Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[dblack]

Wow. You've got it exactly inside out. The Constitution tasks the federal government with ensuring that states provide equal protection and don't use economic regulation to violate our rights. This is exactly where the Commerce clause applies. But we're not 'applying' it.

The federal government uses the 'commerce clause' as its justification for regulating citizen v. citizen interactions. And that justification is a heaping load of horse shit. Interstate commerce doesn't mean intra state commerce.

Agreed. The federal mandate is to prevent states from interfering with national trade via bullshit tariffs and other barriers.

Intrastate commerce is the exclusive domain of the State to regulate.

Agree again, but the 14th demands equal protection, and granting special rights and privilege violates that in spades.

If a State wants to place PA laws, they have every authority to. If they choose not to, they don't have to.

And the feds have the responsibility to ensure they're are protecting equal rights. PA laws violate the **** out of equal rights.

Though I agree with you on one point. If they do set up PA laws and then explicitly exempt gays and lesbians, the Feds can get them on equal protection violations. That's the very basis of Romer V. Evans.

And if they exempt fat people and poor people or smelly people or dumb people are ugly people or etc, etc, etc, .....?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

i think he's referring to the PA laws, and he's totally right.

I think that the federal laws are an overreach. I think that the state laws are reasonable. As the regulation of intrastate commerce is utterly a power of the State. And requiring that all businesses treat their customers fairly and equally isn't unreasonable.

My exception would be religious corporations performing religious ceremonies. Like professional preachers.

No it isn't , but that isn't entirely thehom same thing as saying a business should be able to refuse to have someone as a customer.

In other words, the state has no right to tell a baker they can't refuse to bake a cake for a homosexual couple.

The state obviously has a right to tell the baker that if they DO bake the cake for the gay couple , they can't **** with it or, or deliberately make it bad, or any nonsense like that. That's reasonable. That's protecting people from not getting what they paid for.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The sexually abnormal have every right as everyone else... none of which provide them the justification to demand that those who disagree with them be forced into servitude as a means to celebrate their debauchery.

And what servitude are you being forced into? A gay couple getting married doesn't take away any of your rights. It doesn't effect you in any way. Your marriage the day before a gay couple got married has all the rights and freedoms that exist the day after.

I don't think servitude means what you think it means.

i think he's referring to the PA laws, and he's totally right.

PA laws have nothing to do with marriage equality.

There's no such thing as "Marriage Equality" as Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Wow. You've got it exactly inside out. The Constitution tasks the federal government with ensuring that states provide equal protection and don't use economic regulation to violate our rights. This is exactly where the Commerce clause applies. But we're not 'applying' it.

The federal government uses the 'commerce clause' as its justification for regulating citizen v. citizen interactions. And that justification is a heaping load of horse shit. Interstate commerce doesn't mean intra state commerce.

Agreed. The federal mandate is to prevent states from interfering with national trade via bullshit tariffs and other barriers.

Intrastate commerce is the exclusive domain of the State to regulate.

Agree again, but the 14th demands equal protection, and granting special rights and privilege violates that in spades.

If a State wants to place PA laws, they have every authority to. If they choose not to, they don't have to.

And the feds have the responsibility to ensure they're are protecting equal rights. PA laws violate the **** out of equal rights.

Though I agree with you on one point. If they do set up PA laws and then explicitly exempt gays and lesbians, the Feds can get them on equal protection violations. That's the very basis of Romer V. Evans.

And if they exempt fat people and poor people or smelly people or dumb people are ugly people or etc, etc, etc, .....?

I've tried explaining that to them. They don't seem to understand that businesses CAN discriminate, except for against "protected classes"

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The sexually abnormal have every right as everyone else... none of which provide them the justification to demand that those who disagree with them be forced into servitude as a means to celebrate their debauchery.

And what servitude are you being forced into? A gay couple getting married doesn't take away any of your rights. It doesn't effect you in any way. Your marriage the day before a gay couple got married has all the rights and freedoms that exist the day after.

I don't think servitude means what you think it means.

i think he's referring to the PA laws, and he's totally right.

PA laws have nothing to do with marriage equality.

