Freedom Isn’t a Zero-Sum Game - If Gays Have More Rights, Christians Don't Have Fewer

[bripat9643]

Legal marriage isn't a right. That's why it requires a license. Being black isn't defined by behavior.
******* morons!

Marriage has been declared a Fundamental Right many times by SCOTUS.

The court doesn't determine what the rights of humans are. It only rules on the Constitutionality of laws. The 14th Amendment. That's the basis of the decision. If a state passed a law saying stores couldn't sell gum to black people, it would still violate the 14th Amendment.

 

[bripat9643]

I not only got out of it, I killed your argument but you aren't smart enough or honest enough to understand it.

You didn't address the difference between providing a cake and providing a cab ride. You just said it was too dumb to discuss. A cheap way out, IMO, hence my appraisal of why you lost the argument.

IF the cab driver was a sole proprietor, then he should be able to refuse any customer for any reason. However, most cab drivers work for a corporation. They are required to follow the rules laid down by their superiors.

 

[paperview]

It's a pretty stupid argument - SCOTUS declares marriage a Fundamental Right, but a civil, legal marriage is not a marriage without the license.

Derrp.

 

[bripat9643]

It's a pretty stupid argument - SCOTUS declares marriage a Fundamental Right, but a civil, legal marriage is not a marriage without the license.

Derrp.

Any so-called "right" not protected by the Constitution is subject to legislation. Congress could repeal the 1964 act any time it wants to and the Court couldn't do a thing about it.

 

[konradv]

IF the cab driver was a sole proprietor, then he should be able to refuse any customer for any reason. However, most cab drivers work for a corporation. They are required to follow the rules laid down by their superiors.

That still doesn't answer the question of what the difference is between providing a cake or a cab ride. Either way you're subjected for a time to something that some claim can violate their faith.

 

[paperview]

It's a pretty stupid argument - SCOTUS declares marriage a Fundamental Right, but a civil, legal marriage is not a marriage without the license.

Derrp.

Any so-called "right" not protected by the Constitution is subject to legislation. Congress could repeal the 1964 act any time it wants to and the Court couldn't do a thing about it.

The GOP Congress should gopher it!

&

Maybe I next need to clue you in on how laws are passed.

Hint: It ain't just Congress that needs to approve it.

Maybe you need to watch Schoolhouse Rock again.

 

[bripat9643]

IF the cab driver was a sole proprietor, then he should be able to refuse any customer for any reason. However, most cab drivers work for a corporation. They are required to follow the rules laid down by their superiors.

That still doesn't answer the question of what the difference is between providing a cake or a cab ride. Either way you're subjected for a time to something that some claim can violate their faith.

The cab driver agrees to take all passengers without discriminating when he takes the job. Those are the terms of his employment. The baker hasn't agreed to anything. Making cakes for queers is something the government imposed on him.

You do understand the difference between voluntary and mandatory, don't you?

 

[bripat9643]

It's a pretty stupid argument - SCOTUS declares marriage a Fundamental Right, but a civil, legal marriage is not a marriage without the license.

Derrp.

Any so-called "right" not protected by the Constitution is subject to legislation. Congress could repeal the 1964 act any time it wants to and the Court couldn't do a thing about it.

The GOP Congress should gopher it!

&

Maybe I next need to clue you in on how laws are passed.

Hint: It ain't just Congress that needs to approve it.

Maybe you need to watch Schoolhouse Rock again.

Congress didn't approve the 1964 PA laws?

Please do explain how laws are passed. I'm dying to know what you believe.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Legal marriage isn't a right. That's why it requires a license. Being black isn't defined by behavior.
******* morons!

Marriage has been declared a Fundamental Right many times by SCOTUS.

A marriage license isn't.

If two consenting adults request a marriage license, and there are no prohibitions from them marrying, and they have complied with all applicable laws - yes, the license to marry is a Right.

If the state denies them, they have a lawsuit on their hands.

Like brother and sister?

 

[The Rabbi]

"Legislatively" means not by popular vote, and what the **** does "Legislatively/Ballot" mean?

The point that started the response was the ideal that Federal courts would be imposing SSCM in all 50 states. That is false. A number of states passed SSCM on their own with out Federal Court action.

"Legislatively" means by the legislature elected by the people.

If you were familiar with the issue you would understand that Minnesota passed SSCM in two steps. First there was a ballot initiative to ban SSCM, that measure failed. As a result of that failing ballot initiative the legislature passed the law for the governor to sign which made SSCM legal in that state.



>>>>

I know what "legislatively means. I asked you what "Ballot/Legislatively" mean?

Being approved by the state legislature doesn't mean it's supported by the voters. Politicians are all sleazy weasels who will sell out their constituents for almost any consideration. A lot of state legislatures approved so-called "gay marriage" legislation and then were overruled by a referendum.

So you want mob rule.

How is people voting "mob rule"? I'd swear you sit around 24./7 thinking up stupid things to say.

Isn't direct democracy 'mob rule' according to nuts like you?

Progressives pushed for referenda on the ballot. Make yp your mind. If you have one.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Those protesting to feel their heterofascist exceptionalism has been lessened.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Legal marriage isn't a right. That's why it requires a license. Being black isn't defined by behavior.
******* morons!

Marriage has been declared a Fundamental Right many times by SCOTUS.

A marriage license isn't.

If two consenting adults request a marriage license, and there are no prohibitions from them marrying, and they have complied with all applicable laws - yes, the license to marry is a Right.

