homosexual marriage

[WorldWatcher]

Of course, IN TRUTH > five Leftist federal jurists judiciously struct down LEGISLATION of 31 states wherein a duly elected legislative body representing stark majorities of the people of each of those states... passed laws that rejected the pretense that marriage is anything except what nature designed.

Have you ever heard of the "Rule of 4" when it comes to appeals to the SCOTUS?

What it means is that when a Writ of Certiorari is submitted to the SCOTUS, it only takes 4 justices to accept a case for review. The writ was submitted to the Justice that handles that Circuit Court. That Justice can either choose to act on the stay under their own authority or can choose to refer it to the full court and to let all the Justices weigh in.

The writ submitted to appeal the 10th, 9th, 7th, and 4th Circuit Courts decisions were all forwarded to the full court for consideration. None of the rejections listed any descents (but they are not required to anyway).




Now pay attention - since at least 6 Justices voted againt granting the writ that means at least one of the conservative Justices (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, or Scalia) must have joined the liberal+moderates.


>>>>

 

[LittleNipper]

The religious cake maker made a mistake. He should have stopped baking wedding cakes except for special friends that were previously vetted. It should be a lesson to all other religious cake bakers. Stop the advertising.

Or just don't bake wedding cakes if you have issues with baking wedding cake for certain people.

It's easier than that. Just don't advertise that wedding cakes are a service that you offer to the general public.

Three years ago I was sued by a lesbian couple because I refused to paint their wedding portrait. They proved I was an artist. I certainly did paint portraits. What they could not prove was that I held myself out as an artist that would accept commissioned assignments. I never advertised. I won that case. And I remained free to paint all the portraits I wanted.

That is precisely correct. If you do not want to e accountable to public accommodation laws, all you have to do is not do business with the public. Run your business as referal only. Of course, I'm not sure how much profit you will make, but hey! At least you won't have to do business with those icky icky fags.

All the business would have to do is say is, "We have a brochure of the cakes we make and decorate. We will sell you any cake as displayed in our brochure without a topper. If you want a topper, it will arrive as picture in our brochure, with a bride and groom (only).

 

[WorldWatcher]

All the business would have to do is say is, "We have a brochure of the cakes we make and decorate. We will sell you any cake as displayed in our brochure without a topper. If you want a topper, it will arrive as picture in our brochure, with a bride and groom (only).

As long as the business only stocks pre-made toppers consisting of one piece couples - ya that would probably work.

However if they stock and sell individual toppers of men and individual toppers of women and and will sell a male topper and female topper to a different-sex couple but refuse to sell two male toppers (that would be in stock) or two female toppers (that would be in stock) based on the sexual orientation of the couple purchasing the toppers. Technically they would have a problem.


Just say'n.


***********************************************


Of course that is irrelevant to the Sweetcakes by Melissa (Oregon) and Masterpiece Cakes (Colorado) cases as the business owners refused to sell them a wedding cake period.


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

This is really easy stuff.

Two people who vow to a life together- and get a marriage license are married.

Without the marriage license they are essentially shacking up.

Yes, they are, as long as they meet the minimal standards of Marriage...t.

Any two persons with a marriage licence who make the commitment to each other are married.

In every sense of the word.

they don't need your approval or agreement.

Marriage is the joining of one male human being and one female human being. That is a law of nature,

There is no law of nature, and there nature doesn't care whether humans marry or not.

Humans have babies whether they marry or not.
Humans get married whether they have babies or not.

Marriage is a legal status- and a religious status.

In the United States the legal marriage is the only one that counts- because we are a nation of laws.

And in the United States, we all have the legal right to get married.

Even homosexuals.

To each other.

At least in 31 states now.

There is no law of nature...

Hey look kids... There is no law of nature!
.

Nope- no law of nature.

Just a fairy tale made up by people who can't handle the idea of a Constitution written by men for humans.

Meanwhile- we are a nation of laws, the chief of which is the Constitution- real laws- not fairy tale laws.

 

[Syriusly]

Of course, IN TRUTH > five Leftist federal jurists judiciously struct down LEGISLATION of almost every one of those states; wherein the vast majority of the duly elected legislative bodies representing stark majorities of the people of each of those states... passed laws.

j

"Leftist jurists" being of course- anyone you don't agree with.

Your argument is with the U.S. Constitution- not with 5 judges.

A law is unconsitutional if it is unconstitutional.

