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've already said Constitutional Rights supersede any state or local laws. Supremacy Clause, Article VI. There just is no getting around that without ratifying a Constitutional Amendment that negates the Supremacy Clause. But that would eliminate everyone's Constitutional Rights.
My thoughts exactly, some conservatives are still stubbornly stuck on decided issues that don't concern them unless they decide to engage in such activity or behavior (which they won't if they are so against it), like gay marriage or abortion.
Keeping these opinions on these settled issues won't get your party more support in the future. It will only hurt you as older people within the party die off and no longer have voting power. Most younger people don't care about issues like gay marriage. Move on, conservatives. It isn't your business, your own personal morals or religion don't run the country, and it doesn't concern you.
And the ruling was based on artistic creativity not discrimination in the marketplace.
You have that a little backwards. The ruling is that discrimination in the marketplace is legal when done so in the exercising of Constitutional Rights.
My thoughts exactly, some conservatives are still stubbornly stuck on decided issues that don't concern them unless they decide to engage in such activity or behavior (which they won't if they are so against it), like gay marriage or abortion.
Keeping these opinions on these settled issues won't get your party more support in the future. It will only hurt you as older people within the party die off and no longer have voting power. Most younger people don't care about issues like gay marriage. Move on, conservatives. It isn't your business, your own personal morals or religion don't run the country, and it doesn't concern you.
That attitude is a violation of several Constitutional Rights. Just to name a few: Freedom of Speech (including creative expression), Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of Association.
Good luck trying to abolish everyone's Constitutional Rights.
A girlfriend/boyfriend or live in is not next of kin.
I dont think the majority would agree to give up their social welfare programs, or the marriage benefits or wish to draw up private contracts to protect themselves and/or their loved one.
So, what’s the difference. Marriage as far as the government is concerned is a contract. How about those people who have no spouse to leave “their” SS benefits when they die before 66? They spent their whole lives paying into a system with no benefit to them. Social contracts should allow them to pass their benefits to a sibling, parent or friend. Marriage is just a word and a way the government wrongly promotes social engineering. Just like a business, two people could enter into a partnership. As with a business or marriage, they can dissolve the partnership. As of now, the government determines who can be partners, which is intrusive.
That attitude is a violation of several Constitutional Rights. Just to name a few: Freedom of Speech (including creative expression), Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of Association.
Good luck trying to abolish everyone's Constitutional Rights.
My "attitude" is not a violation of anyone's rights because I am not the state.
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.