Indiana

[136 or 142]

Nice to see this Indiana non-issue has already dried up and blown away in the wind like an irrelevant pile of dog feces.

It dried up because it was resolved when both Indiana and Arkansas felt required to do a partial stand down.

[136 or 142]

Well, what have been the results when people have voted?  It's been the courts (carefully selected, a tactic known as 'judge shopping') overturning the will of the people that has forced 'gay marriage' on us.  So those poll 'results' have been rigged - it's a common tactic Big Media uses when trying to move public opinion.

1.There has been at least one state, and likely more where the voters have approved gay marriage.

2.Given that ultimately it was the state supreme court in multiple states that sided with the lower courts in knocking down the ban, I fail to see how that can be called ''judge shopping'.  If you want to see an actual example of judge shopping I suggest you like at the judge who struck down Obama's immigration reforms.  Funny how you never mention that as a case of judge shopping.

3.How has gay marriage been forced on anyone?  Has it changed your life in the slightest?  If we' re all going to get a vote on these things, we should have had a vote on whether your parents should have been allowed to breed.  The smart vote obviously would have been 'no!'.

[PB the Deplorable]

1.There has been at least one state, and likely more where the voters have approved gay marriage.

2.Given that ultimately it was the state supreme court in multiple states that sided with the lower courts in knocking down the ban, I fail to see how that can be called ''judge shopping'.  If you want to see an actual example of judge shopping I suggest you like at the judge who struck down Obama's immigration reforms.  Funny how you never mention that as a case of judge shopping.

3.How has gay marriage been forced on anyone?  Has it changed your life in the slightest?  If we' re all going to get a vote on these things, we should have had a vote on whether your parents should have been allowed to breed.  The smart vote obviously would have been 'no!'.

1.  Yeah, 1 state.  If the people of Maine decide they want 'gay marriage', they should have it.  The citizens of the other states should have their will respected as well

2.  The judge struck down Obama's immigration laws because that judge was following the law.  Unlike the judges ruling that 'gay marriage' must be implemented.

Presidents are charged with carrying out existing law, not ignoring the laws they don't like and decreeing new laws. 

3.  How is it possible the people of this country do not get to decide what the definition of marriage is going to be?  When did the judiciary get the power to decide social issues?


I'm not against gays and 'gay marriage' per se. 

What I resent is a) the bullying anti-democratic Alinsky tactics the Gay Mafia adopts and uses as they check off the items on their agenda (and meanwhile not giving a hoot about anyone else's rights), and b) the way our system of government is abused to do so.

And PS, same thing with abortion.  That should have been settled by our elected representatives in the various State Legislatures, not in the US Supreme Court.

The issue is the same:  "who decides?"  Our Constitution was carefully crafted - separation of powers, consent of the governed, specific delegated and retained powers.  We were never meant to have a President who dictates whatever he wants, or a Court who decides for themselves what they get to rule on (in this case social issues).  Do people not understand that road leads to tyranny?

[136 or 142]

All right then, let's vote on guns. If a majority votes to ban them, then they're gone and anybody who resists goes to jail.

[PB the Deplorable]

All right then, let's vote on guns. If a majority votes to ban them, then they're gone and anybody who resists goes to jail.

Maybe you should actually read the Constitution. 

Read what powers are delegated to the Congress, to each specific house.  What powers are delegated to the President, to the Judiciary.  Read what specific Rights and protections are written into the Bill of Rights - including gun rights.  Read how ALL ELSE is retained by the States, and by the people

Understand that the States created the Federal Government (and wrote the Constitution), and delegated only certain powers to it - to be exercised by specific branches in certain ways.  The States were not to simply be administrators of whatever the Federal government wanted.  What was done at the Federal level was never meant to be decided by whoever could find and exploit weaknesses in our system, and whoever Big Media was supporting.


As far as gun rights - I'm game.  Yes let's vote on it one time and be done with that issue permanently.  I'd stand by the decision, but be careful, there is a reason the D's pretend they aren't after our guns and are very stealthy when advancing this agenda.  There is a reason they aren't calling for repeal of the 2nd Amendment. 

If we were to have this national vote, the Conservatives would tie the Democrat Party to the ban.  The end result would be the D's as a minority party in this country for a generation.

[136 or 142]

Maybe you should actually read the Constitution. 

Read what powers are delegated to the Congress, to each specific house.  What powers are delegated to the President, to the Judiciary.  Read what specific Rights and protections are written into the Bill of Rights - including gun rights.  Read how ALL ELSE is retained by the States, and by the people

Understand that the States created the Federal Government (and wrote the Constitution), and delegated only certain powers to it - to be exercised by specific branches in certain ways.  The States were not to simply be administrators of whatever the Federal government wanted.  What was done at the Federal level was never meant to be decided by whoever could find and exploit weaknesses in our system, and whoever Big Media was supporting.


As far as gun rights - I'm game.  Yes let's vote on it one time and be done with that issue permanently.  I'd stand by the decision, but be careful, there is a reason the D's pretend they aren't after our guns and are very stealthy when advancing this agenda.  There is a reason they aren't calling for repeal of the 2nd Amendment. 

If we were to have this national vote, the Conservatives would tie the Democratic Party to the ban.  The end result would be the D's as a minority party in this country for a generation.

1.That a person might come to a different conclusion than a stupid person like you about what the consitution says isn't exactly news.

2.If there were to actually be a vote on guns, most Democrats would obviously stay as far away from the issue as possible, with the exception of urban Democrats who would support the ban.

3.I'm not sure why if a majority of people voted to ban guns, it would help the Rethuglic Party and hurt the Democrats.

[PB the Deplorable]

1.That a person might come to a different conclusion than a stupid person like you about what the consitution says isn't exactly news.

2.If there were to actually be a vote on guns, most Democrats would obviously stay as far away from the issue as possible, with the exception of urban Democrats who would support the ban.

3.I'm not sure why if a majority of people voted to ban guns, it would help the Rethuglic Party and hurt the Democrats.

I thought you said the Constitution is 'vague'.  Meaning you didn't understand it.  And you think I'm the stupid one?

The meaning is quite clear, and was well understood in this country by most citizens until the ACLU and the rest of the Left decided they didn't like much of it and decided to obfuscate

I'm not so sure a majority of the urban D's would support it either.  Sure the pro-crime, pro-criminal wing would, and a few other easily led follower types, but that's about it.

On your 3rd question, it's a moot point - the majority in this country would never vote to ban guns.  Tying the 'Progressives' to the attempt would doom the D's as a Party.

[136 or 142]

I thought you said the Constitution is 'vague'.  Meaning you didn't understand it.  And you think I'm the stupid one?

The meaning is quite clear, and was well understood in this country by most citizens until the ACLU and the rest of the Left decided they didn't like much of it and decided to obfuscate

I'm not so sure a majority of the urban D's would support it either.  Sure the pro-crime, pro-criminal wing would, and a few other easily led follower types, but that's about it.

On your 3rd question, it's a moot point - the majority in this country would never vote to ban guns.  Tying the 'Progressives' to the attempt would doom the D's as a Party.

Saying something is vague is not the same as saying I don't understand it, it just means that there are various possible interpretations and only a stupid person such as yourself wouldn't understand that.

[PB the Deplorable]

Saying something is vague is not the same as saying I don't understand it, it just means that there are various possible interpretations and only a stupid person such as yourself wouldn't understand that.

Saying there are various possible interpretations to some clauses, or that there are specific cases where reasonable people can disagree on how the Constitution should be applied is different than implying the whole thing is 'vague'. 

Simply stating the Constitution is 'vague' opens the door to judges and others who would substitute their own agenda when ruling on a case. 

[Quick Karl]

So, a logical consequence of this would be to perhaps have hospitals and other private services discriminate based on a person's sexual orientation? 

"Excuse me sir, I understand that you were shot in the face, but you checked 'gay' on your emergency room intake sheet.  We don't serve gays, so you'll have to find another hospital.  Take your cheek bone with you"

Another example:

"ahhh... you warnt gas?  Fill aat this questionnaire furst.  WHAT?  GAY?  Sorry feller, but you'll have ta push yer car another 30 miles to the next gay lov'in, sum-bitch gas station".