Just like Virginia's anti-miscegnation laws were unconsitutional. Just like DC's gun laws were unconstitutional.

And just like over a dozen Federal judges have found to be state laws preventing same gender marriage.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Everyone will eventually be forced to participate in one way or another in gay marriage and gay family life.

Forced to participate? That statement is absurd, but to be expected coming from you.

At least until resentment contributes to the end of the whole thing.

Sorry, but that isn't going to happen. You can hate it as much as you want, but gay rights are here to stay. If for some reason you can't live with that, then tough shit.

Until the end when evil is thrown into the pit.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Of course, IN TRUTH > five Leftist federal jurists judiciously struct down LEGISLATION of almost every one of those states; wherein the vast majority of the duly elected legislative bodies representing stark majorities of the people of each of those states... passed laws that rejected the pretense that marriage is anything except what nature designed it to be.”


Wrong.

Neither the lawmakers nor the residents of those states had the authority to deny same-sex couples equal protection of the law. The Federal courts reaffirmed this fact when they invalidated measures that violated the 14th Amendment, where the sole responsibility for the measures being invalidated rests with the states, and the officers of those states who should have followed accepted and settled 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

 

[Czernobog]

Of course, IN TRUTH > five Leftist federal jurists judiciously struct down LEGISLATION of almost every one of those states; wherein the vast majority of the duly elected legislative bodies representing stark majorities of the people of each of those states... passed laws that rejected the pretense that marriage is anything except what nature designed it to be.

Actually, that is prima facia untrue. You see, your statement presumes that the state legislators in those states campaigned on passage of gay marriage bans. Guess what? Most of them didn't. They ran on an economic platform, which they promptly ignored as soon as they got into office in favor of cramming through anti-abortion, and anti-gay legislation.

The reality is that had they ran on their actual social agenda, an overwhelming majority of their "constituents" would very likely have not elected them, and these issues wouldn't even be issues.

I would also be curious to whom you are referring, when you say "five Leftist jurists"? Are you referring to the Supreme Court? Because if you are, the Supreme Court didn't strike down shit. 9 out of 10 Federal District courts have done that. The only reason the 10th one hasn't, is because they haven't actually heard the case, yet. They will. Give them time. So, to what court were you referring when you referenced the "five Leftist jurists"?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Wether you believe in gay marriage or not is irrelevant to the law. In a small way I agree with you though, there isn't gay marriage or straight marriage just marriage. You're under no obligation to accept anything. Gays are getting married and it doesn't seem to me you are being forced to accept anything.

You are of the belief that rights are bestowed upon us by God. You are free to believe that as well. I disagree with that notion. I believe our rights originate from the people themselves, not God. It is us, the people that sustain our rights. Not the government, not God, but the people.

The only folks that are being humiliated concerning this issue is you and your allies. You're not only losing on this issue in the court of public opinion, your losing in the courthouse as well. I am sure you'll get over it, for time heals all wounds.

So the people give us our rights?

That notion has always tickled me.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that "The People", get up tomorrow morning and decide that you and your kind; whatever that is, are sub-human vermin. They go to work stripping you of your means to produce, they drive up to your home and move you out and themselves in... they tell you that you're to be at the train station by time and fate certain... or else.

Does that circumstance remove you from the rights which 'das folks' formerly felt you possessed?

If not, why not? (Yes... you're argument is now throughly refuted... as if you remain consistent, you prove you never had any rights, only the privilege common to the whimsy of 'the peoples'... if you fall from your argument and claim that the people removing your rights to produce and enjoy the fruits of your labor, for whatever reason they advance, you concede that you never had any rights... . I hope that helps, despite knowing that it will not, due to your inability to reason objectively, thus leaving you subject to adherence to foreign ideas hostile to American principle, OKA: A Leftists.)

.
.
.

Homosexuals are not getting married. They're being joined into a legal institution which provides them with the legal provisions and privilege common to such, which is in no way dissimilar to incorporation.

That they need to refer to it as 'Marriage' merely demonstrates the depravity common to the fraudulence of their would-be movement. They crave the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage, while being simultaneously ignorant that the legitimacy rests in the standards of marriage which axiomatically exclude them and the other entities which are otherwise incapable of marriage.

Idiotic example. If We the People deny others their rights we essentially deprive ourselves of the same right.

If you don't comprehend how rights work then you have disqualified yourself from this debate.

