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

[bodecea]

Marriage
Um, there's the loser today.

The loser? You cite to two blogs, one by an undergrad at an online university while I cite to the actual Supreme Court opinions; the actual statements of Senator Bingham and law review articles and you think you won the argument?

Did you read the opinion of Chief Justice Roberts?

Yes – and again, Roberts is wrong, along with other conservative jurists and their 'literalist'/'constitutionalist'/'strict constructionist' nonsense.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, in accordance with the original intent and understanding of the Framing Generation.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

As an aside, it's telling and unsurprising that the thread has moved away from the issue of public accommodations laws – laws authorized by Commerce Clause jurisprudence – to the Obergefell ruling – a ruling consistent with 14th Amendment jurisprudence; you and other hateful rightists are angry about gay Americans being afforded their rights to due process and equal protection of the law more so than bakers in Oregon being compelled to pay a just and lawful fine.

Something telling is that the minority couldn't even agree on their minority opinion.

The left is corrupt. You and your pals here are corrupt. You have an agenda, same-sex marriage. The Constitution doesn't deal with marriage, so leftist activists twisted and tortured the 14th amendment.

You say we are corrupt because you are unhappy with the decision. No more than that.

 

[bodecea]

So he's right and the Majority of the Court is wrong?

Duh! I guess I have to say it again for you: The majority consists of two liberal males, two lezbos, and the town drunk. The USSC of the United States is corrupt with activists. How long are you going to ride this merry go round?

So? What is it about your name-calling that makes them any less capable as a Constitutional Expert?

They didn't use the Constitution. Chief Justice Roberts said that, not me.

Yes they did and mention as such in their majority decision...did you read it?http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

I agree with Chief Justice Roberts....and round and round it goes.

That's fine...you agree with the losing side. We get that.

 

[Sally Vater]

Sally, you still haven't explained Zablocki v Redhail or Turner v Safley. Both 14th amendment cases having NOTHING to do with race.

The 14th amendment dealt exclusively with ex slaves and their children having full citizenship rights. The use of the 14th amendment for anything else is corrupt judicial activism in my opinion.

 

[Sally Vater]

The loser? You cite to two blogs, one by an undergrad at an online university while I cite to the actual Supreme Court opinions; the actual statements of Senator Bingham and law review articles and you think you won the argument?

Did you read the opinion of Chief Justice Roberts?

Yes – and again, Roberts is wrong, along with other conservative jurists and their 'literalist'/'constitutionalist'/'strict constructionist' nonsense.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, in accordance with the original intent and understanding of the Framing Generation.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

As an aside, it's telling and unsurprising that the thread has moved away from the issue of public accommodations laws – laws authorized by Commerce Clause jurisprudence – to the Obergefell ruling – a ruling consistent with 14th Amendment jurisprudence; you and other hateful rightists are angry about gay Americans being afforded their rights to due process and equal protection of the law more so than bakers in Oregon being compelled to pay a just and lawful fine.

Something telling is that the minority couldn't even agree on their minority opinion.

The left is corrupt. You and your pals here are corrupt. You have an agenda, same-sex marriage. The Constitution doesn't deal with marriage, so leftist activists twisted and tortured the 14th amendment.

You say we are corrupt because you are unhappy with the decision. No more than that.

Nope. You're corrupt because you twisted and tortured the amendment to fit your agenda.

 

[Sally Vater]

Duh! I guess I have to say it again for you: The majority consists of two liberal males, two lezbos, and the town drunk. The USSC of the United States is corrupt with activists. How long are you going to ride this merry go round?

So? What is it about your name-calling that makes them any less capable as a Constitutional Expert?

They didn't use the Constitution. Chief Justice Roberts said that, not me.

Yes they did and mention as such in their majority decision...did you read it?http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

I agree with Chief Justice Roberts....and round and round it goes.

That's fine...you agree with the losing side. We get that.

You love that merry go round, huh. I agree with the Chief Justice Roberts, a brilliant constitutional scholar. You find 10 braying jackasses and you join in and say You're right because you have the majority. Doesn't matter if you have 50. If they're wrong, they're wrong. Your thinking process is exactly why we are being ruled by an elitist political class without the constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

So running to government to fight your battles for you as usual.

What a ******* *****.

They are my battles only in that all should be equal before the law and in PAs. Using the government to nail these guys was entirely appropriate. They broke the law the government established, the law that's lets everyone get on with their day without having to worry about do they serve my kind here...

equal before the law implies things that involve the government, which should be neutral. when you want to force people to do things, you have to have a compelling government interest, which in the case of a wedding cake, is not even close to one.

They weren't forced to do anything they didn't already do, for a living, which is bake cakes. Had they done their job you never would have heard of them and there's nothing unreasonable in that.

There is everything unreasonable with the government forcing people to do something they do not want to without a compelling government interest.

