Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin) discussed the new ruling granting same-sex marriage in the U.S. on MSNBC’s “Up w/ Steve Kornacki.” She explained that, in her opinion, business owners should not be able to refuse to serve homosexuals on grounds of religious beliefs. Baldwin had a confusing logic to support her notion, though. After all, shouldn’t a business owner’s right to freedom of religion, enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution protect him from being forced to act counter to his faith?
Senator Baldwin had to do some crazy progressive gymnastics to bend her logic to fit, but she came up with an answer:
What a liberal idiot
There is NO cure for mad cow disease
remember what the bush man said about the cons$#%&!@*ution,,, it’s just a piece of paper.
If this is what she really said then she is dangerous and needs to be voted out of office before she becomes another Adolf $#%&!@*.
Looney Tune!!
Typical lying liberal derelict!
seh is so stupid but thats how they think
This lady should not be in public office.
I have two parts to my response so thanks for being patient in advance. The first part is a question and basically I want to know … Why do you make equality under the law sound like it’s going to lead to pedophiles, zoophiles, hell … To paraphrase you “anybody the right to marry who they please” when that is not the truth. Because consenting adult human males can get married to consenting adult human males, consenting adult human females can get married to consenting adult human females, and consenting adult human males can get married to consenting adult human females, all that means is that everyone in the United states of America are covered by the same rights, given by our government. Those rights and protections aren’t found in the cons$#%&!@*ution because every right and protection our government affords us, isn’t only located in the cons$#%&!@*ution. Which leads me to my second point. Defining marriage as “man and woman” (adults obviously) only by law, breaks the 1st and 14th amendment. The 1st is broken because since there isn’t a standard federally recognized religion, creating a law that uses religious beliefs denies the rights of everyone else who do not follow ‘re religion. Just because same sex marriage is now legal, doesn’t force any church to start performing religious ceremonies for people that don’t abide by that religions beliefs. It mainly says that legally, under the law of the land of the United States of America, if you get married your rights are the same if you are man and man, wife and wife, or man and wife. Also, ignoring the “spirit” of the cons$#%&!@*ution is a tough argument to make, since many men were given the task of creating and amending that do$#%&!@*ent which gives us all our freedoms. If that were the case, separation of church and state is a valid argument because Thomas Jefferson, one of those constructors, believed that the first amendment did say that very thing. Just remember religious freedom doesn’t mean religious dominance, even if the majority
In the 1950’s in God we trust was added because of the threat of communist. There fore the Constitution was changed. Our for fathers believed in each there own.
how the hell do you end up with so meney idiots in theses offices..