Cakegate to be decided by supremes

Unfortunate that you don't even realize that you are confirming my statement.

 

Relationship between man and woman is a public issue so it has to be regulated by people's representatives , while relationship between two people of the same sex has absolutely nothing to do with a general public or the government.
That is a fundamental difference between two types of couples.
Government has zero obligation to provide benefits to gays.
If it does that means government grants special rights to homosexuals and that is unconstitutional.

 

Baker was forced to bake special cake, he did not refuse to sell cake.
If you rent your apartment you can't discriminate but no one can force you to advertise it as homosexuals are more then welcome.

 

That is b.s. fake news and you know it , gay couple can't have children on its own.
The science is pretty clear about that.
That is why government has no business in homosexuality

 

Marriage is an agreement of mutual consent between spouses; a form of contract. Government recognizes that agreement. Viewed in this way, what compelling interest of government is served by saying that a person who is capable of entering into such agreement may only choose a spouse of the opposite-sex? The answer is that the government couldn't come up with one that the Supreme Court found convincing. It is absolutely pointless for us to re-argue here what couldn't pass the scrutiny of the Supreme Court.

Should government be in charge of picking out your spouse for you? No. We're talking about a highly complex ,personal relationship, the intertwining of lives. Government does not know who will or won't make appropriate partners for each other. The sex of the parties alone is not nearly enough information, nor is the government able to say that only opposite-sex couples can have successful marriages, the biases of people on this forum who think they themselves know better notwithstanding.

 

The baker was using his business to push religion. One he used his religion as a reason to deny service, it no longer matters what kind of cake they ordered.

 

Some would have us believe that the method by which children are produced determines who can marry, but this is putting the cart before the horse. The legal parent of a child isn't always a biological parent. Nor are the legal parents of a child always married to each other. To pretend that marriage and biological reproduction are inseparable is pure nonsense.

 

So straight couples that cannot conceive naturally should also be denied equality? I know 2 gay couples who are raising kids. One used artificial insemination and the other adopted. They are legally married and are legal parents.

I will be the first to support keeping the government out of our lives, but until we remove the laws that protect Christians from discrimination, they should not be used to create a double standard and give Christians "Preferred citizenship" over gay people.

 

Malarkey. Repetition is not persuasive. The relationship between a man and a woman is no more, no less a public issue than the relationships of married same-sex spouses.

 

Government impose strict rules and regulations on heterosexual couples to enforce responsibility for ther sexual activity so that issue it's a public. Homosexuals have no responsibility whatsoever they only get benefits. And that it's unconstitutional

 

Government has no idea which couple and when it will have children so it regulates all regardless of their ability.
Christianity has nothing to do with it.

 

That it's absolutely false he served gays previously without any problems if you read the story. He legitimately denied special request to bake homosexual cake.

 

Marriage is a part of governmen regulations there is no need to regulate homosexuals.

 

False statements. The government has tried to regulate same-sex relationships; up until 2003, several states still criminalized them. The government lost that case, too. It's not true to say that same-sex couples have no responsibilities - they have the same responsibilities as opposite-sex couples. Where children are involved, the responsibility is a legal one, not one limited to a biological relationship.

As for your claim that it's unconstitutional, you haven't offered anything to support that claim. How is it "unconstitutional"?

 

A cake is an inanimate object - it has no sexual orientation. It also so has no sex.

 

This is also largely false. The government recognizes marriages, and regulates its recognition of marriages, limiting it to two adults capable of mutual consenting to that agreement. It does not otherwise regulate marriage itself, except when the agreement of marriage between two people is dissolved. Other laws may use recognition of a marriage agreement as a means to regulate something else, but not to regulate the marriage itself. All of these regulatory issues apply to same-sex couples just as much as to opposite-sex couples.

 

Yea, just there is no legitimate reason to regulate and recoginze homosexual relationship It is artificially regulated to provide special rights to politically active group, I understand

 

It has artistic expression, the part that you cannot force people to do.

 

First you say it's pointless to argue, then you argue with me. Okay. Second, you're mixing up policy questions with legal questions there. (Unfortunately, courts, as in the Obergfell majority, too often confuse the two as well. The problem with that is that federal judges are unelected. They have no business making policy because they don't answer to the voters..

Anyway, I would not use the "compelling interest" argument because that is a test to determine whether a discriminatory law can be justified. And it often can. A blind person, for example, cannot get a driver's license or become an airline pilot for what I hope are obvious reasons, though the prohibition discriminates against the "sight-impaired." But the reason I would not use it is that the former prohibition of gay marriage is not really discriminatory: you (and I) can marry whomever you want, but not as many people as you want, and you can only marry people not things, etc. Not every prohibition is "discrimination" just because you think it's unfair.

Next, you make it sound like Obergfell was a smashing success: three of the Justices dissented, including Justice Roberts, who saved Obamacare and wrote the opinion saying so, as you'll perhaps recall. (My point here is that the Obergfell dissenters were not political, not in the sense that they were making policy choices against the will of the people of ... Tennessee, I think. If you can be fair, read Scalia's dissent in Obergfell and you will learn the difference between law (the dissent) and policy (the majority).

"Should government be in charge of picking out your spouse for you?" Yeah, that's precisely what I'm calling for.

"Nor is the government able to say that only opposite-sex couples can have successful marriages, the biases of people on this forum who think they themselves know better notwithstanding." No one in a responsible position of power said that. What state governments have said is that gay "marriage" isn't marriage in the first place, not as the term was understood and accepted for literally thousands of years. It's a perfectly defensible distinction.

 

I read the story, but could not find the specifics on what was ordered. Perhaps the request was unreasonable; I don't know. A cake cannot be homosexual and a business cannot be a Christian.

Bakers, county clerks, and even a homeowner that rents his property for weddings have asserted their religious rights to discriminate against gay people.

"My belief is superior to yours and therefor, you must step to the side when you see me coming. I am a preferred citizen who enjoys rights you will never know."

 

They don't operate as a private entity such as a private club - they serve the public.

And thus they must serve the public.

Weird and complicated I know, but...

 

^ Thread win.

 

^ Not getting it.

 

Essentially correct, though the "For Rent" example has exceptions.