The UK Supreme Court has ruled in favor of two Christian bakers who refused to bake a cake iced with the slogan “support gay marriage.” In a unanimous ruling, the five member Supreme Court bench reversed the previous rulings, upholding a business owners’ right to freedom of expression and conscience.
“This court has held that nobody should be forced to have or express a political opinion in which he does not believe,” court president Brenda Hale said.
In 2015, a Northern Irish bakery, owned by evangelical Christians Daniel and Amy McArthur, was found guilty by a Belfast court of discrimination for declining to make a cake for an event marking the “International Day against Homophobia.”
“We did not turn down this order because of the person who made it, but because of the message itself,” bakery owner Daniel McArthur said. “Family businesses like ours are free to focus on giving all their customers the best service they can – without being forced to promote other people’s campaigns.”So it would appear that the rest of the world is not quite as eager as America is to condemn people for having politically incorrect religious or social views. As the UKSC suggested, upholding an individual's right to freedom of expression and conscience is a paramount to a free country.
I wonder out loud if the fact that in the UK this was not so much played out as a "religious" issue (as it was here) made it an easier argument to make. Tell someone you are following our freedom of expression and conscience and they probably think you are just in your cause. But tell them that you are following your freedom of religion, then it's a different story. Unless of course, you are a Muslim or other religion, then it's okay to follow your religion. But a Christian? You must be a closet bigot who is hiding behind your Christianity.
82 comments:
As the UKSC suggested, upholding an individual's right to freedom of expression and conscience is a paramount to a free country.
if only this was true. the UK has serious restrictions that they enforce regarding limits on expression and speech, both in the public square and on-line.
some folks have been banned from entering the UK based upon what they've said or written. see: savage, michael.
President Joseph Biden
Vice President Michelle Obama.
Inauguration day January 20th 2021.
Until the Supreme Court ruled against a religious interpretation of the Bible that not all states would have recognized your marriage.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
President Joseph Biden
Vice President Michelle Obama.
Inauguration day January 20th 2021.
yup.
back on the sauce.
BIGLY.
Roger
My legal ability to marry an Asian woman, or your ability to purchase a mail order bride is what is commonly referred to as a "freedom". Same would hold true for a man who wants to marry another man or a woman who wants to marry another woman. Freedom.
Likewise, someone's ability to make his or her own political or religious statement (while not being forced to repeat or follow someone else's political or religious statements) falls under the same exact category...
Freedom.
This is your problem Roger. Quite frankly the problem of most liberals and how they view the court. Everything is about ruling in favor of how they see each individual "issue" rather than following the fundamental principles of the Constitution.
Which of course, are basic "Freedoms".
The more these court decides to start taking away freedoms willy nilly based on what those particular Judges "personally believe" - the more we will continue falling in the abyss.
roger's biggest and most fundamental problem is how he views the constitution itself.
it's a document that for the most part contains a list of things the government CANNOT do to you. liberals like roger, and even 0linsky view it as a list of rights bestowed upon us by a benevolent government...
Obama in his interview disparages the Constitution as merely "a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf." He believes—and he's right—that changing this is the way to bring about "redistributive change."
But the founders were deeply purposeful and intellectually coherent in their definition of rights. Classically, rights are the lowest, most basic universal claims. Think of them as the ground rules for everyone, weak and strong, to respect each other and get on.
Their important characteristics are these: First, they exist outside of us, coming from God or nature, not government, and so are independent of the whims of government and cannot be either manufactured or, of even greater concern, extinguished when they get in the way of someone powerful. No one has to give us the ability to pursue happiness; it comes from within ourselves.
Second, they are timeless, applying regardless of whether it's 200 years ago or a thousand years in the future—governments can't use the excuse "well, that was then, but times have changed."
Third, they are universal, applying to everyone, not just some preferred subset.
And fourth, they are noncoercive, or negative: They delineate what others cannot deprive you of without due process of law. And they prevent you from being coerced.
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2008/11/03/barack-obamas-poor-understanding-of-the-constitution
and this is why the courts are so important to liberals. the courts are required to magically transform every want, wish and desire into a "basic human right" when they either can't or won't get their agenda passed at the ballot box.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
President Joseph Biden
Vice President Michelle Obama.
