Supreme Court rules in favor of baker in same sex wedding cake case.

It is, right here:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

Freedom to associate being one of the blessings of liberty, it should be clear that anyone under a constitutional oath is obligated to respect it at least enough to refrain from violating it under color of law - which of course is precisely what the Obergefell majority did.

 

Feel free to post a source that disproves Gallup.
Poor snowflakes

 

It doesn’t say anything about freedoms of association.
Obergefell built on prior rulings, that you seize on this and not the ones that actually force association in some instances shows your agenda driven narrative. Furthermore allowing people to marry on the opposite side of the country in no way forces you or anyone else to associate.

 

Which does not necessarily make them better parents.

That you have to mischaracterize my argument says all I need to know about yours. I believe that mothers and fathers a very important but there are many other factors. I do not think a child would fare better in an abusive family because the abusers are male and female vs a family with two fathers that there is no abuse. I am looking at actual studies that have revied child placement and the fact that very little changes in the psychology of the child.

We have come to an impasse, your argument boils down to “that is what I feel is best” and I am attempting to introduce actual imperial study. Until you can provide something more than your feeling, I am going to exit the conversation. I can debate fact - I cannot debate emotion, nor will I attempt to. Cheers

 

It is their privilege. Actually, being a racist in the private sector is NOT the government's power to decide, just like the government cannot tell you to have a black, gay, white, Chinese, lesbian friends.

 

Back to the 13th amendment. Involuntary servitude. Involuntary servitude is anything you are FORCED by others to do, even if paid. My drafting for military service was both slavery and involuntary servitude. It was also discrimination because women were not AND STILL ARE NOT required to register at the post office. A male who does not register are subject to some severe punishments by the federal government.

I wonder why women are not clamoring for true "equality" ever mentioning this little factoid??? hahahahaha

 

Exactly my point. Read the 10th amendment. Government only has the powers given to it by the constitution. It has no such power in writing, it doesn't really exist.

 

Doesn't say anything about freedom of copulation either. What the hell's your point?

No doubt that's impressive to constitutional illiterates.

Obergefell may not violate freedom of association directly, but it does violate freedom of conscience; and neither can be isolated from the other.

 

That is the same Gallup, that reported about gay population that is about 5% and growing. In reality only 1% of population is homosexual, the other just follow the political trend.
gay news - are the fake news.

 

Source? Oh wait. You don’t go off those. Just feelings.

 

You stated it was in the paragraph as quoted. It isn’t

Unlke yourself, the constitutional scholar

Who’s conscience are we going off of? Yours? I must have missed your federal appointment to the department of morality.

All groups support same sex marriage except the elderly, Republicans, evangelicals and individuals with less than a high school diploma - I guess I could have just said the last one as it basically encompasses the other three.

 

Then work to repeal public accommodation laws in general. Just attacking it because of one group that barely benifits from it out of 15 shows this has nothing to do with the broader law.

 

Because most people do not want true equality, they want to have all the benifits and none of the negatives. I agree with you though - as long it is equally applies to all groups.

 

It makes them a mother AND a father. Something a same sex couple cannot provide.

You are contradicting your own positions, first you say that it doesn't matter the genders of the two adults they then you say they are important.

You know you guys make me sick that when you can't defend your position you insinuate that heterosexual, nuclear families are inherently abusive where same sex are not. Else why bring up family abuse AT ALL into this discussion?

It's not what I "feel" is best it is what mother nature says is best and what the history, including today with the breakdown of the nuclear family we are seeing, shows us. Mothers are still vitally important roles and Fathers are still vitally important roles in a child's life and if one is purposely denied either by the parent in order to satisfy their own wants and desires that is NOT in the best interest of the child. We should strive to insure the best we can all children have the BEST chance of having both full involved in their lives or as close to it as we can get. I don't know how any one with reasoned thought could argue with that except they would "feel" better for the same sex couple.

 

I did no such thing.

If you're the point of comparison, that's damnation by faint praise.

No person's conscience ever told him or her that a man can marry a man. Figure it out from there.

No doubt that's all terribly impressive to the disgracefully gullible.

 

You further went on to propose that same sex marriage is a violation of freedom of association then backtracked to say it is a violation of your conscience. Not that anyone cares what your conscious believes, that you can so easily ignore political opinions to justify your own internal hatred and dialogue shows worlds about your character - or maybe you just belong to the latter of you list you wish to ignore.

You and your ilk have been relegated to the dustbin of history.

 

Which does not necessarily make them better parents.

No, I have maintained that in a perfect world all children would be raised in caring and nurturing homes by their biological parents. I have never said mothers and fathers are not important - there are other characteristics that are more important however. Such as stability and security.

Thats such a pathetic attempt at a straw man it’s actually sad. Actually it’s a flat out lie.

