Utah's same-sex marriage ban ruled unconstitutional.

[ballen0351]

well, I would not want anybody making food for me who does not want to.

but that is beside the point. They broke state law. And I am sure in the long run it will cost them more than just sucking it up and making the damn cake.
As stated before, insert black/Chinese/religion for gay and the picture becomes clearer....
Straight/gay only fountain anybody?

And again if your black Chinese ect would you rather know where you stand before you give someone that dislikes you your hard earned money? What we have now is a system where they smile to you face take your cash and spit in your food behind closed doors and tell you to enjoy as you walk out. I'd much rather shop where people respect me then have people lie to me.

 

[granfire]

And again if your black Chinese ect would you rather know where you stand before you give someone that dislikes you your hard earned money? What we have now is a system where they smile to you face take your cash and spit in your food behind closed doors and tell you to enjoy as you walk out. I'd much rather shop where people respect me then have people lie to me.

well, you can also fake it til you make it....
Sometimes people need to be forced to drink the water to see that oops...Teh Gay isn't catching, black won't rub off on you and women actually can be smart and strong and allowed to vote and earn college degrees.

Old dogs can be taught new tricks, you know.
And sometimes you have to hit them with the rolled up news paper to discourage marking up the house.


(BTW, I think you need hitting with the rolled up newspaper, because I am 99.999999% sure I am right now defending an argument you have made time and time again in the past! You sure like to 'discuss' all angles...)

 

[ballen0351]

well, you can also fake it til you make it....
Sometimes people need to be forced to drink the water to see that oops...Teh Gay isn't catching, black won't rub off on you and women actually can be smart and strong and allowed to vote and earn college degrees.

Old dogs can be taught new tricks, you know.
And sometimes you have to hit them with the rolled up news paper to discourage marking up the house.


(BTW, I think you need hitting with the rolled up newspaper, because I am 99.999999% sure I am right now defending an argument you have made time and time again in the past! You sure like to 'discuss' all angles...)

It's all fun and games forcing folks to "drink the water" or "make the cake". Until it's you with the wedding cake that "accidentally" used salt instead of sugar and your wedding is ruined.
No I don't think I've ever argued private business should be forced to serve any and all. I should be able to refuse service to anyone I want its my shop. Just like I can refuse entrance to my home.

 

[Steve]

And again if your black Chinese ect would you rather know where you stand before you give someone that dislikes you your hard earned money? What we have now is a system where they smile to you face take your cash and spit in your food behind closed doors and tell you to enjoy as you walk out. I'd much rather shop where people respect me then have people lie to me.

I think it's a shame so many people seem to spit in your food.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[ballen0351]

I think it's a shame so many people seem to spit in your food.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

You don't think it happens?

 

[Steve]

You don't think it happens?

I think it sounds like it happens a lot more to you than to most.

A baker who will spit in someone's cake or intentionally ruin it is in the wrong business. Exposing him is doing everyone a favor.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Rumy73]

The one thing wrong with those statements is that no state recognizes a fundemental right to get married as far as I know. Every state I`m aware of requires you to obtain a license in order to get married.And a license, by it`s very definition, is permission from the authorities to do something that you couldn`t legally do without their permission. If it`s a right, I don`t need anyone` permission to exercise it. I may be wrong, but could someone more familiar with the basics of the law, and I`m sure there are many of you, educate me on what I`m missing? I see no reason for the govt to be involved in marriage in the first place.

Rights are not absolute. That's your major misunderstanding. The government is involved in marriage primarily for the protection of children and the conveyance of property. There are other reasons but those are primary ones.

 

[Rumy73]

See this is what I was talking about one guy decided for an entire state to make a new law or actually reverse the will of the people. If Gay marriage is so great change the law by vote not by judge. The problem now is what if the next judge say naa he got it wrong. Now you have all these marriage licenses that are illegal. Do it right change the law by legislation or ballot box and end the confusion.

I agree largely; however, what if the majority votes to oppress a minority? Should the court stay out of the way? No... The laws were made by a majority, most likely through elected officials who decided who was permitted the rights and protections of marriage.

You know, my wife and I could not legally be married years ago, because we are of a different race. Our courts have generally done a good job a of protecting rights.