Inauguration day January 20th 2021.
Why not Kerry - Gore
or Edwards - Lieberman
or Clinton - Comey
or Holder - Brennan
or Rice - Clapper
or Harris - Booker
or Feinstein - Ford
so many to choose from - Trump is going to have a blast
Larry ElderVerified account @larryelder
As to Chicago and all of its leftwing firepower--Barack Obama, Bill Ayers, Rahm Emanuel, Louis Farrakhan, Father Pfleger, Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Wright--why isn't it a shining city on a hill?!?
More winning
Secret deal with Turkey paves way for American pastor's release
alky says...
believe all the women all the time.
Prosecutors have dismissed domestic-violence assault and witness-tampering charges against a Bellevue police officer who was arrested in July, and have opted not to pursue rape charges against another Bellevue officer, both incidents involving the same woman.
Both officers’ legal troubles stemmed from allegations made by an Issaquah woman, who, according to an investigation by the King County Sheriff’s Office, has a history of seeking out men on Craigslist and then falsely reporting those consensual encounters as a crime to police.
According to police, she had made false rape accusations twice previously.
Sgt. Ryan Abbott of the King County Sheriff’s Office said that due to concerns about the 44-year-old woman’s mental heath, investigators are not recommending that she be charged with any crime, including false reporting.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/charges-dismissed-against-bellevue-police-officer-prosecutors-say-accuser-fabricated-rape-allegation/
the triggering:
‘Complete meltdown’: MSDNC hosts ‘officially triggered’ by Kanye West’s ‘assault on our White House’ [video]
"That was an assault on our White House"
https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2018/10/11/complete-meltdown-msnbc-hosts-officially-triggered-by-kanye-wests-assault-on-our-white-house-video/
an assault on the white house? uh, close but no cigar.*
*h/t dana loesch.
fucking hypocritical asswipes.
Hmmm speaking of cigars.....
Please alky.
"President Joseph Biden
Vice President Michelle Obama.
Inauguration day January 20th 2021."
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
In a lanslide.
"Hmmm speaking of cigars....."
Did Bill the Rapist walk in?
Today's Socialist calling James Brown and West stupid negroes.
Always scum.
Rod Rosenstein doesn’t show today. Now Fusion's Glenn Simpson reportedly takes the Fifth.
At some point, we have to realize: the problem has never been President Trump. The problem is the coordinated effort to undermine him... and those who will stop at nothing to cover it up.
Ari FleischerVerified account @AriFleischer
Beto is the Alison Grimes of this cycle. She ran against Mitch McConnell in 2014 and “experts” saw the race as a toss-up, a real challenge. McConnell won by 16 points. When the anti-Cruz, Beto media-swoon is over, I bet Ted wins by about 10 points.
It is like alky studies on how to be wrong.
"Former first lady Michelle Obama on Thursday shut down speculation that she may run for office someday.
In an interview on NBC News’ TODAY, Obama responded firmly to a question on if she’ll ever run: “Absolutely not.”
POLITICOVerified account @politico
Senate Democrats agreed to confirm 15 lifetime federal judges on Thursday in exchange for Republicans agreeing to go into recess through the midterms so endangered Democrats can campaign
Trump is jealous.
The Turkish government has told U.S. officials that it has audio and video recordings that prove Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi was killed inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul this month, according to U.S. and Turkish officials.
The recordings show that a Saudi security team detained Khashoggi in the consulate after he walked in Oct. 2 to obtain an official document before his upcoming wedding, then killed him and dismembered his body, the officials said.
The audio recording in particular provides some of the most persuasive and gruesome evidence that the Saudi team is responsible for Khashoggi’s death, the officials said.
“The voice recording from inside the embassy lays out what happened to Jamal after he entered,” said one person with knowledge of the recording who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss highly sensitive intelligence.
“You can hear his voice and the voices of men speaking Arabic,” this person said. “You can hear how he was interrogated, tortured and then murdered.”
Scott you have fucking lost it.
You actually believe that Lydia is a mail order bride.
