what is a fundamental right?......
there are fundamental laws.
The Organic Laws /fundamental law of the United States of America can be found in Volume One of the United States Code which contains the General and Permanent Laws of the United States. U.S. Code (2007)[1] defines the organic laws of the United States of America to include the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, and the Constitution of September 17, 1787.
if there are fundamental rights?...then they have to be natural or civil, .....because the constitution does not cover the word fundamental
Businesses do not perform ceremonies, people do. And it has held pretty firm for the last couple hundred years that no one can force another person to perform a ceremony for someone else unless the person performing the "ceremony" is being paid by the government.
And one of the problems we have is that this is a matter of someone's rights vs another's (actually two people's, as of right now) rights being in conflict. The details are what will determine whether the person is "forced" to perform the ceremony or not. With our laws and the Constitution, the only person who can be forced to solemnize a marriage between two people they might not agree with would be a JOP, and it would not necessarily be a ceremony (in fact, it wouldn't likely be a ceremony at all, but I have no idea really how a JOP works marriages). And the reason the JOP would be forced to do it (at least sign the marriage license, because really that is the only thing that legally matters when it comes to the legal involvement of the third most important person on the marriage license, that they sign it signifying only that the couple are consenting on their own to the marriage) would be because they are essentially state employees that maintain this responsibility for the state.
This post shows either willful gross ingnorance or purposeful deception. There is such a thing is a fundamental rights. The Constitution does not mention but the Supreme Court does. Like or not, agree with it or not we live in a Common Law country. We do not live in a Civil Law society. Our laws are not just based off of what is codified but also on what is ruled by our judges. You may not like it but that does not matter. What matters is that we do live in a Common Law country. The Supreme Court has stated that there is such a thing as a fundamental right ergo there is such a thing as a fundamental right. Your opinions on the matter not withstatnding. If you deny this then you are not living a factual truthful world and there is no point in discussing the issue with you.
There seems to be some major confusion here.
`
1) "Natural Rights" is a theory (see: philosophy), not a legal prescription or a statutory requirement. It is NOT directly mentioned in the US Constitution or Bill of Rights.
2) The idea of human rights is also closely and philosophically related to that of natural rights, but was also not mentioned. (Source)
3) The word "Privileges" as mentioned in The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution meaning was decided by SCOTUS in its 1869 decision, to wit;
"It was undoubtedly the object of the clause in question to place the citizens of each State upon the same footing with citizens of other States, so far as the advantages resulting from citizenship in those States are concerned. It relieves them from the disabilities of alienage in other States; it inhibits discriminating legislation against them by other States; it gives them the right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them; it insures to them in other States the same freedom possessed by the citizens of those States in the acquisition and enjoyment of property and in the pursuit of happiness; and it secures to them in other States the equal protection of their laws"- Source
There are no such things as "legal privileges", unless you have your own personal definition of the US Constitution.
No. Not at all. Your argument literally makes no sense. Its just typing in all caps a originalist arguments (many of which have been upheld opposite directions by the USSSC).
well its the same as hetero sexual marriage so are you concerned that some 1 might be forced to marry an opposite sex couple? if not theirs no need to worry about ssm
wrong....their are business in las veges, who preform marriages...that's all they do!
my whole argument, ..statement is....if marriage is a right.....be it natural of civil....can it force people to do things against their will?
`natural rights are in the DOI.........THE DOI....IS US. CODE.........IT IS LAW!....book 1 page 1civil rights...are privileges...or legal rights dispensed by governments.......those rights can change.......natural rights do not change
tell me where the founders state there is a fundamental right....
tell me where they talk about human rights.......
the constitution deals in natural rights, and privileges that is all.
Again you are either willfully and grossly ignorant or purposefully being decietful. We do not live in a Civil Law society. We live in a Common Law society. The founders were quite clear that they preferred Common Law to Civil Law. If you don't know the difference then educate yourself. It does not matter whether or not the Constitution mentions Fundamental Rights. The Supreme Court has ruled that Fundamental Rights exist. Since we, at least those of us who dwell in reality, live in a Common Law society it matters not just what is codify but how the courts interpret codified law. Ergo, whether you like it or not, whether you beleive or not, Fundamental Rights are a legal fact in the country. To deny that is to live in fantasy land.
That is still people performing those ceremonies. Those performing the ceremonies still have to be ordained by some religious sect, or they are simply JOPs. I think this would definitely be a special case, however, in all likelihood, this isn't going to be an issue to begin with since it isn't really the major denominations that allow such "drive thru weddings" to occur, so those who are ordained for those places, are likely already held to a non-discrimination policy as part of their contract in working at that job anyway. But you could have a minister who simply wanted to do weddings and make money from it. We'll just have to wait and see.
Now, that being said, it seems also reasonable that the owner of such a wedding chapel could set a policy of nondiscrimination in their own business, meaning that although the law allows for individual ministers to turn down ceremonies of their choosing (due to the 1st Amendment), the policy of the chapel could be that a minister has to perform a wedding for whatever couples or there has to be an alternative minister immediately available or the minister could be fired.
In reality, this potential problem exists now. There are people who do not approve of interracial marriages, interfaith marriages, marriages after divorce, blending families, and many other marriage types. So the potential exists already for these questions so the question is how do they deal with these things now?
People are forced to do things all the time that still involve rights. You have a right to remain silent and yet you can be found in contempt of court for refusing to reveal information about something someone else did and/or said. You have a right to not associate with others, in your private life. In reality, if you deal with the public at all, even on your business property, you still will have to associate with some people you may otherwise not wish to associate with due to the laws governing business.
`
"unless you have your own personal definition of the US Constitution"
i only to break it down as close as i can come to my question......
does the ability/right to engage in a SSM...... also have the ability to force another person... business...to perform a ceremony for the SSM couple?
You know better to ask such an open-ended question.
what person? my barber?
what business...Brake check?
really, show me, where the founders state you have fundamental rights.......
i see in the constitution..natural rights, and privileges..nothing else.
You are not dealing with reality. Do you or do you not acknowledge we live in a Common Law society?
`When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.<-----happiness translates into property natural rights...are life....liberty and property.........5th amendment-
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.14th amendment- Section 1.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.
`
Thanks for the quotes and your opinion on what you think the law means but, I'll pass. You haven't distinguished yourself as someone trained or educated in jurisprudence.
Prior to 2004, same-sex civil marriage was not recognized in any U.S. jurisdiction. Now, 18 states do and the number is growing. Baring a SCOTUS ruling, many feel by 2020, a majority of states will recognize it and force an amendment to make it a federal law.
Things are looking good for the future in regards to the right for same sex marriage.
`what have i say already in this thread.........i come from a constitutional stand point......not reality...reality is not constitutional law. and i still have not received an answer to a question i have asked many times....from several people.
reality, is not constitutional law.
what have i say already in this thread.........i come from a constitutional stand point......not reality...reality is not constitutional law.
and i still have not received an answer to a question i have asked many times....from several people.
`
To quote Louis Armstrong; If you had to ask the question, you ain't never gonna know the answer.
***hint***Trying to debate someone while simultaneously admitting you don't beleive in reality does not strengthen your position but obliterates whatever point you are trying to make.
Take the red pill and call me in the morning.
Have fun in fantasy land.
i only to break it down as close as i can come to my question......
does the ability/right to engage in a SSM...... also have the ability to force another person... business...to perform a ceremony for the SSM couple?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?