Justice Antonin Scalia Says Judges Shouldn’t Decide if Being Gay is Morally Acceptable

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told the North Carolina Bar Association in a speech on Friday that constitutional law is increasingly threatened by a belief in the "judge moralist" and that it is society's, and not the court's job to decide what is morally acceptable, the Charlotte Observer reports:

Scalia

Scalia said that approach presents two problems: Judges are not moral experts, and many of the moral issues now coming before the courts have no “scientifically demonstrable right answer.”

Scalia, known for his provocative comments and writings since being appointed in 1986, is barred from publicly discussing pending cases. But during his half-hour speech at the Grove Park Inn on Friday, the 77-year-old frequently listed homosexuality among the issues that should be decided by the public and not unelected judges.

His comments during the March oral arguments for the same-sex marriage cases followed a similar bent. “When did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage?” he asked.

Raleigh attorney John Sarratt said he expects the thoughts Scalia expressed Friday to be reflected in the judge’s upcoming opinion on gay marriage – that the courts should leave the existing laws alone.

Scalia was asked if he would have adopted the same approach to Brown v. Board of Education:

Scalia said he would have voted with the majority on the case to create more educational opportunities for blacks. He added, however, that “a good result” doesn’t make for good law. Had the courts not interceded, he said, state leaders would have eventually removed the racial barriers.

N.C. lawyers listen as Justice Scalia bemoans ‘moral arbiter’ on eve of gay marriage ruling [charlotte observer]

Comments

  1. says

    When? Whenever a law is based on intolerance, discrimination and bigotry, it is unconstitutional. Especially when bigotry disguises itself as morality.

    I learned that in the 8th grade.

  2. says

    Dissenting in Romer v. Evans, Scalia called Amendment 2 “a modest attempt by seemingly tolerant Coloradans to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority to revise those mores through use of the laws.” Dissenting in Lawrence v. Texas, he said “Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.” (Note his charming use of the word “homosexual 3x in 1 sentence.) His world view is that anti-gay laws based on morality concerns are constitutional. Funny, there was a time (1890’s) when anti-Italian laws were based on so-called morality concerns. Scalia is the ultimate judicial activist/hypocrite. Worse than McReynolds, maybe worse than Taney.

  3. UFFDA says

    No, the question is “when did it become unconstitutional to INCLUDE homosexual couples in the rites and priveledges of marriage?’

  4. Anastasia Beaverhausen says

    “When did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage?” he asked.

    Well, Tony, if it’s unconstitutional then it has ALWAYS BEEN unconstitutional — it just wasn’t recognized as such. Just as sodomy laws were always unconstitutional and Bowers vs. Hardwick was an unconstitutional decision that was corrected in Lawrence vs. Texas.

    You’d think a Supreme Court Justice would know that the Constitution doesn’t change, and that judicial errors (eg: Dred Scott; Bowers) are corrected over time. Sometimes judges and justices retire and that happens; sometimes they die and change occurs. Maybe Scalia’s head will explode (which means mute lap dog Justice Thomas would also explode his head in dutiful obedience), and the President can improve the court.

    That’s the original intent of the founding fathers.

  5. Anastasia Beaverhausen says

    * except when amended, and there’s not going to be an anti-gay amendment so get over it, Scalia.

  6. jamal49 says

    Justice Scalia? Just so you know, my “homosexuality”, my “gayness”, is my humanity. It is immoral to deny me my civil rights based on my humanity, which is natural, unchangeable and immutable. I, as a citizen of this country, am born to the same rights and privileges as you. Therefore, a favorable ruling striking down discriminatory laws that prevent me from exercising what should be my Constitutional right to marry another consenting adult the same sex as I becomes a moral issue simply because those discriminatory laws were legislated in the first place.

  7. ArkArk says

    We have to stop putting people in powerful positions who believe in sky gods. It really must stop. Organized religion is a scourge upon humanity.

    Scalia should be removed from the court. He is CRAZY.

  8. jim says

    Seems bad form for him to be discussing this right now. Once again, Scalia proves himself to be ridiculously biased where Teh Ghey is concerned. He should’ve recused himself from Windsor and Prop 8.