There's no such thing as "Marriage Equality" as Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Let it go

Do you understand that if you let the government define marriage by YOUR definition today, they very well could nullify YOUR marriage tomorrow? I mean seriously..

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Wow. You've got it exactly inside out. The Constitution tasks the federal government with ensuring that states provide equal protection and don't use economic regulation to violate our rights. This is exactly where the Commerce clause applies. But we're not 'applying' it.

The federal government uses the 'commerce clause' as its justification for regulating citizen v. citizen interactions. And that justification is a heaping load of horse shit. Interstate commerce doesn't mean intra state commerce. Intrastate commerce is the exclusive domain of the State to regulate.

If a State wants to place PA laws, they have every authority to. If they choose not to, they don't have to.

Though I agree with you on one point. If they do set up PA laws and then explicitly exempt gays and lesbians, the Feds can get them on equal protection violations. That's the very basis of Romer V. Evans.

GREAT! So where a State requires, as a function of Public Accommodating that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman, as nature designed it, then your in agreement that they are perfectly entitled to do so.

Your innumerable concessions have all been duly noted and all have been summarily accepted.

The only thing I am interested in, where you're concerned, going forward... is your response to THIS:

You were asked, now 14 times, over 5 1/2 hours... to declare your position on the Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, BECAUSE: REASON REQUIRES THAT A 'REASONABLE PERSON' VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and you've implied that you REJECT SUCH, without actually stating such.

So... towards helping you, help me expose you and your cult for what you are... I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: TO INFORM THE BOARD OF YOUR POSITION ON ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and to STATE THE BASIS FOR EITHER YOUR REJECTION OF OR YOUR ADHERENCE TO SUCH.

 

[Seawytch]

Wow. You've got it exactly inside out. The Constitution tasks the federal government with ensuring that states provide equal protection and don't use economic regulation to violate our rights. This is exactly where the Commerce clause applies. But we're not 'applying' it.

The federal government uses the 'commerce clause' as its justification for regulating citizen v. citizen interactions. And that justification is a heaping load of horse shit. Interstate commerce doesn't mean intra state commerce.

Agreed. The federal mandate is to prevent states from interfering with national trade via bullshit tariffs and other barriers.

Intrastate commerce is the exclusive domain of the State to regulate.

Agree again, but the 14th demands equal protection, and granting special rights and privilege violates that in spades.

If a State wants to place PA laws, they have every authority to. If they choose not to, they don't have to.

And the feds have the responsibility to ensure they're are protecting equal rights. PA laws violate the **** out of equal rights.

Though I agree with you on one point. If they do set up PA laws and then explicitly exempt gays and lesbians, the Feds can get them on equal protection violations. That's the very basis of Romer V. Evans.

And if they exempt fat people and poor people or smelly people or dumb people are ugly people or etc, etc, etc, .....?

I've tried explaining that to them. They don't seem to understand that businesses CAN discriminate, except for against "protected classes"

So what did your elected representative say when you told them you wanted a part of the Civil Rights Act repealed?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Wow. You've got it exactly inside out. The Constitution tasks the federal government with ensuring that states provide equal protection and don't use economic regulation to violate our rights. This is exactly where the Commerce clause applies. But we're not 'applying' it.

The federal government uses the 'commerce clause' as its justification for regulating citizen v. citizen interactions. And that justification is a heaping load of horse shit. Interstate commerce doesn't mean intra state commerce.

Agreed. The federal mandate is to prevent states from interfering with national trade via bullshit tariffs and other barriers.

Intrastate commerce is the exclusive domain of the State to regulate.

Agree again, but the 14th demands equal protection, and granting special rights and privilege violates that in spades.

If a State wants to place PA laws, they have every authority to. If they choose not to, they don't have to.

And the feds have the responsibility to ensure they're are protecting equal rights. PA laws violate the **** out of equal rights.

Though I agree with you on one point. If they do set up PA laws and then explicitly exempt gays and lesbians, the Feds can get them on equal protection violations. That's the very basis of Romer V. Evans.

And if they exempt fat people and poor people or smelly people or dumb people are ugly people or etc, etc, etc, .....?

