Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree. There is no harm in allowing same sex marriage.
However, and this is important, there IS harm in forcing some US citizens to violate their First Amendment Right to practice their own religion by forcing them to participate in same sex marriage by providing goods/services for same sex weddings. Doing so is completely unnecessary when wedding goods and services can easily be obtained elsewhere from those of different religions which don't prohibit same sex marriage.
At that point where court-imposed force is wielded, courts are choosing superior and subordinate citizens, violating the First Amendment, and not treating all equally.
Funny how, when there's a Democrat in office, simply following the the Constitution becomes "stacking the court".
Is this a joke? Look, we all know about the massive ideological divide between the left and right on the Supreme Court.
It's pretty clear that the conservatives embrace their oath to defend the Constitution, while the left is forever looking for ways to defeat it, dismiss it, work around it, even to the extent of subversion of the English language, whereas " Shall Not" somehow becomes "can do if we make up a good excuse".
Ginsberg has such a low opinion of the Constitution, that she actually said NO, when a foreign diplomat from a developing country asked her if she would recommend the US Constitution as a framework for other nations!!
Our founding fathers would have tarred and feathered such a troll, so lets be honest. The left looks upon the Constitution as an inconvenience, and an obstacle to their Marxist agendas, and every last one of them can be considered nothing less than the domestic enemies for which the oath to the Constitution refers to.
We should be able to discriminate against anyone we want to, the constitution says so. Scalia is an expert so who are we to question the only justice that upholds the constitution.
I agree. There is no harm in allowing same sex marriage.
However, and this is important, there IS harm in forcing some US citizens to violate their First Amendment Right to practice their own religion by forcing them to participate in same sex marriage by providing goods/services for same sex weddings. Doing so is completely unnecessary when wedding goods and services can easily be obtained elsewhere from those of different religions which don't prohibit same sex marriage.
At that point where court-imposed force is wielded, courts are choosing superior and subordinate citizens, violating the First Amendment, and not treating all equally.
Very true, but the real threat in establishing such precedents, by whatever excuse is used, are the dire consequences to basic liberty by forcing a person or a business to act against their will, irregardless of their motive for refusing.
I know of no constitutional guarantee that promises cake to homosexuals or anyone for that matter. Nor can I find any constitutional authority to force a person to work for another person. That is like indentured servitude. And this type of subversion of basic liberty is a dual edge knife that can cut both ways. If the government can force you to serve another, you are certainly not free, are you? And if the government can force someone to serve you, it can force you to serve another.
Very true, but the real threat in establishing such precedents, by whatever excuse is used, are the dire consequences to basic liberty by forcing a person or a business to act against their will, irregardless of their motive for refusing.
I know of no constitutional guarantee that promises cake to homosexuals or anyone for that matter. Nor can I find any constitutional authority to force a person to work for another person. That is like indentured servitude. And this type of subversion of basic liberty is a dual edge knife that can cut both ways. If the government can force you to serve another, you are certainly not free, are you? And if the government can force someone to serve you, it can force you to serve another.
And interestingly the supreme court has not ruled on any case regarding cakes and gays, so it really doesn't matter in regards to the supreme court and their ruling in Obergfell.
Ben Franklin, for example, was known for his liberalism. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist who reject organized religion. Thomas Paine was an out-and-out atheist.
Ben Franklin's son was a conservative. Like all conservatives in the colonies, he was loyal to the King of England and the royal laws and decrees of England. After the revolution he fled the United States. If Scalia was alive then he would have defended the King and his so-called divine rights of kings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Case in point, this nonsense about Franklin being loyal to king George is laughable considering the fact that he was signatory on the Declaration of Independence, which was a virtual death sentence had the war of independence been lost.
It was he, Ben Franklin that said:
We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." -In the Continental Congress just before signing
the Declaration of Independence, 1776
He did not "flee" to England, but spent most of his time during the war, in France, securing financial assistance from France for the revolution. And it's highly doubtful that we would have won our Independence without Franklin's diplomatic efforts.
Oy vey.
I think you have a problem with reading comprehension.
I clearly stated it was NOT Dr. Benjamin Franklin himself, the Founding Father ... but his son.
Please re-read my original post.
Whether you attended a public school or a private school has nothing to do with it.
We should be able to discriminate against anyone we want to, the constitution says so. Scalia is an expert so who are we to question the only justice that upholds the constitution.
Discrimination is everywhere, and is practiced routinely by everyone. Each time you grab a burger for lunch, are you not choosing which burger joint you buy from? You make that choice for whatever reason .. cheaper, or better or more convenient. But what about those places you didn't buy from? Aren't you discriminating against them? Maybe that burger joint that has too high prices is owned by a homosexual ... maybe you should be forced to buy their burgers so long as they claim that you are not buying their burgers because they are gay?
Maybe you should have no choice to do anything, but do only what you are told to do?
For one person, discrimination, to another, personal choice. To do away with discrimination, requires that we eliminate personal choice.
I think you have a problem with reading comprehension.
I clearly stated it was NOT Dr. Benjamin Franklin himself, the Founding Father ... but his son.
Please re-read my original post.
Whether you attended a public school or a private school has nothing to do with it.
OK, I missed that ... Now explain to me your point? Is it your contention that the son was a conservative because of loyalty to the King, and therefore, because he was considered a traitor, conservatives by nature are traitors? I don't get the relevance of his son, which probably explains why I missed the reference.
The last stand, in the freedom to govern ourselves, has been lost.
It is a very sad day, for Freedom & Liberty to have a chance of remaining a part of this Union, of Sovereign States.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
