Legal Quagmire: Hobby Lobby v Gay Marriage; Showdown at the SCOTUS Corral

[Silhouette]

A little ditty for the Justices to remember on this thread and ignoring two things last Friday's Ruling.

1. Children and their rights to a father and mother in marriage outweigh any other argument and

2. Gay is a behavior, not a static state or a race of people. Penal & civil codes are about behaviors, regulated locally. Where do you draw the line??

"Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive..."

The Supreme Court granted a landmark victory for religious liberty this morning, ruling that individuals do not lose their religious freedom when they open a family business. The court ruled 5-4 in favor of David and Barbara Green and their family business, Hobby Lobby ruling they do not have to violate their faith or pay severe fines. The Decision - The Hobby Lobby Case

And then the gay marriage Ruling June 26, 2015.

Can anyone see the problem?

The Court Ruled in Hobby Lobby that because of the Christian New Testament, the only teachings they are to follow religiously, Christians may opt out of certain services they provide. And I feel certain that when that other case makes it to the Court where the Christian was sued by gays to make her participate in their "gay wedding" she lost. When it makes it to the Court, she either has to win on appeal or the Court has to overturn Hobby Lobby.

So, she'll win. They just made that decision like what, two years ago? And they can't play favorites.

But this is where it gets really interesting. What the Court will have to affirm in that case is that a Christian may refuse to acknowledge gay weddings. That it's OK for them to opt out of acknowledging what the Court said yesterday was another person's "civil right".

Feeling chills yet? It gets better...

...legally, nobody is allowed to squelch another person's civil rights. It's a huge legal no-no and you can be sued for it it you try. And this is going to hit home first at adoption agencies. That's their very next goal and the ultimate prize for all this "gay marriage" hubbub anyway. The only thing missing in civil unions was they didn't allow them the legal wedge they needed to get at the orphans (enjoy the picture in my signature)

So, boiling it down to the bottom of the pan as I like to do, the SCOTUS has on the one hand, an affirmation of "gay marriage" as un undeniable civil right. On the other hand, the SCOTUS has on the Hobby Lobby Ruling, a statement that some people may violate this civil right if their religion says they can. The only way they can skirt around that would be for them to dictate which parts of the Bible a Christian may or may not follow. And in so doing they would declare themselves dominant to the Vatican. And I can surely see some loggerheads with that proclamation coming from Rome

Scraping even further down to the metal of the pan...

SCOTUS by so Saying, Says ultimately that it knows LGBT is a cult of behaviors and that it's legitimate for some to object to those. The question of behavior vs race, no matter how long Justice Kennedy and his pals want to put it off, will HAVE TO BE ANSWERED in the final showdown.

And why?

Because if some people are allowed to discriminate against gay marriage "as a civil right" then shouldn't the voters of the separate sovereign states have been allowed to do that to?

Enjoy! This one's going to be a very lively discussion...

(if there was such a thing as an annulment period on any Ruling, this might be the time to apply it. Wishful thinking I know but man is this situation going to snowball in a very unpleasant way. And the only thing I can see for sure in my crystal ball is that gross incompetance and lack of foresight and how judgments must be cast might result in a couple of Justices being impeached after 2016)

 

[bucs90]

Interesting.

Now...im waiting for liberals to start doing charity-marriages.

Marry a homeless person of the same sex just so they can get on their employers healthcare. Get him nice and healthy and on his feet then divorce him. And repeat the cycle.

Come on liberals...you can help the homeless and stick it to your boss all at once. You dont have to live with the man or anything. Just a quick court appearance....and you're married.

