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

[WorldWatcher]

But, just to play along. A persons religion is based on belief. Are you saying that a persons sexuality is based on a belief? Please be so good as to expound on this.

Nope. You are were (badly) trying to make some kind of claim that to be in a protected class there must be a objective test that can be applied. That is false. Religion is a protected class and there isn't an objective test for religion.

A person chooses what religion (if any) they choose.

I don't see it, especially since you said that two heterosexual males can simply claim to be gay and sue the baker based on the laws prohibition on discrimination based on sexual orientation.

That's because I've not said that. I said that in this case the owner themselves have shown they discriminated based on the fact the couple was lesbian.

You've never answered though? Which orientation would they sue under?

I have answered it - multiple times - but you appear to be ignoring the answer which is based on different factors.

One, it matters not one whit what the individuals actual sexual orientation is, it matters what action the owner took at the time. If the owner believed that he was discriminating against homosexuals then it would be a violation of the law based on sexual orientation. On the other hand if two heterosexuals of the same sex walked in and said "Hey, were heterosexuals and we want to get married and buy a wedding cake here" if the Kliens denied them service based on the fact they were a same-sex couple (even if they are heterosexuals) then the owner is still in violation of the law based on the sex provision of the Public Accommodation law. (Assuming of course that the Kliens business "Sweetcakes by Melissa" offers wedding cakes as one of their products for sale and sells them to mixed sex couples.)


>>>>

 

[Pop23]

But, just to play along. A persons religion is based on belief. Are you saying that a persons sexuality is based on a belief? Please be so good as to expound on this.

Nope. You are were (badly) trying to make some kind of claim that to be in a protected class there must be a objective test that can be applied. That is false. Religion is a protected class and there isn't an objective test for religion.

A person chooses what religion (if any) they choose.

I don't see it, especially since you said that two heterosexual males can simply claim to be gay and sue the baker based on the laws prohibition on discrimination based on sexual orientation.

That's because I've not said that. I said that in this case the owner themselves have shown they discriminated based on the fact the couple was lesbian.

You've never answered though? Which orientation would they sue under?

I have answered it - multiple times - but you appear to be ignoring the answer which is based on different factors.

One, it matters not one whit what the individuals actual sexual orientation is, it matters what action the owner took at the time. If the owner believed that he was discriminating against homosexuals then it would be a violation of the law based on sexual orientation. On the other hand if two heterosexuals of the same sex walked in and said "Hey, were heterosexuals and we want to get married and buy a wedding cake here" if the Kliens denied them service based on the fact they were a same-sex couple (even if they are heterosexuals) then the owner is still in violation of the law based on the sex provision of the Public Accommodation law. (Assuming of course that the Kliens business "Sweetcakes by Melissa" offers wedding cakes as one of their products for sale and sells them to mixed sex couples.)


>>>>

Sorry, but the baker had no duty to determine what sexuality the customer is. In fact, it wouldn't matter to a retailer that didn't supply that specific product in the first place.

It reminds me of the pizza place that was publicly demonized by gays for saying they wouldn't cater a gay wedding.

They served pizza, right?

They stated unequivocally they would not cater a GAY WEDDING. So in Oregon they would be guilty of discrimination based on sexual orientation because they said gay.

Event though they never provided catering as a service?

Wow.

It doesn't matter what the customers orientation is?

So a white male can sue the baker because he believed the baker discriminated against him because he told him he didn't make cakes for blacks?

How does that work?

 

[martybegan]

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.

You assume there is a right to SSM, there isn't, except in the addled minds of 5 liberal justices.

My issue has been that a court that makes up rights can just as easily ignore them, hence my concern of Hillary getting to appoint justices and that impact on the 2nd amendment.

"You assume there is a right to SSM, there isn't, except in the addled minds of 5 liberal justices. "

No, you misunderstanding the ruling which is based on equality before the law. Nothing was made up. The bans were found to be unconstitutional just like the bans on interracial marriage were found to be unconstitutional. It made two people, just two, unequal before the law.

According to you. If you follow strict constructionism, it is jiggery-pokery, nothing more.

 

[martybegan]

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.

