State Takes Legal Action to Seize $135K From Bakers Who Refused to Make Cake for Lesbian Couple

[Sally Vater]

Again, then why is SSM now the "law of the land"?

Marriage is now the law of the land and government is no longer allowed to restrict SSM. Getting rid of a restriction is NOT the same as creating new law. It's really basic stuff here.

Actually it is. when you create a concept that NEVER existed as a concept in a States law, you are creating it.

No new concept was created...a restriction was struck down.

The definition of marriage was changed. That's not the job of the USSC, and I agree with Chief Justice Roberts that the constitution had nothing to do with the decision.

The definition of marriage is not static. It never has been. To think so shows a woeful lack of historical knowledge.

Lie. Since the day your ancestors climbed down from trees and created civilization, marriage has been defined as male and female.

 

[paddymurphy]

Do me a favor? Hold your breath until that happens.

Correct trash.

Correct? Meaning you will hold your breath? Great.

All we need is ONE constitutionalist. Anything else?

We have nine of them. They just have different views on what the constitution requires. And the five who understand that the constitution protects the fights of all Americans understand the constitution better.

Nope. You have five activists who twisted and tortured the 14th amendment, which deals exclusively with ex slaves and their children.

And where, pray tell, did you get your law degree?

 

[bodecea]

Lefties murder babies, ignore the constitution, and vote for corrupt politicians like Hillary, but if you refuse to bake a wedding cake for queers then you're in big trouble.

I am a Leftie and have never murdered a baby in my life. Nor do I know any Lefties that have done so. And I do not ignore the Constitution....in fact, I seem to know what's in it more than many RWrs here. And I have yet to even have the opportunity to vote for Hillary let alone choose to vote for her.

And if you have a cake baking BUSINESS, best know the business laws in your state. It's prudent.

I don't give a damn who you know. The truth is the left supports abortion and corruption, yet has no problem using government in a tyrannical manner on citizens who refuse to bow to your queer agenda.

What is that queer agenda you speak of? Equal rights under the law? Guilty as charged in that regard, Your Honor.

The queer agenda is changing the definition of marriage. Piss on your corrupt judges and laws.

And this affects you and your marriage......how?

 

[paddymurphy]

Marriage is now the law of the land and government is no longer allowed to restrict SSM. Getting rid of a restriction is NOT the same as creating new law. It's really basic stuff here.

Actually it is. when you create a concept that NEVER existed as a concept in a States law, you are creating it.

No new concept was created...a restriction was struck down.

The definition of marriage was changed. That's not the job of the USSC, and I agree with Chief Justice Roberts that the constitution had nothing to do with the decision.

The definition of marriage is not static. It never has been. To think so shows a woeful lack of historical knowledge.

Lie. Since the day your ancestors climbed down from trees and created civilization, marriage has been defined as male and female.

Since you believe in evolution, just consider this another step in that process.

 

[Sally Vater]

Correct trash.

Correct? Meaning you will hold your breath? Great.

All we need is ONE constitutionalist. Anything else?

We have nine of them. They just have different views on what the constitution requires. And the five who understand that the constitution protects the fights of all Americans understand the constitution better.

Nope. You have five activists who twisted and tortured the 14th amendment, which deals exclusively with ex slaves and their children.

And where, pray tell, did you get your law degree?

Same place you got yours.

 

[bodecea]

Marriage is now the law of the land and government is no longer allowed to restrict SSM. Getting rid of a restriction is NOT the same as creating new law. It's really basic stuff here.

Actually it is. when you create a concept that NEVER existed as a concept in a States law, you are creating it.

No new concept was created...a restriction was struck down.

The definition of marriage was changed. That's not the job of the USSC, and I agree with Chief Justice Roberts that the constitution had nothing to do with the decision.

Good for you. I, and most Americans, agree with the five justices in the majority and the couple of dozen other federal judges who have concluded that the right of gay Americans to equal protection of the law and to liberty is entitled to be protected.

You have only ONE more USSC judge than us. That can be remedied. The 14th amendment has been twisted and tortured to make the decision. We can fix this corruption with one appointment.

How do you think that will be remedied? There are two major options that would definitely take a lot of work, time and support.......a Constitutional Amendment that overrides a Supreme Court decision (see the 16th Amendment creating an Income Tax for that) or presenting another case the Supreme Court that has enough evidence to show that the original ruling was wrong. (see Brown v. Board of Ed for an example that one)

 

[bodecea]

What is that queer agenda you speak of? Equal rights under the law? Guilty as charged in that regard, Your Honor.