  9. Eddie says

    I can’t wait for the day this dinosaur is off the Supreme Court. Can we take a collection to sign him up for the pasta & cheese of the month club – get those arteries clogged up as quickly as possible? Maybe hire a PI to get some photos of him in a whorehouse?

    I hope his reference to “judge moralist” is directed at five of his colleagues.

  10. David Hearne says

    John – He used “homosexual” because that is the clinical term. There is nothing wrong with proceeding with caution in the Supreme Court. There are indeed slippery slopes, and what they say and do does matter. There is a difference between constitutional law and judicial activism. It is the place of the court to tell the government it will not discriminate against gay people. It is not the place of the court to tell _citizens_ that they must accept or associate with a group of people they choose not to accept or associate with.

  11. David Hearne says

    Eddie – Remember this: all justices want to be remembered as great legal minds. Some female Jewish liberal voting for gay marriage won’t go down in history as a great legal mind for gay rights because there is nothing surprising there. If however, Scalia makes remarks which come off as anti-gay and then votes to strike down DOMA, he’s a “genius” and an “impartial jurist”.

  12. mike/ says

    “When did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage?”

    if you look at this statement alone & dissect it, in a way he is implying that same sex marriage IS constitutional, since he is saying that it is not ‘unconstitutional’.

    as far as his statement that judges should decide moral issues, i would agree that at least HE shouldn’t be deciding; he is reactionary catholic probably with Opus Dei connections. one son is a priest who supports the cult.

  13. RMc says

    That right there is why he should be forced to recuse himself.

    The Supreme Court already ruled that being gay is morally acceptable in two separate cases. Get over it.

  14. will says

    He is right that judges shouldn’t be in the business of deciding morality. Judges have no business telling people they should go to church or tithe. Or say mandatory prayers. They have no business deciding the “constitutionalty” of euthanasia. Democracies work best when poeple decide what is morally right and wrong. At best, morality shouldn’t be decided at all through legislation unless someone is being hurt (children, spouses).

    Our problem is we’re battling against more than three hundred years of accumulated legislation in this country. The laws themselves have worked to inform people’s morality about homosexuality. This and that damn Book of Leviticus. Another problem is people don’t want to wait for the public to “catch up” to our enlightened state. But it is happening. The public is finally changing.

  15. GregV says

    For a brief moment before reading the details,, I thought Scalia was having a rare moment of reason.
    Indeed, it is not the job of a judge, or a jury, or a legislator, to decide whether homosexuality is morally acceptable. It is also not their job to decide whether skipping a Wednesday night church service or kissing on the second date or eating dinner in front of the TV is morally acceptable.
    Their job is to give equal protection to all citizens and NOT to play the role of the prudish nanny who judges everyone’s personal decisions such as what sex and race someone chooses to marry or not marry.

  16. BZ says

    If unelected judges should not decide morality, it does not follow that legislatures or the public should either. If anything, the lack of judicial review argues for the conclusion that the law has no legitimate interest in enforcing private prejudices apart from those which inflict demonstratable harm e.g. murder. That is one of the arguments our side has been making for years, that government at all levels should stop throwing the weight of the law behind homophobia.

    This clown is nowhere near being a “legal genius” of the right wing.

  17. David says

    Laws against same-sex marriage “became” unconstitutional the first time they were passed. But no one pointed out that they violated the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. If he wants an exact date, he can look it up.
    So now it’s up to our Supreme Court to point this out

  18. Brian says

    I had a completely different reaction to his comments (maybe wrong) than most of those posted here. I took him to be making a statement that even if a judge voted to allow same sex marriage because he felt it was legally correct that that decision didn’t necessarily indicate that judge believes same sex marriage is right or good. The public decides morality (of which 57% supports same sex marriage), not judges.

    I thought he was perhaps telling the right that just because he might vote to end the federal preclusion of ssm doesn’t mean he approves of it.

    After reading in these comments about his previous dissentions that now seems less likely to me. But I’m going to hope anyway.

