- Joined
- Jun 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,657
- Reaction score
- 8,454
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Forgive me for snipping your post. All of it was interesting but that stands out for me. I'm not willing to bet my mortgage payment that your statement is correct. I don't think it's quite as simple as you make it out to be, and I'll venture to guess I'm not alone in that thinking. Unless religious exemption is guaranteed forever, this is debatable, IMO.
It is called the 1st Amendment. I am a man in a same sex marriage, and I would personally fight any attempt to force a church that does not want to perform a same sex marriage to do so by the state. I even posted a thread on this forum not too long ago asking if a church should be required to perform same sex marriages even if they were made legal nationwide, and 98% of the posters in that thread agreed they should not. Nobody thinks this way but paranoid conservatives.
Because those laws violated equal protection. The U.S is the 21st country to legalize SSM, it is not like we are blazing any new ground with this. You can always join ISIS and throw gays off buildings if that is your thing.
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
-Judge Bazile in Loving v. Virginia
History does not seem to agree with you.
You are very clearly moving the goal posts. You went from "churches will be forced to marry same sex couples" to "churches will be forced to allow their facilities, which are generally open to the public, to be used by same sex couples." That is quite a different argument. I do not know if the latter case will occur, and I hope nobody is petty enough to make it an issue, but we shall see. Regardless, since you will not admit it, I will state it for you...churches will not be required to marry same sex couples. Case closed.
According to the Supreme Court, we are.
If you only care about gay marriage being forced on the States, and you don't give a crap that the federal just took power that it is not granted by the Constitution, it's just dandy. If you are not all that enamored with tyranny and going further down that road than ever before, not so much.
Geezus, thanks for calling me a paranoid conservative. I'm not, and that's pretty goddamn rude.
Forgive me for snipping your post. All of it was interesting but that stands out for me. I'm not willing to bet my mortgage payment that your statement is correct. I don't think it's quite as simple as you make it out to be, and I'll venture to guess I'm not alone in that thinking. Unless religious exemption is guaranteed forever, this is debatable, IMO.
What religious belief have churches been forced to adopt? They're the only place that can still get away with racial discrimination.
Uh, no. I'd consider myself conservative in a lot of ways. I didn't lose anything today.
You must confuse "conservative" with "religious". They aren't the same thing. And remember, 7 short years ago, Barack Obama believed marriage was between a man and a woman. He probably still does, but he's no fool. He won't get away with making that statement anymore.
Geezus, thanks for calling me a paranoid conservative. I'm not, and that's pretty goddamn rude.
The court did not deny religious freedom. They banned states from discriminating against consenting adults who wish to marry.
I am sorry, but the only people who seem to bring up the "churches will be required to marry same sex couples" argument are those who are trying to fear monger. I just do not see any evidence in reality to support that idea. Not to mimic Voltaire, but I would die to defend the right of a church to not perform same sex marriages. The 1st Amendment is that important to me. I think most Americans feel the same.
you should get use to it seel alito's dissent that I posted.
Alito notes:
The majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected. We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.
they already do this now.
nope your distortion of the argument is noted.
nothing in there protects church or pastors from lawsuits.
as stated before pastors act in the power of the state to sign marriage licenses. it would be very easy for them to be sued for not marrying a gay couple.
churches offer their buildings to all sorts of outside events from garage sales to bake sales etc for different things. marriages and funerals.
again technically all churches are open to anyone that wants to enter. they can easily be sued under public accomidation laws.
nothing in the ruling protect freedom of religion. it will have to work it's way through the court system.
Well, maybe.
"Movements" don't stop moving just because they achieved their primary goal; they never say "Ok, we won, we're good now. Go home and be happy." Heh, no. They get in the habit of pushing for things (and some people get in the habit of making a comfy living by being a vocal spokesperson of the movement, ahem) so they tend to find more things to pitch a bitch fit about and continue generating news and consuming bandwidth for at least another generation. :doh:
Eh, we'll see... :shrug:
I don't remember saying that churches have been forced to adopt any religious beliefs. Where did I say that?
Isn't it weird that you can consider expanding the privileges and rights of other citizens to be tyranny?
Enjoy your witch hunt.
I'll be over at the Tiki bar drinking margaritas and Belgian ale.
nope not fear mongering at all. it is just a matter of time.
Oh, you are so close to catching on! But, let me brake it down for you, since you are confused, which is a key to how it all works.
Now, I don't actually don't consider expanding rights to be tyranny. In fact, I consider the government taking power that it is not allowed or granted to have by the Constitution to be a form of tyranny. The throwing of the bone to force gay marriage on the states seems like a freedom to the easily deceived. Helps when there are so many that are willing to swallow that bone.
Oh, you are so close to catching on! But, let me brake it down for you, since you are confused, which is a key to how it all works.
Now, I don't actually don't consider expanding rights to be tyranny. In fact, I consider the government taking power that it is not allowed or granted to have by the Constitution to be a form of tyranny. The throwing of the bone to force gay marriage on the states seems like a freedom to the easily deceived. Helps when there are so many that are willing to swallow that bone.
"You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate" - some idiot senator from arkansas
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?