Breaking News: Supreme Court Has Chosen Not To Hear Any Of The 7 Marriage Equality Cases.

[Czernobog]

Wow...so now the Extreme right wing is, as always, advocating violence, and murder when they don't get their way. Thanks ever so much for demonstrating your complete lack of respect for the law, the Constitution, and this nation.

Might makes Right. Always has a d always will. Nor have I or others like me ever found a reason to follow immoral and valueless Laws, Rules or Regulations.

I have no respect for ANY Western nation at thus point in history.

yeah...you know...there's a term for those "like you"...it's called "sociopath". Fortunately most of you end up dead, or in the nut house before you are able to do much harm. So, I'm not too concerned over your stupid, violent ramblings.

 

[martybegan]

So, with this ruling it looks like 30 states will allow gay marriage

How long before Republicans drop their "one man, one woman" stance?

How much longer until Progressives start going after churches and such to force "tolerance" onto everyone?

That would be never. Gotta love the "slippery slope" arguments of the fanatics. We don't give a shit about churches, or what the congregation of those churches do among themselves. We only care, such as in the extreme case of Westboro Baptist, what those churches do to other people, in public.

How is defending another person's right of association and right to make a livelihood within their moral code being a "fanatic"?

you have no clue what the "right of association" is, do you? Lemme help you out with that. The right of association has not one single precedent that suggest that it allows for businesses to refuse service based on race, creed, or sexual preference. Quite the opposite, in fact:

NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 907-15 (1982) (concerted activities of group protesting racial bias); Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972) (denial of official recognition to student organization by public college without justification abridged right of association). The right does not, however, protect the decision of entities not truly private to exclude minorities.
​

In other words, entities which are public, such as businesses, do not share the same protections from nondiscrimation laws that entities that are private, such as clubs, do. So, you are, in fact, defending a businesses "right" to behave contrary to constitutionally based law. The very definition of a fanatic is to encourage ignoring the law for some rigid set of personal beliefs.

So the second I try to sell something, you somehow get the right to shit on my moral compass?

The only fanatics here are those equating supposed "equality" with the ability to force people to live their lives how YOU want them to.

The only fanatics here are those in favor of government jackboots on the necks of those who disagree with them.

I'm sure you look dashing in a quasi-nazi uniform.

 

[martybegan]

The Supreme court just decided it will not hear the Same Sex Marriage cases from IN, OK, UT, VA, or WI. So that means two things.

First, since, in all of those cases, the lower court ruling was to strike down the state ban on Same Sex Marriage, that now means that Marriage Equality is now the "Law of the Land" in those 7 states.

Second, and more importantly, all of those states had a stay on their rulings until the Supreme Court acted. Well, guess what? It just did. So, the stays in all of those states are about to run out.

Bad news for the religious fanatics.

Supreme Court declines to hear gay marriages case in surprise move

So what's that mean? They want each state to decide it for themselves rather than pass a blanket national ruling?

More accurately, it means that the SCOTUS feels the lower federal courts made the correct rulings in these cases, and they saw no reason to revisit the cases. Now, the right-wing fanatics who wanted the SCOTUS to hear the case in the hopes that it would find in their favor and legitimize their Anti-Gay agenda will insist that this means nothing more than the SCOUS "punted" this back to the "states" like cowards. The only problem with that interpretation is that these rulings weren't state rulings. They were federal circuit rulings. This is why the ruling will actually extend beyond the state borders of the specific cases, and will affect the 11 other states in the circuits of these lower federal courts, and will effectively strike down their bans as well.

Wrong. they denied cert without comment. That means they COULD think the lower courts were right, or they COULD think the cases were not sound enough to warrant review, or the COULD think another, clearer cases is coming up in the docket and they could be waiting for that one.

Denied cert does not equal "agree with the lower court ruling"

 

[Czernobog]

The Supreme court just decided it will not hear the Same Sex Marriage cases from IN, OK, UT, VA, or WI. So that means two things.

First, since, in all of those cases, the lower court ruling was to strike down the state ban on Same Sex Marriage, that now means that Marriage Equality is now the "Law of the Land" in those 7 states.

Second, and more importantly, all of those states had a stay on their rulings until the Supreme Court acted. Well, guess what? It just did. So, the stays in all of those states are about to run out.

Bad news for the religious fanatics.

Supreme Court declines to hear gay marriages case in surprise move

Why do you have to be an ass hole about it. Not all religious fanatics hate gays. I'm christian and I applaud gays having the liberty to get married. So stuff that in your hat and eat it.