"your ability to purchase a mail order bride "
Like your wife she was a legal immigrant. You accepted that judges can rule upon what they personally believe" on the powers of the executive branch. Your conservative justices are pushing us into the abyss of executive authority without regard to the law.
Well Roger...
I've heard at least three allegations that your wife is mail order. According to you, all it takes is allegations to make something true, and anyone who denies them is probably guilty anyways.
But I will change my mind the same day you change your mind about Justice Kavanaugh.
This is pretty simple.
The courts are there to protect the rights of the people.
Not the rights of the Government.
The courts ruled in favor of individual liberty over government oppression. I will accept that every time.
But that is where you and I are different. You are insecure about your beliefs and become all uneasy if people disagree. Therefore, you must rely on the Government to stifle any opposing thought process, so you are not so uncomfortable.
You said that I am personally believe I must rely on the government to stifle any opposing thought process. Yet are the one defending your President believes that the free press is a danger to the country.
Thomas Jefferson said that if the executive branch and the Congress come under the power of one political party that the free press is to make sure that the people are aware of the dangers of authoritarian government and that the people are able to vote against the authoritarian government and keep the nation free.
You have been completely conned by your President to accept his authoritarian regime. He can't be prosecuted while he's President nor can we be indicted while in office. You are relying upon the President to suppress anything that makes you uncomfortable. Including the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, not Donald Trump.
Doctor Ford and Brett Kavanaugh knew each other in high school.
Not one of the idiots who made allegations that my wife was a mail order bride know me or my wife. Your perseverance in defending an possible alcoholic and sexual predator is based upon your belief that the Clintons and others financed the attacks on justice Kavanaugh is incredibly disturbing because you used to be the Coldheartedtruth. Conservative but sometimes independent and libertarian and rational. Not anymore my ex friend.
Doctor Ford and Brett Kavanaugh knew each other in high school.
Really?
Kavanaugh stated he never knew Ford.
Ford's best friend stated under oath that she didn't know Kavanaugh.
Do you believe that Kavanaugh and Ford's best friend are both part of some massive conspiracy to undermine Ford's allegations?
Besides... you never answered the question I asked several times.
Was there 7 people at the Party (as Ford stated during her polygraph)?
Was there 5 people at the Party (as Ford stated in her letter to Feinstein)?
Was there 6 people at the Party (as Ford stated in her sworn testimony)?
Which of the two were complete lies, Roger?
Roger...
Last time I checked the Courts had nothing to do with what Donald Trump states about the Press. In fact, it's really not the court's place to say anything. So I am not really sure of it's relevance...
Other than you are upset that the President is making a claim (that the press pushes fake news) that you disagree with.
And because you disagree with it... you'd like someone to stop him from saying it. You probably cry yourself to sleep because nobody stops him.
Typical liberal behavior of wanting "your opinion" to be somehow validated by some authority... I suppose because deep down you probably know you are wrong!
The President calling the free press is an enemy of the country isn't just him bitching about the coverage of his Presidency. He has no respect for the Constitution. He cares for one thing.
Himself.
He is a well documented serial liar. Yet you don't address that issue. Because you would have to criticize him.
I believe Doctor Ford.
You believe that he is not guilty.
You base that upon 35 year old memories that she is either lying or is delusional. Or maybe you believe that the Clintons paid for the testimony.
The free press makes mistakes. But I don't choose to believe that the New York times and the Washington Post and the other media organizations are united to get the President. That's the only logical explanation for what you choose to believe.
If you had a conscious as a well educated conservative you would not be defending him against all enemies foreign or domestic or his pathological lying behavior. You hate liberals and have become a cultist.
This is how dictators control their followers. You close your mind to his outburst of stupidity and ignorance. But you blame the Fake News and others plus your hatred for liberals or using the "socialist" claim.
FDR protected capitalism from its uncontrolled excesses. The entitlement system has been successful in creating a large middle class. I still think that Regan started the decline of the middle class.
I don't cry myself to sleep. I worked my ass off today.
According to CHT, you were not sexually assaulted unless you have hard evidence you were sexually assaulted. So ladies, please make sure to ask your assailants to provide you with their social security numbers, a cheek swab, and a selfie of them hurting you.
