U.S. Supreme Court rules same sex marriages legal.

I can see the attorneys lining up to file suit on counties refusing to issue and process forms. Oh goody, my taxes will go up to pay for all this stupidity.

I can see the attorneys lining up to file suit on counties refusing to issue and process forms. Oh goody, my taxes will go up to pay for all this stupidity. Originally Posted by pyramider

Actually, a number of counties (or their software vendors) have been very tardy in issuing forms and to my knowledge only one law suit was filed. It was promptly and voluntarily dismissed when that county got it's computers straightened out the next day.

On the other hand, if a county continues to willfully disobey the law, of course they are going to get sued. And they should get sued.

Really, are you serious? Do you really think Rev. Hagee is going to be forced by law to marry two homosexuals? Originally Posted by Fawlty

I love it when people make this insipid query. I love it because it's really just a re-framing of the intense male fear that standing around any gay guy puts them at risk of being forced into buttsecks. It's not unlike the irrational fear that still exists in some parts of the country where they believe black and brown men are out to take all their pure white women.

At their core, fears like this are just another form of narcissism.

gay marriage has always be fine, ( you know - civil unions) the issue is the federal gov telling people what to think ( liberals telling church 's they have to marry people) Originally Posted by rexdutchman

Really, are you serious? Do you really think Rev. Hagee is going to be forced by law to marry two homosexuals? Originally Posted by Fawlty

I love it when people make this insipid query. I love it because it's really just a re-framing of the intense male fear that standing around any gay guy puts them at risk of being forced into buttsecks. It's not unlike the irrational fear that still exists in some parts of the country where they believe black and brown men are out to take all their pure white women.

At their core, fears like this are just another form of narcissism. Originally Posted by jdkees

I agree jkdkees. That is why this "liberal" responded facetiously to rexdutchman's irrational, fearful post.

I'm about as conservative as you can get, but I have no problem with gay marriage, despite the "slippery slope" arguments. It's difficult enough to find someone who is compatible enough to share your life with, and what gender you choose to share your bed with is none of my business.

What I DO have a problem with is government actions that force people who do object to gay marriage to provide services (like catering, photography, etc.) to them. When the government can force you to hire people you don't want to; to provide services to people you don't want to; and to provide health services that you're morally opposed to, it's getting a little much for me.

And what happened to State's Rights? Trampled under Federalist lawmakers and Supreme Court activism. I'm not sure how to turn it around, but I'm certainly willing to vote for someone who's willing to try.

I'm about as conservative as you can get, but I have no problem with gay marriage, despite the "slippery slope" arguments. It's difficult enough to find someone who is compatible enough to share your life with, and what gender you choose to share your bed with is none of my business.

What I DO have a problem with is government actions that force people who do object to gay marriage to provide services (like catering, photography, etc.) to them. When the government can force you to hire people you don't want to; to provide services to people you don't want to; and to provide health services that you're morally opposed to, it's getting a little much for me.

And what happened to State's Rights? Trampled under Federalist lawmakers and Supreme Court activism. I'm not sure how to turn it around, but I'm certainly willing to vote for someone who's willing to try. Originally Posted by Wheretonow

Because of this pesky thing called the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You guys that make these argument to support your personal prejudices always go by what you "feel" and poor understanding of the law. It's always that ones that say follow the Constitution, or the Bible in some cases, who know the least. LBGT didn't have the same protections of the Civil Rights Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act provided to other groups, but reading the 14th Amendment, it would be morally repugnant and hypocritical to allow business to discriminate against taxpaying Americans because of legal activity in their personal life.

Because of this pesky thing called the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You guys that make these argument to support your personal prejudices always go by what you "feel" and poor understanding of the law. It's always that ones that say follow the Constitution, or the Bible in some cases, who know the least. LBGT didn't have the same protections of the Civil Rights Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act provided to other groups, but reading the 14th Amendment, it would be morally repugnant and hypocritical to allow business to discriminate against taxpaying Americans because of legal activity in their personal life. Originally Posted by Roger.Smith

REALLY? Ever hear of freedom of association? What if a dirty and smelly person comes into your restaurant? Are you required to serve him? One could make the case that, not only is he bad for business, he could also be a health hazard. There should be a clear difference between what laws a government can impose and what patrons one wants for their personally-owned business. I'm pretty sure it's you who has a poor understanding of the law.

"The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, is one of the most important — and one of the most controversial — parts of the Constitution. It’s a meaty amendment, dealing with some pretty weighty topics. These include:

The definition of citizenship

The obligation of the states to uphold the privileges and immunities of United States citizens

Due process

The obligation of the states not to deny “the equal protection of the laws”

How representation in Congress is calculated

Disqualification from holding office

Denial of any obligation to compensate former slave owners for the emancipation of their slaves"

It doesn't seem to have much to do with whose wedding you decide not to cater...

REALLY? Ever hear of freedom of association? What if a dirty and smelly person comes into your restaurant? Are you required to serve him? One could make the case that, not only is he bad for business, he could also be a health hazard. There should be a clear difference between what laws a government can impose and what patrons one wants for their personally-owned business. I'm pretty sure it's you who has a poor understanding of the law.