The queer agenda is changing the definition of marriage. Piss on your corrupt judges and laws.

So, you marriage has changed? How?

What did I say?

You, in a very eloquent explanation of the legal underpinnings of your disagreement with the rulings of a couple dozen federal judges, "Piss on your corrupt judges".

Yes. Piss on your queer agenda and your corrupt judges. Anything else?

So...that's kinky.

 

[bodecea]

Do me a favor? Hold your breath until that happens.

Correct trash.

Correct? Meaning you will hold your breath? Great.

All we need is ONE constitutionalist. Anything else?

We have nine of them. They just have different views on what the constitution requires. And the five who understand that the constitution protects the fights of all Americans understand the constitution better.

Nope. You have five activists who twisted and tortured the 14th amendment, which deals exclusively with ex slaves and their children.

So you say. (as does anyone who doesn't like a Supreme Court ruling....SSDD)

 

[Sally Vater]

Lefties murder babies, ignore the constitution, and vote for corrupt politicians like Hillary, but if you refuse to bake a wedding cake for queers then you're in big trouble.

I am a Leftie and have never murdered a baby in my life. Nor do I know any Lefties that have done so. And I do not ignore the Constitution....in fact, I seem to know what's in it more than many RWrs here. And I have yet to even have the opportunity to vote for Hillary let alone choose to vote for her.

And if you have a cake baking BUSINESS, best know the business laws in your state. It's prudent.

I don't give a damn who you know. The truth is the left supports abortion and corruption, yet has no problem using government in a tyrannical manner on citizens who refuse to bow to your queer agenda.

What is that queer agenda you speak of? Equal rights under the law? Guilty as charged in that regard, Your Honor.

The queer agenda is changing the definition of marriage. Piss on your corrupt judges and laws.

And this affects you and your marriage......how?

The definition of marriage has been changed. Period. The process was corrupt. Period.

 

[Sally Vater]

The queer agenda is changing the definition of marriage. Piss on your corrupt judges and laws.

So, you marriage has changed? How?

What did I say?

You, in a very eloquent explanation of the legal underpinnings of your disagreement with the rulings of a couple dozen federal judges, "Piss on your corrupt judges".

Yes. Piss on your queer agenda and your corrupt judges. Anything else?

So...that's kinky.

Ran out of talking points, huh. Now you're trolling.

 

[Sally Vater]

Correct trash.

Correct? Meaning you will hold your breath? Great.

All we need is ONE constitutionalist. Anything else?

We have nine of them. They just have different views on what the constitution requires. And the five who understand that the constitution protects the fights of all Americans understand the constitution better.

Nope. You have five activists who twisted and tortured the 14th amendment, which deals exclusively with ex slaves and their children.

So you say. (as does anyone who doesn't like a Supreme Court ruling....SSDD)

I don't like my constitution being twisted and tortured by activists

 

[paddymurphy]

Correct? Meaning you will hold your breath? Great.

All we need is ONE constitutionalist. Anything else?

We have nine of them. They just have different views on what the constitution requires. And the five who understand that the constitution protects the fights of all Americans understand the constitution better.

Nope. You have five activists who twisted and tortured the 14th amendment, which deals exclusively with ex slaves and their children.

So you say. (as does anyone who doesn't like a Supreme Court ruling....SSDD)

I don't like my constitution being twisted and tortured by activists

Your constitution? It actually is our constitution and "our" includes the millions of gay Americans you would demand be treated as somehow lesser than you and not entitled to the same legal rights as you. And they did not twisting; they simply applied the plain language of the 14th Amendment which, contrary to your silly claim, was not only intended to address former slaves and their children.

 

[paddymurphy]

Correct? Meaning you will hold your breath? Great.

All we need is ONE constitutionalist. Anything else?

We have nine of them. They just have different views on what the constitution requires. And the five who understand that the constitution protects the fights of all Americans understand the constitution better.

Nope. You have five activists who twisted and tortured the 14th amendment, which deals exclusively with ex slaves and their children.

And where, pray tell, did you get your law degree?

Same place you got yours.

Kind of doubt that. You clearly do not have one.

 

[paddymurphy]

I am a Leftie and have never murdered a baby in my life. Nor do I know any Lefties that have done so. And I do not ignore the Constitution....in fact, I seem to know what's in it more than many RWrs here. And I have yet to even have the opportunity to vote for Hillary let alone choose to vote for her.

And if you have a cake baking BUSINESS, best know the business laws in your state. It's prudent.

