Consolidated Gay Issue Thread


#5881

johnwk, you support a liberal’s view of statutory interpretation. I thought you were a “conservative”. The PLAIN LANGUAGE of the 14th amendment does not limit its protection to persons of color. You demand that courts ignore that plain language and add an implied limitation based on the historical context in which the amendment was proposed. But no sound rule of statutory construction permits a court such leeway to “make law” up on its own.

I’ll say it again, slowly this time: If the authors of the 14th amendment had intended its protections to extend only to persons of color, they would have so provided in the text of the amendment.


#5882

Your opinion is once again noted my friend.

As is usually the case with you, you offer an unsubstantiated opinion. Doing so does not give weight or legitimacy to your opinion.
And now, you even choose to ignore the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction which is to observe and enforce the 14th Amendment’s legislative intent in spite of the fact it has already been established that enforcing legislative intent is the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction. See: Post No.47 which is titled “The most fundamental rule of Constitutional Construction”.
Now, instead of offering unsubstantiated opinion, how about offering a rebuttal to:

Post No. 1;

Post No. 17;

And, Post No. 80.?

Or simply tell us why you go to great lengths to pretend the 14th Amendment means something unconfirmed by the Congressional Debates of the 39th Congress, nor is in harmony with the text of the 14th Amendment. Why do you attempt to give legitimacy to the Court’s majority opinion which does nothing more than impose its whims and fancies upon the entire population of the United States as the rule of law, and is the very definition of judicial tyranny?

JWK


“The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.” – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968



#5883

Well, how about that? You have just admitted that I’m correct in what I’ve said is the end game of this movement.
The demise of religion.

Don’t think you’re church is safe dude.


#5884

I don’t know about “end games” of “movements”, but it’s plain that adherents of religions that advocate condemnation of homosexuality will be increasingly isolated as the culture changes towards tolerance and acceptance. The task will be to reconcile the culture’s changes with the Constitutional imperative of religious liberty. As I’ve said a couple of times already, now that the right to marry has been guaranteed, I am more open to protecting the religious liberty of those at odds with mainsteam culture. I don’t have a larger “agenda” to destroy religion; I’m a conservative concerned with the preservation of individual freedom. If so-called “Bible-believing” churches are to be relegated to the minority - and I think that’s inevitable unless they change with the times - they are nevertheless entitled to Constitutional protection.


#5885

Wow, it’s like all of a sudden you are comfortable with your true feelings or something.


#5886

[quote=“Jazzhead, post:5884, topic:33143”]
I’m a conservative concerned with the preservation of individual freedom.
[/quote]:rofl:

You still think my camera and my body belong to you and the rest of America to employ in the cause of gay pride.


#5887

Let’s not forget, I’m a bigot who supported gay rights and gay marriage long before your party (the Dems), their members and probably even you did. My party has been supporting it since it formed more than 40 years ago. My party includes gays who do not feel the need to inflict their lifestyles on the unwilling through compelled participation in weddings and parades. Those particular homos, of course, are also anti-gay hater bigots.

Why, you might ask?

Because we *actually *believe in individual liberty.


#5888

Post a sign at your place of business advising that you don’t shoot gay weddings and as far as I am concerned you ought to be able to turn down such business without legal consequences.


#5889

Yep, it is prophesied in the Bible.

Jesus said Christians would be hated for His name’s sake (Luke 21:17; Revelation 6:9-11; 20:4). The banning of the Bible, prayer, the Ten Commandments, nativity scenes, Christmas songs, etc., reflects this trend. Also consider that more Christians were martyred during the past century than during all previous history.

Homosexuality would be flaunted at the end of the age. Jesus warned that the last days would be like the days of Lot who lived in wicked Sodom (Luke 17:28-30). We know that the root of Sodom’s sin was pride and complacency (Ezekiel 16:49) as it is today. However, Sodom’s lasting infamy stemmed from their aggressive homosexual sin (Genesis 19; Jude 1:7). Today, the homosexual agenda is flaunted and forced upon our entire society.

Apostasy would occur just before the Antichrist is revealed (2 Thessalonians 2:3). Increasingly, tolerance based “Christianity” is replacing the Bible as the standard for saving faith. The current movement is striving for unity at the expense of truth. Christ’s exclusive claims are negated in the name of tolerance.

People would reject the sound doctrine of the Word of God and follow the doctrines of men that appeal to their own lusts (2 Timothy 4:3-4; Acts 20:29-30). Others would confess faith in Christ, but not obey His Word (Matthew 24:48-51; Matthew 7:22-23).

Sound familiar? You, and those who think like you, are the ones fulfilling Bible prophecy. Wake up, before it is too late.


