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

[martybegan]

Now you are just being an idiot. Who's sock is this?

Your comparison fails on its "merits"

Aren't you all about "tradition"? Antibiotics are new but that doesn't bother you however gay marriage is legal now and you scream Tradition, Tradition!!!!!! Go join Fiddler on the Roof.

I am about precedent and judicial restraint. Judges should leave legislating to the legislatures.

Here's your problem, they didn't legislate. They knocked down unconstitutional legislation. That is their job.

No, they expanded on equal protection and applied it to a new situation that was not equal, and can only be made equal via legislative action.

No. You are wrong. The Loving decision killed unconstitutional legislative actions. The same as the gay marriage ruling.

not the same.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, the 1st Amendment does not say "freedom of church". It guarantees each individual, everywhere they are, every day of the week, every moment of the day the right to exercise their faith without tyranny forcing them not to. The only exceptions are where that practice causes proximate harm to another person. Hurting their feelings by not enabling or promoting their behavior does not qualify as proximate harm. Christians have the right of passive refusal to participate or enable dogma or edicts of another faith or cult. Promoting a "marriage" that defies the description of marriage in the Bible or defies Jude 1's mandates, or that renders children within that marriage motherless or fatherless for life (God & Jesus constantly reaffirmed the necessity of both in the life of a child) via contract, is not required of a Christian in any setting, anywhere, anytime.

Behavior. It's key to understanding why the Kleins will prevail and the lesbian discrimination-hunters will lose.

 

[Frank'sRules]

However it was done, some of our most important freedoms have been taken from us. Freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom to contract have all been taken away. The time to run about yelling this is wrong has passed. Yes it is wrong. What do we do about it?

Gays have the right to marry and nothing will change that until the collapse of the country. The right of the people who choose not to participate in depravity must be protected. That's the fight.

Gays have the right to marry because they are equal to every other adult who has the right to marry. You'll just have to deal with it or move to Vatican City.

 

[Frank'sRules]

Aren't you all about "tradition"? Antibiotics are new but that doesn't bother you however gay marriage is legal now and you scream Tradition, Tradition!!!!!! Go join Fiddler on the Roof.

I am about precedent and judicial restraint. Judges should leave legislating to the legislatures.

Here's your problem, they didn't legislate. They knocked down unconstitutional legislation. That is their job.

No, they expanded on equal protection and applied it to a new situation that was not equal, and can only be made equal via legislative action.

No. You are wrong. The Loving decision killed unconstitutional legislative actions. The same as the gay marriage ruling.

not the same.

They are entirely the same and you are lying to yourself is you don't think so. What got taken to the Supreme Court in Loving? The law says we, two adults, can't marry and that's unfair, it has no rational basis. What got taken to the Supreme Court in gay marriage? The law says we, two adults, can't marry and that's unfair, it has no rational basis.

Both were declared invalid as unconstitutional state laws by the highest court in the land. That is how it works here.

 

[Frank'sRules]

Yes, the 1st Amendment does not say "freedom of church". It guarantees each individual, everywhere they are, every day of the week, every moment of the day the right to exercise their faith without tyranny forcing them not to.

No. It doesn't say that.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ comprehensive retort! NOT

Gays have the right to marry because they are equal to every other adult who has the right to marry. You'll just have to deal with it or move to Vatican City.

Which one of the gay men provide a mother to the children implicitly involved in marriages? Which one of the lesbians provides a father to the children implicitly involved in marriages? Were you aware that there are statutes that disallow contracts to be drawn up involving children that have terms or conditions detrimental or oppressive to children?

 

[Frank'sRules]

The same place the boss does. You want to preach about Jesus? That's on your time not mine. Get back to work, Christian.

It's also from the same place that churches get a tax break, government regulations.

Not an appropriate comparison. Again, where does the constitution say you lose your rights when you try to sell something? You are talking about an employee/employer relationship, not the same thing.

and your 2nd point has no comparison to the situation.

The rules a boss can apply are the same rules a government can apply to any business, especially one that serves the public. You don't lose your First Amendment rights but they are limited in working just as they are limited in a school. You can yell "I hate fags" all day long on the street corner but that won't cut it at McDonald's or Thomas Jefferson Elementary. Are they denying your rights, or is that just the cost of doing business?

So the government is everyone's boss now? The government is what is restricted from impinging on rights, now you say they can impinge on them if it feels like it? for no reason other than it wants to?

Do you even understand what you are typing?

The government sets the rules that all businesses are required to follow. If you don't like that then open a church. Their rules are different but they also have rules. For no rules you have to move to Somalia and deal with warlords, who also have rules, instead.

What part of the 1st amendment limits religious freedom only to Churches?

And your resort to argumentum ad absurdum is noted.

The First Amendment applies to you on your own time or in your church, on your property or public property. I can't say that in my religion we smoke dope and get naked and therefore I should be able to do that both at work and at school and at home. One out of the three I might have a chance but the courts will not back me up on the first two. Why? Because rights have limitations. I can't get witch-burning or the stoning of children approved either, anywhere, it's unreasonable. Whether you like that or not I don't care, in the real world compromises are made, deals are cut. This is part of the deal.