"The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, is one of the most important — and one of the most controversial — parts of the Constitution. It’s a meaty amendment, dealing with some pretty weighty topics. These include:

The definition of citizenship

The obligation of the states to uphold the privileges and immunities of United States citizens

Due process

The obligation of the states not to deny “the equal protection of the laws”

How representation in Congress is calculated

Disqualification from holding office

Denial of any obligation to compensate former slave owners for the emancipation of their slaves"

It doesn't seem to have much to do with whose wedding you decide not to cater... Originally Posted by Wheretonow

All you did was Google Equal Protection Clause, then copied and pasted an article you found that doesn't even support your argument. Then you say the 14th Amendment doesn't say anything about a wedding cake? ?...?...? Whaaaat? Of course the 14th Amendment doesn't say anything about a fucking wedding cake... Wow. You really just typed that...

Denying a smelly person entrance into a restaurant has absolutely no relation to denying and entire class of people access to a business. I know you won't understand even though I'm making simple:

• A business owner has every right to exclude smelly people, but a business owner can not allow entry smelly white people, but deny entry to smelly AA's, Latinos or another protected class.

The Kung-Fu Saloon in Dallas was sued for class-based discrimination. They denied entrance to an AA saying that his Converse sneakers didn't meet the dress code, while his white friend wearing the exact same sneakers was allowed entry. Even Hispanic businesses can't decide they'll only serve Latinos and deny service to non-Latinos.


A gay wedding cake is the same as a straight wedding cake. Baking the exact same cake doesn't require someone to not observe their religious beliefs. A lot of conservatives are just showing their true colors by being hateful bigots. If a business doesn't want to put a male-male or female-female wedding cake topper on a cake, they can do that.


I know what I wrote is Greek to you, and whatever reply you type won't address the technical details of anything I posted. But that's typical from your ilk. This is what I meant in my previous post about people like yourself who don't have the ability to identify or grasp concepts, or anything else that requires critical thinking skills. You base your opinions on tribalism. "Us vs them".

All you did was Google Equal Protection Clause, then copied and pasted an article you found that doesn't even support your argument. Then you say the 14th Amendment doesn't say anything about a wedding cake? ?...?...? Whaaaat? Of course the 14th Amendment doesn't say anything about a fucking wedding cake... Wow. You really just typed that...

Denying a smelly person entrance into a restaurant has absolutely no relation to denying and entire class of people access to a business. I know you won't understand even though I'm making simple:

• A business owner has every right to exclude smelly people, but a business owner can not allow entry smelly white people, but deny entry to smelly AA's, Latinos or another protected class.

The Kung-Fu Saloon in Dallas was sued for class-based discrimination. They denied entrance to an AA saying that his Converse sneakers didn't meet the dress code, while his white friend wearing the exact same sneakers was allowed entry. Even Hispanic businesses can't decide they'll only serve Latinos and deny service to non-Latinos.


A gay wedding cake is the same as a straight wedding cake. Baking the exact same cake doesn't require someone to not observe their religious beliefs. A lot of conservatives are just showing their true colors by being hateful bigots. If a business doesn't want to put a male-male or female-female wedding cake topper on a cake, they can do that.


I know what I wrote is Greek to you, and whatever reply you type won't address the technical details of anything I posted. But that's typical from your ilk. This is what I meant in my previous post about people like yourself who don't have the ability to identify or grasp concepts, or anything else that requires critical thinking skills. You base your opinions on tribalism. "Us vs them". Originally Posted by Roger.Smith

Your arguments would perhaps be more persuasive if you'd drop the ad hominem attacks, but fallacies in thinking seem to be your main weapon.

I'm frequently bewildered by people who want to make others accept their lifestyle. I personally wouldn't want to give my business to (and therefore contribute to the success of) a business who dislikes me or my life choices.

I think it's despicable to choose to dislike or harm someone because of the color of their skin, their ethnic heritage, their sexual orientation, or any reason other than their actions.

But freedom of expression is one of the foundations of our collective heritage, and it seems that we're rapidly sinking to the lowest common denominator - if ANYONE dislikes what you're doing or saying, then you have to stop it or we have to ban it.

We are rapidly becoming a nation that looks for reasons to dislike each other, and finding them. We try to legislate against opposing views while espousing "diversity". To me the definition of tolerance is accepting that there are views that differ from mine, even if they seem to be intolerant or distasteful or biased.

There's lots of money to be made by catering to divergent lifestyles. Why not let the market dictate what business model is ultimately successful? Rather than sue the businesses that won't serve you, why not help advertise the ones who will?

Roger, you're arguing for more government intrusion into our lives and I'm adamantly against it. And your personal attacks on those whose opinions differ from yours severely undermines your case.

And saying "a gay wedding cake is the same as a straight wedding cake" is like saying the ISIS flag is the same as the American flag. You apparently don't see the difference, but many people do.