If they "should have" done it for gays then they "should have" done it for interracial marriage...you know, the ruling you think is a "good" ruling while you think Obergefell is "bad".

How does it work when you keep saying that you don't feel gay marriages are equal with straight marriages and how that doesn't make you anti gay? If someone said interracial marriages were not equal with same race marriages, we'd call them racist wouldn't we?

He very likely feels that interracial marriages are less valid than same race marriages. It's the same mentality, those people I like getting married but not these others.

No I don;t. Stop assuming things, Noob.

 

[martybegan]

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

Ours had.

link?

Same Sex Marriage Over Time

1970
Baker v. Nelson
Jack Baker and James McConnell applied for a marriage license.

You can't use the front end of the current argument as "precedent".

You want to say that gay marriage never existed, which isn't true, but it doesn't matter either way. As a society grows up in expands the rights of minorities to make them more equal to everyone else. That is all that has been done here. Slaves got rights. Women got rights. Children got rights. Now gays have rights. It's progress and without it nothing changes which is not a good thing even if change bugs you.

Until recently it wasn't even a concept. However inter-tribal marriages have always been around, and interracial marriages are no different.

All of those changes were done via legislative action, either at State, Federal, or even the constitutional level. THEN the courts went about enforcing it. This happened the other way around via judicial malfeasance.

 

[martybegan]

From the article:

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.

If they "should have" done it for gays then they "should have" done it for interracial marriage...you know, the ruling you think is a "good" ruling while you think Obergefell is "bad".

How does it work when you keep saying that you don't feel gay marriages are equal with straight marriages and how that doesn't make you anti gay? If someone said interracial marriages were not equal with same race marriages, we'd call them racist wouldn't we?

Not equal in a sense that they do not fall under equal protection under the law. Again, what loving removed was an artificial construct, i.e. racial restrictions on marriages. What obergfell did was extend that to an entirely new concept. It goes past interpretation and into legislating from the bench.

I do, however treat SSM married couples the same as OSM ones. As i said, as long as the legislature approves it, I approve of SSM, and probably don't really care about plural marriage either if done using the proper procedure.

What don't you still get about it. Procedure is EVERYTHING to me.

"What don't you still get about it. Procedure is EVERYTHING to me."

Learn it, then. A state makes a law. The law is challenged in the state. It goes all the way up to the state Supreme Court. It gets challenged again, this time in Federal Court. It goes all the way to the Federal Supreme Court and they make the final ruling. That is just what happened here, the state bans were found to unconstitutional. That IS the procedure!!!!!!!!

First, learn to quote properly, Noob,

And the problem with your chain is the feds have no real input into this at all. it is a State issue, to be figured out by the State. The only time the feds should get involved is making sure full faith and credit is given by the other States to any valid marriage license.

 

[martybegan]

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.

You assume there is a right to SSM, there isn't, except in the addled minds of 5 liberal justices.

My issue has been that a court that makes up rights can just as easily ignore them, hence my concern of Hillary getting to appoint justices and that impact on the 2nd amendment.

All just in your opinion, of course.

This shit again?

 

[Frank'sRules]

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.

You assume there is a right to SSM, there isn't, except in the addled minds of 5 liberal justices.

My issue has been that a court that makes up rights can just as easily ignore them, hence my concern of Hillary getting to appoint justices and that impact on the 2nd amendment.

"You assume there is a right to SSM, there isn't, except in the addled minds of 5 liberal justices. "

No, you misunderstanding the ruling which is based on equality before the law. Nothing was made up. The bans were found to be unconstitutional just like the bans on interracial marriage were found to be unconstitutional. It made two people, just two, unequal before the law.

According to you. If you follow strict constructionism, it is jiggery-pokery, nothing more.

There is no "strict" constitutionalism. Try to prove that equality before the law for one adult, or two adults even, isn't unconstitutional?

One is a Christian, one is a Jew. One is a Christian couple, one is a Jewish couple. One is a gay man, one is a straight man. One is a straight couple, one is a gay couple. Show us where the Constitution says we can treat them differently, using your "strict" definition?

 

[martybegan]

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.

You assume there is a right to SSM, there isn't, except in the addled minds of 5 liberal justices.

