Same-Sex Marriage Trumps Religious Liberty in New Mexico

Earlier today, the Supreme Court of New Mexico ruled that the First Amendment does not protect a Christian photographer's ability to decline to take pictures of a same-sex commitment ceremony-even when doing so would violate the photographer's deeply held religious beliefs. Full Story

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#358 Sep 3, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
It's not a right at all, therefore your argument is moot.
According to whom? You? Your expertise in this area is questionable at best.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
It's simple.
Prove marriage is a right.
Loving v Virginia, Turner v Safley and Zablocki v Redhail. Look them up.

Just because the right to marry has not been spelled out for you in the Constitution shouldn't be confused with it not being a right, moron. You might have read the 9th Amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people", think about it.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#359 Sep 3, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
So what?
Dumpling, a number of federal laws have been in place for 50 years now, some local and state laws prohibiting discrimination even longer than that. They have withstood EVERY last challenge to them. You can rage against that tide all you want, but you're not going to stop it. Sorry.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#360 Sep 3, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>You mis-educated yourself by reading only part of a Wikipedia entry and you imagine you have proved me wrong? Sweetie, marriage licenses to get married at some point in the future, still a relatively new invention. Prior to that, "marriage licenses" were certificates handed out by civil authorities and clergy authorized to sign off on them at your wedding and you did not even need that to be considered to be legally married, you could achieve that just by living together for a period of time. You have heard of common law marriages haven't you? I still have three SCOTUS rulings saying that a right of the individual to marry is guaranteed by the Constitution, all you have are your increasingly illogical rants to the contrary.
Of course I proved you wrong. It clearly did not start with Eugenicists, as you claim. And now, rather than apologizing and showing yourself to be a decent human being, you continue to lie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_au...

SCOTUS is inadmissible.

SCOTUS also does not backup their claims with evidence, just as you have not.

It is quite simple. If you believe something with such passion, you should have a rational argument made by either yourself or someone else to defend it.

You lack this. So such SCOTUS. Thus, you have argument OR defense, at all.

The FACTS remain the same. You need a license to get married, thus it cannot be a right. You need PERMISSION from a second party, the one you wish to marry, thus it cannot be a right.

The issue is self-evidently resolved. No person, no authority, no power on earth, can change these simple facts.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#361 Sep 3, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>According to whom? You? Your expertise in this area is questionable at best.
<quoted text>Loving v Virginia, Turner v Safley and Zablocki v Redhail. Look them up.
Just because the right to marry has not been spelled out for you in the Constitution shouldn't be confused with it not being a right, moron. You might have read the 9th Amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people", think about it.
According to basic definition of "right" as defined by the Declaration of Independence, the contact for which American law originated, and it's basic meaning since Roman times.

The 9th Amendment does not defend your position either.

Indeed, think about it. That is precisely what you have failed to do, repeatedly.

Besides, I could care less about American law. I care only for UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS.

This is not an issue limited to just America.

You have yet to provide a detailed argument for defense of your position. You've only presented authoritative declarations, which are not arguments at all.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#362 Sep 3, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Of course I proved you wrong. It clearly did not start with Eugenicists, as you claim. And now, rather than apologizing and showing yourself to be a decent human being, you continue to lie.
Sweetie, you looked it up in Wikipedia and didn't even bother to read what little they had on the history of marriage licenses in the US.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A rgument_from_authority
SCOTUS is inadmissible.
SCOTUS also does not backup their claims with evidence, just as you have not.
Speaking of Wikipedia entries that you didn't bother to read. Appeal to authority is only fallacious if the authority cited is not considered an expert in the field, there is no consensus among the experts, or if used as part of deductive reasoning. The SCOTUS is THE expert on the interpretation of the US Constitution and you are a blithering idiot.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#363 Sep 3, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
According to basic definition of "right" as defined by the Declaration of Independence, the contact for which American law originated, and it's basic meaning since Roman times.
The 9th Amendment does not defend your position either.
Our rights are defined by the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence is a neat document, but legally it is meaningless. Speaking of meaningless, your rebuttal to the 9th Amendment, pathetic.

“Not everything that shines...”

Since: Aug 13

Hatch, NM

#364 Sep 3, 2013
Quit wrote:
<quoted text>
talking stupid. It is not about sex acts, it is about people committing to take care of each other. What world do you live in?
LOVE your answer. MARRIAGE for love and taking care of one another and to show true commitment: make it LEGAL.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#365 Sep 3, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Good. Since the court is NOT infallible ... you don't get to keep making the argument based on their authority ... sweetie.
It is YOUR OPINION that the court is not in error in this case. Therefore, we need not consider YOUR OPINION any further.
Does your opinion have any merit?
No.
The right and freedom to associate is a basic human liberty. This court proceeding did NOT defend the basic human rights of all parties ... period. No one has a basic human right TO ANY SERVICE WHATSOEVER.
If you wish to provide a convincing argument how ANYONE has a right to ANY SERVICE, please provide a good argument.
hint.
It is slavery to claim you have a right to a service.
Do I have a right to healthcare? Nope, doctors and nurses are not my slaves, nor slaves of society.
Do I have a right to food? Nope, farmers are not my slaves.
Therefore, the photographers rights were not protected ... at all. The ISSUE is not on WHY they refused service, is the ISSUE is that they have the BASIC HUMAN RIGHT TO REFUSE IT FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER.
Get it?
THERE IS NO "basic human liberty". lol

It's FREEDOM that is innate and absolute. Rights are aspects of that Freedom that we mandate the government we create to guarantee and protect.

