Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Wedding Cake Case (schools, Christ, illegal)
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.
Unfortunately, you are in no way making proper sense of what I am trying to explain to you here...
Oh, I get it. I could have screamed and cried "discrimination!" and would have more of a case than the ssm Colorado couple. Why? Because National Origin is a Federally Protected Class, and LGBT isn't.
There's no reason the couple in question couldn't have ordered from a different bakery, and eventually, they did.
So, again... take your "deep-seeded prejudice, bigotry and intolerance of others" and stop using that to try to bully others into giving up their Constitutional Rights.
That "deep-seeded prejudice, bigotry and intolerance of others" is a two-way street. And actually, the exercise of one's religion is protected by the Constitution's First Amendment. In direct contrast, LGBT are not a Federally Protected Class.
...Just so we're clear on exactly who is trying to bully whom with their "deep-seeded prejudice, bigotry and intolerance of others" into giving up their Constitutional Rights.
So let's ask God if he really hates gays, shall we? That is the crux of the issue: whether God hates gays or whatever group of people that the human coincidentally also hates. The person is using God as the scapegoat because he isn't around to deny it. So let's ask him. Ah, but there's the rub. We can't. Therefore there are laws to protect us from bigoted people and the gods they claim to worship.
Bonus question: Is it any more right to expect the free market to properly address when black people were refused service for EXACTLY this same sort of reason in the past, prejudice, by "simply moving on?"
No, you make Race, National Origin, Age, etc. A Federally Protected Class. LGBT hasn't done that. So, due to the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, the First Amendment prevails.
I hope you realize that Religion actually IS a Federally Protected Class, and you and many others are showing extreme bigotry.
Comparing the alleged "right" to command service on demand, in violation of the provider's First Amendment Rights. Church officials (in the case of ssm) and MDs (in the case of non-medically necessary abortions) cannot be forced to violate their religious beliefs. Same should be true of anyone else.
It's ignorant to compare abortions to making a wedding cake,I don't care how you spin it.
So let's ask God if he really hates gays, shall we? That is the crux of the issue: whether God hates gays or whatever group of people that the human coincidentally also hates.
Stop the ridiculous histrionics. It is well-known where various religions stand on ssm. They publish their positions. Some sanction it, some haven't taken a position either way, and some forbid it. And those who belong to those religions that forbid it have the First Amendment Right to decline to provide services for something which their religion forbids.
So, take your "deep-seeded prejudice, bigotry and intolerance of others" and stop using that to try to bully others into giving up their Constitutional Rights.
Corporations aren't mentioned once in the Constitution, people are. Speaking of that, the Constitution deemed some people 3/5ths of a person however still not citizens. That made no sense.
People are property? Nonsensical. Although that was then, this is now. Properties (Corporations) are people? Still nonsensical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
And people make up corporations.
If you can find a corporation not made up of people, you may have a point.
If you can find a Corporation who's a citizen, you may have a point.
It should come as no surprise that Hobby Lobby’s brief relied on the Court's rulings on Bellotti & Citizens United.
Quote:
...The 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War in 1868 to grant emancipated slaves full citizenship, states, “No state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person ... the equal protection of the laws.”
We have the likes of former U.S. Senator Roscoe Conkling to thank for the extension of Equal Protection to corporations. Conkling helped draft the 14th Amendment. He then left the Senate to become a lawyer. His Gilded Age law practice was going so swimmingly that Conkling turned down a seat on the Supreme Court not once, but twice.
Conkling argued to the Supreme Court in San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific Rail Road that the 14th Amendment is not limited to natural persons. In 1882, he produced a journal that seemed to show that the Joint Congressional Committee that drafted the amendment vacillated between using “citizen” and “person” and the drafters chose person specifically to cover corporations. According to historian Howard Jay Graham, “[t]his part of Conkling’s argument was a deliberate, brazen forgery.” ...
The ruling here in the current case will, no doubt, be interesting. Is Mr. Masterpiece a citizen, a person, a business, a religion ...?
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.
It is well-known where various religions stand on ssm. They publish their positions. Some sanction it, some haven't taken a position either way, and some forbid it. And those who belong to those religions that forbid it have the First Amendment Right to decline to provide services for something which their religion forbids. 
