Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds

[Silhouette]

We'll see. I suspect that speech itself will have a higher threshold of protection than say, baking. A baker for example could refuse to put a message on a cake they find offense, but would have to bake the cake itself. Speech, written or spoken, has far greater protections than pictures or confections.

And will you create a new government oversight office for each industry to insure guidelines are met? In your example, "The bureau of overseeing cake icing"? Will you have "conformity gestapo" kiosks on every street corner making sure whining gays who want to force a Christian baker to do something that results in their soul-death, get their way?

Even you, Captain legal spin-doctor, can see this situation is spiralling out of control. Didn't bank on (you forgot) the 1st Amendment being a civil right. And probably because the 9th Amendment looked a little boring, you skimmed right over its wording..

 

[Silhouette]

What doesn't kill them makes them crazier. People like this just won't let the country get beyond the divisiveness and accept the new normal.....

That's because norms are defined by a majority, not a tiny minority. Hence the meaning of the word "normal" vs "unusual" or "rare". The majority was cut out of the conversation by 5 kings and queens on June 26, 2015. But that doesn't mean they will lay down and take fascist decrees. Perhaps it is you who should embrace that there are limitations to your cult and accept the old normal; which is the same as today's normal since the majority are still opposed to gay marriage in spite of what your rigged polling data keeps spewing out. Polls on this website right down the line seem to run consistently at around 80% opposed. 80% is what is normal. 20% is what is unusual or rare.

I think people in the LGBT cult need to just get a dictionary. This judge is standing his ground for what his faith tells him is normal and what he is not allowed to do (promote a forbidden abnormal).

 

[RKMBrown]

What doesn't kill them makes them crazier. People like this just won't let the country get beyond the divisiveness and accept the new normal.....

That's because norms are defined by a majority, not a tiny minority. Hence the meaning of the word "normal" vs "unusual" or "rare". The majority was cut out of the conversation by 5 kings and queens on June 26, 2015. But that doesn't mean they will lay down and take fascist decrees. Perhaps it is you who should embrace that there are limitations to your cult and accept the old normal; which is the same as today's normal since the majority are still opposed to gay marriage in spite of what your rigged polling data keeps spewing out. Polls on this website right down the line seem to run consistently at around 80% opposed. 80% is what is normal. 20% is what is unusual or rare.

I think people in the LGBT cult need to just get a dictionary. This judge is standing his ground for what his faith tells him is normal and what he is not allowed to do (promote a forbidden abnormal).

You're confusing norms and tyranny. Just because a majority can call themselves the norm does not give them the right to eff over the groups that are different from said norm.

 

[Silhouette]

What doesn't kill them makes them crazier. People like this just won't let the country get beyond the divisiveness and accept the new normal.....

That's because norms are defined by a majority, not a tiny minority. Hence the meaning of the word "normal" vs "unusual" or "rare". The majority was cut out of the conversation by 5 kings and queens on June 26, 2015. But that doesn't mean they will lay down and take fascist decrees. Perhaps it is you who should embrace that there are limitations to your cult and accept the old normal; which is the same as today's normal since the majority are still opposed to gay marriage in spite of what your rigged polling data keeps spewing out. Polls on this website right down the line seem to run consistently at around 80% opposed. 80% is what is normal. 20% is what is unusual or rare.

I think people in the LGBT cult need to just get a dictionary. This judge is standing his ground for what his faith tells him is normal and what he is not allowed to do (promote a forbidden abnormal).

You're confusing norms and tyranny. Just because a majority can call themselves the norm does not give them the right to eff over the groups that are different from said norm.

Actually I think you are confusing tyranny with norms. It's all how you look at it when considering that LGBT is about behavior....

I'll keep repeating that premise until it sinks in. You cannot give a special pass to some behaviors in the same "behavior family" at the very least. ALL of them enjoy the same rights. You'd be one of the foremost critics of polygamy and incest marrying too. All while you call "suppression by majority regulation" "tyranny"..

You reserve the right to be a hypocrite. And all of this could've been avoided if the cult did not (successfully) hoodwink onto the buyers (the 5 PC Justices in SCOTUS) themselves as "a race of people distinct from others"...