My issue has been that a court that makes up rights can just as easily ignore them, hence my concern of Hillary getting to appoint justices and that impact on the 2nd amendment.

"You assume there is a right to SSM, there isn't, except in the addled minds of 5 liberal justices. "

No, you misunderstanding the ruling which is based on equality before the law. Nothing was made up. The bans were found to be unconstitutional just like the bans on interracial marriage were found to be unconstitutional. It made two people, just two, unequal before the law.

According to you. If you follow strict constructionism, it is jiggery-pokery, nothing more.

There is no "strict" constitutionalism. Try to prove that equality before the law for one adult, or two adults even, isn't unconstitutional?

One is a Christian, one is a Jew. One is a Christian couple, one is a Jewish couple. One is a gay man, one is a straight man. One is a straight couple, one is a gay couple. Show us where the Constitution says we can treat them differently, using your "strict" definition?

It depends on what your view of equal is. There is no precedent for SSM anywhere in our history. It is a new concept. It should be made equal not via the courts, but via the State Legislatures.

If any of them are related to each other closer than 1st cousin (or 2nd cousin in some states) they can be denied a marriage certificate. So they are being treated differently.

 

[Frank'sRules]

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.

If they "should have" done it for gays then they "should have" done it for interracial marriage...you know, the ruling you think is a "good" ruling while you think Obergefell is "bad".

How does it work when you keep saying that you don't feel gay marriages are equal with straight marriages and how that doesn't make you anti gay? If someone said interracial marriages were not equal with same race marriages, we'd call them racist wouldn't we?

Not equal in a sense that they do not fall under equal protection under the law. Again, what loving removed was an artificial construct, i.e. racial restrictions on marriages. What obergfell did was extend that to an entirely new concept. It goes past interpretation and into legislating from the bench.

I do, however treat SSM married couples the same as OSM ones. As i said, as long as the legislature approves it, I approve of SSM, and probably don't really care about plural marriage either if done using the proper procedure.

What don't you still get about it. Procedure is EVERYTHING to me.

"What don't you still get about it. Procedure is EVERYTHING to me."

Learn it, then. A state makes a law. The law is challenged in the state. It goes all the way up to the state Supreme Court. It gets challenged again, this time in Federal Court. It goes all the way to the Federal Supreme Court and they make the final ruling. That is just what happened here, the state bans were found to unconstitutional. That IS the procedure!!!!!!!!

First, learn to quote properly, Noob,

And the problem with your chain is the feds have no real input into this at all. it is a State issue, to be figured out by the State. The only time the feds should get involved is making sure full faith and credit is given by the other States to any valid marriage license.

One, I quoted you correctly and two, the Federal Courts are responsible for making sure that state laws are constitution. You say that "procedure" is everything yet you don't know the procedures? Maybe you should learn them first.

If I believe that a state law is unconstitutional and I exhaust my appeals at the state level in our system of government where do I go next? Right, the Federal Courts. Federal Supremacy. Do you know what that means? it seems as though you do not?

Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[WorldWatcher]

Sorry, but the baker had no duty to determine what sexuality the customer is. In fact, it wouldn't matter to a retailer that didn't supply that specific product in the first place.

I never said the baker had a duty to determine sexuality, however once they did and took actions based on that sexuality - then they were in violation of the law.

It reminds me of the pizza place that was publicly demonized by gays for saying they wouldn't cater a gay wedding.

They served pizza, right?

Yes

They stated unequivocally they would not cater a GAY WEDDING. So in Oregon they would be guilty of discrimination based on sexual orientation because they said gay.

Correct

Event though they never provided catering as a service?

They did provide catering as a service. If they refused to deliver pizza's to an order because the couple was gay - I assuming the sexual orientation was a protected class in thier state - then they would have violated the law if they refused service because it was a gay wedding.

It doesn't matter what the customers orientation is?

Correct, it matters what the owners actions are based on what they believe the customers sexual orientation is. If they perceive the couple to be homosexual and refuse service (based on that reason) - then they have violated the law on the basis of sexual orientation.

If they perceive a same-sex couple to be heterosexual but they are getting married and refuse service - assuming the business provides service to mixed sex couple weddings - then they are inviolation of the law based on sex.