  19. says

    Judges aren’t moral experts but the ignorant masses are? Subjecting minority rights to majority whims results in pure popularity contests, which we’re starting to win, but it’s hardly how the 2 marriage cases before the Supreme Court should be decided. The Constitution is on our side, not that some of the current Justices will necessarily see it that way.

    The DOMA case is about couples who are already legally married. The morality question has been settled in these 12 states. Prop 8 raises broader questions– it’s no secret how Scalia would like to answer those, since he’s made his personal dislike known for years.

  20. Continuum says

    If ever there were a case for impeachment, then Scalia fits the bills. He seems to have no sense of impartiality, or equality under the law.

    Similarly, Thomas should be removed because of his financial links to various political and business groups.

    This current US Supreme Court has become a clown circus of justices (or bigots and thieves).

  21. JONES says

    @David Hearne
    John’s aside about Scalia using the word homosexual 3 times wasn’t the point of his post.

    In Scalia’s own words ‘by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct’

    His anti gay animus is documented history and yet here he is warning against a ‘judge moralist’. They’re only a judge moralist when they disagree with his bigoted opinion.

    Regardless of how he votes on Prop 8 his past offenses are inexcusable. Genius and Scalia … you make me laugh.

  22. says

    It is not the courts’ job to uphold the precise will of the majority of the people. That’s what elections are for. The job of the courts is to uphold the Constitution, regardless of whether the necessary decisions fall in line with the will of the majority. It is up to the judges to determine, without bias from the rest of the population, what constitutes equality under the law, or equal protection. It seems more than obvious to me that to exclude Gays from the institution of marriage is a clear violation of any notion of “equality,” and I have yet to see anyone dispute that on a rational level. Therefore, it is not “activism” on the part of judges to declare that Gay and Straight couples should be treated equally under the law, rather it is an example of judges performing their rightful duty.

  23. Jerry says

    This sounds like SOUR GRAPES. If so, it may bode well for one or both decisions to be handed-down next week.

  24. says

    Your interpretation of his remarks makes sense, @Brian. We’ll have a better idea of what his ugly mind was actually thinking soon enough. If the decisions go the right way, his–or anyone else’s–moral judgments don’t count for much besides being indicative of their own moral stinginess.

  25. princely54 says

    @Jerry, my thoughts exactly! This may be his moment to vent publicly before the decision is made public. He’s a rotten turd and always has been.

  26. Rees Cramer says

    He did make a tiny move to the left with that statement. But, Will is right about the fact the that we are fighting 3 centuries of theology and dogma regarding marriage between a man and a woman which is a 18th century development. Prior to that marriage was for aristocratic purposes of politics and money and had nothing to do with love, respect or tradition…..let alone religion. The religious right should clean their own glass house before the start hurling stones around the play ground.

  27. JONES says

    The absolute idiocy and gall of Scalia labeling LGBT equality a morality issue is what is reprehensible. Society trying to excuse legalized bigotry under the guise of religion and morality is what he’s been charged with correcting as a judge.

    LGBTQ constitutional civil rights are not subject to any religious dogma.
    Period. Ever.

  28. floridaguy727 says

    “When did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage?”

    What US Justice Scalia is saying is that in 2003 US Justice Kennedy ruled that homosexuals are no longer immoral. Scalia thought it should be the legislators or the public who change the sodomy laws, not the courts. It was at this point the evolution toward gays having a US Constitutional right to marry began.
    In the past the courts have kept gay people out of the equality fruit orchards by saying that we are immoral based on sodomy laws. I think Scalia is ridiculing and reminding us that Kennedy’s 2003 Lawrence ruling was half as*ed. What Kennedy did was give gay people access to the equality fruit orchard, but did not give us a ladder(the gay card). Some of the people with the age card and all of the people with the race card get a ladder to access equality. Kennedy ruled with rational basis with bite, instead of heightened or strict scrutiny. It was great that Kennedy made this up and gave us the access to the equality fruit orchard, but it is time that he give us the ladder to equality. I’m hoping that he makes up gay sexual orientation as a class of people who should have heightened scrutiny test in the two pending cases!

  29. says

    “he said, state leaders would have eventually removed the racial barriers.”