 

[RKMBrown]

What doesn't kill them makes them crazier. People like this just won't let the country get beyond the divisiveness and accept the new normal.....

That's because norms are defined by a majority, not a tiny minority. Hence the meaning of the word "normal" vs "unusual" or "rare". The majority was cut out of the conversation by 5 kings and queens on June 26, 2015. But that doesn't mean they will lay down and take fascist decrees. Perhaps it is you who should embrace that there are limitations to your cult and accept the old normal; which is the same as today's normal since the majority are still opposed to gay marriage in spite of what your rigged polling data keeps spewing out. Polls on this website right down the line seem to run consistently at around 80% opposed. 80% is what is normal. 20% is what is unusual or rare.

I think people in the LGBT cult need to just get a dictionary. This judge is standing his ground for what his faith tells him is normal and what he is not allowed to do (promote a forbidden abnormal).

You're confusing norms and tyranny. Just because a majority can call themselves the norm does not give them the right to eff over the groups that are different from said norm.

Actually I think you are confusing tyranny with norms. It's all how you look at it when considering that LGBT is about behavior....

I'll keep repeating that premise until it sinks in. You cannot give a special pass to some behaviors in the same "behavior family" at the very least. ALL of them enjoy the same rights. You'd be one of the foremost critics of polygamy and incest marrying too. All while you call "suppression by majority regulation" "tyranny"..

You reserve the right to be a hypocrite. And all of this could've been avoided if the cult did not (successfully) hoodwink onto the buyers (the 5 PC Justices in SCOTUS) themselves as "a race of people distinct from others"...

Where did I say sexual behavior was not about sexual behavior? Maybe you can provide a link to where this false meme of yours came from. I'll let that sink in.

Special pass? What special pass do consenting adults need to have sex with each other?

No everyone does not enjoy the same rights. Allowing some people to do what they want while refusing others to do what they want with other consenting adults is not enjoying the same rights. Just because you may want to have only monogamous relations with one person of the opposite sex does not give you the right TO FORCE EVERYONE ELSE ON THE EFFING PLANET TO ACT JUST LIKE YOU AND NO DIFFERENT.

Polygamy and Same Sex behaviors have nothing to do with incest. Why do you feel the need to combine such behaviors with incest? Does heterosexual behavior lead to incest?

 

[Silhouette]

Where did I say sexual behavior was not about sexual behavior? Maybe you can provide a link to where this false meme of yours came from. I'll let that sink in.

Special pass? What special pass do consenting adults need to have sex with each other?

No everyone does not enjoy the same rights. Allowing some people to do what they want while refusing others to do what they want with other consenting adults is not enjoying the same rights. Just because you may want to have only monogamous relations with one person of the opposite sex does not give you the right TO FORCE EVERYONE ELSE ON THE EFFING PLANET TO ACT JUST LIKE YOU AND NO DIFFERENT.

Polygamy and Same Sex behaviors have nothing to do with incest. Why do you feel the need to combine such behaviors with incest? Does heterosexual behavior lead to incest?

The FACTS are that it's about sexual behavior, not race. Adults don't need a special pass to have sex with each other, inanimate objects or even their brother or sister. But they DO (or, rather, did) need a special pass to MARRY which is what this thread is about. Polygamy (the orientation towards multiple partners), homosexuality (the orientation towards the same gender) and incest (a kink for family members) are all just sexual kinks of one kind or another. You could I suppose no more pull Billy-Joe off his sister in a tiny cabin in Kentucky than you could pull John off of Jim at a gay bar in San Francisco, or Kody Brown off of Robyn, Christine, Merri or Janelle in Utah or Nevada.

So why is it just some of theses kinks have recently been legislated (by the Court) "rights" while the other behaviors still fall under majority regulation?

You see, marriage (which is what this thread is about) doesn't JUST involve adults. The most important people in marriage aren't even mentioned about 90% of the time. Yet children are the reason the majority (used to) regulates marriage...except of course where the Court picked its favorite kinks and decided to make motherless or fatherless marriages an institution...regardless of how children will fare in them...