So a white male can sue the baker because he believed the baker discriminated against him because he told him he didn't make cakes for blacks?

How does that work?

I have no idea, you are the one being silly.

But on the other hand, a Catholic named Sternberg would have a case if the baker refused service telling him he didn't serve Jews even though he wasn't Jewish.


>>>>

 

[Frank'sRules]

"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.

You assume there is a right to SSM, there isn't, except in the addled minds of 5 liberal justices.

My issue has been that a court that makes up rights can just as easily ignore them, hence my concern of Hillary getting to appoint justices and that impact on the 2nd amendment.

"You assume there is a right to SSM, there isn't, except in the addled minds of 5 liberal justices. "

No, you misunderstanding the ruling which is based on equality before the law. Nothing was made up. The bans were found to be unconstitutional just like the bans on interracial marriage were found to be unconstitutional. It made two people, just two, unequal before the law.

According to you. If you follow strict constructionism, it is jiggery-pokery, nothing more.

There is no "strict" constitutionalism. Try to prove that equality before the law for one adult, or two adults even, isn't unconstitutional?

One is a Christian, one is a Jew. One is a Christian couple, one is a Jewish couple. One is a gay man, one is a straight man. One is a straight couple, one is a gay couple. Show us where the Constitution says we can treat them differently, using your "strict" definition?

It depends on what your view of equal is. There is no precedent for SSM anywhere in our history. It is a new concept. It should be made equal not via the courts, but via the State Legislatures.

If any of them are related to each other closer than 1st cousin (or 2nd cousin in some states) they can be denied a marriage certificate. So they are being treated differently.

Apples and oranges. You want to say this goes against tradition, so what? Well, fine, but what it doesn't go against is the Constitution where all are equal, including couples, before the law. The laws you wanted the states to change were unconstitutional. That is the preview of the Federal Government. They didn't make a new law, they tossed unconstitutional state laws as is their right to do so. Had they tossed slavery, and should have, it would have been no different. It's clearly unconstitutional as are state-level interracial,. interfaith, and gay marriage bans.

 

[martybegan]

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.

If they "should have" done it for gays then they "should have" done it for interracial marriage...you know, the ruling you think is a "good" ruling while you think Obergefell is "bad".

How does it work when you keep saying that you don't feel gay marriages are equal with straight marriages and how that doesn't make you anti gay? If someone said interracial marriages were not equal with same race marriages, we'd call them racist wouldn't we?

Not equal in a sense that they do not fall under equal protection under the law. Again, what loving removed was an artificial construct, i.e. racial restrictions on marriages. What obergfell did was extend that to an entirely new concept. It goes past interpretation and into legislating from the bench.

I do, however treat SSM married couples the same as OSM ones. As i said, as long as the legislature approves it, I approve of SSM, and probably don't really care about plural marriage either if done using the proper procedure.

What don't you still get about it. Procedure is EVERYTHING to me.

"What don't you still get about it. Procedure is EVERYTHING to me."

Learn it, then. A state makes a law. The law is challenged in the state. It goes all the way up to the state Supreme Court. It gets challenged again, this time in Federal Court. It goes all the way to the Federal Supreme Court and they make the final ruling. That is just what happened here, the state bans were found to unconstitutional. That IS the procedure!!!!!!!!

First, learn to quote properly, Noob,

And the problem with your chain is the feds have no real input into this at all. it is a State issue, to be figured out by the State. The only time the feds should get involved is making sure full faith and credit is given by the other States to any valid marriage license.

One, I quoted you correctly and two, the Federal Courts are responsible for making sure that state laws are constitution. You say that "procedure" is everything yet you don't know the procedures? Maybe you should learn them first.

If I believe that a state law is unconstitutional and I exhaust my appeals at the state level in our system of government where do I go next? Right, the Federal Courts. Federal Supremacy. Do you know what that means? it seems as though you do not?

Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where does the federal constitution mention marriage?

 

[martybegan]

You assume there is a right to SSM, there isn't, except in the addled minds of 5 liberal justices.

My issue has been that a court that makes up rights can just as easily ignore them, hence my concern of Hillary getting to appoint justices and that impact on the 2nd amendment.