Okay...why is it so hard for people on the Right to understand there is a difference between Christians, and religious fanatics! Dude! Here's a hint: if you don't want to pass a bunch of laws to force people to behave in accordance with your persona religious views, THEN I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT YOU!!!!!!

 

[martybegan]

The Supreme court just decided it will not hear the Same Sex Marriage cases from IN, OK, UT, VA, or WI. So that means two things.

First, since, in all of those cases, the lower court ruling was to strike down the state ban on Same Sex Marriage, that now means that Marriage Equality is now the "Law of the Land" in those 7 states.

Second, and more importantly, all of those states had a stay on their rulings until the Supreme Court acted. Well, guess what? It just did. So, the stays in all of those states are about to run out.

Bad news for the religious fanatics.

Supreme Court declines to hear gay marriages case in surprise move

Why do you have to be an ass hole about it. Not all religious fanatics hate gays. I'm christian and I applaud gays having the liberty to get married. So stuff that in your hat and eat it.

Okay...why is it so hard for people on the Right to understand there is a difference between Christians, and religious fanatics! Dude! Here's a hint: if you don't want to pass a bunch of laws to force people to behave in accordance with your persona religious views, THEN I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT YOU!!!!!!

No, you just like laws that make people act in accordance to YOUR personal political views.

 

[Anathema]

yeah...you know...there's a term for those "like you"...it's called "sociopath". Fortunately most of you end up dead, or in the nut house before you are able to do much harm. So, I'm not too concerned over your stupid, violent ramblings.

Yet hundreds and thousands of people in thus country have died over the years because of sociopaths. Just think on that one.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

To all blacks and Latinos, this is what you get for voting for Dimocrats and helping to put them in power.

 

[Czernobog]

Once a nation starts on the road to depravity it doesn't stop until it reaches the very bottom.

RKMBrown - this guy, on the other hand? He is a fanatic...

 

[RKMBrown]

The Supreme court just decided it will not hear the Same Sex Marriage cases from IN, OK, UT, VA, or WI. So that means two things.

First, since, in all of those cases, the lower court ruling was to strike down the state ban on Same Sex Marriage, that now means that Marriage Equality is now the "Law of the Land" in those 7 states.

Second, and more importantly, all of those states had a stay on their rulings until the Supreme Court acted. Well, guess what? It just did. So, the stays in all of those states are about to run out.

Bad news for the religious fanatics.

Supreme Court declines to hear gay marriages case in surprise move

Why do you have to be an ass hole about it. Not all religious fanatics hate gays. I'm christian and I applaud gays having the liberty to get married. So stuff that in your hat and eat it.

Okay...why is it so hard for people on the Right to understand there is a difference between Christians, and religious fanatics! Dude! Here's a hint: if you don't want to pass a bunch of laws to force people to behave in accordance with your persona religious views, THEN I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT YOU!!!!!!

Well there ya go.. I was just asking you to be more precise. I'm fanatical about Jesus. I'm not fanatical about throwing stones at people that eat pork, work on the sabbath, or.. shock want to have a plural marriage, or double shock want to marry someone of the same sex. I see some of those old rules pretty much the same as Christians see the rules of Islam... some of those really old rules... they need to be rewritten in a more modern context. I believe some of these old rules were learned based on people dying... and thus seeing said deaths and disease as a sign. Now we know it's more about monogamy and hygiene.

 

[RKMBrown]

Once a nation starts on the road to depravity it doesn't stop until it reaches the very bottom.

RKMBrown - this guy, on the other hand? He is a fanatic...

My idea of bottom... is we all get a lot more liberty, Thus back to the basics of freedom and republic we tried to build at the start. But no I don't think liberty means the liberty of the majority to screw over minority groups. Or the liberty to murder, rape, or steal from others. No that's crime not liberty.

 

[Czernobog]

So, with this ruling it looks like 30 states will allow gay marriage

How long before Republicans drop their "one man, one woman" stance?

How much longer until Progressives start going after churches and such to force "tolerance" onto everyone?

That would be never. Gotta love the "slippery slope" arguments of the fanatics. We don't give a shit about churches, or what the congregation of those churches do among themselves. We only care, such as in the extreme case of Westboro Baptist, what those churches do to other people, in public.