Yes, when we deprive others of the means to exercise our Gid-given rights, we undermine our means to exercise our own rights; some argue; and I am one of them, that such behavior literally demonstrates a forfeiture of one's means to exercise one's rights.


But the example while absurd, is quite literally what happens every time the Ideological Left finds uncontested power... . Specific recent examples are in the early 20th century Russia, 1930s Germany, 1950s Soviet Union and China... .

Words common to such cultures are 'denier', 'consensus', 'hate', 'majority', 'democratic' and my personal fave, the ever present phrase: "THE PEOPLE".

our Gid-given [sic] rights

Name all of your "rights" enumerated in your bible!

 

[Seawytch]

Public accommodation laws have nothing to do with this case. This magistrate is refusing to do his job and should either resign or be fired. Gays are allowed to legally marry in his state and he cannot refuse to do his job because of personal feelings.

There's no such thing as "Gay Marriage". And homosexuals have the same rights as anyone else... none of which provide that they're empowered to force someone else to accept their perversion of human sexuality.

If you knew what right were, from where they come and what sustains them... you'd know that.

Mind your ignorance, it'll spare ya this sort of humiliation in the future.

Wether you believe in gay marriage or not is irrelevant to the law. In a small way I agree with you though, there isn't gay marriage or straight marriage just marriage. You're under no obligation to accept anything. Gays are getting married and it doesn't seem to me you are being forced to accept anything.

You are of the belief that rights are bestowed upon us by God. You are free to believe that as well. I disagree with that notion. I believe our rights originate from the people themselves, not God. It is us, the people that sustain our rights. Not the government, not God, but the people.

The only folks that are being humiliated concerning this issue is you and your allies. You're not only losing on this issue in the court of public opinion, your losing in the courthouse as well. I am sure you'll get over it, for time heals all wounds.

Homosexuals are not getting married. They're being joined into a legal institution which provides them with the legal provisions and privilege common to such, which is in no way dissimilar to incorporation.

That they need to refer to it as 'Marriage' merely demonstrates the depravity common to the fraudulence of their would-be movement. They crave the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage, while being simultaneously ignorant that the legitimacy rests in the standards of marriage which axiomatically exclude them and the other entities which are otherwise incapable of marriage.

So...if we have a religious ceremony, are we married then? Because many of us did that a loooong time before legal marriage came along.

Marriage is the joining of one human male and one human female... wherein they vow to a life analogous to their joining in sustainable coitus... .

There is no ceremony necessary, only the vows and steadfast commitment.

This is really easy stuff... any ideas why you're having such a tough time coming to grips with it?

And your religion is free to define it as such. The government is not.

What you're apparently having a "tough time coming to grips with" is the FACT that gays are getting legally married in over half the country now.

 

[JoeB131]

When a baker must bake that wedding cake, a photographer forced to attend a gay wedding, they are forced to participate.

Gay rights are here to stay, the same way they were here to stay in Mesopotamia, Greece, Egypt and Rome. Gay rights stayed until they didn't stay any more.

Yes! Let's have a totally new Dark Ages!

When a Baker or a Photographer say that they are in the business of cakes or pictures, then they have to provide that to everyone.

 

[dcraelin]

When a baker must bake that wedding cake, a photographer forced to attend a gay wedding, they are forced to participate.

Gay rights are here to stay, the same way they were here to stay in Mesopotamia, Greece, Egypt and Rome. Gay rights stayed until they didn't stay any more.

Public accommodation laws have nothing to do with this case. This magistrate is refusing to do his job and should either resign or be fired. Gays are allowed to legally marry in his state and he cannot refuse to do his job because of personal feelings.

You mean like when Attorney Generals of States refuse to fight for their own states constitution as Jerry Brown did in California. Should he have been fired?

The voters in California will decide whether to fire him or not in about a month.
At the moment, the voters of California look like they will renew his contract by a landslide.

His term and performance as governor has nothing to do with his duty as the states attorney general...........I like a lot about Brown in other ways as do others........even a re-win as attorney general tho wouldnt have said the people liked him on that issue.......he had a duty........and should of had the integrity to step down.

The voters disagree with you, and will likely disagree with you again.

They did not disagree with me.........its just that the electorate is so partisanized..that even tho they disliked browns dereliction of duty...they voted for him over the republican.

 

[dcraelin]

You mean like when Attorney Generals of States refuse to fight for their own states constitution as Jerry Brown did in California. Should he have been fired?