 

[Rumy73]

I understand how case law works I just don't agree with it. Just like I don't agree with the courts decisions to allow slavery, segregation, internment of Japanese American Citizens, Abortions, courts get things wrong enough that some choices should be left to the citizens. If a state feels so strongly about a topic to pass a constitutional Amendment that means something. The Court overturns it that's fine but the court can't then allow something that never was. If they ruled that law was illegal then the law is scrapped which means the rules are reset to what they were prelaw. So gay marriage still wasn't allowed. I don't see how a judge can not only over turn a law but make a new law that never existed. He not only said your rule is bad but now you also have to allow something to happen that never was in thefirst place

So with your outlook, white males would be the only ones voting. That's how it would be. If you dislike the roll of the courts, then you dislike the Constitution. If you dislike the Constitution, you are anti-American! (hee hee, how wonderful it is to use conservative talk show host logic.)

 

[Rumy73]

The top Court has a check and balance as well. The problem with the courts are its takes nothing but 1 new judge to change the entire makeup of the country. No votes no say from the people. 1 new justice and poof Abortion could be overturned. ! new judge and poof no more Gay marriage. Courts are to volatile. You want to change laws do it right. Change the laws in the legislative branch.

As for people following nutters they are on all sides of all debates. BUT the core issue here is Gay Marriage and the feelings on that are changing legally states are voting for it people are voting for it. Do it right. If its such a great thing do hide behind 1 judge here and 1 judge there. Get out spread the word and get the votes. They did it here. They can do it elsewhere.

Pretty sad understanding of the legal system... A lower court decision only affects a given district. That district has an appellate court which affects a larger area. The Supreme Court's decision stands for the entire country.

 

[Rumy73]

Can you vote with being registered, which involves proving your eligibility? As I see it, a marriage license is much the same. When you go to the courthouse, you're registering to exercise your right to marry and proving your eligibility to do so (single, of legal age).

You got it right. The state has an interest to prevent bigamy, because of child custody and property conveyance issues.

 

[ballen0351]

Pretty sad understanding of the legal system... A lower court decision only affects a given district. That district has an appellate court which affects a larger area. The Supreme Court's decision stands for the entire country.

Ummm yeah that has nothing to do with my post and I know the legal system I work with in it every day buy thanks for playing

 

[ballen0351]

So with your outlook, white males would be the only ones voting. That's how it would be. If you dislike the roll of the courts, then you dislike the Constitution. If you dislike the Constitution, you are anti-American! (hee hee, how wonderful it is to use conservative talk show host logic.)

Not at all see woman and other minorities got the right to vote the CORRECT way by passing an amendment. Not by some judge. All court orders can be overturned at the drop of a hat. Amendments and laws take a little more then one party stacking the court and getting one more judge on your team.

 

[ballen0351]

I think it sounds like it happens a lot more to you than to most.

A baker who will spit in someone's cake or intentionally ruin it is in the wrong business. Exposing him is doing everyone a favor.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Your not exposing him if he's doing it behind closed doors. By letting people be who they really are in public that's how you expose them. Someone refuses to serve you because your black you don't sue you protest you get your friends to protest you don't use his service. And you definitely don't sue to force him to take your money. You get enough people to stop shopping there he goes broke. That's how you deal with it you don't force him to hide his real feelings so the next person is fooled into thinking he's a nice guy and giving him your money when he hates you and ruins your event.

 

[ballen0351]

I agree largely; however, what if the majority votes to oppress a minority? Should the court stay out of the way? No... The laws were made by a majority, most likely through elected officials who decided who was permitted the rights and protections of marriage.

You know, my wife and I could not legally be married years ago, because we are of a different race. Our courts have generally done a good job a of protecting rights.

You don't need the courts if you get people to agree with you. If its such a good idea then lobby and change things. All it takes is one new judge and he could set all marriage laws back to zero. So instead of relying on that pass laws and change them correctly

 

[Rumy73]

You don't need the courts if you get people to agree with you. If its such a good idea then lobby and change things. All it takes is one new judge and he could set all marriage laws back to zero. So instead of relying on that pass laws and change them correctly

Truly, for a cop, you are ignorant of how the law works. This is not a flame, it is an honest evaluation.

 

[ballen0351]

Truly, for a cop, you are ignorant of how the law works. This is not a flame, it is an honest evaluation.

