(July 1, 2014 at 10:16 am)Heywood Wrote:

(June 28, 2014 at 6:20 pm)blackout94 Wrote: Gay marriage is a right. I keep in mind that our constitution is pretty clear. The right to pursue happiness. We don't have to agree with it, but it is a right constitutionally.

I too support gay marriage but be careful with the argument of happiness, it can be used for good and bad purposes

"Persuit of happiness" isn't in the Constitution. Its in the Declaration of Independence.

9th amendment.

You're welcome.

Incidentally, before you go arguing that it's still not in the 9th amendment, I'll remind you that the Constitution is an enumeration of Federal government *powers*, and nowhere listed is the power to infringe on the people's pursuit of happiness.

Inasmuch as the right to privacy exists, but is not specifically enumerated, so does the right to pursue happiness.

(July 1, 2014 at 4:36 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(July 1, 2014 at 10:16 am)Heywood Wrote: "Persuit of happiness" isn't in the Constitution. Its in the Declaration of Independence.

9th amendment.

You're welcome.

9th admendment says nothing about the persuit of happiness.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

(July 1, 2014 at 4:41 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(July 1, 2014 at 4:36 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: 9th amendment.

You're welcome.

9th admendment says nothing about the persuit of happiness.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Ninja'd. Go see my edit.

I know damn well what it says. What does it *imply*?

(July 1, 2014 at 4:45 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(July 1, 2014 at 4:41 pm)Heywood Wrote: 9th admendment says nothing about the persuit of happiness.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Ninja'd. Go see my edit.

I know damn well what it says. What does it *imply*?

It means you might have other rights not enumerated in the constitution. Rights not enumerated in the constitution are not constitutional rights.

(July 1, 2014 at 4:36 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(July 1, 2014 at 10:16 am)Heywood Wrote: "Persuit of happiness" isn't in the Constitution. Its in the Declaration of Independence.

9th amendment.

You're welcome.

Incidentally, before you go arguing that it's still not in the 9th amendment, I'll remind you that the Constitution is an enumeration of Federal government *powers*, and nowhere listed is the power to infringe on the people's pursuit of happiness.

Inasmuch as the right to privacy exists, but is not specifically enumerated, so does the right to pursue happiness.

I am not looking forward to debate your divergences, but the right to happiness, in the US or other country should be interpreted with diligence. Why? Because people could argue absurdities that would make them happy. Imagine this, I don't want to work because I'm lazy, and I argue the state should still pay me welfare my whole life because it makes me happy. Would it be legitimate? No. There is a right to pursue happiness (in my constitution there is the right to fulfillment, not to happiness, but it's pretty similar
), not the right to be happy, being happy will depend on yourself as long as minimum conditions are given.

(July 2, 2014 at 9:33 am)blackout94 Wrote:

(July 1, 2014 at 4:36 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: 9th amendment.

You're welcome.

Incidentally, before you go arguing that it's still not in the 9th amendment, I'll remind you that the Constitution is an enumeration of Federal government *powers*, and nowhere listed is the power to infringe on the people's pursuit of happiness.

Inasmuch as the right to privacy exists, but is not specifically enumerated, so does the right to pursue happiness.

I am not looking forward to debate your divergences, but the right to happiness, in the US or other country should be interpreted with diligence. Why? Because people could argue absurdities that would make them happy. Imagine this, I don't want to work because I'm lazy, and I argue the state should still pay me welfare my whole life because it makes me happy. Would it be legitimate? No. There is a right to pursue happiness (in my constitution there is the right to fulfillment, not to happiness, but it's pretty similar
), not the right to be happy, being happy will depend on yourself as long as minimum conditions are given.

In this country some courts have decided that bakers of wedding cakes must bake cakes for gay couples getting married. They force these bakers to participate in weddings that they find objectionable. The argument is if they don't want to serve gay weddings, they shouldn't sell wedding cakes......no right to persue happiness for those people.

Persuit of happiness isn't a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Countries should simply be governed in a manner that maximizes people's ability to persue happiness.

Skipping over the question of status for the "pursuit of happiness" it makes me wonder why xtians are so invested in their right to disparage, slight and refuse service to particular groups. Adulterers welcome. Fornicators too. But he who would lie with a man as with a woman .. oh hell no. It is the same impulse which leads muslims to keep their women in burkas and which led xtians a century ago to keep the races separated. Bigotry, discrimination and intolerance are the signs by which we recognize God's people. You should be proud.

Regarding the original question,

"What am I? Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Independent?"

Don't rush me, I'm still trying to decide between animal, mineral or vegetable. (I was leaning toward animal but I'm afraid you'd take that as an insult.)

(July 2, 2014 at 10:41 am)Heywood Wrote:

(July 2, 2014 at 9:33 am)blackout94 Wrote: I am not looking forward to debate your divergences, but the right to happiness, in the US or other country should be interpreted with diligence. Why? Because people could argue absurdities that would make them happy. Imagine this, I don't want to work because I'm lazy, and I argue the state should still pay me welfare my whole life because it makes me happy. Would it be legitimate? No. There is a right to pursue happiness (in my constitution there is the right to fulfillment, not to happiness, but it's pretty similar
), not the right to be happy, being happy will depend on yourself as long as minimum conditions are given.

In this country some courts have decided that bakers of wedding cakes must bake cakes for gay couples getting married. They force these bakers to participate in weddings that they find objectionable. The argument is if they don't want to serve gay weddings, they shouldn't sell wedding cakes......no right to persue happiness for those people.

Persuit of happiness isn't a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Countries should simply be governed in a manner that maximizes people's ability to persue happiness.

First, there is nothing in the bible that allows for this kind of bigotry, so he didn't refuse because of his religious belief. He refused because he is a bigot.

The bible talks a lot about forgiveness, treating others as you would have them treat you. Love thy neighbor. Nothing that christians really believe, but that is basis if the teachings that Jesus taught.

I was a bit torn on this because if one chooses to not do a job that should be their right. After all, it was a service and not a retail product that he was selling. But the problem wasn't in his not doing the job, it was why he refused the job.

If he stated that he couldn't take the job because he was going on vacation, or had another job, or other committments. Or maybe he refused because he doesn't work out of a particular area. It would have been ok.

But he didn't do that. He said he refused the job because they were gay. What he was telling the world is that he is a bigot and he will refused to do business with anyone that he disagrees with. Who will be next? Liberals? Blacks? Muslims?

A government that needs to promote the welfare of all americans regardless of religion, sex, sex preference, etc, can't allow that kind of bigotry in our country or soon we will become little more than another Iraq or Syria.

Most of those agree with the Green Party, which is the extreme left in American politics. You are also liberal for the sake of being liberal on many of the social issues. On economics, you're Libertarian, which doesn't fit with being Green. So you're stuck between Green and Libertarian, both being Third Party aka Independent. You also described yourself as a classical Republican (back when they were closer to the modern Democrats).

On healthcare, you support neither the extremes of Obamacare (corporatist filth) nor single payer (democratic socialism), so I don't know on that one.