If the state denies them, they have a lawsuit on their hands.

Like brother and sister?

Non sequitur troll post.

 

[The Rabbi]

Legal marriage isn't a right. That's why it requires a license. Being black isn't defined by behavior.
******* morons!

Owning some guns requires a license in some states. I guess owning a gun isn't a right.

That's correct. In those places that require a license to own one it is not a right, which is contrary to the US Constitution. Those local laws are unconstitutional. Thanks for pointing i tout.
Please show me any place that does not issue a marriage license though.

 

[The Rabbi]

Legal marriage isn't a right. That's why it requires a license. Being black isn't defined by behavior.
******* morons!

Marriage has been declared a Fundamental Right many times by SCOTUS.

A marriage license isn't.

If two consenting adults request a marriage license, and there are no prohibitions from them marrying, and they have complied with all applicable laws - yes, the license to marry is a Right.

If the state denies them, they have a lawsuit on their hands.

Anything requiring a permit by definition is not a right. A marriage license is such a permit. Ergo it is not a right.

 

[paperview]

It's a pretty stupid argument - SCOTUS declares marriage a Fundamental Right, but a civil, legal marriage is not a marriage without the license.

Derrp.

Any so-called "right" not protected by the Constitution is subject to legislation. Congress could repeal the 1964 act any time it wants to and the Court couldn't do a thing about it.

The GOP Congress should gopher it!

&

Maybe I next need to clue you in on how laws are passed.

Hint: It ain't just Congress that needs to approve it.

Maybe you need to watch Schoolhouse Rock again.

Congress didn't approve the 1964 PA laws?

Please do explain how laws are passed. I'm dying to know what you believe.

lol.

You really do need a lesson by Schoolhouse Rock, donchew?

What comes after Congress passes a bill, lil chump?

 

[The Rabbi]

It's a pretty stupid argument - SCOTUS declares marriage a Fundamental Right, but a civil, legal marriage is not a marriage without the license.

Derrp.

The stupidity is yours, as usual.
Any two people can go to any priest rabbi minister shaman dentist they want and get a marriage license. There is your fundamental right. But the state's recognition of that marriage is a privilege.

 

[bripat9643]

It's a pretty stupid argument - SCOTUS declares marriage a Fundamental Right, but a civil, legal marriage is not a marriage without the license.

Derrp.

Any so-called "right" not protected by the Constitution is subject to legislation. Congress could repeal the 1964 act any time it wants to and the Court couldn't do a thing about it.

The GOP Congress should gopher it!

&

Maybe I next need to clue you in on how laws are passed.

Hint: It ain't just Congress that needs to approve it.

Maybe you need to watch Schoolhouse Rock again.

Congress didn't approve the 1964 PA laws?

Please do explain how laws are passed. I'm dying to know what you believe.

lol.

You really do need a lesson by Schoolhouse Rock, donchew?

What comes after Congress passes a bill, lil chump?

The bottom line is that Congress has to pass any legislation, big dumbass.

Your point seems to be that Obama would veto it. Unfortunately for your idiotic response is that it's a hypothetical. There is no actual bill in Congress.

 

[paperview]

Legal marriage isn't a right. That's why it requires a license. Being black isn't defined by behavior.
******* morons!

Marriage has been declared a Fundamental Right many times by SCOTUS.

A marriage license isn't.

If two consenting adults request a marriage license, and there are no prohibitions from them marrying, and they have complied with all applicable laws - yes, the license to marry is a Right.

If the state denies them, they have a lawsuit on their hands.

Anything requiring a permit by definition is not a right. A marriage license is such a permit. Ergo it is not a right.

^ Stoopid on a stick.

 

[The Rabbi]

Legal marriage isn't a right. That's why it requires a license. Being black isn't defined by behavior.
******* morons!

Marriage has been declared a Fundamental Right many times by SCOTUS.

A marriage license isn't.

If two consenting adults request a marriage license, and there are no prohibitions from them marrying, and they have complied with all applicable laws - yes, the license to marry is a Right.

If the state denies them, they have a lawsuit on their hands.

Anything requiring a permit by definition is not a right. A marriage license is such a permit. Ergo it is not a right.

^ Stoopid on a stick.

Yes, yes you are. Prove it every exchange where you get your ass kicked 10 ways from Sunday.

 

[paperview]

It's a pretty stupid argument - SCOTUS declares marriage a Fundamental Right, but a civil, legal marriage is not a marriage without the license.

Derrp.

Any so-called "right" not protected by the Constitution is subject to legislation. Congress could repeal the 1964 act any time it wants to and the Court couldn't do a thing about it.

The GOP Congress should gopher it!

&

Maybe I next need to clue you in on how laws are passed.

Hint: It ain't just Congress that needs to approve it.

Maybe you need to watch Schoolhouse Rock again.

Congress didn't approve the 1964 PA laws?

Please do explain how laws are passed. I'm dying to know what you believe.

lol.

You really do need a lesson by Schoolhouse Rock, donchew?

What comes after Congress passes a bill, lil chump?

The bottom line is that Congress has to pass any legislation, big dumbass.

Your point seems to be that Obama would veto it. Unfortunately for your idiotic response is that it's a hypothetical. There is no actual bill in Congress.

Hey buster, you're the one that brought it up with this nonsense:

" Congress could repeal the 1964 act any time it wants to and the Court couldn't do a thing about it."

No, dumbass, Congress couldn't.