FINAL ULTIMATUM: On Guns and Same Sex Marriage

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

  1. BulletProof
    Offline

    BulletProof Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2017
    Messages:
    2,659
    Thanks Received:
    208
    Trophy Points:
    90
    Ratings:
    +1,417
    Liberal Democrats hate you. Their motivation has nothing to do with being reasonable or equitable. On their way to Hell, they want to cause others as much misery as they can. So, no deal.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. C_Clayton_Jones
    Online

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    46,988
    Thanks Received:
    10,064
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +30,511
    That depends on whether your jurisdiction’s public accommodations laws have a provision for sexual orientation.

    If they do and you refuse to accommodate a gay patron, you’ve exposed yourself to a civil suit – one you’d likely lose.

    In addition, the Supreme Court has held that religions beliefs are not ‘justification’ to ignore just and proper laws, nor are religious beliefs an ‘excuse’ for violating just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws.
     
  3. saveliberty
    Offline

    saveliberty Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    54,974
    Thanks Received:
    8,121
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +36,816
    From your cited case:

    "It must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned," writes Kennedy in a paragraph that will likely become the focus of scrutiny by church-state experts.

    "The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths," he continues, "and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered."

    Interesting that we have the right to EXERCISE our religious beliefs, but not if someone objects. Is it not an exercise of the baker's right,not to make the cake?
     
  4. saveliberty
    Offline

    saveliberty Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    54,974
    Thanks Received:
    8,121
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +36,816
    The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability. It makes only a weak gesture toward religious liberty in a single paragraph. And even that gesture indicates a misunderstanding of religious liberty in our Nation’s tradition.

    Religious liberty is about more than just the protection for “religious organizations and persons . . . as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.” Religious liberty is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally, and the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religious practice.

    "The majority today makes that impossible. By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas."

    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.
     
  5. bodecea
    Offline

    bodecea Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    115,195
    Thanks Received:
    13,397
    Trophy Points:
    2,180
    Location:
    #HasNoClothes
    Ratings:
    +38,940
    Show me were all marriages in this country have to be religious to be valid.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. saveliberty
    Offline

    saveliberty Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2009
    Messages:
    54,974
    Thanks Received:
    8,121
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +36,816
    You can call the union whatever you want, doesn't make it a marriage.
     
  7. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    19,699
    Thanks Received:
    2,728
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +7,128
    Dear Damaged Eagle:
    Clearly LGBT Liberals have been discriminating against these businesses
    by not seeking services from them. And suing them, too!

    Perhaps these Jews and Muslims should unite in national protest,
    and sue for being left out of these lawsuits like Christians are getting!!!

    Hey what about us?
    Why didn't you come to our bakeries and businesses
    and demand outrageous things against our beliefs?

    What kind of discrimination IS THIS?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    19,699
    Thanks Received:
    2,728
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +7,128
    Dear bodecea:
    You miss the point.
    Only the LEGAL CONTRACTS need to be validated through the govt.

    Not anything to do with marriage, and who we marry and what our choices are.

    To be SECULAR and NEUTRAL the govt should technically stay out of marriage
    laws, for the reasons you refer to, that govt SHOULD NOT be required to validate a marriage.
    Same with not endorsing baptisms, confirmations, communions, etc. through the state.

    We register birth and death certificates as NEUTRAL legal matters,
    but the baby showers and funeral services are not regulated.

    The whole point of sticking with civil unions and domestic partnership contracts
    is to keep govt out of the marriage part, so as you say, NOBODY tells anyone else
    what constitutes a valid marriage or not. The state should only be concerned
    with the legal issues of custody, guardianship, property, legal or business partnerships and terms, etc.

    That way bodecea once people have a partnership or legal guardianship
    agreement, this is independent of any social or gender relationship between them.
    It's about the legal agreement and responsibilities only, which any two parties can consent
    to as long as they are legally and mentally competent and of age of consent,
    and they agree to the contract, there is no fraud or misrepresentation involved that could void the contract.
     
  9. Damaged Eagle
    Offline

    Damaged Eagle Ride the wind Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2015
    Messages:
    9,746
    Thanks Received:
    13,744
    Trophy Points:
    2,445
    Location:
    Never coming back until I touch the midnight sun
    Ratings:
    +19,763
    [​IMG]

    They don't make LGBT cakes or sell them to anyone and if you read and understood PA laws you'd understand that's not a violation.

    *****CHUCKLE*****



    :)
     
  10. BulletProof
    Offline

    BulletProof Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2017
    Messages:
    2,659
    Thanks Received:
    208
    Trophy Points:
    90
    Ratings:
    +1,417
    [/QUOTE]
    They don't sell them to ANYONE....If you had actually read and understood PA laws, you'd know that's not a violation.[/QUOTE]

    Faggots want different-but-equal treatment, and they want the government to coerce others to that end.
     

Share This Page