The memories of a party over 30 years ago can vary widely over time.
I don't think that any of them were complete lies.
Ford's best friend was relying upon 32 year old memories. This person was not sexually assaulted by Kavanaugh.
The real racism of the left is in full exposure today over Kanye west at the whitehouse. Its disgusting.
Roger, don't take cht's word for it. Watch Susan Collins' senate speech. She gives s thoughtful, detailed, specific articulation of why kavanaugh should be believed.
Since 1980 when Ronald Reagan rode to power on a Mistrust Your Government and Listen to Me, I'm Not a Politician platform, I've sensed the return of Fascism which that very political tactic created an opening for. Sure enough, Reagan reinforced my greatest fears with his smiling uber-nationalism and his reverse Robin Hood policies which stole from the poor and middle class and gave to the rich. I've been an alarmist gadfly ever since, desperately trying to warn my friends and anyone who would listen that Fascism is on the rise and democracy is on the wane. I must confess that I seldom have felt I succeeded and wondered if my message, any message, can be honed for greater impact. Then I watched this and plan to watch it multiple times for the many historical reference points he provides that all correlate to what's happening today. Don't miss this valuable video!
"Rob Riemen — founder and president of the Nexus Institute — posits that the type and level of toxicity in today's political climate is a breeding ground for fascism. He argues that most people in fully democratic Germany in the early 1930's didn't think that by decade's end they'd be a fully fascist country, and goes further to say that perhaps history will look back on the 2016 American election in the same way. Is he correct? You be the judge."
I choose to believe Keith Ellison's accuser. Not, because he's a Democrat. It's because she has police and medical reports to corroborate her story.
Ford has notnthing but her "faulty 32 year old memory".
Roger
The President isn't shutting down the Media.
He is simply giving his free expression of opinion, which the constitution protects (even if you are the President).
The crybaby media wants it one way. They want to be able to attack, smear, misrepresent, and say what they want... but they get their collective panties in a wad when someone criticizes them.
If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Better still Ford's Friends did not back her claims.
"The real racism of the left is in full exposure today over Kanye west at the whitehouse. Its disgusting." Balls
And James Brown.
According to CHT, you were not sexually assaulted unless you have hard evidence you were sexually assaulted
I treat allegations of sexual assault no different than any allegation of criminal behavior.
you do remember the Constitution and the American principle of due process and the assumption of innocence?
Or are those things not relevant anymore?
I believe Doctor Ford.
You believe Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court isn't good for liberalism. You inherently understand that you cannot push your liberal values through legislation, and you know if there are 5 conservative Justices who refuse to make laws (in lieu of the legislation) that your liberal causes will do unfulfilled.
Dr Ford is irrelevant. She was used by the Democrats in an attempt to undermine the process.
And let's be clear, Roger. You can believe whatever it is that you want to believe. I couldn't give a bigger rat's ass. If DiFi told you Kavanaugh is a Alien from the planet Krangfer and that he was out to destroy the planet Earth, you would probably pretend to believe that too, if it gave you an argument to keep Kavanaugh off the bench.
But in the real world, Roger. In America. You are innocent until proven guilty and you shouldn't suffer real world consequences over 36 year old allegations that have no corroboration. You understand that inherently, but just wanted an exception in this situation, because of politics.
It shouldn't even matter what you "believe" or I "believe" because the truth is not ascertainable here. The truth cannot be determined via a poll of the general public.
Ask yourself a simple question.
Would any of this matter if Kavanaugh wasn't nominated?
If your answer is "no" - then you are admitting it's about politics.
The President has said that Saudi Arabia has purchased $110 billion (false)on arms from the United States and has not been on Twitter in regards to the murder of a Washington Post columnist.
--------
On Wednesday, the leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee sent a bipartisan letter to Mr. Trump demanding an investigation of whether “the highest ranking officials in the government of Saudi Arabia” were responsible for human rights abuses in Mr. Khashoggi’s case.
The letter invoked a statute that Congress enacted in December 2016 that says the executive branch, upon receipt of such a letter, has 120 days to decide whether to sanction foreign officials.
