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

[paddymurphy]

Again, nothing but an end run around the 1st amendment, and the fine is to stifle other's in their beliefs.

This is only the first shot your side is firing on making Thought Crime an actual crime.

You are a ******* idiot. The first amendment does not permit people to act contrary to the law on the basis of their religion. Only laws that specifically target religious expression are unconstitutional. How can one be so stupid as to not understand the difference between thought and action?

You know...you should really leave the personal insults to the other side. Just saying.

Agree. He makes some good points that are lost in the barrage of name calling.

You have not read that you lying prick.

Male public school teacher diddling little boys is homosexual - fact.

That you scumbags lie and claim that male on male sex is heterosexual doesn't alter reality.

Let's not pay attention to the 1 in 4 girls sexually abused, frequently by fathers, step-fathers, brothers, cousins, grand-fathers and other family members and friends. Even tho there are way more of them....and those who abuse them are not only hetero...they are FAMILY.

And you think these assholes deserve to be addressed respectfully?

It's nothing about them...it's about your presentation....you don't want to appear as they do. Rise above it.

I don't appear anything like them. They are hateful of people based on who they are. I hate these ***** for the same reason I hate anyone who exists to harm others.

 

[Uncensored2008]

They are not limited to "interpreting"law. Once again, your abject ignorance of the constitution rears its ugly head. They are empowered to determine if any law passed violates a provision of the Constitution. If that laws does, the Supreme Court is obligated to strike it.

Izzatsew?

Enlighten us sploogy, with the article or amendment from the Constitution that so empowers the court?

Tell me, you drooling retard, have you heard of "Marbury V. Madison?" Do you have any idea what the relevance of the ruling was?

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society's need for order and the individual's right to freedom. To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government.

The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.

While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.

Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people. And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.

Despite this background the Court's power of judicial review was not confirmed until 1803, when it was invoked by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. In this decision, the Chief Justice asserted that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That oath could not be fulfilled any other way. "It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is," he declared.

In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions. As Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own application "would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. . . . Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves."

All very nice, but still avoids the retardation of Paddy Murphy.

Judicial Review is a result of Marbury, not the Constitution. The court usurped the power. Jefferson argued the power to determine Constitutionality rested with the legislature, Marshall prevailed.

I'm not sure where you cut and pasted from, but "living constitution" is not something Marshall or Jefferson would ever utter. It is a phrase popular with those who seek to corrupt the rule of law in favor of the rule of men.

A constitution that changes per the whim of rulers is without meaning. The ONLY legal means of altering the Constitution is through the amendment process. The perversion of the constitution through selective or creative interpretation, such as the absurd Roe V. Wade, violates the principle of codified law. If you want to change the Constitution, pass an amendment.

 

[Uncensored2008]

But because pedophilia is a specific sexual disorder, these people cannot be classified in such a way. They do not have normal sexual feelings for men or women. They desire children and most aren't very particular. If the opportunity exists . . . .

Most pedophiles have a gender preference.

 

[bodecea]

You are a ******* idiot. The first amendment does not permit people to act contrary to the law on the basis of their religion. Only laws that specifically target religious expression are unconstitutional. How can one be so stupid as to not understand the difference between thought and action?

You know...you should really leave the personal insults to the other side. Just saying.

Agree. He makes some good points that are lost in the barrage of name calling.

You have not read that you lying prick.

Male public school teacher diddling little boys is homosexual - fact.

That you scumbags lie and claim that male on male sex is heterosexual doesn't alter reality.

Let's not pay attention to the 1 in 4 girls sexually abused, frequently by fathers, step-fathers, brothers, cousins, grand-fathers and other family members and friends. Even tho there are way more of them....and those who abuse them are not only hetero...they are FAMILY.

And you think these assholes deserve to be addressed respectfully?

It's nothing about them...it's about your presentation....you don't want to appear as they do. Rise above it.

I don't appear anything like them. They are hateful of people based on who they are. I hate these ***** for the same reason I hate anyone who exists to harm others.

Believe me...there is nothing more satisfactory than keeping your head and maintaining civility while they melt down.

