Colorado Christian cakeshop sued a third time for discrimination.

Give it a rest. Dang few people, left or right, would be so cruel as to tolerate screwing up children by letting people molest them.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/table_marriage
Texas:
(v) Below age of consent parties need parental consent and permission of judge, no younger than 14 for males and 13 for females.

13 years old!

For many of the states:
(c) Younger parties may marry with parental consent.


Then we also have this:
(e) Younger parties may obtain license in case of pregnancy or birth of child.

So this clause is saying it is ok to get a child pregnant as long as you marry her

Then we have for Mississippi:
(g) No age limits.

Oklahoma:
(y) If one or both parties are below the age for marriage without parental consent, three day waiting period

And the list goes on and on.

 

So you have no problem with Oklahoma - no minimum age for girls to get married and Texas girls can get married at 13 years! Yep, definitely a pedophile's dream fully supported by the red states

 

If liberals allow or even encourage teenage girls to have sex why do you object to marriage at the same age?

Your position is inconsistent

 

You dont mind if the kids are screwed out of wedlock

I say be consistent

 

Yes you have.

I support people doing whatever they want as long as it does not harm another. You are indicating we should arrest teenagers for having sex or keep child marriage legal.

Which part are you backtracking on?

A few people have answered this question, you even acknowledged I did after you quoted me and said I didn’t. Your argument is pathetically dishonest.

 

Well in the coastal cities it's ok to get a child pregnant and not marry her.

 

Teenagers having sex with other teenagers is to be expected, not encouraged or discouraged. How do you propose we stop allowing them to have sex?

Teenagers however cannot consent, if you want to read why child marriage is bad — besides it typically happening between an adult and a child) here is a decent article.

This is a red state issue and existed way before gay people had the right to not be arrested for simply existing

“In many cases, minors in the US are married when they are under the age of sexual consent in their area (which ranges from 16 to 18 ).[8] In some areas minors cannot legally divorce, leave their spouse, or enter a shelter to escape abuse.[9][10] In 2001 in Tennessee, three 10-year-old girls were married to men aged 24-31.[3] Meanwhile in Alabama, a 74-year-old man married a 14-year-old girl.[2]

The vast majority of child marriages were between a child and an adult.[3][2] The majority of married children were girls.[2]”

 

I dont backtrack

Liberals were attacking southern states that allow teen marriage

The same liberals who support teen girls having sex outside marriage

Those two positions are incompatable

 

No, they really are not.
Your inability to comprehend the difference between the two is terrifying.

Again, for the 50th time. How do you propose we force minors from having sex with each other?

Have some integrity and answer the question

 

Since underage girls cannot conset then any sex is wrong

You are halfway there when you condemn older men marrying young girls

But then you turn lib again when you defend out of wedlock sex by young girls

Both are equally wrong

 

In all your posts on this thread not once have you condemned a marriage of an adult man, perhaps 25 years old, to a girl around 13 years old, as allowed in the red States. All you want to do is criminalise a 15 year old girl having sex outside marriage and not once have you condemned the male in that sexual relationship.

 

Ok, we can agree that they will have sex. If they can't be married what do we do with the babies?

 

You and your NAMBLA pals...

 

You believe it is equally wrong for a minor to have sex with a minor as it is for an adult to marry a minor...

Get help

 

Do you mean I'm NOT supporting LGBTQ?

A reasonable position. I don't really understand why Jack didn't agree to it but I respect his decision.
This is different to the gay wedding cake which he would've had to custom design with his own artistic expression. By the way, what's a "prig?"

 

What do you think the discrimination is based on?

 

HARASSER = "human waste". Why would you think that LGBTQ = "human waste?"

 

Are you under the impression that this baker refused because he didn't want to be seen to be endorsing a gay wedding?

 

Does that mean that a gay baker shouldn't have any problem making a cake with anti-gay messaging on top? You think that they should be perfectly okay with making such a cake?

Whose first date?

 

So you think that he would've refused any service at all to the transgender person?

 

Well there was no specific message requested from the gay couple.

 

Ok since you want me to state the obvious I do condemn child marriages to young girls

But that same girl having sex at 12 or 13 outside of marriage is just as bad

 

In the modern lib culture we live in today many girls will have sex against their best interests

If they expect to draw welfare they must surrender the name of the boy

And they must shree not to have children before marriage in the future

 

Come off it Langley

I dont support NAMBLA

and you making that allegation only shows how devoid of reason your argument has become