King v. Burwell Is Bad, But Not for The Reason You Might Think

war clown1

I didn’t want to discuss yesterday’s Obamacare decision until I had some time to digest it. If you are a supporter of Obamacare and you only care about outcomes, you probably think it was a great decision. If you oppose Obamacare you probably hate it. If you care about the rule of law and established jurisprudence like I do, you think it was a bad decision.

National Review:

The Affordable Care Act was drafted with extraordinary carelessness given its importance, and conservatives who say that the Obama administration has implemented it contrary to its plain meaning have strong arguments. So opined six justices of the Supreme Court, including its most liberal members, in King v. Burwell.

That is, unfortunately, the best thing about the majority opinion, which labors mightily to free the law from the inconvenience of its text. The text of the law authorizes federal subsidies on health-insurance exchanges “established by the state,” but does not authorize them on exchanges established by the federal government. Since most states have not established exchanges, reading the law the way it was written would limit the law’s reach. The administration therefore decided not to do so — and the Court has blessed its decision, and barred future administrations from revisiting it.

To reach this result, Chief Justice John Roberts first implausibly read “established by the state” to be an ambiguous phrase — Justice Antonin Scalia and the other two conservative dissenters thoroughly dismantled his arguments — and then chose the possible meaning that would best serve the act’s purposes. This second portion of Roberts’s argument has a superficial plausibility, but it too lacks merit.

His point is that in the absence of subsidies, the law’s regulations would destroy insurance markets. Congress, he writes, could not have intended for the law to have this effect. But the question of what Congress intended in the absence of widespread state cooperation with the law is surely the wrong one to ask, since there is little evidence that Congress ever considered the topic. Justice Scalia also raises the obvious counter-example: the Class Act, the federal long-term-care entitlement that Congress passed as part of Obamacare. The Class Act did not work because it had the very features that Obamacare generally, read according to its text, would have: The affected market would be unsustainable. It had to be repealed. The point of this counter-example is that it is entirely conceivable that a law, properly interpreted, would work badly or have perverse consequences, and it is not the Court’s job to interpret away provisions of the law to make it come out differently. Roberts responds that that the Class Act was a small part of the larger law and that Congress really wanted its larger law to work. Perhaps embarrassment at the weakness of this retort is what led him to put it in a footnote.

A ruling that the administration had exceeded its lawful authority would not necessarily have led to better health-care policy or a smaller government. It would not, by itself, have repealed Obamacare. That means that the contrary ruling is not a defeat for free-market health care or limited government. What it is a defeat for is the rule of law.

Words have meanings. The practice of law requires the precise use of language. The language of a contract, a statute, or a court order should never be vague or ambiguous. It must mean exactly one thing, no more or less.

There are specific rules for dealing with how to interpret legal language. One of those rules is that when there is no ambiguity the words must be given their literal meaning. Only when the words are ambiguous will the court look beyond the plain meaning of the text.

Yesterday’s decision should have been a slam-dunk. What the court should have done is ruled against the government and left it for Congress to fix (or not). The consequences of that ruling should have been irrelevant. It is not the job of the courts to fix badly written laws.

If words don’t have meaning, there is no law.


About Myiq2xu™

"If you hit an artery, somebody can bleed out in two minutes."
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

131 Responses to King v. Burwell Is Bad, But Not for The Reason You Might Think

  1. Myiq2xu says:
  2. Myiq2xu says:
  3. Myiq2xu says:
  4. lyn says:

    The Supremes should have thrown Obamacare back to Congress to fix. Obama and all his fascist supporters don’t care about the rule of law, and it’s too bad that virus also has infected the Supreme Court.

    • Lulu says:

      It is going to bite them in the butt. The next president, BERNIE SANDERS!!! /s/, can do it too and he won’t even have to go through the hokum and kabuki to do it. President Sanders can just say any law was a drafting error and rewrite it into regulations. Why bother with passing laws. Just call Roberts and say this is what it is and look sharp putz cuz you aren’t hearing any more cases and watch my twitter for further instructions you dumb fuck.

