Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[Syriusly]

What is left is limited. The Supreme Court has substituted its own fads for the law and the sycophants who vote Hillary have decided they are beyond even criticism much less being subject to any check or balance.
There are alternatives. Or should be. But it should be recognized than none of them will be allowed. For instance a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage licenses. Or a convention of the states. But would it do any good? If you found men with the courage to to do that and and restricted marriage to what the people wanted you have seen the way language is twisted.
If the people passed a constitutional amendment saying only one man and one woman would be recognized as married within a few years the Supreme Court would rule that a man has the freedom to call himself a woman and so get married under those auspices. Probably it is in the 14th amendment hidden and waiting.

The British are now finding out that voting for Brexit was a sham. Welcome to our world.

Welcome to our world- where Americans can now marry regardless of the color or gender of their spouse.

Yep- America is great.

 

[DOTR]

Maybe tomorrow we will Make America great Again...or maybe it will just be the beginning of a long fight to do so.

 

[DOTR]

"So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves....With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.
Justice Scalia

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And prohibiting private persons from using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.

Again C_Clayton_Jones this is what the Christians are arguing the LGBT are doing and abusing govt for:
when laws are enforced FORCING Bakers or Photographers to attend gay weddings
and to FINE and PENALIZE them by law for discrimination for seeking to defend and practice their beliefs not to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs,
that is
private persons ... using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.

You still don’t understand.

And once again you’re confusing two different legal principles, one having nothing to do with the other.

The Commerce Clause authorizes government to enact necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures with regard to the markets, to ensure the integrity of the markets, and all other interrelated markets (Wickard v. Filburn).

Public accommodations laws are an example of necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US).

State and local public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation in no way ‘violate’ the rights or religious liberties of Christians or any other faith; and Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence has never sanctioned citizens ignoring or violating just and proper laws using religious expression as an ‘excuse’ or ‘justification’ – requiring citizens to follow just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws, does not interfere with religious liberty (Employment Division v. Smith).

Consequently, you’ve confused 14th Amendment jurisprudence with Commerce Clause jurisprudence – the former an example of government restriction in accordance with the Constitution, the latter an example of government regulation authorized by the Constitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Maybe tomorrow we will Make America great Again...or maybe it will just be the beginning of a long fight to do so.

Nonsense.

America is currently great – no need for ‘again.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What is left is limited. The Supreme Court has substituted its own fads for the law and the sycophants who vote Hillary have decided they are beyond even criticism much less being subject to any check or balance.
There are alternatives. Or should be. But it should be recognized than none of them will be allowed. For instance a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage licenses. Or a convention of the states. But would it do any good? If you found men with the courage to to do that and and restricted marriage to what the people wanted you have seen the way language is twisted.
If the people passed a constitutional amendment saying only one man and one woman would be recognized as married within a few years the Supreme Court would rule that a man has the freedom to call himself a woman and so get married under those auspices. Probably it is in the 14th amendment hidden and waiting.

The British are now finding out that voting for Brexit was a sham. Welcome to our world.

No, the settled and accepted case law the Supreme Court follows is not a ‘fad.’

 

[Syriusly]

"So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves....With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.
Justice Scalia

View attachment 97320

thanks for posting the statement of one of the losing arguments.

 

[Syriusly]

Maybe tomorrow we will Make America great Again...or maybe it will just be the beginning of a long fight to do so.

Poor bigots- Americans can marry regardless of their race or gender- and now you think America is not great.

 

[Tennyson]

And prohibiting private persons from using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.

Again C_Clayton_Jones this is what the Christians are arguing the LGBT are doing and abusing govt for:
when laws are enforced FORCING Bakers or Photographers to attend gay weddings
and to FINE and PENALIZE them by law for discrimination for seeking to defend and practice their beliefs not to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs,
that is
private persons ... using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.

You still don’t understand.

And once again you’re confusing two different legal principles, one having nothing to do with the other.

The Commerce Clause authorizes government to enact necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures with regard to the markets, to ensure the integrity of the markets, and all other interrelated markets (Wickard v. Filburn).

Public accommodations laws are an example of necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US).

State and local public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation in no way ‘violate’ the rights or religious liberties of Christians or any other faith; and Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence has never sanctioned citizens ignoring or violating just and proper laws using religious expression as an ‘excuse’ or ‘justification’ – requiring citizens to follow just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws, does not interfere with religious liberty (Employment Division v. Smith).

Consequently, you’ve confused 14th Amendment jurisprudence with Commerce Clause jurisprudence – the former an example of government restriction in accordance with the Constitution, the latter an example of government regulation authorized by the Constitution.

