They need to understand that burning the American flag means absolutely nothing unless they wrap themselves up in it and then burn it.
 June 30, 2015 at 8:08am
Your statement isn’t contrary to Mr. Rowe’s. You might still disagree with him, but your explanation is not at odds with his. What both of you said is still true.
 June 29, 2015 at 2:07pm
I don’t see how it limits speech. I don’t depend on the government to provide a license plate for me to express my opinion on the rear end of my vehicle. I can also give $25 to the cause of my choice without passing it through the BMV first.
 June 29, 2015 at 1:59pm
SCOTUS does not have the authority to create legislation. The Federal Government does not have the authority to define marriage.
There for SCOTUS doing exactly that is not legal.
 June 29, 2015 at 1:57pm
My reasoning comes from the United States Constitution. Nowhere within its articles or amendments is the Supreme Court granted authority to write legislation. Nowhere in the Constitution is the United States (Federal) Government granted the authority to define marriage.
By doing what it is not authorized to do, SCOTUS has broken the law.
It’s pretty simple, really.
[-1] June 29, 2015 at 1:48pm
“And it will be de facto that holding these beliefs are penalized and punished.”
I believe that’s the point of this exercise. The end game is to remove the “de facto” provision.
 June 29, 2015 at 11:49am
And where has that happened this century? Refusal of service is not denial of rights. Refusing someone their livelihood because they disagree with your exercise of your rights is most certainly a denial of rights.
 June 29, 2015 at 11:47am
Mind, ask that question to any baker, florist, photog, or event location that have been forced to choose been their livelihoods and their religion.
 June 29, 2015 at 11:45am
The one making gay marriage legal in all 50 states. Or did I miss the individual legislative actions of all 50 states coming into place on Friday?
 June 29, 2015 at 11:37am
The SCOTUS decision is illegal, but remains enforced. I believe this is the definitive statement:
“Personally, same-sex marriage is in contradiction to my faith and belief that marriage is between one man and one woman, however, first and foremost, I took an oath on my family Bible to uphold the law and as an elected public official my personal belief cannot prevent me from issuing the licenses as required.”
A public official has a public duty. If the state (illegally forced or not) is issuing a license, the public official has a duty to issue the license based on that criteria. If you can’t do that for some reason, transfer to a different position or resign in protest.
Or ask someone else to do it. Both the governor and the state attorney general are willing to back her (and others) up. She should simply ask someone else to handle homosexual marriages and refuse to issue licenses. I'm not sure she has deeply held religious beliefs though. If she did, I don't think she would've folded so easily.
I don't think it is technically illegal. It may be a bad decision, but I don't think it can be categorized as illegal.
There is absolutely nothing illegal about this ruling. Please show us your reasoning for saying so.
I get what you are saying, but the those were not the terms of employment when she took the job. I can see not taking a job if you know it will require you to compromise your beliefs. But don't you think there is some right of push-back if the job you already have changes out from under you?
 June 29, 2015 at 11:30am
Not sure about their criteria for patriotism.
I couldn’t care less about what percentage votes. I’d love to see the number of voters who could correctly identify even one of the Bill of Rights and properly apply it to a current event.
Exactly! Like I tell my kids, the unfortunate thing about the USA is dumb people get to vote too.
"I couldn’t care less about what percentage votes"
No kidding. Using that metric, Seattle would have been the most patriotic back in 2004 (or thereabouts) when there were more votes than registered voters.
Or how about the number of voters who were actually alive, only voted once, with proper and accurate photo i.d.
Or how many people know what to do when the various flags go by in a parade, and do it!
One would need an education to do that, and that is something 55% of all Americans and all illegals are seriously lacking, so I guess it wont happen any time soon.
 June 29, 2015 at 11:15am
Bottom line is, Walmart is allowed to discriminate in this case because the speech they are discriminating against is not “protected,” i.e., not given greater rights and standards than speech that is “protected.”
If we were truly free, Walmart could refuse any cake for any reason, and so could any other baker. “Public Accommodation” is just the most recent buzzword used to strip people of the rights they were endowed with by their creator. Freedom is the rare commodity in human history, not slavery – be it through “public accommodation” or any other excuse. The progs just like to pretend everyone had it until Christians came around when, in fact, it was the Christians who delivered it to the rest of the world.
