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

[martybegan]

Just because I think SSM and OSM are drastically different compared to inter-racial relations doesn't make me a homophobe. I guess its just easier for you to dump me in a nice little folder.

You don't get to define reality. The reality is attraction to someone of the same sex is a biological detriment. That has nothing to do with morality. I honestly don't care who you like to bugger. It's when you decide to make everyone else care OR ELSE that I have an issue.

I'm not defining anything, just following the logical conclusion of your statements. The Loving decision and the Obergerfel decision came about in the EXACT same way but you think one was a bad ruling.

Race and sexual orientation are not the same thing, and there was no precedence for SSM compared to interracial marriages (or inter tribe marriages, or inter clan marriages).

A change that big, that is something new, not correcting something that was wrongly implemented, should not come from the courts, but from the legislatures.

Race and gender aren't the same either....are you going to assert that people can be discriminated against based on their gender?

What i am saying is if you want in on an institution like marriage, and you have no precedent for it, you appeal to the legislatures of the States to change the contract, you don't make up some right to it that never existed.

The right to be treated equally by laws never existed?

That assumes SSM and OSM are equal. They are not. SSM is an entirely new concept, with zero precedent.

Just because I support it if enacted legislatively, doesn't mean I think that OSM and SSM are one and the same.

 

[martybegan]

You've been lowered to the "cuz I said so argument"

Wowza

Nope. Because the law says so. Your contrived hypothetical isn't an issue in the case that was file on appeal.


>>>>

You are arguing the how, not the why.

 

[martybegan]

how am I homophobic If i am ok with and even support marriage law being changed via State legislatures, and other States being forced to recognize said licenses even if they don't want to issue them?

Again, Obergefell came about in the exact same way that Loving came about. You agree with Loving, disagree with Obergefell. Sorry, but that leaves only one logical conclusion.

Just because I think SSM and OSM are drastically different compared to inter-racial relations doesn't make me a homophobe. I guess its just easier for you to dump me in a nice little folder.

You don't get to define reality. The reality is attraction to someone of the same sex is a biological detriment. That has nothing to do with morality. I honestly don't care who you like to bugger. It's when you decide to make everyone else care OR ELSE that I have an issue.

I'm not defining anything, just following the logical conclusion of your statements. The Loving decision and the Obergerfel decision came about in the EXACT same way but you think one was a bad ruling.

Race and sexual orientation are not the same thing, and there was no precedence for SSM compared to interracial marriages (or inter tribe marriages, or inter clan marriages).

A change that big, that is something new, not correcting something that was wrongly implemented, should not come from the courts, but from the legislatures.

No precedent? You're kidding, right?

Oh, please do explain how there was precedent for Loving and not Obergefell.

Show me any culture in history that had established marriages between people of the same sex.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Your right, the law can't force a business to sell a product they don't offer.

Thank you.

And no law can force a business to sell a product that was created by a law.

I don't know what this means, no products are created by law.

I've proven time and time again that the baker is willing to sell cakes to gays. And he likely has.

Irrelevant to the case at hand that they may have sold other goods to same-sex couples. The law states " all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is of age, as described in this section, or older."

Notice it says "full and equal" that means a business can't offer one set of goods and services to the general puplic but only sell a subset to specific groups based on "race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age".

Now, prove that anyone has been discriminated on based on sexuality.

Klein quoted Leviticus and referred to the couple as an "abomination". Leviticus refers to homosexuals. (The reference to abomination is in the court documents that the Kliens agreed was factually accurate.)

Let's see the sexuality test the state requires.

There is no "test of sexuality", just like there is not test for religion. The standard is based on the owners actions. And when you are an owner calling lesbians an abomination and refuse them service, ya that's pretty much the gold standard on determination that the discrimination is based on the customers sexuality.


>>>>

 

[Frank'sRules]

Again, Obergefell came about in the exact same way that Loving came about. You agree with Loving, disagree with Obergefell. Sorry, but that leaves only one logical conclusion.

Just because I think SSM and OSM are drastically different compared to inter-racial relations doesn't make me a homophobe. I guess its just easier for you to dump me in a nice little folder.

You don't get to define reality. The reality is attraction to someone of the same sex is a biological detriment. That has nothing to do with morality. I honestly don't care who you like to bugger. It's when you decide to make everyone else care OR ELSE that I have an issue.

I'm not defining anything, just following the logical conclusion of your statements. The Loving decision and the Obergerfel decision came about in the EXACT same way but you think one was a bad ruling.