How is defending another person's right of association and right to make a livelihood within their moral code being a "fanatic"?

you have no clue what the "right of association" is, do you? Lemme help you out with that. The right of association has not one single precedent that suggest that it allows for businesses to refuse service based on race, creed, or sexual preference. Quite the opposite, in fact:

NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 907-15 (1982) (concerted activities of group protesting racial bias); Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972) (denial of official recognition to student organization by public college without justification abridged right of association). The right does not, however, protect the decision of entities not truly private to exclude minorities.
​

In other words, entities which are public, such as businesses, do not share the same protections from nondiscrimation laws that entities that are private, such as clubs, do. So, you are, in fact, defending a businesses "right" to behave contrary to constitutionally based law. The very definition of a fanatic is to encourage ignoring the law for some rigid set of personal beliefs.

So the second I try to sell something, you somehow get the right to shit on my moral compass?

The only fanatics here are those equating supposed "equality" with the ability to force people to live their lives how YOU want them to.

The only fanatics here are those in favor of government jackboots on the necks of those who disagree with them.

I'm sure you look dashing in a quasi-nazi uniform.

First of all, no one is "shitting" on anything. You are allowed to have any views you want - in your private life. your professional life isn't your private life. If you want to be able to pick, and choose to whom you will sell, it is really simple - don't open a public business. Keep your business private, and only work with referrals from, say, your church. Then you are not subject to the public accommodation laws. However, the minute you make the choice to become open to the public - either through a store, or online - then you know longer get to use your personal beliefs as an excuse to discriminate. That is the law. It is constitutional, and the Supreme Court already ruled on this.

 

[Katzndogz]

Once a nation starts on the road to depravity it doesn't stop until it reaches the very bottom.

RKMBrown - this guy, on the other hand? He is a fanatic...

My idea of bottom... is we all get a lot more liberty, Thus back to the basics of freedom and republic we tried to build at the start. But no I don't think liberty means the liberty of the majority to screw over minority groups.

You get a lot more liberty, providing that the progressives are the sole arbiters of what liberty you are permitted to have.

 

[Katzndogz]

How much longer until Progressives start going after churches and such to force "tolerance" onto everyone?

That would be never. Gotta love the "slippery slope" arguments of the fanatics. We don't give a shit about churches, or what the congregation of those churches do among themselves. We only care, such as in the extreme case of Westboro Baptist, what those churches do to other people, in public.

How is defending another person's right of association and right to make a livelihood within their moral code being a "fanatic"?

you have no clue what the "right of association" is, do you? Lemme help you out with that. The right of association has not one single precedent that suggest that it allows for businesses to refuse service based on race, creed, or sexual preference. Quite the opposite, in fact:

NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 907-15 (1982) (concerted activities of group protesting racial bias); Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972) (denial of official recognition to student organization by public college without justification abridged right of association). The right does not, however, protect the decision of entities not truly private to exclude minorities.
​

In other words, entities which are public, such as businesses, do not share the same protections from nondiscrimation laws that entities that are private, such as clubs, do. So, you are, in fact, defending a businesses "right" to behave contrary to constitutionally based law. The very definition of a fanatic is to encourage ignoring the law for some rigid set of personal beliefs.

So the second I try to sell something, you somehow get the right to shit on my moral compass?

The only fanatics here are those equating supposed "equality" with the ability to force people to live their lives how YOU want them to.

The only fanatics here are those in favor of government jackboots on the necks of those who disagree with them.

I'm sure you look dashing in a quasi-nazi uniform.

First of all, no one is "shitting" on anything. You are allowed to have any views you want - in your private life. your professional life isn't your private life. If you want to be able to pick, and choose to whom you will sell, it is really simple - don't open a public business. Keep your business private, and only work with referrals from, say, your church. Then you are not subject to the public accommodation laws. However, the minute you make the choice to become open to the public - either through a store, or online - then you know longer get to use your personal beliefs as an excuse to discriminate. That is the law. It is constitutional, and the Supreme Court already ruled on this.

Exactly. Gays might have a complaint that their favorite bakery isn't making wedding cakes any more, or that photographer that did such a great job on Cousin Susie's wedding is only doing pet portraits now. That's just the price they pay for what they got.

 

[martybegan]

How much longer until Progressives start going after churches and such to force "tolerance" onto everyone?

That would be never. Gotta love the "slippery slope" arguments of the fanatics. We don't give a shit about churches, or what the congregation of those churches do among themselves. We only care, such as in the extreme case of Westboro Baptist, what those churches do to other people, in public.

