Masterpiece Cake Baker Civil Rights Lawsuit vs Ginsburg's Obergefell.

[Silhouette]

Scalia wasn't subtle at all with how obviously Windsor telegraphed what was coming next.

Really? Then why did Windsor affirm 56 times that marriage definition was a state's power? To "set the stage" that the fed could then rip it away with psuedo-legal gibberish in Obergefell 2 years later? Oh, wait, let me guess. You'll quote one vague insinuating line in subtext that will "prove your point" against the 56 times the Court strongly emphasized marriage definition is a state power...

Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

 

[mdk]

Scalia wasn't subtle at all with how obviously Windsor telegraphed what was coming next.

Really? Then why did Windsor affirm 56 times that marriage definition was a state's power? To "set the stage" that the fed could then rip it away with psuedo-legal gibberish in Obergefell 2 years later? Oh, wait, let me guess. You'll quote one vague insinuating line in subtext that will "prove your point" against the 56 times the Court strongly emphasized marriage definition is a state power...

Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

State marriage laws being subject to certain constitutional guarantees isn’t vague and the crux of the ruling. Your insistence on ignoring that part doesn’t have any effect on the ruling.

 

[Skylar]

Scalia wasn't subtle at all with how obviously Windsor telegraphed what was coming next.

Really? Then why did Windsor affirm 56 times that marriage definition was a state's power? To "set the stage" that the fed could then rip it away with psuedo-legal gibberish in Obergefell 2 years later? Oh, wait, let me guess. You'll quote one vague insinuating line in subtext that will "prove your point" against the 56 times the Court strongly emphasized marriage definition is a state power...

Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

Yes, really. I even quoted the passages from Scalia's dissent in which he stated it was 'beyond mistaking' and 'inevitable' that the legal reasoning of Windsor would be applied to the States to overturn same sex marriage bans. But as you do when you play pretend with pseudo-legal gibberish, you merely ignored Scalia's analysis of the windsor ruling. And then laughably assume that because you ignored it, it doesn't exist. The absurdity of which I'll demonstrate again for you:

"In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ ” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status."

Scalia in dissent, Windsor v. US

See? Still there. We here on the board told you for *months* that your '56 times' babble wasn't going to work. And when Kennedy, the same man who authored the Windsor ruling predictably overturned same sex marriage bans in Obergefell, you started making up silly conspiracies about 'the gays' blackmailing Kennedy.

No, Sil. Its not Kennedy that didn't understand the Windsor ruling. Its not Scalia that didn't understand the Windsor ruling. Its YOU that didn't understand the Windsor ruling. As you predictably ignored this passage in the ruling.

"The States’ interest in defining and regulating the marital relation, subject to constitutional guarantees, stems from the understanding that marriage is more than a routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits."

Windsor V. US

The law is about *hierarchy*. Not citation count. And the Windsor ruling *clearly* put constitutional guarantees over the State's authority to regulate marriage. Says who? Says the author of the Windsor ruling, Justice Kennedy, in the Obegefell ruling.

Your predictable, inevitable willful ignorance doesn't change so much as a semi-colon of the actual Windsor ruling. Which is why you fail.

 

[Skylar]

Scalia wasn't subtle at all with how obviously Windsor telegraphed what was coming next.

Really? Then why did Windsor affirm 56 times that marriage definition was a state's power? To "set the stage" that the fed could then rip it away with psuedo-legal gibberish in Obergefell 2 years later? Oh, wait, let me guess. You'll quote one vague insinuating line in subtext that will "prove your point" against the 56 times the Court strongly emphasized marriage definition is a state power...

Lifestyle-Marriage Equality Slugout: State Authority vs Federal?

State marriage laws being subject to certain constitutional guarantees isn’t vague and the crux of the ruling. Your insistence on ignoring that part doesn’t have any effect on the ruling.

Exactly. Its the cartoon simple principle that destroys her entire silly argument.

