Will the left leaning supreme court come back to the center by voting

[Synthaholic]

Ok. I get your point, but it's wrong. Just because the majority can decide to do harm in a state against a minority group does not mean we should let that happen. But I get the idea that we should let the states decide. You'll have to change the 14th amendment to make that happen.

No, you don't. The 14th doesn't apply blanket equality. One first has to figure out what is equal, and what is not. Evidently age isn't equal, or we couldn't prevent 10 year olds marrying. Blood relations evidently aren't equal either, although ironically homosexual incestuous relationships remove the main issue with incest, i.e. genetically damaged progeny.

You are also allying yourself with people who only believe in equality in this ONE case, and will sell your ass under the bus when it comes to the 2nd amendment, or the next big fight, public accommodation, i.e. my favorite, the forcing of the cake baking.

It's an issue of whether the right to life includes marriage, which it does, and whether gays are consenting adults, which they are, and whether the states may by majority opinion draft laws taking the right to life away from gays simply because the people in the state are spiteful toward gay people living in their state.

Public accommodation laws... liberty is not the liberty to do others harm. The question for the baking incident is who is being harmed the baker in being asked to bake a cake or the baker's customer in being asked to move along because this baker doesn't bake cakes for gay people, black people, jewish people or any other type of person they are bigoted against.

If you can justify forcing someone to either bake a cake for something they do not want to or go out of business/face sanctions, you have ZERO right to call yourself ANY form of libertarian, be it small "l" or big "L".

That goes double for your apparent belief that a government mandated contract being denied someone somehow deprives them of their right to life.

Public accommodation laws are the law. It's pretty basic stuff. If you don't want to sell to everyone in the public, then you don't make your products available to the general public. It's a pretty simple concept. WRT the liberty issue this is a situation where one person wants to do harm to another it's pretty obvious. However, you being a person that hates gays sees harming that gay person by pushing them out of the public marketplace as a good thing. In fact you see that gay person demanding the right to buy in the public marketplace just like any other citizen is the person causing you harm. IOW you are upside down on this one to. And apparently for the same reason. Someone told you gays are bad, thus you think doing harm to gays is good.

Again, you are as much of a Libertarian as Farkey is a Republican.

Government force is government force. And you are cowardly as well because you let the government do your dirty work for you.

******* *****.

^^^ Knew this was coming. Happens every time you realize you are losing the argument.

 

[martybegan]

And I am a Strict Constructional Federalist.

Ok. I get your point, but it's wrong. Just because the majority can decide to do harm in a state against a minority group does not mean we should let that happen. But I get the idea that we should let the states decide. You'll have to change the 14th amendment to make that happen.

No, you don't. The 14th doesn't apply blanket equality. One first has to figure out what is equal, and what is not. Evidently age isn't equal, or we couldn't prevent 10 year olds marrying. Blood relations evidently aren't equal either, although ironically homosexual incestuous relationships remove the main issue with incest, i.e. genetically damaged progeny.

You are also allying yourself with people who only believe in equality in this ONE case, and will sell your ass under the bus when it comes to the 2nd amendment, or the next big fight, public accommodation, i.e. my favorite, the forcing of the cake baking.

How are Gay people equivalent to 10 year olds, in this matter?

They don't have to be equivalent, but once you recognize a State's ability to regulate marriage in one way, you open the door to other ways, and your whole argument over "due process" and equality go from absolute to a question of degree.

As Mr. Brown has pointed out, there is the harm factor with 10 year olds. Not so for teh gheys.

How so? So in India all arranged marriages result in harm?

 

[Synthaholic]

Will the Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage?

With the exception of three judges....Yes

If they do, then we might as well tear up the document and start over, because we would then be ruled by 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers instead of by ourselves.

We should just paint a sign on the SC Building, "All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others"

Besides your math being egregiously wrong (9-3=6, not 5), did you say that we should have ripped up the Constitution after the 5-4 Citizens United ruling?

