Gay Marriage = National Concealed Carry?

[soberups]

All this just shows me is that SCOTUS is no longer doing their jobs. This and the ACA ruling the day before tells me they are no longer ruling on the law or constitution but on their emotions and public opinion. Does not look good for us in the future. They are now making laws just like Obama. We no longer have 3 branches of goverment.

Did you feel the same way when this same SCOTUS ruled in our favor in regards to the Second Amendment in the Heller and McDonald cases?

 

[oknow]

Did you feel the same way when this same SCOTUS ruled in our favor in regards to the Second Amendment in the Heller and McDonald cases?

When they did that they were following the constitution. How are they following the constitution with aca?

 

[wired]

When they did that they were following the constitution. How are they following the constitution with aca?

If you read the majority opinion you will find out exactly how they were following the constitution with the ACA and with every other case that comes through the US Supreme Court. Thats their jobs. You don't have to agree with it . I don't on the ACA and a lot of other stuff they do but when that opinion hits the ground thats what it is. End of story. The Supreme Court says something is constitutional then thats what it is. When Heller came down the lib jerkoffs were crying for weeks. Boohoo. Now that the US Supreme court has ruled that all its citizens are afforded equal protection under the law in regards to marriage you can feel their angst. Still the right thing to do.

 

[Wayne]

If you read the majority opinion you will find out exactly how they were following the constitution with the ACA and with every other case that comes through the US Supreme Court. Thats their jobs. You don't have to agree with it . I don't on the ACA and a lot of other stuff they do but when that opinion hits the ground thats what it is. End of story. The Supreme Court says something is constitutional then thats what it is. When Heller came down the lib jerkoffs were crying for weeks. Boohoo. Now that the US Supreme court has ruled that all its citizens are afforded equal protection under the law in regards to marriage you can feel their angst. Still the right thing to do.

Sometimes we see what we think we are seeing and NOT what we are looking at. With the ACA it stated the money would only go to those states that set up their own exchanges but the majority stated that it would undue the ACA that had helped millions ( YA right) and that is why they chose to say it was the constitional, not what was written. They changed it.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

i don't understand why everyone is concentrating on concealed carry. the manner in which the 14th amendment was applied to legalize gay marriage, could be used to rollback any/all state level gun control laws--such as "universal background checks."

unless the federal government passes a law on "universal background checks," then the states no longer have the authority (per the 14th amendment) to impose restriction upon their people.

Or so we would hope. Your post has a lot of truth behind it, but I doubt the courts will see it like that.

 

[oknow]

If you read the majority opinion you will find out exactly how they were following the constitution with the ACA and with every other case that comes through the US Supreme Court. Thats their jobs. You don't have to agree with it . I don't on the ACA and a lot of other stuff they do but when that opinion hits the ground thats what it is. End of story. The Supreme Court says something is constitutional then thats what it is. When Heller came down the lib jerkoffs were crying for weeks. Boohoo. Now that the US Supreme court has ruled that all its citizens are afforded equal protection under the law in regards to marriage you can feel their angst. Still the right thing to do.

I concur it is now law but they scotus just changed the definition of is again(brain fart on name) but it free money to helpfr the states to free money from Feds.

 

[defending fathers 1787]

If you read the majority opinion you will find out exactly how they were following the constitution with the ACA and with every other case that comes through the US Supreme Court. Thats their jobs. You don't have to agree with it . I don't on the ACA and a lot of other stuff they do but when that opinion hits the ground thats what it is. End of story. The Supreme Court says something is constitutional then thats what it is. When Heller came down the lib jerkoffs were crying for weeks. Boohoo. Now that the US Supreme court has ruled that all its citizens are afforded equal protection under the law in regards to marriage you can feel their angst. Still the right thing to do.

I agree with you that the equal protection under the law was going to come into play on this issue, but the world can be a dangerous place once definitions of words change all the time. I think the meaning of words in the populace is one of our number one problems. It can make anything possible amongst "Camp Followers".
I can find two consenting adults to agree on almost any topic, but it does not make it a fact.
There may be logical steps and arguements under the 2nd and 14th amendments for carry in other states, but I worry about other big definition changes from SCOTUS.