    • foxyladi14 says:

      Blackmail works. 👿

  5. Dora says:

    Did you all get a chance to read the other decision? This is obviously Obama’s attempt to force diversity in all neighborhoods. I think this decision is much worse than Obamacare. It’s getting into thought crimes such as ‘Unconscious’ Racism”. It actually scares me.

    Worse than Obamacare: Housing Case Lets Feds Target ‘Unconscious’ Racism”

    • 1539days says:

      We can replace judges with mind readers.

    • elliesmom says:

      I think I told the story of our Brazilian neighborhood before. We have a row of old mill houses that have been turned into really lovely duplexes with a great river view. A Brazilian family moved into town and bought one of the duplexes. They brought another family here, and they moved into the other side of the house. When another one of the duplexes went up for sale, the second immigrant family bought it, and the two families brought two more families here from Brazil. This continued until Brazilian immigrants owned most of the street and rented their properties to other Brazilians. When the state was rating cities and towns based on how well integrated they were, we were cited for isolating our Brazilian neighbors and told we had to integrate better or be forced into allowing more low income housing into our town. For the record, no one has to force us to take on more subsidized housing. We have never fought to keep it out, and we have a lot more of it than our surrounding towns if you take land area and population into the math. But these Brazilians own some of our loveliest homes, living near each other by choice, and some how as a town we’ve mistreated them. Are we supposed to ban any Brazilians from buying the remaining properties when they come up for sale? Are the feds going to make the Brazilian homeowners exclude people from Brazil as renters to force integration of the neighborhood? I doubt it, but we’ll be labeled “racists”. The good thing is no one in town gives a shit about what the feds say. We have very little buildable land left, and most rental property is already section 8 housing so there’s not much they can do. Black people live next door to white people all over town. The only place in town that’s “racially segregated” is this row of very expensive duplexes along the river.

    • Somebody says:

      I saw that case Dora and it seems to have gotten lost in the obamacare and same sex marriage rulings, but I agree with you it may well be the worst decision of the lot.

  6. 1539days says:

    Obamacare is not a real bill. It was written by the Senate for the purpose of being negotiated with a House of Representatives bill for final passage. The election of Scott Brown made it impossible to pass a corrected Senate bill so House Democrats were “convinced” by the administration to pass a Senate bill with absolutely no changes. As such, a $2 billion economy and the health care of tens of millions is based on a first draft.

    It was not necessary for the Supreme Court to strike down Obamacare. They could have declared the unconstitutional parts void and forced the hand of Congress. Just because duly elected legislators pass a bad law does not mean SCOTUS has to extend it.

    You literally could not interpret “state” as meaning the federal government unless you interpret the word to be in the sense of “enemy of the state” or “police state.” In effect, that’s what the court did.

  7. votermom says:

    Roberts is Obama’s fairy godmother. Or his fanfic ghost writer.
    Basically Roberts fanwanked Obama are.

  8. leslie says:

    I know far less than most about almost anything. But I do know that somehow Roberts got bought and paid for by this present bunch of thugs, crooks, shysters and greedy bastards. When I read about him at the time of his nomination to SCOTUS, I thought he was pretty creepy and wondered what the he!! Bush was doing naming this guy. (Alito as well, but mostly Roberts). Someone has something on him or these decisions on ACA would be otherwise. I don’t know any group of judges that has been more pliable or willing to give in to the POTUS’ decisions. Do you?
    This is so disappointing.

    • votermom says:

      I agree. He’s either corrupt, being coerced, or a true believer.

      • mcnorman says:

        They have something on him because his writing today was so different on same sex marriage…to the letter of the word, unlike yesterday. We all answer to the higher power in the end. Roberts better be ready for that hot seat.