The commerce clause does not authorize anything other than to make commerce between the states regular. The founders were explicit regarding the difference between interstate and intrastate commerce. The entire impetus for amending the Articles of Confederation, which led to creating a new document, regarding onerous taxes on land-locked states imposed by states with waterways and ports. Intrastate commerce was not under the purview of the federal government, and nothing other than making the commerce between the states fair and regular was discussed by anyone who created the Constitution.

Wickard v. Filburn is the result of FDR threatening the pack the court and the ruling in Filburn would have made Hitler, Stalin, and currently, Putin very proud. The ruling was an abomination and went against everything the Constitution represents.

Public accommodation laws are not an example of the necessary and proper clause. That clause only gave Congress limited and enumerated power to carry out the enumerated powers and nothing more. The commerce clause and its intent have no jurisdiction over any business within a state. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. violated the purpose and soul of the Fifth Amendment.

The free exercise clause has no authority over the citizen of any state ignoring or violating any law. The right of conscience always prevailed over any law until twentieth century activist courts changed the intent.

You keep bringing up jurisprudence but never the intent. Again, is the Constitution common law?

 

[Tennyson]

Maybe tomorrow we will Make America great Again...or maybe it will just be the beginning of a long fight to do so.

Nonsense.

America is currently great – no need for ‘again.’

What is great about a country that is as bitterly divided as the U.S is today because of activist courts turning our written Constitution into a living constitution? The division is not resolvable. A perfunctory glance since recorded history began has demonstrated that the U.S. in its current state is not sustainable as a country.

 

[emilynghiem]

And prohibiting private persons from using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.

Again C_Clayton_Jones this is what the Christians are arguing the LGBT are doing and abusing govt for:
when laws are enforced FORCING Bakers or Photographers to attend gay weddings
and to FINE and PENALIZE them by law for discrimination for seeking to defend and practice their beliefs not to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs,
that is
private persons ... using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.

You still don’t understand.

And once again you’re confusing two different legal principles, one having nothing to do with the other.

The Commerce Clause authorizes government to enact necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures with regard to the markets, to ensure the integrity of the markets, and all other interrelated markets (Wickard v. Filburn).

Public accommodations laws are an example of necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US).

State and local public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation in no way ‘violate’ the rights or religious liberties of Christians or any other faith; and Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence has never sanctioned citizens ignoring or violating just and proper laws using religious expression as an ‘excuse’ or ‘justification’ – requiring citizens to follow just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws, does not interfere with religious liberty (Employment Division v. Smith).

Consequently, you’ve confused 14th Amendment jurisprudence with Commerce Clause jurisprudence – the former an example of government restriction in accordance with the Constitution, the latter an example of government regulation authorized by the Constitution.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
YES THEY DO because 'sexual orientation' is FAITH BASED
Not EVERYONE believes in recognizing that, they don't agree
if it's natural unnatural, or both in distinct cases, a choice of behavior or not, etc.
So the beliefs about that remain FAITH BASED and can't be legislated
by govt where it violates the beliefs of others.

Trying to protect this as a special category is like trying to protect
someone's preference of prayer or denomination that is FAITH BASED.

The right wing who BELIEVE that this is BEHAVIOR and CHOICE
ARE BEING IMPOSED UPON.

So if people AGREE to protect BELIEFS about orientation as a CREED,
that is equal to protecting beliefs about prayer and Christian expression as a CREED or BELIEF.

How you EXPRESS your orientation and how people react to your expression
is the same as how people EXPRESS their beliefs about prayer or denomination
and how people react to that expression.

I'd be okay if Christians and others AGREE that if you are going
to create special laws to defend "orientation" and expression of that,
then the same laws OUGHT to defend denomination and expression of other beliefs as well.

If everyone AGREES how to write and enforce such faith-based laws, GREAT!
I have no problem if everyone AGREES that the laws are so well written
that NOBODY feels imposed upon. however you want to achieve that, but
it must be by agreement and not coercion by govt where beliefs are involved.
If people consent, that means the issues were resolved, so that's a fair standard
to protect both sides from opposing beliefs.

So that's my belief, C_Clayton_Jones
I believe in respecting the BELIEFS of both sides since neither is proven to each other.
It has been proven to me this is a SPIRITUAL process of someone's identity and path in life
to go through either heterosexual, homosexual, LGBT or other such relationships or attractions,
BUT I DON'T IMPOSE MY SPIRITUAL BELIEFS ABOUT IT ON OTHERS.
I give equal free choice for you to believe one thing, and others to believe otherwise.

So I do NOT believe Govt has any authority to try to write or pass laws
concerning SPIRITUAL BELIEFS and differences over how to address or view homosexuality
and transgender orientation.