 

[bodecea]

But because pedophilia is a specific sexual disorder, these people cannot be classified in such a way. They do not have normal sexual feelings for men or women. They desire children and most aren't very particular. If the opportunity exists . . . .

Most pedophiles have a gender preference.

Where do you get that information?

 

[Uncensored2008]

If you have read Marbury and understood it then you have answered your question. Marbury recognized the right of the Court to review laws to determine if they comport with the constitution. The phrase your tiny brain is looking for is "judicial review".

ROFL

You really are an incompetent little troll.

Marbury ESTABLISHED the power of the court to adjudicate Constitutionality. There is nothing in the Constitution granting the court such power. Marshall usurped the power.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, it does not. Never has. It prohibits laws that are targeted specifically at religious expression.

The first amendment is a known quantity, sploogy. Though you of the left seek to defeat and repeal it, what it says is both clear and well known.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

When you pass laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion, such as forcing bakers to violate their religion by providing service to homosexuals, you violate the 1st.

Again, you of the anti-liberty left are dedicated to the utter destruction of all civil rights and the establishment of an authoritarian system, I get it.

The law used to be that any law that substantially burdened religious exercise had to be justified by a compelling governmental interests. Sherbert v. Verner | LII / Legal Information Institute That notorious liberal, Scalia, wrote the opinion that changed that rule. In Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (494 U.S. 872) Scalia and the Court held "We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.
As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.

(Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said,

are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.

Id. at 166-167.

Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a

valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).

United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 263, n. 3 (1982)" This education is brought to you free of charge.
"

You should cite ThinkProgress or the other hate site you cut & pasted from.

 

[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.

 

[paddymurphy]

They are not limited to "interpreting"law. Once again, your abject ignorance of the constitution rears its ugly head. They are empowered to determine if any law passed violates a provision of the Constitution. If that laws does, the Supreme Court is obligated to strike it.

Izzatsew?

Enlighten us sploogy, with the article or amendment from the Constitution that so empowers the court?

Tell me, you drooling retard, have you heard of "Marbury V. Madison?" Do you have any idea what the relevance of the ruling was?

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society's need for order and the individual's right to freedom. To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government.

The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.

While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.

Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people. And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.

Despite this background the Court's power of judicial review was not confirmed until 1803, when it was invoked by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. In this decision, the Chief Justice asserted that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That oath could not be fulfilled any other way. "It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is," he declared.

In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions. As Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own application "would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. . . . Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves."

All very nice, but still avoids the retardation of Paddy Murphy.

Judicial Review is a result of Marbury, not the Constitution. The court usurped the power. Jefferson argued the power to determine Constitutionality rested with the legislature, Marshall prevailed.

I'm not sure where you cut and pasted from, but "living constitution" is not something Marshall or Jefferson would ever utter. It is a phrase popular with those who seek to corrupt the rule of law in favor of the rule of men.

A constitution that changes per the whim of rulers is without meaning. The ONLY legal means of altering the Constitution is through the amendment process. The perversion of the constitution through selective or creative interpretation, such as the absurd Roe V. Wade, violates the principle of codified law. If you want to change the Constitution, pass an amendment.

Right. This brainless prick is a constitutional expert. All of the men and women who have served on the Supreme Court since 1804 are not as smart as this clown. They all got it wrong for 211 years. His "understanding" of the views of Jefferson or Marshall are at the level of a third grader. Judicial review is based on the very clear language in the Constitution which stated that the "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court" and that "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;-...". Accordingly, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over every case arising under the Constitution. That jurisdiction means that they can decide cases arising under the constitution and decide the constitutional issue. Had the founders not wanted the Supreme Court to have final say in constitutional matters, they would not have extended that judicial power to constitutional issues. The three branches are co-equal. Each branch must agree that a law is constitutional before it becomes law. Congress can refuse to pass a law they think is not constitutional; a President can veto one an the Supreme Court can invalidate it. If that happens, then only the people, through their power of Amendment, can change that ruling. The Supreme Court's holding striking down anti-gay marriage laws can be overturned only by amending the constitution.

