[QUOTE=Deuce;1063914982]/QUOTE]Can I wear a brown jacket? Leather jackets are stylish in my industry.[
One of my favorite jackets is made of brown leather.
I don't wear brown pants with it.
No one filed a complaint against the owners, there's been no evidence anyone contacted the owners on behalf of the city, there's no indication the ordinance was done with the owners business in mind.
The owners are the ones that initiated legal action. They didn't need to be "defended" against legal action against them because there was no legal action against them.
My opponent is a liar, and he can not be trusted
This election began like a car wreck; a bad thing, but I couldn't help but look away. It's now more like a beheading video; a sickening display where I can't hit the red X fast enough.
The HP will only do religious weddings. Just like a Church.Filings with the Idaho Secretary of State show the Hitching Post became a limited liability company on September 12. Court documents in the Knapps’ federal lawsuit show they signed a business operating agreement on October 6 that lists the following as the purpose of their LLC:
“The Hitching Post is a religious corporation owned solely by ordained ministers..."
This affair reminds me of what happened in Colorado in the 1990's, when several cities, apparently responding to political pressure from rich and well-connected homosexuals, adopted ordinances extending special rights to homosexuals. The people of the state responded by amending the Colorado constitution to prohibit local governments from making ordinances that outran state laws. (Municipal governments are creatures of their states and derive their authority from state enabling laws.)
The people of Colorado voted for the amendment by about a 70% majority, but the action was challenged as unconstitutional. The case of Romer v. Evans went to the Supreme Court, becoming the Court's second major "gay" decision in 1996. Writing for the majority in Romer v. Evans, Justice Kennedy sustained the challenge. The majority found (by intuition, I guess) that the amendment was inspired solely by animosity--"animus," in Court-ese--toward homosexuals. And therefore, because a law that has no purpose except to persecute certain people serves no legitimate government purpose, the amendment did not even survive rational basis review.
I believe Romer was an example of several members of the Court who have signed onto the homosexual agenda substituting their personal moral views for the views of a majority--in this case quite a large majority--of the people in a state. If and when the Court pulls another Roe and concocts a constitutional "right" to same-sex marriage, I expect it will use similar arguments. Lawrence v. Texas, the Court's next major "gay" decision, also authored by Kennedy, also held that a state sodomy law did not even meet its rational basis review standard.
Last edited by matchlight; 10-27-14 at 03:27 PM.