Why We’ll Never Bake Your Fake ‘Wedding’ Cake

That's an excellent point -- the government marriage contract is nothing but a contract that forms a single financial union between consenting adults. It is NO DIFFERENT than setting up a Subchapter S simple corporation, really. We have allowed government to interfere with citizens' private lives unnecessarily. In my view, we solve all of these problems by taking that 3rd wheel out of the relationship. Restore marriage to the people as the social and cultural tradition that it is. If the people want to get the blessing of their religious faith, they may do so. If that faith wishes to exclude certain individuals, that is certainly their right.

Let citizens sign their own private contracts and arrange their finances and personal affairs as they see fit. Get the government nanny out of it!

 

Propegating the society is not the only reason. That's too big of a can of worms that I don't want to get into. Besides, we shouldn't have to burn down the house to rid ourselves of the rats.

 

Wrong. Sorry.

 

bolded what? Marriage is not in that Bill of Rights, and neither is homosexual... as a matter of fact, it says nothing about Rights of sex.....
It's kinda like the LEO BoR we were discussing, eh?

 

Buddah?

 

If you want to give that kind of power to government, then don't complain when they take your guns, tell you what kind of car you have to drive, what kind of lightbulbs you have to put in your lamps at home, and how much soda you can drink in one serving.

 

See the light? When did I say people didn't

That isn't even remotely likely

 

let's sue the pizza parlor doesn't ring a bell?
Let's sue the State of Indiana, doesn't ring a bell?
riiiiiiiiiiiiiight......uh huh sure thing
In America, you can sue anyone for anything at anytime
There is no such thing as equality, not even through due course of law.

 

People indeed have a right to hold and practice their beliefs - however, they are not allowed to impose those beliefs on others nor should individuals be able to impose their beliefs on business owners. Both sides (mainly the militant side) are in the wrong.

 

then the gays should not impose their so-called Rights on others by compelling them to go against the conscience and belief.
as far as militant, we are talking about the pizza parlor thing, right?

 

I totally agree that militant homosexuals and militant people take things off the pass of civil discourse, but the extremist "Christians" have as much to blame as anyone else in this. Business should be free to discriminate - the public should be free to peacefully boycot. The religious crowd need to stop using religious laws to sway public law as you have no right to intefer with others rights. -- at that point you get many more people and their supporters fighting your cause.

 

The pizzeria doesn't have the right not to get sued.

I was unaware of any prohibition of the suing of Indiana outlined in the constitution. In fact I believe the seventh amendment grants them the right to have a civil trial.

Yes it is stated in the bill of rights. That's an interesting document you should read sometime, it may prevent the egg that is currently on your face from reappearing.

No There isn't. But there is a such thing as the bill of rights. If you read it, it may clear up these mistakes you keep making. As a citizen of the United states you really should read it.

 

Keeping marriage out of the hands of the federal government is not giving them power.

They do regulate our lightbulbs. There are 50 states. If you don't like the laws you got in your state, you can move to another. Giving the federal government the power over marriage will turn out the same way the lightbulb situation has turned out. Roe v Wade infringed on the states rights. Gay marriage will do the same.

 

nowhere, and I mean nowhere are the words, marriage, sex, homosexual, heterosexual, straight mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. NOWHERE!
ESPECIALLY in the Bill of Rights. NOWHERE......
Hope this clears it up for you.
And nowhere does it say that stupid gays have the Right to publicly threaten anyone with death and destruction. I hope that lesbian in Indiana gets life for terroristic threatening.
Get over your sensitive self and take a peek at being a real citizen instead of one who desires to destroy 98&% of the population to save a few miserable haters that are the gay crowd.
BTW, other than ancient news, there has been no threats of such action against the gay crowd.
As far as the pizza parlor goes, the gays didn't have a case. Remember, they don't cater to any weddings. What you are suggesting is that they be forced to cater a gay wedding. And that is a violation of ethics and morals. The stupid gays would have lost that one, but it would have been funny to watch the gays try to prove their case. What ya gonna do, sue them for their opinion? hahahahahahahahah

 

Lol.... repeating "14th amendment" 10 times doesn't actually make it the truth, does it.

Good to see you realize how foolish that was, and admit you were completely wrong.

 

Equal protection of the laws.

The strawman is for religious belief.

Because your position is indefensible.

Of course it does. Which is why anti sodomy laws were struck down in Lawrence v Texas and state bans on same sex marriage have been consistently ruled unconstitutional.

No, I'm ignoring your false framing.

There is no conflict in my statements.

True. But your beliefs don't entitle you to discriminate.

What belief is violated by baking a cake?

 

where is it said, in the Bill of Rights the following words:
marriage,
homosexual,
heterosexual,
so, since it's not mentioned, no one has "Rights" to marry anyone

 

It doesn't need to be explicit. Unless you think Christianity isn't covered by the first amendment because it isn't explicitly named? Or colt m4 carbines aren't covered by the 2nd because it's not explicitly named?

no. This is a discussion about what the constitution actually does.

 

I've seen faster one-eighties.... but that was up there.

 

So, Since the Bill of Rights do not include those words, they aren't Rights, but privileges bestowed upon a certain sector of the smallest portion of society.
Thanks for helping me out with that. Gay marriage is not in the 14th A, so that right doesn't exist without government intrusion and establishment of a privilege

 

Just want to point out the fatal flaw with this argument. Nowhere in the constitution is any of the firearms you own mentioned, therefore you don't have a right to own them and they can be banned at anytime.

Now what?

- - - Updated - - -

Well no, but the fact they're protected by it does.

uh, me pointing out you were wrong isn't me saying I'm wrong, lol.

 

wanna bet? it is the final defense against people who would do others harm. You support leaving people defenseless to assuage you guilty conscience........
OH!! GUNS GUNS GUNS........
Firearms IS in the Bill or Rights, however, marriage, homosexual, heterosexual are words not found in the Constitution, therefore, using your logic, those are not Rights, but privilege
some of are more than familiar with your level of knowledge of the Constitution.

 

Where is it said, in the bill of rights the following words:
Glock 19
Colt m4
Springfield xdm
Sig p226?
So since it's not mentioned no one has "rights" to own them.


Now what?

- - - Updated - - -

I probably have more guns than you do in my home.

firearm is nowhere in the constitution.

Please stop this silly line of reasoning, because it works against you.

 

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
yep, it's in there. It is written in the vernacular of the day
.....marriage, homosexual, heterosexual, LGBT do not appear anywhere in the Constitution

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson

but just for you:
"All that counts is how the words used in the Constitution would have been understood at the time. The original understanding is thus manifested in the words used and in secondary materials, such as debates at the conventions, public discussion, newspaper articles, dictionaries in use at the time, and the like."17
III. What "arms" meant, circa 1787

First, a few modern definitions of "arms" present themselves. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines the noun arm as "a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially: firearm."18 Black's Law Dictionary defines the word arms as "anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/705263/posts

Arms are weapons, it was in 1776 and it is today
arms=firearms=weapons

your cause......................... ..
"Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
Sara Brady
Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.

"If you wish the sympathy of the broad masses, you must tell them the crudest and most stupid things." Author unknown.

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
Adolph Hitler
Chancellor, Germany, 1933

 

So you couldn't find them either.

Now can we drop your silly line of reasoning about explicitly being mentioned?