I've tried explaining that to them. They don't seem to understand that businesses CAN discriminate, except for against "protected classes"

So what did your elected representative say when you told them you wanted a part of the Civil Rights Act repealed?

He said to hang on for another few years as faggots kept demanding that Christians do business with them and enough people would get fed up and toss the PA laws to the curb.

Why are you so stupid that you don't understand that bad laws are being repealed every day? I mean my God, you're so stupid that you don't realize that your very right to ****** "marriage" relied on a bad law being repealed.

Moron.

 

[dblack]

Wow. You've got it exactly inside out. The Constitution tasks the federal government with ensuring that states provide equal protection and don't use economic regulation to violate our rights. This is exactly where the Commerce clause applies. But we're not 'applying' it.

The federal government uses the 'commerce clause' as its justification for regulating citizen v. citizen interactions. And that justification is a heaping load of horse shit. Interstate commerce doesn't mean intra state commerce.

Agreed. The federal mandate is to prevent states from interfering with national trade via bullshit tariffs and other barriers.

Intrastate commerce is the exclusive domain of the State to regulate.

Agree again, but the 14th demands equal protection, and granting special rights and privilege violates that in spades.

If a State wants to place PA laws, they have every authority to. If they choose not to, they don't have to.

And the feds have the responsibility to ensure they're are protecting equal rights. PA laws violate the **** out of equal rights.

Though I agree with you on one point. If they do set up PA laws and then explicitly exempt gays and lesbians, the Feds can get them on equal protection violations. That's the very basis of Romer V. Evans.

And if they exempt fat people and poor people or smelly people or dumb people are ugly people or etc, etc, etc, .....?

.
I've tried explaining that to them. They don't seem to understand that businesses CAN discriminate, except for against "protected classes"

So what did your elected representative say when you told them you wanted a part of the Civil Rights Act repealed?

They said they were afraid to try, because voters don't get it. They said we need to get out there and wake people up!

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Wow. You've got it exactly inside out. The Constitution tasks the federal government with ensuring that states provide equal protection and don't use economic regulation to violate our rights. This is exactly where the Commerce clause applies. But we're not 'applying' it.

The federal government uses the 'commerce clause' as its justification for regulating citizen v. citizen interactions. And that justification is a heaping load of horse shit. Interstate commerce doesn't mean intra state commerce. Intrastate commerce is the exclusive domain of the State to regulate.

If a State wants to place PA laws, they have every authority to. If they choose not to, they don't have to.

Though I agree with you on one point. If they do set up PA laws and then explicitly exempt gays and lesbians, the Feds can get them on equal protection violations. That's the very basis of Romer V. Evans.

GREAT! So where a State requires, as a function of Public Accommodating that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman, as nature designed it, then your in agreement that they are perfectly entitled to do so.

Your innumerable concessions have all been duly noted and all have been summarily accepted.

The only thing I am interested in, where you're concerned, going forward... is your response to THIS:

You were asked, now 14 times, over 5 1/2 hours... to declare your position on the Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, BECAUSE: REASON REQUIRES THAT A 'REASONABLE PERSON' VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and you've implied that you REJECT SUCH, without actually stating such.

So... towards helping you, help me expose you and your cult for what you are... I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: TO INFORM THE BOARD OF YOUR POSITION ON ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and to STATE THE BASIS FOR EITHER YOUR REJECTION OF OR YOUR ADHERENCE TO SUCH.

I have not seen Skylar post one single thing that suggests he would be okay with gays abusing children.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The sexually abnormal have every right as everyone else... none of which provide them the justification to demand that those who disagree with them be forced into servitude as a means to celebrate their debauchery.

And what servitude are you being forced into? A gay couple getting married doesn't take away any of your rights. It doesn't effect you in any way. Your marriage the day before a gay couple got married has all the rights and freedoms that exist the day after.

I don't think servitude means what you think it means.

i think he's referring to the PA laws, and he's totally right.

PA laws have nothing to do with marriage equality.

There's no such thing as "Marriage Equality" as Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Let it go

Do you understand that if you let the government define marriage by YOUR definition today, they very well could nullify YOUR marriage tomorrow? I mean seriously..

