Got a link to the judges ruling?
|
Got a link to the judges ruling?
Not yet. But look for it after it happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
The florist is supported by law, I already showed that.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
So you're OK with someone refusing to perform services on religious grounds after all. Good.Quote:
In additional to federal constitutional protections, the Washington State Constitution also protects “freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief, and worship,” as stated in Article 1, Section 11.
Hello again,
Michell Bachmann is against gay marriage. I don't know why, I just like this picture of her. It must be her eyes..
Starting up the war on women again I see.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Which is ironic.Quote:
Michell Bachmann is against gay marriage.
Why is it ironic?Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Y'know.. her husband.
In case you're confused, here are the results of a Google search for "Michelle Bachman husband":
https://www.google.ca/#safe=active&o...w=1680&bih=899
It's ironic because Cher's gaydar says so? And you were complaining about the level of discourse here yesterday, now that's ironic.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
What's ironic you would deny the same rights you enjoy to others because YOU believe marriage is between a man and woman exclusively.
Its ironic that you keep defining what your rights are yet balk when others define their rights.
Live within your beliefs if you want, that is your right, but you also have to let others live within theirs. You don't have to agree to respect that within reason.
Oh get off your sanctimonious high horse. No one is more rigid about trying to define other's rights than progressives. This issue is like every other issue with your side, your idea of coming together for a solution means we move to your side or nothing doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
You have no middle ground that opens up reasonable dialog. There is no meet you in the middle. Sanctimonious? Perhaps but no more than you.
No middle ground ? I think I've offered more than one reasonable and legal alternative. But your side ;it's gay marriage or nothing.
Dude, I accepted the original compromise from the LGBT community - civil unions - many years ago but they reneged. That's how it works with your side, just as I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
What, you think I've forgotten? No, when I agree to someone's compromise and then says the deal's off the table and walks away, they can kiss my...
Its not up to you, or me at this point since its in the hands of the courts. There will be a ruling Thursday, likely a narrow opinion on prop 8 in California, and maybe on the constitutionality of DOMA.
But gay people have the right to push for their rights through the court the same way any American does. That's why we have a court to settle grievances lawfully whether you agree with the decision or not. They can appeal if they have grounds, any decision by any judge.
Isn't that how the system works? Opinion between us means nothing, and changes nothing.
The LBGT community changed their minds and pushed it to the SCOTUS. I don't think they will give up, state or federal, because you don't like it. They are exercising their rights as Americans.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Then don't accuse us of having no middle ground . It's there where you find no compromise.
So that's what you meant by "middle ground", having it imposed on us. See, I was right.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
That's the law imposing on you, not me.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:46 PM. |