adaher –just a sorry old fool, who likes peoples boot-prints all over him.
Clothahump:
The court pretty much has to come down on the baker’s side. It just can’t get around the 1st Amendment. If it doesn’t, then it will, effectively, have overturned the 1st Amendment and that is completely unacceptable.
Can I interest you in a pamphlet on my Church of Dontpayanytaxesism?
SteveG1
December 17, 2017, 5:24pm
45
adaher:
It’s not very smart to take a concept to unreasonable lengths. There is no conceivable Supreme Court that is going to allow slavery or let government workers opt out of doing their jobs.
We have a culture of liberty that our Supreme Court strives to uphold. If you want them to look at rights cases differently, then advocate for that. But you can’t expect them to observe your particular preferences on an arbitrary, case-by-case basis. The same court that says you can donate $5 billion to elect a candidate also says you can get an abortion without government interference. If you give up one, you give up the other.
Well.
What if I don’t want to serve blacks, Jews, Methodists, or short people? It’s my right to refuse service.
What if, like Kim Davis, I decide to not do my job, and refuse to issue marriage licences - but do this to blacks, Jews, Methodists, and short people?
We have a culture of liberty that ALSO says we don’t have a right to fuck with someone else’s rights. That is not “case by case” or arbitrary.
What if I just refuse Republicans?
SteveG1
December 17, 2017, 5:29pm
46
and then they’ll set up an official REAL fashion police, with firing squads, and everything!
SteveG1
December 17, 2017, 5:33pm
47
Miller:
No, you fatuous fucking moron, we’ve always wanted full rights. It bigoted creeps like you who, when we make progress on one front, find a way to fuck with us on a different front that keeps dragging this out. We thought we’d finally settled this bullshit when we got enough decent American to turn their backs on the hateful lies you miserable god-botherers spread about us on the regular, and you assholes turn around on us and start this cake bullshit, and then act like you useless fucks are the victims when we try to defend ourselves against yet anouther attack from the Bible squad. Sorry, fucko. We.re not going to agree to a minimum level of discrimination you shits get to practice against us.
Go lock yourself in a closet. We’re sick of coddling your whiny, self-entitled asses, listening to your petty, irrational complaints, and putting up with your endless parades of slurs and slanders.
You are my hero
It all reminds me of the old shit…
No Irish allowed.
etc etc etc.
Yeah, fuck that shit.
Flyer:
You’re forgetting something: homosexuals ALWAYS lie about how much they want from government and from society.
Back in the early days, they claimed that all they wanted was for official persecution to stop. Then during the time of Lawrence v. Texas, they claimed that all they wanted was to be left alone in the bedroom. A few years later, they claimed that all they wanted was for the government to officially recognize their status in some way, whether by civil unions or some other form of recognition. Then in Oberfefell v. Hodges, they claimed that all they wanted was the right to marry. Now they’re claiming that all they want is the right to force everybody in the wedding industry to support them.
Sooner or later, (probably sooner) they’re going to start clamoring for the “right” to force any member of the clergy to participate in gay weddings, regardless of the minister’s stance on the issue. Anybody who feels that this is an absurd claim has not been paying attention to history.
The fact that gay people are by fits and starts no longer being treated as second-class citizens must drive you up the wall. What a shame.
adaher:
We have a culture of liberty here and it’s time to celebrate it, or at least accept it with dignity rather than whining every time some social issue you consider important gets subordinated to the quaint concept of liberty. Our system defends the rights you hold sacred, so accept that it will also defend rights you don’t consider as important.
You have the right to be obscene, to express hateful ideas, to get an abortion, to own a gun, to practice your religion even when it’s inconvenient for others, and you can speak out for your chosen candidate as much as you want and spend as much money as you want doing it. You can even blaspheme! You can burn a flag, or a Bible, or a Koran! If all this liberty upsets you, there are 200 other places on Earth where things are doine more to your liking.
There’s no simple formula like you gave. It’s almost cliche to say, but since you’re leaving it out, tough rights questions are where different rights collide.
The main result of our living in ‘a culture of liberty’ is that rarely will anyone anywhere near the US mainstream admit they want to curtail any right. Whatever right they actually do want to curtail either isn’t really a right (they say), or else they 100% emphasize the right they want to expand in a zero sum game where expanding one acknowledged right limits or curtails another acknowledged right.
This decision is only just about curtailing religious freedom or not if you assume the countervailing right to non-discrimination in public accommodation doesn’t exist or doesn’t extend this far. Which is just saying you want to the decision to come out a certain way. But by the same token the decision is not irrelevant to religious freedom unless you take the position that that right doesn’t really exist beyond keeping the govt out of the physical halls of places of worship, IOW it should be curtailed to a pretty trivial right.