"You assume there is a right to SSM, there isn't, except in the addled minds of 5 liberal justices. "

No, you misunderstanding the ruling which is based on equality before the law. Nothing was made up. The bans were found to be unconstitutional just like the bans on interracial marriage were found to be unconstitutional. It made two people, just two, unequal before the law.

According to you. If you follow strict constructionism, it is jiggery-pokery, nothing more.

There is no "strict" constitutionalism. Try to prove that equality before the law for one adult, or two adults even, isn't unconstitutional?

One is a Christian, one is a Jew. One is a Christian couple, one is a Jewish couple. One is a gay man, one is a straight man. One is a straight couple, one is a gay couple. Show us where the Constitution says we can treat them differently, using your "strict" definition?

It depends on what your view of equal is. There is no precedent for SSM anywhere in our history. It is a new concept. It should be made equal not via the courts, but via the State Legislatures.

If any of them are related to each other closer than 1st cousin (or 2nd cousin in some states) they can be denied a marriage certificate. So they are being treated differently.

Apples and oranges. You want to say this goes against tradition, so what? Well, fine, but what it doesn't go against is the Constitution where all are equal, including couples, before the law. The laws you wanted the states to change were unconstitutional. That is the preview of the Federal Government. They didn't make a new law, they tossed unconstitutional state laws as is their right to do so. Had they tossed slavery, and should have, it would have been no different. It's clearly unconstitutional as are state-level interracial,. interfaith, and gay marriage bans.

Again, where does the federal constitution mention marriage?

If they tossed slavery before the 13th amendment, they would have been making up law.

 

[Pop23]

Sorry, but the baker had no duty to determine what sexuality the customer is. In fact, it wouldn't matter to a retailer that didn't supply that specific product in the first place.

I never said the baker had a duty to determine sexuality, however once they did and took actions based on that sexuality - then they were in violation of the law.

It reminds me of the pizza place that was publicly demonized by gays for saying they wouldn't cater a gay wedding.

They served pizza, right?

Yes

They stated unequivocally they would not cater a GAY WEDDING. So in Oregon they would be guilty of discrimination based on sexual orientation because they said gay.

Correct

Event though they never provided catering as a service?

They did provide catering as a service. If they refused to deliver pizza's to an order because the couple was gay - I assuming the sexual orientation was a protected class in thier state - then they would have violated the law if they refused service because it was a gay wedding.

It doesn't matter what the customers orientation is?

Correct, it matters what the owners actions are based on what they believe the customers sexual orientation is. If they perceive the couple to be homosexual and refuse service (based on that reason) - then they have violated the law on the basis of sexual orientation.

If they perceive a same-sex couple to be heterosexual but they are getting married and refuse service - assuming the business provides service to mixed sex couple weddings - then they are inviolation of the law based on sex.

So a white male can sue the baker because he believed the baker discriminated against him because he told him he didn't make cakes for blacks?

How does that work?

I have no idea, you are the one being silly.

But on the other hand, a Catholic named Sternberg would have a case if the baker refused service telling him he didn't serve Jews even though he wasn't Jewish.


>>>>

You need to quit bringing religion of the customer into this. The Government proclaimed it's duty to protect religion in the Bill of rights. That is, unless you can find sexual orientation in the Bill of Rights, it's a moot point. Regardless if it's in the Oregon law or not.

Then you make the claim that, because a pizza place delivers, they must CATER a wedding?

How's that work?

Delivery and catering are two vastly different forms of commerce.

So a white make goes to the State of Oregon and states he was discriminated because he's black.

I suppose the State would tell him that he could not because he obviously wasn't black. Yet the man proclaims he is black and will bring suit against the state unless they prosecute the offender.

Do you suppose that the State or the court can demand proof of the mans race?

Dude, if you believe you're black, we will proceed with the fine, or:

Dude, if you believe you are black you will need to produce objective evidence that you are black before we can proceed with the fine.

Which do you expect the state to do?

Self proclamation is what every thief uses, "I'm innocent and you must believe me".

Case dismissed!