        • Somebody says:

          He’ll change on a dime again when we have a new POTUS, because he is being blackmailed. I didn’t believe that at first when the left was initially touting it during the Bush years, but look at Roberts now. He will continue to be a lapdog for whomever is POTUS, he needs to go along with several others. He can be impeached, but nobody has the balls to even whisper about such a thing.

          • mcnorman says:

            What has happened to us Somebody? I was in Philly a few years ago and rummaging through the portraits of those that led the American Revolution. The old guy was Ben Franklin, everyone else was bursting with desire to make this country a great country. They weren’t a bunch of panty waist cryfaces. Roberts should be taken to task. He above all should have had every nook and cranny investigated. Call me idealistic, but these are the people who are not supposed to be above the law when it comes to accountability. if he did something illegal, then it should be called out. `

    • angienc says:

      I agree — and I felt the *same* way about him at the nominations (i.e., something was wrong with this guy).

      • Myiq2xu says:

        Roberts is like Obama – they are both examples of what happens when you appoint/nominate/elect an empty suit with little or no track record. You don’t really know what you are getting.

        Bush wanted to appoint a young guy who would control the direction of court for decades. He got it.

        • lyn says:

          “Intent” started when the DNC rules committee gave 59 Michigan delegates to Obama who wasn’t on the 2008 primary ballot. The committee divined that people intended to vote for Obama if he had been on the ballot. “Intent” has come full circle.

        • 49erDweet says:

          Blackmail victims make really bad decisions.

    • Dora says:

      It’s about his children and the hanky – panky that went on during their adoption from Ireland. I think I’ve said enough. We don’t want any trouble on the blog.

  9. votermom says:

    I’m in such a foul mood that this made me laugh

  10. votermom says:

  11. leslie says:

    This is Good Friday for me. It’s my last one at work. I love my work. Not so crazy about my employer. They are requiring that I have the annual review before I leave and that means having to submit endless proof of what I’ve done for the past year as well as my own self review, plus my goals for the coming fiscal year. It is crazy. The following year’s employment/salary, etc are based on this review and set of goals. This year they’ve added 2 additional parts to this “review” and I’ve been told that I can’t retire on Tuesday without them. (They’ve given us 2 days to come up with the added documentation.) Talk about crazy!
    If I didn’t work for the state, I’d report them for mistreatment of employees. They already disregard the regulations they impose on private companies and businesses that exist within the state.

    • votermom says:

      Congrats! And hang in there!

    • piper says:

      We’re rooting for you and remember to you can slam the door next week. Change the name from Harry to Leslie

    • Lulu says:

      I filed for retirement (deferred) with OPM. They requested secondary (common-law) proof of my marriage (we were married by a Baptist preacher in my parents home and the marriage certificate is recorded so is presuming everyone is common law now the thing?) and the email attachment sent to me was corrupted with a virus. My laptop will probably have to be debugged by a professional. Maybe I’ll burn it since it would offend the EPA. The level of dysfunction with the feds is off the charts. A lowly claims officer is certainly not responsible for OPM sending out viruses but Christ on a Cracker that is high level stupid. They scare me!

      • leslie says:

        They should scare everyone. Before you burn your laptop, you should send an email w said virus to every govt agent you don’t like. Please do send one to the white house.
        And congrats on you uncommon law marriage, from whenever it was. 😉

        • Lulu says:

          My son, an IT director, called. LOL. I forwarded it to him to get help figuring out what was wrong with the attachment. The “WTF! Who did this shit! Are they crazy! What kind of morons are these people!” etc was very funny. He said he was nice when he called. Har har. And my uncommon law marriage was in 1978.

      • 49erDweet says:

        To be fair, Baptists are pretty common.

    • leslie says:

      You’d think they might try this with Speaker Madigan or the other legislators. It’s laughable that they push work ethics and personal integrity at us when our legislators are as corrupt as they are. They lie and cheat and threaten ppl everyday. I think we have had more governors sent to prison on ethics charges than any other state. I believe there is a wing dedicated to Illinois legislators at Danbury.