5 of 9 is all that is required to get ANY decision, not just this one. try to keep up.

I asked you about Citizens United, and you dodged.

 

[martybegan]

No, you don't. The 14th doesn't apply blanket equality. One first has to figure out what is equal, and what is not. Evidently age isn't equal, or we couldn't prevent 10 year olds marrying. Blood relations evidently aren't equal either, although ironically homosexual incestuous relationships remove the main issue with incest, i.e. genetically damaged progeny.

You are also allying yourself with people who only believe in equality in this ONE case, and will sell your ass under the bus when it comes to the 2nd amendment, or the next big fight, public accommodation, i.e. my favorite, the forcing of the cake baking.

It's an issue of whether the right to life includes marriage, which it does, and whether gays are consenting adults, which they are, and whether the states may by majority opinion draft laws taking the right to life away from gays simply because the people in the state are spiteful toward gay people living in their state.

Public accommodation laws... liberty is not the liberty to do others harm. The question for the baking incident is who is being harmed the baker in being asked to bake a cake or the baker's customer in being asked to move along because this baker doesn't bake cakes for gay people, black people, jewish people or any other type of person they are bigoted against.

If you can justify forcing someone to either bake a cake for something they do not want to or go out of business/face sanctions, you have ZERO right to call yourself ANY form of libertarian, be it small "l" or big "L".

That goes double for your apparent belief that a government mandated contract being denied someone somehow deprives them of their right to life.

Public accommodation laws are the law. It's pretty basic stuff. If you don't want to sell to everyone in the public, then you don't make your products available to the general public. It's a pretty simple concept. WRT the liberty issue this is a situation where one person wants to do harm to another it's pretty obvious. However, you being a person that hates gays sees harming that gay person by pushing them out of the public marketplace as a good thing. In fact you see that gay person demanding the right to buy in the public marketplace just like any other citizen is the person causing you harm. IOW you are upside down on this one to. And apparently for the same reason. Someone told you gays are bad, thus you think doing harm to gays is good.

Again, you are as much of a Libertarian as Farkey is a Republican.

Government force is government force. And you are cowardly as well because you let the government do your dirty work for you.

******* *****.

^^^ Knew this was coming. Happens every time you realize you are losing the argument.

No losing anything, just calling a spade a spade.

 

[bodecea]

Ok. I get your point, but it's wrong. Just because the majority can decide to do harm in a state against a minority group does not mean we should let that happen. But I get the idea that we should let the states decide. You'll have to change the 14th amendment to make that happen.

No, you don't. The 14th doesn't apply blanket equality. One first has to figure out what is equal, and what is not. Evidently age isn't equal, or we couldn't prevent 10 year olds marrying. Blood relations evidently aren't equal either, although ironically homosexual incestuous relationships remove the main issue with incest, i.e. genetically damaged progeny.

You are also allying yourself with people who only believe in equality in this ONE case, and will sell your ass under the bus when it comes to the 2nd amendment, or the next big fight, public accommodation, i.e. my favorite, the forcing of the cake baking.

How are Gay people equivalent to 10 year olds, in this matter?

They don't have to be equivalent, but once you recognize a State's ability to regulate marriage in one way, you open the door to other ways, and your whole argument over "due process" and equality go from absolute to a question of degree.

As Mr. Brown has pointed out, there is the harm factor with 10 year olds. Not so for teh gheys.

How so? So in India all arranged marriages result in harm?

Have to jump to India all of a sudden there?

 

[RKMBrown]

Will the Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage?

With the exception of three judges....Yes

If they do, then we might as well tear up the document and start over, because we would then be ruled by 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers instead of by ourselves.

We should just paint a sign on the SC Building, "All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others"

Nonsense. You are just making shit up. Their job is to rule on the clear meaning of the constitutional amendments we are living under. Not the version you wish we were living under. If you want the SCOTUS to make different decisions, you should start with a drive to change the 14th due process clause. Eg. You appear to prefer a 14th amendment that allows the states to restrict the rights of it's citizens by majority vote.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT PROGRESSIVE ARE DOING!