It is absolutely what you feel or you could back it up with recent relevant data. I can and have done so, minus the potential of bulling by the children of bigots children in same sex families fare no worse than children in a similarly situated opposite sex family. I will ask again, this will be the final attempt since you have yet to answer it after four attempts. Feel free should you chose not to answer to end this ridiculous back and forth as I will be placing you on ignore, I am tired of debating your belief structure and opinions.

Q: What is best for a child, an opposite sex family with an absentee father that is in financial duress and unable to provide a nurturing environment or a same sex family that is both financially and psychologically able to provide those lacking in the above. Why does the gender of the first family outweigh the negatives of said family and the benifits of the second family?

 

By what measure? It doesn't necessarily make them worse parents so what's your point? It makes them a father AND a mother. Something no same sex couple can do no matter what.

And isn't that what you should put our efforts into and strive to attain at the highest level? And if we can't do that then into homes with a mother AND a father? And we should encourage other situations except in the rarest and most desperate situation? If not why not?

Well prove to me that same sex couples are more stable than hetereosexual else what is your point. Unstable and insecure families are not good whether they are hetero or homo OK, it makes no difference. It's a specious argument.

Well please correct me if I have misread what you have said for what I have read is that you see no difference between same sex and opposite that the unique roles of mothers and fathers are not important to a child, it makes no difference. Did I misread you?

How do you measure happiness and fulfilment in a child? You're trying to actually quantitate with some numerical data. And the best you can do is accuse nuclear families of being abusive and bigoted therefore samesex families are better. You guys always have to bring in these false claims of serial abuse in heterosexual families as if abuse doesn't occur in same-sex.

And again you have to disparage the heterosexual nuclear family and then compare it to the perfect homosexual family to try and justify your position.

What's best for the child a heterosexual family with an absentee father or a homosexual family with an absentee partner?

It's a pitiful one sided argument you attempt to make.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr077.pdf 1.6% identified as gay or lesbian
in reality it is about 1%
Gallup is a B.S. based on opinion that can be influenced by uniquely monopolized B.S. Media

 

Correct, it doesn’t necessarily make them worse parents - nor does it make them better parents.

Until you can prove that an opposite sex family is inherently better simply because of the sex of the parents I see no reason to deny same sex couples from adoption. Would you classify children bouncing from foster care and being a ward of the state a desperate situation?

i have not once said a heterosexual couple is more stable than an opposite sex one. Your argument so far is that opposite sex couples outweigh same sex couples reguardless of other attributes, their orientation is your only litmus test.

I have said numerous times that biological families are best, but that wasn’t your assertion. You stated “You know you guys make me sick that ... you insinuate that heterosexual, nuclear families are inherently abusive where same sex are not.” I have not once indicated this. It’s is a complete lie.

Again, that isn’t a position made by anyone, if you cannot discuss my actual response please don’t bother with a reply. My argument, which is supported by recent research, is that there are much more important qualifications than simply looking at the gender of the parents. You seem to be of the belief that just because there are a mother and a father they are superior.

It is a comparison to highlight a point that is apparently beyond your comprehension. I have never disparaged the heterosexual nuclear family. You are resorting to an ad hominem.

The heterosexual one. See how easily I answered the question and how much effort you are putting in to dodging it. It’s irrelivant, I will make good on my word - you do not have the integrity to answer a simple question so I do not have the desire to waste additional time furthering this... discussion.

Take care

 

So your 1% figure is another lie, even based on a 2014 study.
You just attempted to delete 2 million people based on? What metric? Your feelings.
Fake news indeed

Statistical analysis has shown that reduced stigma against LGB persons allows more to be honest with themselves and not hide in the dark their entire lives. Their population size is irrelivant but most trends put them between 7%-8% or around 26 million people.

 

I would never say anything like that, as "SSM" is no more a violation of any freedom than the tooth fairy, which is every bit as real. It's Obergefell and similar pseudo-legal instruments which are violations of conscience and, by extension, freedom to associate.

Yes, a violation crafted to facilitate, inter alia, violation of the freedom to associate.

Certainly you don't care what anyone's conscience says, most notably your own; and it's people like you from whom Madison thought to protect the rest of us with the freedom of conscience amendment he proposed along with the BoR.

Sure, what could be more heretical?

Sure as Hell wouldn't count on that if I were you, pilgrim.

 

Same sex marriage is a real as any other marriage. Arguing fact is absurd.
Sure I can count on that - even the most conservative poll at less than 1/3 shows people with your mentality are on a decline of 2% - 3% a year, mostly due to the 65+ group aging out of the voter pool.
Churches are beginning to certify same sex marriages, almost all first world nations have plurality support, most developing nations are moving in that direction as well, and most republican legislators are removing the issue from their platform entirely.
In 10 years being against gay rights will be like being against womens right to vote or pro slavery.

Where are you pulling new support to fight gay rights and equality? It sure isn’t coming from the youth or the educated.

 

You can do that from home. Public accommodation is a privilege not a right.

 

And noted how you compare disfunctional heterosexual to all homosexual families and declare homosexual as good as yet you have not even define your term "better".