 

[Frank'sRules]

"You assume there is a right to SSM, there isn't, except in the addled minds of 5 liberal justices. "

No, you misunderstanding the ruling which is based on equality before the law. Nothing was made up. The bans were found to be unconstitutional just like the bans on interracial marriage were found to be unconstitutional. It made two people, just two, unequal before the law.

According to you. If you follow strict constructionism, it is jiggery-pokery, nothing more.

There is no "strict" constitutionalism. Try to prove that equality before the law for one adult, or two adults even, isn't unconstitutional?

One is a Christian, one is a Jew. One is a Christian couple, one is a Jewish couple. One is a gay man, one is a straight man. One is a straight couple, one is a gay couple. Show us where the Constitution says we can treat them differently, using your "strict" definition?

It depends on what your view of equal is. There is no precedent for SSM anywhere in our history. It is a new concept. It should be made equal not via the courts, but via the State Legislatures.

If any of them are related to each other closer than 1st cousin (or 2nd cousin in some states) they can be denied a marriage certificate. So they are being treated differently.

Apples and oranges. You want to say this goes against tradition, so what? Well, fine, but what it doesn't go against is the Constitution where all are equal, including couples, before the law. The laws you wanted the states to change were unconstitutional. That is the preview of the Federal Government. They didn't make a new law, they tossed unconstitutional state laws as is their right to do so. Had they tossed slavery, and should have, it would have been no different. It's clearly unconstitutional as are state-level interracial,. interfaith, and gay marriage bans.

Again, where does the federal constitution mention marriage?

If they tossed slavery before the 13th amendment, they would have been making up law.

No, they would have been reading the constitution and applying it to all citizens who are supposedly equal, which is what they did in the gay marriage ruling. The laws were unequal therefore unconstitutional.

Find any law, I don't care what and it doesn't have to be in the Constitution, but if said law treats one citizen or one couple as different from another then that law is probably unconstitutional and who rules on that, the Supreme Court.

The law could be in Texas having red hair is illegal? If the Supreme Court rules that unconstitutional, and hair color is also not in the Constitution, then the law is unconstitutional. All you have to do is show that the law has no rational basis and goes against the equal protections noted in the Constitution. That is what killed you on gay marriage. While marriage isn't in the Constitution equality is and that was all she wrote. The Constitution always overrules state and local laws and the US Supreme Court makes that final ruling. That is the "procedure" here.

 

[martybegan]

According to you. If you follow strict constructionism, it is jiggery-pokery, nothing more.

There is no "strict" constitutionalism. Try to prove that equality before the law for one adult, or two adults even, isn't unconstitutional?

One is a Christian, one is a Jew. One is a Christian couple, one is a Jewish couple. One is a gay man, one is a straight man. One is a straight couple, one is a gay couple. Show us where the Constitution says we can treat them differently, using your "strict" definition?

It depends on what your view of equal is. There is no precedent for SSM anywhere in our history. It is a new concept. It should be made equal not via the courts, but via the State Legislatures.

If any of them are related to each other closer than 1st cousin (or 2nd cousin in some states) they can be denied a marriage certificate. So they are being treated differently.

Apples and oranges. You want to say this goes against tradition, so what? Well, fine, but what it doesn't go against is the Constitution where all are equal, including couples, before the law. The laws you wanted the states to change were unconstitutional. That is the preview of the Federal Government. They didn't make a new law, they tossed unconstitutional state laws as is their right to do so. Had they tossed slavery, and should have, it would have been no different. It's clearly unconstitutional as are state-level interracial,. interfaith, and gay marriage bans.

Again, where does the federal constitution mention marriage?

If they tossed slavery before the 13th amendment, they would have been making up law.

No, they would have been reading the constitution and applying it to all citizens who are supposedly equal, which is what they did in the gay marriage ruling. The laws were unequal therefore unconstitutional.

Find any law, I don't care what and it doesn't have to be in the Constitution, but if said law treats one citizen or one couple as different from another then that law is probably unconstitutional and who rules on that, the Supreme Court.

The law could be in Texas having red hair is illegal? If the Supreme Court rules that unconstitutional, and hair color is also not in the Constitution, then the law is unconstitutional. All you have to do is show that the law has no rational basis and goes against the equal protections noted in the Constitution. That is what killed you on gay marriage. While marriage isn't in the Constitution equality is and that was all she wrote. The Constitution always overrules state and local laws and the US Supreme Court makes that final ruling. That is the "procedure" here.