Government didn't and doesn't define marriage. Nature designed the species and that design, defines marriage.

I didn't ask the government for permission to marry my wife... my wife needed that crap.

If the government ordered TONIGHT that they were canceling our license... I'd tell the government to kiss my ass and wake up tomorrow morning going on about my business.

Our marriage is about us... one man and one woman, who have joined as one being, raising our children and enjoying our grand-babies.

And I don't give a dam' who shacks up with whom... but without regard to what the government says about it, MARRIAGE IS THE JOINING OF ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN because that is how nature designed us, and THAT defines how nature designed it.

You may disagree... and that's fine. I could not care less. But this is a point on which I will never compromise and I will never allow anyone that represents me, to compromise on that essential, immutable principle, and there is nothing I will not do to defend it... .

Place it in government, require government to enforce it and I will do everything, join any and every effort to destroy the government and drive past that government to destroy those who set such into place.

Now, with that said, in just the last dozen pages of this thread, assuming you read it, should provide for you and all people of reason, that the Advocacy at issue here, has absolutely no bottom... no sense of reasoned morality, no sense of right and wrong... these people are abject, unadulterated evil.

And there is no means to compromise with that and reasonably expect the culture to be viable. Accept them, with all the evidence of the evidence of their fascist sociopathy, and within one generation you will see the age of consent evaporate and that is an axiomatic certainty. The only response I have to that, is: **** THAT!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Wow. You've got it exactly inside out. The Constitution tasks the federal government with ensuring that states provide equal protection and don't use economic regulation to violate our rights. This is exactly where the Commerce clause applies. But we're not 'applying' it.

The federal government uses the 'commerce clause' as its justification for regulating citizen v. citizen interactions. And that justification is a heaping load of horse shit. Interstate commerce doesn't mean intra state commerce. Intrastate commerce is the exclusive domain of the State to regulate.

If a State wants to place PA laws, they have every authority to. If they choose not to, they don't have to.

Though I agree with you on one point. If they do set up PA laws and then explicitly exempt gays and lesbians, the Feds can get them on equal protection violations. That's the very basis of Romer V. Evans.

GREAT! So where a State requires, as a function of Public Accommodating that Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman, as nature designed it, then your in agreement that they are perfectly entitled to do so.

Your innumerable concessions have all been duly noted and all have been summarily accepted.

The only thing I am interested in, where you're concerned, going forward... is your response to THIS:

You were asked, now 14 times, over 5 1/2 hours... to declare your position on the Adult Pursuit of Children for Sexual Gratification, BECAUSE: REASON REQUIRES THAT A 'REASONABLE PERSON' VEHEMENTLY REJECTS THE ADULT PURSUIT OF CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and you've implied that you REJECT SUCH, without actually stating such.

So... towards helping you, help me expose you and your cult for what you are... I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: TO INFORM THE BOARD OF YOUR POSITION ON ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and to STATE THE BASIS FOR EITHER YOUR REJECTION OF OR YOUR ADHERENCE TO SUCH.

I have not seen Skylar post one single thing that suggests he would be okay with gays abusing children.

First... Skylar is a HE?

ROFLMNAO! Sweet Mother ... THAT is hysterical. If it is, it ain't much of a 'he', that is for DAM' SURE!

Second: You should read the last dozen pages.

Here's a clue you need to consider:

Skylar, I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: TO INFORM THE BOARD OF YOUR POSITION ON ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and to STATE THE BASIS FOR EITHER YOUR REJECTION OF OR YOUR ADHERENCE TO SUCH.

It's not a complex equation. Couldn't be easier, where one's intentions are honorable... and that is without regard to WHICH WAY IT FALLS. If they believe in what they're doing, put it on the line. It won't do it, because it has no honor. IF it ever answers the question, it will stake its only rejection on LEGALITY. And that is established throughout this discussion, where morality has no bearing on ANY position that it's set forth. Without exception: "ITS LEGAL" is the only justification it has for any aspect of its position.

 

[Syriusly]

[
.. and that in those terms that there is incontrovertibly, no discernible distinction in homosexuals and those who pursue children for sexual gratification. .

First of all- 'incontrovertably' doesn't mean what you think it means- incontrovertibly doesn't mean your unsubstantiated opinion.

