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

[Sally Vater]

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

So...you don't like change. Ok....but many of us don't go into hissy fits or drop into a fetal position over change......

False rhetoric, false premise, and deflection. Let me know when you post the words of the author of the amendment and the original intent.

I posted the actual 14th amendment itself. Now...let me ask you....when the Courts are determining a case based on one of the Bill of Rights or other amendment, what do they use as a basis for their decisions.....the words of someone who helped sculpt the amendment? Or the actual amendment itself.

Would you like a hint?

We both know that there are originalist interpretations and activist interpretations. It just depends on how the justices see it.

Well, an orginalist interpretation would not result in your silly claim that it only applied to freed slaves.

Okay. Tell the class what the purpose and intent of the 14th amendment was. Go ahead.

 

[paddymurphy]

This will be over the head of the two lefty monkeys here, but a good explanation for the scholars.

Constitution interpretation: Originalism v. Activism

We don't live 230 years ago, nor did the Founders expect us to.

Then why keep the constitution. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't believe in it.

It was great, 230 years ago and is now is in desperate need of an update. They expected us to do so, about 200 years ago. Every generation it was thought.

See, this is an excellent example of constitutional ignorance. There is a process to update the constitution. Can you tell the class how that's done?

It is the process you will have to follow to make gay marriage illegal again.

 

[Sally Vater]

This will be over the head of the two lefty monkeys here, but a good explanation for the scholars.

Constitution interpretation: Originalism v. Activism

We don't live 230 years ago, nor did the Founders expect us to.

Then why keep the constitution. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't believe in it.

It was great, 230 years ago and is now is in desperate need of an update. They expected us to do so, about 200 years ago. Every generation it was thought.

See, this is an excellent example of constitutional ignorance. There is a process to update the constitution. Can you tell the class how that's done?

Yes...an Amendment.

Tell that to paintmyhouse. He's ignorant of that fact. Another ignorant indoctrinated leftist.

 

[Sally Vater]

This will be over the head of the two lefty monkeys here, but a good explanation for the scholars.

Constitution interpretation: Originalism v. Activism

We don't live 230 years ago, nor did the Founders expect us to.

Then why keep the constitution. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't believe in it.

It was great, 230 years ago and is now is in desperate need of an update. They expected us to do so, about 200 years ago. Every generation it was thought.

See, this is an excellent example of constitutional ignorance. There is a process to update the constitution. Can you tell the class how that's done?

It is the process you will have to follow to make gay marriage illegal again.

I think the decision should be ignored.

 

[bodecea]

This will be over the head of the two lefty monkeys here, but a good explanation for the scholars.

Constitution interpretation: Originalism v. Activism

We don't live 230 years ago, nor did the Founders expect us to.

Then why keep the constitution. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't believe in it.

We totally believe in the Constitution, its Amendments and Supreme Court decisions. You've got...............blogs.

You're lying again. I've got four justices and one of them is the Chief Justice Roberts. You only have one more than me. Now get off your self-righteous high horse.

And in the Obergefell decision, our side had 5 Justices. Our 5 beats your 4...and you DO know that the Chief Justice gets only 1 vote, right?

 

[Sally Vater]

I've posted this before.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

I am guessing you did not read that before posting it. While it sets forth an argument on whether the 14th confers birthright citizenship, it does not say a word about whether the Amendment was supposed to only apply to freed slaves or to all citizens or persons.

Tell us what the purpose of the 14th amendment was.

 

[bodecea]

We don't live 230 years ago, nor did the Founders expect us to.

Then why keep the constitution. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't believe in it.

It was great, 230 years ago and is now is in desperate need of an update. They expected us to do so, about 200 years ago. Every generation it was thought.

See, this is an excellent example of constitutional ignorance. There is a process to update the constitution. Can you tell the class how that's done?

It is the process you will have to follow to make gay marriage illegal again.

I think the decision should be ignored.

Ok, don't pursue a SSM.

 

[Sally Vater]

This will be over the head of the two lefty monkeys here, but a good explanation for the scholars.

Constitution interpretation: Originalism v. Activism

We don't live 230 years ago, nor did the Founders expect us to.

Then why keep the constitution. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't believe in it.

We totally believe in the Constitution, its Amendments and Supreme Court decisions. You've got...............blogs.

You're lying again. I've got four justices and one of them is the Chief Justice Roberts. You only have one more than me. Now get off your self-righteous high horse.

And in the Obergefell decision, our side had 5 Justices. Our 5 beats your 4...and you DO know that the Chief Justice gets only 1 vote, right?

