son of witless

That is all very nice. You are arguing for judges to make the words of laws mean anything they want. That may sound reasonable to you, but not to me. There are mechanisms for changing laws and there are mechanisms for changing the Constitution. It is hard to do. It is supposed to be hard to do. That way when changes are made they have been argued and fought over and the changes have value.

I understand the temptation. Suppose you and I make a contract ? You agree to provide some service and I agree to pay you. We each fulfill our obligations for awhile. We are each satisfied, but maybe after awhile I want out of the contract, but the contract still has a specified time to run.

Now I could try to renegotiate with you, but you are under no obligation to do so. Instead of even trying that, I find some shyster lawyer, and he knows a " contemporary " judge we can go in front of. My SHYSTER lawyer argues that the words I agreed to in the past no longer mean what they used to mean. In today's " contemporary " environment they mean what ever I want them to mean, and my good buddy the judge agrees because he wants to be on the Supreme Court where words have no original meaning.

I betcha you would turn into an originalist real quick. Or could I be mistaken ?

American Vet

Singularity

I was trying to find the basis of your belief that homosexual folk are icky and deserve to be mistreated.

"Do you support the full biblical treatment of homosexuals? Death by stoning by their family and friends outside the city gates?

If not, please explain." I posted.

You then said You only wanted to use modern 2020 American words, or something like that.

I was trying to make some sense of your nonsensical need to punish people for engaging in sexual behavior you don't or may not enjoy.

So I wondered what was your true feeling behind your position. I still don't know for sure except you would choose a winning lawyer over an ethical one.

You seemingly demonstrate the willingness to choose an argument based on the facility with which it can protect your position and win rather than the t***h and call to action regarding the question before us.

I'm not interested in pursuing your thoughts on the matter any further.

Army

We all have sinned not a matter of who's right an wrong it's matter on principal . I never said legalism was answer to anything . Iam only specifying any acts of any kind .

Army

We all have sinned not a matter of who's right an wrong it's matter on principal . I never said legalism was answer to anything . Iam only specifying any acts of any kind .

son of witless

I am perfectly willing to talk to you civilly, but since your last sentence clearly expresses that you have no desire to fairly hear my side any further, I hope you will have a wonderful evening.

PeterS

The SCOTUS ruling was 6-3 so Trump needs to start replacing them really fast. As for who is winning...the constitution is the only thing winning. If you don't like living by it...homosexuals have been living without it since the inception of this country so it's time the constitution lived up to its promise don't you think? And I am glad you are okay with it. So am I.

PeterS

I've been an employer for over 30 years and when firing an employee you better have documentation and firing for cause else your ex-employee can hand you your ass.

PeterS

That's between you and your lawyer but this ruling means that you can't extend your faith over someone else as their rights are equal to yours.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

But who is going to document that they fired an employee for being gay????

PeterS

That just means you better be damn careful how you hire. And it's not discrimination against an employer. You cannot extend your religious values over your employees. If you don't like homosexuals then don't hire them but if you have hired them you have zero right to fire them for that reason. Forget about having to hire them back a lawsuit can bankrupt the majority of small businesses. That's what you have to worry about much more than having to hire them back...

PeterS

I believe in the Constitution and the concept of equal rights and that one cannot extend one's beliefs over others. If you don't like gays don't hire them but if you do hire them they have all the rights as any other employee. If you can't handle that then maybe you should be the one to head to Venezuela as an authoritarian government is what you are looking for and not a constitutional republic...

son of witless

You just advocated one form of discrimination in order to combat another. I get your point and it isn't even a bad one, but I am pretty sure it is not legal.

In the EU particularly in France, the laws make it extremely difficult to fire anyone at least in a full time job. That includes firing for good reasons. Well like most left wing too good to be true thinking, it causes unintended consequences. The consequence being that French companies try not to hire permanent full time employees. They hire part time contract workers to get around the laws.

So now like in France, you make it difficult to get rid of a certain type of employee, and the logical response is to try not to hire them in the first place which is in itself illegal.

Liberals love violating the law of unintended consequences. Love love love it.

Army

If people would read the Constitution an believe God gives equal & inalienable rights Color Creed or faith don't matter God let's you be free or (gave you free will) no Civil Rights does your choice . We can't blame someone for what we are or aren't even Laws lack alot. You have a free will but let me have mine to . If my beliefs are different from yours that's ok .

PeterS

No, employer/employee are subjective--the judge and the administration of the law would be objective as they apply the same to everyone.

And why does this bother you so much? I've never taken you to be a bigot. Most employers interview a prospective employee three times plus should do a thorough background check. If your gaydar doesn't go off with during the interview then I would assume that the individual looks and acts like everyone else. So why would it matter if they were homosexual if their general appearance and behavior were that of a heterosexual male or female?