, it's pretty clear that American people reject it.

What - have you really convinced yourself in your mind that the people of Utah, Texas, and Florida are supporting it while Californians aren't?

Gay federal judge and later SCOTUS overturned the will of the people.

Over 50 percent supported gay marriage

Over 99.999% of "statistics" by rightwinger are 100% fake.

Which statistics would those be?

While I agree on the trends, the poll is biased due to the use of the words legal and illegal. People will skew towards the happy word rather than the unhappy word.

Not enough to change the trends, but enough to skew it a few percentage points in both directions.

"The poll is biased" in your opinion.

 

[Seawytch]

Typical progressive who has a meltdown in the face of indisputable facts. What does race have to do with anything (other than your inability to make a logical, rational argument for your unhinged, irrational position)?

Would you like to try any debate tactic other than "you're racist" while sobbing like a little girl?

That wasn't a "liberal argument", the fact that people could marry but only in their same race and they were treated the same was an argument used by the State of Virginia before the Supreme Court in the Loving case in 1968 to show there was no discrimination. The case that ended interracial marriage bans.

It didn't fly then either

It's the equivalent of pointing to the sun to prove that you have toenails. What does it have to do with the fact that homosexuals were never denied a single right? Ever. You name a right - and homosexuals had it. They could vote, carry a firearm, practice their religion, etc. They could even marry - a homosexual man could marry any woman he wanted and a homosexual woman could marry any man that she wanted.

You're making the same argument the State of Virginia made. They said that interracial couples were not discriminated against because they could marry within their race. Fortunately, the SCOTUS felt differently.

 

[martybegan]

Gay federal judge and later SCOTUS overturned the will of the people.

Over 50 percent supported gay marriage

Over 99.999% of "statistics" by rightwinger are 100% fake.

Which statistics would those be?

While I agree on the trends, the poll is biased due to the use of the words legal and illegal. People will skew towards the happy word rather than the unhappy word.

Not enough to change the trends, but enough to skew it a few percentage points in both directions.

"The poll is biased" in your opinion.

All polls are biased in a away, due to the nature of how people react to questions, and how polls are conducted.

It also doesn't ask how people think the legalization should be achieved.

 

[rightwinger]

Over 50 percent supported gay marriage

Over 99.999% of "statistics" by rightwinger are 100% fake.

Which statistics would those be?

While I agree on the trends, the poll is biased due to the use of the words legal and illegal. People will skew towards the happy word rather than the unhappy word.

Not enough to change the trends, but enough to skew it a few percentage points in both directions.

"The poll is biased" in your opinion.

All polls are biased in a away, due to the nature of how people react to questions, and how polls are conducted.

It also doesn't ask how people think the legalization should be achieved.

Repeated polls have all indicated that a majority of Americans now support gay marriage

Do you agree?

 

[Seawytch]

Over 99.999% of "statistics" by rightwinger are 100% fake.

Which statistics would those be?

While I agree on the trends, the poll is biased due to the use of the words legal and illegal. People will skew towards the happy word rather than the unhappy word.

Not enough to change the trends, but enough to skew it a few percentage points in both directions.

"The poll is biased" in your opinion.

All polls are biased in a away, due to the nature of how people react to questions, and how polls are conducted.

It also doesn't ask how people think the legalization should be achieved.

Repeated polls have all indicated that a majority of Americans now support gay marriage

Do you agree?

Polls that asked the very specific question about the SCOTUS ruling show a majority in favor of the ruling so they are okay with HOW it was legalized.

Poll: Majorities back Supreme Court rulings on marriage, Obamacare

 

[rightwinger]

Which statistics would those be?

While I agree on the trends, the poll is biased due to the use of the words legal and illegal. People will skew towards the happy word rather than the unhappy word.

Not enough to change the trends, but enough to skew it a few percentage points in both directions.

"The poll is biased" in your opinion.

All polls are biased in a away, due to the nature of how people react to questions, and how polls are conducted.

It also doesn't ask how people think the legalization should be achieved.

Repeated polls have all indicated that a majority of Americans now support gay marriage

Do you agree?

Polls that asked the very specific question about the SCOTUS ruling show a majority in favor of the ruling so they are okay with HOW it was legalized.

Poll: Majorities back Supreme Court rulings on marriage, Obamacare

But...but...California voted against it 15 years ago

 

[owebo]

Typical progressive who has a meltdown in the face of indisputable facts. What does race have to do with anything (other than your inability to make a logical, rational argument for your unhinged, irrational position)?

Would you like to try any debate tactic other than "you're racist" while sobbing like a little girl?

That wasn't a "liberal argument", the fact that people could marry but only in their same race and they were treated the same was an argument used by the State of Virginia before the Supreme Court in the Loving case in 1968 to show there was no discrimination. The case that ended interracial marriage bans.

It didn't fly then either

It's the equivalent of pointing to the sun to prove that you have toenails. What does it have to do with the fact that homosexuals were never denied a single right? Ever. You name a right - and homosexuals had it. They could vote, carry a firearm, practice their religion, etc. They could even marry - a homosexual man could marry any woman he wanted and a homosexual woman could marry any man that she wanted.

You're making the same argument the State of Virginia made. They said that interracial couples were not discriminated against because they could marry within their race. Fortunately, the SCOTUS felt differently.

Yes....we corrected you democrats....

 

[owebo]

While I agree on the trends, the poll is biased due to the use of the words legal and illegal. People will skew towards the happy word rather than the unhappy word.

Not enough to change the trends, but enough to skew it a few percentage points in both directions.

"The poll is biased" in your opinion.

All polls are biased in a away, due to the nature of how people react to questions, and how polls are conducted.

It also doesn't ask how people think the legalization should be achieved.

Repeated polls have all indicated that a majority of Americans now support gay marriage

Do you agree?

Polls that asked the very specific question about the SCOTUS ruling show a majority in favor of the ruling so they are okay with HOW it was legalized.

Poll: Majorities back Supreme Court rulings on marriage, Obamacare

But...but...California voted against it 15 years ago

And you fascist democrats used the courts to get you way because you couldn't otherwise force the people to agree with you....

 

[Seawytch]

"The poll is biased" in your opinion.

All polls are biased in a away, due to the nature of how people react to questions, and how polls are conducted.

It also doesn't ask how people think the legalization should be achieved.

Repeated polls have all indicated that a majority of Americans now support gay marriage

Do you agree?

Polls that asked the very specific question about the SCOTUS ruling show a majority in favor of the ruling so they are okay with HOW it was legalized.

Poll: Majorities back Supreme Court rulings on marriage, Obamacare

But...but...California voted against it 15 years ago

And you fascist democrats used the courts to get you way because you couldn't otherwise force the people to agree with you....

Yes, just like we did for Loving v Virginia.