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

[ThisIsMe]

Florida

Elaborate. What is Florida doing to gay people? Are you referring to their bill to keep sexually explicit material from 6th graders?

Show me some actual discrimination...

 

[ThisIsMe]

You re so pathetically confused! You don't seem to understand tah there are two sperate issues here. Let me try to help

1. The current issue is that there are 27 states that do not provide certain protections against various forms of discrimination OTHER THAN the right to marry. Regardless of why, and regardless of what the feds have or have not done, that remains a fact-plain and simple. The botton line is that AT THIS TIME they allow discrimination! \

2. You are referring to a time when "they can start to discriminate" and from yiur previous posts that seems to mean the time when Obergefell might be overturned, That has NOTHING to do with discrimination in those other areas. What are you doing? Trying to convince me that you are stupid? You're doing a good job of that

The botton line is that AT THIS TIME they allow discrimination! \

No. They don't. Just because their civil rights acts haven't been updated doesn't mean that they are going to allow discrimination. Again, you seem to think that these states are just chomping at the bit to start discriminating against gays. They're not. Hell, in some of these states, they already have local laws that have included sexual orientation as part of their discrimination laws.

Do you think that if obergefell were to be overturned that discrimination would start taking place? That companies would say "sorry, we can't hire you because you're gay", and the courts would allow that? What discrimination is it exactly that you think is going to happen? My gosh man, we're not in 1960, this is 2022, gay life is the norm, states are not going to allow discrimination.

Even without those 27 states having discrimination laws, you still have "equal protection under the law" which means a state cannot treat one person in an unfair manner compared to another person in similar conditions and circumstances.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You're just making that shit up. Another point scored for convincing me that you are stupid

Really? You really think they are going to say "sex" is inclusive for sexual orientation for employment, but in any other circumstance say "nope, it doesn't mean that HERE"?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Holy fucking shit! After all of this you are asking me that again?? There is something seriously wrong with you!! Did you forgt those 27 states already? You are really racking up those stupid points.

Or, You are a discrimination denier. You know that there is discrimination but will not admit it. It is a ploy to try to convince people that there is no problem and that there is nothing to worry about, when you know damned well that is a lie. That is actually worse that those who are overt and unabashed bigots who promote discrimination. At least they are honest.

I said list the states that are discriminating against gay people...you've pointed to 27 states that haven't updated their civil rights acts, but that doesn't mean they are discriminating against people. Show me the states that are actually, currently discriminating against them.

I've never denied discrimination exists, but what I am saying is that I don't believe any state is currently discriminating against gay people. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.

 

[rightwinger]

Do you think that if obergefell were to be overturned that discrimination would start taking place? That companies would say "sorry, we can't hire you because you're gay", and the courts would allow that? What discrimination is it exactly that you think is going to happen? My gosh man, we're not in 1960, this is 2022, gay life is the norm, states are not going to allow discrimination.

In a minute…

Bible Belt states would either ban gay marriage or substitute some form of Domestic Partnership

The TRUMPCourt would allow business to declare religious objections to gay employees. We don’t serve gays would become commonplace for religious reasons

Gays would be banned from adopting children in the Bible Belt

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Gays would be banned from adopting children in the Bible Belt

That would be a very good thing.

How does anyone think that it is a good idea to put children in the custody of depraved sexual perverts?

 

[tahuyaman]

Ted Cruz says Obergefell was 'wrong when it was decided' - Google Search

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

"Obergefell, like Roe v. Wade, ignored two centuries of our nation's history," the Republican senator said.

www.newsweek.com

-------------------------------------
I just knew it would come up soon.

Cruz is right. That's not the job of the Supreme Court

 

[beautress]

In a minute…

Bible Belt states would either ban gay marriage or substitute some form of Domestic Partnership

The TRUMPCourt would allow business to declare religious objections to gay employees. We don’t serve gays would become commonplace for religious reasons

Gays would be banned from adopting children in the Bible Belt

The majority of some states' people read and obey their Bibles which are quite specific about family bonds that produce children. A lot of the people coming over the border practice their faith's prescriptions in such matters.

 

[rightwinger]

The majority of some states' people read and obey their Bibles which are quite specific about family bonds that produce children. A lot of the people coming over the border practice their faith's prescriptions in such matters.

You are free to maintain your Biblical views
You are not free to force them on others

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You are free to maintain your Biblical views
You are not free to force them on others

And yet you support the right of the lowest of sexual perverts to force their “views” on others, including young children.

 

[Redfish]

What "if" did I ignore? If they were "normal" ? I tried to school you on why and how that is completely Irrelevant for legal purposes. It is subjective crap.

Your position-that the ruling on same sex marrige was inproper- in neither logical or constitutional. I clearly demonstrated why.

You seem to think that know more about constitutional law than dozens of fedeal judges as well as a majority if the Supreme Court.

