User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 94

Thread: Judge rejects couple's argument for refusing gay customers

  1. #21
    Points: 264,399, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 82.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteranTagger First ClassOverdrive
    Awards:
    Activity Award
    MisterVeritis's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    307877
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Northern Alabama
    Posts
    104,547
    Points
    264,399
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    94,662
    Thanked 39,251x in 27,872 Posts
    Mentioned
    385 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    This is a very serious constitutional issue, IMHO. The SC will have to balance two rights -- the stated freedom of religion versus the court-held right to marriage. I don't understand why @AeonPax would attempt to derail a serious thread in the On the Serious Side Law & Justice Room with talk about "Christian pornography".
    One right is Constitutional. The other was made up by a court unhindered by the Constitution, law or history.
    Last edited by MisterVeritis; 09-23-2017 at 11:28 AM.
    Call your state legislators and insist they approve the Article V convention of States to propose amendments.


    I pledge allegiance to the Constitution as written and understood by this nation's founders, and to the Republic it created, an indivisible union of sovereign States, with liberty and justice for all.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to MisterVeritis For This Useful Post:

    DGUtley (09-23-2017)

  3. #22
    Points: 665,303, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 84.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,554
    Points
    665,303
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    This is a very serious constitutional issue, IMHO. The SC will have to balance two rights -- the stated freedom of religion versus the court-held right to marriage. I don't understand why @AeonPax would attempt to derail a serious thread in the On the Serious Side Law & Justice Room with talk about "Christian pornography".
    I see it not as a conflict of right of religion and marriage but one of free association and contract. I know all about public accommodation but that's a silly reason to force private citizens to do what they choose not to do.
    Last edited by Chris; 09-23-2017 at 11:53 AM.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Kalkin (09-23-2017),MisterVeritis (09-23-2017)

  5. #23
    Points: 665,303, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 84.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,554
    Points
    665,303
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Another reason I have is the distinction between justice and beneficence. The law should enforce justice and prevent or punish those who harm others. It should not enforce beneficence and force people to do good to each other, that has to be chosen and acted on freely.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (09-23-2017)

  7. #24
    Points: 56,917, Level: 58
    Level completed: 29%, Points required for next Level: 1,433
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    Agent Zero's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    19619
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    8,002
    Points
    56,917
    Level
    58
    Thanks Given
    2,498
    Thanked 1,784x in 1,405 Posts
    Mentioned
    334 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MisterVeritis View Post
    One right is Constitutional. The other was made up by a court unhindered by law or history.
    Desegregation was an action of the courts via Brown vs Board of Education. Shall we throw it out too? How about interracial marriage in Loving vs Virginia? Throw it out too? I know...let's throw out District of Columbia vs Heller!
    How crazy alt righties got pwnd by a conervative web site:
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/berlins.../#3b7ecb78e9b5
    il·lib·er·al
    i(l)ˈlib(ə)rəladjective1.opposed to liberal principles; restricting freedom of thought or behavior
    "illiberal and anti-democratic policies
    • synonyms: intolerant, narrow-minded, unenlightened, conservative, reactionary;


  8. #25
    Points: 56,917, Level: 58
    Level completed: 29%, Points required for next Level: 1,433
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    Agent Zero's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    19619
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    8,002
    Points
    56,917
    Level
    58
    Thanks Given
    2,498
    Thanked 1,784x in 1,405 Posts
    Mentioned
    334 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    Another reason I have is the distinction between justice and beneficence. The law should enforce justice and prevent or punish those who harm others. It should not enforce beneficence and force people to do good to each other, that has to be chosen and acted on freely.
    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 ...
    How crazy alt righties got pwnd by a conervative web site:
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/berlins.../#3b7ecb78e9b5
    il·lib·er·al
    i(l)ˈlib(ə)rəladjective1.opposed to liberal principles; restricting freedom of thought or behavior
    "illiberal and anti-democratic policies
    • synonyms: intolerant, narrow-minded, unenlightened, conservative, reactionary;


  9. #26
    Points: 665,303, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 84.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,554
    Points
    665,303
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Zero View Post
    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 ...
    And?

    All of that concerns justice except the general welfare clause, which later in the Constitution is a restriction that laws serve all, not benefit some to the detriment of others. In the OP case, the protection of general welfare would mean protecting each parties right to choose to associate and contract.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    Kalkin (09-23-2017)

  11. #27
    Points: 665,303, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 84.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,554
    Points
    665,303
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Zero View Post
    Desegregation was an action of the courts via Brown vs Board of Education. Shall we throw it out too? How about interracial marriage in Loving vs Virginia? Throw it out too? I know...let's throw out District of Columbia vs Heller!
    Now here I agree, the government should not be allowed to discriminate. But in the OP case, it is discriminating for one side and against another. The government shouldn't be allowed to pick winners and losers, that leads to corruption.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (09-23-2017)

  13. #28
    Points: 264,399, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 82.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteranTagger First ClassOverdrive
    Awards:
    Activity Award
    MisterVeritis's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    307877
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Northern Alabama
    Posts
    104,547
    Points
    264,399
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    94,662
    Thanked 39,251x in 27,872 Posts
    Mentioned
    385 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Zero View Post
    Desegregation was an action of the courts via Brown vs Board of Education. Shall we throw it out too? How about interracial marriage in Loving vs Virginia? Throw it out too? I know...let's throw out District of Columbia vs Heller!
    Rules for how we should live should have been decided by legislatures. If the legislatures have not addressed an issue under the Constitution then it is up to the states and the people to choose. Not the courts.

    You conflate issues decided where there is a Constitutional basis for a decision versus decisions decided without regard to the Constitution, law, or our history.
    Call your state legislators and insist they approve the Article V convention of States to propose amendments.


    I pledge allegiance to the Constitution as written and understood by this nation's founders, and to the Republic it created, an indivisible union of sovereign States, with liberty and justice for all.

  14. #29
    Points: 264,399, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 82.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteranTagger First ClassOverdrive
    Awards:
    Activity Award
    MisterVeritis's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    307877
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Northern Alabama
    Posts
    104,547
    Points
    264,399
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    94,662
    Thanked 39,251x in 27,872 Posts
    Mentioned
    385 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Zero View Post
    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 ...
    I love to cut and paste.

    Did you have a point?
    Call your state legislators and insist they approve the Article V convention of States to propose amendments.


    I pledge allegiance to the Constitution as written and understood by this nation's founders, and to the Republic it created, an indivisible union of sovereign States, with liberty and justice for all.

  15. #30

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 74,318, Level: 66
    Level completed: 51%, Points required for next Level: 1,132
    Overall activity: 13.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Cletus's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    195698
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    32,313
    Points
    74,318
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    3,682
    Thanked 27,383x in 15,850 Posts
    Mentioned
    412 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    This is a very serious constitutional issue, IMHO. The SC will have to balance two rights -- the stated freedom of religion versus the court-held right to marriage. I don't understand why @AeonPax would attempt to derail a serious thread in the On the Serious Side Law & Justice Room with talk about "Christian pornography".
    No man should be forced to labor on behalf of another against his will, even if there are no religious issues involved.
    “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” - Barry Goldwater

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cletus For This Useful Post:

    Kalkin (09-23-2017),MisterVeritis (09-23-2017),resister (09-23-2017)

+ Reply to Thread

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts