STATE COMPARES CHRISTIAN BAKER TO NAZIS

[PaintMyHouse]

Society doesn't grant rights, you dumb asshole. It can protect your rights or violate them, but it has no authority to grant them.

Oh but it does grant them. Your rights on based upon the founding document of the nation, written by the men who founded it. In doing so they crated the basic structure of your society. Where you do think you get them from, the Sky Fairy?

Obviously since it is being granted. Did you think Moses dropped by again?

Should society, therefore, be able to limit who marries being that, according to you, they are allowed to curtail them as it deems necessary.

He has already come to that conclusion. When we limit the ability of an adult to do something that is legal, it gives us the right in any area to do so as well.

Mark

That's what I am showing him now. How many times has a lefty stated that the will of the people can't take away someone else's rights. According to PaintMyHouse, since society grants rights, society can take them away as is sees the need. Wouldn't that apply to state officials elected by a society within the State making a law to prohibit it within that State? He'll have some excuse as to why that isn't the case although he's said marriage is one of those rights granted by society.

If the limitation of a right is for a compelling state interest, Constitutional, and has the approval of the courts, off you go. Incest laws, drug laws, guns for felons, voting rights for felons, even restrictions on drivers licenses for the elderly, etc. all follow that pattern. They limit the rights of certain citizens to do what others do freely.

Yep. They limit an adult from buying a pistol. AN ADULT.

So, they can limit an adult while allowing other adults "rights".

Yep. Now you're getting it.

 

[Skylar]

Society doesn't grant rights, you dumb asshole. It can protect your rights or violate them, but it has no authority to grant them.

Oh but it does grant them. Your rights on based upon the founding document of the nation, written by the men who founded it. In doing so they crated the basic structure of your society. Where you do think you get them from, the Sky Fairy?

Obviously since it is being granted. Did you think Moses dropped by again?

Should society, therefore, be able to limit who marries being that, according to you, they are allowed to curtail them as it deems necessary.

He has already come to that conclusion. When we limit the ability of an adult to do something that is legal, it gives us the right in any area to do so as well.

Mark

That's what I am showing him now. How many times has a lefty stated that the will of the people can't take away someone else's rights. According to PaintMyHouse, since society grants rights, society can take them away as is sees the need.

Not through legislative action. You could strip someone of their rights with say, an Amendment. But those are really hard to do.

It could go through the amendment process and you faggots would still complain about it. Even when it's done the way you say it should be, you aren't willing to accept it.

Complaints are as common as belly buttons. But an amendment to the Constitution is pretty tough to trump.
And as far as I know, the only way to strip people of rights.

 

[Skylar]

So once again, it's OK to do it as long as it's done your way or it's no OK to do it.

Huh? Could highlight the sentences in my post that say of that?

Legislative laws allowing same sex marriage are hard to do. You faggots know you could't get it done that way in but a handful of states. That's why you went around the process to get a sympathizer judge to do it for you. How cowardly but typical and expected.

You don't need an amendment to recognize rights. We've already got one: the 9th amendment. You do need an amendment to remove rights, however.

 

[Syriusly]

Believer forced to celebrate homosexual unions.

State compares Christian baker to Nazis

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s order to a baker to use his artistry to celebrate homosexual unions in violation of his Christian beliefs is under challenge, in part, because a commissioner likened Christians to slavers and Nazis.

My poor eyes- please warn us before you send us to a link to that crap website WND.

And of course the State didn't compare the baker to nazi's.

But WND did a great job of posting the Baker's lawyer's press announcement......

 

[Conservative65]

Oh but it does grant them. Your rights on based upon the founding document of the nation, written by the men who founded it. In doing so they crated the basic structure of your society. Where you do think you get them from, the Sky Fairy?

Should society, therefore, be able to limit who marries being that, according to you, they are allowed to curtail them as it deems necessary.

He has already come to that conclusion. When we limit the ability of an adult to do something that is legal, it gives us the right in any area to do so as well.

Mark

That's what I am showing him now. How many times has a lefty stated that the will of the people can't take away someone else's rights. According to PaintMyHouse, since society grants rights, society can take them away as is sees the need.

Not through legislative action. You could strip someone of their rights with say, an Amendment. But those are really hard to do.

So once again, it's OK to do it as long as it's done your way or it's no OK to do it.