Race and sexual orientation are not the same thing, and there was no precedence for SSM compared to interracial marriages (or inter tribe marriages, or inter clan marriages).

A change that big, that is something new, not correcting something that was wrongly implemented, should not come from the courts, but from the legislatures.

No precedent? You're kidding, right?

Oh, please do explain how there was precedent for Loving and not Obergefell.

Show me any culture in history that had established marriages between people of the same sex.

History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[martybegan]

Just because I think SSM and OSM are drastically different compared to inter-racial relations doesn't make me a homophobe. I guess its just easier for you to dump me in a nice little folder.

You don't get to define reality. The reality is attraction to someone of the same sex is a biological detriment. That has nothing to do with morality. I honestly don't care who you like to bugger. It's when you decide to make everyone else care OR ELSE that I have an issue.

I'm not defining anything, just following the logical conclusion of your statements. The Loving decision and the Obergerfel decision came about in the EXACT same way but you think one was a bad ruling.

Race and sexual orientation are not the same thing, and there was no precedence for SSM compared to interracial marriages (or inter tribe marriages, or inter clan marriages).

A change that big, that is something new, not correcting something that was wrongly implemented, should not come from the courts, but from the legislatures.

No precedent? You're kidding, right?

Oh, please do explain how there was precedent for Loving and not Obergefell.

Show me any culture in history that had established marriages between people of the same sex.

History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the article:

At the same time, many of these relationships might be more clearly understood as mentoring relationships between adult men and young boys rather than an analog of marriage

Pederasty is not a good example when trying to equate "unions" to actual marriage.

 

[Frank'sRules]

What i am saying is if you want in on an institution like marriage, and you have no precedent for it, you appeal to the legislatures of the States to change the contract, you don't make up some right to it that never existed.

Well apparently just some sexual orientations and lifestyles have access granted to marriage without states' permission, while others do not. Citing non-existent protections from the Constitution that never makes mention either of marriage or sexual orientation. The only way Obergefell makes sense is if the 5 Justices also ordered all 50 states to issue drivers' licenses to EVERYONE, regardless if they measured up to the necessities of safe driving. After all, it's a privilege to which no one must be denied! Including the blind and those whose drinking-orientations mean their blood alcohol is over the legal limit on a daily basis.

A marriage existed to provide children with both a mother and father, among other benefits to those involved. Now the word "marriage" excludes that benefit to children. Weird times we're living in where contracts can exist that hurt children..

If I was Judge Moore of Alabama, I'd order my people to disregard Obergefell too and follow state law; the only law that is applicable to marriages.

Moore is going down, for a second time. Federal law trumps state law. That keeps Texas from declaring war on France and making blacks slaves again.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You are arguing the how, not the why.

Of course I'm talking about the "how" as the act was against the law.

The case exists and is being adjudicated through the courts, that is all about "how".

The "why" of the existence of Public Accommodation laws is a different thread and is more political than a specific case. They "why" of the existence of Public Accommodation laws - IMHO - has passed and it's time for repeal. Just because a State can have constitutional law (such as Public Accommodation) does not mean they SHOULD have such laws or that such laws cannot be changed. For example repeal Public Accommodation laws as they apply to non-government entities or provide provisions for discrimination with adequate public notice.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

Again, Obergefell came about in the exact same way that Loving came about. You agree with Loving, disagree with Obergefell. Sorry, but that leaves only one logical conclusion.

Just because I think SSM and OSM are drastically different compared to inter-racial relations doesn't make me a homophobe. I guess its just easier for you to dump me in a nice little folder.

You don't get to define reality. The reality is attraction to someone of the same sex is a biological detriment. That has nothing to do with morality. I honestly don't care who you like to bugger. It's when you decide to make everyone else care OR ELSE that I have an issue.

I'm not defining anything, just following the logical conclusion of your statements. The Loving decision and the Obergerfel decision came about in the EXACT same way but you think one was a bad ruling.

Race and sexual orientation are not the same thing, and there was no precedence for SSM compared to interracial marriages (or inter tribe marriages, or inter clan marriages).

A change that big, that is something new, not correcting something that was wrongly implemented, should not come from the courts, but from the legislatures.

No precedent? You're kidding, right?

Oh, please do explain how there was precedent for Loving and not Obergefell.

Show me any culture in history that had established marriages between people of the same sex.

Ours had.

