JimHackerMP wrote:

It is an invitation to future Courts to invent more rights.

PS: Has it ever occurred to you that people said precisely the same thing in the 1960s, especially in the South, after Brown v. Board of Education, and other Supreme Court cases that dealt with the Civil Rights movement?

Has it ever occurred to you to take the test I'm suggesting Justice Kennedy take? Line up 100 people, some white, some black, some gay, some straight, then see how many you can correctly guess. In other words, can you identify black v. white by appearance? Good for you--it means you have eyesight. Can you identify gay v. straight by appearance?

Now, that's simple, but the implications are not. When a black person walks in and is discriminated against, there was a default switch at work. When a homosexual walks in, he/she cannot be discriminated against until/unless he/she/undecided makes an issue of their sexuality.

The Court took upon itself the redefinition of a word that has had one meaning in Western Civilization. That is beyond the scope of its duties.

If you'd bothered to read, I said they could have come to much the same decision without overstepping their power. They could have said this was a State issue, but that every State would have to honor a marriage lawfully performed in another State. The effect would have been the same, but it would not have opened Pandora's box.

Oh, and if you're offended about my comment re "If you'd bothered to read . . ." I can't apologize. It's no more rude than lecturing me after skipping everything I've said.

fate

Has it ever occurred to you to take the test I'm suggesting Justice Kennedy take? Line up 100 people, some white, some black, some gay, some straight, then see how many you can correctly guess. In other words, can you identify black v. white by appearance? Good for you--it means you have eyesight. Can you identify gay v. straight by appearance?

What does this have to do with equal access to treatment under law?
The right to marry exists.
It has always existed in the US, except that for a time certain marriages were not allowed.
Inter racial marriage .
Then gay marriage.
In both cases SCOTUS recognized that the Constitution should have always protected people in these categories. In the case of Inter racial marriage it actually was not legal in fewer states than gay marriage when SCOTUS struck down laws discriminating against the marriage.If States Rights mattered, then in the issue of Loving V they would have allowed the Virginia law to stand. But States do not have the right to limit the rights of a US citizen, nor to treat a citizens access to lawful access to their rights differently than other States.
Society changed and evolved. The way the Constitution was used by society changed as its interpretation by SCOTUS reflected the acceptance that previous discrimination could no longer be justified as society changed.

rickyp wrote:fate

Has it ever occurred to you to take the test I'm suggesting Justice Kennedy take? Line up 100 people, some white, some black, some gay, some straight, then see how many you can correctly guess. In other words, can you identify black v. white by appearance? Good for you--it means you have eyesight. Can you identify gay v. straight by appearance?

What does this have to do with equal access to treatment under law?

Because there is a presumption that "black = gay," which is demonstrably false.

The right to marry exists.

Created by USSC.

Your whole post is a regurgitation.

As I said, this thread has reached its conclusion. Stick a fork in it.

Well, I think people are going to identify gays at a higher rate than a coin flip based on speech, mannerisms, clothing, hairstyle, etc. Are you expecting gays to attempt to remove all identifying characteristics so they will not cause a shop owner to discriminate against them? You are also clearly expecting that they will not come in as a couple--that is clearly verboten. How dare they impose on the shop owner's peace of mind by being who they are!

Asking that gays avoid being discriminated against by avoiding making an issue of their sexuality is itself discrimination. It would be one thing if what you mean is don't ask for a wedding cake for a gay wedding--that would certainly be making their sexuality central. ( that still would not justify discrimination though). But saying that gays only face discrimination if they don't make sexuality central presupposes that they avoid any indicia of being gay...are you really suggesting that?

Thus, I am not really sure there is as clear- cut a difference between discrimination against black and gays as you claim.

freeman3 wrote:Thus, I am not really sure there is as clear- cut a difference between discrimination against black and gays as you claim.

The Oregon bakery is a perfect example. They served these lesbians before the wedding cake issue. There was no issue with them . . . until they refused to make a wedding cake, which they saw as participating in the wedding.

Yes, I know you do not believe it was "participating." The owners did.

They had never "discriminated" against the lesbians before, so what made this time different?

To liberals, this couple became insta-bigots. They were fine until they exhibited a conscience with which liberals disagree. All the cakes they had made for homosexuals prior to this was irrelevant because they would not "participate" in a wedding.

Now, presuming this bakery had made wedding cakes before (unknown, but a reasonable assumption), who is more an expert on whether making a cake is "participating" in a wedding--you, some liberal commission, or the bakers?

You all are welcome to your opinion. Really. I'm sure you have baked cakes for a livelihood and understand the mindset of these folks perfectly.

I think it is clear what happened. So do you.

You are wrong and have no basis for your opinion.