 

[Brutus57]

Am pretty sure the polygamists are celebrating....because withe SCOTUS recent ruling all kinds of "marriages" should be possible. Can't wait till something they disagree with is brought before them and their own decision is used against them.

Fasten your seatbelts sports fans, the spiral is picking up speed.

Brutus out

 

[wired]

Great. Now I can have 6 more wives. Like one wasn't enough.

 

[Hayshaker]

Great. Now I can have 6 more wives. Like one wasn't enough.

don't want the wives~~but would like to have the $ necessary to support them

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Completely baseless legal theory. A total waste of time. The courts decided that the states must allow gay marriage because there is no issue of public safety. The exact opposite has been ruled regarding carrying firearms.

***WARNING: Video contains saucy language.***

 

[Certaindeaf]

So if a religious baker has to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple (recent Oregon case law.. fined $180,000), why doesn't a muslim proprietor have to make me a ham sammich with a Jesus on top? come on

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

So if a religious baker has to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple (recent Oregon case law.. fined $180,000), why doesn't a muslim proprietor have to make me a ham sammich with a Jesus on top? come on

Society places certain requirements on obtaining a public business license. It has every right to do so. That is what is called self governance (the founders were big on this ideal). To maintain your license you must maintain these standards. That goes both ways. Any diner that said they did not serve christians would face the same legal ramifications as one that did not serve muslims. They might not face the same public backlash, but that might just be because people don't tend to get as offended when they see a bully get pushed down as they do when it happens to an underdog.

 

[PiratePast40]

You're saying that the baker was a bully?????

 

[Certaindeaf]

Society places certain requirements on obtaining a public business license. It has every right to do so. That is what is called self governance (the founders were big on this ideal). To maintain your license you must maintain these standards. That goes both ways. Any diner that said they did not serve christians would face the same legal ramifications as one that did not serve muslims. They might not face the same public backlash, but that might just be because people don't tend to get as offended when they see a bully get pushed down as they do when it happens to an underdog.

"Serve"? That's the issue.. where's the equality? Where's my freaking ham sammy with a Jesus on top? And my$180,000 cash money just for slappy sake.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

You're saying that the baker was a bully?????

Nope, you might want to read it again.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

"Serve"? That's the issue.. where's the equality? Where's my freaking ham sammy with a Jesus on top? And my$180,000 cash money just for slappy sake.

Want to make an actual point or just being silly?

 

[Solved]

I would say our 2nd Amendment rights are stronger now then they were 30 years ago. We have 2 Supreme Court rulings in our favor, "shall issue" carry permits are available in all but a handful of states, and sales of guns and ammo are at an all-time high. I'm not saying everything is perfect, but there are a bunch of people in Chicago and Washington DC who would say things are certainly headed in the right direction.

Just wanted to commend you for you optimism. I read a lot of defeatism online these days. It's almost painful at times to hear people so willing concede that their children won't enjoy the the same rights they did. Being 21 and still studying, I don't have time to be extensively active on the political front as I work full time--and currently hold zero student debt.

 

[soberups]

Society places certain requirements on obtaining a public business license. It has every right to do so. That is what is called self governance (the founders were big on this ideal). To maintain your license you must maintain these standards. That goes both ways. Any diner that said they did not serve christians would face the same legal ramifications as one that did not serve muslims. They might not face the same public backlash, but that might just be because people don't tend to get as offended when they see a bully get pushed down as they do when it happens to an underdog.

As a libertarian, I fully support the right of gay people to get married and have equality in all areas of society. I also support the right of any individual or business to be as bigoted and narrow-minded as they wish to be. By fining the owners of the bakery for refusing to bake the cake, the government has overreached and turned them into martyrs. A better solution would have been picketing, a boycott, and a Facebook campaign against the bakery because a whole lot of straight people would have also joined the boycott. Societal norms have evolved to the point where capitalism will punish a bigoted business far more effectively than government can or should. The owners of the bakery ought to have every right to refuse service that goes against their beliefs, just like the public has every right to refuse to patronize them due to those beliefs.