FINAL ULTIMATUM: On Guns and Same Sex Marriage

Discussion in 'US Constitution' started by emilynghiem, Mar 18, 2018.

  1. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    19,832
    Thanks Received:
    2,754
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +7,224
    Okay, now that parallel arguments have come up in both cases of
    1. arguing over Gun Rights which are WRITTEN in the Constitution
    2. arguing over Marriage Rights being "created by judicial ruling" and thus still contested
    as not created by law through any legislature

    Can we agree on THESE points at least

    A. It is unconstitutional for govt to pass laws BANNING either guns or marriage (including same sex marriage)
    where this deprives law abiding citizens from their BELIEFS in exercising their RIGHTS to these

    B. Aside from BANNING these through govt (which by point A is unconstitutional
    unless all affected citizens agree and NONE of their beliefs are violated),
    INDIVIDUAL people and businesses CAN CHOOSE whether to recognize or engage in provisions of goods and services regarding EITHER guns or marriage (including same sex marriage).

    Since Govt cannot be abused either to prohibit or establish religion/beliefs,
    then BELIEFS about gun rights and marriage rights CAN BE CLAIMED under the First Amendment.

    Thus A is true in both cases, and govt cannot ban the free exercise of BELIEFS by law abiding citizens
    (whether regarding gun rights or marriage rights);
    and also B is true, that govt cannot regulate or penalize PRIVATE individuals or businesses
    for exercising their beliefs about these either.

    NOTE: What people don't want with the gun business, is for these to get abused for crime by either people with criminal intent, or mental/criminal illness or disorder, or by negligence.
    The arguments remain as to how to write laws to pinpoint and affect just THOSE cases
    WITHOUT depriving LAW ABIDING CITIZENS who have no criminal intent, disorders or negligence issues
    of their gun rights "because of the crimes of other people."

    Can we agree that it is unconstitutional for the State to BAN the right to bear arms from people without due process to prove criminal problem or negligence; but that INDIVIDUALS and BUSINESSES have freedom of choice to exercise their beliefs about buying or selling guns so they can avoid negligence if guns gets abused.

    Preventing the State from BANNING guns or depriving law abiding citizens of liberty without due process
    is one thing, can we agree this is unconstitutional for the state to go that far.

    But it's another thing to FORCE people or businesses to sell guns to someone if they don't believe in that.

    This is similar to the arguments made about marriage,
    that it's one thing for the State to BAN same sex marriage when some people believe in this practice,
    but it's another thing to force INDIVIDUAL people or businesses to engage in designing or serving
    cakes or other products that require them to participate in same sex marriage rituals against their beliefs.

    NOTE: If you have an issue with gun rights being written specifically in Constitutional laws, while marriage rights are not, I'm saying that by treating these as BELIEFS under free exercise of religion, then neither can be banned by govt in the first place, whether or not these rights exist by law, by nature, or by belief alone.

    So this argument based on defending them both as beliefs DOES NOT DEPEND on them being written in laws in order to treat them as something Govt cannot prohibit. If your issue is that one is written and another is not, can you count that I AGREE with that, and then focus on these two points A and B, if we can agree on THOSE?

    Thank you, please comment on whether points A and B apply to both cases (even though there are additional arguments and issues not covered by either one, yes I recognize that gun safety and how to address that without violating constitutional rights is a separate concern not addressed here).
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. saveliberty
    Offline

    saveliberty Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    56,096
    Thanks Received:
    8,337
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +38,240
    Marriage is religion based and the state wants separation, therefore, they should support same sex unions with civil unions.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. Damaged Eagle
    Online

    Damaged Eagle Ride the wind Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2015
    Messages:
    9,970
    Thanks Received:
    14,114
    Trophy Points:
    2,445
    Location:
    Never coming back until I touch the midnight sun
    Ratings:
    +20,329
    [​IMG]

    Why are Muslim and Jewish restaurants and food markets allowed to not sell pork products?

    Isn't that a violation of my culture if I want to have a nice side of ham or bacon?

    *****CHUCKLE*****



    :)
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  4. saveliberty
    Offline

    saveliberty Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    56,096
    Thanks Received:
    8,337
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +38,240
    Common sense has to enter the gay wedding thing at some point. A photographer might consider a nude wedding, porn, should he be forced to participate by taking pictures? As a landscaper, should I be forced to mow lawns when I specialize in planting trees or building paver walks? If I make an exception and mow the lawn of an elderly long time client, does that mean I have to mow for anyone who asks? On the other hand, what religious issues are created by a gay couple wanting me to build a paver walk? As far as cakes go, up until there are objectionable objects, pictures or words placed on the cake, I think the cake maker has to make it. The objectionable part can be completed by someone who is comfortable with that. If you make the best tasting cake in town, why wouldn't a person want that at their wedding? Take personal responsibility for objectionable parts and make other arrangements.
     
  5. bodecea
    Offline

    bodecea Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    118,443
    Thanks Received:
    13,693
    Trophy Points:
    2,180
    Location:
    #HasNoClothes
    Ratings:
    +41,049
    Let's give guns to married gay couples.
     
  6. bodecea
    Offline

    bodecea Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    118,443
    Thanks Received:
    13,693
    Trophy Points:
    2,180
    Location:
    #HasNoClothes
    Ratings:
    +41,049
    Marriage is NOT just religion based. If that were true, it would be required you get married in a religious institution.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. bodecea
    Offline

    bodecea Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    118,443
    Thanks Received:
    13,693
    Trophy Points:
    2,180
    Location:
    #HasNoClothes
    Ratings:
    +41,049
    They don't sell them to ANYONE....If you had actually read and understood PA laws, you'd know that's not a violation.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    48,066
    Thanks Received:
    10,242
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +31,906
    The thread premise fails as it attempts to address as one ‘issue’ three different Constitutional principles all having nothing to do with the other.

    The banning of all handguns is un-Constitutional consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

    The right to marry is recognized by the 14th Amendment, prohibiting the states from denying classes of persons access to state marriage law because of race or sexual orientation.

    Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional as authorized by the Commerce Clause, in no manner ‘violating’ religious liberty.

    Moreover, the right to marry was not created by ‘judicial ruling'; as with other rights, the right to marry has always existed, a right protected by the 14th Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.

    The notion that the right to marry was created by ‘judicial ruling’ is as ridiculous as saying the right of the individual to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense was created by ‘judicial ruling’ simply because the words ‘individual’ and ‘self-defense’ are not in the text of the Second Amendment.

    The right to possess a firearm and the right to marry are both written specifically in the Constitution as determined by the Supreme Court.

    And the authority of states and local jurisdictions to regulate public accommodations is likewise written specifically in the Constitution as determined by the Supreme Court.

    We need to agree that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. saveliberty
    Offline

    saveliberty Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    56,096
    Thanks Received:
    8,337
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +38,240
    Religion is an institution, let me know when you are about to make a real point.
     
  10. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    48,066
    Thanks Received:
    10,242
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +31,906
    Incorrect.

    Marriage is contract law written by the states and administered by state courts – separate and apart from marriage as religious dogma.

    That’s why Obergefell applies solely to the states and local jurisdictions; private religious entities remain at liberty to refuse to accommodate same-sex couples with regard to religious marriage rituals.
     

Share This Page