Refusing to defend a case because the outcome is clear is at their prosecutorial discretion. My AG did the same exact thing. Why waste the resources and taxpayers dollars on a losing cause?

Because it is their damn duty as a public servant...lawyers defend losing cases all the time........All AGs that pulled that stunt........including the US AG should have been fired and disbarred.

Be that as it may, these AGs decided that these cases couldn't not be won and used their prosecutorial discretion to not defend them anymore. The law was still in effect but the AG decided defending it was foolish.

NO what they decided is they didnt agree with the law.........regardless, either way they shouldv'e had the integrity to step down.

So, you wanted them spending tax money defending the undefendable?

It wasn't "undefendable". Until an issue such as this makes it all the way to the supreme court it is unresolved...........
What it was, was him putting his personal opinion ahead of his duty.............
What the magistrate in the OP did was no different.

 

[dcraelin]

You mean like when Attorney Generals of States refuse to fight for their own states constitution as Jerry Brown did in California. Should he have been fired?

That's an interesting point. Is it part of the job of an attorney general to fight for all laws even one they know is going to get shot down?

I certainly think it is their duty to defend the laws of their state........Jerry Brown, and I believe a number of others that didnt do that should have been fired......or had the integrity to quit. They should also have been disbarred(sp?).

So...you think a prosecutor should continue to prosecute a case when he knows the defendant is innocent?

I think you have things turned around there. And thats criminal law. Regardless, I have never heard of a prosecutor doing that, how was the defendant proven innocent? Presumably they had time before a court.

 

[Seawytch]

Constitution Check: Must government lawyers defend laws they deem to be invalid?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

There's no such thing as "Gay Marriage". And homosexuals have the same rights as anyone else... none of which provide that they're empowered to force someone else to accept their perversion of human sexuality.

If you knew what right were, from where they come and what sustains them... you'd know that.

Mind your ignorance, it'll spare ya this sort of humiliation in the future.

Wether you believe in gay marriage or not is irrelevant to the law. In a small way I agree with you though, there isn't gay marriage or straight marriage just marriage. You're under no obligation to accept anything. Gays are getting married and it doesn't seem to me you are being forced to accept anything.

You are of the belief that rights are bestowed upon us by God. You are free to believe that as well. I disagree with that notion. I believe our rights originate from the people themselves, not God. It is us, the people that sustain our rights. Not the government, not God, but the people.

The only folks that are being humiliated concerning this issue is you and your allies. You're not only losing on this issue in the court of public opinion, your losing in the courthouse as well. I am sure you'll get over it, for time heals all wounds.

Homosexuals are not getting married. They're being joined into a legal institution which provides them with the legal provisions and privilege common to such, which is in no way dissimilar to incorporation.

That they need to refer to it as 'Marriage' merely demonstrates the depravity common to the fraudulence of their would-be movement. They crave the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage, while being simultaneously ignorant that the legitimacy rests in the standards of marriage which axiomatically exclude them and the other entities which are otherwise incapable of marriage.

So...if we have a religious ceremony, are we married then? Because many of us did that a loooong time before legal marriage came along.

Marriage is the joining of one human male and one human female... wherein they vow to a life analogous to their joining in sustainable coitus... .

There is no ceremony necessary, only the vows and steadfast commitment.

This is really easy stuff... any ideas why you're having such a tough time coming to grips with it?

And your religion is free to define it as such. The government is not.

What you're apparently having a "tough time coming to grips with" is the FACT that gays are getting legally married in over half the country now.

I am free to recognize the obvious. Yes. Marriage is the joining of one male and one female.

And that the governments of states are being manipulated by a mouthy minority through an illegitimate abuse of judicial power, through leftist insurgents set upon that bench, producing a tiny minority to strip popular majorities of their right to govern themselves... does not change that.


This too shall pass... such is the nature of evil.

 

[JakeStarkey]

keys, the obvious is that marriage is the joining of two people.

Your mouthy minority will not end marriage equality through any wrongful use of judiciary or right wing violence or etc.

You and your ilk and your evil ways will pass.

 

[bodecea]

Everyone will eventually be forced to participate in one way or another in gay marriage and gay family life.

Forced to participate? That statement is absurd, but to be expected coming from you.

At least until resentment contributes to the end of the whole thing.

Sorry, but that isn't going to happen. You can hate it as much as you want, but gay rights are here to stay. If for some reason you can't live with that, then tough shit.

