Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So, the problem with making anything a law is that laws mean it can be regulated. What one hand giveth, one taketh away.

What in the name of holy franken fuck does that mean!!???

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

An example of why I wouldn't want to see gay marriage codified into law is because you'd see religious freedom destroyed over night. Every liberal gay person with an axe to grind would be going into bakeries and other businesses across the country,.or they would be applying to church leadership positions, knowing that for religious reasons, they couldn't grant these people their wishes. Many of them would be legitimate, many others would just be for spite, to see if they could get a lawsuit against then, in an attempt to ruin them.

I find it interesting how you segue from one argument to the next without bothering to address the points that I made or seeming to have learned anything. Previously you were dwelling on the role of the courts and what settled law is and how it is different than legislation. You were struggling find fault with the Obergfell decision but dropped that argument after I schooled you the role of the court

Now suddenly you’ve moved on from that argument a discussion the erosion of religious freedom. You say with certainty that if “gay marriage codified into law is because you'd see religious freedom destroyed over night. “ And go on to blather about how “gay liberals” would target businesses that don’t want to serve them. That is just plain stupid! First of all religious freedom does not entitle anyone to discriminate . Somes states have laws against discrimination that include sexual orientation and they will be enforced. Second of all, you need to explain what codifying gay marriage has to do with this and how it would be any different from what we have now.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If someone walks into a kosher deli and requests a ham and bacon sub, if the deli says they can't prepare that kind of food because of their laws, nobody is going to bat an eye at that. Same with a butcher ran by Muslims. Nobody is going to make an issue out of that because people understand. Hey, it's a religious thing...move along. But when it comes to Christian beliefs against gay marriage, we'll now we have to make a big deal over it, because they think it's "hate"! They won't even entertain the religious liberty aspect of it, or maybe they do but just don't care. Some of them are like "we have to GET those Christian people because they don't agree with us, and we're going to force OUR lives onto them!".

More stupidity. Once again, discrimination in the name of religion is still discrimination. Religious liberty mean being free to openly practice your religion without fear. It does not mean using it as an excuse to punish those who you disapprove of

And business that do not normally supply an product or a service to anyone are not obligated to do so for anyone.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Plantiffs have recourse in courts for 14th A violations. A law is not needed to do this. If a state tries to ban gay marriage the federal courts can strike them down in thr basis of the 14th.

So then you agree with the Obergefell ruling, or is there some twist to this? Afterall, you have made some pretty convoluted statements about what the court can and cannpt do

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

By the way, are there actually any states left that have outright bans on gay marriage? I thought they all pretty much were recognizing them anyway.

No, all states must allow gay marriage, mostly because they were dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century by the federal courts culminating with Obergefell. But give the current makeup of the court, that ruling is vulnerable so that is why legislation is needed, or better yet a constitutional amendment protecting marriage equality

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

If you make a law on it, then it means everyone, regsrdless of their own civil rights, has to abide by it, you open up the possibility for people being sued for breaking the law, and it will likely lead to these people being charged with hate crimes.

Holy shit! What???!! We should not have laws against discrimination? Why? because someone might actually be held accountable for....discrimination.??Have you lost your fucking mind? No one has a civil right to violate someone elses civil rights FOR ANY REASON

And what the fuck is that about hate crimes. This has nothing to do with hate crimes....the more you post, the less impressed I am with your knowledge and level of functioning

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Now,.i know you're going to say "well, businesses and churches shouldn't discriminate". I don't see thus as discrimination. Firstly, you have to get rid of this notion that Christians do these things out of hate. In some cases, sure, that happens, but in others, it's really about their beliefs. Many of these Christians don't hate gay people, they just don't agree with their lifestyle.

No that is not what I am going to say. Business and churches are entirely different. Businees are places of public accodation and must abide by laws against discrimination. While churches are also places of public accomodation, they have a religious exemption and -unfortuatly-can discriminate.

You are right in saying that fr the most part they do not hate gays. They act out of fear, ignorance and superstition. Hoever, the outcome is the same

 

[ThisIsMe]

Can I assume that includes all of laws and referendums passed by the states that said marriage in between a man and a woman?

Correct, saying marriage is only between a man and a woman would exclude gay marriage and violate their civil rights.