You treat the 14th as this apparent destroyer of everything you don't like, when that is clearly not the case.

The due process clause as written sucks. But I'm not saying all of the words are wrong in it.

Let me be more clear.

The due process clause of the 14th currently says:
"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

What the 14th should have said:
"nor shall any state hold any person to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any state subject any person to the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall any state compel any person in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law as set forth by federal guidelines for the 5th amendment; nor any state take private property for public use, without just compensation."

 

[martybegan]

Will the Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage?

With the exception of three judges....Yes

If they do, then we might as well tear up the document and start over, because we would then be ruled by 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers instead of by ourselves.

We should just paint a sign on the SC Building, "All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others"

Besides your math being egregiously wrong (9-3=6, not 5), did you say that we should have ripped up the Constitution after the 5-4 Citizens United ruling?

5 of 9 is all that is required to get ANY decision, not just this one. try to keep up.

I asked you about Citizens United, and you dodged.

Citizen's United WAS unconstitutional.

Thanks for playing.

 

[martybegan]

No, you don't. The 14th doesn't apply blanket equality. One first has to figure out what is equal, and what is not. Evidently age isn't equal, or we couldn't prevent 10 year olds marrying. Blood relations evidently aren't equal either, although ironically homosexual incestuous relationships remove the main issue with incest, i.e. genetically damaged progeny.

You are also allying yourself with people who only believe in equality in this ONE case, and will sell your ass under the bus when it comes to the 2nd amendment, or the next big fight, public accommodation, i.e. my favorite, the forcing of the cake baking.

How are Gay people equivalent to 10 year olds, in this matter?

They don't have to be equivalent, but once you recognize a State's ability to regulate marriage in one way, you open the door to other ways, and your whole argument over "due process" and equality go from absolute to a question of degree.

As Mr. Brown has pointed out, there is the harm factor with 10 year olds. Not so for teh gheys.

How so? So in India all arranged marriages result in harm?

Have to jump to India all of a sudden there?

Just want to see synth have to say a brown culture is wrong.

 

[martybegan]

Will the Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage?

With the exception of three judges....Yes

If they do, then we might as well tear up the document and start over, because we would then be ruled by 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers instead of by ourselves.

We should just paint a sign on the SC Building, "All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others"

Nonsense. You are just making shit up. Their job is to rule on the clear meaning of the constitutional amendments we are living under. Not the version you wish we were living under. If you want the SCOTUS to make different decisions, you should start with a drive to change the 14th due process clause. Eg. You appear to prefer a 14th amendment that allows the states to restrict the rights of it's citizens by majority vote.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT PROGRESSIVE ARE DOING!

You treat the 14th as this apparent destroyer of everything you don't like, when that is clearly not the case.

The due process clause as written sucks. But I'm not saying all of the words are wrong in it.

Let me be more clear.

The due process clause of the 14th currently says:
"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

What the 14th should have said:
"nor shall any state hold any person to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any state subject any person to the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall any state compel any person in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law as set forth by federal guidelines for the 5th amendment; nor any state take private property for public use, without just compensation."

How you get from that statement to forcing gay marriage on states is beyond me.

 

[Synthaholic]

How do you know when a republican is going to loose an argument? Classical Libertarians and democrats both are on the same side of the argument standing up for liberty of individuals over the tyranny of the majority.

And I am a Strict Constructional Federalist.

Ok. I get your point, but it's wrong. Just because the majority can decide to do harm in a state against a minority group does not mean we should let that happen. But I get the idea that we should let the states decide. You'll have to change the 14th amendment to make that happen.

No, you don't. The 14th doesn't apply blanket equality. One first has to figure out what is equal, and what is not. Evidently age isn't equal, or we couldn't prevent 10 year olds marrying. Blood relations evidently aren't equal either, although ironically homosexual incestuous relationships remove the main issue with incest, i.e. genetically damaged progeny.