 

[paddymurphy]

No, it does not. Never has. It prohibits laws that are targeted specifically at religious expression.

The first amendment is a known quantity, sploogy. Though you of the left seek to defeat and repeal it, what it says is both clear and well known.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

When you pass laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion, such as forcing bakers to violate their religion by providing service to homosexuals, you violate the 1st.

Again, you of the anti-liberty left are dedicated to the utter destruction of all civil rights and the establishment of an authoritarian system, I get it.

The law used to be that any law that substantially burdened religious exercise had to be justified by a compelling governmental interests. Sherbert v. Verner | LII / Legal Information Institute That notorious liberal, Scalia, wrote the opinion that changed that rule. In Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (494 U.S. 872) Scalia and the Court held "We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.
As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.

(Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said,

are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.

Id. at 166-167.

Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a

valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).

United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 263, n. 3 (1982)" This education is brought to you free of charge.
"

You should cite ThinkProgress or the other hate site you cut & pasted from.

That language, you moron, is from the Supreme Court opinion, Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (494 U.S. 872) Those numbers and letters that follow are the citations to the cases. These words are Scalia's:

"We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

'Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.' (Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said,

'are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.'Id. at 166-167.

Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a
valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).
United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 263, n. 3 (1982)"

Now, explain why Scalia and the other five conservative justices who joined him were wrong here.

 

[martybegan]

The Court is making law, not interpreting it. The proper decision would have been to allow the states to issue marriage licenses as they see fit, but force states to recognize all licenses issued by other States.

All your side has is appeal to authority.

What is the statute # of the law they made? Or the text of it?

exactly.

So...you don't have it. Because this new law doesn't really exist.

The court is overstepping its bounds by making law, just as in Roe, your attempt at minutiae is just that, an attempt.

If the court had made law, you'd be able to give us either a statute # or at least the text of the new law. As of yet, you have not.

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

 

[martybegan]

You are using their actions as an end run to punish Thought Crime.

They are not punishing thoughts. That is a lie you have repeated. They are punishing actions.

Again, nothing but an end run around the 1st amendment, and the fine is to stifle other's in their beliefs.

This is only the first shot your side is firing on making Thought Crime an actual crime.

You are a ******* idiot. The first amendment does not permit people to act contrary to the law on the basis of their religion. Only laws that specifically target religious expression are unconstitutional. How can one be so stupid as to not understand the difference between thought and action?

I'm just calling you out on your bigotry.

and the 1st amendment would prevent laws like this in the first place if it was properly applied, or allow an exception when there is no Compelling government interest to the contrary.

Sorry, but you can justify your fascism all you want, you just can sugar coat it.

How is the 1st Amendment not being properly applied?

it's being ignored.

 

[martybegan]

Our government is not allowed to punish people for thoughts. Of course you approve of that because you are a gutless fascist thug.

No one is punishing them for their thoughts. They are being punished for their actions.

An End run, nothing more.

No. A factual statement you cannot dispute. You can think whatever you want. You can "think" you would like to have sex with a ten year old boy. That is not a crime. You can think that you would not like to pay taxes. But, unless to actually fail to pay taxes, you are fine.

Keep trying to justify it if you feel better about it. These people were ruined for their beliefs.

They are ruined for their actions.

No, I am saying this equivalency you see between OSM and SSM is a modern construct, not something enshrined as a constitutional right.

Marriage is not a constitutional right. Liberty is. Equal protection is. Both require that marriage laws that forbid gay couples from marrying be sent the way of marriage laws that prohibited couples of different races from marrying. Why is it so hard for you folks to understand that the constitution does not spell out every possible activity that is protected? There is no right to contraception spelled out in the bible but do you think that laws that would prohibit a couple from using them would not violate fundamental principles of liberty? Why are you so opposed to the notion that the Constitution protects the liberty of Americans?

That only assumes that SSM and OSM are exactly the same, and they are not. when race was made a condition is was adding an imposition on a clearly established contract, i.e. OSM.

