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

Discussion in 'Civil Rights' started by goofball, Jun 4, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,327
    Likes Received:
    38,997
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I've answered your every inquiry I have no obligation to keep repeating myself because you apparent can't read.

    And yes we voice our opinions around here, me fathers and mothers are important and key roles in a child's life, you they are of no matter.
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2018
  2. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,827
    Likes Received:
    32,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You have yet to answer why a less capable opposite sex couple is more deserving of adoption than a more capable same sex family. I’ve asked it a few different ways to zero response.

    I’m glad you admit that it is just opinion - scientific and psychological study disagree however.

    Debate with opinion when one is convinced it is fact is impossible to do.
     
  3. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,827
    Likes Received:
    32,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am beginning to think you don’t understand basic English. Obergefell removed gender requirements, it did not limit anything to gay people only.

    What rights do gay people have that others do not have?
     
  4. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not really. On this side of the pond at least, we pay taxes first and foremost for the protection of our unalienable rights, among them being freedom of association, which implies the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
     
  5. kreo

    kreo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2008
    Messages:
    8,791
    Likes Received:
    798
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I have told you many times, if government decided to change marriage it should be done for everyone i.e. for every type of couple.
    Same thing with slavery, the slavery has been abolished for everyone, not only for black people.
    If you doing it partially (narrowly) you create special rights.
    Obergefell is just an excuse for stupid people, who do not understand that government has created a special rights.

    And now government want to punish anyone who disagrees with the government idiocy.
     
  6. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,424
    Likes Received:
    51,244
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's why our country is founded on securing INDIVIDUAL rights, not pitting groups against each other to see who can kiss the government's ass harder for more handouts.

    And folks get that. Much of the Left's agenda over the last 80 years has been implemented not by our representative legislature, but by an unelected court, and finally, the Left has lost control of the Court.

    Americans get that too.

    NBC poll: Six in ten Americans want SCOTUS vote before midterms

    [​IMG]
     
  7. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,827
    Likes Received:
    32,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That isn’t the way SCOTUS works. What are you not comprehending here?
    Same sex marriage is open to everyone, you do not have to be gay.
    If you doing it partially (narrowly) you create special rights.
    As opposed to intelligent people like yourself that fail to grasp basic legal principles or grammatical structure?
    *Yawn*
     
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2018
  8. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,827
    Likes Received:
    32,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That isn’t a right you have had since public accommodation became law.
     
  9. not2serious

    not2serious Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2018
    Messages:
    2,829
    Likes Received:
    984
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How about 1 woman marrying 10 men all at the same time, and with their consent. Why stop at humans, you can marry a sheep.
     
  10. not2serious

    not2serious Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2018
    Messages:
    2,829
    Likes Received:
    984
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The constitution is always THE LAW. The courts are suppose to rule as neutral umpires, not legislate from the bench.
     
  11. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,827
    Likes Received:
    32,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Take it up with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which wasn’t passed by judges.
     
  12. not2serious

    not2serious Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2018
    Messages:
    2,829
    Likes Received:
    984
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The civil rights act of 1964 cannot pass constitutional muster under the 14th and 13th amendment, which were passed right after the civil war. It is the results of the courts changing their minds and making sh*t up. It was a very very unconstitutional law passed by congress, signed by a president worrying about his legacy, and a liberal court that found logical challenges unacceptable..

    Are you in agreement that the constitution is a contract, and says what it says, or are you of the school that it is simply a guideline, and the actual text was not intended to be binding?
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2018
    roorooroo likes this.
  13. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,827
    Likes Received:
    32,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I believe the constitution is a framework that could have not anticipated future events. I also think the government has grown to large and encompassing - it should focus on the welfare of its citizens and the defense of the nation. The remainder of laws should be carried out by the individual states.

    Thomas Jefferson argued that the constitution and all laws should naturally expire every 19 years unless they were actively renewed by the legislature.

    - The Constitution and Laws should be based on the will of the people
    - As people die and come of age, the make-up of "the people" changes (he estimated that ~half the adult population changes ever 19 years)
    - It is inherently difficult to repeal a law or change the Constitution, i.e. the right to repeal a past law is not the same the right to choose one's own laws

    Ergo, if laws do not expire, future generations will be subject to laws and a Constitution to which they did not and do not consent. The will of the living will be overridden by the will of the dead.

    If we really believe that people should have a right to self-rule, how can we justify imposing on them a system of government established by people who no longer exist and are thus no longer subject to those laws? Is that not by definition tyranny?
     
  14. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, the Constitution is the express will of the People, and laws not made in pursuance thereof are, save through ignorance, cognizable as federal law only under intimidation by the despotically inclined.
    Of course it is.
    Horse hockey. It's been amended 27 times, and every ratification constituted implicit affirmation of everything left unamended.

    Those who have a care for that - which leaves you out, obviously - would do better to concern themselves with the efforts of 5% of the living to impose their perverted will on the rest.
     
  15. not2serious

    not2serious Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2018
    Messages:
    2,829
    Likes Received:
    984
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your whole argument falls apart when you bring in the fact that the constitution has been amendmented many times. You can fix the constitution, you do not have to live by "dead men's" rules. You can also have a constitutional convention and rewrite the whole thing.

    I think every law should expire in 10 years unless specifically voted on and passed by the legislators.
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2018
  16. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,827
    Likes Received:
    32,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I doubt the constitution as ratified would exist if voted on today.
    I disagree
    The right to repeal a past law is not the same as ratification of new laws.
    This is not my argument but the argument of Jefferson, who are you refusing to as 5% of the population wanting to impose their “perverted will” on others? You must realize perversion is entirely subjective and destructive of any argument you are attempting to make.
     
  17. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You wouldn't draw a line at family marrying eachother?
     
  18. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What "individuals, organisations or events" do business owners HAVE to provide services to? And in what country?
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2018
  19. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    To confirm, you think that the above supports the below?:

     
  20. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  21. Yakamaru

    Yakamaru Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2018
    Messages:
    567
    Likes Received:
    562
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    Ah, the whole cake baker thingy.

    I for one welcome this. Don't want to bake a cake for me? I will simply take my business elsewhere and have you lose a customer and revenue. It's called being an adult on the matter, really.
     
    roorooroo and chris155au like this.
  22. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Welcome to the forum!
     
  23. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You already know the answer to that question, it's what this whole case is about. It's not that businesses have to provide services for anyone specifically but if they provide a given service, they can't discriminate against customers on proscribed grounds. Clearly that can lead to businesses having to serve people they don't really want to (or choosing not to provide the service to anyone).

    I believe these laws exists in pretty much all western countries and though the specifics will vary, the fundamental principles are the same.
     
  24. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So why did you say exactly that?
     
  25. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,839
    Likes Received:
    4,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because I have a full grasp of the English language. :) Having to do something can be due to a direct instruction or an indirect consequence. Again, we're both fully aware of the legal situation and the consequences of it as it stands so I don't see the justification for these word games.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page