Huh? Could up the sentences in my post that say of that?

Legislative laws allowing same sex marriage are hard to do. You faggots know you could't get it done that way in but a handful of states. That's why you went around the process to get a sympathizer judge to do it for you. How cowardly but typical and expected.

You don't need an amendment to recognize rights. We've already got one: the 9th amendment. You do need an amendment to remove rights, however.

So the 17th didn't recognize the right of citizens to elect their Senator, the 19th to establish that the right to vote couldn't be used to keep women from voting, etc.?

What level of government do you say has the most authority when it comes to voting?

 

[Skylar]

He has already come to that conclusion. When we limit the ability of an adult to do something that is legal, it gives us the right in any area to do so as well.

Mark

That's what I am showing him now. How many times has a lefty stated that the will of the people can't take away someone else's rights. According to PaintMyHouse, since society grants rights, society can take them away as is sees the need.

Not through legislative action. You could strip someone of their rights with say, an Amendment. But those are really hard to do.

So once again, it's OK to do it as long as it's done your way or it's no OK to do it.

Huh? Could up the sentences in my post that say of that?

Legislative laws allowing same sex marriage are hard to do. You faggots know you could't get it done that way in but a handful of states. That's why you went around the process to get a sympathizer judge to do it for you. How cowardly but typical and expected.

You don't need an amendment to recognize rights. We've already got one: the 9th amendment. You do need an amendment to remove rights, however.

So the 17th didn't recognize the right of citizens to elect their Senator, the 19th to establish that the right to vote couldn't be used to keep women from voting, etc.?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make regarding the 17th, but the 19th affirms the right to vote for women. It doesn't strip that right from them.

What level of government do you say has the most authority when it comes to voting?

Depends on the context of what you're referring to. Spending, war, rights, Amendments......define your context, as the answer is dependent on it.

 

[Syriusly]

Obviously since it is being granted. Did you think Moses dropped by again?

Should society, therefore, be able to limit who marries being that, according to you, they are allowed to curtail them as it deems necessary.

Society already does limit marriage.

The society within my State, where the power to regulate marriage, has laws stating no same sex marriage. The faggots claimed that society can't do that yet you say they can.

If the marriage laws of a state violate constitutional guarantees, they're invalid. State legislation on marriage trumps federal legislation on marriage. But constitutional guarantees trump State legislation on marriage.

So you agree with PaintMyHouse that society can limit rights when they see it as necessary except when doing so is a right you don't think should be limited? I guess you support self preservation since no one of your own gender would have anything to do with you.

Why not actually try to understand what Skylar said?

Society can limit rights- for example I have the right to own a gun- but a state can take that right away for good cause- such as if I am convicted of a felony.

Marriage is a right. States can limit those rights but just like with owning a gun- States need to be able to justify limiting marriage rights- so far states have been told that they cannot limit the marriage rights of
mixed race couples
parents that owe child support
incarcerated criminals

All of those cases of course were decided because of Americans who filed lawsuits to overturn the laws that they felt were unconstitutional.

Gay couples are suing on the same basis- and so far States have not been able to demonstrate a compelling reason why the State has an interest in denying them marriage rights.

 

[Syriusly]

Society doesn't grant rights, you dumb asshole. It can protect your rights or violate them, but it has no authority to grant them.

Oh but it does grant them. Your rights on based upon the founding document of the nation, written by the men who founded it. In doing so they crated the basic structure of your society. Where you do think you get them from, the Sky Fairy?

Obviously since it is being granted. Did you think Moses dropped by again?

Should society, therefore, be able to limit who marries being that, according to you, they are allowed to curtail them as it deems necessary.

He has already come to that conclusion. When we limit the ability of an adult to do something that is legal, it gives us the right in any area to do so as well.

Mark

That's what I am showing him now. How many times has a lefty stated that the will of the people can't take away someone else's rights. According to PaintMyHouse, since society grants rights, society can take them away as is sees the need.

Not through legislative action. You could strip someone of their rights with say, an Amendment. But those are really hard to do.

It could go through the amendment process and you faggots would still complain about it. Even when it's done the way you say it should be, you aren't willing to accept it.

Even if every American in the United States other than yourself voted for same gender marriage you bigots would still complain about it.

Even when its done the way you say it should be, you aren't willing to accept it.

