What the fuck are you talking about? My life?. You do not know a god damned thing about my life, and if you think that you do you're a moron.Stop your bitching and live your life. You chose it.
PS . A critical legal analysis is not bitching. YOU are bitchingStop your bitching and live your life. You chose it.
You are accurate on most of your post. However, your "Freedom from Religion" doesn't make the mustard. The 1st Amendment, as well as the others, limits the government from limiting the freedoms of people. Not people from people. It's saying to the government I have a right to freely exercise my religion and that the government cannot establish a government run and owned religion. Of course you have the right not to join a church or religion. But, you don't have the right force a church to not send out their missionaries and knock on your door if that is the way they exercise their religion.OK Slick. We're getting bogged down in bullshit now. I am going to give it to you straight. So simple even a religious bigot can understand.
1. Yes, the 1st Amendment assures your right to practice your religion freely and openly and to live according to the tenants thereof.
2. You are also assured the right to preach and to petition your lawmakers to enact laws that reflect your religious beliefs
3. However, if you succeed in getting said laws -that dictate how I should live based on your religious beliefs- passed, I have the right to challenge them as a violation of MY 1st amendment rights, and likely will prevail
4. While the 1st Amendment assures your freedom of religion, it also grants me the right of freedom FROM religion as it is just the other side of the same coin
5.The right to freedom of religion, like all rights, is not unlimited. It does not include a right to dictate to others how they should live their lives.
That is what Kim Davis tried to do and she was rightfully smacked down. She is entitled to her beliefs but she is not entitled to defy the courts.
6. It is worthy of note that throughout the protracted legal fight for marriage equality, the opposition presented numerous inane reasons for upholding the bans on same sex marriage. HOWEVER- although the motivation behind the bans included religious objections- no one EVER objected on religious grounds- as I recall. They never invoked god. They were smart enough to know that that would be a loosing proposition. Apparently they were smarter than you .
7 The finding that bans on same sex marriage were unconstitutional was based solid reasoning and constitutional law. Same sex couples were being denied due process and equal protection under the law .
Because gays have been historically discriminated against, and because marriage has been found to be a fundamental right ( as per previous court findings) Obergefell V. Hodges was afforded strict scrutiny, the highest level of judicial review.
That means that the states who were banning same sex marriage had to present a compelling governmental interest,
For the most part, they failed miserably as they ultimately did at the Supreme Court
My work is done here
I specifically said that you have the right to preach and that includes your missionaries. True, the Constitution does not restrict the actions of individuals, on those off the Government. BUT the only way that YOU can impose your religious beliefs on me is by force of law which would have to be enacted by the GOVERNMENT and as such is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You stile loseYou are accurate on most of your post. However, your "Freedom from Religion" doesn't make the mustard. The 1st Amendment, as well as the others, limits the government from limiting the freedoms of people. Not people from people. It's saying to the government I have a right to freely exercise my religion and that the government cannot establish a government run and owned religion. Of course you have the right not to join a church or religion. But, you don't have the right force a church to not send out their missionaries and knock on your door if that is the way they exercise their religion.
It's only Un-Constitutional if the Supreme Court says so. It's not in the Constitution. So, it's subjective whether the law based on religion is Un-Constitutional. Substantive Due Process is a liberal Marxist view of Due Process. In this case, she was working for the government and is under the government's rules. Had she been with a private group or Church to get a marriage license, she would have been within her rights.I specifically said that you have the right to preach and that includes your missionaries. True, the Constitution does not restrict the actions of individuals, on those off the Government. BUT the only way that YOU can impose your religious beliefs on me is by force of law which would have to be enacted by the GOVERNMENT and as such is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You stile lose
No it is not subjective. It is in the constitution. Yiu should know that. You are the one who brought up the first amendment. It seems that you only want to invoke the Amendment when it suits youIt's only Un-Constitutional if the Supreme Court says so. It's not in the Constitution. So, it's subjective whether the law based on religion is Un-Constitutional.
What in the name of fuck does that mean? Marxist? Really? Get a grip!Substantive Due Process is a liberal Marxist view of Due Process.
Thank you for admitting that she violated the constitution. She was also in contempt of court.In this case, she was working for the government and is under the government's rules.
There are religious exemptions for religious organizations but not for just any private organization- and those private organizations do not issue marriage licenses. She might get away with discrimination as an individual or employee of a private organization depending on the location as all states have not adopted laws against discrimination against LGBT people. But many states do have such laws and they have not been successfully challenged on constitutional grounds. So there we are right back where we started. The constitution prohibits discrimination on religious groundsHad she been with a private group or Church to get a marriage license, she would have been within her rights.
Thats right. Most of those sissies are muff divers.You and the other bigots seem to think more anal sex than gay men do. That would make you the pervert
Any Court that recognized Fag marriage is Contemptible.Thank you for admitting that she violated the constitution. She was also in contempt of court.
It does not say in the Constitution that there is a right against religion. It doesn't say that. So, it is subjective.No it is not subjective. It is in the constitution. Yiu should know that. You are the one who brought up the first amendment. It seems that you only want to invoke the Amendment when it suits you
People have that right as well to remain silent.Thank you for admitting that she violated the constitution. She was also in contempt of court.
This is still in the courts as well. Jackson was asked about the little sisters of the poor and Catholic hospitals with respect to abortion. The debate will go on and perhaps the people will finally get fed up enough with liberals and their agendas. Then, we will see a return to sanity and using our brains again.There are religious exemptions for religious organizations but not for just any private organization- and those private organizations do not issue marriage licenses. She might get away with discrimination as an individual or employee of a private organization depending on the location as all states have not adopted laws against discrimination against LGBT people. But many states do have such laws and they have not been successfully challenged on constitutional grounds. So there we are right back where we started. The constitution prohibits discrimination on religious grounds
You seem to be struggling to make a point but it is not at all clear what that point is. Do you know? Can you state it succinctly?
Well, marriage for same sex couples has in fact been recognized. Deal with it, or don't. No one really gives a shit about what you thinkAny Court that recognized Fag marriage is Contemptible.
Yes, religious exemptions are tricky business. However, Davis' case does not involve a religious exemption. I asked you to explain what point you're trying to make about Davis. You have not done that. It appears that you don't really have one.This is still in the courts as well. Jackson was asked about the little sisters of the poor and Catholic hospitals with respect to abortion. The debate will go on and perhaps the people will finally get fed up enough with liberals and their agendas. Then, we will see a return to sanity and using our brains again.
What is not in the Constitution? Go back and read the first amendment again. It is pretty clear. Not only do people have the right to the free exercise of religion, but religion may not be imposed on anyone either.It does not say in the Constitution that there is a right against religion. It doesn't say that. So, it is subjective.
WHAT!!?? Good grief!People have that right as well to remain silent.
Wow! Another burst of extreme intellectual clarity! I am so impressed!Thats right. Most of those sissies are muff divers.
