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

That is unconstitutional under the 13th amendment. It is called "involuntary servitude". If I go into business, l can choose my customers for any reason, and I can choose my friends for any reason. I do not have the right to your labors. There is nothing that gives the federal or state governments the power to tell me who to serve or not serve. Please provide counter constitutional wording if you can. I do not believe you can! Go read the 13th amendment, it is quite simply written and very clear on it's intent.

 

I hate to bring it up, but words have meanings, or else we could not communicate. You are literally saying that the constitution means nothing because you don't agree with the result should be.
You are looking for a "RESULT" rather than the rules, and if the rules don't give you the result you want, then you say to ignore the rules. That thinking only works for fascists and dictators.

If this were a baseball game, you would say men could only have two strikes, and women five strikes, and then tout about how fair it is and women are equal to men, when they need 5 strikes to compete. This IS the women's lib way of thinking of today.

 

I have answered your every inquietude and you refuse to address the answers.

Maybe you should admit you are based entirely on a prejudiced opinion.

And we can get into the competing study game to no end. I also have common sense and they history if our society.
Are you serious going to state that it makes no difference if a little boy has or does not have a father in their life? A little girl with no mother? That there is absolutely no difference in the influences mothers and fathers each have absolutely no difference in the roles they play.

If they aren't gay then why are they getting married then? Why should we even have marraige anymore then? You are effectively defining marriage out of existence.

 

Depends on what you are doing at least on the federal level.

 

It is also called "freedom of choice", by BOTH parties involved. For if a baker MUST bake you a cake, then you MUST buy your cakes only from this baker. But you have a choice and so do I, and that is the freedom everyone is missing who protest the baker.

 

Exactly. Freedom of choice on either side.

 

Well of course it would, because no popular vote can modify the Constitution. If you mean to say the states could ratify amendments to it, well duh. That's kinda the point here.

Well that's impressive.

So how many mindless repetitions of this nonsense do you figure it's gonna take to make it true?

What the hell do I care?

This is unintelligible.

Before I "realize" that I'll "realize" the Earth is flat.

The fact they get filtered through minds like yours is subjectively destructive of commonsensical arguments.

 

Yes, the legal situation in many jurisdictions is that businesses cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, but you are talking about having to provide services to all "individuals, organisations or events" aren't you?

 

Unfortunately, the constitution does not protect freedom of association. The constitution really is limited in this way. And the 13th Amendment doesn't apply unless the baker is forced to the point of following through with the action of baking the cake, which this baker doesn't. Obviously here there is a clear choice, even though the consequences are quite horrible if the choice breaks the law.

 

Yes. Businesses provide goods or services to individuals and other organisations. Some business owners might wish to discriminate based on the characteristics of an individual customer or of the representative/owner of an organisation. Where that is against anti-discrimination law, the business has to serve those customers even though they don't want to (for whatever reason).

I really don't understand why you're making this aspect so difficult. It isn't one anyone seems to be in disagreement on.

 

Actually it is among the innumerable unenumerated rights acknowledged in 9A which are clearly to be protected by the Constitution per the Preamble.

 

If you pose a question I will answer it as such, I will not ignore it and say I have answered it. You believe parents that are of the opposite sex automatically provide the best environment simply because of their gender. This is incorrect.

I actually try to base my opinions on logic reasoning and fact. Members here have altered my views by presenting these in the past, presenting their feelings and calling it fact however does not make a case.

As a society, we have done something one way until a new method has caused us to divate and do something different. Appeals to tradition are a logical fallacy. The most recent studies on this issue place a far greater importance on the characteristics of the family itself than it does the gender of the participants.

I would never suggest that, I wish we lived in this ideal world. We don’t.

For the same reason faux opposite sex marriages occurred; tax breaks, citizenship, healthcare, etc... How is this defining marriage out of existence? Were opposite sex couples doing this also defining marriage out of existence or is it just people doing it in same sex unions?

 

Which is the greater issue in public accommodation laws.
You have one of the largest recipients of federal and state protections saying they should be exempt when it comes to other groups. Religious groups want to retain their protections in housing, employment and service but they don’t want anyone else to have these same protections.
Either get rid of them for all or have it apply to everyone.

 

Not directly no, but it can be assumed looking at various polls, there is only an 8% gap between people that do not support same sex marriage [source, see graphs 1 & 2] meaning the vast majority, or 92% of people that are against same sex marriage believe same sex relations should be criminalized.

The only major groups that do not have plurality support for same sex marriage are as follows:
Individuals 65 years or older, 58% not in support
Individuals with an educational attainment of high school or less, 52% not in support
Individuals that attend religious service weekly or more or evangelicals, 60% not in support

Also republicans, Trump voters, and only the state of Alabama have plurality against same sex marriage but they mostly fit into the above groups. I am not aware of a recent study that breaks down the legality question by individual groups but using the information above we can surmise that these groups would be the advocates for making same sex relations illegal. It basically boils down to the uneducated and religious in opposition.

 

There is only an 8% gap between people that do not support same sex marriage and who?

 

Unfortunately, you fail to understand the constitution. Since the constitution does not address or give to the government power over discrimination between members of society, it has no power to do so. Go read the 9th and 10 amendment, then get back to me. You will find there is no power given directly to government to control this, so it has no such power.

 

Between the individuals that do not support same sex marriage and those that support criminalizing homosexual relations.
92% of people that do not support same sex marriage support arresting gay people for being gay.

 

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. It expresses the principle of federalism and states' rights, which strictly supports the entire plan of the original Constitution for the United States of America, by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people.

The government both federal and state have not been given the power to control how we choose our customers or friends, to the government has no power to control it. I (and you) decide who you wish to serve and who you wish to be friends with. The 13th amendment further prevents the federal and state governments from "involuntary servitude".

 

You simply have to follow the constitution. The chips fall where they may. I am an atheist, so religion should be treated and taxes like anything else.

 

How, if it isn't stated in the text?

 

And do you acknowledge that some business owners might wish to discriminate based on the event that someone wants a service for or based on the organisation that is asking for a service?

 

As I already have. Yes a nuclear family with both a mother and a father the two distinctly different roles they play on a child's life.

And you state your opinion and feelings based in it. In this case that mother's and fathers are not important in a child's life. Logic would dictate otherwise.

And reality shows otherwise as we see what happens when the traditional family breaks down.

Me>>Are you serious going to state that it makes no difference if a little boy has or does not have a father in their life? A little girl with no mother? That there is absolutely no difference in the influences mothers and fathers each have absolutely no difference in the roles they play.

Yetbthat is what you are doing andnjust because the wolrdnis not perfect does not logically dictate we should make it less perfect.

No its not the same reason that's the point!!!

 

this is a fake news from the gay sponsored resources

 

Yes, our unelected and corrupted officials can justify anything they want.

 

Once corrupted justices have turned a marriage to just a list of government benefits, every kind of association of two people is entitled for those benefits.
Otherwise gay marriage is a special right, because two gay persons do not need government to be involved in their relationship.