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

[Ubiquitor]

The courts striking down laws that violate the equal protection clause is the proper route and how our system was designed to work. Again, it's not about me and you have no idea what I want. Let's try sticking to the issue.

Fine, do you want gay marriage to be legally equal to straight marriage?

Again, what I want is irrelevant. The issue is should the equal protection clause apply to homosexuals or not. I've seen no valid argument against it.

You want a act to be treated as a condition?

I haven't expressed what I want at all.

You have because homosexuality is a act not a condition.

I haven't. All of this is irrelevant to the issue being discussed. If you have a valid argument as to why a homosexual couple is not covered by the equal protection clause then present it. I'm not interested in the all the obfuscation.

 

[bodecea]

Fine, do you want gay marriage to be legally equal to straight marriage?

Again, what I want is irrelevant. The issue is should the equal protection clause apply to homosexuals or not. I've seen no valid argument against it.

You want a act to be treated as a condition?

I haven't expressed what I want at all.

You have because homosexuality is a act not a condition.

Homosexuality is neither an act or a condition. Homosexuality is attraction to the same gender- nothing more- nothing less.

And is legal.

 

[Syriusly]

Legally they are. So you don't have the RIGHT to keep us from the same legal rights you have.

Why do you have the RIGHT to force people to accept them as equal?
So your rights trump the rights of others because why?

People don't have to accept anything they don't want to. The law, however, is supposed to equally protect us all. Currently, it does not do that. Allowing a gay couple to get married and enjoy the legal benefits of being married has no impact on your rights.

Explain that to the Bakers and Photographers that are being prosecuted for not agreeing to work a gay wedding.

This is a completely different subject, but I'll go with it. When someone starts a business they have decided to service the public. Not just the portion of the public they have something in common with or the portion they like. For a baker to refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding is just hateful. The baker doesn't have to participate in the wedding at all. However, the photographer has to attend the wedding and actually take part in it so I agree with the photographer.

Would you side with the business owners in a small town that got together and decided they would not provide their product of service to anyone who was not Islamic? How would any non-Muslim get their groceries, car serviced, cable, telephone, heat if they were on propane, hot water, etc.? Woud you tell that person that they will just have to sell their home and find someplace else to live? You see discrimination is not something to be supported, but it appears you've may have chosen to support it anyways. Have you?

One can make a reasonable exception for life-needed services, and one can easily make an exception to anything related to interstate commerce. However, using the full weight of the government to punish someone for not providing an easily replaced service is quite frankly appalling.

And as for it being hateful, would YOU want to bake a cake for a Klan rally?

Interstate would only apply to federal laws- most PA laws- all PA having to do with banning discrimination against homosexuals- are state and local laws.

I wouldn't want to bake a cake for lots of people- but its against the law for me to refuse to bake a cake just because the customer is black or Jewish or Christian.

No protection for the Klan though.

 

[thanatos144]

Fine, do you want gay marriage to be legally equal to straight marriage?

Again, what I want is irrelevant. The issue is should the equal protection clause apply to homosexuals or not. I've seen no valid argument against it.

You want a act to be treated as a condition?

I haven't expressed what I want at all.

You have because homosexuality is a act not a condition.

A legal act, let me remind you.

So is swiming but i don't force other to recognize that I swim

 

[thanatos144]

Fine, do you want gay marriage to be legally equal to straight marriage?

Again, what I want is irrelevant. The issue is should the equal protection clause apply to homosexuals or not. I've seen no valid argument against it.

You want a act to be treated as a condition?

I haven't expressed what I want at all.

You have because homosexuality is a act not a condition.

Homosexuality is neither an act or a condition. Homosexuality is attraction to the same gender- nothing more- nothing less.

That's a act dummy

 

[bodecea]

Again, what I want is irrelevant. The issue is should the equal protection clause apply to homosexuals or not. I've seen no valid argument against it.

You want a act to be treated as a condition?

I haven't expressed what I want at all.

You have because homosexuality is a act not a condition.

A legal act, let me remind you.

So is swiming but i don't force other to recognize that I swim

You don't have to...we just notice that you are swimming and we don't cry about it.

 

[bodecea]

Again, what I want is irrelevant. The issue is should the equal protection clause apply to homosexuals or not. I've seen no valid argument against it.

You want a act to be treated as a condition?

I haven't expressed what I want at all.

You have because homosexuality is a act not a condition.

Homosexuality is neither an act or a condition. Homosexuality is attraction to the same gender- nothing more- nothing less.

That's a act dummy

So heterosexuality is an act too.

 

[JimH52]

When did we get a "left leaning Supreme Court"? Did I sleep through a decade?