Equal protection under the law was part of the 14th amendment, not the original constitution. Try comprehending something before talking about it.

So banning first cousins from marrying each other is unconstitutional?

 

[Frank'sRules]

There is no "strict" constitutionalism. Try to prove that equality before the law for one adult, or two adults even, isn't unconstitutional?

One is a Christian, one is a Jew. One is a Christian couple, one is a Jewish couple. One is a gay man, one is a straight man. One is a straight couple, one is a gay couple. Show us where the Constitution says we can treat them differently, using your "strict" definition?

It depends on what your view of equal is. There is no precedent for SSM anywhere in our history. It is a new concept. It should be made equal not via the courts, but via the State Legislatures.

If any of them are related to each other closer than 1st cousin (or 2nd cousin in some states) they can be denied a marriage certificate. So they are being treated differently.

Apples and oranges. You want to say this goes against tradition, so what? Well, fine, but what it doesn't go against is the Constitution where all are equal, including couples, before the law. The laws you wanted the states to change were unconstitutional. That is the preview of the Federal Government. They didn't make a new law, they tossed unconstitutional state laws as is their right to do so. Had they tossed slavery, and should have, it would have been no different. It's clearly unconstitutional as are state-level interracial,. interfaith, and gay marriage bans.

Again, where does the federal constitution mention marriage?

If they tossed slavery before the 13th amendment, they would have been making up law.

No, they would have been reading the constitution and applying it to all citizens who are supposedly equal, which is what they did in the gay marriage ruling. The laws were unequal therefore unconstitutional.

Find any law, I don't care what and it doesn't have to be in the Constitution, but if said law treats one citizen or one couple as different from another then that law is probably unconstitutional and who rules on that, the Supreme Court.

The law could be in Texas having red hair is illegal? If the Supreme Court rules that unconstitutional, and hair color is also not in the Constitution, then the law is unconstitutional. All you have to do is show that the law has no rational basis and goes against the equal protections noted in the Constitution. That is what killed you on gay marriage. While marriage isn't in the Constitution equality is and that was all she wrote. The Constitution always overrules state and local laws and the US Supreme Court makes that final ruling. That is the "procedure" here.

Equal protection under the law was part of the 14th amendment, not the original constitution. Try comprehending something before talking about it.

So banning first cousins from marrying each other is unconstitutional?

Equality was noted before then and the entire Bill of Rights is an add-on so skip that argument otherwise you'd have to say that protecting free speech and freedom of religion isn't constitutional and you damn well know that it is.

And banning biological fist cousins is unconstitutional, in my opinion, but it does have something like a rational basis while banning two unrelated men from getting married has absolutely no rational basis it just goes against tradition. The closest thing to a rational basis is they can't naturally reproduce but since we don't require that of heterosexual couples that's DOA as well. Equality killed you and that is very constitutional.

Answer this, what's the rational basis for banning two first cousins getting married when one was adopted?

 

[martybegan]

It depends on what your view of equal is. There is no precedent for SSM anywhere in our history. It is a new concept. It should be made equal not via the courts, but via the State Legislatures.

If any of them are related to each other closer than 1st cousin (or 2nd cousin in some states) they can be denied a marriage certificate. So they are being treated differently.

Apples and oranges. You want to say this goes against tradition, so what? Well, fine, but what it doesn't go against is the Constitution where all are equal, including couples, before the law. The laws you wanted the states to change were unconstitutional. That is the preview of the Federal Government. They didn't make a new law, they tossed unconstitutional state laws as is their right to do so. Had they tossed slavery, and should have, it would have been no different. It's clearly unconstitutional as are state-level interracial,. interfaith, and gay marriage bans.

Again, where does the federal constitution mention marriage?

If they tossed slavery before the 13th amendment, they would have been making up law.

No, they would have been reading the constitution and applying it to all citizens who are supposedly equal, which is what they did in the gay marriage ruling. The laws were unequal therefore unconstitutional.