 

[Frank'sRules]

I'm not defining anything, just following the logical conclusion of your statements. The Loving decision and the Obergerfel decision came about in the EXACT same way but you think one was a bad ruling.

Race and sexual orientation are not the same thing, and there was no precedence for SSM compared to interracial marriages (or inter tribe marriages, or inter clan marriages).

A change that big, that is something new, not correcting something that was wrongly implemented, should not come from the courts, but from the legislatures.

No precedent? You're kidding, right?

Oh, please do explain how there was precedent for Loving and not Obergefell.

Show me any culture in history that had established marriages between people of the same sex.

History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the article:

At the same time, many of these relationships might be more clearly understood as mentoring relationships between adult men and young boys rather than an analog of marriage

Pederasty is not a good example when trying to equate "unions" to actual marriage.

It's much more complicated than that and if you are just going to cherry-pick and lie, why bother? The law is settled and your side lost just like it did with interracial and interfaith marriages. Move on.

 

[martybegan]

You are arguing the how, not the why.

Of course I'm talking about the "how" as the act was against the law.

The case exists and is being adjudicated through the courts, that is all about "how".

The "why" of the existence of Public Accommodation laws is a different thread and is more political than a specific case. They "why" of the existence of Public Accommodation laws - IMHO - has passed and it's time for repeal. Just because a State can have constitutional law (such as Public Accommodation) does not mean they SHOULD have such laws or that such laws cannot be changed. For example repeal Public Accommodation laws as they apply to non-government entities or provide provisions for discrimination with adequate public notice.


>>>>

But when you answer with the "how" when all these threads are really about the "why", you fall into the same trap as posters like Body and Seawytch. Everyone knows there are laws out there that do these things, the real question, and probably the only question is why these laws exist, or more accurately, why they were extended from actual Public Accommodations into "every time money changes hands".

 

[martybegan]

Just because I think SSM and OSM are drastically different compared to inter-racial relations doesn't make me a homophobe. I guess its just easier for you to dump me in a nice little folder.

You don't get to define reality. The reality is attraction to someone of the same sex is a biological detriment. That has nothing to do with morality. I honestly don't care who you like to bugger. It's when you decide to make everyone else care OR ELSE that I have an issue.

I'm not defining anything, just following the logical conclusion of your statements. The Loving decision and the Obergerfel decision came about in the EXACT same way but you think one was a bad ruling.

Race and sexual orientation are not the same thing, and there was no precedence for SSM compared to interracial marriages (or inter tribe marriages, or inter clan marriages).

A change that big, that is something new, not correcting something that was wrongly implemented, should not come from the courts, but from the legislatures.

No precedent? You're kidding, right?

Oh, please do explain how there was precedent for Loving and not Obergefell.

Show me any culture in history that had established marriages between people of the same sex.

Ours had.

link?

 

[martybegan]

Race and sexual orientation are not the same thing, and there was no precedence for SSM compared to interracial marriages (or inter tribe marriages, or inter clan marriages).

A change that big, that is something new, not correcting something that was wrongly implemented, should not come from the courts, but from the legislatures.

No precedent? You're kidding, right?

Oh, please do explain how there was precedent for Loving and not Obergefell.

Show me any culture in history that had established marriages between people of the same sex.

History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the article:

At the same time, many of these relationships might be more clearly understood as mentoring relationships between adult men and young boys rather than an analog of marriage

Pederasty is not a good example when trying to equate "unions" to actual marriage.

It's much more complicated than that and if you are just going to cherry-pick and lie, why bother? The law is settled and your side lost just like it did with interracial and interfaith marriages. Move on.

No, it isn't. Again, I am all for SSM as long as it is done in the proper way, namely petitioning State legislatures to change the marriage laws. I would be OK as well if States wanted to allow plural marriages. My issue is solely with Courts deciding to make up rights out of thin air.

What the Court SHOULD have done is allow States to issue Marriage licenses as they choose, but force them to recognize any valid marriage license from another State, same as now.

 

[Frank'sRules]

You are arguing the how, not the why.

Of course I'm talking about the "how" as the act was against the law.

The case exists and is being adjudicated through the courts, that is all about "how".

The "why" of the existence of Public Accommodation laws is a different thread and is more political than a specific case. They "why" of the existence of Public Accommodation laws - IMHO - has passed and it's time for repeal. Just because a State can have constitutional law (such as Public Accommodation) does not mean they SHOULD have such laws or that such laws cannot be changed. For example repeal Public Accommodation laws as they apply to non-government entities or provide provisions for discrimination with adequate public notice.