Well, duh. Like I said, get off your self-righteous high horse.

 

[bodecea]

We don't live 230 years ago, nor did the Founders expect us to.

Then why keep the constitution. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't believe in it.

It was great, 230 years ago and is now is in desperate need of an update. They expected us to do so, about 200 years ago. Every generation it was thought.

See, this is an excellent example of constitutional ignorance. There is a process to update the constitution. Can you tell the class how that's done?

Yes...an Amendment.

Tell that to paintmyhouse. He's ignorant of that fact. Another ignorant indoctrinated leftist.

Oh...he said there weren't Amendments?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

We don't live 230 years ago, nor did the Founders expect us to.

Then why keep the constitution. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't believe in it.

It was great, 230 years ago and is now is in desperate need of an update. They expected us to do so, about 200 years ago. Every generation it was thought.

See, this is an excellent example of constitutional ignorance. There is a process to update the constitution. Can you tell the class how that's done?

Yes...an Amendment.

Tell that to paintmyhouse. He's ignorant of that fact. Another ignorant indoctrinated leftist.

In can be updated, they put that in, but they also did not expect it to last long at all.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

We don't live 230 years ago, nor did the Founders expect us to.

Then why keep the constitution. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't believe in it.

It was great, 230 years ago and is now is in desperate need of an update. They expected us to do so, about 200 years ago. Every generation it was thought.

See, this is an excellent example of constitutional ignorance. There is a process to update the constitution. Can you tell the class how that's done?

It is the process you will have to follow to make gay marriage illegal again.

I think the decision should be ignored.

So, you therefore don't believe people should obey the law? Got it.

 

[bodecea]

We don't live 230 years ago, nor did the Founders expect us to.

Then why keep the constitution. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't believe in it.

We totally believe in the Constitution, its Amendments and Supreme Court decisions. You've got...............blogs.

You're lying again. I've got four justices and one of them is the Chief Justice Roberts. You only have one more than me. Now get off your self-righteous high horse.

And in the Obergefell decision, our side had 5 Justices. Our 5 beats your 4...and you DO know that the Chief Justice gets only 1 vote, right?

Well, duh. Like I said, get off your self-righteous high horse.

What exactly is self-righteous about pointing out the FACT that 5 Justices beat out 4 Justices? That's why it's called the Majority Opinion and they get to write the Court's decision. I'm not really getting where you think the losing side gets any kind of power from being the....................um............losing side.

 

[bodecea]

Then why keep the constitution. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't believe in it.

It was great, 230 years ago and is now is in desperate need of an update. They expected us to do so, about 200 years ago. Every generation it was thought.

See, this is an excellent example of constitutional ignorance. There is a process to update the constitution. Can you tell the class how that's done?

It is the process you will have to follow to make gay marriage illegal again.

I think the decision should be ignored.

So, you therefore don't believe people should obey the law? Got it.

No...I don't think that's what Sally is saying....she just wishes to ignore the ruling personally.....she seems to think that it affects her in some way. So I suggested that in order to ignore it.....really ignore it....she should not have a SSM. Quite simple to do, actually.

 

[Sally Vater]

Then why keep the constitution. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't believe in it.

We totally believe in the Constitution, its Amendments and Supreme Court decisions. You've got...............blogs.

You're lying again. I've got four justices and one of them is the Chief Justice Roberts. You only have one more than me. Now get off your self-righteous high horse.

And in the Obergefell decision, our side had 5 Justices. Our 5 beats your 4...and you DO know that the Chief Justice gets only 1 vote, right?

Well, duh. Like I said, get off your self-righteous high horse.

What exactly is self-righteous about pointing out the FACT that 5 Justices beat out 4 Justices? That's why it's called the Majority Opinion and they get to write the Court's decision. I'm not really getting where you think the losing side gets any kind of power from being the....................um............losing side.

One. You have ONE more vote. I wouldn't be feeling very secure with the decision.

 

[Sally Vater]

It was great, 230 years ago and is now is in desperate need of an update. They expected us to do so, about 200 years ago. Every generation it was thought.

See, this is an excellent example of constitutional ignorance. There is a process to update the constitution. Can you tell the class how that's done?

It is the process you will have to follow to make gay marriage illegal again.

I think the decision should be ignored.

So, you therefore don't believe people should obey the law? Got it.

No...I don't think that's what Sally is saying....she just wishes to ignore the ruling personally.....she seems to think that it affects her in some way. So I suggested that in order to ignore it.....really ignore it....she should not have a SSM. Quite simple to do, actually.