 

[RKMBrown]

Where did I say sexual behavior was not about sexual behavior? Maybe you can provide a link to where this false meme of yours came from. I'll let that sink in.

Special pass? What special pass do consenting adults need to have sex with each other?

No everyone does not enjoy the same rights. Allowing some people to do what they want while refusing others to do what they want with other consenting adults is not enjoying the same rights. Just because you may want to have only monogamous relations with one person of the opposite sex does not give you the right TO FORCE EVERYONE ELSE ON THE EFFING PLANET TO ACT JUST LIKE YOU AND NO DIFFERENT.

Polygamy and Same Sex behaviors have nothing to do with incest. Why do you feel the need to combine such behaviors with incest? Does heterosexual behavior lead to incest?

The FACTS are that it's about sexual behavior, not race. Adults don't need a special pass to have sex with each other, inanimate objects or even their brother or sister. But they DO (or, rather, did) need a special pass to MARRY which is what this thread is about. Polygamy (the orientation towards multiple partners), homosexuality (the orientation towards the same gender) and incest (a kink for family members) are all just sexual kinks of one kind or another. You could I suppose no more pull Billy-Joe off his sister in a tiny cabin in Kentucky than you could pull John off of Jim at a gay bar in San Francisco, or Kody Brown off of Robyn, Christine, Merri or Janelle in Utah or Nevada.

So why is it just some of theses kinks have recently been legislated (by the Court) "rights" while the other behaviors still fall under majority regulation?

You see, marriage (which is what this thread is about) doesn't JUST involve adults. The most important people in marriage aren't even mentioned about 90% of the time. Yet children are the reason the majority (used to) regulates marriage...except of course where the Court picked its favorite kinks and decided to make motherless or fatherless marriages an institution...regardless of how children will fare in them...

Uhm strawman alert... no one said sexual behavior is about race. You are the only one even contemplating that.

Uhmm strawman alert no one other than maybe you and pop23 are seeking to have your fantasies about incest enabled by throwing incest laws out.

Laws are made to reduce harm. No harm is incurred when consenting adults pair. Incest and rape cause harm... thus we have laws against them. Additionally children are not consenting adults.

 

[ChrisL]

Where did I say sexual behavior was not about sexual behavior? Maybe you can provide a link to where this false meme of yours came from. I'll let that sink in.

Special pass? What special pass do consenting adults need to have sex with each other?

No everyone does not enjoy the same rights. Allowing some people to do what they want while refusing others to do what they want with other consenting adults is not enjoying the same rights. Just because you may want to have only monogamous relations with one person of the opposite sex does not give you the right TO FORCE EVERYONE ELSE ON THE EFFING PLANET TO ACT JUST LIKE YOU AND NO DIFFERENT.

Polygamy and Same Sex behaviors have nothing to do with incest. Why do you feel the need to combine such behaviors with incest? Does heterosexual behavior lead to incest?

The FACTS are that it's about sexual behavior, not race. Adults don't need a special pass to have sex with each other, inanimate objects or even their brother or sister. But they DO (or, rather, did) need a special pass to MARRY which is what this thread is about. Polygamy (the orientation towards multiple partners), homosexuality (the orientation towards the same gender) and incest (a kink for family members) are all just sexual kinks of one kind or another. You could I suppose no more pull Billy-Joe off his sister in a tiny cabin in Kentucky than you could pull John off of Jim at a gay bar in San Francisco, or Kody Brown off of Robyn, Christine, Merri or Janelle in Utah or Nevada.

So why is it just some of theses kinks have recently been legislated (by the Court) "rights" while the other behaviors still fall under majority regulation?

You see, marriage (which is what this thread is about) doesn't JUST involve adults. The most important people in marriage aren't even mentioned about 90% of the time. Yet children are the reason the majority (used to) regulates marriage...except of course where the Court picked its favorite kinks and decided to make motherless or fatherless marriages an institution...regardless of how children will fare in them...