 

[Syriusly]

Society doesn't grant rights, you dumb asshole. It can protect your rights or violate them, but it has no authority to grant them.

Oh but it does grant them. Your rights on based upon the founding document of the nation, written by the men who founded it. In doing so they crated the basic structure of your society. Where you do think you get them from, the Sky Fairy?

Obviously since it is being granted. Did you think Moses dropped by again?

Should society, therefore, be able to limit who marries being that, according to you, they are allowed to curtail them as it deems necessary.

He has already come to that conclusion. When we limit the ability of an adult to do something that is legal, it gives us the right in any area to do so as well.

Mark

That's what I am showing him now. How many times has a lefty stated that the will of the people can't take away someone else's rights. According to PaintMyHouse, since society grants rights, society can take them away as is sees the need.

Not through legislative action. You could strip someone of their rights with say, an Amendment. But those are really hard to do.

So once again, it's OK to do it as long as it's done your way or it's no OK to do it.

Legislative laws allowing same sex marriage are hard to do. You faggots know you could't get it done that way in but a handful of states. That's why you went around the process to get a sympathizer judge to do it for you. How cowardly but typical and expected.

LOL....that is rich coming from a Conservative.

US appeals court deems gun law unconstitutional Fox News
A federal appeals court in Cincinnati deemed a law unconstitutional that kept a Michigan man who was committed to a mental institution from owning a gun.

NRA-ILA Hawaii Federal Court Ruling Overturns Certain Firearm Permit Laws
Last week, a federal judge overturned Hawaii’s current law which bars legal immigrants from applying for a firearm permit. This ruling came after an Australian citizen, who is a permanent resident living in Honolulu, filed for relief from state laws restricting him from obtaining a firearm permit.

The judge ruled that the discriminatory state law prohibiting legal immigrants from applying for a firearm permit violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Allowing lawful permanent residents, in addition to U.S. citizens, to apply for a firearms license will open the door for law-abiding individuals to exercise the guarantees of the Second Amendment in Hawaii.

This is the latest in a string of court rulings across the country overturning similar laws and is good news for individuals legally and permanently residing in the United States.



Your NRA-ILA will continue to keep you updated when more information is available.

NRA Asks Supreme Court To Strike Down Gun Limits For Minors
In a Monday court filing, the National Rifle Association asked the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down a 1968 law that prevents licensed gun dealers from selling handguns to people between the ages of 18 and 21.

The NRA, along with two nineteen-year-olds, aims to overturn the federal law that restricts the sale of handguns and ammo to anyone under 21 years of age.

America s 1st Freedom
The suit challenging the constitutionality of Colorado’s gun control law was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado by the Independence Institute, a Colorado-based think tank founded on the principles of the Declaration of Independence, representing the 55 sheriffs, and by others representing additional plaintiffs.

I look forward to you telling us about how cowardly the NRA is for trying to get around legislature by trying to find a sympathetic judge.

 

[kaz]

You are answering a question I did not ask. More deflection.

Mark

No Mr. Letter to Mommy Mark, I'm explaining how our system works to someone who doesn't understand it.

Really? Then answer my question. What gives society the moral authority to refuse an adult the right to buy a pistol?

I know you can't answer that, because it would make your entire line of reasoning void.

Because society grants you the rights in the first place, and is therefore allowed to curtail them as it deems necessary.

Never even read the Constitution, did you Dopey?

The Constitution, the government, are elements of your society. Your rights do not come from God, and all rights have limitations. Get used to it.

Get used to it, it's the way it is, it's absolutely brilliant how you work that to be your answer to every question on authoritarian leftism. We needn't discuss, it just is. How do you come up with that? It's amazing rhetoric, very convincing that we should just give up and stop discussing anything but what the Marxist Democratic party wants.

Even if there is no hope, I'm not giving up. So maybe you should stuff a sock in it and address an actual point once in a while instead of intoning the same mantra. Just a thought.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No Mr. Letter to Mommy Mark, I'm explaining how our system works to someone who doesn't understand it.

Really? Then answer my question. What gives society the moral authority to refuse an adult the right to buy a pistol?

I know you can't answer that, because it would make your entire line of reasoning void.

Because society grants you the rights in the first place, and is therefore allowed to curtail them as it deems necessary.

Never even read the Constitution, did you Dopey?