Of course the decision affects everyone. The court has just changed the definition of marriage which has been a male and female since the dawn of civilization. Um, that's kind of a big deal and it's corrupt.

 

[bodecea]

We totally believe in the Constitution, its Amendments and Supreme Court decisions. You've got...............blogs.

You're lying again. I've got four justices and one of them is the Chief Justice Roberts. You only have one more than me. Now get off your self-righteous high horse.

And in the Obergefell decision, our side had 5 Justices. Our 5 beats your 4...and you DO know that the Chief Justice gets only 1 vote, right?

Well, duh. Like I said, get off your self-righteous high horse.

What exactly is self-righteous about pointing out the FACT that 5 Justices beat out 4 Justices? That's why it's called the Majority Opinion and they get to write the Court's decision. I'm not really getting where you think the losing side gets any kind of power from being the....................um............losing side.

One. You have ONE more vote. I wouldn't be feeling very secure with the decision.

And....that made all the difference, didn't it. One....you have ONE less vote.

Ok, you said something interesting. Tell us how different it is to have a 5-4 decision than it is to have a 6-3 decision or a 7-2 decision? How does that effect the security of the decision? What does the Constitution say about that?

 

[bodecea]

See, this is an excellent example of constitutional ignorance. There is a process to update the constitution. Can you tell the class how that's done?

It is the process you will have to follow to make gay marriage illegal again.

I think the decision should be ignored.

So, you therefore don't believe people should obey the law? Got it.

No...I don't think that's what Sally is saying....she just wishes to ignore the ruling personally.....she seems to think that it affects her in some way. So I suggested that in order to ignore it.....really ignore it....she should not have a SSM. Quite simple to do, actually.

Of course the decision affects everyone. The court has just changed the definition of marriage which has been a male and female since the dawn of civilization. Um, that's kind of a big deal and it's corrupt.

And I'm sorry to hear that that seems to adversely affect you personally in some way.

 

[Sally Vater]

It is the process you will have to follow to make gay marriage illegal again.

I think the decision should be ignored.

So, you therefore don't believe people should obey the law? Got it.

No...I don't think that's what Sally is saying....she just wishes to ignore the ruling personally.....she seems to think that it affects her in some way. So I suggested that in order to ignore it.....really ignore it....she should not have a SSM. Quite simple to do, actually.

Of course the decision affects everyone. The court has just changed the definition of marriage which has been a male and female since the dawn of civilization. Um, that's kind of a big deal and it's corrupt.

And I'm sorry to hear that that seems to adversely affect you personally in some way.

Words have a definition. If definition of words can be changed by five lawyers, what's to prevent it happening to you?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

We totally believe in the Constitution, its Amendments and Supreme Court decisions. You've got...............blogs.

You're lying again. I've got four justices and one of them is the Chief Justice Roberts. You only have one more than me. Now get off your self-righteous high horse.

And in the Obergefell decision, our side had 5 Justices. Our 5 beats your 4...and you DO know that the Chief Justice gets only 1 vote, right?

Well, duh. Like I said, get off your self-righteous high horse.

What exactly is self-righteous about pointing out the FACT that 5 Justices beat out 4 Justices? That's why it's called the Majority Opinion and they get to write the Court's decision. I'm not really getting where you think the losing side gets any kind of power from being the....................um............losing side.

One. You have ONE more vote. I wouldn't be feeling very secure with the decision.

The SC does not like to reverse itself and to do so and toss out all those now legal marriages, not a chance. That would be chaos. It's over and done with at the SC.

 

[Sally Vater]

You're lying again. I've got four justices and one of them is the Chief Justice Roberts. You only have one more than me. Now get off your self-righteous high horse.

And in the Obergefell decision, our side had 5 Justices. Our 5 beats your 4...and you DO know that the Chief Justice gets only 1 vote, right?

Well, duh. Like I said, get off your self-righteous high horse.

What exactly is self-righteous about pointing out the FACT that 5 Justices beat out 4 Justices? That's why it's called the Majority Opinion and they get to write the Court's decision. I'm not really getting where you think the losing side gets any kind of power from being the....................um............losing side.

One. You have ONE more vote. I wouldn't be feeling very secure with the decision.

And....that made all the difference, didn't it. One....you have ONE less vote.

Ok, you said something interesting. Tell us how different it is to have a 5-4 decision than it is to have a 6-3 decision or a 7-2 decision? How does that effect the security of the decision? What does the Constitution say about that?

Confidence.