I believe in treating BOTH sides as spiritual BELIEFS, and/or religious and political beliefs,
and not to impose anybody's beliefs about this on any other.

So the only way i will support govt making laws on SPIRITUAL faith-based matters like this,
is to have an agreement on how such policies are WRITTEN interpreted and ENFORCED.

If people AGREE, that's fine, states can pass laws and these won't impose on people's BELIEFS.

If you don't believe this counts as BELIEFS, that IS part of your belief and I recognize that.
If you cannot resolve YOUR belief with that of someone else who BELIEVES it is choice of behavior, then either SEPARATE policies or go through conflict resolution to write a policy by consensus you both can live under.

But not a CONTESTED policy that people already object to on grounds of their BELIEFS being excluded.
If that is what they believe, I respect their right to defend those beliefs,
equally as I respect yours. You both have to resolve conflicts or else keep it out of govt.

So either agree on consensus policy or agree to separate policies,
but I do NOT believe in one side imposing on the other. Not by govt!
You can discriminate all you want in private, but this does NOT
belong in public policy unless there is an AGREEMENT among people of different BELIEFS.

You will NOT change my mind about these beliefs,
I will NOT change yours, thus govt has no authority to do so either!!!!

 

[DOTR]

Maybe tomorrow we will Make America great Again...or maybe it will just be the beginning of a long fight to do so.

Nonsense.

America is currently great – no need for ‘again.’

What is great about a country that is as bitterly divided as the U.S is today because of activist courts turning our written Constitution into a living constitution? The division is not resolvable. A perfunctory glance since recorded history began has demonstrated that the U.S. in its current state is not sustainable as a country.

Oh its resolvable. "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

So tell me Tennyson...once you have tried voting and it doesn't work whats next?

 

[Syriusly]

And prohibiting private persons from using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.

Again C_Clayton_Jones this is what the Christians are arguing the LGBT are doing and abusing govt for:
when laws are enforced FORCING Bakers or Photographers to attend gay weddings
and to FINE and PENALIZE them by law for discrimination for seeking to defend and practice their beliefs not to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs,
that is
private persons ... using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.

You still don’t understand.

And once again you’re confusing two different legal principles, one having nothing to do with the other.

The Commerce Clause authorizes government to enact necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures with regard to the markets, to ensure the integrity of the markets, and all other interrelated markets (Wickard v. Filburn).

Public accommodations laws are an example of necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US).

State and local public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation in no way ‘violate’ the rights or religious liberties of Christians or any other faith; and Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence has never sanctioned citizens ignoring or violating just and proper laws using religious expression as an ‘excuse’ or ‘justification’ – requiring citizens to follow just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws, does not interfere with religious liberty (Employment Division v. Smith).

Consequently, you’ve confused 14th Amendment jurisprudence with Commerce Clause jurisprudence – the former an example of government restriction in accordance with the Constitution, the latter an example of government regulation authorized by the Constitution.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
YES THEY DO because 'sexual orientation' is FAITH BASED!

No it isn't.

Perhaps your sexual orientation is faith based but mine isn't.

 

[Tennyson]

Maybe tomorrow we will Make America great Again...or maybe it will just be the beginning of a long fight to do so.

Nonsense.

America is currently great – no need for ‘again.’

What is great about a country that is as bitterly divided as the U.S is today because of activist courts turning our written Constitution into a living constitution? The division is not resolvable. A perfunctory glance since recorded history began has demonstrated that the U.S. in its current state is not sustainable as a country.

Oh its resolvable. "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

So tell me Tennyson...once you have tried voting and it doesn't work whats next?

I am not sure what Kennedy's sentence from the Alliance for Progress speech has to do with my statement or voting.

 

[emilynghiem]

And prohibiting private persons from using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.

Again C_Clayton_Jones this is what the Christians are arguing the LGBT are doing and abusing govt for:
when laws are enforced FORCING Bakers or Photographers to attend gay weddings
and to FINE and PENALIZE them by law for discrimination for seeking to defend and practice their beliefs not to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs,
that is
private persons ... using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.

You still don’t understand.

And once again you’re confusing two different legal principles, one having nothing to do with the other.

The Commerce Clause authorizes government to enact necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures with regard to the markets, to ensure the integrity of the markets, and all other interrelated markets (Wickard v. Filburn).

Public accommodations laws are an example of necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US).

State and local public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation in no way ‘violate’ the rights or religious liberties of Christians or any other faith; and Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence has never sanctioned citizens ignoring or violating just and proper laws using religious expression as an ‘excuse’ or ‘justification’ – requiring citizens to follow just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws, does not interfere with religious liberty (Employment Division v. Smith).