The Constitution, the government, are elements of your society. Your rights do not come from God, and all rights have limitations. Get used to it.

Get used to it, it's the way it is, it's absolutely brilliant how you work that to be your answer to every question on authoritarian leftism. We needn't discuss, it just is. How do you come up with that? It's amazing rhetoric, very convincing that we should just give up and stop discussing anything but what the Marxist Democratic party wants.

Even if there is no hope, I'm not giving up. So maybe you should stuff a sock in it and address an actual point once in a while instead of intoning the same mantra. Just a thought.

Maybe you should stop thinking like a child and deal with reality? Ayn Rand is not reality.

 

[Skylar]

Really? Then answer my question. What gives society the moral authority to refuse an adult the right to buy a pistol?

I know you can't answer that, because it would make your entire line of reasoning void.

Because society grants you the rights in the first place, and is therefore allowed to curtail them as it deems necessary.

Never even read the Constitution, did you Dopey?

The Constitution, the government, are elements of your society. Your rights do not come from God, and all rights have limitations. Get used to it.

Get used to it, it's the way it is, it's absolutely brilliant how you work that to be your answer to every question on authoritarian leftism. We needn't discuss, it just is. How do you come up with that? It's amazing rhetoric, very convincing that we should just give up and stop discussing anything but what the Marxist Democratic party wants.

Even if there is no hope, I'm not giving up. So maybe you should stuff a sock in it and address an actual point once in a while instead of intoning the same mantra. Just a thought.

Maybe you should stop thinking like a child and deal with reality? Ayn Rand is not reality.

But smoking is heroic! And all the rich people are going to make a town in Colorado.

Right?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Obviously since it is being granted. Did you think Moses dropped by again?

Should society, therefore, be able to limit who marries being that, according to you, they are allowed to curtail them as it deems necessary.

Society already does limit marriage.

The society within my State, where the power to regulate marriage, has laws stating no same sex marriage. The faggots claimed that society can't do that yet you say they can.

If the marriage laws of a state violate constitutional guarantees, they're invalid. State legislation on marriage trumps federal legislation on marriage. But constitutional guarantees trump State legislation on marriage.

So you agree with PaintMyHouse that society can limit rights when they see it as necessary except when doing so is a right you don't think should be limited? I guess you support self preservation since no one of your own gender would have anything to do with you.

This doesn't make any sense.

Although inalienable our rights are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government (see, e.g., DC v. Heller (2008)); likewise government is prohibited from placing unwarranted restrictions on citizens' rights.

In general, when government seeks to place restrictions or limitations on our rights, the state must have a compelling reason to do so, that reason must be rationally based, predicated on objective, documented evidence in support, and pursue a proper legislative end.

With regard to measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, those measures are being invalidated by the courts because they lack a compelling governmental interest, they are not rationally based, they are devoid of objective, documented evidence in support, and they do not pursue a proper legislative end; indeed, they seek only to make gay Americans different from everyone else, something the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from doing (Romer v. Evans (1996)).

 

[Skylar]

Should society, therefore, be able to limit who marries being that, according to you, they are allowed to curtail them as it deems necessary.

Society already does limit marriage.

The society within my State, where the power to regulate marriage, has laws stating no same sex marriage. The faggots claimed that society can't do that yet you say they can.

If the marriage laws of a state violate constitutional guarantees, they're invalid. State legislation on marriage trumps federal legislation on marriage. But constitutional guarantees trump State legislation on marriage.

So you agree with PaintMyHouse that society can limit rights when they see it as necessary except when doing so is a right you don't think should be limited? I guess you support self preservation since no one of your own gender would have anything to do with you.

This doesn't make any sense.

Although inalienable our rights are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government (see, e.g., DC v. Heller (2008)); likewise government is prohibited from placing unwarranted restrictions on citizens' rights.

In general, when government seeks to place restrictions or limitations on our rights, the state must have a compelling reason to do so, that reason must be rationally based, predicated on objective, documented evidence in support, and pursue a proper legislative end.

With regard to measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, those measures are being invalidated by the courts because they lack a compelling governmental interest, they are not rationally based, they are devoid of objective, documented evidence in support, and they do not pursue a proper legislative end; indeed, they seek only to make gay Americans different from everyone else, something the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from doing (Romer v. Evans (1996)).