 

[Frank'sRules]

^^ comprehensive retort! NOT

Gays have the right to marry because they are equal to every other adult who has the right to marry. You'll just have to deal with it or move to Vatican City.

Which one of the gay men provide a mother to the children implicitly involved in marriages? Which one of the lesbians provides a father to the children implicitly involved in marriages? Were you aware that there are statutes that disallow contracts to be drawn up involving children that have terms or conditions detrimental or oppressive to children?

Name a single child who either instigated or stopped a divorce? There are none. They do not have standing, they cannot make contracts, they are not a party to a marriage contract and never have been.

Your idea is complete garbage, about as rational as the neighbor saying I can't buy a blue car because he hates blue and he's have to see it when he looks across the street. Carpola.

 

[mdk]

^^ comprehensive retort! NOT

Gays have the right to marry because they are equal to every other adult who has the right to marry. You'll just have to deal with it or move to Vatican City.

Which one of the gay men provide a mother to the children implicitly involved in marriages? Which one of the lesbians provides a father to the children implicitly involved in marriages? Were you aware that there are statutes that disallow contracts to be drawn up involving children that have terms or conditions detrimental or oppressive to children?

The Infancy Doctrine has never been used to invalidate a contract between other adults, including marriage, in this nation. Not once. You can pretend otherwise until the cows come home, but it won't make a lick of difference to the law.

 

[WorldWatcher]

However it was done, some of our most important freedoms have been taken from us. Freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom to contract have all been taken away. The time to run about yelling this is wrong has passed. Yes it is wrong. What do we do about it?

Gays have the right to marry and nothing will change that until the collapse of the country. The right of the people who choose not to participate in depravity must be protected. That's the fight.

Public Accommodation laws existed well before homosexuals could get married. The people that owned Piggie Park Enterprises that tried to claim serving blacks violate their speech, association, and religious rights. That case was from 1968, long before having sex with someone of the same sex was even legal (in a large number of states).


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Name a single child who either instigated or stopped a divorce? There are none. They do not have standing, they cannot make contracts, they are not a party to a marriage contract and never have been.

Your idea is complete garbage, about as rational as the neighbor saying I can't buy a blue car because he hates blue and he's have to see it when he looks across the street. Carpola.

Ah, suddenly Mr. Sloppy tightens up his act. Who's sock are you really?

Children are part of contracts. But let's say they aren't and take your points to the Constitution. New York vs Ferber Found in 1982 that even if a person has a Constitutional right, such as the 1st Amendment, if exercising that right results in proximate harm to children, they can't do what they're doing. The Court found that psychological harm counts. Creating a contract which has terms onerous to children; like setting in stone that they are deprived of either a mother or a father for life, is forbidden under New York v Ferber.

Single parents may exist, but they don't exist under binding contract. And if homosexuals shacking up are unmarried with children present who "need the benefits of marriage" as the impetus for legitimizing what the adults are doing, then ALL children currently without the benefits of marriage must have their parents legally married. Otherwise as Syriusly points out, those left-out children are being "hated" by the government.. Look for the Brown family currently having their shoehorn petition reviewed by Sotomayor, to make exactly that point in their later and inevitable petition to the USSC for a Hearing on polygamy marriage.

 

[Frank'sRules]

Name a single child who either instigated or stopped a divorce? There are none. They do not have standing, they cannot make contracts, they are not a party to a marriage contract and never have been.

Your idea is complete garbage, about as rational as the neighbor saying I can't buy a blue car because he hates blue and he's have to see it when he looks across the street. Carpola.

Ah, suddenly Mr. Sloppy tightens up his act. Who's sock are you really?

Children are part of contracts. But let's say they aren't and take your points to the Constitution. New York vs Ferber Found in 1982 that even if a person has a Constitutional right, such as the 1st Amendment, if exercising that right results in proximate harm to children, they can't do what they're doing. The Court found that psychological harm counts. Creating a contract which has terms onerous to children; like setting in stone that they are deprived of either a mother or a father for life, is forbidden under New York v Ferber.

Single parents may exist, but they don't exist under binding contract.

There is no child who can sign a contract therefore they have no standing and are not a party to a contract.

 

[Silhouette]

There is no child who can sign a contract therefore they have no standing and are not a party to a contract.

They are actually as of last Summer enshrined as participants and beneficiaries of the marriage contract. Kennedy wrote in Obergefell that children need the benefits of marriage of their "parents". So, sorry. That ship has already sailed in writing. They not only were implicit parties to the marriage contract (which was invented for them over 1,000 years ago), they now officially are expressed parties to the marriage contract. And divorce reflects this, being granted to not make children suffer further and dedicating separate proceedings just to handle the children's interests in the divorce: securing exposure ongoing to BOTH their mother and father as part of their ongoing marriage benefits....and rights to support and divisions of said marital assets peculiar to their use.