Flyer:
You’re forgetting something: homosexuals ALWAYS lie about how much they want from government and from society.
Back in the early days, they claimed that all they wanted was for official persecution to stop. Then during the time of Lawrence v. Texas, they claimed that all they wanted was to be left alone in the bedroom. A few years later, they claimed that all they wanted was for the government to officially recognize their status in some way, whether by civil unions or some other form of recognition. Then in Oberfefell v. Hodges, they claimed that all they wanted was the right to marry. Now they’re claiming that all they want is the right to force everybody in the wedding industry to support them.
Sooner or later, (probably sooner) they’re going to start clamoring for the “right” to force any member of the clergy to participate in gay weddings, regardless of the minister’s stance on the issue. Anybody who feels that this is an absurd claim has not been paying attention to history.
Wow, you have an extremely reprehensible point of view! Congratulations.
SteveG1
December 17, 2017, 6:29pm
52
Corry_El:
The main result of our living in ‘a culture of liberty’ is that rarely will anyone anywhere near the US mainstream admit they want to curtail any right. Whatever right they actually do want to curtail either isn’t really a right (they say), or else they 100% emphasize the right they want to expand in a zero sum game where expanding one acknowledged right limits or curtails another acknowledged right.
Or they say it isn’t listed in the Constitution - in which case they too have no rights unless expressly given to them.
And yet, they complain about “sharia law taking over the country”. The only problem they have with that, would be if it isn’t their “christian” sharia.
And when is the government going to say, “We are now passing and unjust law”? Your statement would abolish freedom of religion altogether.
Yes, there will be mandates. A lot.
Flyer:
You’re forgetting something: homosexuals ALWAYS lie about how much they want from government and from society.
Back in the early days, they claimed that all they wanted was for official persecution to stop. Then during the time of Lawrence v. Texas, they claimed that all they wanted was to be left alone in the bedroom. A few years later, they claimed that all they wanted was for the government to officially recognize their status in some way, whether by civil unions or some other form of recognition. Then in Oberfefell v. Hodges, they claimed that all they wanted was the right to marry. Now they’re claiming that all they want is the right to force everybody in the wedding industry to support them.
Sooner or later, (probably sooner) they’re going to start clamoring for the “right” to force any member of the clergy to participate in gay weddings, regardless of the minister’s stance on the issue. Anybody who feels that this is an absurd claim has not been paying attention to history.
Wow.
Personally I believe that we should thank the right wing for gay marriage being legal in the the United States. During every inch of the journey you captured above, the right wing fought as hard as they could and would not give an inch. If, during the 80’s and 90’s, the right wing had made it a policy to just live and let live, Lawrence v. Texas never would have happened. Then in the 2000’s, if the right wing had not tried to limit homosexual’s rights regarding inheritance and hospital visitation at every turn, homosexuals would never have demanded that civil unions be recognized. And again, if the right had allowed civil unions, the the fight for gay marriage probably never would have occurred. The right wing brought it on themselves by never giving an inch.
Thanks Flyer.
SteveG1
December 18, 2017, 3:26am
56
What you did there… I see it
Flyer:
Sooner or later, (probably sooner) they’re going to start clamoring for the “right” to force any member of the clergy to participate in gay weddings, regardless of the minister’s stance on the issue. Anybody who feels that this is an absurd claim has not been paying attention to history.
Yeah, I mean look at all those Jewish couples insisting that priests perform a Catholic wedding for them!
Flyer:
Back in the early days, they claimed that all they wanted was for official persecution to stop. Then during the time of Lawrence v. Texas, they claimed that all they wanted was to be left alone in the bedroom. A few years later, they claimed that all they wanted was for the government to officially recognize their status in some way, whether by civil unions or some other form of recognition. Then in Oberfefell v. Hodges, they claimed that all they wanted was the right to marry. Now they’re claiming that all they want is the right to force everybody in the wedding industry to support them.
Golly!people !
Or, more to the point,
What a god-awful bigoted attitude.
Of course it can pass any law it wants. That’s democracy. It represents the people and the people are supreme. Just as the US, if enough states support it, can change their Constitution and pass any law it wants. Constitutions are made by the people and can be changed by them at will.
adaher
December 18, 2017, 9:50am
60
But only with broad consensus. We can’t just pass a law limiting free speech, or taking away guns, or abolishing jury trial. Britain can. To do any of those things in the US requires two thirds of both chambers of Congress and 3/4ths of the states.