****. I literally have nothing to add to that. You've hit every note.

 

[bripat9643]

Society already does limit marriage.

The society within my State, where the power to regulate marriage, has laws stating no same sex marriage. The faggots claimed that society can't do that yet you say they can.

If the marriage laws of a state violate constitutional guarantees, they're invalid. State legislation on marriage trumps federal legislation on marriage. But constitutional guarantees trump State legislation on marriage.

So you agree with PaintMyHouse that society can limit rights when they see it as necessary except when doing so is a right you don't think should be limited? I guess you support self preservation since no one of your own gender would have anything to do with you.

This doesn't make any sense.

Although inalienable our rights are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government (see, e.g., DC v. Heller (2008)); likewise government is prohibited from placing unwarranted restrictions on citizens' rights.

In general, when government seeks to place restrictions or limitations on our rights, the state must have a compelling reason to do so, that reason must be rationally based, predicated on objective, documented evidence in support, and pursue a proper legislative end.

With regard to measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law, those measures are being invalidated by the courts because they lack a compelling governmental interest, they are not rationally based, they are devoid of objective, documented evidence in support, and they do not pursue a proper legislative end; indeed, they seek only to make gay Americans different from everyone else, something the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from doing (Romer v. Evans (1996)).

****. I literally have nothing to add to that. You've hit every note.

It's total bullshit because gays aren't being discriminated against anymore than men are discriminated against for not being allowed into the women's wash room.

Marriage is a union between a man and a women. Gays don't have the correct genitalia to qualify.

 

[Skylar]

Marriage is a union between a man and a women. Gays don't have the correct genitalia to qualify.

Marriage is whatever we say it is. We invented it. And as marriage is a right, if you're going to deny that right to gays and lesbians, you need a very good reason and a compelling state interest.

Opponents of gay marriage have neither. Which is why their record of failure in the federal judiciary is so nearly perfect.

 

[bripat9643]

Marriage is a union between a man and a women. Gays don't have the correct genitalia to qualify.

Marriage is whatever we say it is. We invented it. And as marriage is a right, if you're going to deny that right to gays and lesbians, you need a very good reason and a compelling state interest.

Opponents of gay marriage have neither. Which is why their record of failure in the federal judiciary is so nearly perfect.

No, you don't get to arbitrary define what marriage is. It's been around for millenium and has always had a specific purpose. allowing gays to marry doesn't facilitate that purpose. End of story.

Also, the privileges that come with legal recognition of marriage are not a right.

 

[Skylar]

Marriage is a union between a man and a women. Gays don't have the correct genitalia to qualify.

Marriage is whatever we say it is. We invented it. And as marriage is a right, if you're going to deny that right to gays and lesbians, you need a very good reason and a compelling state interest.

Opponents of gay marriage have neither. Which is why their record of failure in the federal judiciary is so nearly perfect.

No, you don't get to arbitrary define what marriage is. It's been around for millenium and has always had a specific purpose. allowing gays to marry doesn't facilitate that purpose. End of story.

Also, the privileges that come with legal recognition of marriage are not a right.

And what purpose would that be?

 

[JoeB131]

No, you don't get to arbitrary define what marriage is. It's been around for millenium and has always had a specific purpose. allowing gays to marry doesn't facilitate that purpose. End of story.

Also, the privileges that come with legal recognition of marriage are not a right.

Guy marriage HAS changed.

Until 40 years ago, you couldn't marry someone of a different race.

Until recently, you couldn't be convicted of raping your spouse.

IN the 19th century, it was acceptable to beat your spouse.

Women couldn't own property in their own name.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Marriage is a union between a man and a women. Gays don't have the correct genitalia to qualify.

Marriage is whatever we say it is. We invented it. And as marriage is a right, if you're going to deny that right to gays and lesbians, you need a very good reason and a compelling state interest.

Opponents of gay marriage have neither. Which is why their record of failure in the federal judiciary is so nearly perfect.

No, you don't get to arbitrary define what marriage is. It's been around for millenium and has always had a specific purpose. allowing gays to marry doesn't facilitate that purpose. End of story.

Also, the privileges that come with legal recognition of marriage are not a right.

This is unsurprisingly ignorant.

Acknowledging the right gay Americans have to marry is not to 'define' what marriage is; marriage is the union of two consenting adult partners in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.