    • DeniseVB says:

      As they say in the military “I’m so short I can stand on a dime and give you 9 cents change”. Hope these last few days pass swiftly for you !

    • 49erDweet says:

      Goal for first six months. Sit
      Goal for next six months. Begin rocking, slowly.
      Goal for following year. Laugh!

    • 49erDweet says:

      Get a couple of videographers in showing you doing this idiotic stuff. When asked, explain your lawyers wanted them there “for the lawsuit”. 30 minutes, tops, it’ll all go away.

    • Somebody says:

      Unbelievable bureaucracy at its finest. SMH
      I hope your last Friday was a good one Leslie!

  12. Dora says:

    At least 27 tourists dead in Tunisian hotel attacks as gunmen ‘shoot people on sunbeds’ along beach packed with western holidaymakers

    • Lulu says:

      All of this for tens of thousands versus hundreds of millions who have to pay for it. It would have been cheaper to just buy a Cadillac plan for the tens of thousands. She still doesn’t understand that between the jacked deductions and closed provider system she ain’t getting no medical care.

  13. piper says:

    Have no words after the latest fiascos – need a big glob of humor!!!!!!!

    • votermom says:

      Next come the lawsuits against churches that refuse to hold gay weddings.

      • Lulu says:

        I think we will have civil only soon. Any in churches will be ceremonial only and not recorded thus requiring a civil ceremony also. The stink up comes from ceremonial church instead of civil. And ceremonial will be for church members only or something. A local property owner with an extensive garden, etc who rented out to weddings recently closed shop. They said they were tired of trashy people telling them what they could and could not do with their own property and said that’s it. No more garden weddings they can get married in the 7-11 parking lot by the gas pump.

        • DeniseVB says:

          I don’t think traditional weddings are that big a deal anymore and mostly for the very well to do families with 10-20k or more spare cash. Anyone can get ordained off the internet and marry anyone, anywhere. In my area the most popular are beach, botanical gardens, zoo and museum weddings. Here’s one at the Virginia Zoo,

        • elliesmom says:

          I believe a committed homosexual couple should have all of the governmental rights of a heterosexual couple. Tax benefits, inheritance laws, etc. They lost me when they went after business people who preferred not to participate. I have to say I had a good laugh the other day, though. A lesbian couple very dear to my heart were married in 2014. One is an activist, the other is not. They proudly filed their joint income tax return this year. The activist was quite dismayed her refund check was confiscated to pay off her wife’s school loans, which were in default. When she called the IRS to complain, the agent told her, and she admitted he was very polite and nice, this is part of what being married means. Her debts are now your debts. The sputtering hasn’t stopped yet. But she has reduced her withholding for next year.

          • elliesmom says:

            Her “injury” isn’t a tax liability, though. It’s an outstanding student loan debt. The IRS is just acting as a collection agent. The refund money legally belongs to both of them, and it’s fair game. She’s seen a lawyer about it. Student loans have very different rules. If the partner who owes the money hasn’t paid if off by then, the government will take her social security benefits until it’s paid off. They can’t take her partner’s social security payments because they aren’t jointly owned while the government still has them. People think they can just walk away from paying off the loans, but the government can be very patient about waiting for its money.

          • Lulu says:

            I think they should all of the good that comes from marriages too. But with that comes the bad also. Tax brackets, divorce with spousal support or alimony, debt collection like you described, community property paid for by the higher income of one of the spouses, nifty stuff like that. If it applies to hetero couples gays and lesbians are entitled to it too and not all of it is good.

          • Lulu says:

            Did you know that millennials who don’t have student loans won’t date those who do? It is one of the first things they figure out when scouting out for possible spouses or long term relationships. I’m not kidding.