    That means we know how he’s going to decide the voter Rights case as well. He’s going to claim that African-Americans are “already protected” by Brown v. Board of Ed. and the continued racism of the Republican party doesn’t really exist.

    We know full well how he’s going to vote on Prop 8 and DOMA. He son’s a Catholic priest who believes in “Conversion therapy” you know.

    http://fablog.ehrensteinland.com/2012/12/13/like-father-like-father/

  30. Richard says

    Like Jerry, I suspect Scalia was venting because he lost on 8 &/or DOMA. This could be a preview of his dissenting opinion.

  31. Marshall says

    There’s an illogic here he doesn’t acknowledge. The American public views many corporate behaviors as immoral. Yet, the court upholds a corporation’s right to act freely. I object to the idea that a corporation is a person – and I stridently object to his idea that my life must conform to the morality of the majority while he refuses to apply this same idea to corporate “persons.”

  32. woodroad34d says

    hmmm, coming from the morally inept air snyrt. What an embarrassment to the Supreme Court and to the American People. Someone spray deodorizer please.

  33. Seattle Gregg says

    The Supreme Court is not being asked about morality. It should be an impeachable offense for a judge not to comprehend this.

  34. anon says

    Impeachment is a silly idea since it would over-politicize the court, but increasing the number of justices slowly over time to 15 would greatly dilute the impact each justice has over the law and help them handle more cases.

    Morality isn’t really a truism in the law, despite Scalia’s arguments (he says this a lot) that law and morality go hand-in-hand. Mere moral pique results in laws that are highly unjust and he must know of many examples, including anti-miscegenation laws. Moral pique is also anathema to the first amendment: no more pornography, pc speech codes, etc.

    Scalia is also known to have hobby horses of morality, such as an abhorrence of drug use, which leads him to ignore the first amendment.

    However the biggest problem here is that court precedent states clearly that laws must have a rational basis and the excluding of “classes” from various rights enjoyed by others cannot be based solely on majority rule. Despite his side-stepping, the arguments before the court were directed towards finding a rationale for discrimination. If there isn’t a good rationale then the law must be struck down. No one on the court is going to make a ruling that any simple majoritarian argument is good enough to allow a discriminatory practice.

  35. JONES says

    @anon
    Like your rationale on precedent and hope your predictions are the end results but that doesn’t change the fact that Scalia is a piss poor excuse of a justice and that when he makes ridiculous and offensive statements he needs to be called on them.

  36. says

    I wasn’t aware that anyone had asked the courts to rule on questions of morality. The courts are tasked with ruling on questions of law. I’m not really surprised, though, that Scalia can’t tell the difference.

  37. Caliban says

    @David Hearne, I honestly try to understand the POVs of others but you really are a shitweasel.

    Here’s what “judicial activism” really means. My side lost. Our Constitution isn’t a perfect document but it’s pretty damn good. We’re still struggling over its basic idea that ALL people are created equal and that religious beliefs have no place in law. And Scalia only claims to be an “originalist” when it suits his own religious-political agenda.

    It’s asinine to kick this back to the states. Rights aren’t up to a popular vote. I can’t even imagine the ridiculous patchwork of laws that would have resulted, as Scalia suggests, had the question of racial equality been left up to the states. Crossing a state border in the US shoudn’t diminish OR enhance what rights you have. Rights are rights, we either have them or we don’t.

  38. says

    Caliban – when understanding sh*tweasel’s like Hearne and any other Anonymous Trolls, you need to remember than if you bring up “racial equality being left to the states” you’re actually making them wish it HAD happened.

    when you try to understand what makes those right-leaning anonymous commenters who they are, you need to first remember they yearn for the days of Segregation.

    after all, it seems from their comments that Integration is what keeps them at home, on their computers, for fear of having to Interact With Ethnics.

    and yes, having a bigoted majority vote, with no intelligence or rationale, on the rights and freedoms and liberties of an historically-persecuted minority group is utterly asinine.

    i don’t get how some States want to be “legally bigoted”

    that’s where federal laws need to step in.