 

[Silhouette]

Here's one case:

Today the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that Christianphotographers cannot decline to participate in gay-marriage commitment ceremonies,even though that state does not have gay marriage and the court acknowledgedthat providing services for the ceremony violated the Christian’ssincerely-held, traditional religious beliefs. This becomes one of the firstmajor cases where religious liberty collides with gay rights, and could now goto the Supreme Court of the United States. New Mexico Court Christian Photographer Cannot Refuse Gay-Marriage Ceremony - Breitbart

And another:

DENVER – A gay couple is pursuing a discrimination complaint against a Colorado bakery, saying the business refused them a wedding cake to honor their Massachusetts ceremony, and alleging that the owners have a history of turning away same-sex couples.
As more states move to legalize same-sex marriage and civil unions, the case highlights a growing tension between gay rights advocates and supporters of religious freedom. Gay Colorado couple sues bakery for allegedly refusing them wedding cake Fox News

And another:

NEW YORK — Christian farm owners in upstate New York who declined a lesbian couple’s request to hold a wedding ceremony on their property have been fined $10,000 and ordered to pay the women $1,500 each. Farm owners fined for saying no to lesbian wedding - The Washington Post

And another (non American but coming our way soon)

Not fully satisfied with the British government’s approval of same-sex marriage, a homosexual duo in Britain has decided to go to court to force churches to perform “gay wedding” ceremonies...The Essex Chronicle reported Barrie and Tony Drewitt-Barlow, who signed up for a civil partnership in 2006, want now to get married in a church. Gays to sue church to perform marriage ceremonies

And another: (the one I believe on appeal...but there may be others..)

The ACLU then filed a civil suit after Stutzman ignored its demand that she apologize to the couple, donate $5,000 to a youth center affiliated with the gay community, and agree to sell flowers regardless of the sexual orientation of her customers.
“Because she refused to sell flowers to Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Freed for their wedding,” the ACLU’s website states, “defendant Barronelle Stutzman aided Arlene’s Flowers in violating the Washington Law Against Discrimination by discriminating against the Plaintiffs on the basis of their sexual orientation.” Flower shop sued for shunning gay wedding - NY Daily News

And another:

A couple in California, where their upcoming marriage will be legal, say they were denied service by a caterer because they're gay...planned venue in Big Bear, Calif., initially agreed. But several hours later, she sent an email expressing a change of heart because of her "Christian beliefs."...Kaina and Rivera have so far decided not to pursue legal action. California Caterer Refuses to Serve Gay Wedding Over Christian Beliefs Advocate.com

...For now...

 

[danielpalos]

A little ditty for the Justices to remember on this thread and ignoring two things last Friday's Ruling.

1. Children and their rights to a father and mother in marriage outweigh any other argument and

2. Gay is a behavior, not a static state or a race of people. Penal & civil codes are about behaviors, regulated locally. Where do you draw the line??

"Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive..."

The Supreme Court granted a landmark victory for religious liberty this morning, ruling that individuals do not lose their religious freedom when they open a family business. The court ruled 5-4 in favor of David and Barbara Green and their family business, Hobby Lobby ruling they do not have to violate their faith or pay severe fines. The Decision - The Hobby Lobby Case

And then the gay marriage Ruling June 26, 2015.

Can anyone see the problem?

The Court Ruled in Hobby Lobby that because of the Christian New Testament, the only teachings they are to follow religiously, Christians may opt out of certain services they provide. And I feel certain that when that other case makes it to the Court where the Christian was sued by gays to make her participate in their "gay wedding" she lost. When it makes it to the Court, she either has to win on appeal or the Court has to overturn Hobby Lobby.

So, she'll win. They just made that decision like what, two years ago? And they can't play favorites.

But this is where it gets really interesting. What the Court will have to affirm in that case is that a Christian may refuse to acknowledge gay weddings. That it's OK for them to opt out of acknowledging what the Court said yesterday was another person's "civil right".

Feeling chills yet? It gets better...

...legally, nobody is allowed to squelch another person's civil rights. It's a huge legal no-no and you can be sued for it it you try. And this is going to hit home first at adoption agencies. That's their very next goal and the ultimate prize for all this "gay marriage" hubbub anyway. The only thing missing in civil unions was they didn't allow them the legal wedge they needed to get at the orphans (enjoy the picture in my signature)

So, boiling it down to the bottom of the pan as I like to do, the SCOTUS has on the one hand, an affirmation of "gay marriage" as un undeniable civil right. On the other hand, the SCOTUS has on the Hobby Lobby Ruling, a statement that some people may violate this civil right if their religion says they can. The only way they can skirt around that would be for them to dictate which parts of the Bible a Christian may or may not follow. And in so doing they would declare themselves dominant to the Vatican. And I can surely see some loggerheads with that proclamation coming from Rome

Scraping even further down to the metal of the pan...