Gay people and others are already cohabiting in most instances and have been for a long time. The sky is not going to fall because they can now make their unions legal. It is just not that big a deal to most people. Most people don't see another person's life choices as being harmful to them. That's all there is to it.

 

[ChrisL]

So? What is America? Is America the home of the free unless you are gay or something else that Christians don't like? I never realized that.

 

[Silhouette]

Gay people and others are already cohabiting in most instances and have been for a long time. The sky is not going to fall because they can now make their unions legal. It is just not that big a deal to most people. Most people don't see another person's life choices as being harmful to them. That's all there is to it.

No such thing as "gay people". Only people doing homosexual acts. People doing incestuous acts have also be cohabitating for a long time.

Homosexuals had already had civil unions for some time, which was a legal union. Why did they need marriage? To steal parenting from heterosexuals. ie: to not be denied at adoption agencies for failure "as married" to provide both a mother and father.

Yes, both a mother and a father are THE BEST parents for children. Second, third or fourth best/worst are now elevated to "best" standard. We never talk about children when it comes to marriage. Why is that?

So to sum up, gay marriage WAS about children. Yet the people after them legally, never seem to want to talk about them as important to marriage. They just wanted the final legal step to get ahold of them. Those two facts combined should make people worried for children.

 

[Skylar]

What doesn't kill them makes them crazier. People like this just won't let the country get beyond the divisiveness and accept the new normal.....

That's because norms are defined by a majority, not a tiny minority. Hence the meaning of the word "normal" vs "unusual" or "rare". The majority was cut out of the conversation by 5 kings and queens on June 26, 2015. But that doesn't mean they will lay down and take fascist decrees. Perhaps it is you who should embrace that there are limitations to your cult and accept the old normal; which is the same as today's normal since the majority are still opposed to gay marriage in spite of what your rigged polling data keeps spewing out. Polls on this website right down the line seem to run consistently at around 80% opposed. 80% is what is normal. 20% is what is unusual or rare.

I think people in the LGBT cult need to just get a dictionary. This judge is standing his ground for what his faith tells him is normal and what he is not allowed to do (promote a forbidden abnormal).

You're confusing norms and tyranny. Just because a majority can call themselves the norm does not give them the right to eff over the groups that are different from said norm.

Actually I think you are confusing tyranny with norms. It's all how you look at it when considering that LGBT is about behavior....

I'll keep repeating that premise until it sinks in. You cannot give a special pass to some behaviors in the same "behavior family" at the very least. ALL of them enjoy the same rights. You'd be one of the foremost critics of polygamy and incest marrying too. All while you call "suppression by majority regulation" "tyranny"..

Says you, citing you. And you don't know what you're talking about. Gay marriage has been legal in the US somewhere for the last 10 years. Yet incest still isn't. Nor is polygamy. There's no mandate that if you legalize same sex marriage that you must legalize incest or polygamy.

You've imagined it. Based on your own legal interpretations. Which as your horrendous failures regarding the Obergefell ruling demonstrated, are essentially worthless.

 

[Skylar]

Gay people and others are already cohabiting in most instances and have been for a long time. The sky is not going to fall because they can now make their unions legal. It is just not that big a deal to most people. Most people don't see another person's life choices as being harmful to them. That's all there is to it.

No such thing as "gay people". Only people doing homosexual acts. People doing incestuous acts have also be cohabitating for a long time.

Again, says you. The court explicitly recognized gays and lesbians. That you can't figure out who the court is talking about doesn't mean a thing. As your comprehension isn't a prerequisite for a ruling of the USSC.

 

[Syriusly]

Gay people and others are already cohabiting in most instances and have been for a long time. The sky is not going to fall because they can now make their unions legal. It is just not that big a deal to most people. Most people don't see another person's life choices as being harmful to them. That's all there is to it.

No such thing as "gay people". Only people doing homosexual acts. People doing incestuous acts have also be cohabitating for a long time.

Silhouette is just copying and pasting her own lies again


Homosexuals(aka 'gay people) are people who are attracted to the same gender- regardless of whether they have sex.