  39. Marksgv says

    Oh Scalia, twisting the law to wrap around your own personal views of morality, you try to avoid the basic issue of these challenges is whether or not the fundamental identity of a minority should be allowed to continue discriminatory practices and laws. I wonder how he would have ruled in Loving, would he have looked at the belief in the morality of interracial marriage rather than judged on the basis of discrimination based on skin color? Just because our real differences are not physically obvious should not mean we are held to different standards.

  40. Rickseaside says

    The very fact he considers being gay a moral issue is very telling. You would hope that a judge would find the unequal treatment of gays unconstitutional based on the equal protections clause. He is a bigot in a black robe instead of a white pointy hat.

  41. I Am Not Scalia's Gay Son says

    Churches can decide what’s ‘moral’.

    Supreme Court Justices must uphold what is ‘constitutional’.

  42. Linguist says

    Not sure why Justice Scalia thinks the issue is “deciding public morality” at all.

    In the DOMA case, the issue is whether the federal government can treat some legally married couples as married and treat other legally married couples as legal strangers to one another. That involves whether all state marriage contracts will be recognized by the feds or just some, and that raises equal protection issues.

    A justice may well believe that being gay is awful, hideous and immoral or that most people in the land do not want gay people to be allowed to marry (no longer the case, but for the sake of argument…).

    That judge still has to decide the case before him, including whether state marriage contracts are determined by states or whether the feds can turn away some of those state contracts as invalid.

  43. Rich says

    Justice Scalia is clearly uncomfortable with LGBT issues. But I would be wary of underestimating his legal acumen. In the sweep of history, dissenting opinions often carry more weight than majority that decided the particular case. We would be ungrateful not to recognize that Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence opened the door to marriage equality.

  44. Dogma v. Logic says

    One can use reason to reach a logical conclusion. Or, one can start with a conclusion then build a framework under it trying to justify it. Guess which method the Catholic Church uses. Anyone educated in a Catholic environment has to overcome that indoctrination and many never do.

    The first method is known as science. The second is religion. The Supreme Court should be a court of reason, not faith, or the scaffolding used to shore it up.

  45. says

    Like other posters I don’t believe tht the Supreme Court is being asked to make a moral ruling.
    Prop.8 and DOMA are clearly equality and civil rights issues.
    It’s only someone who cannot separate himself from Catholic doctrine who thinks these are moral issues.

    You’re supposed to be judicial, Scalia, remember ?

  46. Michael says

    There are SO many holes in this. YES, it actually IS the job of justices to decide what’s “moral” when that morality is making laws. YES, you actually should delete the whole bullshite morality aspect to the ruling and thus there is absolutely NO reason to deny gay marriage. YES, there actually is scientific evidence all around you if you took your friggin head out of your ass for a moment.

    This is exactly like the hearings, when he had the audacity to say he didn’t know if kids with gay parents turned out just as well as if they were raised by heterosexuals, when the professional medical communities submitted briefs as to their findings of that exact topic.

    What’s even more mind-boggling is we have an even bigger retard, yes I said retard, sitting on the bench. What kind of Justice, ie Thomas, sits through the trail without asking ANY questions? His job is to inquire and make decisions, not just sit there and obviously already have your mind made up.

  47. says

    @ Michael :

    Yes, Thomas obviously has lost all his self respect, he seems to be dead in personality, he will take the most conservative route in agreeing with his Master, Scalia.

    I suspect Thomas is quite damaged psychologically after his confirmation and blames all liberals.

  48. jexer says

    Morality is irrelevant anyway. The question is: does government have the right to discriminate against a public declaration of life-partnership between two consenting adults based solely on gender.

    And the answer should be resoundingly: no.

  49. jleo71 says

    The court is not deciding a moral issue, Judge Scalia. It is deciding a constitutional one and trying to frame it as a moral issue is ingenuous.

  50. emjayay says

    Scalia (and Thomas) start with olde tyme Catholic moral teaching (Natural Law) established by Thomas Aquinas in the 1200’s as taught in his college philosophy classes and then adds the general preserve-the-status-quo attitudes and a very narrow reading of the Constitution.