It is not clear, however, whether the Trump administration will consider itself bound to comply if the president does not want to tangle with the Saudis. When President Barack Obama signed the legislation creating that law, he issued a signing statement challenging it as an unconstitutional intrusion on executive power.
The Trump administration was widely criticized for its relative silence on Mr. Khashoggi’s disappearance until Monday, six days after he entered the Saudi Consulate. Critics said the slow reaction could embolden leaders of Saudi Arabia and other authoritarian nations to carry out human rights abuses.
Trump Calls Relations With Saudi Arabia ‘Excellent,’ While Congress Is Incensed https://nyti.ms/2A51zWV
--
He was tortured and murdered by the Saudi government agents.
Silence speaks volumes. Hypocrisy is CHT
Would any of this matter if Kavanaugh wasn't nominated?
Since there is no statute of limitations on sexual assault cases, I think that local law enforcement agencies should investigate.
I have repeatedly said that I would not have supported his nomination for my differences on basic Constitutional issues.
No, this is not politics. It never was.
You have chosen to believe that Doctor Ford was paid to lie and that the sexual assault never happened.
To answer the question.
No.
Scott, if President Hillary Rodham Clinton had nominated a justice for the Supreme Court nominee who had been charged with sexual assault by a high school student on 32 year old memories would you have chosen to believe the allegations? Despite memorial incontinencies?
Since there is no statute of limitations on sexual assault cases, I think that local law enforcement agencies should investigate.
and all cray cray had to do was file a complaint. but she didn't. i wonder why.
I have repeatedly said that I would not have supported his nomination for my differences on basic Constitutional issues.
basic constitutional issues.
such as?
i'll bet you can't name one, and the reason is that you're as familiar with the constitution as i am with chinese math.
how in the ever living fuck can you have "basic constitutional issues" with a guy who is a strict constitutional originalist, and who carries a dog eared copy of it with him everywhere?
if you were honest you'd admit this is about abortion. and losing the power of access to the last place on earth you have left to further your fucked up liberal agenda.
constitutional issues. LOL. a man who has sees trump's criticism of the press as an attack on the first amendment doesn't know a thing about our constitution.
No, this is not politics. It never was.
That’s an absolute lie
Roger I do know one thing, if that happened to a Hillary Clinton nominee the GOP wouldn't hidden it to launch a last-minuet media circus against the nominee. They would have investigate the allegation quietly and if there was no corroborating evidence they would have quietly shelved it.
But this would have never happen to a Clinton nominee because the GOP doesn't use alligations of sexual assult as a political weapon the way the Democrats do.
He was tortured and murdered by the Saudi government agents.
Silence speaks volumes. Hypocrisy is CHT
what kind of an asshole makes the the disappearance and likely murder of a foreign journalist a partisan issue?
alky, you make dr cray cray look sane.
I have always thought that the "original intent" philosophy is political.
There are hundreds of decisions that could be overturned despite president. Roe v Wade is a prime example.
precedent
In FL-27 Salazar is leading Shalala by 1 point in a district where Hillary Clinton won by 20 points. I blogged about this district last year saying this is the bellwether district to watch.
If the Democrats lose this district then I really don't see them taking the house because they will lose more then their normal share of toss-up districts.
If this district is a GOP pickup In Florida, I'm pretty sure Scott will retire Nelson and DeSantos will be the next governor.
The two go hand in hand. I don't think there will be much ticket splitting in this election.
There are hundreds of decisions that could be overturned despite president. Roe v Wade is a prime example.
A bette precedent is Plessey v. Ferguson.
I have seen a lot of crazy shit on the blog. This one is a prime example of self delusion.
I do know one thing, if that happened to a Hillary Clinton nominee the GOP wouldn't hidden it to launch a last-minuet media circus against the nominee. They would have investigate the allegation quietly and if there was no corroborating evidence they would have quietly shelved it.
But this would have never happen to a Clinton nominee because the GOP doesn't use alligations of sexual assult as a political weapon the way the Democrats do.
Benghazi!
Birtherism!!!
The list would exceed the number of characters on the blog.