How is defending another person's right of association and right to make a livelihood within their moral code being a "fanatic"?

you have no clue what the "right of association" is, do you? Lemme help you out with that. The right of association has not one single precedent that suggest that it allows for businesses to refuse service based on race, creed, or sexual preference. Quite the opposite, in fact:

NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 907-15 (1982) (concerted activities of group protesting racial bias); Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972) (denial of official recognition to student organization by public college without justification abridged right of association). The right does not, however, protect the decision of entities not truly private to exclude minorities.
​

In other words, entities which are public, such as businesses, do not share the same protections from nondiscrimation laws that entities that are private, such as clubs, do. So, you are, in fact, defending a businesses "right" to behave contrary to constitutionally based law. The very definition of a fanatic is to encourage ignoring the law for some rigid set of personal beliefs.

So the second I try to sell something, you somehow get the right to shit on my moral compass?

The only fanatics here are those equating supposed "equality" with the ability to force people to live their lives how YOU want them to.

The only fanatics here are those in favor of government jackboots on the necks of those who disagree with them.

I'm sure you look dashing in a quasi-nazi uniform.

First of all, no one is "shitting" on anything. You are allowed to have any views you want - in your private life. your professional life isn't your private life. If you want to be able to pick, and choose to whom you will sell, it is really simple - don't open a public business. Keep your business private, and only work with referrals from, say, your church. Then you are not subject to the public accommodation laws. However, the minute you make the choice to become open to the public - either through a store, or online - then you know longer get to use your personal beliefs as an excuse to discriminate. That is the law. It is constitutional, and the Supreme Court already ruled on this.

Why does the government get to dictate down to that level one's professional life? What is the government's compelling interest in forcing non essential products and services to be open to PA laws? I know it fits your interest in shitting on anyone who disagrees with you, but by what right to you claim the use of government force to impose your own agenda?

Also, Citizen's united is also "constitutional" because the "court said so" I wonder what you think about that one....

 

[Czernobog]

yeah...you know...there's a term for those "like you"...it's called "sociopath". Fortunately most of you end up dead, or in the nut house before you are able to do much harm. So, I'm not too concerned over your stupid, violent ramblings.

Yet hundreds and thousands of people in thus country have died over the years because of sociopaths. Just think on that one.

You are wayyyyy over estimating the abilities of sociopaths. Dude. You're nothing more than an anonymous coward sitting behind a computer screen spewing violent bullshit, hoping people won't see you for the ***** you are, and praying that you'll scare someone. Guess what? It takes more than the sociopathic ramblings of some anonymous internet wannabe tough guy to make me even a little nervous, let alone afraid.

I would, however, suggest that it may be time to talk to your shrink about upping your meds.

 

[RKMBrown]

Once a nation starts on the road to depravity it doesn't stop until it reaches the very bottom.

RKMBrown - this guy, on the other hand? He is a fanatic...

My idea of bottom... is we all get a lot more liberty, Thus back to the basics of freedom and republic we tried to build at the start. But no I don't think liberty means the liberty of the majority to screw over minority groups.

You get a lot more liberty, providing that the progressives are the sole arbiters of what liberty you are permitted to have.

Nonsense. The progressive's idea for liberty is they take my paycheck, and give me back what they think i deserve. IOW while I applaud the progressives finally seeing the light when it comes to certain types of social liberties, I despise the progressives for not seeing the light when it comes to economic liberty. Note: economic liberty does not mean the liberty to screw people over. Thus, we need government to break up monopolies and oligopolies.

 

[Czernobog]

That would be never. Gotta love the "slippery slope" arguments of the fanatics. We don't give a shit about churches, or what the congregation of those churches do among themselves. We only care, such as in the extreme case of Westboro Baptist, what those churches do to other people, in public.

How is defending another person's right of association and right to make a livelihood within their moral code being a "fanatic"?

you have no clue what the "right of association" is, do you? Lemme help you out with that. The right of association has not one single precedent that suggest that it allows for businesses to refuse service based on race, creed, or sexual preference. Quite the opposite, in fact:

NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 907-15 (1982) (concerted activities of group protesting racial bias); Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972) (denial of official recognition to student organization by public college without justification abridged right of association). The right does not, however, protect the decision of entities not truly private to exclude minorities.
​

In other words, entities which are public, such as businesses, do not share the same protections from nondiscrimation laws that entities that are private, such as clubs, do. So, you are, in fact, defending a businesses "right" to behave contrary to constitutionally based law. The very definition of a fanatic is to encourage ignoring the law for some rigid set of personal beliefs.