If the Hospital is a privately owned business (no shareholders) and the owners hold a religious belief that does not accept homosexual marriage, I would support their right to decide NOT to participate in a gay wedding.

Is that clear enough for you? Or would you force the Jew deli owner to cater the NAZI party local meeting and serve pork?

[136 or 142]

Saying there are various possible interpretations to some clauses, or that there are specific cases where reasonable people can disagree on how the Constitution should be applied is different than implying the whole thing is 'vague'. 

Simply stating the Constitution is 'vague' opens the door to judges and others who would substitute their own agenda when ruling on a case.

1.No, nearly every clause in the Constitution is vague.

2.The only Judge who substitutes his agenda that I'm aware of is Scalia.

[136 or 142]

If the Hospital is a privately owned business (no shareholders) and the owners hold a religious belief that does not accept homosexual marriage, I would support their right to decide NOT to participate in a gay wedding.

Is that clear enough for you? Or would you force the Jew deli owner to cater the NAZI party local meeting and serve pork?

It's like fighting the Civil Rights Act all over again, and only days after Man-Boy said that those who supported it were on the 'right side of history'.

[Quick Karl]

All right then, let's vote on guns. If a majority votes to ban them, then they're gone and anybody who resists goes to jail.

We have that vote every time Anti-Rightist-despots try to ban weapons and The People flood congress with phone calls and your Anti-Rightist-despot representatives tell you they do NOT have the votes to do anything...

How many times you want to do that?

[Quick Karl]

It's like fighting the Civil Rights Act all over again, and only days after Man-Boy said that those who supported it were on the 'right side of history'.

So you would force the Jew to serve the Nazis?

Why can't you just go find a bakery that WANTS to make your cake and leave the religious family that is now $850,000 richer, the fuck alone?

[Quick Karl]

Any business should be focused on making a profit, not offering political opinions, refusing service based on politics is just bad business. The pizza place never did this, they answered a hypothetical question from a media terrorist attempting to set them up. The purpose of course was to create another fake crisis with lots of organized outrage by the same ol folk that show up for all these fake protests. It failed.

Now take Sean Penn, he's a so-called entertainer. He's also the classic example of an ignorant left-wing liberal democrat. He consistently shares his pro-communist ignorance publicly, and because of it his latest movie completely tanked. A movie with lots go guns and action and old geezers acting a lot younger than they actually are. A very popular format these days. In 4 weeks its failed to top the 10 million mark.

Nice to see this Indiana non-issue has already dried up and blown away in the wind like an irrelevant pile of dog feces.

+10!

[136 or 142]

So you would force the Jew to serve the Nazis?

Why can't you just go find a bakery that WANTS to make your cake and leave the religious family that is now $850,000 richer, the fuck alone?

Yes, I would.

But, if the Jew wanted to add a few extra 'ingredients' to the cake I'd support that as well.

Given that though this situation has likely occurred, it is very rare, it fits under the legal 'term' of "hard cases make bad law."

[PB the Deplorable]

So you would force the Jew to serve the Nazis?

Why can't you just go find a bakery that WANTS to make your cake and leave the religious family that is now $850,000 richer, the fuck alone?

I dunno, there can't be very many gays who have small businesses and bake cakes, make flower arrangements, or take wedding pix.  Oh, wait...

[RealCool Daddio]

I'll just leave this here, and see if any of our "conservative" forum members have the guts to comment on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman_v._Piggie_Park_Enterprises,_Inc.

[Quick Karl]

Yes, I would.

But, if the Jew wanted to add a few extra 'ingredients' to the cake I'd support that as well.

Given that though this situation has likely occurred, it is very rare, it fits under the legal 'term' of "hard cases make bad law."

So you support forcing a Christian to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding but the Christian can piss in it if he or she wants to?

[PB the Deplorable]

I'll just leave this here, and see if any of our "conservative" forum members have the guts to comment on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman_v._Piggie_Park_Enterprises,_Inc.

What about it - another racist southern Democrat, circa 1964, or the landmark ruling regarding attorneys fees?

[albrecht]

I'll just leave this here, and see if any of our "conservative" forum members have the guts to comment on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newman_v._Piggie_Park_Enterprises,_Inc.

