Posted on 06/30/2018 12:43:54 PM PDT by Libloather
You are spot-on correct. Roe v. Wade, when viewed strictly as a legal precedent is widely considered the worst SC decision of the modern era. I don’t mean according to your opinion of abortion as a “choice”. I mean the judgement was made on the basis of things unrelated to the case such as a women’s “right to privacy”, etc.
I’m always amazed at how unprincipled and hypocritical, these democrats are. So, in 1996, Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, stating a marriage is only a man and a woman. Hillary and Obama agreed. Just 15 to 18 years later it was taken to the SC and Obama’s justice dept. did not defend it in court. They can turn their “principles” on a dime just depending on the direction the wind is blowing.
In Leftworld, laws and rights only possess value to the degree they forward such eternal values as social justice.
and cry that the court stole the election when ordered to certify the results
The liberals used 1A as a weapon, not conservatives.
Get over it, NY SLIMES.
A cudgel kind of like the way regressives use the ‘Promote the general welfare’ statement to enslave the taxpayer.
The left believe FREE SPEECH only belongs to them.
I am looking forward to the time when the laws that actually restrict SPEECH are overturned. Political correctness is a disease sucking the life out of America.
Laws against God's nature (double meaning) can not stand the test of time.
Bible warning: when the Lord turns against your enemies, don’t gloat — otherwise He may have pity on them.
Or they tell the truth about them. Of course the left hates the real actual truth.
I don’t know if my comment at NYT will pass the censor.
This is my response to a fellow Canuck’s comment justifying violence in response to “harmful” speech...
You might do well to remember another old saying.
“Sticks and stones might break your bones but words will never hurt you.”
If someone’s speech is used as a justification by you to become violent
then it is you that is the problem, not free speech.
Balance your motions with your rationality.
Respond like an adult, not react like a child.
A new kind of civil arrangement, such as householding, which is open to all consenting adults, would have made much more sense here. Marriage would have stayed with its classic definition and would become a species of householding. But this is a subversive lust. It didn’t want the philosophical compromise of householding. It wanted to grab marriage.
The salt! They spilt their tendies!
The Left can’t deal with reality.
Declining to provide a wedding cake for two males or two women who want to get married is not discrimination.
If the same couple simply wanted to buy something already made, they could. I’d suggest the owner would probably make them a birthday cake or a celebratory cake for a work related, or group related event.
It is just the idea of making a cake for an event the owner doesn’t support, that causes him/her to decline to provide a special cake for that event.
It is therefore the event the provider objects to. It’s not necessarily the people, since other services would be gladly provided.
Of course the left can’t allow ANYONE to object to anything they endorse on penalty of going to the government to force their lifestyle on everyone.
Sorry, that’s not how life works. I can’t force you to celebrate straightness, and you can’t force me to celebrate homosexuality.
Remember, I can’t force you to celebrate anything. It is your choice.
The cake issue is my choice.
Understand Lefties?
While we’re on this subject, lets go one step further.
As mentioned above, an owner not willing to provide a wedding cake to celebrate a homosexual wedding, does not discriminate if they just want to buy a normal cake or pastries.
Despite this, the Left is outraged that people refuse to provide a wedding cake.
Contrast this with Sarah Sanders, who was denied any service simple based on her family wanting to eat.
Did Sarah ask for the establishment to make them something special to celebrate some Conservative event? No.
Sarah and family wanted to eat. REFUSED
Homosexual couple wants to buy some everyday pastries: ALLOWED
So who is the real offender here?
Once again, the Left is guilty of what they accuse others of, and those they accuse are not.
We see this over and over and over...
Coming from the side that weaponized the Commerce Clause, that’s really rich.
Pssst... don’t tell Fatso Kagan that we’ve weaponized the 2nd Amendment. :>)
“justify unlimited campaign spending, discrimination against gay couples and attacks on the regulation of tobacco, pharmaceuticals and guns.”
If someone repeats this line with me, I’m going to punch them in the throat.
What are these people smoking ?
Your leftist arguments became so incredibly pathetic, that’s how.
We need a couple of Free Republic acronyms to make posting comments easier:
IRTEA = I Read The Entire Article;
IDARTAB = I Didn’t Actually Read The Article But ...
Admittedly, the former will seldom be required.
/Snark
Liberals now openly oppose free speech, using preposterously militant language. Kagan and Sotomayor have penned perhaps the most retarded nonsense ever to come from a Supreme Court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.