What I am opposed to is creating rights out of thin air that eliminate the people's right to legislate laws as they see fit. Also, a court that can create a right can just as easily remove one, such as the left's current effort to erase the 2nd amendment.

Race was not "added". And, for the millionth time, the right recognized in Loving is the same right recognized in Obergefell. And it is not the right to marry; it is the right to equal protection of the laws governing marriage and the right to liberty; the liberty to make an important decision about your life without government intrusion.

Race was added as a restriction, there were plenty of marriage contract laws that did not state race. None out there ever assumed two people of the same sex could marry each other.

Loving reference marriage as a right, how can you compare the current case if you deny that it is part of it as well?

Race was "added" after the Civil War. Before that, whites could not marry blacks in most states any more than they could marry their cattle because blacks were not considered as anything more than chattel.

There were plenty of states where blacks were free.

 

[martybegan]

exactly.

So...you don't have it. Because this new law doesn't really exist.

The court is overstepping its bounds by making law, just as in Roe, your attempt at minutiae is just that, an attempt.

If the court had made law, you'd be able to give us either a statute # or at least the text of the new law. As of yet, you have not.

Then how is SSM now " the law of the land"?

Legal marriage has been "the law of the land"...restrictions against SSM have been removed. Nothing new added, just restrictions removed which is TOTALLY within the purvey of the Courts.

The restrictions were only added to clarify what was already fact, that only a man and a woman could marry.

 

[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.

 

[martybegan]

Even if I would support and vote for legislation that would make them the same in the eyes of the State? My issue is with Judges making it happen by fiat, not with the democratic process modifying the contract via the will of the people.

You are confusing hatred for simple observation. Just saying they are not the same is not condemning one.

Gays were granted their fundamental right to marry the same way all other couples in the past have been. They won them the same way interracial couples did in Loving, the same way Divorced couples did in Turner v Safley and they same way incarcerated individuals did it in Zablocki.

Our judicial system IS part of our democratic process. Welcome to America.

Trying to equate those to SSM is a stretch, all of those involved opposite sex marriage, the definition of which has only been questioned in the past 30 years.

You got some progressive justices to drink your kool-aid, and took the easy way out. Bravo.

Why do I get an image of pre-teen poor sports crying about the other team cheating in a pick up baseball game whenever you snivel about legal SSM......... It's a puzzlement.

because you are a condescending asshat?

It is a total mystery to me why that image pops into my head. Weird.

yep, Condescending asshat is the winner.

 

[martybegan]

Even if I would support and vote for legislation that would make them the same in the eyes of the State? My issue is with Judges making it happen by fiat, not with the democratic process modifying the contract via the will of the people.

You are confusing hatred for simple observation. Just saying they are not the same is not condemning one.

The role and authority of the Supreme Court is enshrined in our Constitution. If the people of the U.S. believed that branch of government was acting in a manner not in accordance with the Constitution, the people could rectify that. We never have because most believe the Supreme Court functions within the guidelines of the Constitution. The Supreme Court acted within its jurisdiction on Obergefell.

The Court is making law, not interpreting it. The proper decision would have been to allow the states to issue marriage licenses as they see fit, but force states to recognize all licenses issued by other States.

All your side has is appeal to authority.

They are not limited to "interpreting"law. Once again, your abject ignorance of the constitution rears its ugly head. They are empowered to determine if any law passed violates a provision of the Constitution. If that laws does, the Supreme Court is obligated to strike it.

Yes, they are. Only the legislature can create law. Your side seems to think the other branches can do it if it fits your agenda.

Marriage was always seen as between a man and a woman, the laws were only changed when people tried to register other types, with no historical precedence.

I feel like a physician trying to explain how the kidney functions to a ten year old. The Supreme Court has the power, authority and obligation to address challenges to laws based on the constitution. If the law challenged violates the constitution, that provision of if that caused the violation is stricken. From the date of the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell, every marriage law in every state no longer contained "enforceable" provisions limiting marriage to same sex couples. Those provisions no longer have legal authority, but the rest do. And the rest had to be construed to apply to same sex couples, even if the language in the statute continued to refer to "husbands and wives".