Brown v. The Board of Education effectively reversed Plessey v. Ferguson that allowed separate v equal public and private facilities. A conservative decision of the time.
original intent = political???
i'm just gonna leave that right there. i can't sink to the level of stupidity required to attempt to address that statement.
regarding roe, roe's main problem; the problem that antonin scalia often addressed was that it had no basis in the constitution. as hard as he looked he could never find a single syllable of the constitution to support it. none. it was a complete fabrication derived from the left's desire for sex without consequence. constitutionally it remains an abomination.
and while technically roe could be overturned it won't be. the politics of it a pure poison. and at this particular moment in time, we don't need any more reasons for the left to be completely unhinged. they are already there. the next james hodgkinson could happen at any minute. especially with mainstream liberals like hillary and holder calling for it.
Scott, if President Hillary Rodham Clinton had nominated a justice for the Supreme Court nominee who had been charged with sexual assault by a high school student on 32 year old memories
read what you wrote.
kavanaugh was never CHARGED.
he could've been right up until the day of the hearing. but that would've resulted in charges for falsely reporting an incident.
cray cray was cannon fodder in an effort to take out kavanaugh. and it failed. so now she's get's a nice award from UNC, a $700K check from go fraud me, and a pat on the head.
I think that local law enforcement agencies should investigate.
Well professor Ford disagrees with you. She doesn't want it investigated. She doesn't want any more congressional investigations. She doesn't want Kavanaugh impeachment hearings.
Besides, Roger.
Understand this, because it's really simple:
There is nothing to investigate.
There is only a changing story about something she claimed happened 36 years ago, with no known date, no known location, and zero witnesses who can even verify that Ford ever met Kavanaugh, much less went to a party with him, much less had any sort encounter.
It begs the question. Can someone even be charged with a criminal act if the allegations do not determine a time or place?
have always thought that the "original intent" philosophy is political.
Actually it's inherently apolitical. In fact, it's literally the only actual apolitical manner to come to judicial conclusions objectively.
Everything else involves a degree of personal opinion, which by the nature of human nature is going to be political.
The better way to explain yourself, Roger... is that the original intent of the Constitution does not tend to back your belief system.
As has been pointed out over the past couple of days... you have a very difficult time understanding why individual freedoms take precedent over government laws, regulations, or actions that are designed to take away those freedoms.
Your thought pattern seems to be that the Government should "regulate" and "legislate" the social values that "you feel" important, so that everyone can be forced to follow what "you feel" is right.
Whereas the Constitution protects the individual's rights to hold their own social values, religious values, and political values...
Yes, Roger... there are exceptions. My right to throw my fist in the air ends at your nose. Then it become assault.
My right to marry an Asian woman is my right. But I have no right to demand that all 320 million Americans agree with my decision. Even in 2018, we are going to take flak, although it mainly comes from other Asians who believe that she should stay within her own race. I cannot demand that the Government "punish" those people for their opinion.
What can and should be investigated are both her lawyers and her outing. Both went against her wishes and both appear criminal. Certainly Roger in his search for truth would want that.
And that includes how the polygraph was administered and if the therapist notes were supplied to the Washington Post.
And something has to be done about raising large sums of money for "witnesses". This circus should not be forgotten but fixed.
Plessey v. Ferguson was an original intent decision. The slave states had been allowed by the Constitution to have slavery. It had not been specifically repealed.
Plessey v. Ferguson eventually became a bedrock of the civil rights and voting rights movement. Original intent philosophy would not have resulted in Plessey v. Ferguson.
Socialist have taken full Control of the former Democrat Party.
Returning to 1960's tactics.
Roger, do everyone a favor and don't try to talk out you ass to hide your constitutional ignorace.
Plessy v. Ferguson set the doctrine of "separate but equal" thus giving the constitutional blessing to every Jim Crow era law in the books.
It was an activist ruling that streached the meaning of equal that was not found in the Constitution. An originalist would have dissented staying with the strict meaning of "equal" as used in the 14th amendment.
Scott, prior to Loving v Virginia your marriage could have been specifically banned. Loving V Virginia imposed a decision upon the entire country.