It always makes me smile when Sil straight up ignores any portion of any ruling that she doesn't like. And then laughably claims that the law and courts are now bound to her imaginary 'edited' version of the rulings.

Alas, that's not how reality works.

 

[Silhouette]

The 56 times Windsor affirmed states regulate marriage isn’t imagined. In fact it’s that crucial pivot upon which the Court awarded Windsor the verdict.

 

[Skylar]

The 56 times Windsor affirmed states regulate marriage isn’t imagined. In fact it’s that crucial pivot upon which the Court awarded Windsor the verdict.

That the Windsor ruling somehow puts the State's authority to regulate marriage over constitutional guarantees IS imagined, Sil. You've literally made it up.

Again, the court was explicit that the state's authority to regulate marriage was subject to constitutional guarantees. Which the court articulated twice. The hierarchy established by Windsor (and other rulings like Loving) was this:

1) Constitutional Guarantees
2) State's Authority to regulate marriage.
3) Federal government's authority to regulate marriage.

With the federal government subject to the State's authority on marriage. And the State's authority subject to constitutional guarantees.

And it was constitutional guarantees that the Obergefell court cited in overturning the same sex marriage bans at the state level.

You ignoring this doesn't change it. Which is why you fail.

 

[theHawk]

No one should have "protected status" in this country. Protected classes are unconstitutional.

We’ll see, because Marxism requires protected classes. We also know that radical lefties are in favor of forced labor. We’ll see just how many on the court are Marxists and how many are actual conservatives that will uphold our constitution.

 

[Silhouette]

The 56 times Windsor affirmed states regulate marriage isn’t imagined. In fact it’s that crucial pivot upon which the Court awarded Windsor the verdict.

Again, the court was explicit that the state's authority to regulate marriage was subject to constitutional guarantees. Which the court articulated twice.

The hierarchy established by Windsor (and other rulings like Loving) was this:

1) Constitutional Guarantees
2) State's Authority to regulate marriage.
3) Federal government's authority to regulate marriage.

With the federal government subject to the State's authority on marriage. And the State's authority subject to constitutional guarantees.

Nothing in the Windsor ruling puts the state's authority above constitutional guarantees. And it was constitutional guarantees that the Obergefell court cited in overturning the same sex marriage bans at the state level.

You ignoring this doesn't change it. Which is why you fail.

Yes and there are no Constitutional guarantees for just some deviant sex behaviors but not others. You understand how the 14th Amendment works, right?

 

[Skylar]

The 56 times Windsor affirmed states regulate marriage isn’t imagined. In fact it’s that crucial pivot upon which the Court awarded Windsor the verdict.

Again, the court was explicit that the state's authority to regulate marriage was subject to constitutional guarantees. Which the court articulated twice.

The hierarchy established by Windsor (and other rulings like Loving) was this:

1) Constitutional Guarantees
2) State's Authority to regulate marriage.
3) Federal government's authority to regulate marriage.

With the federal government subject to the State's authority on marriage. And the State's authority subject to constitutional guarantees.

Nothing in the Windsor ruling puts the state's authority above constitutional guarantees. And it was constitutional guarantees that the Obergefell court cited in overturning the same sex marriage bans at the state level.

You ignoring this doesn't change it. Which is why you fail.

Yes and there are no Constitutional guarantees for just some deviant sex behaviors but not others. You understand how the 14th Amendment works, right?

All the 'deviant sexual behavior' babble is just you citing you. It has no legal relevance. As you're nobody.

And if you'd like to go through the Obegefell ruling together again on the 14th amendment, I'll be happy to show you one more time why you citing yourself always loses v. the Supreme Court.

 

[Skylar]

No one should have "protected status" in this country. Protected classes are unconstitutional.

We’ll see, because Marxism requires protected classes. We also know that radical lefties are in favor of forced labor. We’ll see just how many on the court are Marxists and how many are actual conservatives that will uphold our constitution.

How does same sex marriage result in 'forced labor'?

