My complaint is to do with judicial activism. Doesn't matter the subject.
If judges are determining the law of hte land, one's vote doesn't count for much.
because alabama is still in the middle ages, something most of europe left behind centuries ago
btw, how's that "segregation forever" going for you?
Except your definition of "judicial activism" is "any judge who rules in a way I disagree with."
You haven't responded to any of the actual constitutional arguments the judges are making. You're just declaring them to be wrong. When people point out that literally dozens of judges agree the constitution requires this, you just handwave it. You say it's an appeal to authority but don't provide any rebuttal.
What state interest is served by denying homosexuals the right to marriage? Because that's the test the 14th amendment requires. You might wish it didn't, but that's the deal.
We're not a direct democracy so I really don't give a crap how many people vote against freedom. Judges don't get to change the law because 53% of the population wants them to. You are the one who wants judicial activism. You want judges to change their interpretation of the law and of the constitution based on the will of the people.
Judicial activism is where a judge overrides the will of the people.
We're not a direct democracy so I really don't give a crap how many people vote against freedom. Judges don't get to change the law because 53% of the population wants them to. You are the one who wants judicial activism. You want judges to change their interpretation of the law and of the constitution based on the will of the people.
That's quite a stretch. Hmm.
This isn't a gay marriage issue, it's a public accommodation law issue. It was already the law that you can't discriminate against a customer on the basis of sexuality. (in many states, anyway)
The baker was already prevented from denying service to homosexuals.
Do you want all public accommodation laws repealed or just the ones that protect homosexuals? Religion, race, gender, should we continue to protect those?
That's the bigotry we're working on purging.
What I want is for people to stop saying "it doesn't affect you".
Disproving yourself in the previous post is hilarious.
The constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the "will of the people." Not sure what else to tell you. If the will of the people conflicts with the constitution, the constitution wins. Your remedy is to amend the constitution, I suggest you get working on that.
What I want is for people to stop saying "it doesn't affect you".
Is there a reason you didn't answer the question about other public accommodation laws? Do you actually have an opinion on them, regarding sexuality or any other classification?
Maybe you should start with your own bigotry. The world would be a better place.
Ala Chief Justice Tells Judges: Refuse Gay Marriage Licenses - ABC News
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/us/gay-marriage-set-to-begin-in-alabama-amid-protest.html?_r=0
Alabama's Top Judge: Same-Sex Marriage Is Illegal in State - NBC News
awwwwwww poor judge has his fweelings hwurt and thinks he has the power to disregard the fed and constitution . . .
Way to keep it classy Roy! lol
I hope he is removed from office and he is banned from every participating in government law again.
The 14th amendment doesn't mention anything specific.The constitution never mentions your pet issue here. Judges "interpret" the constitution in a way that suits their agenda and, in so doing, they actually determine what the law is.
Yes, because sexual preference isn't a race, color, religion, national origin, or handicap. However, you would have sexual preference discriminating against religion, ironically enough.
What would that be exactly, Hmmm?
As predicted, you are unwilling to actually say you disagree with public accommodation laws. You only raise objection to public accommodation laws that prevent YOUR discrimination.
My "discrimination," on the other hand, is apparently bad.
Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself. Your own comments betray your bigotry, but for some reason you think your bigotry is okay. This is why I find discussions about "bigotry" so tedious.
What I disagree with is your definition of public accommodation laws, which protect YOUR discrimination.
Judicial activism affects us all.
I find it tedious when people whine about their supposed right to discriminate in a for-profit business that holds out to the public.
Says the one who wants judges to color their decisions based on the will of the people.
And I find it REALLY tedious when people bitch about "discrimination" where none exists.
Yeah, to hell with what the people want. Who needs elections?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?