SCOTUS by so Saying, Says ultimately that it knows LGBT is a cult of behaviors and that it's legitimate for some to object to those. The question of behavior vs race, no matter how long Justice Kennedy and his pals want to put it off, will HAVE TO BE ANSWERED in the final showdown.

And why?

Because if some people are allowed to discriminate against gay marriage "as a civil right" then shouldn't the voters of the separate sovereign states have been allowed to do that to?

Enjoy! This one's going to be a very lively discussion...

(if there was such a thing as an annulment period on any Ruling, this might be the time to apply it. Wishful thinking I know but man is this situation going to snowball in a very unpleasant way. And the only thing I can see for sure in my crystal ball is that gross incompetance and lack of foresight and how judgments must be cast might result in a couple of Justices being impeached after 2016)

Hobby Lobby simply exemplifies preference for capitalists of wealth who may try to "make more rules" over capitalists of inferior wealth under any form of Capitalism; it is merely egregious under our form of Socialism.

 

[Katzndogz]

Christians are going to have to get far more creative in practicing their faith. This includes forming networks to support one another's commercial efforts.

Leftism has gone so far that opposing the left isn't good enough. The fabric of the nation needs to be unraveled. The underpinnings have to be knocked out.

An small act of rebellion every day by millions of people can have a big effect.

 

[theHawk]

Progressives already sided with forcing black bakers to make cakes for KKK and such.

As long as the government gets bigger and freedoms are taken away from individuals, progressives will be all for it.

 

[Silhouette]

Christians are going to have to get far more creative in practicing their faith. This includes forming networks to support one another's commercial efforts.

Leftism has gone so far that opposing the left isn't good enough. The fabric of the nation needs to be unraveled. The underpinnings have to be knocked out.

An small act of rebellion every day by millions of people can have a big effect.

Like I said in the OP, the only option the Court has left itself is to make redaction/annulment of parts of the Bible an American law, enforced by punishment for failure to abdicate.

And the Vatican might have something FINALLY to say about that...

You see, you dumb fucks, this is what happens when you mistake a false premise for a real one. BEHAVIORS ARE NOT RACE. But they were too afraid to bring that up. Might have caused an uncomfortable conversation. Better to trounce the Constitution than to have an uncomfortable conversation!

Half that Court aren't fit to wear their robes. Some should either step down or face impeachment for sheer incompetance. You have to be competant to be a US Supreme Court Justice. "Giving a pass" to what is obviuosly a false premise, and then basing conclusions off of a false premise has dire and rippling legal consequences. These idiots have created a legal quagmire the likes of which has the potential to suck the US Constitution down to its death.

That's what I'd say it is when the 1st Amendment now waits in line at the gallows...

 

[danielpalos]

Christians are going to have to get far more creative in practicing their faith. This includes forming networks to support one another's commercial efforts.

Leftism has gone so far that opposing the left isn't good enough. The fabric of the nation needs to be unraveled. The underpinnings have to be knocked out.

An small act of rebellion every day by millions of people can have a big effect.

Only the right doesn't seem to realize, that our supreme law of the land is more supreme than commandments of any religion.

 

[Silhouette]

Only the right doesn't seem to realize, that our supreme law of the land is more supreme than commandments of any religion.

So the 1st Amendment ISN'T "the Supreme Law of the Land"? Since when? What is the supreme law of the land in its place? The cult of LGBT?

 

[danielpalos]

Progressives already sided with forcing black bakers to make cakes for KKK and such.

Aslong as the government gets bigger and freedoms are taken away from individuals, progressives will be all for it.

Just the Right being disingenuous as usual. Which rights are being taken from Individuals as Merchants in Commerce via public accommodation.

The right is welcome to go not-for-profit in order to ask for any form of exemption to Public accommodation.

 

[danielpalos]

Christians are going to have to get far more creative in practicing their faith. This includes forming networks to support one another's commercial efforts.