Comment on what? That courts held that lawyers should be paid? That is a big surprise that lawyers would ensure that other lawyers are paid and make rulings, and law, to encourage more lawsuits and hence more business for the lot of them? I actually like "loser pays" system better, but I can understand the theory behind it (a poor person or group might hesitate to initiate a suit if they were afraid of having to pay up.) And more lawsuits and hopes of "winning the lottery" by a lawsuit keeps a lot of lawyers, and judges, employed.

If you meant the bit about "Piggie Park" not serving blacks I would say that any business should be able to refuse service for whatever reason they wish; as long as they don't receive any government funding, grants, loans, tax-breaks, etc. It likely won't be good business policy over time but if they don't want customers- let them fail. If you disagree with the policy than you don't go there either. Customers don't come, business closes and issue is over. The more accommodating business gets those customers and stays in business.

An activist not being able to buy a cake or pizza from one targeted small-business is not a a big deal and making a "federal offense" out of it is bizarre, considering the REAL problems we have in this country, and around the world. Things like the economy, the damage done via the open-border policy, the wars, schools, the government aggrandizement and profligate spending concern EVERYONE- no matter race or "gender identification." Which is why they would rather we focus on some deviant (<2% of the population according to the Obama government's CDC) not being able to buy a cake rather than in real issues.

[PB the Deplorable]

Comment on what? That courts held that lawyers should be paid? That is a big surprise that lawyers would ensure that other lawyers are paid and make rulings, and law, to encourage more lawsuits and hence more business for the lot of them? I actually like "loser pays" system better, but I can understand the theory behind it (a poor person or group might hesitate to initiate a suit if they were afraid of having to pay up.) And more lawsuits and hopes of "winning the lottery" by a lawsuit keeps a lot of lawyers, and judges, employed.

If you meant the bit about "Piggie Park" not serving blacks I would say that any business should be able to refuse service for whatever reason they wish; as long as they don't receive any government funding, grants, loans, tax-breaks, etc. It likely won't be good business policy over time but if they don't want customers- let them fail. If you disagree with the policy than you don't go there either. Customers don't come, business closes and issue is over. The more accommodating business gets those customers and stays in business.

An activist not being able to buy a cake or pizza from one targeted small-business is not a a big deal and making a "federal offense" out of it is bizarre, considering the REAL problems we have in this country, and around the world. Things like the economy, the damage done via the open-border policy, the wars, schools, the government aggrandizement and profligate spending concern EVERYONE- no matter race or "gender identification." Which is why they would rather we focus on some deviant (<2% of the population according to the Obama government's CDC) not being able to buy a cake rather than in real issues.

Hey, do what yer told, or you're a bigot

[136 or 142]

Hey, do what yer told, or you're a bigot

Didn't you just say that those who supported the Civil Rights Act were on the right side of history?  Yet, now you seem to be taking the 1964 position of Robert Byrd. 
In addition to showing, once again, that Man*Boy has no real beliefs except for his deranged hatred of Barack Obama, it does raise a question:

Man*Boy, how long have you been in the KKK?

[RealCool Daddio]

Hey, do what yer told, or you're a bigot

If the white hood fits...

[136 or 142]

So you support forcing a Christian to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding but the Christian can piss in it if he or she wants to?

Of course, no real Christian would do such a thing.  A pseudo "Christian" such as yourself might, but, fortunately you haven't shown you have the mental capacity to successfully bake a cake.

[RealCool Daddio]

It likely won't be good business policy over time but if they don't want customers- let them fail. If you disagree with the policy than you don't go there either. Customers don't come, business closes and issue is over. The more accommodating business gets those customers and stays in business.

So you agree that the owners of the pizza parlour got what they had coming when they were driven out of business then? Cause they are bigots, and the masses spoke, and forced them to shutter their close minded, hateful little business?  Glad to hear you stand with the gays, progressives, blacks, Jews and Muslems (and all them Hispanics pouring across the border) on this one, brother.  Power to the People! Hope and Change!

[RealCool Daddio]

What about it - another racist southern Democrat, circa 1964, or the landmark ruling regarding attorneys fees?

