Why We’ll Never Bake Your Fake ‘Wedding’ Cake

If you violate public accommodation laws and are reported, you will face consequences.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course not.

- - - Updated - - -

The strawman is your claim of thought police or being jailed for your beliefs.

Right. Just like opposite sex marriage is enforced with the power of the state.

 

We seem to be circling around a central question: WHAT IF your religious beliefs require you to violate the civil laws? Should you get a "break the law for free" card because your religion demands it (hey, my religion says I don't have to pay taxes!), or should breaking the law involve the normal penalty for breaking that law EVEN IF your religion requires it? Seems to me, there are clear limits not to religous thought, but to religious expression where that expression is a violation of the law. And if you are punished, it's not for your religion, it's for breaking the law.

The law really doesn't care how righteously justified you feel in breaking it. We've had journalists spend years in jail for refusing to reveal their sources, because in their minds, their belief requires accepting the punishment. And when released, they STILL won't reveal their sources if the court demands it on another story. Perhaps religion should be the same: refuse to obey the law, suffer the fine or other penalty, rinse and repeat.

 

You know, I've had some ask why gay rights is a bit of a touchy subject with me since I'm straight, but the first gay person I ever met was a guy my dad and I found barbed wired to tree on the backside of our property who had been left there by some bikers. Luckily the guy had only been there a couple of days and survived but that tends to leave a bit of an impression.

So I'm just going to classify your response under asinine BS.

 

Quite believable.

Where and when? Surely there is a news story about it.


Or there isn't.

 

Your appeal for compassion is no substitute for Constitutional law. As stated in the previous post which you failed to address, freedom of religion is an explicit right in the Constitution of the United States, homosexual rights are not. If you want to imprison all people who have a political or religious objection to gay marriage, then you don't believe in freedom.

 

1) Because "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
2) See above.

 

Lol, homosexual rights are of course explicit.

and this is a strawman.

 

I'd rebut your argument but you are doing so well against it yourself I don't need to.

 

14th amendment supercedes

- - - Updated - - -

I accept your concession.

 

I've read the Constitution. I'm asking for your opinion. Why do we need government marriage?

 

Where in the Constitution does it mention homosexuality?

You are the one who stated, "If you violate public accommodation laws and are reported, you will face consequences." I am assuming you mean penalties under the law. You have not been explicit as to what the consequences are even though I have asked. What consequences?

The 14th Amendment follows the 10th Amendment, it does not supercede the 10th Amendment, which is to say, it doesn't nullify or void it. It also doesn't explicitly mention homosexuality, or gay marriage. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Marriage is therefore reserved to the states.

The only concession I have made it that you are contradicting yourself and arguing against yourself. You argue that people will not be punished for their religious beliefs while at the same time say they will "face consequences". You are completely inconsistant.

 

That is not a simple answer. There are various socialogical implications and reasons not the least of which is propegating the society, which requires sound familial structures that need to be governed under contract laws.

 

14th amendment. Equal protection clause.

I don't know. Fines, jail time. Depends on the statute.

it supercedes it. The 14th is a limitation on the 10th. That's why Virginia now has interracial marriage.

Subject to 14th amendment protections.

You'll need to quote the contradiction.

They will face consequences for breaking the law, not for their beliefs.

I'm perfectly consistent.

 

Nowhere.

 

14th amendment

 

Nowhere.

 

14th amendment

 

Here is a link to the text of the 14th Amendment.
Show me where in the 14th Amendment homosexuality is explicitly mentioned. You will find it is not.

So you are in fact advocating for fines and imprisonment of people for their political and religious beliefs.

Virginia has interacial marriage because it is against the law to discriminate based on race. The 14th Amendment does not supercede the 10th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment are part of the Civil War Amendments. They did not fight a Civil War over gay rights.

Okay:

And:

You are making their beliefs illegal.

...in your inconsistancy.

 

Are there homosexual CITIZENS?

Strawman

Virginia has interracial marriage because the 14th superceded their 10th amendment right to define marriage.

The 14th amendment protects every person on US soil.

I'm not. Discrimination is illegal. You can still believe whatever you want, you just can't discriminate. See the difference?

I haven't been inconsistent.

- - - Updated - - -

Are there homosexual CITIZENS?

Strawman

Virginia has interracial marriage because the 14th superceded their 10th amendment right to define marriage.

The 14th amendment protects every person on US soil.

I'm not. Discrimination is illegal. You can still believe whatever you want, you just can't discriminate. See the difference?

I haven't been inconsistent.

 

This is the one thing folks don't get about state sanctioned marriage. It is a form of incorporation, thus allowing the State to meddle in your marriage business.
It's rough enough handling a marriage, but to allow a third party into it that dictates how and when things happen inside of that marriage seems detrimental to that marriage.
State, you, and the other half becomes a 3 way......

 

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

nope, nowhere does it say homosexual...hell it doesn't even say marriage is a Right for anyone

 

bolded the relevant part for you.

 

sure thing...http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/22/coach-fired-over-twitter-threat-to-indiana-pizza-shop/
and can we say, the assault on the employee from Chic Filet?

so the gays can declare war, but that isn't what it is?
meh.............libs

 

Yes. Which doesn't address the question, " where in the 14th Amendment homosexuality is explicitly mentioned"?

How is that a strawman when you just explicitly said, " Fines, jail time"?

I'm not going to reargue a point that is obviously false.

It does. It does not make homosexuality a civil right, nor explicitly require same sex marriage.

You are deflecting from the point. You are making conflicting statements about jailing people who do not believe in same sex marriage. It is a perfectly legitimate religious belief that homosexuality is a sin, that gay marriage is a sin, and that contributing to that sin is a sin. You are crminalizing a religious belief and seeking to impose fines and prison.

Q.E.D.

 

In my view it's a very simple answer: We don't need government marriage. Contract laws are fine -- all consenting adult citizens are able to enter legally-binding contracts. But we have allowed our government to create a special set of laws strictly codifying a social and cultural institution into law. Do free men need government intervention in this most personal part of citizens' lives?

And I dare suggest a contract is not required to propagate the species -- nature has already provided for that.