So the second I try to sell something, you somehow get the right to shit on my moral compass?

The only fanatics here are those equating supposed "equality" with the ability to force people to live their lives how YOU want them to.

The only fanatics here are those in favor of government jackboots on the necks of those who disagree with them.

I'm sure you look dashing in a quasi-nazi uniform.

First of all, no one is "shitting" on anything. You are allowed to have any views you want - in your private life. your professional life isn't your private life. If you want to be able to pick, and choose to whom you will sell, it is really simple - don't open a public business. Keep your business private, and only work with referrals from, say, your church. Then you are not subject to the public accommodation laws. However, the minute you make the choice to become open to the public - either through a store, or online - then you know longer get to use your personal beliefs as an excuse to discriminate. That is the law. It is constitutional, and the Supreme Court already ruled on this.

Exactly. Gays might have a complaint that their favorite bakery isn't making wedding cakes any more, or that photographer that did such a great job on Cousin Susie's wedding is only doing pet portraits now. That's just the price they pay for what they got.

Not at all the case, and you know it. Would you like to throw out any other strawmen?

 

[Czernobog]

That would be never. Gotta love the "slippery slope" arguments of the fanatics. We don't give a shit about churches, or what the congregation of those churches do among themselves. We only care, such as in the extreme case of Westboro Baptist, what those churches do to other people, in public.

How is defending another person's right of association and right to make a livelihood within their moral code being a "fanatic"?

you have no clue what the "right of association" is, do you? Lemme help you out with that. The right of association has not one single precedent that suggest that it allows for businesses to refuse service based on race, creed, or sexual preference. Quite the opposite, in fact:

NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 907-15 (1982) (concerted activities of group protesting racial bias); Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972) (denial of official recognition to student organization by public college without justification abridged right of association). The right does not, however, protect the decision of entities not truly private to exclude minorities.
​

In other words, entities which are public, such as businesses, do not share the same protections from nondiscrimation laws that entities that are private, such as clubs, do. So, you are, in fact, defending a businesses "right" to behave contrary to constitutionally based law. The very definition of a fanatic is to encourage ignoring the law for some rigid set of personal beliefs.

So the second I try to sell something, you somehow get the right to shit on my moral compass?

The only fanatics here are those equating supposed "equality" with the ability to force people to live their lives how YOU want them to.

The only fanatics here are those in favor of government jackboots on the necks of those who disagree with them.

I'm sure you look dashing in a quasi-nazi uniform.

First of all, no one is "shitting" on anything. You are allowed to have any views you want - in your private life. your professional life isn't your private life. If you want to be able to pick, and choose to whom you will sell, it is really simple - don't open a public business. Keep your business private, and only work with referrals from, say, your church. Then you are not subject to the public accommodation laws. However, the minute you make the choice to become open to the public - either through a store, or online - then you know longer get to use your personal beliefs as an excuse to discriminate. That is the law. It is constitutional, and the Supreme Court already ruled on this.

Why does the government get to dictate down to that level one's professional life? What is the government's compelling interest in forcing non essential products and services to be open to PA laws? I know it fits your interest in shitting on anyone who disagrees with you, but by what right to you claim the use of government force to impose your own agenda?

Because discrimination actually does violate people's right to free enterprise.

Also, Citizen's united is also "constitutional" because the "court said so" I wonder what you think about that one....

Oh! It is! I have never suggested otherwise. I disagree with the ruling, but the ruling is what it is. So, now, it is up to Congress to pass an amendment that more clearly defines "speech", if they wish to change that. In the meantime, I fully support Democrats taking full advantage of the ruling.

 

[martybegan]

How is defending another person's right of association and right to make a livelihood within their moral code being a "fanatic"?

you have no clue what the "right of association" is, do you? Lemme help you out with that. The right of association has not one single precedent that suggest that it allows for businesses to refuse service based on race, creed, or sexual preference. Quite the opposite, in fact:

NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 907-15 (1982) (concerted activities of group protesting racial bias); Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972) (denial of official recognition to student organization by public college without justification abridged right of association). The right does not, however, protect the decision of entities not truly private to exclude minorities.
​

In other words, entities which are public, such as businesses, do not share the same protections from nondiscrimation laws that entities that are private, such as clubs, do. So, you are, in fact, defending a businesses "right" to behave contrary to constitutionally based law. The very definition of a fanatic is to encourage ignoring the law for some rigid set of personal beliefs.