          • elliesmom says:

            My daughter’s husband was pleasantly surprised to find out his future wife had no school loans and a 401K plan with money in it to boot. lol

          • DeniseVB says:

            Funniest thing I read today: Divorce Court is going to be fabulous.

      • mothy67 says:

        I was thinking about that. The Catuolic Church will not perform a ceremony for a divorced person, but that is not based on race, gender, sexual preference, age, disability. You can’t descriminate based on relgious affiliation for employment or housing but a Jewish couple can’t walk into a church and be wed. I think it’ll be litigated to death.

        • leslie says:

          As it should.

          • leslie says:

            I wrote this because there still remains (at least until the Constitution is abolished) a separation between church and state. It remains that the state has little, it any, jurisdiction over church matters. Marriage is a sacrament in the Catholic Church and there are still people for whom that sacrament is withheld. I doubt that this ruling can affect decisions of churches to perform rites or sacraments that their doctrine teaches is forbidden.

          • elliesmom says:

            I would agree with you, Leslie, but Kennedy specifically said churches could continue to advocate against same-sex marriage, but stopped short of saying they could refuse to perform them. All of the dissenters made note of Kennedy’s words. I see a lawsuit coming that would take away the tax exempt status of any church that refuses to marry same-sex couples. Most SJWs want the churches to lose their tax exempt status anyway. This would be the opening they’re looking for.

          • leslie says:

            I guess this is what “fundamental transformation” looks like.

        • votermom says:

          It’s not just litigation.
          Based on lefty modus operandi, people will be “outed” as belonging to a hateful noncompliant church and will get harassed and fired.

          • Lulu says:

            This is why we can’t have nice things.

          • DeniseVB says:

            I worry what’s next on the progressive agenda, making Sharia Law legal in every state ? I know some states have already passed laws making it illegal. Probably because of the uptick in “honor killings” trying to get away with murder because Quran or something.

            Our president is more sympathetic towards crap like that than our own culture of liberty for all. He may try and get his SCOTUS pals to overturn more states’ decisions.

        • 49erDweet says:

          Er? Pastor I know marries Jews. It’s up to the couple.

          • mothy67 says:

            I don’t think a priest can. Marriage is a sacrament under Catholicism.

          • elliesmom says:

            Protestant denominations vary greatly from one to the other. A friend of mine couldn’t get married in the Protestant church his future wife chose without proving he had been baptised somewhere. Didn’t matter where. So that would preclude a Jew from marrying there. Not all denominations are as “loosey-goosey” with who they’ll marry as others are. Just as some welcome same sex marriages and others don’t. I don’t know which church will get served with the lawsuit first. I doubt it will be the Catholics. They’ll pick a fundamentalist denomination that’s already on their fecal roster. It certainly won’t be because an imam refused to marry them in a mosque.

          • 49erDweet says:

            Yeah. Some denominations see themselves as “gatekeepers” while others wish to be “facilitators”. Strange.

        • Ann says:

          I want to play witness to the first gay couple that shows up at a mosque demanding to be married. Should be entertaining (and yes, I know most Muslim’s do not marry in a mosque, but they can).

      • Somebody says:

        That is my issue with the whole gay marriage cause. I have no problem with civil unions. I agree gay couples should be able to have the same inheritance, tax benefits, etc., that heterosexual couples have. Even though technically they can have most of that without marriage. I could make any one of you my health care guardian and I could leave everything I own to you if I put that in my will. Still I honestly don’t care whether or not gays marry.

        What I take issue with is forcing a church to perform a ceremony that goes against their beliefs, same with forcing a business owner to go against their beliefs. I don’t understand how one person has more rights than another. What about freedom of religion??

        That’s the place where I part ways with the gay marriage cause. Don’t trample on someone else’s rights.

        • Anthony says:

          Civil unions fall about 1K points short of the benefits of marriage, thats why the Gay community has been lobbying for marriage rather than just settle for civil unions. Marriage can be performed anywhere, not only in a church or synagogue.