You are also allying yourself with people who only believe in equality in this ONE case, and will sell your ass under the bus when it comes to the 2nd amendment, or the next big fight, public accommodation, i.e. my favorite, the forcing of the cake baking.

The 14th does apply blanket equality- all Americans are entitled to them.

If a state wants to deny rights to anyone- then the State must have a compelling argument to deny that right.

I think we all agree that an individual has the right to own a gun. The 14th Amendment among other things says that States cannot ignore that right and are subject to the Constitution also- but the State can deny individuals the right to own guns- such as convicted felons- when there is a compelling state interest in doing so.

What states have not been able to do is provide any compelling interest in:
a) preventing mixed race couples from marrying
b) preventing a parent who owes child support from marrying
c) preventing a prisoner from marrying
d) preventing same gender couples from marrying.

The Supreme Court has ruled on a-c- and will be ruling on d.

NYC says I cannot carry a firearm outside my home without the permission of the NYPD, and they can deny said permission for any reason they want. This has been held up by countless lower courts.

Is the NYC law constitutional or not?

Why hasn't it been decided by SCOTUS yet? The law has been on the books since, what, the 1960s?

Is it because the NRA has no resources to fight it?

 

[bodecea]

How are Gay people equivalent to 10 year olds, in this matter?

They don't have to be equivalent, but once you recognize a State's ability to regulate marriage in one way, you open the door to other ways, and your whole argument over "due process" and equality go from absolute to a question of degree.

As Mr. Brown has pointed out, there is the harm factor with 10 year olds. Not so for teh gheys.

How so? So in India all arranged marriages result in harm?

Have to jump to India all of a sudden there?

Just want to see synth have to say a brown culture is wrong.

What does this have to do with India and its culture?

 

[Syriusly]

Oh so its only when 'progressives' sue to protect what they claim are their constitutional rights that they are- how did you put it so colorfully? "they are all ******* Fascist Stalinist assholes"

But not when conservatives sue to protect what they claim are their constitutional rights.

I love the double standard- and am not surprised in the least by it.

The right I am talking about is explicitly written in the document. How is that a double standard?

Here is your exact quote once again:

Progressives use lawyers to supplant the people, and they are OK with it because deep down, they are all ******* Fascist Stalinist assholes.

I highlighted the double standard there. You are all about 'the people'- but only when you agree with what the 'people' want.

People file lawsuits- whether they are the NRA or a gay couple- because they believe that the 'people'(voters or legislatures) have passed an unconstitutional law.

You call progressives who file lawsuits 'fascists stalinist assholes'- but give a pass to Conservatives who file lawsuits to overturn laws passed by the 'people'

And yes- that is the double standard.

No it isn't, because the Lawsuits I agree with are supported by explicit wording in the constitution, and the ones you support are basically "because I want to" based lawsuits.
.

Here is your exact quote once again:

Progressives use lawyers to supplant the people, and they are OK with it because deep down, they are all ******* Fascist Stalinist assholes.

I highlighted the double standard there. You are all about 'the people'- but only when you agree with what the 'people' want.

People file lawsuits- whether they are the NRA or a gay couple- because they believe that the 'people'(voters or legislatures) have passed an unconstitutional law.

You call progressives who file lawsuits 'fascists stalinist assholes'- but give a pass to Conservatives who file lawsuits to overturn laws passed by the 'people'

And yes- that is the double standard.

Again, no double standard because the ones I support ARE EXPLICIT, not made up "because I say so" bullshit.

If you can't get the difference, its because you don't want to.

Right- because people who file lawsuits you agree with...thats okay- the others?


Progressives use lawyers to supplant the people, and they are OK with it because deep down, they are all ******* Fascist Stalinist assholes.

I highlighted the double standard there. You are all about 'the people'- but only when you agree with what the 'people' want.

People file lawsuits- whether they are the NRA or a gay couple- because they believe that the 'people'(voters or legislatures) have passed an unconstitutional law.