Liberties are extra-legal social norms of interaction. Permissions, if you will, that we accord others whom we accept into our personal sphere. They are predicated by the mutual tolerance we accord each other ... to a point. We do this individually, and communities do this collectively, too. But such rules are seldom discussed. They are more of an organic interpersonal grant of certain levels of personal access to the sovereign individual. Sort of like the diplomatic immunity granted to representatives of another Head of State, with certain restrictions.

Violations of these would result in a firm, "Why sir! You take liberties!" The emphasis here is upon "take", indicating that permissions had been exceeded.

The granting of :liberties" is the prerogative of the Sovereign which, in America from it's earliest days as a Nation, has been taken to mean the sovereign individual Citizen.

You really need to read the writings of our founders, and of those whose thinking influenced their singular and radically revolutionary worldview.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#366 Sep 3, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, no no no,
We already discussed this.
Once again, as long as YOU attempt to claim that we humans are SLAVES to our sexuality, and are unable to choice NOT to be gay, then you have no standing whatsoever as a human being.
Do you persist in standing by your position that humans cannot restrain themselves, or not?
You demonstrate the reason the founders declared fundamental right to belong to all persons and unalienable. You attempt to dehumanize me and deny my fundamental, unalienable rights.

Whom I love and wish to spend my life with is my (mutual) choice, not yours. Whether you believe the vast body of evidence which demonstrates sexual orientation is not a choice or not, it fails as an excuse to deny fundamental rights.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#367 Sep 3, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>

Freedom of association is a basic human right, which means no one has to associate with anyone they don't like.
It's called the right to liberty.
Correct. Which is the point. Thanks for coming around. People, no matter what their demographic or description, have a right to associate. DOMA was struck down. Those meeting the same standards of the marriage regulations, who are of the same sex, have the right to associate in marriage as you do.

And you also throw in pederasty which is not a GLBT trait. And you say it is all choice. Go to a bar and ask someone to be attracted to someone they do not find attractive. Give them a few more drinks and then tell them it is a choice. Give them a few more drinks. Then you end up sounding like a C&W song. Androgyny? Would love to see your evidence based and peer reviewed published cites. Homosexuality as a Diagnosis was dead 40 years ago. Not in the DSM 5.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#368 Sep 3, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not according to me. It's according to DEFINITION and CONCEPTS.
Rational thought does not need permission, or authority.
Argument by authority is not an argument at all, I've pointed this out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_au...
It's an automatic fail.
And now you've been caught red-handed lying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_license
A marriage license (American English) or marriage licence (British English) is a document issued, either by a church or state authority, authorizing a couple to marry. The procedure for obtaining a license varies between countries and has changed over time. Marriage licenses began to be issued in the Middle Ages, to permit a marriage which would otherwise be illegal (for instance, if the necessary period of notice for the marriage had not been given).
Prior to that, one ALWAYS needed PERMISSION to get married, by either parents, or the spouse, or both.
Rights do not entail PERMISSION.
Thus, no form of union can be a right.
And, now we know that you like to lie, or, you are very ignorant of basic facts.
Thank you. I did not see your Wikipedia cites. Now that is evidence based and peer reviewed. Mostly peer reviewed.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#369 Sep 3, 2013
Willothewisp wrote:
Thank you. I did not see your Wikipedia cites. Now that is evidence based and peer reviewed. Mostly peer reviewed.
It really doesn't matter that you didn't see them, he didn't bother to even read his Wikipedia cites. PS Wikipedia should NEVER be confused with peer reviewed.
davy

Albuquerque, NM

#370 Sep 3, 2013
So you would support the right of a business owner to refuse to provide service to blacks and Jews or are you talking out of your ass as usual. Poor Otto, you still think the Gettysburg address is where Lincoln lived.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Good. Since the court is NOT infallible ... you don't get to keep making the argument based on their authority ... sweetie.
It is YOUR OPINION that the court is not in error in this case. Therefore, we need not consider YOUR OPINION any further.
Does your opinion have any merit?
No.
The right and freedom to associate is a basic human liberty. This court proceeding did NOT defend the basic human rights of all parties ... period. No one has a basic human right TO ANY SERVICE WHATSOEVER.
If you wish to provide a convincing argument how ANYONE has a right to ANY SERVICE, please provide a good argument.
hint.
It is slavery to claim you have a right to a service.
Do I have a right to healthcare? Nope, doctors and nurses are not my slaves, nor slaves of society.
Do I have a right to food? Nope, farmers are not my slaves.
Therefore, the photographers rights were not protected ... at all. The ISSUE is not on WHY they refused service, is the ISSUE is that they have the BASIC HUMAN RIGHT TO REFUSE IT FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER.
Get it?
davy