"Western states adopted prohibitions and included additional groups to discriminate against: people of Asian and American Indian descent. Revealing their true intent to be maintaining white “purity,” none of these laws bothered to prohibit interracial marriages among nonwhite groups or to prohibit marriage among different European nationalities. An Asian American and an African American were free to marry each other, but neither could marry a white person. In contrast, no laws prevented, say, an Italian American and a Polish American from marrying."
Loving v Virginia was not original intent philosophy. Despite your fragile arguments it imposed the right to interracial marriage upon the eleven states that banned interracial marriage.
At the time of Loving v Virgina only 16 states, all in the south, had anti-miscegenation laws.
"Equal"
U.S. Constitution › 14th Amendment
14th Amendment
The Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens. The most commonly used -- and frequently litigated -- phrase in the amendment is "equal protection of the laws", which figures prominently in a wide variety of landmark cases, including Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v Virginia. Original intent is a political philosophy.
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
That is correct. But if those who were in interracial marriage did not have the rights of married couples. You can't find specific language in the Constitution to support Loving v Virginia. Original intent is a very slippery slope.
Anyone know what time left-wing-mob training is today?
One other point. The Constitution had language demanded by the slave states. The 14 amendment was subject to interpretation as is the entire Constitution. The meaning of words have changed over time.
The Constitution had language demanded by the slave states. You're a fucking idiot learn your history. The 3/5ths compromise was landed upon because the slave states wanted them fully counted for representation purposes, the non slave states didn't want them counted at all
Roger
Again. The laws that prohibited multi-racial marriages were government laws. The law was specifically designed to take away individual rights.
This was a decision by the courts to protect individual liberty over Government laws designed to stifle individual liberty.
Any law that prohibits a someone from expressing their political, social, or religious viewpoints is really not that much different than laws prohibiting interracial marriages.
You seem to be confused.
Are you saying that the courts were "wrong" in Loving v Virginia?
Because the exact same principles apply in Masterpiece Cakeshop vs Colorado?
Both judicial decisions were questioning State actions that were prohibiting the individual rights of citizens?
And here you see the inherent problem with the liberal judicial philosophy that so many of you long for. You would like the principles of individual liberty to be recognized when you agree with those liberties. But you would like that exact same principle of individual liberty to be tossed aside, when you politically disagree with that liberty.
A good fair, objective Justice would not try to parse the politics of it. Individual liberty is individual liberty. My right to marry who I want is no different under the constitution than a baker having the right to determine what types of cakes he or she bakes.
no different under the constitution than a baker having the right to determine what types of cakes he or she bakes.
go pound cake
You have contradicted yourself. The bakery has the right to deny service because of personal religious beliefs.
You were granted the right to marry whomever you choose independent of the personal political beliefs of the specific states. Remember we are a republic of independent states, not a democracy.
The bakery has the right to deny service because of personal religious beliefs.
Nope. The courts have never found that the baker has any right to deny service in general. In fact, the baker in question had sold to the people prior and stated he would sell them any generic cake in the store.
What the courts ruled, Roger... was that the Baker had a right to refuse to bake a cake with a specific message about a specific event that went against his religious beliefs.
The fact is that the USSC ruled that the State of Colorado has no right to "force" the baker to create a cake that specifically endorses a viewpoint that is against his religion. Or even more specifically, that the constitutional protection of religious freedom must be considered to have equal weight to any other constitutional protection being claimed.
Lastly, as a fundamental principle of the courts, and as it pertains to the Federal RFRA. The only time the State has a cause to make any individual act against his own religious beliefs is when they have exhausted all other reasonable alternatives. Obviously, it's not "unreasonable" for a same sex couple to go to another baker.
It sounds to me Roger...
That you believe in individual liberty, when you agree with the liberty.
But you believe in heavy handed Government coercion over individual liberty if that liberty is not within your specific belief system.
Remember we are a republic of independent states, not a democracy.
Which brings us to the 10th Amendment and a whole other can of worms.
I suppose had the USSC decided to stay out of the fray on gay marriage, and allowed the States to make their own determination. Then they would likely have taken the same stance on Masterpiece Bakery v Colorado and allowed the State of Colorado to make their own decisions.
But it would seem that our Courts have waded into many issues that once were held to be exclusively State's rights. Which is part of the quandary we find ourselves in today.