So....not a fan of people being treated fairly and equally in business dealings, eh? Don't see that as a compelling interest, eh?

When has anyone ever been treated equally and fairly in a business dealing?

 

[bodecea]

Did you read the opinion of Chief Justice Roberts?

Yes – and again, Roberts is wrong, along with other conservative jurists and their 'literalist'/'constitutionalist'/'strict constructionist' nonsense.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, in accordance with the original intent and understanding of the Framing Generation.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

As an aside, it's telling and unsurprising that the thread has moved away from the issue of public accommodations laws – laws authorized by Commerce Clause jurisprudence – to the Obergefell ruling – a ruling consistent with 14th Amendment jurisprudence; you and other hateful rightists are angry about gay Americans being afforded their rights to due process and equal protection of the law more so than bakers in Oregon being compelled to pay a just and lawful fine.

Something telling is that the minority couldn't even agree on their minority opinion.

The left is corrupt. You and your pals here are corrupt. You have an agenda, same-sex marriage. The Constitution doesn't deal with marriage, so leftist activists twisted and tortured the 14th amendment.

You say we are corrupt because you are unhappy with the decision. No more than that.

Nope. You're corrupt because you twisted and tortured the amendment to fit your agenda.

Nope....but I get that you don't like the decision and are trying to justify.

 

[Sally Vater]

If the next president is another leftist and appoints two more lefty activists, then the decision will probably be 7-2. Doesn't mean the ruling is constitutional. It just means you have an activist court. Duh!

 

[bodecea]

So? What is it about your name-calling that makes them any less capable as a Constitutional Expert?

They didn't use the Constitution. Chief Justice Roberts said that, not me.

Yes they did and mention as such in their majority decision...did you read it?http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

I agree with Chief Justice Roberts....and round and round it goes.

That's fine...you agree with the losing side. We get that.

You love that merry go round, huh. I agree with the Chief Justice Roberts, a brilliant constitutional scholar. You find 10 braying jackasses and you join in and say You're right because you have the majority. Doesn't matter if you have 50. If they're wrong, they're wrong. Your thinking process is exactly why we are being ruled by an elitist political class without the constitution.

Understand that you are upset about this.

 

[Sally Vater]

Yes – and again, Roberts is wrong, along with other conservative jurists and their 'literalist'/'constitutionalist'/'strict constructionist' nonsense.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, in accordance with the original intent and understanding of the Framing Generation.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'

As an aside, it's telling and unsurprising that the thread has moved away from the issue of public accommodations laws – laws authorized by Commerce Clause jurisprudence – to the Obergefell ruling – a ruling consistent with 14th Amendment jurisprudence; you and other hateful rightists are angry about gay Americans being afforded their rights to due process and equal protection of the law more so than bakers in Oregon being compelled to pay a just and lawful fine.

Something telling is that the minority couldn't even agree on their minority opinion.

The left is corrupt. You and your pals here are corrupt. You have an agenda, same-sex marriage. The Constitution doesn't deal with marriage, so leftist activists twisted and tortured the 14th amendment.

You say we are corrupt because you are unhappy with the decision. No more than that.

Nope. You're corrupt because you twisted and tortured the amendment to fit your agenda.

Nope....but I get that you don't like the decision and are trying to justify.

You're repeating yourself. It's obvious you're not getting it. That's why you're corrupt. You choose corruption in order to fulfill your agenda.

 

[Sally Vater]

They didn't use the Constitution. Chief Justice Roberts said that, not me.

Yes they did and mention as such in their majority decision...did you read it?http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

I agree with Chief Justice Roberts....and round and round it goes.

That's fine...you agree with the losing side. We get that.

You love that merry go round, huh. I agree with the Chief Justice Roberts, a brilliant constitutional scholar. You find 10 braying jackasses and you join in and say You're right because you have the majority. Doesn't matter if you have 50. If they're wrong, they're wrong. Your thinking process is exactly why we are being ruled by an elitist political class without the constitution.

Understand that you are upset about this.

Oh, my yes. I'm really upset. So now you're gonna troll, huh.

 

[bodecea]

If the next president is another leftist and appoints two more lefty activists, then the decision will probably be 7-2. Doesn't mean the ruling is constitutional. It just means you have an activist court. Duh!

I get that you don't like this decision.

 

[Sally Vater]

If the next president is another leftist and appoints two more lefty activists, then the decision will probably be 7-2. Doesn't mean the ruling is constitutional. It just means you have an activist court. Duh!

I get that you don't like this decision.

Squawk...squawk. You're repeating yourself like a parrot. You're done here. I suggest you find some naive college kids to bluff.

 

[bodecea]

Something telling is that the minority couldn't even agree on their minority opinion.

The left is corrupt. You and your pals here are corrupt. You have an agenda, same-sex marriage. The Constitution doesn't deal with marriage, so leftist activists twisted and tortured the 14th amendment.