You call progressives who file lawsuits 'fascists stalinist assholes'- but give a pass to Conservatives who file lawsuits to overturn laws passed by the 'people'

And yes- that is the double standard.

 

[Syriusly]

How are Gay people equivalent to 10 year olds, in this matter?

They don't have to be equivalent, but once you recognize a State's ability to regulate marriage in one way, you open the door to other ways, and your whole argument over "due process" and equality go from absolute to a question of degree.

As Mr. Brown has pointed out, there is the harm factor with 10 year olds. Not so for teh gheys.

How so? So in India all arranged marriages result in harm?

Have to jump to India all of a sudden there?

Just want to see synth have to say a brown culture is wrong.

What is a 'brown culture'?

 

[Syriusly]

Will the Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage?

With the exception of three judges....Yes

If they do, then we might as well tear up the document and start over, because we would then be ruled by 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers instead of by ourselves.

We should just paint a sign on the SC Building, "All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others"

Besides your math being egregiously wrong (9-3=6, not 5), did you say that we should have ripped up the Constitution after the 5-4 Citizens United ruling?

5 of 9 is all that is required to get ANY decision, not just this one. try to keep up.

I asked you about Citizens United, and you dodged.

Citizen's United WAS unconstitutional.

Thanks for playing.

The Supreme Court said it was- so while I think that the Supreme Court made a bad decision, absolutely Citizen's United is unconstitutional now- and the only way for us to change that would be a constitutional amendment.

Another example of how of your double standard when it comes to lawsuits, judges and the law.

 

[Synthaholic]

If you can justify forcing someone to either bake a cake for something they do not want to or go out of business/face sanctions

Let's change that to Black people:

If you can justify forcing someone to serve cake to someone they do not want to or go out of business/face sanctions...

Do you still agree?

A person walking up to a counter for a neutral product is different than asking them to provide a specific customized service for a ceremony they find morally wrong.

Do black people really want to force racists to attend thier weddings as vendors? Black people are actually smart enough to realize this is foolish. something gays have yet to figure out.

How is a cake not a "neutral product"?

(I've never seen that term in Civil Rights laws)

 

[Syriusly]

Someone who disagrees with the legal right of certain people to get married........probably shouldn't be in the wedding business.

People who are getting married shouldn't get off on ******* over people who disagree with them.

For all your protests to the contrary, you idiots WILL go after Churches next, its just your ******* nature, not being gay, but being progressive assholes.

What a truly idiotic statement.

 

[RKMBrown]

Ok. I get your point, but it's wrong. Just because the majority can decide to do harm in a state against a minority group does not mean we should let that happen. But I get the idea that we should let the states decide. You'll have to change the 14th amendment to make that happen.

No, you don't. The 14th doesn't apply blanket equality. One first has to figure out what is equal, and what is not. Evidently age isn't equal, or we couldn't prevent 10 year olds marrying. Blood relations evidently aren't equal either, although ironically homosexual incestuous relationships remove the main issue with incest, i.e. genetically damaged progeny.

You are also allying yourself with people who only believe in equality in this ONE case, and will sell your ass under the bus when it comes to the 2nd amendment, or the next big fight, public accommodation, i.e. my favorite, the forcing of the cake baking.

It's an issue of whether the right to life includes marriage, which it does, and whether gays are consenting adults, which they are, and whether the states may by majority opinion draft laws taking the right to life away from gays simply because the people in the state are spiteful toward gay people living in their state.

Public accommodation laws... liberty is not the liberty to do others harm. The question for the baking incident is who is being harmed the baker in being asked to bake a cake or the baker's customer in being asked to move along because this baker doesn't bake cakes for gay people, black people, jewish people or any other type of person they are bigoted against.

If you can justify forcing someone to either bake a cake for something they do not want to or go out of business/face sanctions, you have ZERO right to call yourself ANY form of libertarian, be it small "l" or big "L".

That goes double for your apparent belief that a government mandated contract being denied someone somehow deprives them of their right to life.