Until the end when evil is thrown into the pit.

Which is evil...those who are law-abiding and tax-paying and are asking for equal rights? Or those trying to keep law-abiding, tax-paying citizens from their equal rights?

 

[bodecea]

Wether you believe in gay marriage or not is irrelevant to the law. In a small way I agree with you though, there isn't gay marriage or straight marriage just marriage. You're under no obligation to accept anything. Gays are getting married and it doesn't seem to me you are being forced to accept anything.

You are of the belief that rights are bestowed upon us by God. You are free to believe that as well. I disagree with that notion. I believe our rights originate from the people themselves, not God. It is us, the people that sustain our rights. Not the government, not God, but the people.

The only folks that are being humiliated concerning this issue is you and your allies. You're not only losing on this issue in the court of public opinion, your losing in the courthouse as well. I am sure you'll get over it, for time heals all wounds.

Homosexuals are not getting married. They're being joined into a legal institution which provides them with the legal provisions and privilege common to such, which is in no way dissimilar to incorporation.

That they need to refer to it as 'Marriage' merely demonstrates the depravity common to the fraudulence of their would-be movement. They crave the legitimacy intrinsic to marriage, while being simultaneously ignorant that the legitimacy rests in the standards of marriage which axiomatically exclude them and the other entities which are otherwise incapable of marriage.

So...if we have a religious ceremony, are we married then? Because many of us did that a loooong time before legal marriage came along.

Marriage is the joining of one human male and one human female... wherein they vow to a life analogous to their joining in sustainable coitus... .

There is no ceremony necessary, only the vows and steadfast commitment.

This is really easy stuff... any ideas why you're having such a tough time coming to grips with it?

And your religion is free to define it as such. The government is not.

What you're apparently having a "tough time coming to grips with" is the FACT that gays are getting legally married in over half the country now.

I am free to recognize the obvious. Yes. Marriage is the joining of one male and one female.

And that the governments of states are being manipulated by a mouthy minority through an illegitimate abuse of judicial power, through leftist insurgents set upon that bench, producing a tiny minority to strip popular majorities of their right to govern themselves... does not change that.


This too shall pass... such is the nature of evil.

Guess who the "mouthy minority" is now?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Constitution Check: Must government lawyers defend laws they deem to be invalid?

So you're asking, 'Must the Government; meaning the Executive Branch, enforce the law which it is sworn to execute?'

LOL! To ask the question answers itself, at least where one understands the terms at issue, the history of mankind, western europe, the US, the laws of nature that govern human behavior and the evil which provided the need for mankind to establish 'law', so as to serve justice.

Now folks, what you'll see next, after this foray into the need for government to autocratically turn from laws with which it disagrees with, is a long string of posts (Somewhere on the board, likely not here) about the importance of the government to serve the WILL OF THE PEOPLE... . That's how the Left manages to have it both ways.

They DEMAND that the LAW is wrong and that Nature is wrong to have designed the mammal into genders, as the genders do not fit well within the shady tenets of relativism (Left-think, socialism, progressivism, liberalism... pick one or use 'em all... that's what they do, so why can't you?)

Then in the next breath they demand that the irrational and otherwise unfounded judicial edicts handed down by their judicial insurgents ARE THE LAW! And THAT LAW MUST BE OBEEeeeeyDUH!

OR ELSE!
(Cake Baker, Farmer who uses house for cute little ceremonies, and others who were
viciously abused by he courts and the advocates to normalize sexual abnormality...)​

It's all a lie folks... its an abuse of your trust. It is an illegitimate abuse of the law; decisions made to APPEAR TO BE LAW, but which are in reality, unjust and appear to be such only becasue they're deceitfully colored to appear to be law.

So now that we know this, let's ask the question again:

Must citizens who recognize the abuse of government power, take any notice; let alone obey laws, which were made by those who otherwise took their positions as a means to undermine the legitimate foundation of the law, so as to advance a species of reasoning that has historically produced nothing but misery, destruction and death?

If so, why so?

If not, why not?

Rest assured the question will be ignored by everyone whose interests are to deceive the reader and because without such deception, their agenda is impossible to promote.

(Hey... what is the name of something that can't exist except through deception and as a result, where it does it exist, because of the deception, it ruins every life it touches?... E... Ed? No that's Ed Schultz... which is close, but that's not the word I'm looking for here...)