Actually we have. Glad you guys are catching up.
As the proponent of a law that restricts individual liberties, the burden is on you to show a harm that needs to be corrected. I don’t need to research every square mile of U.S. territory from Key West, FL to Nome, AK to find that there is in fact not a harm existing where you claim it does.
With the existence of the internet, such a harm in all probability does not exist. Like I said, if you can show widespread harm from an individual baker, or their conduct in the aggregate, by refusing to bake gay wedding cakes, then I might change my mind.
This belongs in one of the many prior threads on SSM and its legality. For the purposes of this thread, we should assume that SSM is legal where the wedding cake is attempting to be purchased. It doesn’t therefore follow that every private business should have to serve anything or anyone involved in the SSM.
wow, I don’t see that liberals have won at all. There is no democracy, as our elections are bought as allowed by Citizens United. There is no capitalism as there is less competition because of so few local businesses and apparently legal monopolies (Time Warner, Comcast, etc.
I commend cornopean for changing his position and supporting the judge who ordered the Colorado baker to bake the cake for the gay wedding participants. The judge based his decision on Colorado state law which forbids discrimination on the basis of race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation. Federal law had nothing to do with it.
I personally don’t go in much for states rights, as they are typically used as a figleaf for bigots who lack the courage to make direct arguments. I don’t rely on such arguments. But raising that issue in this context backs the Judge who wrote this decision. Bravo.
Yes…it’s about time somebody got it right. I was starting to think I was the only Christian on this blog. :eek:
)
You know it’s not about refusing someone to be healthy or not. This whole gay marriage thing is about Christianity, atheism, and our American way of life. We are about to lose that and become just as bad as all the other countries of the world.
Oh well, I’ll die before it gets really bad. :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
Your “American way of life” is probably quite different from my “American way of life”. I’m straight and married, by the way. And the countries with gay marriage have a very high standard of living – they’re very nice places to live, for the most part.
- You’re not even close to being the only Christian here.
- This isn’t a blog. This is a message board.
One could hope.
It’s not like Arizona actually passed the bill that would allow discrimination only to have it squelched by a bunch of increasingly higher liberal courts.
No, what happened was as soon as the word got out about this legislation, sports and professional organizations across the entire country lashed back and declared that they would never again hold any events in Arizona if the bill became law, causing hotels and convention center to go into convulsions.
Then about 98% percent of the businesses in Arizona jumped into the fray, posting rainbow signage that showed their disagreement with bill and letting everyone know that they were “Open for Business…for Everyone”………leaving the small percentage of bigot-owned business exposed by virtue of their naked windows.
Yes, it was not the government but the invisible hand of the free market that twisted ultra-conservative governor Jan Brewer’s arm while repeatedly bitch-slapping her in the face until she cried “uncle” and vetoed the bill.
Yes, I am talking about the same free market that conservatives worship and deem infallible. The very same free market that conservatives call out as an excuse to abolish the minimum wage and the social safety nets.
So what if it turns out that Adam Smith’s sacred invisible hand loves gay couples and couldn’t care less about Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby? Or that Honey Maid scored a huge win with its gay-friendly ad campaigns and managed to turn it into even a huger win by posting viral videos made of hate mail?
It’s the free market, not liberal governments, that have effectively rebranded the gay marriage debate as “Hate vs Love”. And the conservatives have hitched their wagons to the free market star and if they don’t like the way the invisible hand is swinging,……too bad.
Really? How about gun rights re: concealed or open carry or the permitting necessary? How about Voter ID?
Just pointing out that not your statement is not an absolute truth.
- magellan isn’t a Christian.
Enough of that. No warning issued.
Well, it actually DOES have something to do with it. Colorado voters in 1992 passed an amendment to the Colorado constitution prohibiting laws which forbade discrimination based upon sexual orientation.
The FEDS, though the Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans, overruled the sovereign people of the State of Colorado, and struck down this state constitutional provision. But for FEDERAL intervention, the Colorado constitution would have prevented such a law.
So, what say cornopean now?
jtgain - interesting, but wrong. It is true that the Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision reasoned that the 1992 Colorado state constitutional amendment failed the rational basis test. It is understood to be a lax test since “The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.” There are limits though.
But before that the decision came before the Colorado State Supreme Court, which overturned amendment 2: they decided that it infringed upon the fundamental rights of gays to participate in the political process. This raises the question of whether the initiative, like so many others, was poorly written.
Regardless, I again commend cornopean for changing his position and supporting the judge who ordered the Colorado baker to bake the cake for the gay wedding participants. I had always thought state rights were a phony figleaf for dissemblers with a separate agenda, but perhaps this is not always the case. Again: bravo.
The Colorado Supreme Court used its interpretation of the national constitution as its basis for striking down the amendment. (Obvious a state constitutional amendment cannot violate a state constitution—it is a part of the same on equal footing to the other provisions and superior to older provisions if there is a conflict). Because of the left’s view of the role of the federal government, the people of Colorado were unable to prevent these types of laws.
So, if I was coropean I would re-reconsider my view, because the Judge’s decision was one based upon federal intrusion.
The amendment was not at all vague. The Court simply held that it was unconstitutional to have this type of amendment because it made it harder for gays to pass laws favorable to them. If I want to, say, raise the state speed limit to 75, I have to convince the legislature. If gay want these protections, under the amendment, they would first have to repeal the amendment, then convince the legislature: a more difficult and according to the Court and unconstitutional burden.
Sounds nice, but it seems like everything in the constitution adds that additional burden. If I want to propose a law authorizing the death penalty without trial, slavery, or raising the voting age to 19, I must likewise deal with that extra step. I’m not sure what constitutional amendments would ever be valid if that reasoning was taken to its logical endpoint.