Marriage discrimination struck down in Arkansas.

[Jackalope]

You know, Heywood, for someone who claims to be ambivalent about marriage equality, you sure spend a hell of a lot of time arguing against it.

One can only speculate why.

[SteelCurtain]

You're even terrible at being a troll.

[Heywood]

We can talk about the baker who is forced to bake for gay weddings or the photographer who is forced to shoot pictures at gay weddings...no ninth amendment for them. It seems "pursuit of happiness" only means what the reader or a judge wants it to means....in otherwords....as a guiding doctrine its so ambiguous that it is meaningless.

No professional baker is forced to be a professional baker. Just so, no professional baker has the right to violate the law in the process of practicing that profession. If that professional baker wants to be a professional baker, there are certain rules that baker must follow. If he does not wish to follow those rules, he is free to choose a profession in which he does not have to make a compromise with his deeply-felt hatreds.

Yeah, and no one is denying gays the right to marry. They can marry someone of the opposite sex just like anyone else. If they don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex, they are free to choose not to marry at all.....just like to photographer is free to choose not to be a photographer.

---

You know, Heywood, for someone who claims to be ambivalent about marriage equality, you sure spend a hell of a lot of time arguing against it.

One can only speculate why.

I like the debate. Good arguments teaches you to think about and defend your position. Also this thread would have been one big boring circle jerk without me.

However I more certain then ever that Government should just stay out of marriage all together.

[Losty]

And again I say, baking and photography are not fundamental rights. It is not comparable.

This whole we aren't discriminating against homosexuals because we are outlawing everyone from ssm not just homosexuals has already been tried in Lovings V. Virginia except they said they weren't violating equal protections bc they were banning all people from marrying interracially not just black people. It was shot down by the US Supreme Court then and it should be shot down again now.

[Heywood]

You're even terrible at being a troll.

I am the minority being demonized by the majority. That's okay...I don't have to be here if I don't want to be.

[Losty]

If the government stayed out of marriage then ssm would be legal in every state.

[Heywood]

And again I say, baking and photography are not fundamental rights. It is not comparable.

This whole we aren't discriminating against homosexuals because we are outlawing everyone from ssm not just homosexuals has already been tried in Lovings V. Virginia except they said they weren't violating equal protections bc they were banning all people from marrying interracially not just black people. It was shot down by the US Supreme Court then and it should be shot down again now.

Baking and photography are basic rights under the ninth amendment....remember...pursuit of happiness...it means anything your want it to mean.

A judge could easily rule that a bakers pursuit of happiness is sufficient cause for him to refuse to serve gay weddings.

[Silver]

Yeah, and no one is denying gays the right to marry. They can marry someone of the opposite sex just like anyone else.

That is a piss poor argument, and you know it. It was probably the same precise nonsensical argument used when interracial marriage was illegal.

Oh, you're a white man who wants to marry the black woman whom you love? Sorry, but you can still marry a white woman.

[Heywood]

Yeah, and no one is denying gays the right to marry. They can marry someone of the opposite sex just like anyone else.

That is a piss poor argument, and you know it. It was probably the same precise nonsensical argument used when interracial marriage was illegal.

Oh, you're a white man who wants to marry the black woman whom you love? Sorry, but you can still marry a white woman.

It is a silly argument, but it is used all the time to force people, against their pursuit of happiness......to not discriminate.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Really? You got nothing? Are you done 'defending' marriage now? Do you want to talk about Game of Thrones?

We can talk about the baker who is forced to bake for gay weddings or the photographer who is forced to shoot pictures at gay weddings...no ninth amendment for them. It seems "pursuit of happiness" only means what the reader or a judge wants it to means....in otherwords....as a guiding doctrine its so ambiguous that it is meaningless.

Right, because again, there's a difference between a buisiness owner selling their wares, or an independent contractor signing on for the job of filming a wedding, and a concocted situation where someone is "forced" to DO THEIR FUCKING JOB because it's WHAT THEY GET PAID TO DO -- and might run the risk of turning into a whiny like a little bitch -- because two consenting adults made a choice that doesn't affect them at all, but they just DON'T LIKE.

Then again, you pretend not to understand:

"Equal protection from discrimination"
=/DOES NOT EQUATE TO/=
"Equal protection from people you don't like but aren't able to discriminate against."