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

seems you left out the part that says:
...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed
my God, it's a very good thing you are not an attorney.
SCOTUS has already pared the militia clause from the rest. One had nothing to do with the other.
..and it is the right to bear arms, not bare arms

 

None of the words I asked about.

I agree they are covered, just like homosexuality and same sex marriage is covered. But if you want to continue this silly line of reasoning I will continue throwing it right back in your face.

 

there are no words that even come close to homosexual, heterosexual, marriage NOWHERE in the Constitution. The rest is simple derailment, as usual

 

He knows.
That's why he backpedaled and started claiming "it doesn't have to be explicit".

The rest is, as you said, derailment.

 

I'm willing to stop this silly argument if you are?

- - - Updated - - -

It's basic constitutional law. Which is why I'm pointing out that Christianity, glocks, emails and such aren't mentioned explicitly either. All of which are covered. Like homosexuality and same sex marriage.

 

Four posts back. I told you I thought I was in the other thread regarding wedding cakes in Ireland AND pointed out the point remains the same in the US. Sooooooo you can let go of the pointless irrelevancy now.

 

Because improving the well being of children that only heterosexual couples produce, is a legitimate governmental interest. Winning more "respect and dignity" for gays is not.

 

Irrelevant. Of course they're covered.

You said homosexuality was mentioned explicitly.
A few of us challenged you to back that up.

You failed hard.

 

I'm not the one keeping it going.

- - - Updated - - -

Not how the law works. You need to demonstrate an interest served by excluding same sex couples, not by including opposite sex ones.

- - - Updated - - -

Never said any such thing.

How can I fail at something I wasn't trying to do? Homosexuality is protected by the 14th amendment.

 

If reproduction were a stipulation to lawful marraige, you'd at least have a sliver or an argument. But since it is not, you'll have to keep trying. And don't complain when your government does other things to "benefit" you like telling you what kind of lightbulbs you can buy, how much soda you can drink, and what kind of car you can drive. Again, careful what you wish for.

I'm not sure why you keep insisting that is a part of my argument.

 

Except that's not my argument. You added the word 'federal.' Was that an intentional attempt to misstate my position?

The federal government already has the de facto power to "regulate" marriage as it is bound by the terms of the 14th Amendment which is unequivocal in its guarantee that all citizens will enjoy equal protection under the law. The 10th Amendment reserves authority to the states for all matters not expressly granted the feds, but the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land. A state may not make a law that deprives a citizen of her constitutional rights.

That said, the preferred solution in my view is to simply eliminate government marriage altogether. You are apparently unwilling to debate me on this topic, stating that "you don't want to open that can of works." Well, that's what we're here for. So open it... tell me why free men need a government to regulate their personal lives to such extent that the many and various marriage statutes of the 57 states does. Please.

 

I think you're misunderstanding the point of the Constitution. The Constitution does not exist to tell the citizen what he may do. It exists to tell government what it may not do. The Constitution does not state, for example, that you can paint your house yellow... but I'll bet you can paint your house yellow, can't you? One of the things the Constitution does state is that all citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law -- we might not like these citizens or their lifestyle, but we must defend their rights if we are to expect to continue to enjoy our own. The arbitrary stipulation to gender in the many and various marriage statutes is a violation of this very important clause in my view. The solution is something we already agree on: get the government out of it and restore the institution of marriage to the people... But until that happens, we must defend the Constitution from the politicians who'd just as soon wipe their behinds with it as faithfully execute their sworn oaths...

 

Anyone can see I've made my point and each and every one of your responces is just dodging the issue or nay-saying. Besides that, we've been around and around on the same issues and the arguments are repeating.

So let me sum up. You are for persecuting Christians because the 14th Amendment, which doesn't mention homosexuality or gay marriage explicitly, which you say it does, voids the 10th Amendment, which it does not, which means that Christians must be forced into labor against their religions beliefs because it's just a cake.

 

You guys need to stop going to the 14th Amendment for every frickin' argument.

The 14th Amendment protects citizens against the government...the equal protection clause doesn't mean equal outcome.

No, I was merely stating my position, not attempting to restate your position.

 

Giant strawman.

 

I'll allow myself to construct a strawman out of the several stupid arguments that you have presented in light of the fact that you have lied on several occasions that the 14th Amendment explicitly mentions homosexuality or gay marriage when it doesn't.

 

I'm not the one that needs clearing up. The bill of rights applies to all citizens.

This is a pointless rant because I never says it did. I said the bill of rights says that people have the right to civil process

Terroristic threat is a misdemeanor.

Um... You are the one that wants the constitution destroyed.

I figured this would be obvious but one person in Indiana isn't a crowd.

I recall. What is the relevance?

When did I suggest that? What post and what thread?

To force them to cater when they aren't a catering business? I agree that is against ethics, that's why I never suggested they be forced to cater. You simply lied when you said I did.

I doubt anybody suing them for such a thing would win.

 

What guys? Those of us who actually believe that the government's solemn duty is to enforce the provisions of the Constitution as written?

It specifically protects citizens from the states. It says that a state may not make a law that deprives a citizen of her rights. One of those rights is equal protection of the laws -- ALL of the laws. Ergo, the arbitrary stipulation to gender in the many and various marriage statutes of the 57 states.

Non sequitur. That doesn't even make sense in the context of this argument. Nor have I argued anything even resembling such a remark as your response implies. WTF??

So, you're not going to engage me in debate here are you? What are you afraid of? Why won't you open that can of worms?

 

No person should be compelled to provide nonessential services if they don't want to -- for whatever reason they see fit.

 

The 14th does not mention "arbitrary stipulation to gender".

The 14th doesn't mean that if you are gay, you get to be treated the same as a heterosexual. That is not what "equal protection" means. That is what I mean by the 14th doesn't guarantee equalitiy of outcome. If it did, a rich man would only have to pay the same amount in taxes as a poor man.

 

It also doesn't mention that you can paint your house yellow. But I'll bet you can paint your house yellow, can't you? And actually, yes, it does "mention" the arbitrary stipulation to gender if understand the purpose of the Constitution.

Nor did I ever suggest that it did.

Of course not. Nor did I ever suggest that it did.

Nor did I ever suggest that it did.

Non sequitutr. Again!

Now, are you going to debate with me or not? Or are you too afraid to open that can of worms you talked about? Come on, it'll be fun! You can show everyone your superior intellect and logical deductive skills...

 

ahhhhhhhhhh a graceful surrender, I accept

 

Not only do I realize this, but I also know there hasn't been one real law that denies the government access to our lives since FDR. The laws since him have all been intrusive and apparently with reduction of Rights as a goal...............I don't now, and will never trust the government with my Rights.

 

In no place, in the Constitution, does the government have the Right to dictate my private life or even yours.
It must remain outside of our personal and private affairs. That is the main goal of the BoR. Not only to limit, but deny. The rest, we're supposed to work out for ourselves. You do realize that when you invite them into the homosexual thing, you invite them into your very home, and mine as well, figuratively speaking. Why the hell would you want that? Is no one accorded a reasonable expectation of privacy?
If you don't want your business getting into the public eye, the Fed Gov is the last ones you want in your personal business. but when you invite them into yours, they have to put their nose in mine as well...so much for the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing Constitution

 

Yes you are suggesting equality of outcome. I'll see your Non sequitur about yellow houses and raise you one about inequal treatment of rich vs poor.