It is the typical GOP victim mentality. They can't help it....

 

[Syriusly]

Legally they are. So you don't have the RIGHT to keep us from the same legal rights you have.

Why do you have the RIGHT to force people to accept them as equal?
So your rights trump the rights of others because why?

People don't have to accept anything they don't want to. The law, however, is supposed to equally protect us all. Currently, it does not do that. Allowing a gay couple to get married and enjoy the legal benefits of being married has no impact on your rights.

Explain that to the Bakers and Photographers that are being prosecuted for not agreeing to work a gay wedding.

Explain why they are subject to the same law as applies to ever other business owner in their state?

Being subject to, and the law being right are two different things.

Do you think it is right to force a devout Christian Photographer to either work a gay wedding or face fines/go out of business?

Here you go- this is probably your best post I have seen.

I absolutely agree- for instance I think that the Campaign finance law that was overturned by Citizen's United was right- but the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional. I disagree with the Supreme Courts decision- but I absolutely acknowledge their authority to make that decision.

I think that virtually every law criminalizing position of drugs is not right. Of course other disagree, and we are all subject to those laws.

I think it is wrong to treat 'a devout Christian' business person differently than any other business person. No matter how devout a person is- they should be subject to the same laws as any other business person is.

And I think that whether the reason is because the person is gay or black or Jewish is immaterial- anyone can claim a religious reason to discriminate.

BUT- if the question is whether or not Public Accommodation laws should be forcing business's to do business with people that they would otherwise discriminate against- I am leaning more and more towards the idea that PA are obsolete today- and that no longer a necessity to force business's to not discriminate against blacks, homosexuals, Christians, Jews, etc, etc.

 

[Syriusly]

Please feel free to prove me wrong.

Show me an example of Congress passing a law- that actually and specifically over-rides a Supreme Court decision- rather than just re-wording the law to make it able to pass Supreme Court review.

I dont need to prove you wrong the constitution does that already

Your inability to provide anything more compelling than "Because I said so" is noted.

Hey dummy i didnt say so the constitution says so. You know the document you are shitting on?

Your inability to provide anything more compelling than "Because I said the Constitution says so" and not you know- actually anything from the Constitution- is noted again.

It isnt a long document. Why dont you read it and learn what you seem to hate

Your inability to provide anything more compelling than "Because I said the Constitution says so" and not you know- actually anything from the Constitution- is noted again.

 

[Seawytch]

I am leaning more and more towards the idea that PA are obsolete today- and that no longer a necessity to force business's to not discriminate against blacks, homosexuals, Christians, Jews, etc, etc.

Most reasonable people who "lean" that way don't live in small, rural communities. Just sayin....

 

[martybegan]

You are just making crap up because you "want" the end result. There is ZERO precedence in history for same sex marriages, and condoned relationships in antiquity were not solemnized legally.

They are trying to create something new that did not exist in any shape or form.

This has nothing to do with me or what I want. I haven't expressed what I want so you are speaking from a position of ignorance apparently to deflect from the point. Marriage has not always existed. Since its inception it has been changing to be more inclusive. The next logical step is to include homosexuals.

You want Gay marriage equal to straight marriage in a legal context. That much is obvious. What I want is the proper processed to be used to get there, Changes made by each State Legislature, not using the courts to force the issue on tenuous legal ground.

The courts striking down laws that violate the equal protection clause is the proper route and how our system was designed to work. Again, it's not about me and you have no idea what I want. Let's try sticking to the issue.

Fine, do you want gay marriage to be legally equal to straight marriage?

Again, what I want is irrelevant. The issue is should the equal protection clause apply to homosexuals or not. I've seen no valid argument against it.

Why can't you answer the question? My position is already known. I would vote for changing the marriage contract to include gay couples, but I would expect PA laws to be changed to accommodate people's religious beliefs.

Again, why can't you answer the question?

 

[martybegan]

Explain that to the Bakers and Photographers that are being prosecuted for not agreeing to work a gay wedding.

Explain why they are subject to the same law as applies to ever other business owner in their state?

Being subject to, and the law being right are two different things.

Do you think it is right to force a devout Christian Photographer to either work a gay wedding or face fines/go out of business?

Again, your beef is with PA laws.

Answer the question. Do you think it is right to force a devout Christian Photographer to either work a gay wedding or face fines/go out of business?

Yes or no will suffice. you can explain after.

Again, your beef is with PA laws. That is not the topic of this thread, no matter how much you want it to be.

Why can't you answer the question? You already know my answer.

Answer the question.

 

[martybegan]

Why do you have the RIGHT to force people to accept them as equal?
So your rights trump the rights of others because why?