Find any law, I don't care what and it doesn't have to be in the Constitution, but if said law treats one citizen or one couple as different from another then that law is probably unconstitutional and who rules on that, the Supreme Court.

The law could be in Texas having red hair is illegal? If the Supreme Court rules that unconstitutional, and hair color is also not in the Constitution, then the law is unconstitutional. All you have to do is show that the law has no rational basis and goes against the equal protections noted in the Constitution. That is what killed you on gay marriage. While marriage isn't in the Constitution equality is and that was all she wrote. The Constitution always overrules state and local laws and the US Supreme Court makes that final ruling. That is the "procedure" here.

Equal protection under the law was part of the 14th amendment, not the original constitution. Try comprehending something before talking about it.

So banning first cousins from marrying each other is unconstitutional?

Equality was noted before then and the entire Bill of Rights is an add-on so skip that argument otherwise you'd have to say that protecting free speech and freedom of religion isn't constitutional and you damn well know that it is.

And banning biological fist cousins is unconstitutional, in my opinion, but it does have something like a rational basis while banning two unrelated men from getting married has absolutely no rational basis it just goes against tradition. The closest thing to a rational basis is they can't naturally reproduce but since we don't require that of heterosexual couples that's DOA as well. Equality killed you and that is very constitutional.

Answer this, what's the rational basis for banning two first cousins getting married when one was adopted?

So the courts could have applied the 13th and 14th amendments before they were even ratified?


So any restrictions or marriage are unconstitutional?

 

[Frank'sRules]

Apples and oranges. You want to say this goes against tradition, so what? Well, fine, but what it doesn't go against is the Constitution where all are equal, including couples, before the law. The laws you wanted the states to change were unconstitutional. That is the preview of the Federal Government. They didn't make a new law, they tossed unconstitutional state laws as is their right to do so. Had they tossed slavery, and should have, it would have been no different. It's clearly unconstitutional as are state-level interracial,. interfaith, and gay marriage bans.

Again, where does the federal constitution mention marriage?

If they tossed slavery before the 13th amendment, they would have been making up law.

No, they would have been reading the constitution and applying it to all citizens who are supposedly equal, which is what they did in the gay marriage ruling. The laws were unequal therefore unconstitutional.

Find any law, I don't care what and it doesn't have to be in the Constitution, but if said law treats one citizen or one couple as different from another then that law is probably unconstitutional and who rules on that, the Supreme Court.

The law could be in Texas having red hair is illegal? If the Supreme Court rules that unconstitutional, and hair color is also not in the Constitution, then the law is unconstitutional. All you have to do is show that the law has no rational basis and goes against the equal protections noted in the Constitution. That is what killed you on gay marriage. While marriage isn't in the Constitution equality is and that was all she wrote. The Constitution always overrules state and local laws and the US Supreme Court makes that final ruling. That is the "procedure" here.

Equal protection under the law was part of the 14th amendment, not the original constitution. Try comprehending something before talking about it.

So banning first cousins from marrying each other is unconstitutional?

Equality was noted before then and the entire Bill of Rights is an add-on so skip that argument otherwise you'd have to say that protecting free speech and freedom of religion isn't constitutional and you damn well know that it is.

And banning biological fist cousins is unconstitutional, in my opinion, but it does have something like a rational basis while banning two unrelated men from getting married has absolutely no rational basis it just goes against tradition. The closest thing to a rational basis is they can't naturally reproduce but since we don't require that of heterosexual couples that's DOA as well. Equality killed you and that is very constitutional.

Answer this, what's the rational basis for banning two first cousins getting married when one was adopted?

So the courts could have applied the 13th and 14th amendments before they were even ratified?


So any restrictions or marriage are unconstitutional?

Equality came along with the Bill of Rights, it just wasn't applied to many until later, and most marriage restrictions are unconstitutional. That's a snap to test. Find first cousins wanting to get married in a state that bans it (and not all do) and test it when one first cousin is adopted? There is no rational basis at all, no incest risk, just another tradition. Goodbye restriction, you are just another unconstitutional law.

The only discrimination that is legal is when there is a rational basis. None could be found against gay marriage so it died in the courts. The only argument against it was tradition and that's not enough here. When you argue tradition you'll lose.