    The philosophic basis of the US isn’t in the Constitution – it’s in the Declaration of Independence. He ignores that.

    “state leaders would have eventually removed the racial barriers”. Uh-huh. When? A couple of generations later? That isn’t when the overall moral sentiments of the country come to some consensus. It’s when the ignorant reactionary hillbillies of each state of the former Confederacy come to some consensus.

  51. says

    At the time when it was applicable, more than 90% of white Americans believed fiercely that Africans, whose skins turned dark because of their particular original sin (the Curse Of Ham, unique to dark-skinned races)deserved to be enslaved. Not to mention the fact that each slave was property and had a substantial dollar value on “its” head. Even today, close to 40% of white Americans believe that blacks –and to a lesser extent dark-skinned Latinos—are morally inferior to whites, especially those of blonde, blue-eyed Teutonic Aryan or Anglo-Saxon extraction. Southern Greeks and Italians, which include Antonin Scalia, are considered “less” caucasian than the Germanic tribes. In fact, with a proboscis as prominent as Scalia’s, it can be deduced that his genetic lineage trace back to the Jews, another race looked upon unfavorably by fair-haired, Catholic Northerners. Hitler, btw, was a devout Catholic up to his 20s, when he started fantasizing about the Superior Race. The MORALLY superior race.

  52. David Hearne says

    Caliban – Did you actually read my post? I’ll try to put it in simpler terms for you:

    1- The government cannot discriminate against gay people.

    2- The government not being permitted to discriminate against gay people doesn’t mean that Mary-Ellen of ME Cakes and Flowers has surrendered to right to Freedom Of Association.

    What is so hard for you to grasp in that?

  53. JONES says

    @David Hearne
    ‘The government not being permitted to discriminate against gay people doesn’t mean that Mary-Ellen of ME Cakes and Flowers has surrendered to right to Freedom Of Association.’

    Mary Ellen’s Freedom of Association is not applicable if she has a shop that does public business in a city or state that has an anti-discrimination law.

    Governments from city to federal recognize that freedom of association is applicable only in a ‘private’ setting. When she applies for a license to operate she agrees to abide by those nondiscriminatory statues. These laws have been enacted not just for LGBT but for every minority group that at one time or another has been victimized by ‘freedom of association’ being wielded to cover bias/bigotry/discrinination.

  54. David Hearne says

    Jones – You have an astounding lack of reason. On the one hand you rightfully understand that anti-discrimination while presently legal is unconstitutional and on the other are will to accept the breach of the constitution which is the notion that by doing business one forfeits ones right to Freedom Of Association is constitutional because it is legal.

    You have in essence said that Mary Ellen only enjoys her constitutional rights in her own home. Guess what? Madison Wisconsin doesn’t even think that’s OK. Madison says that if Mary Ellen seeks a roommate, she can’t discriminate in her selection of a roommate, a person who sill share the space inside her home; this even though federal law clearly permits owner occupied dwellings of four units or less to discriminate in the rental of accommodation .

  55. andrew says

    Is it possible that Scalia, who many say is very bright, doesn’t know that he is on the wrong side of history, in the movement toward full equality for LGBT people?

  56. OUTinSpace says

    Was there ever a point when “moral acceptability” was NOT part of constitutional decisions relating to criminal law – rape and murder, for example?

  57. JONES says

    @David Hearne
    Whats really astounding is your duplicity in attempting to associate LGBT equality with a Rand Paulian construct of the Constitution where discrimination hidden as a ‘Freedom of Association’ is a Constitutionally protected freedom.

    They’re not analogous.

    I am in agreement with society and the courts that have clearly recognized the difference between the constitutional meaning of FofA and the attempts by racists and bigots to use it as a shield to hide discrimination and have ruled that it could be regulated for the greater good of society and the republic. Ergo non-discrimination laws.

    Equality can not be regulated. All of society benefits with equality.

    Don’t try to twist what I say. ME could use her freedom of association not only in her home but in any private group, club, or organization that would be willing to accept her. She would be prohibited from discrimination in her public business.