>>>>

But when you answer with the "how" when all these threads are really about the "why", you fall into the same trap as posters like Body and Seawytch. Everyone knows there are laws out there that do these things, the real question, and probably the only question is why these laws exist, or more accurately, why they were extended from actual Public Accommodations into "every time money changes hands".

Why shouldn't all transactions be neutral? Is gay money worth less than straight money?

When you go to city hall should they have different windows for straights and gays?

 

[Frank'sRules]

No precedent? You're kidding, right?

Oh, please do explain how there was precedent for Loving and not Obergefell.

Show me any culture in history that had established marriages between people of the same sex.

History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the article:

At the same time, many of these relationships might be more clearly understood as mentoring relationships between adult men and young boys rather than an analog of marriage

Pederasty is not a good example when trying to equate "unions" to actual marriage.

It's much more complicated than that and if you are just going to cherry-pick and lie, why bother? The law is settled and your side lost just like it did with interracial and interfaith marriages. Move on.

No, it isn't. Again, I am all for SSM as long as it is done in the proper way, namely petitioning State legislatures to change the marriage laws. I would be OK as well if States wanted to allow plural marriages. My issue is solely with Courts deciding to make up rights out of thin air.

What the Court SHOULD have done is allow States to issue Marriage licenses as they choose, but force them to recognize any valid marriage license from another State, same as now.

You are the kind that would have been all for slavery being abolished, as long as the states did it. It doesn't work that way sometimes and you'll just have to deal with it. The state bans were found to be unconstitutional and once the federal judges rule that to be true that is the end of that. And the federals forcing them one way is the same as them forcing them another way. It's idiotic to make it an issue.

 

[martybegan]

You are arguing the how, not the why.

Of course I'm talking about the "how" as the act was against the law.

The case exists and is being adjudicated through the courts, that is all about "how".

The "why" of the existence of Public Accommodation laws is a different thread and is more political than a specific case. They "why" of the existence of Public Accommodation laws - IMHO - has passed and it's time for repeal. Just because a State can have constitutional law (such as Public Accommodation) does not mean they SHOULD have such laws or that such laws cannot be changed. For example repeal Public Accommodation laws as they apply to non-government entities or provide provisions for discrimination with adequate public notice.


>>>>

But when you answer with the "how" when all these threads are really about the "why", you fall into the same trap as posters like Body and Seawytch. Everyone knows there are laws out there that do these things, the real question, and probably the only question is why these laws exist, or more accurately, why they were extended from actual Public Accommodations into "every time money changes hands".

Why shouldn't all transactions be neutral? Is gay money worth less than straight money?

When you go to city hall should they have different windows for straights and gays?

Two different issues. In the first, a person's freedom of association has to be balanced against the need for government to assure proper commerce, and through that economic freedom. So there is a difference between point of sale, time sensitive, or major commerce transactions and contracted, non-necessary, non time sensitive transactions that have easily obtainable substitutes.

The 2nd one, is different. To me it isn't a question of what I think is equal, Its what the people of a given State think, and once they decide SSM and OSM are one and the same, then it is.

 

[owebo]

You are arguing the how, not the why.

Of course I'm talking about the "how" as the act was against the law.

The case exists and is being adjudicated through the courts, that is all about "how".

The "why" of the existence of Public Accommodation laws is a different thread and is more political than a specific case. They "why" of the existence of Public Accommodation laws - IMHO - has passed and it's time for repeal. Just because a State can have constitutional law (such as Public Accommodation) does not mean they SHOULD have such laws or that such laws cannot be changed. For example repeal Public Accommodation laws as they apply to non-government entities or provide provisions for discrimination with adequate public notice.


>>>>

But when you answer with the "how" when all these threads are really about the "why", you fall into the same trap as posters like Body and Seawytch. Everyone knows there are laws out there that do these things, the real question, and probably the only question is why these laws exist, or more accurately, why they were extended from actual Public Accommodations into "every time money changes hands".

Why shouldn't all transactions be neutral? Is gay money worth less than straight money?

When you go to city hall should they have different windows for straights and gays?

They are...anyone should be allowed to buy any product a business owner makes....

 

[martybegan]

Show me any culture in history that had established marriages between people of the same sex.

History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the article:

At the same time, many of these relationships might be more clearly understood as mentoring relationships between adult men and young boys rather than an analog of marriage

Pederasty is not a good example when trying to equate "unions" to actual marriage.