#5890

That’s called a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the “end of the age” is upon us, I fear it will be at the hands of religious extremists who tolerate no dissent from their moralizing.


#5891

I don’t have a place of business, but it’s irrelevant. It’s not legal in the state of Oregon to do so. No one in Oregon can comply with your wishes. And even when gay marriage wasn’t even a legal right in Oregon, people were still being fined for not participating in gay activities.

Furthermore, I/we have a right to deny service to anyone whom I choose for any reason regardless of whether I post it or not. Why you want to single out such behavior toward homosexuals alone is beyond me.

But if you really supported personal freedom, you wouldn’t use that kind of qualifier to permit folks to exercise their rights.


#5892

If you really supported personal freedom, you’d realize that sellers and purchasers of services both have rights. The only rights you have any sympathy for are those of the seller. Why should a consumer have no right to be protected with respect to fraud and arbitrary discrimination? Why are your religious rights more precious or valuable than your customer’s right to not be defrauded or victimized?

What I’m proposing is eminently fair. So long as the the owner of a public accommodation advises the public (his customers) that he won’t provide services for gay weddings because of religious conviction, then he can refuse to provide such services. The evil is * arbitrary * discrimination, where a consumer is blindsided at the whim of the seller. Let the seller post a sign, so the policies of his public business are known to the public, and the free market can decide if his religious convictions gain or cost him business.


#5893

Of course those who wrote the Bible are all dead so not sure his suit has any validity. And I would be real careful about suing Jesus, IIRC I think he rose from the dead once already…


#5894

[quote=“Jazzhead, post:5892, topic:33143”]
If you really supported personal freedom, you’d realize that sellers and purchasers of services both have rights. The only rights you have any sympathy for are those of the seller.
[/quote]False. I respect the rights of the sellers and the buyers to associate with whom they choose. So do gay libertarians.

[quote=“Jazzhead, post:5892, topic:33143”]
Why should a consumer have no right to be protected with respect to fraud and arbitrary discrimination?
[/quote]Why should a private property owner and person be compelled to be involved in any activity he finds distasteful for whatever reason? We’re not talking about fraud here. Arbitrary discrimination? Possibly. So what? No one has a right not to face “arbitrary discrimination” in private life, while every single human being actually has a right to arbitrarily discriminate.

[quote=“Jazzhead, post:5892, topic:33143”]
Why are your religious rights more precious or valuable than your customer’s right to not be defrauded or victimized?
[/quote] This isn’t about religious rights. A person owns his own body regardless of religion. That’s the basis for the pro-choice abortion argument. No customer is defrauded or victimized. You are not victimized merely on the basis of me choosing not to do some job you ask me to do.

[quote=“Jazzhead, post:5892, topic:33143”]
What I’m proposing is eminently fair.
[/quote]What you propose is eminently unfair and does not recognize personal freedom.

[quote=“Jazzhead, post:5892, topic:33143”]
So long as the the owner of a public accommodation advises the public (his customers) that he won’t provide services for gay weddings because of religious conviction, then he can refuse to provide such services.
[/quote]It is literally against the law to post a sign like that in my state. Don’t know about others, but I do know that about Oregon. Check out the Portland baker story, the one where the couple would be under a sort-of gag order if the couple were still in business.

In my case, I have no place to actually put a sign were it allowed and were I so inclined or coerced. I suppose that means you can take your guns and violence and force me to do as you and a majority of voters or judges prefer.

[quote=“Jazzhead, post:5892, topic:33143”]
The evil is * arbitrary * discrimination, where a consumer is blindsided at the whim of the seller. Let the seller post a sign, so the policies of his public business are known to the public, and the free market can decide if his religious convictions gain or cost him business.
[/quote]The free market functions in any case. It’s not like one gay couple wouldn’t spread word all over the Interwebz about this this evil baker and her bigotry. Meanwhile, they are free to go next door to the 47 other bakers and photographers who will get involved in their gay event. (We’re not even talking about generally doing business here. We’re talking about freaking gay activities, like parades and weddings. Ridiculous.)

And your argument labels me evil. Good job. How long have you actively voiced support for legal gay marriage? Did youever oppose it? Be honest. I supported it long before it was popular, when it was as socially unacceptable as saying anything negative about homosexuality is today. How about you? Yet you essentially label me an evil bigot.

Where is your famous “persuasion” to change evil behavior, you know, that solution you advocate for ending baby murder? No, you advocate guns and violence in the cause of cakes and photos. You say you oppose abortion, but you wouldn’t call abortion evil.

