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

I am just trying to get some clarity on your position. You are all over the place. You were politely asked for a link and you took a cheap shot instead. Your assertion that gay married couples have special rights that straight married couples don't have is 100% false.

 

So you agree that gay couple had managed to get special privileges.
Regardless how the legal system works the end result was that the marriage benefits were extended to gays only.
E.g. when racial limitations for marriage have been lifted they were lifted for ALL types of races not only for black and white.
Judges were fully aware that they are creating another injustice by delivering special rights to homosexuals, but nothing had stopped them.
either they are stupid or corrupt

 

what can be more clear then this simple statement?

before SCOTUS famous decision, we had 3 types of couples.
only 1 type was eligible for marriage benefits,
after the decision benefits were extended to 2nd type i.e. gay couples, leaving 3rd type without benefits.

I do not know what I can do to be more clear.

 

Equality is justified only if it covers all types of couples in similar situation. It did not happen, the benefits were extended to gays only.

 

1st Amendment. The 1st one that Socialist Marxists would abolish if they could possibly do it. But only for Christians. Not Muslims. They will let Muslims behead the LGBT, but the Christian baker refusing bake a cake.... THATS RACIST!!

 

Your own words defeat your argument. Since the "type 1" continue to receive marriage benefits, there is no special rights exclusive to gay couples. Type 3 never had it and never will. If you feel that marriage rights should be extended to related couples, I suggest you take it up with the trailer park!

 

For it to be special rights no other groups would be allowed access to it. Futhermore same sex marriage is not limited to gays only, it simply removes gender requirements, which destroys both of your objections.

 

It's not a pretense and we should do everything possible to ensure children grow up with a mother and a father in their life and that we do not PURPOSELY withhold either from the child's life simply to make an adult happier. It's called the nature of our species and society and all we must do is look back at how that nuclear family is being destroyed and the results. Just look at black society where 70% of children have no father.

 

Of course it’s pretense, and no one is advocating taking children from healthy homes - instead why should same sex families be barred from adopting children that are languishing in foster care or worse, state run facilities?

Again, do you have any recent studies to back up your claim that a two parent home is less than an opposite sex parent home? I can understand two parents being better than one but the studies I have seen show there is almost no difference in the outcome. Feel free to post a source unless you can admit it’s just how you feel, I have several ready.

In your opinion is a opposite sex family that is poor and mostly absentee due to work a better condition than a same sex family that is independently wealthy and able to spend the maximum amount of time and give the child the best chance?

 

What's that supposed to mean and what?

Most kids in foster home are there temporarily and go back to parents or families. And I wish you would actually read what I say.

I have the history of mankind and it's not about some "better" or "worse" it is what a child needs a mother and a father in their lives and putting the child's needs above the adult's. We should do everything possible to ensure that outcome and only when all means fail look at alternatives.

 

Ok, what about the ones that heterosexual families don’t want? Should same sex couples be allowed to adopt them?

I wish all kids had a loving secure home with their biological parents, unfortunately we don’t live in that world. If one family is more beneficial to a child they should be given preference, recent studies have shown that loving and financially secure homes play a much greater role than the gender of the parents,

 

None of those is a poll to determine how many people are religious who responded to the poll about whether homosexuality should be illegal. Which one were you referring to?

 

Like what?

 

What other types of couples?

 

Its about 2/3rds down the page
What are some of the reasons why you oppose legal same-sex marriages? [OPEN-ENDED]
Based on adults who oppose same-sex marriage
Nov 26-29, 2012
Religion/Bible says it is wrong 47%

 

Like if you’re running a business, providing services to individuals, organisations or events you don’t especially like. It’s like how we have to pay taxes we don’t agree with or don’t think are spent well. Basically, you can’t please all the people all the time.

 

Then I take it you are against affirmative action and it's violation of the 14th amendment? Most of so called racism is because many blacks feel "entitled" because previous generations were discriminated against. You cannot have racism, and affirmative action is just another form of racism. So is women's rights movement is just sexism.

 

Yes, but you cannot violate the constitution of the USA in the USA. The 13th amendment not only freed the slaves, but all people in the United States against "involuntary servitude.

 

I’m against affirmative action because it’s wrong. The US Constitution is irrelevant to that question. The principles we’re discussing are relevant anywhere in the world, not just the USA (even if Americans don’t care about it).

It’s clearly open to interpretation whether this legislation is constitutional or not and that hasn’t yet been formally determined. I’d suggest that if the constitution required the government to permit active discrimination (which on this basis could be against anyone, not just homosexuals), the constitution would be wrong and should be amended. There seems to be very few situations where the constitutional implications of something are clear and plenty of questionable application of it. I’m not convinced “But the Constitution!” is an especially convincing argument in any debate.

 

I have no obligation to keep repeating myself.

But it is certainly what we should strive and certainly not support adults PURPOSELY bringing children into this world without providing both a mother and a father that every child deserves.

 

It removes gender requirements to benefit gays only. Not all the people.
Once you remove gender requirement there is no reason to prevent relatives from getting marriage benefits.
Relatives should have the same marriage rights as gays, that is all.
E.g. if mother and daughter should be able to convert their relationship to marriage and get 100% of marriage benefits if they live together and daughter become pregnant via artificial insemination.
Supreme Court intentionally left them out, to provide benefits for gays.

 

How about grandmother and granddaughter that live together and granddaughter raise a child?
Don't you think they deserve marriage benefits, that is FAR richer then their relatives benefits.

 

You are under no obligation to do anything here, this is all voluntary - but you have to answer something to keep repeating it.

You have posted zero sources that your family unit is superior to any other; even more, you have posted zero data that indicates your wanted family unit is far superior to others and all should be excluded until only groups meeting that single characteristic are exhausted.

If you give up simply say so, so that we can both move on. You seem uninterested in doing anything but providing opinion and attempting to say it should be the universal and only qualification for child placement.

 

No it doesn’t

Again, the court not rule to include closely related couples because it was not an argument before the court. You either have zero idea how SCOTUS works or are to dense to realize this argument is imploding upon itself.

Anyway saying group A should be able to get benifits while group B cannot because group C does not is a really bad way to rationalize legal principles. If you were really interested in group C and not just trying to use them as a pathetic argument against group B being treated equally you would be pushing for that - as it is a separate issue.

 

Pathetic or not, we are in agreement that court has made narrow ruling that is very specific to benefit gays.
They should not even take the case if they do not know what they are doing.
But they did, with a purpose to rule for gays.

It is not the first time it has happened, we already have special rights for women, special rights for African Americans etc. This time it has been done for gays.