So the second I try to sell something, you somehow get the right to shit on my moral compass?

The only fanatics here are those equating supposed "equality" with the ability to force people to live their lives how YOU want them to.

The only fanatics here are those in favor of government jackboots on the necks of those who disagree with them.

I'm sure you look dashing in a quasi-nazi uniform.

First of all, no one is "shitting" on anything. You are allowed to have any views you want - in your private life. your professional life isn't your private life. If you want to be able to pick, and choose to whom you will sell, it is really simple - don't open a public business. Keep your business private, and only work with referrals from, say, your church. Then you are not subject to the public accommodation laws. However, the minute you make the choice to become open to the public - either through a store, or online - then you know longer get to use your personal beliefs as an excuse to discriminate. That is the law. It is constitutional, and the Supreme Court already ruled on this.

Why does the government get to dictate down to that level one's professional life? What is the government's compelling interest in forcing non essential products and services to be open to PA laws? I know it fits your interest in shitting on anyone who disagrees with you, but by what right to you claim the use of government force to impose your own agenda?

Because discrimination actually does violate people's right to free enterprise.

Also, Citizen's united is also "constitutional" because the "court said so" I wonder what you think about that one....

Oh! It is! I have never suggested otherwise. I disagree with the ruling, but the ruling is what it is. So, now, it is up to Congress to pass an amendment that more clearly defines "speech", if they wish to change that. In the meantime, I fully support Democrats taking full advantage of the ruling.

So all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others? The right of a gay couple to not have to go to one more baker trumps a person's right to perform their livelihood in a way they morally choose to? And finally, all of this is important enough to waste government time and effort to punish those who have the audacity to try to live by their moral compass?

You people keep trying to equate this crap with 'get to the back of the bus, ******" and you fail repeatedly, maybe not among your echo-chamber friends, but to those of us who cherish limited government, the failure resonates.

 

[RKMBrown]

How is defending another person's right of association and right to make a livelihood within their moral code being a "fanatic"?

you have no clue what the "right of association" is, do you? Lemme help you out with that. The right of association has not one single precedent that suggest that it allows for businesses to refuse service based on race, creed, or sexual preference. Quite the opposite, in fact:

NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 907-15 (1982) (concerted activities of group protesting racial bias); Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972) (denial of official recognition to student organization by public college without justification abridged right of association). The right does not, however, protect the decision of entities not truly private to exclude minorities.
​

In other words, entities which are public, such as businesses, do not share the same protections from nondiscrimation laws that entities that are private, such as clubs, do. So, you are, in fact, defending a businesses "right" to behave contrary to constitutionally based law. The very definition of a fanatic is to encourage ignoring the law for some rigid set of personal beliefs.

So the second I try to sell something, you somehow get the right to shit on my moral compass?

The only fanatics here are those equating supposed "equality" with the ability to force people to live their lives how YOU want them to.

The only fanatics here are those in favor of government jackboots on the necks of those who disagree with them.

I'm sure you look dashing in a quasi-nazi uniform.

First of all, no one is "shitting" on anything. You are allowed to have any views you want - in your private life. your professional life isn't your private life. If you want to be able to pick, and choose to whom you will sell, it is really simple - don't open a public business. Keep your business private, and only work with referrals from, say, your church. Then you are not subject to the public accommodation laws. However, the minute you make the choice to become open to the public - either through a store, or online - then you know longer get to use your personal beliefs as an excuse to discriminate. That is the law. It is constitutional, and the Supreme Court already ruled on this.

Why does the government get to dictate down to that level one's professional life? What is the government's compelling interest in forcing non essential products and services to be open to PA laws? I know it fits your interest in shitting on anyone who disagrees with you, but by what right to you claim the use of government force to impose your own agenda?

Because discrimination actually does violate people's right to free enterprise.

Also, Citizen's united is also "constitutional" because the "court said so" I wonder what you think about that one....

Oh! It is! I have never suggested otherwise. I disagree with the ruling, but the ruling is what it is. So, now, it is up to Congress to pass an amendment that more clearly defines "speech", if they wish to change that. In the meantime, I fully support Democrats taking full advantage of the ruling.

I agree with your point on discrimination..

But I think your nutz to be against the first amendment, as being against the SCOTUS ruling on CU is the same as being against the first amendment.