 

[Pop23]

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.

There was no more precedent for Loving than there was for Obergefell. Interracial marriage was a "new concept made equal by the courts"

not at all. Racial restrictions were something imposed on the existing contract. History is replete with marriages between people of differing races, clans, and tribes. Not so much with SSM.

Sorry, Doc, I can't take antibiotics, they are a recent development even though people have been using herbs to heal since mankind walked the earth. Do you have some milkweed instead?

Now you are just being an idiot. Who's sock is this?

Your comparison fails on its "merits"

Aren't you all about "tradition"? Antibiotics are new but that doesn't bother you however gay marriage is legal now and you scream Tradition, Tradition!!!!!! Go join Fiddler on the Roof.

Jebus, this guy who chides you about shouting TRADITIONS, is pissed because a baker isn't supplying a tradition to an non traditional cerimony.

Again, you can't make this shit up!

 

[Pop23]

Name a single child who either instigated or stopped a divorce? There are none. They do not have standing, they cannot make contracts, they are not a party to a marriage contract and never have been.

Your idea is complete garbage, about as rational as the neighbor saying I can't buy a blue car because he hates blue and he's have to see it when he looks across the street. Carpola.

Ah, suddenly Mr. Sloppy tightens up his act. Who's sock are you really?

Children are part of contracts. But let's say they aren't and take your points to the Constitution. New York vs Ferber Found in 1982 that even if a person has a Constitutional right, such as the 1st Amendment, if exercising that right results in proximate harm to children, they can't do what they're doing. The Court found that psychological harm counts. Creating a contract which has terms onerous to children; like setting in stone that they are deprived of either a mother or a father for life, is forbidden under New York v Ferber.

Single parents may exist, but they don't exist under binding contract.

There is no child who can sign a contract therefore they have no standing and are not a party to a contract.

No, that's why they deserve the States highest duty of protection.

 

[Silhouette]

And he would stand also against polygamy marriage based on the tradition that marriage has only meant "two" people for thousands of years... You really can't make this shit up.

 

[Pop23]

Because he's gay........

Got that proof yet?

Yes, in most cases it is self evident. But you claim folks can self proclaim as a basis in fact.

When it works in your favor I guess?

Most folks require proof of the charge greater then "cuz I say so"

Thanks for playing

The difference between your silly proofs and discussion of the case?

Mine are consistent with the law and are supported by the fact that the Klein's lost. The money has been paid and is currently in an escrow account pending appeal.

And not one of your claims about proving you are gay is a factor in the appeal that the Klein's have made to the Oregon Court of Appeals. (Here is the appeal -->> https://firstliberty.org/wp-content...5-Kleins-Opening-Brief-FINAL-w-Appendix-1.pdf)

So again it's not "cuz I say so", it because it been adjudicated in court before a court of law.


Thanks for playing.


>>>>

We will see how it ends up.

When playing the ends justifies the means game, there are no better players than gays and their enablers

 

[Pop23]

And he would stand also against polygamy marriage based on the tradition that marriage has only meant "two" people for thousands of years... You really can't make this shit up.

I agree, that's why the removal of "one man to one woman" was so tragic. Without it.........

Katie bar the door!

 

[Frank'sRules]

There is no child who can sign a contract therefore they have no standing and are not a party to a contract.

They are actually as of last Summer enshrined as participants and beneficiaries of the marriage contract. Kennedy wrote in Obergefell that children need the benefits of marriage of their "parents". So, sorry. That ship has already sailed in writing.

His reasoning was that having married gay parents made one even more of a family, made the children even that more secure with two gay parents. That helps you not at all as it is very pro-gay marriage, not anti-gay marriage nor says anything about children having a standing in the marriage contract. It also has no legally binding merit, it's just part of his reasoning.

Only the ruling declaring anti-gay marriage bans unconstitutional matters. And that is the same as in Loving. Loving might have said the very same thing about children of interracial marriages and that also wouldn't have mattered a damn. In both cases it was, or is, an argument against those saying gay marriage hurts children when it actually helps them. No one is going to win saying that in general, one parent or two unmarried parents are better for children than two married parents. Marriage is a big thing here with a whole lot of benefits that flow down to the children if their parents are married. That doesn't make them part of the contract, it makes them beneficiaries of the contract like society itself. A stable household is a good thing and why we have so much support for marriage here, gay or straight.

 

[Frank'sRules]

And he would stand also against polygamy marriage based on the tradition that marriage has only meant "two" people for thousands of years... You really can't make this shit up.

I agree, that's why the removal of "one man to one woman" was so tragic. Without it.........

Katie bar the door!

If there is a rational basis for limiting marriage to two adults then you have a chance. If not, out it goes. Tradition isn't enough. They tried that with interfaith and interracial marriages. They lost both of those and then lost on gay marriage. No rational basis could be found. Next Incest, kind of rational, and then plural marriage, and there's no rational basis about that at all as in, a child of divorce who now has two parents and two step-parents all of whom can care for them? How lucky for them, four for the price of two.