Knew you wouldn't have the guts to comment on religious freedom as a defence for bigotry - what with being one, and all.  Interestingly, when ol' Maurice was drummed out of the Democrats (when all the Dixiecrats went over to that safe haven of hatred, the Republicans), he also threw in with The Council of Conservative Citizens http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Conservative_Citizens

Not much has changed for conservatives in 50 years, huh? I guess that is just kinda who they are, never changing, never moving forward.....

[PB the Deplorable]

Knew you wouldn't have the guts to comment on religious freedom as a defence for bigotry - what with being one, and all...

I think the point has been made at least several times, but in case you didn't read up-thread I'll make it again.

There is a difference between a person walking into a business and buying something 'off the shelf', so to speak, vs *requiring* them to put their talent, time, and creativity into something.  Anyone should be able to walk into a bakery and buy a cake off the rack, but they shouldn't be able to force a baker to make a cake celebrating anything the baker doesn't want to do, like, say, 'gay marriage', the KKK, some anti-(fill in the name of any group) gathering, etc.  Your rights end where my rights begin

A pizza place or burger joint should not be able to decline to serve anyone, or even make a delivery of run-of the-mill pizzas or burgers to a 'gay wedding', because they are not participating, nor are they creating.  A baker of a specialized cake is.


Do you really think the end of segregation in the South and something as grindingly trivial as these 'gay weddings' is a valid comparison?  The entire point of this is to continue the attack on Christianity and the traditional values of this country.  Somehow (because the Gay Mafia has thrown in with the Left, uses the same tactics, and attacks the same targets) that's all ok, even encouraged. 

All those years before anyone ever heard of 'gay marriage' these people were attacking the Catholic Church especially, and I never heard one word about 'bigotry'.  The Left attacks Christians as frequently as they attack the Tea Party, and that's all ok too (no bigotry there, but don't you say a word about Muslims). 

Now gosh, victims of the attacks on their religion, and the rest of the country tired of the antics of the Left aren't lining up in support - I'm shocked.

[WOTR]

...Or would you force the Jew deli owner to cater the NAZI party local meeting...

A more fair (and telling question) might be "would you force the Jew deli owner to cater to a Muslim wedding or cater the meal for Ramadan if asked.

If you meant the bit about "Piggie Park" not serving blacks I would say that any business should be able to refuse service for whatever reason they wish; as long as they don't receive any government funding, grants, loans, tax-breaks, etc. It likely won't be good business policy over time but if they don't want customers- let them fail. If you disagree with the policy than you don't go there either. Customers don't come, business closes and issue is over. The more accommodating business gets those customers and stays in business.

It is funny how close we are on this.  I only want the addition of mandated signs.  See, I have no problem with a business discriminating against groups- it is more the individuals.  There is no reason that a man should walk into a bakery and be refused service because he is too gay when his husband who he fucked the night before was served just an hour prior because he passed for straight.  No reason that somebody of mixed race who appears white should be served, but the fellow behind him with a little more pigment be refused.  Put it on a sign so that you do not accidentally sin by serving the straight acting gay man or the black man with too little pigment if that is your belief. 

Put it in writing so that all can follow the rules and you should be allowed to do what you want provided you are not an essential service.

[Quick Karl]

Let us simplify all this for the rationally challenged.

Memories Pizza never said they would not serve queers - they said they would not cater a queer wedding because of their religious beliefs; a far cry from the institutional racism that black folks endured.

I'm not a Christian, but I believe that Christian Rights are just as valid as other people's rights.

I do not believe in a God that has personal relationships with people, but anyone that believes that all of the matter and physics in the known universe, just popped into existence one day, from absolutely nothing, in the middle of an absolute void that did not previously exist, and that ultimately the fantastical complexity of life evolved from this "creation of the Universe from NOTHING", just because it wanted to, believes in magic.

Abracadabra and poof, there is was! Sounds like a Bible story to me...

Atheism and the anti-Christian hysterics of today, is simply a devise that people think they can use so as not to answer to a power higher than themselves, period.

Yeah, the Jerry Springer society we live in now is way better than before - if you're a fucking crack head.

Y'all thought you could get Duck Dynasty thrown off the air and that blew up in your face. Now you think you can close a pizza shop and they got $850,000 for it.

Anal sex is for assholes and assholes smell like shit.

Duh.