Even by the incoherent pseudo-legal gibberish of the right wing echo chamber, that's especially meaningless.

 

[theHawk]

No one should have "protected status" in this country. Protected classes are unconstitutional.

We’ll see, because Marxism requires protected classes. We also know that radical lefties are in favor of forced labor. We’ll see just how many on the court are Marxists and how many are actual conservatives that will uphold our constitution.

How does same sex marriage result in 'forced labor'?

Even by the incoherent pseudo-legal gibberish of the right wing echo chamber, that's especially meaningless.

The case is about forcing a man to provide a service.

 

[Skylar]

No one should have "protected status" in this country. Protected classes are unconstitutional.

We’ll see, because Marxism requires protected classes. We also know that radical lefties are in favor of forced labor. We’ll see just how many on the court are Marxists and how many are actual conservatives that will uphold our constitution.

How does same sex marriage result in 'forced labor'?

Even by the incoherent pseudo-legal gibberish of the right wing echo chamber, that's especially meaningless.

The case is about forcing a man to provide a service.

Windsor v. US doesn't have a thing to do with a man. It was about two women.

And Obergefell was about the *right* of two men to marry.

 

[Silhouette]

No one should have "protected status" in this country. Protected classes are unconstitutional.

We’ll see, because Marxism requires protected classes. We also know that radical lefties are in favor of forced labor. We’ll see just how many on the court are Marxists and how many are actual conservatives that will uphold our constitution.

How does same sex marriage result in 'forced labor'?

Even by the incoherent pseudo-legal gibberish of the right wing echo chamber, that's especially meaningless.

The case is about forcing a man to provide a service.

It’s about forcing someone to promote a ritual, ideal or behavior he finds morally offensive.

 

[whitehall]

America may or may not be ready or homosexual marriage but are radical democrats ready to recognize the 250 year old 1st Amendment that guarantees freedom of religion?

 

[Skylar]

No one should have "protected status" in this country. Protected classes are unconstitutional.

We’ll see, because Marxism requires protected classes. We also know that radical lefties are in favor of forced labor. We’ll see just how many on the court are Marxists and how many are actual conservatives that will uphold our constitution.

How does same sex marriage result in 'forced labor'?

Even by the incoherent pseudo-legal gibberish of the right wing echo chamber, that's especially meaningless.

The case is about forcing a man to provide a service.

It’s about forcing someone to promote a ritual, ideal or behavior he finds morally offensive.

Neither Windsor nor Obegefell are the basis of the baker case. But anti-discrimination laws on the State level.

 

[Skylar]

America may or may not be ready or homosexual marriage but are radical democrats ready to recognize the 250 year old 1st Amendment that guarantees freedom of religion?

America was able to handle same sex marriage with no problem. Some individuals are having a harder time.

 

[deanrd]

No one should have "protected status" in this country. Protected classes are unconstitutional.

Racists and homophobes are protected by the Republican Party.

See? "Protected status".

 

[DandyDonovan]

No one should have "protected status" in this country. Protected classes are unconstitutional.

Race and gender do, as well as country of origin because those are innate, inborn issues that people cannot help. Behaviors adopted after birth, addictive or not, are not the same as innate things.

The Court will have to determine if behaviors, ideals or rituals can require forced-participation by the unwilling.

I'm not reading 53 pages, but this sort of thinking is dumb. Who gives a shit if someone was born gay or not? If I own a business the right is MINE. No one with any brain at all could actually believe a person has a right to make me work for them.

 

[DandyDonovan]

No one should have "protected status" in this country. Protected classes are unconstitutional.

Racists and homophobes are protected by the Republican Party.

See? "Protected status".

Do you ever post anything that is on topic?

 

[Silhouette]

America may or may not be ready or homosexual marriage but are radical democrats ready to recognize the 250 year old 1st Amendment that guarantees freedom of religion?

Nope. I predict many deviant sex addicts and their cult leaders will be in the fetal position at the next Ruling on this bullshit.