If you are not legally married, you are not next of kin, and have to rights to many important decisions should your husband/wife be injured or die and be in a compromised state of health. In adoptions and foster care, marriage licenses must be submitted. Without a legal marriage your estate is not protected from the legal action of family members.
However, the issue will be moot when the individual state licenses are replaced by a federal one. It's the natural next step to the Hope and Change administration.
Virtually every State includes “Common Law Marriage”, which extends the rights of “Legal” marriage to “Common Law” spouses. All you have to do is say “yes” when someone asks if you’re Next of Kin. I’ve never seen anyone ask for a Marriage Certificate in a hospital or anyplace else except a shyster’s office.
The only place “Common Law Marriage” becomes a problem is in court, in the event of a divorce or an Estate argument. Some States handle that the same way they handle “Legal” marriages and some don’t. In most cases, a valid Will covers the Estate questions, whether or not you're "Legally" married.
Crossties - you missed termyt's point that the state issuing licenses and granting permissions for marriages is beyond their preview. Marriage licenses were started by monarchs and emperors who wanted to control their people, a very unamerican idea, and a violation of separation of church and state! The government should recognize all marriages even if they come from "The Church of Flaming Idiots"!
 June 29, 2015 at 8:06am
Worse than the ruling itself was the way it was done. I’m not in favor of the state licensing gay marriage, but if it was the will of the people, so be it.
Here, we had the majority of 9 unelected, unimpeachable lawyers determine the law of the land, again. They have no authority to do so and by doing it they undermine the vary basis of our system of self rule.
We are no longer a Republic. We are an oligarchy that must run every law past a panel of 9 Lords whose word is law.
Worse than that, termyt: not 9 unelected oligarchs with lifetime tenure making law; frequently only FIVE. Another view: sometimes ONE vote is the difference FOR THE WHOLE COUNTRY! Rather than use their intellect to foster co-existence, the cram down creates deep divisions & resentment. Not good, folks. THIS is the strong central gov't the Framers feared.
 June 28, 2015 at 8:21am
How can they refuse to make any cake? Are they not a place of public accommodation?
Legally, this is an entirely different issue, since it is clear that the refusal in service has nothing at all to do with the identity of the customer. This is very different from refusing service to a gay couple.
@PubliusPencilman it is not any different, they did not refuse cause the customers were gay they refused to participate in a gay wedding cake. They refused to be a part of what the cake represents it is exactly the same.
No, it is clearly different. Political symbols are not generally protected by anti-discrimination laws. On the other hand, a wedding cake represents a wedding--the law does not distinguish between a heterosexual wedding and a same-sex wedding. That's the whole point of marriage equality.
Publius - there you go again twisting words to suit you. The two situations are exactly the same. There is NO difference whatsoever. A public accommodation refused service to a person based entirely on his views. That's discrimination. His views were being expressed in that cake, and such expression is protected by the first amendment even if you have to enslave someone into compliance. (I think I got the liberal lines right).
that is what the baker, the florist and the pizza place were told, you have to do this, you can not discriminate then why can walmart pick and choose?.guess you know where they stand and with whom, pretty scary.and the help didn't know what they were doing, give me a break.
Bottom line is, Walmart is allowed to discriminate in this case because the speech they are discriminating against is not "protected," i.e., not given greater rights and standards than speech that is "protected."
If we were truly free, Walmart could refuse any cake for any reason, and so could any other baker. "Public Accommodation" is just the most recent buzzword used to strip people of the rights they were endowed with by their creator. Freedom is the rare commodity in human history, not slavery - be it through "public accommodation" or any other excuse. The progs just like to pretend everyone had it until Christians came around when, in fact, it was the Christians who delivered it to the rest of the world.
 June 25, 2015 at 3:31pm
Wait. He’s running as a Republican? I thought he was challenging Hillary for his party’s nomination.
Notice most all the Republicans are left of center anymore?
 June 25, 2015 at 3:28pm
The state’s definition of anything has nothing to do with a religion’s. That is the only hint of relevance to your statement.
If a Wiccan business owner only wants to host handfastings and not Christian weddings, they should be allowed that as well. No one should be forced to violate their conscience in order to make a living – that is if you want to live in a free society.