You still have not explaided the decrepancy that I pointed out above. You seem to have painted yourself into a corner. You have got to poick one position

poink?????????????????? are we playing ping pong?

my position is clear and based on biology. homosexuality is not a normal biological condition, it is an aberration that is not seen in any animals except humans. Yes, some animals display both sexes and some engage in homosexual like activities. But you never see two male mammals or two female mammals pairing off except in humans. You can rationalize it and try to call in normal, but its not. I feel empathy for those afflicted with homosexuality and believe strongly that they should not suffer discrimination of any kind. But you on the left must at some very basic level agree that homosexual behavior in humans is not biologically normal.

 

[Redfish]

You are free to maintain your Biblical views
You are not free to force them on others

But you on the left try to force your beliefs on everyone else every day. pot meet kettle, fricken hypocrites.

 

[Redfish]

In a minute…

Bible Belt states would either ban gay marriage or substitute some form of Domestic Partnership

The TRUMPCourt would allow business to declare religious objections to gay employees. We don’t serve gays would become commonplace for religious reasons

Gays would be banned from adopting children in the Bible Belt

your ignorance on display once again, nothing in your post has any semblance of truth.

 

[Redfish]

And yet you support the right of the lowest of sexual perverts to force their “views” on others, including young children.

their hypocrisy is well established.

 

[rightwinger]

your ignorance on display once again, nothing in your post has any semblance of truth.

?

 

[beautress]

You are free to maintain your Biblical views
You are not free to force them on others

All I said was: The majority of some states' people read and obey their Bibles which are quite specific about family bonds that produce children. A lot of the people coming over the border practice their faith's prescriptions in such matters.

My post was not forceful, rightwinger. If it was, it wasn't intended to be. I stick to the truth that I know, but you insinuated I was trying to force others to adopt my views. That wasn't my purpose. Some debates are unwinnable, because people who reject God as atheists or agnostics have rejected the teachings of wise men of old. There's nothing in it for me personally if I happen to think God has a purpose for his word to assist mankind in decision-making. When I read my scriptures every night or listen to them on my Bible cds, it shapes my thinking that God's requirements are the shapers of peace in the heart of believers. And I therefore pray for peace in a world that prefers war to listening to the hurt of other groups, with the exception of tyrannical power grabbers. Our country is best served when we conduct our acts from mutual caring. These days, we seem to be a little short on the requirements for peace with our one-upmanship. There's a little song called "Let there be peace on earth" and its last verse says "and let it begin with me." I tend to concur with that.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

it is an aberration that is not seen in any animals except humans. Yes, some animals display both sexes and some engage in homosexual like activities. But you never see two male mammals or two female mammals pairing off except in humans.

That is actually bullshit besides being totally irrelevent to the legal argument against gay marriage

Do Animals Exhibit Homosexuality? – Yale Scientific Magazine

Recent research has found that homosexual behavior in animals may be much more common than previously thought, having been documented in over 450 animal species worldwide.

www.yalescientific.org

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

poink?????????????????? are we playing ping pong?

my position is clear and based on biology. homosexuality is not a normal biological condition, it is an aberration that is not seen in any animals except humans. Yes, some animals display both sexes and some engage in homosexual like activities. But you never see two male mammals or two female mammals pairing off except in humans. You can rationalize it and try to call in normal, but its not. I feel empathy for those afflicted with homosexuality and believe strongly that they should not suffer discrimination of any kind. But you on the left must at some very basic level agree that homosexual behavior in humans is not biologically normal.

You are totally full of shit! You cant " believe strongly that they should not suffer discrimination of any kind." and then keep bleating about this biology crap as justifcation for claiming the the Obergefell ruling was wrong. The courts have viewed homosexuality as innate and immutable. The question of why people are gay is irrelevent. Period

Oh , I having forgotten that you also have been blathering about states rights and federal jurisdiction . You still can't seem to decide which worthless agument to want to pursue. The oing pong ball just flew past you

 

[ThisIsMe]

In a minute…

Bible Belt states would either ban gay marriage or substitute some form of Domestic Partnership

The TRUMPCourt would allow business to declare religious objections to gay employees. We don’t serve gays would become commonplace for religious reasons

Gays would be banned from adopting children in the Bible Belt

Bible Belt states would either ban gay marriage or substitute some form of Domestic Partnership

Again, as I've told PP, I highly doubt this, but it's a very opinionated idea, because we're not going to agree on this.

The TRUMPCourt would allow business to declare religious objections to gay employees. We don’t serve gays would become commonplace for religious reasons

If it were a sincerely held religious belief, maybe, but in general, that wouldn't work. take masterpiece bakery, for example. They won the case, but what was being requested was specific. The bakery said they would have sold any already prepared cake. Had they just outright refused service, period, would they have won that case?

 

[rightwinger]

Again, as I've told PP, I highly doubt this, but it's a very opinionated idea, because we're not going to agree on this.



If it were a sincerely held religious belief, maybe, but in general, that wouldn't work. take masterpiece bakery, for example. They won the case, but what was being requested was specific. The bakery said they would have sold any already prepared cake. Had they just outright refused service, period, would they have won that case?

The TRUMPCourt has moved past Abortion and is now centering on Religious Liberty.
A liberty to claim religious justification for discrimination

You talk of sincerely held religious belief. Something the TRUMPCourt is unwilling to define. Basically, it means anyone who hates gays.