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.
All that is happening is that unelected men in black robes are imposing their own personal opinions in some states and overruling the clear will of the people in those states.
When you find that more states allow gay marriage due to judicial tyranny rather than legislative action, then there is a problem.
Not any more of a problem than tyranny of the majority over the minority.
Sorry, but this isn't a democracy, so the will of the majority is not absolute, nor should it ever be.
This ruling, as all others like it, is absolutely fantastic and I hope the trend continues until we finally have sanity across every state in the nation.
Schuette said that the ruling goes against Michigan’s constitution, and since Friedman did not include a stay of the ruling until an appeal could be heard, it went against precedent set in other cases on same-sex marriage around the country.
How embarrassing. A state attorney general cites a state constitution as if it trumps the United States Constitution. Did this guy fail the bar, or is he so lacking for any relevant legal argument that he has to stoop to such a laughably pathetic claim as that?
To top off his legal incoherence, he is citing rulings in other jurisdictions that struck down same-sex marriage bans as to why there should be a stay, even though he obviously thinks those rulings are flawed, which means he should not treat them as if they have legal merit. Yet he does...
Just march right in and announce that you are gay, plan to marry a member of your own sex and demand a cake for your same sex wedding.
There is no statewide ban on sexual orientation discrimination in Michigan, nor is there a municipal ban in Dearborn. So it is perfectly legal for those listed bakeries to discriminate against gays. Just thought I'd set you straight, since you obviously haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about - you're clearly ignorant of the fact that church same-sex weddings (along with wedding cakes) have always been legal, and so this law changes nothing insofar as gay couples ordering a wedding cake, just as you're clearly ignorant of the fact that legalizing same-sex marriage does not mean that there is a general bar on commercial discrimination against gays.
Your ignorance displayed in this thread is a perfect metaphor for your side in general.
Two side notes:
One, there will be a ban ultimately against commercial discrimination against gays in all 50 states.
Two, I live in Minnesota. Here, Muslims were regularly discriminating against those with service dogs and those transporting alcohol - the Muslims were cab drivers serving the airport (a majority of cab drivers here are members of the local Muslim Somali community). They were forced to stop their discrimination under threat of losing their taxi licenses. Muslim cab drivers lose round in court | Minnesota Public Radio News
[MOD CUT/personal attack]
Last edited by Ibginnie; 03-22-2014 at 08:51 PM..
Reason: Personal attacks
How embarrassing. A state attorney general cites a state constitution as if it trumps the United States Constitution. Did this guy fail the bar, or is he so lacking for any relevant legal argument that he has to stoop to such a laughably pathetic claim as that?
To top off his legal incoherence, he is citing rulings in other jurisdictions that struck down same-sex marriage bans as to why there should be a stay, even though he obviously thinks those rulings are flawed, which means he should not treat them as if they have legal merit. Yet he does...
That said, I have a question--did Black people ever try suing for service discrimination in U.S. states where doing this was legal in the 1960s or before?
Not to my knowledge, nor can I think of a legal theory under which they would have been able to.
For those opposed to the ruling, do yourselves a favor, read the ruling and then state why you are still against it.
I don't think reading it will help them much. Their reasons for being right are already assumed true in their minds. That's why they can never change their opinions or show any kind of growth. Judges? Rulings? What does any of that matter when you have access to the special truth, those pieces of information that grant your opinion more weight and validity than that of someone who is an actual legal professional with years of training and detailed knowledge of case law of regarding this and similar situations.
03-21-2014, 08:06 PM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Another bad day for bigots.
It's funny to watch them insist that the court system shouldn't be ruling on constitutional matters. How un-American. Even funnier to see them cling to the delusion that somehow the entire country is going to suddenly reverse the course of civil rights, like we're Russia or something. Maybe these people would be happier in Russia - a kleptocracy ruled by a de-facto dictator who doesn't respect individual rights and freedoms and actively opposes treating all people equally.
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.
Equality for marriage is spreading across the nation. Congrats to the Michiganian couples who plan to tie the knot 