          Ministers, priests and rabbis are qualified to officiate at weddings and sign a marriage license. So am I, by the way, and I’m not a member of the clergy. I simply registered with NYC licensing bureau with a copy of my on-line certificate designating me as someone who has been approved (background check) to do so after registering with a national fellowship.

          Churches are NOT going to be under siege. I don’t know one single gay (or straight) person, male or female, who would want to get married in a place where they’re not wanted. Gay people are not monsters – we are very much the same as everyone else, and unless we’re sleeping with anyone else’s husband or wife, the husband or wife we choose is nobody else’s business. (That last sentence wasn’t meant specifically for you, Somebody, but rather made a general statement.

          That said, it will be a cold day in hell before I walk down any aisle…..

          • Somebody says:

            I guess I should correct my statement to read civil ceremony. When I say civil union that is what I mean…….a notary, courthouse type ceremony. I was married at a courthouse and I assure you I am just as much married as my two sisters that had big church weddings. Technically I’m MORE married than they are, they divorced and I’ve been with my hubby for 33 years.

            I understand that YOU may not want to force churches to perform ceremonies, but there is an element that does. There have already been a couple of cases. Same goes for businesses, I can’t imagine as level headed as you are Anthony that you would want a cake from someone that didn’t want to make it for you. I don’t care if they didn’t want to make it because you’re gay or because they don’t like the color of your eyes. I’m not gay, but if someone didn’t want to make a cake for me or didn’t want to take photos for me then I wouldn’t want to hire them.

          • mcnorman says:

            But if you do, can I come too? 🙂

          • elliesmom says:

            Knowing what could happen to a cake in the baking process, I agree I wouldn’t want someone to bake a cake for me (or a chocolate cream pie) unless I knew they were onboard with my celebration. 😉

        • lizzy says:

          After watching the train wreck that has been unfolding for the last 18 months as my brother divorces, I can’t imagine anyone actually wanting to marry. I am old enough now that I think marriage would become a caretaking job. Thanks but no thanks.

  14. helenk3 says:

    since the supreme court now decides intent rather than word meaning is the law, can someone on trial for murder now say ” it was not my intent to kill, it just happened” and get off free?

    • lyn says:

      When we have national elections and the wrong candidate wins, can people sue because it was their intent to vote for the other candidate and didn’t?! SMH.

    • Lulu says:

      In the immortal words of Rachael Dolezal when asked the race of her parents “I don’t….don’t…whaa….huh…..understand.” The court has unleashed the tower of Babel. Huh? Whaa? Is that Klingon? Who? There’s an ant! Everything from the government, media, business, ANYTHING! should be responded to in such a manner. Whuh? They want chaos and confusion? Zorphhhhh. It is easy. And fun.

  15. Myiq2xu says:

    We officially live in interesting times.

  16. Myiq2xu says:
    • DeniseVB says:

      I know the libertarians are happy because they’ve always supported individual rights to do whatever you want as long as it doesn’t affect me.

  17. Dora says:

    This is going too far. They have no right to fly this cloth at City Hall. What next – the White House?

    Gay Pride Flag Already In Place On New York’s City Hall To Celebrate SCOTUS Ruling

    • DeniseVB says:

      I’ll give them their day, just ONE day to celebrate, then enough 🙂

    • Anthony says:

      I hope so, Dora. It would be GREAT to see that flag flying at the WH for Pride Day. “They” have just as much a right as you do to celebrate a long overdue acknowledgment of equality.

  18. DeniseVB says:

  19. swanspirit says:

    So I am guessing here, but it seems “the letter of the law” has no more meaning.

