Court rulings are what count in a society based around law. So are you going to ignore any law you personally disagree with because it was set by an "activist" judge?
Originally Posted by PatriotNews
I gave you several you just contend the rulings don't count because they were made by "activist" judges. It's a merry-go-round.
Show us where the laws have any such stipulations, one example is all that is needed.
In a relationship involving two gay adults there are two legally consenting gay adults. In a relationship involving a 40 year old man and a twelve year old child are there two legally consenting pedophiles?
This is quite true regarding the privacy argument. That same argument is used by pedophiles BTW.
This makes no sense.
Except when there is not two consenting adults.
Um! Excuse me, you said my statement was one of an "ignoramous" before stating a wholely fabricated point, what else do you expect me to do?
First of all, you don't know me, so don't call me ignorant.
No it was not. Firstly it was sweepingly wide, incredibly vague and had no specific examples to back it up and where you could have stated a case, such as with regard to adoption agencies, you ignored a glaringly salient point with regard to funding.
Secondly, my statement is true as I stated it.
They are not false statements. It is perfectly fair to withhold state funding from operations which refuse to comply with the law.
Thirdly, I see no need to add your false qualifying statements.
Except they don't make sense and you have shown nothing to back up your claims just made blanket statements which you expect everybody to agree without any proof or substance.
I can write my own sentences without the need of your intentional lies
So you're good with your taxes going towards Pagan child sacrifice.
Receipt of funding is not relevent
Well what are the cases, what is the context and where is the proof?
and is not true in all cases.
So if an Humanist organisation was receiving state funding to set up a library to educate people away from religion, you'd be fine with that and you would object to efforts to close them down or to picket their buildings or offices?
But with regard to funding, why is it you cannot see the bigotry in denying one group funding because of their religious beliefs?
There's a big difference between rejecting your religious beliefs and expecting everyone else to comply with them.
Receipt of funding should not be contingient on one's willingness to reject one's own long held religious beliefs and practices.
Just because you can't successfully refute a point does not make it a strawman. Strawmaning is not the act of putting your hands over your ears and saying La La La! So, I'll ask you again:
Because there is no point debating your strawman argument.
"Can you provide one single example of a non-public servant being successfully sued because they refused to officiate a wedding ceremony?"
So what other kind of person makes a statement that is: "so far over on the ignoramous meter there's hardly any point in replying."
I didn't call you an ignoramous.
Not sure it will you know?
Basic understanding of sentence structure will show that you are wrong on this one.
I think you're stepping into muddy waters here. Had you not been so arrogant and condescending with your "ignoramous" quote we probably wouldn't be arguing this point.
Unlike you who violated the TOSS rules by calling me ignorant just a few lines up.
Nope they all consider themselves religious organisations, they can all limit membership to people who share their beliefs and ideals and none of them is forced to perform wedding "ceremonies" for people whose unions they do not condone. If you can prove otherwise then please do so.
Because your paragraph made no sense. In what way are people who agree with gay rights "conspiracy theorists"?
Well then explain it through your eyes then. I'm for limited government, minimal taxation, a minimal debt burden and staying out of the lives of people who's business does not concern me. I'm also for equality of opportunity for all citizens (which is not the same thing as guaranteed equality of outcome).
I don't think you understand the difference then.
Indeed, and have been declared unconstitutional by judges appointed by Republicans, Democrats and (probably) independents.
It is not a partisan issue. The DOMA laws have passed nationally with support of Republicans, democrats, and independents.
You neglected to mention that Prop 8 has been deemed unconstitutional at the District Court level; a ruling which was later upheld on appeal?
Right, I think I just pointed that out so, how is it you feel I missed it?
It's like if I quoted the American Nazi Party and tried to claim that they're the definitive source of information about Jews because they're the ones "dealing with the problem"...