People who have been targeted for discrimination for centuries because they are attracted to the 'wrong gender'

You are a cult of 1

A cult that lies....over and over and over.

 

[Silhouette]

Gay people and others are already cohabiting in most instances and have been for a long time. The sky is not going to fall because they can now make their unions legal. It is just not that big a deal to most people. Most people don't see another person's life choices as being harmful to them. That's all there is to it.

No such thing as "gay people". Only people doing homosexual acts. People doing incestuous acts have also be cohabitating for a long time.

Again, says you. The court explicitly recognized gays and lesbians. That you can't figure out who the court is talking about doesn't mean a thing. As your comprehension isn't a prerequisite for a ruling of the USSC.

Who wants to vote here on how likely it will be that Ginsburg and Kagan will be impeached after 2017 on rock solid grounds of the 2009 Massey coal case...leading to a retrial of the hearing this Spring? And the second go-around, how do you think the ill-thought verdict will land once they start discussing polygamy and incest both also being sexual orientations/behaviors?

 

[Ravi]

Not sure anyone posted this, but it looks like the judge got spanked.

The signatures, collected by Equality Toledo, include several Toledo City Council members, all three Lucas County Commissioners, and former Mayor Mike Bell. Equality Toledo plans to post the petition on social media.

“We are disappointed that Judge Allen McConnell has refused to fulfill the duty of his elected position,” the statement reads in part. “If he does not agree with the laws of the United States of America, he is free to work to change them — either as a citizen or as a member of a legislative body. But as judge, he has absolutely no discretion — he must apply and follow the law, including the ones with which he does not agree.”

Judge s refusal to marry same-sex couples draws petition - Toledo Blade

 

[mdk]

Gay people and others are already cohabiting in most instances and have been for a long time. The sky is not going to fall because they can now make their unions legal. It is just not that big a deal to most people. Most people don't see another person's life choices as being harmful to them. That's all there is to it.

No such thing as "gay people". Only people doing homosexual acts. People doing incestuous acts have also be cohabitating for a long time.

Again, says you. The court explicitly recognized gays and lesbians. That you can't figure out who the court is talking about doesn't mean a thing. As your comprehension isn't a prerequisite for a ruling of the USSC.

Who wants to vote here on how likely it will be that Ginsburg and Kagan will be impeached after 2017 on rock solid grounds of the 2009 Massey coal case...leading to a retrial of the hearing this Spring? And the second go-around, how do you think the ill-thought verdict will land once they start discussing polygamy and incest both also being sexual orientations/behaviors?

Lord knows you have such a knack for predicting the court's actions and the case law they will cite. This just another in a long string of laughable predictions from you. When this 'impeachment' of yours doesn't come to pass you'll simply ensconce yourself in a conspiracy theory. Rinse and repeat.

 

[Skylar]

Gay people and others are already cohabiting in most instances and have been for a long time. The sky is not going to fall because they can now make their unions legal. It is just not that big a deal to most people. Most people don't see another person's life choices as being harmful to them. That's all there is to it.

No such thing as "gay people". Only people doing homosexual acts. People doing incestuous acts have also be cohabitating for a long time.

Again, says you. The court explicitly recognized gays and lesbians. That you can't figure out who the court is talking about doesn't mean a thing. As your comprehension isn't a prerequisite for a ruling of the USSC.

Who wants to vote here on how likely it will be that Ginsburg and Kagan will be impeached after 2017 on rock solid grounds of the 2009 Massey coal case...leading to a retrial of the hearing this Spring? And the second go-around, how do you think the ill-thought verdict will land once they start discussing polygamy and incest both also being sexual orientations/behaviors?

Sil.....your abililty to correctly predict legal outcomes was already tested. You were perfectly wrong. There wasn't a single detail you got right. You were wrong on the split, you were wrong on the ruling, you were wrong on the legal principles involved, you were wrong on the court's take on children, you were wrong on what sources they'd cite, you were wrong on what precedent they'd use, you were wrong on every significant detail.

When you gave us a litany of pseudo-legal gibberish on how the case would go, you had absolutely no idea what you were talking about.

But your all NEW pseudo-legal gibberish is supposed to matter to us?

 

[Silhouette]

The founder and president of a coalition of black pastors has called upon U.S. Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan to recuse themselves from the same-sex marriage case that is currently before the high court CAAP Calls on Justices Ginsburg and Kagan to Recuse Themselves from Same-Sex Marriage Decision - Breitbart

Rep. Steve King said:
“That provision [impeachment] does exist, and let’s hear what the public has to say. If that were put up before me today, and I think I mentioned Ginsburg and Kagan as being two that had been conducting same-sex marriages on their spare time and did not recuse themselves, I would put up the vote to remove them from office. And I’d like to see that case heard again Rep. Steve King Says Impeach Kagan and GinsburgOver Gay Marriage Decision

“Both of these justices’ personal and private actions that actively endorse gay marriage clearly indicate how they would vote on same-sex marriage cases before the Supreme Court,” said AFA President Tim Wildmon. “Congress has directed that federal judicial officers must disqualify themselves from hearing cases in specified circumstances. Both Kagan and Ginsburg have not only been partial to same-sex marriage but they have also proven themselves to be activists in favor of it. In order to ensure the Court’s integrity and impartiality, both should recuse themselves from same-sex marriage cases. Congress has an obligation to Americans to see that members of the Supreme Court are held to the highest standards of integrity. The law demands it, and the people deserve it.” Kagan and Ginsburg Recuse Yourselves

2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.
Here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-22.pdf

...says that any presiding judge, justice, commissioner etc. etc. etc. must recuse themselves from a case if they have an obvious discernable bias towards or against one set of litigants. There couldn't be a more textbook case of need for recusal than Ginsburg and Kagan sitting on the gay marriage vs states' rights hearing last Spring. The Massey case was about campaign contributions but the premise used to sustain the conclusions was "no judge may indicate discernable bias, ever". If so they must recuse. And if they don't recuse and the wronged set of litigants request, the case has to be retried.

 

[Skylar]

The founder and president of a coalition of black pastors has called upon U.S. Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan to recuse themselves from the same-sex marriage case that is currently before the high court CAAP Calls on Justices Ginsburg and Kagan to Recuse Themselves from Same-Sex Marriage Decision - Breitbart

Rep. Steve King said:
“That provision [impeachment] does exist, and let’s hear what the public has to say. If that were put up before me today, and I think I mentioned Ginsburg and Kagan as being two that had been conducting same-sex marriages on their spare time and did not recuse themselves, I would put up the vote to remove them from office. And I’d like to see that case heard again Rep. Steve King Says Impeach Kagan and GinsburgOver Gay Marriage Decision

“Both of these justices’ personal and private actions that actively endorse gay marriage clearly indicate how they would vote on same-sex marriage cases before the Supreme Court,” said AFA President Tim Wildmon. “Congress has directed that federal judicial officers must disqualify themselves from hearing cases in specified circumstances. Both Kagan and Ginsburg have not only been partial to same-sex marriage but they have also proven themselves to be activists in favor of it. In order to ensure the Court’s integrity and impartiality, both should recuse themselves from same-sex marriage cases. Congress has an obligation to Americans to see that members of the Supreme Court are held to the highest standards of integrity. The law demands it, and the people deserve it.” Kagan and Ginsburg Recuse Yourselves

2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.
Here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-22.pdf

...says that any presiding judge, justice, commissioner etc. etc. etc. must recuse themselves from a case if they have an obvious discernable bias towards or against one set of litigants.

Capterton was about an elected judge who had received huge campaign contributions from a litigant in a case he ajudicated. Neither Kagan nor Ginsberg was elected. Neither received campaign contributions. Neither received any benefit from any litigant in the case.

Again, Sil......you have no idea what you're talking about.

And Kagan and Gisberg performed same sex weddings where the State had chosen to include it. In both Maryland and DC, you know what they call same sex marriage?

Marriage.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

The premise that won Caperton 2009 was that no judge should show a modicum of bias, whatever the reason. Ginsburg & Kagan both affirmed that that was so.