You say we are corrupt because you are unhappy with the decision. No more than that.

Nope. You're corrupt because you twisted and tortured the amendment to fit your agenda.

Nope....but I get that you don't like the decision and are trying to justify.

You're repeating yourself. It's obvious you're not getting it. That's why you're corrupt. You choose corruption in order to fulfill your agenda.

I just point out that you don't like the decision.....but you act as if it's a big deal for you......ok. Fine. But the decision is Constitutional...another victory for equal rights in America.

 

[Sally Vater]

The left is corrupt. You and your pals here are corrupt. You have an agenda, same-sex marriage. The Constitution doesn't deal with marriage, so leftist activists twisted and tortured the 14th amendment.

You say we are corrupt because you are unhappy with the decision. No more than that.

Nope. You're corrupt because you twisted and tortured the amendment to fit your agenda.

Nope....but I get that you don't like the decision and are trying to justify.

You're repeating yourself. It's obvious you're not getting it. That's why you're corrupt. You choose corruption in order to fulfill your agenda.

I just point out that you don't like the decision.....but you act as if it's a big deal for you......ok. Fine. But the decision is Constitutional...another victory for equal rights in America.

Nope. Chief Justice Roberts said that the constitution had nothing to do with the decision. Squawk. Squawk. Keep saying it like a parrot. Squawk, squawk.

 

[bodecea]

Yes they did and mention as such in their majority decision...did you read it?http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

I agree with Chief Justice Roberts....and round and round it goes.

That's fine...you agree with the losing side. We get that.

You love that merry go round, huh. I agree with the Chief Justice Roberts, a brilliant constitutional scholar. You find 10 braying jackasses and you join in and say You're right because you have the majority. Doesn't matter if you have 50. If they're wrong, they're wrong. Your thinking process is exactly why we are being ruled by an elitist political class without the constitution.

Understand that you are upset about this.

Oh, my yes. I'm really upset. So now you're gonna troll, huh.

Why would I troll when we are still on the topic of the correct ruling by the Supreme Court?

 

[Sally Vater]

I agree with Chief Justice Roberts....and round and round it goes.

That's fine...you agree with the losing side. We get that.

You love that merry go round, huh. I agree with the Chief Justice Roberts, a brilliant constitutional scholar. You find 10 braying jackasses and you join in and say You're right because you have the majority. Doesn't matter if you have 50. If they're wrong, they're wrong. Your thinking process is exactly why we are being ruled by an elitist political class without the constitution.

Understand that you are upset about this.

Oh, my yes. I'm really upset. So now you're gonna troll, huh.

Why would I troll when we are still on the topic of the correct ruling by the Supreme Court?

You're repeating yourself.

 

[bodecea]

That's fine...you agree with the losing side. We get that.

You love that merry go round, huh. I agree with the Chief Justice Roberts, a brilliant constitutional scholar. You find 10 braying jackasses and you join in and say You're right because you have the majority. Doesn't matter if you have 50. If they're wrong, they're wrong. Your thinking process is exactly why we are being ruled by an elitist political class without the constitution.

Understand that you are upset about this.

Oh, my yes. I'm really upset. So now you're gonna troll, huh.

Why would I troll when we are still on the topic of the correct ruling by the Supreme Court?

You're repeating yourself.

Not really....just pointing out that the Supreme Court made a correct ruling through a majority opinion. A happy day it was.

 

[Sally Vater]

You love that merry go round, huh. I agree with the Chief Justice Roberts, a brilliant constitutional scholar. You find 10 braying jackasses and you join in and say You're right because you have the majority. Doesn't matter if you have 50. If they're wrong, they're wrong. Your thinking process is exactly why we are being ruled by an elitist political class without the constitution.

Understand that you are upset about this.

Oh, my yes. I'm really upset. So now you're gonna troll, huh.

Why would I troll when we are still on the topic of the correct ruling by the Supreme Court?

You're repeating yourself.

Not really....just pointing out that the Supreme Court made a correct ruling through a majority opinion. A happy day it was.

Yes, I'm aware of your opinion. We disagree. You're obviously upset that there are citizens who disagree. Does it bother you that right this minute exemption laws are being passed by states? Only a fool would think this is over.

 

[bodecea]

Understand that you are upset about this.

Oh, my yes. I'm really upset. So now you're gonna troll, huh.

Why would I troll when we are still on the topic of the correct ruling by the Supreme Court?

You're repeating yourself.

Not really....just pointing out that the Supreme Court made a correct ruling through a majority opinion. A happy day it was.

Yes, I'm aware of your opinion. We disagree. You're obviously upset that there are citizens who disagree. Does it bother you that right this minute exemption laws are being passed by states? Only a fool would think this is over.

And my opinion matches up with the SCOTUS decision.