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

[JoeB131]

Yep, that's exactly how the 1st Amendment reads...and will be interpreted by the majority on the USSC. Remember, Sotomayor is a catholic. Catholics above all are told to keep the faith alive every moment of their lives. Good luck!

And she obeyed her duty as an American before that as a Catholic... which is awesome.

Keep your Bronze Age Superstitions in the Churches where they belong.

 

[JoeB131]

White people welfare? Social security isn't welfare. People pay into it. Does that mean food stamps, government housing, etc. is "n*gger welfare". That you call SS white people welfare proves you don't think those putting more into it should get more out of it.

If you live to be 72, you get everything you ever put into Social Security back. After that, it's welfare. Medicare, you get everything back the day you have a serious illness... Welfare. Unemployment - your not even paying for that, your employer is. Welfare. So you are fine with welfare that white people use...

The gerrymandering like that one district is nothing more than an example of affirmatie action. Using skin color, black as usual, to create a situation they know wouldn't occur unless race is used.

Actually, more like preserving Republican districts. If you spread those people out, more Democrats would get elected in those red states.

You call military spending waste. I, and the Constitution, call it Constitutional.

So you think spending 400 Billion on the F-35 Fighter program, a fighter that can't be deployed to a war zone because it can't fly in the rain, to be a good investment? Really?

again, you are fine with welfare when white people get it.

 

[Silhouette]

Yep, that's exactly how the 1st Amendment reads...and will be interpreted by the majority on the USSC. Remember, Sotomayor is a catholic. Catholics above all are told to keep the faith alive every moment of their lives. Good luck!

And she obeyed her duty as an American before that as a Catholic... which is awesome.

Keep your Bronze Age Superstitions in the Churches where they belong.

Dude, it has nothing to do with superstitions and everything to do with federal law dominating state law. This may come as a shock to you, but no state can have a law that suffocates enumerated Constitutional protections. None. Zero. Zip. The US Constitution is the dominant law. State law is submissive to its enumerated protections. 1st Amendment says freedom to exercise one's faith. And you will be told in writing by the USSC that an individual's 1st Amendment protections do not stop when they walk down the church steps. Passive resistance to enable the spread of a homosexual behavioral culture via the vehicle of normalization known as "marriage" is going to win. PA laws are going to lose.

Just get comfy with that. Anything else would be the Court finding that a come-lately deviant-sex cult with no enumerations can push an organized religion around.

 

[JoeB131]

Dude, it has nothing to do with superstitions and everything to do with federal law dominating state law. This may come as a shock to you, but no state can have a law that suffocates enumerated Constitutional protections. None. Zero. Zip. The US Constitution is the dominant law. State law is submissive to its enumerated protections. 1st Amendment says freedom to exercise one's faith.

Really, so are you saying if my faith practices Human Sacrifice, then the state can't enforce it's murder laws? Okay, that was an extreme example. How about if my religion says I can smoke pot or peyote? What if my religion says i don't believe in modern medicine and I won't vaccinate my children or take them to the hospital? The thing is, we have all sorts of state laws that supercede your superstitions. This is one of them.

And you will be told in writing by the USSC that an individual's 1st Amendment protections do not stop when they walk down the church steps. Passive resistance to enable the spread of a homosexual behavioral culture via the vehicle of normalization known as "marriage" is going to win. PA laws are going to lose.

actually, more likely result. The Churches will realize the homophobes are making them look like jerks, just like the racists did, and they will frown on you when you try to rationalize your homophobia using the bible.

Just get comfy with that. Anything else would be the Court finding that a come-lately deviant-sex cult with no enumerations can push an organized religion around.

We're pushing them around now. FOr instance,

https://thinkprogress.org/court-to-...-because-they-are-gay-b250025f3335#.y1x8afriv

A Massachusetts court has ruled against a private Catholic school that denied employment to a man because he was married to a man. This warrantedunlawful discrimination on the basic of sexual orientation, the court found.

Plaintiff Matthew Barrett had applied for a job at Fontbonne Academy, a Catholic prep school for girls in Milton, Massachusetts, as a Food Services Director. After several interviews, he was offered the job. On his new hire form, Barrett listed his husband as his emergency contact. Two days later, Fontbonne informed him that he could not have the job because his marriage was inconsistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[Silhouette]

That's a state court. Not the federal USSC. When all these cases arrive before the SCOTUS, you will see they have no choice but to consult the US Constitution. Where, get ready for this, it is ENUMERATED that religious practice of the individual is protected; whereas gay sex behaviors stripping children of a father (in the Klein's opposition) do not have enumerated protections.

The Infancy Doctrine may come up in shaving down arguments in that numerous federal laws and precedent in the courts have found that abusing children or depriving them of necessities via a contract is not permitted by law. Having the two lesbians possessing a contract that says to any children involved "you will never know a father", is a mandate to the Kleins to refuse to play along in addition to religious objections. If you suspect child abuse such as this situation of bondage away from a father as a matter of binding legal contract drawn up between two conspirators, you're required to do something to protect the children. At the very least, refusing to abet this crime is one's right.

State law being subdominant to the highest court in the land, PA laws will not protect anyone from someone else refusing to play along with behaviors because of religious practice. Enumerated rights are dominant. Come-lately state laws are not.

 

[JoeB131]

State law being subdominant to the highest court in the land, PA laws will not protect anyone from someone else refusing to play along with behaviors because of religious practice. Enumerated rights are dominant. Come-lately state laws are not.

Guy, the issue of PA laws was litigated 50 years ago.

The Infancy Doctrine may come up in shaving down arguments in that numerous federal laws and precedent in the courts have found that abusing children or depriving them of necessities via a contract is not permitted by law. Having the two lesbians possessing a contract that says to any children involved "you will never know a father", is a mandate to the Kleins to refuse to play along in addition to religious objections. If you suspect child abuse such as this situation of bondage away from a father as a matter of binding legal contract drawn up between two conspirators, you're required to do something to protect the children. At the very least, refusing to abet this crime is one's right.

By that logic, you'd have to force all couples seeking divorces to stay married. Good luck with that, buddy.