Maybe I am a "wonk" as you put it. I just don't think the gov has any business defining marriage or making laws about it. Again, gay marriage is protected by the 14th, why does the gov have to go in and make a law that is outside of their designated authority?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Holy shit! What???!! We should not have laws against discrimination? Why? because someone might actually be held accountable for....discrimination.??Have you lost your fucking mind? No one has a civil right to violate someone elses civil rights FOR ANY REASON

And what the fuck is that about hate crimes. This has nothing to do with hate crimes....the more you post, the less impressed I am with your knowledge and level of functioning

If you'd read the rest before posting, it would have cleared this up. I don't think religious freedom is discrimination, for reasons I listed below. Organizations of all types have requirements. Churches may not allow gay people to serve in leadership, businesses may have religious convictions about participating in gay events. It doesn't mean they Haye them, they just believe it would violate their own personal beliefs.

As to your question about hate crimes, it's a valid concern. If congress codified gay marriage into law, with recent hate crime legislation, someone exercising their religious views could be accused of hate crimes, and sued for them.

 

[ThisIsMe]

No that is not what I am going to say. Business and churches are entirely different. Businees are places of public accodation and must abide by laws against discrimination. While churches are also places of public accomodation, they have a religious exemption and -unfortuatly-can discriminate.

You are right in saying that fr the most part they do not hate gays. They act out of fear, ignorance and superstition. Hoever, the outcome is the same

I think a person, or a business has the right to their religious freedoms, and can't be forced to violate their own civil rights to honor PA laws. That would be a conflict of constitutional rights and the law. I think the cotus should win here.

I'm not going to deny some act out of fear, I just don't think it's as many as those on the left would think. I think the left inflates the issue I order to demonize Christians and Christianity. Ever notice that the left never goes after Muslims for their anti gay beliefs? It's always an attack on the Christian faith.

 

[ThisIsMe]

What in the name of holy franken fuck does that mean!!???

It means exactly what you see going on right now. Roe was made into "law", and the left was happy, then that same body took roe away.

The same can happen with gay marriage. If the left uses a cotus interpretation to make gay marriage a law, another congress could use a different interpretation to repeal that law.

At least leaving it in the hands of the 14th Amnd. take it out of the hands of politicians. The 14th is rock solid, can't change it, and that means gay marriage is protected by it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The term 'gay' isn't correct; the terms homosexual fetishists or faggots is the correct term. They wouldn't use euphemisms if they truly thought their sicko neurosis was a good thing.

You seem rather threatened by the existence of those who do not share your sexual orientation. Why do you suppose that is? Doubts about yourself perhaps?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I think a person, or a business has the right to their religious freedoms, and can't be forced to violate their own civil rights to honor PA laws. That would be a conflict of constitutional rights and the law. I think the cotus should win here.

For christ fucking sake... no one is violating their civil rights or their religous freedom. If you have a business that is open to the public, everyone who walks through the doors sholuld be treated the same. If you can't do yhat, find another line of work. No one has the right to discrimiante for any reason .Get fucking real!

 

[ThisIsMe]

I find it interesting how you segue from one argument to the next without bothering to address the points that I made or seeming to have learned anything. Previously you were dwelling on the role of the courts and what settled law is and how it is different than legislation. You were struggling find fault with the Obergfell decision but dropped that argument after I schooled you the role of the court

Now suddenly you’ve moved on from that argument a discussion the erosion of religious freedom. You say with certainty that if “gay marriage codified into law is because you'd see religious freedom destroyed over night. “ And go on to blather about how “gay liberals” would target businesses that don’t want to serve them. That is just plain stupid! First of all religious freedom does not entitle anyone to discriminate . Somes states have laws against discrimination that include sexual orientation and they will be enforced. Second of all, you need to explain what codifying gay marriage has to do with this and how it would be any different from what we have now.

I find it interesting how you segue from one argument to the next without bothering to address the points that I made or seeming to have learned anything.

I was giving you and example of what I feel would happen if gay marriage was codified into law. I'm not segue-ing anywhere.

You were struggling find fault with the Obergfell decision but dropped that argument after I schooled you the role of the court

I understand your argument about obergefell, and strictly on the basis of the 14th, I find no fault with it. I just get hesitant when courts make rulings like this, because the left will call it "law", as they did with roe, when it's not actually law, it's just an enforcement of civil rights. Maybe I'm just splitting hairs here, for some reason, in mind, there is a difference.