Have a nice day.

fate

Created by USSC

People could always get legally married in the USA.
People always had access to the law .
Just not ALL people.
Until Loving v Virginia people of different races could not legally marry in some states. SCOTUS recognized that this was unequal access to the law.

Because there is a presumption that "black = gay," which is demonstrably false

There is no such presumption. Whether or not a minority is visibly identifiable has nothing to do with unequal access to the law. Its how they are treated when they are identified that matters.

Doctor Fate wrote:

JimHackerMP wrote:

It is an invitation to future Courts to invent more rights.

PS: Has it ever occurred to you that people said precisely the same thing in the 1960s, especially in the South, after Brown v. Board of Education, and other Supreme Court cases that dealt with the Civil Rights movement?

Has it ever occurred to you to take the test I'm suggesting Justice Kennedy take? Line up 100 people, some white, some black, some gay, some straight, then see how many you can correctly guess. In other words, can you identify black v. white by appearance? Good for you--it means you have eyesight. Can you identify gay v. straight by appearance?

This is a very simplistic look at discrimination. You could line up 100 people who were outwardly fine, but some had mental conditions. Just because a visual check does not identify them does not mean that other means can't be used to do so, or that they cannot be unlawfully discriminated against.

Now, that's simple, but the implications are not. When a black person walks in and is discriminated against, there was a default switch at work. When a homosexual walks in, he/she cannot be discriminated against until/unless he/she/undecided makes an issue of their sexuality.

By having the cheek to ask for a cake for their gay wedding, perchance? That's a pretty good indicator of sexuality, I reckon.

The Court took upon itself the redefinition of a word that has had one meaning in Western Civilization. That is beyond the scope of its duties.

Are you saying that none of the following countries are not part of "Western Civilisation"? Because they all already had legally recognised gay marriage before the USSC ruled:

The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, Denmark, Brazil, France, Uruguay, New Zealand, UK (except Northern Ireland), Luxembourg.

And so if any one of them is in "Western Civilisation", then you are incorrect - the "one definition" did not have universal exclusive meaning.

So either explain why each one of those countries is not part of "Western Civilisation", or accept that your assertion has been called out.

Of course, it is within the scope of the USSC's duties to recognise the rights of the people (all of them, not just the ones you agree with) as opposed to the powers of government.

So, here's a Constitutional question for you:

Where does the Constitution give the government power to ban any types of marriage?

If you'd bothered to read, I said they could have come to much the same decision without overstepping their power. They could have said this was a State issue, but that every State would have to honor a marriage lawfully performed in another State. The effect would have been the same, but it would not have opened Pandora's box.

And they would be wrong. I am sick of the silly argument that human rights should be applied at local levels. They should apply to all humans, and be agreed at the highest level possible.

The right to marry exists

Created by USSC

Yes, but not that recently. It was already established by Loving v Virginia. But even if you've discounted the application of that ruling, there are older ones on the right to marriage. Indeed, the history of the USSC asserting a right to marriage dates back to 1888, in Maynard v Hill - http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-cou ... tal-right/

Doctor Fate wrote:[Now, presuming this bakery had made wedding cakes before (unknown, but a reasonable assumption), who is more an expert on whether making a cake is "participating" in a wedding--you, some liberal commission, or the bakers?

When bakers become experts on weddings, they are probably straying some way from baking.

These bakers are also clearly biased, and so would not be expert witnesses on their own case, would they?

You all are welcome to your opinion. Really. I'm sure you have baked cakes for a livelihood and understand the mindset of these folks perfectly.

Oh, I understand the mindset, and it's not about baked goods, it's about something else.

You are wrong and have no basis for your opinion.

This is merely your opinion, and to use this kind of language suggests that you are trying to shut down debate, asserting that no-one who disagrees with you even has a "basis" for their opinions.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:[Now, presuming this bakery had made wedding cakes before (unknown, but a reasonable assumption), who is more an expert on whether making a cake is "participating" in a wedding--you, some liberal commission, or the bakers?

When bakers become experts on weddings, they are probably straying some way from baking.

That's a pretty cheesy twisting of my words, even for you. I did not say they were "experts on weddings." I said they would be experts in knowing "whether making a cake is 'participating' in a wedding." They know what is involved.

These bakers are also clearly biased, and so would not be expert witnesses on their own case, would they?

Oy. You're really being jerkish.

You all are welcome to your opinion. Really. I'm sure you have baked cakes for a livelihood and understand the mindset of these folks perfectly.

Oh, I understand the mindset, and it's not about baked goods, it's about something else.

Yes, yes, anyone who does not agree with your perspective must be punished. Got it.

This is merely your opinion, and to use this kind of language suggests that you are trying to shut down debate, asserting that no-one who disagrees with you even has a "basis" for their opinions.