People don't have to accept anything they don't want to. The law, however, is supposed to equally protect us all. Currently, it does not do that. Allowing a gay couple to get married and enjoy the legal benefits of being married has no impact on your rights.

Explain that to the Bakers and Photographers that are being prosecuted for not agreeing to work a gay wedding.

This is a completely different subject, but I'll go with it. When someone starts a business they have decided to service the public. Not just the portion of the public they have something in common with or the portion they like. For a baker to refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding is just hateful. The baker doesn't have to participate in the wedding at all. However, the photographer has to attend the wedding and actually take part in it so I agree with the photographer.

Would you side with the business owners in a small town that got together and decided they would not provide their product of service to anyone who was not Islamic? How would any non-Muslim get their groceries, car serviced, cable, telephone, heat if they were on propane, hot water, etc.? Woud you tell that person that they will just have to sell their home and find someplace else to live? You see discrimination is not something to be supported, but it appears you've may have chosen to support it anyways. Have you?

One can make a reasonable exception for life-needed services, and one can easily make an exception to anything related to interstate commerce. However, using the full weight of the government to punish someone for not providing an easily replaced service is quite frankly appalling.

And as for it being hateful, would YOU want to bake a cake for a Klan rally?

Interstate would only apply to federal laws- most PA laws- all PA having to do with banning discrimination against homosexuals- are state and local laws.

I wouldn't want to bake a cake for lots of people- but its against the law for me to refuse to bake a cake just because the customer is black or Jewish or Christian.

No protection for the Klan though.

And welcome to all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. What about a Christian Identity function? You would be then discriminating against a religion.

 

[bodecea]

Explain why they are subject to the same law as applies to ever other business owner in their state?

Being subject to, and the law being right are two different things.

Do you think it is right to force a devout Christian Photographer to either work a gay wedding or face fines/go out of business?

Again, your beef is with PA laws.

Answer the question. Do you think it is right to force a devout Christian Photographer to either work a gay wedding or face fines/go out of business?

Yes or no will suffice. you can explain after.

Again, your beef is with PA laws. That is not the topic of this thread, no matter how much you want it to be.

Why can't you answer the question? You already know my answer.

Answer the question.

I would answer your question if that were the topic of this thread. Why do you keep deflecting to something you have a beef over that is NOT the issue in this thread? Would you like me to start a thread on PA for you to ask all your PA questions in?

 

[martybegan]

Why do you have the RIGHT to force people to accept them as equal?
So your rights trump the rights of others because why?

People don't have to accept anything they don't want to. The law, however, is supposed to equally protect us all. Currently, it does not do that. Allowing a gay couple to get married and enjoy the legal benefits of being married has no impact on your rights.

Explain that to the Bakers and Photographers that are being prosecuted for not agreeing to work a gay wedding.

Explain why they are subject to the same law as applies to ever other business owner in their state?

Being subject to, and the law being right are two different things.

Do you think it is right to force a devout Christian Photographer to either work a gay wedding or face fines/go out of business?

Here you go- this is probably your best post I have seen.

I absolutely agree- for instance I think that the Campaign finance law that was overturned by Citizen's United was right- but the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional. I disagree with the Supreme Courts decision- but I absolutely acknowledge their authority to make that decision.

I think that virtually every law criminalizing position of drugs is not right. Of course other disagree, and we are all subject to those laws.

I think it is wrong to treat 'a devout Christian' business person differently than any other business person. No matter how devout a person is- they should be subject to the same laws as any other business person is.

And I think that whether the reason is because the person is gay or black or Jewish is immaterial- anyone can claim a religious reason to discriminate.

BUT- if the question is whether or not Public Accommodation laws should be forcing business's to do business with people that they would otherwise discriminate against- I am leaning more and more towards the idea that PA are obsolete today- and that no longer a necessity to force business's to not discriminate against blacks, homosexuals, Christians, Jews, etc, etc.

So we actually agree on several things (except citizen's united, which I agree with the court).

 

[bodecea]

People don't have to accept anything they don't want to. The law, however, is supposed to equally protect us all. Currently, it does not do that. Allowing a gay couple to get married and enjoy the legal benefits of being married has no impact on your rights.

Explain that to the Bakers and Photographers that are being prosecuted for not agreeing to work a gay wedding.

This is a completely different subject, but I'll go with it. When someone starts a business they have decided to service the public. Not just the portion of the public they have something in common with or the portion they like. For a baker to refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding is just hateful. The baker doesn't have to participate in the wedding at all. However, the photographer has to attend the wedding and actually take part in it so I agree with the photographer.