And go on to blather about how “gay liberals” would target businesses that don’t want to serve them. That is just plain stupid!

With the animosity the left has with Christians, combined with the constant push from the left that Christians hate gay people, you honestly don't think if gay marriage was law that you wouldn't have angry gay people trying to ruin businesses by dragging them through court? I'm pretty sure this would happen.

First of all religious freedom does not entitle anyone to discriminate .

No doubt, but religious freedom is protected by the constitution. Again, just because someone denies services to a gay couple because of sincere religious beliefs, then who is in the wrong? The Christians for exercising their beliefs, or the gay people for trying to get that business to violate those beliefs?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I'm not going to deny some act out of fear, I just don't think it's as many as those on the left would think. I think the left inflates the issue I order to demonize Christians and Christianity. Ever notice that the left never goes after Muslims for their anti gay beliefs? It's always an attack on the Christian faith.

I am not aware of any cases where Muslim Americans have refused services to gays, or where they have activly worked to roll back gay rights as many Christians and Christian organizations are doing. Islam may condemn homosexualitybut Muslim Americans-unlike many Christians understand that this is a secular society and that religious beliefs takes a back set to the rule of law. They appreciate the religious freedom that they have here, that doesn't exist in many of the places that they came from and respect the Constitution

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I was giving you and example of what I feel would happen if gay marriage was codified into law. I'm not segue-ing anywhere.

You are not making any sense! Why would that happen?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I understand your argument about obergefell, and strictly on the basis of the 14th, I find no fault with it. I just get hesitant when courts make rulings like this, because the left will call it "law", as they did with roe, when it's not actually law, it's just an enforcement of civil rights. Maybe I'm just splitting hairs here, for some reason, in mind, there is a difference.

I explained to you what "settled law" means as opposed to legislation. It is also referred to as case law. It is how things work. It is not just "the left calling it law" The fact that you don't learn to well is not my problem.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

With the animosity the left has with Christians, combined with the constant push from the left that Christians hate gay people, you honestly don't think if gay marriage was law that you wouldn't have angry gay people trying to ruin businesses by dragging them through court? I'm pretty sure this would happen.

More inane equine excrement. Many of us on the left are Christias as are many gay people. The narative that Christians hate gays-and that gays hate christians is the crap emanating from you people who constantly work to divide people.

Gay marriage is law. Get fucking used to it. Where are you getting this bizarre idea that gay people would somehow behave differently if marriage equality were legislated? There is something seriously wrong with your thought process.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No doubt, but religious freedom is protected by the constitution. Again, just because someone denies services to a gay couple because of sincere religious beliefs, then who is in the wrong? The Christians for exercising their beliefs, or the gay people for trying to get that business to violate those beliefs?

I made clear who is in the wrong. It is the Christian who has bastarized , perverted and weaponized the concept of religious freedom.

 

[ThisIsMe]

For christ fucking sake... no one is violating their civil rights or their religous freedom. If you have a business that is open to the public, everyone who walks through the doors sholuld be treated the same. If you can't do yhat, find another line of work. No one has the right to discrimiante for any reason .Get fucking real!

Actually, in the case of masterpiece bakery, they were treated the same, right up until the point where they asked the bakery to make a special cake for the wedding. The bakery said they would sell then any of their pre made cakes, but they felt like making a cake especially for the wedding would be akin to them participating, thats where the trouble started.

Rather than the gay couple honoring the religious views of the baker, they decided to take them to court, which I believe the bakery won that lawsuit.

The gay couple got upset, likely because they have been hearing for years, from leftist media, about how "Christians hate them" , instead of finding a bakery that could accommodate them, they took them to court to punish them for exercising their own rights. Again, who's in the wrong here? As I stated before, if it were any other business refusing a service that violated their religious beliefs, nobody would bat an eye, and most people would shrug it off and move on, but because this involved gay people, now it's different. Why? Because it's based on emotion? Just because it's a gay couple? For me to agree that it was discrimination, you'd have to prove there was hate displayed from the business toward the gay couple. Simply saying "I'm sorry, but serving you in that way would violate my beliefs" doesn't convey hate.

You would have me to believe that all business would have to serve every customer, without exception, and that they would have to give up their religious rights, or not own a business?