I suppose had the USSC decided to stay out of the fray on gay marriage, and allowed the States to make their own determination.
which is exactly why i favor originalists and activism only flows in one direction.
for at least the foreseeable future, the next time a liberal brings an issue to the USSC that they can't get passed at the ballot box or in the congress, a majority of the court will ask -
"what does the constitution say about this?" "nothing?" "alrighty then, next case!!!"
as it should be.
from the other thread:
The Court’s job is to neutrally uphold the law — whether that law be in the form of statute or the Constitution itself. In this context, the concept of a “swing vote” makes little sense. Justice Scalia asked, “What in the world is a moderate interpretation of a constitutional text? Halfway between what it says and what we’d like it to say?” We might ask in concert, “What in the world is a swing vote? A judge who mediates between the people who are right and the people who are wrong?” Ironically enough, it is the people who are making this argument — not those who reject it — who are “politicizing the Court.” If, like me, you believe that originalism is the only legitimate approach precisely because it removes politics from interpretation, then the more originalist judges you see, the less political the Court is likely to be. If, like Kavanaugh’s critics, you believe the opposite — that is, you think that the Court must represent the “will of the people” — then you cannot help but politicize it, and to the point at which ends up as just another legislature. If that’s what you want to do, then fine. But please don’t pretend that you’re concerned for its impartiality, or that the other “team” getting a turn represents the end of all that is virtuous and just.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/supreme-court-polarization-conservative-tilt/
alky, hillsdale college has a free on-line course about our constitution. before you waste another copy/paste of the document you should take it. it might save you from looking the fool.
https://online.hillsdale.edu/courses/constitution-2017/home/course-schedule
and then take this for extra credit:
https://online.hillsdale.edu/courses/supreme-court/schedule
I HOPE he does. He is the most uniformed adult I know.
More Americans disapprove of Brett M. Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court than approve, and a narrow majority says congressional investigation of the new justice should not end with his elevation to the court, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
The Senate’s 50-to-48 vote last week to approve the 53-year-old Kavanaugh’s lifetime appointment was the closest on a Supreme Court justice since the 1880s, and the poll shows the public’s reaction was almost as divided.
It also suggests the tumultuous battle over his nomination could harm the court’s reputation as the nonpartisan branch of government.
The survey, conducted during Kavanaugh’s first week on the bench, shows that 43 percent of Americans believe the court’s rulings will be more politically motivated with President Trump’s second nominee on the court, compared to 10 percent who said they will be less political. To 39 percent of the public, Kavanaugh’s presence will make no difference in the degree of partisanship.
Asked how the Kavanaugh debate would impact their midterm vote, slightly more say makes them more inclined to support Democrats for Congress than Republicans. Women say the episode draws them toward Democrats over Republicans by a 16-point margin, while men are more evenly split.
While many of the results in the poll fall along familiar partisan lines, it also found that political independents are more suspicious than supportive of the new justice. According to the survey, 55 percent of independents say there should be further investigation of Kavanaugh, while 40 percent are opposed.
The stakes were high, and the party-line fight over Kavanaugh was brutal. It was marked by allegations of excessive drinking in high school and college and a teenaged sexual assault and other misconduct. Democrats at his confirmation hearing further accused Kavanaugh of dishonesty over his answers to questions regarding his work in the George W. Bush White House.
You what polling to obtain the result you want is right?
But if it makes you feel good, go for it.
Blogger KD said...
I HOPE he does. He is the most uniformed adult I know.
and true to form, he responds with a kavanaugh popularity poll.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/more-americans-disapprove-of-kavanaughs-confirmation-than-support-it-new-poll-shows/2018/10/12/18dbf872-cd93-11e8-a3e6-44daa3d35ede_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e2e1f552965e
post the link, plagiarist alky.
Roger once again changes the subject when he can no longer respond.
And btw... it doesn't really matter what the hell anyone thinks about Kavanaugh any more. It's a lifetime appointment. He's on the court. Suck it up and deal with it!
Better hope "sleepy" makes it another couple of years!
the way she's been behaving lately, "sleepy" might not make the new year.
Post a Comment