Your arguments would perhaps be more persuasive if you'd drop the ad hominem attacks, but fallacies in thinking seem to be your main weapon.

I'm frequently bewildered by people who want to make others accept their lifestyle. I personally wouldn't want to give my business to (and therefore contribute to the success of) a business who dislikes me or my life choices.

I think it's despicable to choose to dislike or harm someone because of the color of their skin, their ethnic heritage, their sexual orientation, or any reason other than their actions.

But freedom of expression is one of the foundations of our collective heritage, and it seems that we're rapidly sinking to the lowest common denominator - if ANYONE dislikes what you're doing or saying, then you have to stop it or we have to ban it.

We are rapidly becoming a nation that looks for reasons to dislike each other, and finding them. We try to legislate against opposing views while espousing "diversity". To me the definition of tolerance is accepting that there are views that differ from mine, even if they seem to be intolerant or distasteful or biased.

There's lots of money to be made by catering to divergent lifestyles. Why not let the market dictate what business model is ultimately successful? Rather than sue the businesses that won't serve you, why not help advertise the ones who will?

Roger, you're arguing for more government intrusion into our lives and I'm adamantly against it. And your personal attacks on those whose opinions differ from yours severely undermines your case.

And saying "a gay wedding cake is the same as a straight wedding cake" is like saying the ISIS flag is the same as the American flag. You apparently don't see the difference, but many people do.

Originally Posted by Wheretonow

I said that you wouldn't be able to respond with anything I wrote with legal documentation to back your claim, and unsurprisingly, I was correct. In America, we follow written law, not prejudicial opinions of close-minded people.

Maybe you've never been to a wedding because no one has seen cause to invite you, but wedding cakes are generally white, multi-layered, with no writing. It doesn't matter gay or straight. In your bigoted mind, a gay wedding cake is just a big frosted dick or something vulgar. There's no help for you because you are willfully ignorant.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015...oting-racists/

I found it interesting that Al Jazeera mocked us for a litany of things, but not for being Pro-Gay, or anything GLBT related..

I'm about as conservative as you can get, but I have no problem with gay marriage, despite the "slippery slope" arguments. It's difficult enough to find someone who is compatible enough to share your life with, and what gender you choose to share your bed with is none of my business.

What I DO have a problem with is government actions that force people who do object to gay marriage to provide services (like catering, photography, etc.) to them. When the government can force you to hire people you don't want to; to provide services to people you don't want to; and to provide health services that you're morally opposed to, it's getting a little much for me.

And what happened to State's Rights? Trampled under Federalist lawmakers and Supreme Court activism. I'm not sure how to turn it around, but I'm certainly willing to vote for someone who's willing to try. Originally Posted by Wheretonow

There goes your new year's resolution. Dont feel bad, it lasted 6 months. Better than mine.

I said that you wouldn't be able to respond with anything I wrote with legal documentation to back your claim, and unsurprisingly, I was correct. In America, we follow written law, not prejudicial opinions of close-minded people.

Maybe you've never been to a wedding because no one has seen cause to invite you, but wedding cakes are generally white, multi-layered, with no writing. It doesn't matter gay or straight. In your bigoted mind, a gay wedding cake is just a big frosted dick or something vulgar. There's no help for you because you are willfully ignorant. Originally Posted by Roger.Smith

Well Rog, I see in additional to personal attacks, you've taken up mindreading, with equally abysmal results.

If your description of the wedding cake the gay couple asked for is correct, how (short of you mindreading abilities) did the baker even know they were gay? In a truly free society, it wouldn't matter why the baker didn't want to provide a cake - because they were left-handed, or red-headed or for any other ridiculous reason.

Quoting Richard Epstein:
"Freedom of contract, in particular, has been in a prolonged period of retrenchment, as we can see in areas as diverse as product liability and employment law. In the former, the welter of regulations and the climate of opinion they foster have led to a massive expansion of litigation with no overall decline in accident rates. In the area of employment, the old common-law rule of “contract at will”—you can be fired without cause just as you can quit without liability—has been put out to pasture by both anti-discrimination laws and the creeping doctrine of “just cause” in judicial rulings. The result has been a mushrooming body of law that has proved to be an awful drag on the economy; in the meantime, the workplace has become not a better but a more forbidding and less satisfying place for workers and managers alike."

As I've stated before, the principle of "diversity" loses it's meaning when it only means including those of whom we approve. But it appears that this concept is a little (maybe a lot) too pragmatic for your dogmatic brain to comprehend.

And again, interperet and wild accusations about other posters does little to further your cause. You might try doubling up on your anxiety medication.

There goes your new year's resolution. Dont feel bad, it lasted 6 months. Better than mine. Originally Posted by Luke Skywalker

Luke, I've missed our interactions. I actually have found better things to do with my time, and now I'm wondering why I'm not doing them.

Luke, I've missed our interactions. I actually have found better things to do with my time, and now I'm wondering why I'm not doing them. Originally Posted by Wheretonow

Indeed. That's what I pointed out to you.