    As for the housing situation in Madison, Wis something seems amiss. I’d question if this was in some way tax-funded housing or University associated first. Local ordinances can be ridiculous and need at times be challenged. Just because a law is on the books doesn’t mean that it’s a good law. We’re currently challenging 30 state constitutions because of antigay laws.

  58. David Hearne says

    Jones : Her business isn’t public. The public does not own it, Mary Ellen does. It’s her business and her labor.

  59. says

    I applaud you for your comments, David Hearne. They serve as a brilliant example to any younger readers for what happens when a gay man never grows a spine, stands up for himself, and continues to be a pathetic little braindead lapdog to the bullies he’s terrified of.

    I’m Serious. Thank you for ever post you continue to make. You serve as a reminder of what a man is reduced to when he chooses to be a coward for life. happy pride!

  60. JONES says

    @Hearne
    Have you further reduced your argument to hair splitting on terminology?
    Her business serves the public. Not private clientele but the open public. Therefore like every other public merchant she has to adhere to the prevailing laws. If she disagrees with them she can mount a campaign to change them but until they’re changed she has to abide by them. It what a civil society requires unlike your wished for Paulian libertarian bigoted society.

  61. JONES says

    ‘Her business and her labor’
    Using public funded streets and transportation, public funded heat, light, & power, public funded police, using start-up money provided by public backed low interest small business loans, with an education from public funded schools and public funded Universities, and maybe even a public funded school loan, or employees that were educated and trained at public expense.
    So yeah, in your mind that qualifies it as a ‘she built it’ business and of course in that mindset none of that public assistance that make her business possible came from taxes paid by the gay, or brown, or black, or people of other cultures that she might decide her ‘deeply held religious beliefs’ deem inferior.

  62. David Hearne says

    ‘Her business and her labor’
    Using public funded streets and transportation, public funded heat, light, & power, public funded police, using start-up money provided by public backed low interest small business loans, with an education from public funded schools and public funded Universities, and maybe even a public funded school loan, or employees that were educated and trained at public expense.
    So yeah, in your mind that qualifies it as a ‘she built it’ business and of course in that mindset none of that public assistance that make her business possible came from taxes paid by the gay, or brown, or black, or people of other cultures that she might decide her ‘deeply held religious beliefs’ deem inferior.

    Posted by: JONES | Jun 23, 2013 9:54:42 PM

    Clearly your confusion lies here. Since your house faces a public street, and the police patrol your neighborhood do you then forego your Fourth Amendment rights? Of course not.

    She presumably pays for her utilities, they are not publicly funded.

    The rest of your BS is either irrelevant or inapplicable, or such that anyone in the US would be defined as a publicly owned and controlled asset of the government.

    You are, in short, what is wrong with most ignorant people.

  63. says

    and you, Hearne, are a textbook closet case right-wing suck up who never got over being a disappointment to the family bloodline. congrats!

  64. JONES says

    @Hearne
    ‘She presumably pays for her utilities, they are not publicly funded.’
    And of course she paid for the infrastructure that built those utilities. And sewer and water as well. NO. That would be the public that did that. See how that works. It’s called society. No small businesses do it by themselves, they rely on the public.

    ‘Streets and Police’ She pays for those as well? NO. They too are publicly funded entities? Society again.

    Fourth Amendment is protection against unlawful search & seizure which has nothing to do with Mary Ellen’s wanting to hide behind FofA to cover her discrimination regardless of where she lives.

    Getting called out has made you delusional when you correlate the public participation in business structure with ‘anyone in the US would be defined as a publicly owned and controlled asset of the government.’

    Lack of reason, name calling, spouting party memes … time to get that IQ checkup David. Or keep coming back for more.

  65. Bill says

    @UFFDA: Scalia actucally asked a reasonable question – his error was in the apparent assumption that there is no answer. Same-sex marriage became constitutional when the 14th amendment was ratified: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

  66. woodroad34d says

    how prescient Pierre Beaumarchais in the late 18th Century was in saying:
    “It is not necessary to understand things in order to argue about them.”

    Could he have known Antonin Scalia would be born?

  67. GB says

    Isn’t marriage the ultimate human right? Step aside having enough to eat? A roof over one’s head? Freedom?