Breaking: Supreme Court rules SSM a legal right

[Torie]

So based on Torie's analysis in the Constitution and Law thread, it seems like the ruling doesn't actually say every state has to start issuing licenses, just that every state has to recognize gay marriages performed in other states, which while practically the same thing is still not a blanket legalization. Or maybe I'm interpreting this wrong?

My analysis borrowed from Scotus blog was wrong. They misread the opening line of the syllabus as to the ruling, understandably because they were reading it on the fly. The holding is that states must both license SSM, and recognize out of state SSM. I corrected my text on my thread on the Constitution board.

[Torie]

Let's assume CCSF is lying about being gay, in order to give his opposition to gays and SSM more "bite" or whatever. Where does that leave us?  Lying about one's sexual orientation, is not a violation of the terms of use here. I just put that out there, to seek constructive responses. I am simply not quite yet connecting the dots. Sure, CCSF posts that constitute hateful bigotry against LGBT folks are a violation of the terms of use. We don't tolerate bigotry here. You want him banned, collect those posts. Those dots I can connect. The trolling rap seems arguably refuted by his Free Republic posts. It may suggest he's lying, perhaps, but not trolling. He really wants to marginalize folks like myself to the shadows. That's his right. But I am not into shadows.

CCSF, you really are in deep dodo here, and you are doing an excellent job in weakening your case. Heck, maybe that is part of your grand plan. Some here seek what they think is martyrdom from those "evil fascist mods" or the the Forumite "mob" carrying pitchforks, or whatever floats their boat.

[Torie]

Let's assume CCSF is lying about being gay, in order to give his opposition to gays and SSM more "bite" or whatever.

With the reaction I get here from it, wouldn't that be the polar opposite of what I would do, if I had some grand strategy to try to convince people to be against SSM?

No, it makes opposing what is in your own interests for the larger public good seem just more noble. Yes, I know, there is the "self hating" rap, but that jab, is way, way overused in my opinion, in this day and age. No, odds are CCSF that you are a mere liar. You aren't gay, but more importantly, I don't think you are getting laid enough. You worry, way, way too much about what gays do. It's just not healthy for you. You need to get over it - for your own good really.

[Torie]

It seems to me that one poster finds a way to turn threads into being just about him. That to me seems to be trolling and I wish people would ignore such a poster. You go through a thread hoping to read an interchange and then it just becomes page after page of one poster and those who respond to him.

Is that the kind of person that makes this place interesting or someone who ruins the whole point?

You didn't find this thread "interesting?" But that reminds me, CCSF, don't go "gay" on threads that are not about gay. That's impolite. And if done enough, it's a violation of the terms of use.

[Torie]

You didn't find this thread "interesting?" But that reminds me, CCSF, don't go "gay" on threads that are not about gay. That's impolite. And if done enough, it's a violation of the terms of use.

Sounds like you're on a fishing expedition.  This thread is explicitly about gay marriage.

Indeed it is, but one the raps against you, is that you bring gay issues into discussions out of the blue that are not about gays. I don't know the merits of that rap, but my best advice is not to do that.

[Torie]

How far can I go with my language before being banned? I feel like tonight would be a perfect night for tip-toeing right up to the line. Can someone give me a quota or something?

Pushing the edge might get your post deleted, so it will be lost in cyberspace, rather than stay for all to savor for posterity as it were (the death points being a side issue). You can make your point within the rules. Heck I just did, I think, positing that I think CCSF is probably lying based on the evidence.

[Torie]

Pushing the edge might get your post deleted, so it will be lost in cyberspace, rather than stay for all to savor for posterity as it were (the death points being a side issue). You can make your point within the rules. Heck I just did, I think, positing that I think CCSF is probably lying based on the evidence.

Okay, that's it. I'll ask one final time, how can I prove to you that I am gay? my name? something from a long time ago that has me stating that I'm gay?  Just tell me now.

P.S. Don't serve on a jury.

It really doesn't matter whether you are lying or not, so that would be wasting "the court's" time to litigate that. If you are not lying, may God have mercy on your tortured soul, but I digress.

One other thing. Is it at all possible that there can be a thread discussing gay issues, that does not devolve into being all about you?  That is what really angers folks, and incentives them to find a way working their way through the evidence and rule book to get you banned. Think about it.

[Torie]

Many of us are bullied by LGBT leftists. Just ask Baronelle Stutzman who had to shut down her business. Does "it get better" for her ?

she absolutely did not have to shut down her business. what are you even talking about?

She was given the choice of providing flowers to same-sex marriages, which she felt was against her beliefs, or of shutting down to avoid future charges.  You may may think it a good thing she'd have to shut down her business to comply with her beliefs, but it certainly is a case of it being shut down.

Hey is the key footnote in the flower arranging case:

"The discussion was preliminary, so that the parties did not discuss the specific details for the arrangements. However, the Superior Court found no legal distinction between forcing Barronelle to provide full wedding support (custom design work and physical presence and personal assistance at the ceremony) and selling raw, unarranged product. RA 207-08; see also RA 11. The Court held it could order her to provide full wedding support. RA 230-31 n.19."

There are three categories of facts in these sorts of cases in my view: 1) just selling items off the shelf, 2) doing custom flower arrangements in the shop, and 3) providing on-site wedding support. I think forcing someone to do 3) does infringe First Amendment rights, and that 1) does not. 2) is the difficult case, and may turn on whether the flower arrangement or custom work has some specific SSM theme, the question being that if someone came in and asked for a specific flower arrangement, or for a custom flower arrangement using Stutzman's skills, could that work be done without her knowing that it was for a SSM? If so, there mere fact she knows it was for a SSM, in the same way, that if she knew that someone buying flowers off the shelf was for a SSM, probably should not under the religious freedom of expression clause give her a right to discriminate.  Anyway, the lower court seemed to think the same result obtained for all three categories: they all constituted illegal discrimination.

The lower court should be reversed in my opinion. A brief was filed with the Washington Supreme Court, and if that fails, this case may well be heading to SCOTUS. At the end of the day, I believe it probable that Stutzman will obtain relief. She certainly should.



Oh, let me take this opportunity to join others, in commending Clarko95's remarkable post above. It was eloquent, and moving, and wise. Kudos to him.

[Torie]

Don't know about filing an amicus brief Muon2, but what is odd about Kennedy's language, is that it seems to be referring to free speech, rather than freedom of religious expression. When it comes to speech, Kennedy was just stating the obvious, I guess feeling the need to throw a symbolic  - and not in play concern at all, and really not advocated by anyone - bone to those concerned about the issue, rather than something more tangible and what is indeed the big concern out there in certain sectors of the religious community. Obviously, it's all dictum anyway. I would just be shocked and amazed however if SCOTUS were to rule, that one must do 3) as a form of temporary involuntary servitude. It would really be shocking to the conscience, and outrageous, and I think it would be extremely toxic and disruptive to the public square ... Roe v Wade all over again, on steroids.

[Torie]

What is "3)"?

From my post above: "3) providing on-site wedding support."