It's much more complicated than that and if you are just going to cherry-pick and lie, why bother? The law is settled and your side lost just like it did with interracial and interfaith marriages. Move on.

No, it isn't. Again, I am all for SSM as long as it is done in the proper way, namely petitioning State legislatures to change the marriage laws. I would be OK as well if States wanted to allow plural marriages. My issue is solely with Courts deciding to make up rights out of thin air.

What the Court SHOULD have done is allow States to issue Marriage licenses as they choose, but force them to recognize any valid marriage license from another State, same as now.

You are the kind that would have been all for slavery being abolished, as long as the states did it. It doesn't work that way sometimes and you'll just have to deal with it. The state bans were found to be unconstitutional and once the federal judges rule that to be true that is the end of that.

And why in God's name would you want your marriage to be valid in only one state? That would be like your money being valid in only one state? That's idiotic.

In the case of Slavery a Civil War was fought, and blood spent. Even then the proper procedure was used, i.e. a constitutional amendment that banned slavery and overrode the will of the States. THAT is the proper procedure. Without that amendment the Federal Judges would have had no authority over Slavery in the States. A federal law might have also worked, but the people at the time, in their wisdom, figured an amendment would be far better, and far more final.

It would be valid in all States under my concept, it's just each State would get to decide if they wanted to ISSUE SSM licenses or not.

 

[Frank'sRules]

You are arguing the how, not the why.

Of course I'm talking about the "how" as the act was against the law.

The case exists and is being adjudicated through the courts, that is all about "how".

The "why" of the existence of Public Accommodation laws is a different thread and is more political than a specific case. They "why" of the existence of Public Accommodation laws - IMHO - has passed and it's time for repeal. Just because a State can have constitutional law (such as Public Accommodation) does not mean they SHOULD have such laws or that such laws cannot be changed. For example repeal Public Accommodation laws as they apply to non-government entities or provide provisions for discrimination with adequate public notice.


>>>>

But when you answer with the "how" when all these threads are really about the "why", you fall into the same trap as posters like Body and Seawytch. Everyone knows there are laws out there that do these things, the real question, and probably the only question is why these laws exist, or more accurately, why they were extended from actual Public Accommodations into "every time money changes hands".

Why shouldn't all transactions be neutral? Is gay money worth less than straight money?

When you go to city hall should they have different windows for straights and gays?

They are...anyone should be allowed to buy any product a business owner makes....

"...anyone should be allowed to buy any product a business owner makes....["

I agree. It's a neutral transaction. Money for goods or services.

 

[Frank'sRules]

History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From the article:

At the same time, many of these relationships might be more clearly understood as mentoring relationships between adult men and young boys rather than an analog of marriage

Pederasty is not a good example when trying to equate "unions" to actual marriage.

It's much more complicated than that and if you are just going to cherry-pick and lie, why bother? The law is settled and your side lost just like it did with interracial and interfaith marriages. Move on.

No, it isn't. Again, I am all for SSM as long as it is done in the proper way, namely petitioning State legislatures to change the marriage laws. I would be OK as well if States wanted to allow plural marriages. My issue is solely with Courts deciding to make up rights out of thin air.

What the Court SHOULD have done is allow States to issue Marriage licenses as they choose, but force them to recognize any valid marriage license from another State, same as now.

You are the kind that would have been all for slavery being abolished, as long as the states did it. It doesn't work that way sometimes and you'll just have to deal with it. The state bans were found to be unconstitutional and once the federal judges rule that to be true that is the end of that.

And why in God's name would you want your marriage to be valid in only one state? That would be like your money being valid in only one state? That's idiotic.

In the case of Slavery a Civil War was fought, and blood spent. Even then the proper procedure was used, i.e. a constitutional amendment that banned slavery and overrode the will of the States. THAT is the proper procedure. Without that amendment the Federal Judges would have had no authority over Slavery in the States. A federal law might have also worked, but the people at the time, in their wisdom, figured an amendment would be far better, and far more final.

It would be valid in all States under my concept, it's just each State would get to decide if they wanted to ISSUE SSM licenses or not.

"It would be valid in all States under my concept, it's just each State would get to decide if they wanted to ISSUE SSM licenses or not"

And why would that matter? The two gay guys next door would be just as legally married either way. It seems that you want to vote on the rights of others and we are not a democracy so that's not an option.