Secondly- you are equating homosexuals to pedophiles.

Because that is what homophobes do.

They can't make an actual argument against gay marriage- so they invoke pedophilia.

 

[Syriusly]

And what servitude are you being forced into? A gay couple getting married doesn't take away any of your rights. It doesn't effect you in any way. Your marriage the day before a gay couple got married has all the rights and freedoms that exist the day after.

I don't think servitude means what you think it means.

i think he's referring to the PA laws, and he's totally right.

PA laws have nothing to do with marriage equality.

There's no such thing as "Marriage Equality" as Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

Let it go

Do you understand that if you let the government define marriage by YOUR definition today, they very well could nullify YOUR marriage tomorrow? I mean seriously..

Government didn't and doesn't define marriage. Nature designed marriage.

I didn't ask the government for permission to marry my wife... my wife needed that crap.

If the government ordered TONIGHT that they were canceling our license... I'd tell the government to kiss my ass and wake up tomorrow morning going on about my business. T!

Nature hasn't any thing to do with marriage. Marriage doesn't exist outside of human created society.

If you didn't ask the government for permission to marry your wife- well then you aren't married- without a marriage licence you are just shacking up.

Oh- you do have a license- so you did ask the government for permission.

If they cancelled you license tomorrow, you and your wife could shack up to your hearts content- you would be treated just like the gays in the states where marriage discrimination still continues.

But you wouldn't be married.

Not legally.

 

[Syriusly]

[
Skylar, I again provide you the OPPORTUNITY: TO INFORM THE BOARD OF YOUR POSITION ON ADULTS WHO PURSUE CHILDREN FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION and to STATE THE BASIS FOR EITHER YOUR REJECTION OF OR YOUR ADHERENCE TO SUCH..

You can't pursue children for sexual gratification because a) its illegal and b) the reason its illegal is because children cannot consent to have sex.

 

[Skylar]

No it isn't , but that isn't entirely thehom same thing as saying a business should be able to refuse to have someone as a customer.

It depends on why they refuse them as a customer. If its because they 'don't serve black people at this lunch counter', I'd say that's not reasonable. If its because they're not wearing shoes, that's another.

In other words, the state has no right to tell a baker they can't refuse to bake a cake for a homosexual couple.

Of course they do. As intrastate commerce is totally within the State to regulate. And mandating that business people treat all their customers fairly is well within intrastate commerce.

 

[Skylar]

I've tried explaining that to them. They don't seem to understand that businesses CAN discriminate, except for against "protected classes"

Each state decides who their 'protected classes' are in terms of intrastate commerce. Though if they explicitly exclude gays, they run into equal protection problems, as Romer. V Evans .

 

[dblack]

I've tried explaining that to them. They don't seem to understand that businesses CAN discriminate, except for against "protected classes"

Each state decides who their 'protected classes' are in terms of intrastate commerce. Though if they explicitly exclude gays, they run into equal protection problems, as Romer. V Evans .

Does that seem like "equal protection"to you? It's sounds to me like decidedly UNequal protection.

 

[Skylar]

Agree again, but the 14th demands equal protection, and granting special rights and privilege violates that in spades.

The 14th amendment prevents the States from violating the rights of citizens. It doesn't say a thing about citizen v. citizen interactions. If it did, the Federal Government would never have had to come up with the steaming rhetorical pile that is the commerce clause bullshit.

And the feds have the responsibility to ensure they're are protecting equal rights. PA laws violate the **** out of equal rights.

You really need to read the 14th amendments. It doesn't say a thing about 'equal rights'. It says 'equal protection in the law'. And if there's no law, it applies to everyone equally.

And if they exempt fat people and poor people or smelly people or dumb people are ugly people or etc, etc, etc, .....?

In the case of Romer V. Evans, it explicitly exempted gays. They actually went out of thier way to say that gays weren't protected. That's, btw, is an equal protection violation.

 

[Skylar]

Does that seem like "equal protection"to you? It's sounds to me like decidedly UNequal protection.

Fail to include and 'explicitly exclude' are two different things. Romer prevents explict exclusion.