I'll let the rude part slide I expect nothing less from you.
What part of my comment was not correct? One new judge or two on the Supreme court and anything is possible. No more abortion, out law different race marriages, Outlaw gay marriage. All these issues that were never changed through the legislative process are subject to being overturned at any time. Just takes the right judge

 

[Rumy73]

I'll let the rude part slide I expect nothing less from you.
What part of my comment was not correct? One new judge or two on the Supreme court and anything is possible. No more abortion, out law different race marriages, Outlaw gay marriage. All these issues that were never changed through the legislative process are subject to being overturned at any time. Just takes the right judge

It takes more than that to undo a ruling; clearly, you do understand stare decisis... And in terms of ignorance, I expect nothing less from you. You are poorly educated on the law and parrot talk shows.

The reality with your position is that only white males would have the vote. You fail to understand that our Bill of Rights protect not only against governmental tyranny, but guard the rights of minorities against the whim of the majority.

 

[granfire]

It takes more than that to undo a ruling; clearly, you do understand stare decisis... And in terms of ignorance, I expect nothing less from you. You are poorly educated on the law and parrot talk shows.

The reality with your position is that only white males would have the vote. You fail to understand that our Bill of Rights protect not only against governmental tyranny, but guard the rights of minorities against the whim of the majority.

WTF, Dude?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

[h=1]Utah judge: Ruling allowing same-sex marriages still stands[/h]

A federal judge in Utah has denied the state's request to stay his ruling allowing same-sex marriage there.

U.S. District Judge Robert J. Shelby's ruling Monday comes three days after he struck down Utah's ban on same-sex marriage.

Shelby said lawyers for the state had offered no evidence that opposite-sex marriage would be affected and that their "fears and speculations are insufficient to justify the State's refusal to dignify the family relationships of its gay and lesbian citizens."

Shelby said the state's "current laws deny its gay and lesbian citizens their fundamental right to marry and, in so doing, demean the dignity of these same-sex couples for no rational reason.
"Accordingly, the court finds that these laws are unconstitutional," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/23/us/utah-same-sex-marriage/index.html?hpt=us_c2

[h=1]Judge denies request to halt same-sex marriages in Utah[/h]

A federal judge on Monday blocked a request by Utah officials to halt same-sex weddings, allowing gay marriage to continue in the conservative state following a surprise court decision last week.
Judge Robert J. Shelby, who blocked the request on Monday, overturned Utah's ban on same-sex marriage this past Friday. In a decision Utah officials claim has caused chaos in the state, he ruled the voter-approved measure is a violation of gay couples' constitutional rights.

In Shelby's 53-page ruling, he said the constitutional amendment that Utah voters approved violates gay and lesbian couples' rights to due process and equal protection under the 14th Amendment. Shelby said the state failed to show that allowing same-sex marriages would affect opposite-sex marriages in any way.

On Sunday, a federal appeals court rejected the state's emergency request to stay the ruling, saying it couldn't rule on a stay since Shelby had not yet acted on the motion before him. The court quickly rejected a second request from Utah on Monday. The state plans to ask the court a third time to put the process on hold.

3rd times the charm? Or 3 strikes and yer out?

But wait!

In court Monday, Utah lawyer Philip Lott repeated the words "chaotic situation" to describe what has been happening in Utah since clerks started allowing gay weddings. He urged the judge to "take a more orderly approach than the current frenzy."

He's right. Utah is descending into a state of mass chaos. Martial Law may have to be ordered. Nazi's riding dinosaurs are whipping naked Jews through the rainbow and mauve colored streets. Mormon clergy are being lynched from turquoises lamp posts with the most satin of rope. Butt plugs have been ordered standard issue in the schools!

Oh wait. Nothing like that's happened. Just a few hundred couples went and got married.

Utah's State Constitution can't over ride the Federal one.

Article I, Section 3. [Utah inseparable from the Union.]
The State of Utah is an inseparable part of the Federal Union and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

This section is the one that's in trouble.

Article I, Section 29. [Marriage.]
(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
(2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.

Meaning with at least (2) they are in violation of the 14th Amendment and US Constitutions EP clause. IMOIANAL.

But, this will continue. Zarnak say, US Supreme Court petition coming shortly.