Personal freedom? Yeah, right. That would involve actually tolerating activities and opinions you don’t like. That would mean avoiding the temptation to use guns and violence to make people comply with your ideals. It’s second nature to me. It’s second nature to many gays.


#5895

Well, Jazz, it appears a couple of our “strict constructionist” here have decided that “constructionist” means CONSTRUCTING a mythological narrative regarding the constitution in support of their modern-day brand of bigotry, in spite of and in opposition to the recent SCOTUS decision.

Regarding the fear some have of being forced to do something contrary to their religious beliefs - here’s what I think. IMHO -

If you are a devout Christian, for example, own a bakery open to the public and you are asked to sell a cake to a gay couple, you should NOT be able to deny them that service. To deny said service is fundamentally no different than denying a black couple service at a lunch counter in 1962.

That said, if you are a devout Christian - again using the fundamental Christian belief system as an example - you should NOT be expected to provide a PERSONAL SERVICE associated with an act that is contrary to your religious beliefs/teachings. In other words, you should not be required to participate in or provide a personal service in support of, in this case, a marriage ceremony involving same sex marriage. You should not be required to provide the wedding cake for the event and a minister should not have to officiate at the wedding.


#5896

As a private business, you should be allowed to refuse service to anyone, period.


#5897

We can repeat the same arguments over and over. The point is that the progressive left wants to read between the lines and come up with new “rights” even (or maybe especially) at the expense of other rights which are clearly stated in the Bill of Rights.

I am beginning to think that Thurgood Marshall was correct:

“The constitution did not survive the civil war, it was replaced by something better, the 14th.”

although I would take severe issue with the word “better”.


#5898

I have no idea what a “strict constructionist” is or how it applies to the discussion. I do know there are fundamental rules which govern constitutional law and constitutional construction, and the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction is to discover the legislative intent for which the provisions of our Constitution were adopted and then enforce their “legislative intent”. I suggest you see Post No.47 which is titled “The most fundamental rule of Constitutional Construction”. if you believe my post is in error, then state your objects with supporting documentation.

With regard to your insulting assertion about “bigotry”, let me assure you the rules of constitutional construction have nothing to do with “bigotry”, and have everything to do with preventing the constitution to be made to mean whatever our public servants want it to mean. So, instead of casting insulting remarks towards those you disagree with as to what the 14th Amendment’s legislative intent is, take the time to present your rebuttal in a manner which supports and defends our constitutionally limited system of government. I have taken the time to do this in:

Post No. 1;

Post No. 17;

And, Post No. 80..

There is a much larger picture involved with the Court’s same sex marriage written opinion than those who support or oppose same sex marriage. The bigger picture is whether our judges and Justices ought to be allowed to engage in judicial anarchy by defying our Constitution’s text and legislative intent, and imposing its personal views of justice, fairness or reasonableness as the rule of law. This, my friend, is the bigger picture which you seem to overlook.

JWK


“The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.” – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968



#5899

johnwk, the fundamental rule of statutory construction is that you apply its plain meaning. No resort to legislative intent is necessary if the statute’s plain meaning is evident.

And once again - if the authors of the 14th Amendment had intended its protections to be limited to persons of color, they would have so provided in the text of the Amendment.


#5900

Well, my friend, let us look at the plain meaning of the text of the 14th Amendment’s first Section to see where it leads us.

What the 14th Amendment actually declares is:

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.

By these words, our Constitution establishes who are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. Keep in mind these words bestow citizenship upon blacks who qualify. What the authors of those words intended was to define “citizenship” without reference to ethnicity, thus including Blacks! And so, your if this and if that opinion is irrelevant when looking at the plain language!

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;*

Privileges and immunities are created by the state and no citizens’ privileges or immunities may be abridged by the State.

*** nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ***

Each state creates is own due process and whatever that due process is, no person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without receiving the State’s due process of law.

****nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Whatever a state’s laws are, no person may be denied the equal protection of those laws.

Now, having reviewed the plain text of the 14th Amendment, how does its plain text forbid a state to make distinctions in law based upon sex when issuing a state marriage license, which is a privilege created by the State?

We do know before the 19th Amendment was adopted, the right to vote was denied based upon sex, and marriage licenses were only issued to opposite sex couples. We also know the 19th Amendment’s plan text specifically applies to voting. So where is the plain text in the Constitution forbidding the states to make distinctions in law based upon sex when issuing a state marriage license? Why was a constitutional amendment needed to guarantee the right to vote without reference to sex, but no amendment is needed to forbid a state to only issue a marriage license to an opposite sex couple? Please, my dear friend, point to the plan text to support your notions.

JWK

***Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean. ***