I don't give a damn who you know. The truth is the left supports abortion and corruption, yet has no problem using government in a tyrannical manner on citizens who refuse to bow to your queer agenda.

What is that queer agenda you speak of? Equal rights under the law? Guilty as charged in that regard, Your Honor.

The queer agenda is changing the definition of marriage. Piss on your corrupt judges and laws.

And this affects you and your marriage......how?

The definition of marriage has been changed. Period. The process was corrupt. Period.

And your opinion does not matter. Period.

 

[Sally Vater]

All we need is ONE constitutionalist. Anything else?

We have nine of them. They just have different views on what the constitution requires. And the five who understand that the constitution protects the fights of all Americans understand the constitution better.

Nope. You have five activists who twisted and tortured the 14th amendment, which deals exclusively with ex slaves and their children.

So you say. (as does anyone who doesn't like a Supreme Court ruling....SSDD)

I don't like my constitution being twisted and tortured by activists

Your constitution? It actually is our constitution and "our" includes the millions of gay Americans you would demand be treated as somehow lesser than you and not entitled to the same legal rights as you. And they did not twisting; they simply applied the plain language of the 14th Amendment which, contrary to your silly claim, was not only intended to address former slaves and their children.

"Amplified". LOL. I love how you corrupt trash write your own dictionary and constitution. Yes, the 14th amendment deals exclusively with ex slaves and their children. It's been twisted and tortured by activists. Go ahead and make your case with historical fact. Give us the words of the author of the amendment and the original purpose of the amendment. Go ahead. You wont.

 

[Sally Vater]

I don't give a damn who you know. The truth is the left supports abortion and corruption, yet has no problem using government in a tyrannical manner on citizens who refuse to bow to your queer agenda.

What is that queer agenda you speak of? Equal rights under the law? Guilty as charged in that regard, Your Honor.

The queer agenda is changing the definition of marriage. Piss on your corrupt judges and laws.

And this affects you and your marriage......how?

The definition of marriage has been changed. Period. The process was corrupt. Period.

And your opinion does not matter. Period.

Neither does the Constitution.

 

[bodecea]

Good for you. I, and most Americans, agree with the five justices in the majority and the couple of dozen other federal judges who have concluded that the right of gay Americans to equal protection of the law and to liberty is entitled to be protected.

You have only ONE more USSC judge than us. That can be remedied. The 14th amendment has been twisted and tortured to make the decision. We can fix this corruption with one appointment.

Do me a favor? Hold your breath until that happens.

Correct trash.

Correct? Meaning you will hold your breath? Great.

All we need is ONE constitutionalist. Anything else?

It will take more than that. You have to build another case with enough good constitutional reasons to get the original ruling reversed...just like it took a long time and a lot of evidence before Brown v. Board of Ed overturned Plessy v. Ferguson.

 

[bodecea]

Do me a favor? Hold your breath until that happens.

Correct trash.

Correct? Meaning you will hold your breath? Great.

All we need is ONE constitutionalist. Anything else?

We have nine of them. They just have different views on what the constitution requires. And the five who understand that the constitution protects the fights of all Americans understand the constitution better.

Nope. You have five activists who twisted and tortured the 14th amendment, which deals exclusively with ex slaves and their children.

You seem to think this is the only "non-ex slave " case using the 14th amendment.

Show us in this part of the 14th amendment it only applies to ex-slaves and their children:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Sally Vater]

You have only ONE more USSC judge than us. That can be remedied. The 14th amendment has been twisted and tortured to make the decision. We can fix this corruption with one appointment.

Do me a favor? Hold your breath until that happens.

Correct trash.

Correct? Meaning you will hold your breath? Great.

All we need is ONE constitutionalist. Anything else?

It will take more than that. You have to build another case with enough good constitutional reasons to get the original ruling reversed...just like it took a long time and a lot of evidence before Brown v. Board of Ed overturned Plessy v. Ferguson.

That can be done.

 

[bodecea]

Marriage is now the law of the land and government is no longer allowed to restrict SSM. Getting rid of a restriction is NOT the same as creating new law. It's really basic stuff here.

Actually it is. when you create a concept that NEVER existed as a concept in a States law, you are creating it.

No new concept was created...a restriction was struck down.

The definition of marriage was changed. That's not the job of the USSC, and I agree with Chief Justice Roberts that the constitution had nothing to do with the decision.

The definition of marriage is not static. It never has been. To think so shows a woeful lack of historical knowledge.

Lie. Since the day your ancestors climbed down from trees and created civilization, marriage has been defined as male and female.

Not anymore it isn't....look to any dictionary.