  20. mothy67 says:

    I have never cared much about gay marriage. Just not a fundamental issue for me. Doesn’t mean I can’t see how it is important to someone else. Wish it were civil unions. I have enjoyed being a peculiar person. I don’t need my feelings validated by society. My family and friends matter, but they are welcome to disapprove. I am an adult(loose use of the term) if I choose to attend a funeral or a wedding of a relative that opposes same sex couples I do not make it about me. I am so sick of the term homophobia all the time. It means an irrational fear not I don’t like your lifestyle and I am sick of seeing it everytime I turn on the TV.
    Will there be a backlash? Roof a genuine racist was perhaps prodded on by the Ferguson/Treyvon artifice perpetuated by the media. Will a true homophobe snap because of relentless coverage. Redifining?

  21. helenk3 says:

    I am having a discussion with my youngest grand daughter on the ruling on gay marriage. I am trying to explain that LEGAL marriage is one thing, forcing religions to violate their beliefs is another. The separation of church and state is a very important part of this country. It seems to be under attack now and that is not good.

    • Anthony says:

      “The separation of church and state is a very important part of this country. “

      Agreed. And the separation of church and state will continue as it always was. I don’t believe that religions will be forced to violate their beliefs. Let’s not get hysterical about this….

      • lyn says:

        I agree with you, but will this empower people to bully Christians or Muslims who don’t support SSM?

      • helenk3 says:

        At one time I would have agreed with you, that it would not happen. Watching this country today , I am not too sure about that.
        Think bakeries, florists and other businesses that have lost the right to express their religious beliefs by not supplying same sex marriage

          • helenk3 says:

            Same sex marriage advocates won a major Supreme Court victory Friday when gay marriage was declared a constitutional right and the law of the land across all 50 states. Those of us who have already seen the left use the shield of gay rights as a sword to terrorize Christians and strip the Faithful of their First Amendment rights, have good reason to worry about the effect today’s ruling will further have on the erosion of our religious rights.

            The idea that Churches could lose their tax exempt status for refusing to perform same sex marriages is not some wild-eyed conspiracy. In his dissent today, Chief Justice John Roberts reminded the world that the no less than the Solicitor General of the United States “candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage.”

            Quote: “WOULD be in question.”

            Pro-gay marriage activists and politicians should all be required, for the record, to state their position on this issue. This means everyone from Hillary Clinton to local public officials to activists.

            This won’t be easy. The same mainstream media that loves to put Republicans in boxes, refuse to do the same with Democrats. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that the same Democrats who lied about their position on same sex marriage would not blithely lie in their answer on this crucial question of religious freedom.

        • Anthony says:

          Theres a difference between businesses and organized religions. Personally, I would respect the views of florists, bakers, etc. that have moral objections to any other kind of marriage besides opposite gender.

          On the other hand, what would happen to these businesses if they refused to provide their products for black people? Mixed marriages? White people? Jews? Christians?n Poor people? Rich people? I could go on if you get my drift.

          Here’s another way to ask your question: Do you think that a public business has the right to discriminate against someone because of race, class or creed?

  22. DeniseVB says:

    One of my favorite twit-peeps 😀

  23. DeniseVB says:

    Razor’s entire timeline is a must read ! LOL!

  24. Myiq2xu says:

    So I flipped on the television, saw Obama, flipped it off. Then I turned it off.

    Obama really feels the need to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral.


  25. DeniseVB says:

    • Dora says:

      Get in line? That order sounds more totalitarian to me.

    • Mary says:

      Wait til the African American churches that were very involved in the Prop 8 resolution in CA find out that not only are all those same-sex marriages now legit, but that the churches may be sued or may lose their tax-free status if they refuse to perform the marriage ceremony for any gays who request same.


  26. Dora says:

    There goes our free speech. The silencing has begun even sooner than I expected. 😦

    THE SILENCING: Paper Will Limit Anti-Gay Marriage Op-Eds

  27. Myiq2xu says:

  28. Myiq2xu says:

  29. piper says:

    Stolen from K. Marge

  30. Myiq2xu says:

    New thread up!

Comments are closed.