If The U.S. Supreme Court ‘Goes Rogue’ ...

a reply to: ketsuko

I love it when you lot whine about how business is all only about money and greed, but when business owners actually do try to run their businesses according to their personal values ... it's bad because those values contradict your own. At that point, their businesses should be just about the money and greed.

Do you go into business to make money or to spread your personal beliefs?

If I want to be in a business that provides a service to weddings and there comes a "wedding" that I am asked to participate in that my personal value/belief system says is a mockery of God and what he has decreed, then I must sell out my values for money and greed? I hope those 30 pieces of silver are worth it ...

When that type of situation comes up you then remember that you are a business and not a person. A for profit business has no religion.

I thought that the Supreme Court ruled that businesses (corporations) were people.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: James1982

WTF??? What does that have to do with this topic???

Did I miss something???? What the hell is a "nefarious performance arts degree" anyway??? How does nefarious even fit within that statement???

What exactly am I missing that makes any of that make sense???

I apologize if I upset you but I don't think I said anything offensive, I can see my input isn't wanted, sorry for interfering.

a reply to: James1982

No, you don't understand. I'm not offended by what you said. I honestly don't understand what you said.

Please do participate, that's totally fine. I just don't understand what it is you're saying.

What is a nefarious performance art degree??? If it's nefarious why would they offer a degree in it???

I thought you might have posted in the wrong topic because I don't get what the connection is to what you're saying.

I love how people don't really seem to understand federal, state, local law or the Constitution. The Constitution gives Congress the power regulate commerce which in turn set out federal guidelines that businesses open to the public must serve the entire public, in turn each state set guidelines in compliance and then each town, city, county within a state.

When a person applies for a business license if it is to be open to the public then the person must agree to serve the entire public... it's like T&C's with your local government. Each state of course has different legal definitions of who is the public. When you see things like cannot discriminate based on race or gender... it's not because non-white people or female people are more special than white people... it means they've been added to white males as being members of the public. Today we are increasing the definition of members of the public to include gay people.

Rights are growing, not shrinking.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

He has been married two times, he cheated on his first wife with his second wife, he impregnated his second wife while married to the first.

Is in his records.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: ketsuko

Yes, and it's happening an alarming frequency! *sarcasm*

These are solitary and isolated examples you mention...these are not the norm, no matter how much you wish to portray them as.

That doesn't make it OK, though, nor does it mean that a legal precedent should be set to allow this. Frankly, I find the frequency alarming, just as I would find the frequency alarming if there were "solitary and isolated" examples of Jews being forced to eat non-Kosher meat, or "solitary and isolated" examples of Muslims being told not to dress as their faith dictates. It's not OK, no matter how infrequently it happens, and it ought to be condemned.

a reply to: marg6043
Well as I live in Texas, I think that this needs to be brought out to the public.

originally posted by: beezzer
I thought that the Supreme Court ruled that businesses (corporations) were people.

They did only to give them the right to buy elections as far a religious rights a business doesn't have that right only humans have that right.

IMO, this is a lost cause. It would be nice to see conservatives concentrating their rebellious spirit somewhere where they have a better chance of success and (frankly) is more important.

The biblical/religious objections to gay marriage are only going to matter to the deeply religious. And the pragmatist in me says this is a ridiculous issue to waste time and resources on when the need for political opposition to liberalism is so dire in so many other areas.

We have literally tens of millions of people who are going to lose the right to choose anything in their lives because of the precedent in the Obamacare individual mandate. This is huge and is going to really hit hard in the future if it isn't reversed somehow.

Libertarian minded people have lost A LOT of ground and it seems like the only time the liberals get stopped in their tracks is if they lock horns with religion.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

The reason is not been brought up to the public is because it happen in the 80s, people tend to have short time memories and the 80s and early 90s seems like a long, long time ago, I guess he most be a born again Christian and thing\ks his transgressions and sins are forgotten. Is actually a human self protecting mechanism, as long as you beg for forgiveness and tell everybody that God has forgotten you, you are free as long as is not murder committed.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

The pagan clergy that I know already handfast gays and many are ordained to do marriages.
Personally I would not want to be married by anyone who would foster ill will towards my union - I'd want to feel blessed by the person that performed the rites.

Pushing this agenda in this way - I don't think it is 'what is to come' but more a strategy to gain attention on the issue. I think once gay marriage is legalized- and I do think it will be - all this will settle down. Bakeries will be known as friendly or not, and word will get around. Most people don't want to eat food cooked by someone hostile to them.

I think there's a lot of worry over nothing. The quickest way to settle this stuff down would be just to legalize it and recognize it and LET it settle down.

a reply to: marg6043
Funny you should mention that, as it is a fact that there are more born again on death and in prison than anyplace else. The reason why I think that the public should know about it, is cause of the other rep that in Texas, that was trying this. It turned out that while he was representing himself as the outstanding member and authority of marriage, it came out that he had been married 3 times prior and working on marriage number 4. The public opinion turned on him and went real badly for him. Hence why I think that it needs to get out. If he is going to make a big stink about marriage, lets get all of the cards out on the table and where he has to also be upfront and truthful about his own marriage.

originally posted by: kavsir
a reply to: loveguy

"where the kids will grow up in worse conditions than today for single parents"

There is absolutely no scientific evidence which even would hint at your opinion being true.

In fact, Boston University -- and other Ivy League schools -- have spent countless hours researching this topic and conclusively found the opposite to be true -- children raised in gay households are no better (or worse) off than straight households.

American Academy of Pediatrics
pediatrics.aappublications.org... 013/03/18/peds.2013-0377.full.pdf+html

I understand where you are coming from, but the fact is, this debate is so far off the OP. I think I need to bow out.

If logical reasoning and scientific study mean nothing to you, then there is absolutely no need for further discussion.

Deductive reasoning trumps an ivy league education...imoho
I study social issues using a formula I call algebra.

It's true, this debate is far and away from the OP.

What's your opinion about the SC going rogue and dismissing Florida's vote count?
Do you think it has no baring on todays world events?

a reply to: FarleyWayne


If someone could provide a decent legal argument as to the legal justification for the ban of same-sex marriage I would love to hear it, because I cannot think of one compelling reason.

Government sanctioned discrimination should always be met with scepticism and tough scrutiny, avoided at all cost, and always assumed to be illegal/unconstitutional until otherwise proved.

originally posted by: beezzer
I thought that the Supreme Court ruled that businesses (corporations) were people.

Don't need a SCOTUS ruling to see that. Just look at the definition sections of any USC title, or State Statutes. 'Person' is Just about everything except a 'man' or 'woman'.

originally posted by: ChairmanMeow
a reply to: FarleyWayne


If someone could provide a decent legal argument as to the legal justification for the ban of same-sex marriage I would love to hear it, because I cannot think of one compelling reason.

State involvement in Marriage has to do STRICTLY with franchise and investment. The State extends a benefit franchise to Couples who want to ge 'married'. This investment, affords the couple tax benefits, access to reduced medical care, options of public schooling, etc, in return the State EXPECTS productive progeny, that add to the bottome line of the State. Marriage is a franchise, a preceived benefit by those 'licensed'. Why would the State Invest in a contract where there is no 'return'?

a reply to: sdcigarpig

I guess in his views is Ok to be a cheater as long as it between a consenting adult man and woman, for him it doesn't apply to same sex marriage because he doesn't believe in it.



I don't know if you have noticed that most of those that scream against same sex marriage within our politics and religious leaders have more skeletons in the closet than any regular joe in the street.

a reply to: marg6043
I have noticed and tend to pay very close attention to such.