Supreme Court rules in favor of baker in same sex wedding cake case.

Is there even one single right that a married couple has in the USA that a same same union couple does not? If both types of unions have equal rights, was it always this way? If not, when did it change?

 

If the underlying reasoning is based on a proscribed characteristic of someone then it would be discriminatory by definition. It doesn’t really matter if that individual is several steps away from the immediate situation.

If a supplier refused to work with an organisation because that organisation was run by an evangelical Christian, that would be discriminating on the basis of a personal characteristic regardless of whether the evangelical Christian was personally making the order. A business refusing the work with an organisation because the end customers are predominantly black would be discriminatory too.

Note this is a question of opinion on moral principle. The practical implications may well be different and so the approach in law could legitimately be different. What is wrong and what is illegal aren’t necessarily the same thing.

 

Are you comfortable with mixing poll sources?

 

Unless I see a flaw in their methodology and the data is not within the scope of the original poll. If you are going to simply ignore the data I will stop sourcing it.

 

Public accommodation laws in general

 

Yes, that addresses unenumerated rights specifically whereas the Preamble does not.

They didn't think a majority of Justices would buy it. Not knowing the legal team at all, and not knowing the Justices well enough to know whether any would buy it, I can't go beyond that.

Same way I can say nobody's conscience ever told him it's OK to have sex with a 5 year old.

 

So 25% of them have less than high school and on this you base your assertion that the elderly "basically" have less than a high school diploma? Surely you can't be serious.

 

It has changed in 2004 when corrupt judges in Massachusetts has granted special rights for gay couples. It used to be that government has been regulating relationship between man and woman, since such relationship requires government involvement. The government involvement was required to enforce roles and responsibilities of man and woman making them ready for the event of procreation.

In 2004 unelected branch of the government of Massachusetts, has decided to grant benefits associated with marriage to gay couples, without providing any meaningful reason why those benefits need to be granted. My point is, if no justifiable reason has been presented for granting government benefits to gays, why related couples should be deprived of those benefits. If we are talking about equality, then equality should be extended to all population, not only to gay population.

 

High school or less* then.
Happy?

Still doesn’t change the overall metrics
Uneducated people are more likely to support criminalizing homosexuality and banning same sex marriage. Evangelicals are more likely to support criminalizing homosexuality and banning same sex marriage. Older people are more likely to support criminalizing homosexuality and banning same sex marriage.

Evangelicals are more likely to be elderly and uneducated than other groups, and the elderly are more likely to be evangelicals and uneducated than other groups. They share a ton of common metrics.

 

Related couples did not go to SCOTUS so they could not rule on their unions. The case was specifically same sex unions, you either do not understand how our court system works or are simply being intellectually dishonest to attempt an argument that fits your cause.

Futhermore, a man and a woman that procreate are responsible for a child reguardless of marriage, so your argument that the government needs marriage so that it can regulate them is absurd. A same sex couple is no different than an infertile opposite sex couple. Same sex couples can and do have children which makes them similarly identifiable to opposite sex couples.

No justifiable reason has been given to ban same sex couples from marriage.
The courts and the world agrees.

 

don't you understand that you are using logical fallacies as an argument?
like this
Birds fly in the sky; airplanes fly in the sky; therefore, airplanes are birds.
When all of the premises fully support the conclusion, we say this is a sound argument.
If one or more of the premises is false, or does not provide enough support for the conclusion, then the argument is considered unsound
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apples_and_oranges

It seems like You are telling me that judges have used logical fallacies when they made their decision.
Either those judges were uneducated or corrupt.

By the way same sex couple cannot procreate, no matter how hard they try, it always require another person of opposite sex.
.

 

Unindoctrinated, is more like it.

 

Katy Tur(d/DD) Questions Whether the Constitution Should Be Interpreted As Is

 

Ah, stupid people are now smart! Who knew?

 

If your argument is marriage should be limited to a man and a woman because they can procreate then explain marriages for convenience, marriage after fertility and marriage of infertile people. What about people that have taken medical precautions not to get pregnant? Also why are there numerous benifits and protections that do not pertain to childbirth?

If it is simply to foster the well-being of children then same sex couples would still be eligible. They are similarly situated in all other areas minus the ability to procreate, which has never been a requirement.

You want this to be an apples to oranges comparison, it isn’t.

 

If by that you mean people of sufficient gullibility to allow themselves to be indoctrinated by authority figures often clownishly deem themselves more intelligent than those who are bereft of said gullibility...

...that would be me, for one. You're welcome.

 

Or... it could be people of sufficient critical thinking abilities begin to view religion as something created, edited and translated by man (and Kings) to control the populace without any foundation in reality.

Anyone that believes a book (well the parts you want to believe at least - y’all ignore the bits you don’t like) that has the number of discrepancies, impossible feats, and refuted structures calling another person gullible is insane. You all literally believe in sky fairies.

You have feelings and beliefs - I have yet to see you post a single source on any of the threads I have been active in - only emotion rants and ramblings.

 

Why are you highlighting "evangelicals" specifically as opposed to all Christian groups together?

 

What do you mean? Was the line in bold a question?

 

While I feel that this is the case, how would you answer someone who asked you how you can say that freedom to associate is one of the blessings of liberty according to the constitution?

How can we know people's conscience?

 

Wouldn't you say that the underlying reason can never be known? If not, how can it possibly be known?

So you think that these laws extend beyond the customer? This demonstrates a real lack of understanding of these laws. They relate strictly to the customer! This is clear in the way the laws are written.

 

You can’t know for certain but that’s true of motive in any crime. You can’t know for certain that a murderer intended to kill the victim or a thief intended to steal the property. Judges and juries just have to reach a conclusion based on the evidence they have available to them. The fact remains that motive is a key element of these laws.

Of course, that aspect will be somewhat easier if the accused openly admits to their reasoning for refusing service because their defence in based on some other aspect.

Well, I made it perfectly clear that I was talking about moral principle rather than legal practicalities there. As I’ve said multiple times, the relevant laws will be subtly different in every jurisdiction so talking about “what the law is” doesn’t really make any sense without context. I’m talking about the principles I believe such laws should be based upon.

That said, if a service is being brought for an organisation, the organisation is the customer so it seems perfectly viable that laws could apply to discrimination based on (perceived) characteristics or that organisations leadership or customer base rather than just literally the individual physically placing the order. Sometimes such distinctions can come down to a single comma, a matter of legal interpretation or a balance of inconsistent case law.

 

Christians believe in God, they live their lives according to their principles and don’t really try to force those beliefs onto others. Evangelicals on the other hand believe their beliefs should take precedent over the rights of others, pulling suggest they are more totalitarian - they are the Muslim extremists of the Christian world.

 

Do you seriously think that Christians who don't consider themselves to be "evangelical" would not have supported this baker?

 

Yes, based on physical evidence and witnesses the likely motive can be determined by the judges and juries. However, in cases of discrimination there is NONE of that!