Public accommodation laws are the law. It's pretty basic stuff. If you don't want to sell to everyone in the public, then you don't make your products available to the general public. It's a pretty simple concept. WRT the liberty issue this is a situation where one person wants to do harm to another it's pretty obvious. However, you being a person that hates gays sees harming that gay person by pushing them out of the public marketplace as a good thing. In fact you see that gay person demanding the right to buy in the public marketplace just like any other citizen is the person causing you harm. IOW you are upside down on this one to. And apparently for the same reason. Someone told you gays are bad, thus you think doing harm to gays is good.

Again, you are as much of a Libertarian as Farkey is a Republican.

Government force is government force. And you are cowardly as well because you let the government do your dirty work for you.

******* *****.

What government force? Licensing is not force, it's a privilege. Much like a driver's license for driving on public roads. The public licensing requirement for a baker to keep a clean bakery is not force. It's a common sense law that protects the public. Same thing with public accommodation laws. Public accommodation laws are laws drawn up to protect the public. For example, wheel chair ramps.. disabled parking spaces, and yes black people being allowed to eat at public eateries. As for gays... that's on a state by state basis, if you don't like your state laws you might want to move to another state. How would you like it if heteros were rejected by every public vendor in your state? Would you like that?

As for the rest.. You calling me out? I assure you I'm not the type to back down.

 

[Synthaholic]

Someone who disagrees with the legal right of certain people to get married........probably shouldn't be in the wedding business.

People who are getting married shouldn't get off on ******* over people who disagree with them.

Wedding cakes are expensive to buy, cheap to make.

So how are they being "fucked over"? By making a nice profit for their efforts?

 

[Syriusly]

How do you know when a republican is going to loose an argument? Classical Libertarians and democrats both are on the same side of the argument standing up for liberty of individuals over the tyranny of the majority.

And I am a Strict Constructional Federalist.

Ok. I get your point, but it's wrong. Just because the majority can decide to do harm in a state against a minority group does not mean we should let that happen. But I get the idea that we should let the states decide. You'll have to change the 14th amendment to make that happen.

No, you don't. The 14th doesn't apply blanket equality. One first has to figure out what is equal, and what is not. Evidently age isn't equal, or we couldn't prevent 10 year olds marrying. Blood relations evidently aren't equal either, although ironically homosexual incestuous relationships remove the main issue with incest, i.e. genetically damaged progeny.

You are also allying yourself with people who only believe in equality in this ONE case, and will sell your ass under the bus when it comes to the 2nd amendment, or the next big fight, public accommodation, i.e. my favorite, the forcing of the cake baking.

The 14th does apply blanket equality- all Americans are entitled to them.

If a state wants to deny rights to anyone- then the State must have a compelling argument to deny that right.

I think we all agree that an individual has the right to own a gun. The 14th Amendment among other things says that States cannot ignore that right and are subject to the Constitution also- but the State can deny individuals the right to own guns- such as convicted felons- when there is a compelling state interest in doing so.

What states have not been able to do is provide any compelling interest in:
a) preventing mixed race couples from marrying
b) preventing a parent who owes child support from marrying
c) preventing a prisoner from marrying
d) preventing same gender couples from marrying.

The Supreme Court has ruled on a-c- and will be ruling on d.

NYC says I cannot carry a firearm outside my home without the permission of the NYPD, and they can deny said permission for any reason they want. This has been held up by countless lower courts.

Is the NYC law constitutional or not?

Read my post again.

 

[Synthaholic]

Laws. Not rights. Not entitlements.

The laws in those cases created entitlements. try to keep up.

The SCOTUS rules on laws, not rights and entitlements.

I've kept up just fine, thank you.

How were those entitlements created?

You really are not that bright.

We are talking about laws, and the constitutionality thereof.

The SCOTUS does not rule on entitlements or rights, they rule on laws being constitutional or not.

'Entitlements' is a Right-Wing buzzword.

Created by laws. Enjoy your lesson.

Laws are the only concern of SCOTUS.