FINAL ULTIMATUM: On Guns and Same Sex Marriage

[emilynghiem]

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).

 

[saveliberty]

Marriage is religion based and the state wants separation, therefore, they should support same sex unions with civil unions.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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*****

 

[saveliberty]

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.

 

[bodecea]

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).

Let's give guns to married gay couples.

 

[bodecea]

Marriage is religion based and the state wants separation, therefore, they should support same sex unions with civil unions.

Marriage is NOT just religion based. If that were true, it would be required you get married in a religious institution.

 

[bodecea]

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*****

They don't sell them to ANYONE....If you had actually read and understood PA laws, you'd know that's not a violation.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

 

[saveliberty]

Marriage is religion based and the state wants separation, therefore, they should support same sex unions with civil unions.

Marriage is NOT just religion based. If that were true, it would be required you get married in a religious institution.

Religion is an institution, let me know when you are about to make a real point.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Marriage is religion based and the state wants separation, therefore, they should support same sex unions with civil unions.

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.

 

[BulletProof]

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

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.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

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.

 

[saveliberty]

Marriage is religion based and the state wants separation, therefore, they should support same sex unions with civil unions.

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.

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?

 

[saveliberty]

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.

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.

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.

 

[bodecea]

Marriage is religion based and the state wants separation, therefore, they should support same sex unions with civil unions.

Marriage is NOT just religion based. If that were true, it would be required you get married in a religious institution.

Religion is an institution, let me know when you are about to make a real point.

Show me were all marriages in this country have to be religious to be valid.

 

[saveliberty]

Marriage is religion based and the state wants separation, therefore, they should support same sex unions with civil unions.

Marriage is NOT just religion based. If that were true, it would be required you get married in a religious institution.

Religion is an institution, let me know when you are about to make a real point.

Show me were all marriages in this country have to be religious to be valid.

You can call the union whatever you want, doesn't make it a marriage.

 

[emilynghiem]

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*****

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?

 

[emilynghiem]

Marriage is religion based and the state wants separation, therefore, they should support same sex unions with civil unions.

Marriage is NOT just religion based. If that were true, it would be required you get married in a religious institution.

Religion is an institution, let me know when you are about to make a real point.

Show me were all marriages in this country have to be religious to be valid.

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.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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?

They don't sell them to ANYONE....If you had actually read and understood PA laws, you'd know that's not a violation.

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*****

 

[BulletProof]

[/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.