Would you side with the business owners in a small town that got together and decided they would not provide their product of service to anyone who was not Islamic? How would any non-Muslim get their groceries, car serviced, cable, telephone, heat if they were on propane, hot water, etc.? Woud you tell that person that they will just have to sell their home and find someplace else to live? You see discrimination is not something to be supported, but it appears you've may have chosen to support it anyways. Have you?

One can make a reasonable exception for life-needed services, and one can easily make an exception to anything related to interstate commerce. However, using the full weight of the government to punish someone for not providing an easily replaced service is quite frankly appalling.

And as for it being hateful, would YOU want to bake a cake for a Klan rally?

Interstate would only apply to federal laws- most PA laws- all PA having to do with banning discrimination against homosexuals- are state and local laws.

I wouldn't want to bake a cake for lots of people- but its against the law for me to refuse to bake a cake just because the customer is black or Jewish or Christian.

No protection for the Klan though.

And welcome to all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. What about a Christian Identity function? You would be then discriminating against a religion.

Again...your beef is with PA laws....not the topic of this thread....nor the Supreme Court case coming up.

 

[martybegan]

Being subject to, and the law being right are two different things.

Do you think it is right to force a devout Christian Photographer to either work a gay wedding or face fines/go out of business?

Again, your beef is with PA laws.

Answer the question. Do you think it is right to force a devout Christian Photographer to either work a gay wedding or face fines/go out of business?

Yes or no will suffice. you can explain after.

Again, your beef is with PA laws. That is not the topic of this thread, no matter how much you want it to be.

Why can't you answer the question? You already know my answer.

Answer the question.

I would answer your question if that were the topic of this thread. Why do you keep deflecting to something you have a beef over that is NOT the issue in this thread? Would you like me to start a thread on PA for you to ask all your PA questions in?

All you have to do is answer the question. Again, all this stuff is linked.

 

[martybegan]

Explain that to the Bakers and Photographers that are being prosecuted for not agreeing to work a gay wedding.

This is a completely different subject, but I'll go with it. When someone starts a business they have decided to service the public. Not just the portion of the public they have something in common with or the portion they like. For a baker to refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding is just hateful. The baker doesn't have to participate in the wedding at all. However, the photographer has to attend the wedding and actually take part in it so I agree with the photographer.

Would you side with the business owners in a small town that got together and decided they would not provide their product of service to anyone who was not Islamic? How would any non-Muslim get their groceries, car serviced, cable, telephone, heat if they were on propane, hot water, etc.? Woud you tell that person that they will just have to sell their home and find someplace else to live? You see discrimination is not something to be supported, but it appears you've may have chosen to support it anyways. Have you?

One can make a reasonable exception for life-needed services, and one can easily make an exception to anything related to interstate commerce. However, using the full weight of the government to punish someone for not providing an easily replaced service is quite frankly appalling.

And as for it being hateful, would YOU want to bake a cake for a Klan rally?

Interstate would only apply to federal laws- most PA laws- all PA having to do with banning discrimination against homosexuals- are state and local laws.

I wouldn't want to bake a cake for lots of people- but its against the law for me to refuse to bake a cake just because the customer is black or Jewish or Christian.

No protection for the Klan though.

And welcome to all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. What about a Christian Identity function? You would be then discriminating against a religion.

Again...your beef is with PA laws....not the topic of this thread....nor the Supreme Court case coming up.

Answer the question.

 

[Ubiquitor]

This has nothing to do with me or what I want. I haven't expressed what I want so you are speaking from a position of ignorance apparently to deflect from the point. Marriage has not always existed. Since its inception it has been changing to be more inclusive. The next logical step is to include homosexuals.

You want Gay marriage equal to straight marriage in a legal context. That much is obvious. What I want is the proper processed to be used to get there, Changes made by each State Legislature, not using the courts to force the issue on tenuous legal ground.

The courts striking down laws that violate the equal protection clause is the proper route and how our system was designed to work. Again, it's not about me and you have no idea what I want. Let's try sticking to the issue.

Fine, do you want gay marriage to be legally equal to straight marriage?

Again, what I want is irrelevant. The issue is should the equal protection clause apply to homosexuals or not. I've seen no valid argument against it.

Why can't you answer the question? My position is already known. I would vote for changing the marriage contract to include gay couples, but I would expect PA laws to be changed to accommodate people's religious beliefs.

Again, why can't you answer the question?

I can answer your question, but this isn't about me. It's about our laws and their constitutionality. Why can't you stick to the topic without trying make it personal? We have laws that have been passed that people feel violates the equal protection clause and they are challenging them in courts. This is how our system works. You still have not presented a case for why homosexuals should not be given equal protection as our Constitution states we are all, as US citizens, guaranteed.