Leftism has gone so far that opposing the left isn't good enough. The fabric of the nation needs to be unraveled. The underpinnings have to be knocked out.

An small act of rebellion every day by millions of people can have a big effect.

Like I said in the OP, the only option the Court has left itself is to make redaction/annulment of parts of the Bible an American law, enforced by punishment for failure to abdicate.

And the Vatican might have something FINALLY to say about that...

You see, you dumb fucks, this is what happens when you mistake a false premise for a real one. BEHAVIORS ARE NOT RACE. But they were too afraid to bring that up. Might have caused an uncomfortable conversation. Better to trounce the Constitution than to have an uncomfortable conversation!

Half that Court aren't fit to wear their robes. Some should either step down or face impeachment for sheer incompetance. You have to be competant to be a US Supreme Court Justice. "Giving a pass" to what is obviuosly a false premise, and then basing conclusions off of a false premise has dire and rippling legal consequences. These idiots have created a legal quagmire the likes of which has the potential to suck the US Constitution down to its death.

That's what I'd say it is when the 1st Amendment now waits in line at the gallows...

Only one set of "morals" is supreme in our republic; they include our Ten Amendments.

 

[Silhouette]

Progressives already sided with forcing black bakers to make cakes for KKK and such.

Aslong as the government gets bigger and freedoms are taken away from individuals, progressives will be all for it.

Just the Right being disingenuous as usual. Which rights are being taken from Individuals as Merchants in Commerce via public accommodation.

The right is welcome to go not-for-profit in order to ask for any form of exemption to Public accommodation.

So, long story short, you believe people don't have 1st Amendment rights to the exercise of freedom of religion in all aspects of their daily lives?

ie: you believe the wording or the totality of the 1st Amendment should be changed or eradicated from the Constitution.

Only one set of "morals" is supreme in our republic; they include our Ten Amendments.

Just not the 1st Amendment though, right?

 

[Silhouette]

Well danny boy? Does your moral reverence extend to the 1st Amendment or not?

 

[danielpalos]

Only the right doesn't seem to realize, that our supreme law of the land is more supreme than commandments of any religion.

So the 1st Amendment ISN'T "the Supreme Law of the Land"? Since when? What is the supreme law of the land in its place? The cult of LGBT?

Not sure what you mean; our 1st Amendment has less standing than Article 4, Section 2 in Public accommodations.

 

[danielpalos]

Progressives already sided with forcing black bakers to make cakes for KKK and such.

Aslong as the government gets bigger and freedoms are taken away from individuals, progressives will be all for it.

Just the Right being disingenuous as usual. Which rights are being taken from Individuals as Merchants in Commerce via public accommodation.

The right is welcome to go not-for-profit in order to ask for any form of exemption to Public accommodation.

So, long story short, you believe people don't have 1st Amendment rights to the exercise of freedom of religion in all aspects of their daily lives?

ie: you believe the wording or the totality of the 1st Amendment should be changed or eradicated from the Constitution.

Only one set of "morals" is supreme in our republic; they include our Ten Amendments.

Just not the 1st Amendment though, right?

Yes, including our 1st Amendment; the Right merely doesn't know how to apply it to moral Standing in Public accommodations.

 

[danielpalos]

Well danny boy? Does your moral reverence extend to the 1st Amendment or not?

Well, Sil-y girl; You are begging the question of moral Standing in secular and temporal and Public accommodations.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, including our 1st Amendment; the Right merely doesn't know how to apply it to moral Standing in Public accommodations.

Well that's the gist of this thread isn't it? And the quagmire the SCOTUS has to sort out.

How would you solve it? Specifically...if you were a Justice writing that Opinion?

 

[Silhouette]

Oh danny boy? Let's hear how you'd handle writing that Opinion. Pretend you're Kennedy because he seems to be God on all these highly impactful decisions anyway..

 

[Silhouette]

Actually I was hoping to see dcraelin's thoughts on the OP. Think I'll go invite him here..

 

[Silhouette]

Hobby Lobby is going to interfere with LGBT cult hopes.