Right back at you.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:[Now, presuming this bakery had made wedding cakes before (unknown, but a reasonable assumption), who is more an expert on whether making a cake is "participating" in a wedding--you, some liberal commission, or the bakers?

When bakers become experts on weddings, they are probably straying some way from baking.

That's a pretty cheesy twisting of my words, even for you. I did not say they were "experts on weddings." I said they would be experts in knowing "whether making a cake is 'participating' in a wedding." They know what is involved.

Not really. A wedding officiant knows what participating is. A person getting married knows what it is. If the Baker is in the room, they may be "participating". Otherwise, they really are not.

These bakers are also clearly biased, and so would not be expert witnesses on their own case, would they?

Oy. You're really being jerkish.

Perdon?

You all are welcome to your opinion. Really. I'm sure you have baked cakes for a livelihood and understand the mindset of these folks perfectly.

Oh, I understand the mindset, and it's not about baked goods, it's about something else.

Yes, yes, anyone who does not agree with your perspective must be punished. Got it.

Agreeing or not is not the problem. Acting in an unfairly discrimatory way is.

This is merely your opinion, and to use this kind of language suggests that you are trying to shut down debate, asserting that no-one who disagrees with you even has a "basis" for their opinions.

Right back at you.

Where have I done that? You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, and I understand you have a basis for it (your religious convictions and your views on the US Constitution). It is your "facts" I call into question.

However, I would ask if you might try to behave in a more grown up fashion, the nee-ner nee-ner jibes are very tiresome.

danivon wrote:Not really. A wedding officiant knows what participating is. A person getting married knows what it is. If the Baker is in the room, they may be "participating". Otherwise, they really are not.

So, baking a wedding cake is no different than baking something in your kitchen? You have first hand information on this? You know what making wedding cakes entails?

No, I won't pardon you. You're being a dope.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Not really. A wedding officiant knows what participating is. A person getting married knows what it is. If the Baker is in the room, they may be "participating". Otherwise, they really are not.

So, baking a wedding cake is no different than baking something in your kitchen? You have first hand information on this? You know what making wedding cakes entails?

Yes, dear, it is different from home baking. But how, pray, is it different from a professional baker making any other kind of celebration cake? Is there something magical about having tiers? Are the cake toppers massively different to any other kind of decoration?

If a baker makes me a birthday cake, they are not actually "participating" in my birthday party. Unless they are invited, of course.

No, I won't pardon you. You're being a dope.

Whatever, kidda.

Well, do forgive me if I have offended you, Dr. Fate. And no I'm not terribly offended at this point...a little surprised but not offended per se.

Let me tell you something about not being able to tell who's gay and who isn't. You feel a little cheap when you deny it. I almost envy people who cannot hide what they are---they at least do not have that decision to make: should I hide who I am or shouldn't I? You kind of feel like a whore after betraying who you are by denying it or even not saying it at all at some point.

But as far as offensiveness, you are getting a bit...tart, buddy. I'll say right now it's rather uncharacteristic of you.

My question would be, if the court had decided otherwise, would not they have been "overstepping their power" by your logic, by even hearing the case in the first place? Something tells me you wouldn't be so dismayed about the whole thing, or accusing the SC of overstepping, had the verdict been different. I cannot read your mind of course, but it would not surprise me.

JimHackerMP wrote:Well, do forgive me if I have offended you, Dr. Fate. And no I'm not terribly offended at this point...a little surprised but not offended per se.

Let me tell you something about not being able to tell who's gay and who isn't. You feel a little cheap when you deny it. I almost envy people who cannot hide what they are---they at least do not have that decision to make: should I hide who I am or shouldn't I? You kind of feel like a whore after betraying who you are by denying it or even not saying it at all at some point.

But as far as offensiveness, you are getting a bit...tart, buddy. I'll say right now it's rather uncharacteristic of you.

My question would be, if the court had decided otherwise, would not they have been "overstepping their power" by your logic, by even hearing the case in the first place? Something tells me you wouldn't be so dismayed about the whole thing, or accusing the SC of overstepping, had the verdict been different. I cannot read your mind of course, but it would not surprise me.

Again, the problem is you've not read what I wrote. I'm not approaching this (here) as a moral issue, but a legal one.

I've said the Court would have been within the Constitution to permit States to continue with homosexual marriage and to use the full faith and credit clause so it was applicable across State lines. That is a "different" result.

Furthermore, I've posited that liberals would view the reverse of this decision as riot-worthy. Suppose the Court said homosexual marriage was not legal under the Constitution. I think those celebrating now would have been burning vehicles and buildings.

If marriage is a Federal issue, then how can there be different ages, different requirements, etc. in different States?

This decision is as ill-founded as Roe.