Albuquerque, NM

#371 Sep 3, 2013
No court ruling has the force of law? That is strung out on stupid.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
No they don't. No court ruling has the force of law. They resolve DISPUTES of the law.
The courts have no standing with regards to basic human rights ... especially the basic human right NOT to be forcefully married because someone else wants to be married.
Once again, are you arguing that people can forcefully be married?
no?
Then marriage by logic cannot be eight. No court trumps logic. No court can rule that the earth is flat, either.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#373 Sep 3, 2013
edmundo wrote:
You say nothing at all with fewer words than anyone I know.
Edmundo, meet Edmundo, now you know somebody who says nothing with fewer words.
davy

Albuquerque, NM

#375 Sep 3, 2013
Court proceedings are only backed up by a show of hands. Like handguns and handcuffs. Calling Otto stupid is an insult to stupid people. I have no idea what "logic cannot be eight" means. Can logic be nine? Sixty-nine? Confused by strung out on stupid.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
No they don't. No court ruling has the force of law. They resolve DISPUTES of the law.
The courts have no standing with regards to basic human rights ... especially the basic human right NOT to be forcefully married because someone else wants to be married.
Once again, are you arguing that people can forcefully be married?
no?
Then marriage by logic cannot be eight. No court trumps logic. No court can rule that the earth is flat, either.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#376 Sep 4, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
According to basic definition of "right" as defined by the Declaration of Independence, the contact for which American law originated, and it's basic meaning since Roman times.
The 9th Amendment does not defend your position either.
Indeed, think about it. That is precisely what you have failed to do, repeatedly.
Besides, I could care less about American law. I care only for UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS.
This is not an issue limited to just America.
You have yet to provide a detailed argument for defense of your position. You've only presented authoritative declarations, which are not arguments at all.
Your grasp of the "Argumentum ad Auctoritatem" fallacy is incorrect and presumes/asserts the "fallacious application" of the "Appeal to Authority".

consult: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_author...

In this discussion of the Social Sciences and Legal Theory, appeals to authority are both proper and warranted.

The concept of "Rights" did not exist in ancient Roman times, appearing later (e.g., All Thing, Magna Carta, Oliver Cromwell), and had evolved considerably by the time of our founders. The "Historian's Fallacy" and "Presentism".

<thematic musical interlude>


(the graphic is intentionally ironic)

Rights derive in no way from "permission". Such are termed "Liberties".

At the core of our discussion are History, Linguistics, Epistemology, and the definitions of terms used by our branches of government.

You better slow down there a bit, Crosspatch, because you've been conflating an confusing distinct and established terms and definitions.

Remember, in the American Legal conceptual framework "Freedom", "Rights" and "Liberties" each have distinct and specific definitions and usages. That they have been bandied around and corrupted in common usage does not alter or diminish that they, and many other concepts, actually have very specific meanings which fit into a very precise and developed legal logical structure; stunningly beautiful and brilliant if one bothers to take the time to learn it and consider it's implications.

The way you've been throwing these and other terms around verges on "Kettle Logic". You've got the terms and various parts of various definitions all jumbled together.

It's time to start sorting.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#377 Sep 4, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Egy ilyen édes gyermek. A szülok nagyon büszke, vagy még mindig a szekrényben, mint egy lángoló aranyér az emberiség apu és anyu?
Lófasz a valagadba!

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#378 Sep 4, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Egy ilyen édes gyermek. A szülok nagyon büszke, vagy még mindig a szekrényben, mint egy lángoló aranyér az emberiség apu és anyu?
Time to help Huszar out a bit.....Huszar doesn't know just how evil you all are. I found an insult just for you.....I'm assuming this is Hungarian? Seems Huszar may be too.....so I left you a parting gift.....home Huszar doesn't mind.....and if Huszar does.....oh well.....he can bite me too.....

Enjoy the fond Hungarian words I left you.....

“Matthew 16:13 - 17”

Since: Mar 13

Vladville

#379 Sep 4, 2013
Knightkore wrote:
<quoted text>
Lófasz a valagadba!
Not nice Knightkore. Knightkore go to far, yes? Huszar understand sentiment.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 hr Cali Girl 2014 49,799
Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 1 hr Our Need to Know ... 31,260
Start Chatting And Dating Beautiful Ukrainian W... 1 hr government of Ukr... 1
'We feel extremely blessed': Two women get marr... 2 hr Shirvell s Shrivel 106
Gazans rush to enjoy life after ruinous war 4 hr Jeff Brightone 1
Women dish on their most embarrassing wardrobe ... (Sep '13) 11 hr Kelly DJ 298
Man wins fight to get same-sex union recognized... 15 hr Professor Jumper 4
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Wedding People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••