The SC was still wrong and still overstepped its bounds.

 

[martybegan]

No, I am saying this equivalency you see between OSM and SSM is a modern construct, not something enshrined as a constitutional right.

Marriage is not a constitutional right. Liberty is. Equal protection is. Both require that marriage laws that forbid gay couples from marrying be sent the way of marriage laws that prohibited couples of different races from marrying. Why is it so hard for you folks to understand that the constitution does not spell out every possible activity that is protected? There is no right to contraception spelled out in the bible but do you think that laws that would prohibit a couple from using them would not violate fundamental principles of liberty? Why are you so opposed to the notion that the Constitution protects the liberty of Americans?

That only assumes that SSM and OSM are exactly the same, and they are not. when race was made a condition is was adding an imposition on a clearly established contract, i.e. OSM.

What I am opposed to is creating rights out of thin air that eliminate the people's right to legislate laws as they see fit. Also, a court that can create a right can just as easily remove one, such as the left's current effort to erase the 2nd amendment.

Race was not "added". And, for the millionth time, the right recognized in Loving is the same right recognized in Obergefell. And it is not the right to marry; it is the right to equal protection of the laws governing marriage and the right to liberty; the liberty to make an important decision about your life without government intrusion.

Race was added as a restriction, there were plenty of marriage contract laws that did not state race. None out there ever assumed two people of the same sex could marry each other.

Loving reference marriage as a right, how can you compare the current case if you deny that it is part of it as well?

Love references marriage as a right in the context of the due process clause's reference to "liberty". It also found the law invalid on equal protection grounds. The actual "rights" being infringed are the rights to liberty and equal protection.

Except SSM and OSM are not equal until a legislature says they are.

 

[martybegan]

30 years ago it wasn't even a concept. It only becomes "marriage if a State legislature agrees to change the terms of its marriage contract to include it.

So what? Are you advocating everything be the same as it was 30 years ago?

No, I am saying this equivalency you see between OSM and SSM is a modern construct, not something enshrined as a constitutional right.

Marriage is not a constitutional right. Liberty is. Equal protection is. Both require that marriage laws that forbid gay couples from marrying be sent the way of marriage laws that prohibited couples of different races from marrying. Why is it so hard for you folks to understand that the constitution does not spell out every possible activity that is protected? There is no right to contraception spelled out in the bible but do you think that laws that would prohibit a couple from using them would not violate fundamental principles of liberty? Why are you so opposed to the notion that the Constitution protects the liberty of Americans?

That only assumes that SSM and OSM are exactly the same, and they are not. when race was made a condition is was adding an imposition on a clearly established contract, i.e. OSM.

What I am opposed to is creating rights out of thin air that eliminate the people's right to legislate laws as they see fit. Also, a court that can create a right can just as easily remove one, such as the left's current effort to erase the 2nd amendment.

If they are different....what words were added to marriage laws to indicate that difference?

Words only had to be added to clarify what was assumed, that a marriage license is only issued to one man and one women.

 

[martybegan]

You are using their actions as an end run to punish Thought Crime.

They are not punishing thoughts. That is a lie you have repeated. They are punishing actions.

Again, nothing but an end run around the 1st amendment, and the fine is to stifle other's in their beliefs.

This is only the first shot your side is firing on making Thought Crime an actual crime.

You are a ******* idiot. The first amendment does not permit people to act contrary to the law on the basis of their religion. Only laws that specifically target religious expression are unconstitutional. How can one be so stupid as to not understand the difference between thought and action?

I'm just calling you out on your bigotry.

and the 1st amendment would prevent laws like this in the first place if it was properly applied, or allow an exception when there is no Compelling government interest to the contrary.

Sorry, but you can justify your fascism all you want, you just can sugar coat it.

So, in your opinion, Justice Scalia, when he wrote for the majority in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (494 U.S. 872) that the First Amendment does not excuse compliance with a law that is generally applicable to everyone, was wrong?

Employment and ruining someone's life are two different things.