Consequently, you’ve confused 14th Amendment jurisprudence with Commerce Clause jurisprudence – the former an example of government restriction in accordance with the Constitution, the latter an example of government regulation authorized by the Constitution.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
YES THEY DO because 'sexual orientation' is FAITH BASED!

No it isn't.

Perhaps your sexual orientation is faith based but mine isn't.

Syriusly compared with race which is determined by genetics, where even people of like nationality have a greater chance of HLA compatability when it comes to matching bone marrow donors to recipients,

Orientation has been known to change.
So if it can change for some people's cases
That makes it more like cultural beliefs or identity that can change, but are still the sole right of that person to defend and practice without fear of discrimination by creed, equal to the beliefs of others asking for the same respect for their beliefs on orientation and identity. If all people agree on birth and genetics to determine gender, that's fine. Like how prochoice agree right to life starts at birth as the starting line. If you want to change the recognition of gender to something other than scientifically established, that is faith based like deciding to recognize human identity at conception. If people don't agree with that faith based standard, then govt making such a law imposes a bias on those who reject that belief. And same with those who believe homosexuality and transgender identity are unnatural and a choice of Behavior. Neither that is proven nor the opposite that orientation is purely decided at birth and not a choice. So both views are equally faith based. The most that has been proven to me is some people can change and some people cannot change their orientation. I treat both cases as valid and part of their spiritual process, so it's their free choice how they define themselves similar to religious freedom which govt cannot regulate establish nor prohibit.

 

[Syriusly]

And prohibiting private persons from using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.

Again C_Clayton_Jones this is what the Christians are arguing the LGBT are doing and abusing govt for:
when laws are enforced FORCING Bakers or Photographers to attend gay weddings
and to FINE and PENALIZE them by law for discrimination for seeking to defend and practice their beliefs not to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs,
that is
private persons ... using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.

You still don’t understand.

And once again you’re confusing two different legal principles, one having nothing to do with the other.

The Commerce Clause authorizes government to enact necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures with regard to the markets, to ensure the integrity of the markets, and all other interrelated markets (Wickard v. Filburn).

Public accommodations laws are an example of necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US).

State and local public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation in no way ‘violate’ the rights or religious liberties of Christians or any other faith; and Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence has never sanctioned citizens ignoring or violating just and proper laws using religious expression as an ‘excuse’ or ‘justification’ – requiring citizens to follow just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws, does not interfere with religious liberty (Employment Division v. Smith).

Consequently, you’ve confused 14th Amendment jurisprudence with Commerce Clause jurisprudence – the former an example of government restriction in accordance with the Constitution, the latter an example of government regulation authorized by the Constitution.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
YES THEY DO because 'sexual orientation' is FAITH BASED!

No it isn't.

Perhaps your sexual orientation is faith based but mine isn't.

Syriusly compared with race which is determined by genetics.

Why are you comparing faith with race? Or sexual orientation with race?

Is being left handed faith based? Is liking the taste of cilantro faith based?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And prohibiting private persons from using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.

Again C_Clayton_Jones this is what the Christians are arguing the LGBT are doing and abusing govt for:
when laws are enforced FORCING Bakers or Photographers to attend gay weddings
and to FINE and PENALIZE them by law for discrimination for seeking to defend and practice their beliefs not to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs,
that is
private persons ... using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.

You still don’t understand.

And once again you’re confusing two different legal principles, one having nothing to do with the other.

The Commerce Clause authorizes government to enact necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures with regard to the markets, to ensure the integrity of the markets, and all other interrelated markets (Wickard v. Filburn).

Public accommodations laws are an example of necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US).

State and local public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation in no way ‘violate’ the rights or religious liberties of Christians or any other faith; and Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence has never sanctioned citizens ignoring or violating just and proper laws using religious expression as an ‘excuse’ or ‘justification’ – requiring citizens to follow just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws, does not interfere with religious liberty (Employment Division v. Smith).

Consequently, you’ve confused 14th Amendment jurisprudence with Commerce Clause jurisprudence – the former an example of government restriction in accordance with the Constitution, the latter an example of government regulation authorized by the Constitution.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
YES THEY DO because 'sexual orientation' is FAITH BASED
Not EVERYONE believes in recognizing that, they don't agree
if it's natural unnatural, or both in distinct cases, a choice of behavior or not, etc.
So the beliefs about that remain FAITH BASED and can't be legislated
by govt where it violates the beliefs of others.

Trying to protect this as a special category is like trying to protect
someone's preference of prayer or denomination that is FAITH BASED.

The right wing who BELIEVE that this is BEHAVIOR and CHOICE
ARE BEING IMPOSED UPON.

So if people AGREE to protect BELIEFS about orientation as a CREED,
that is equal to protecting beliefs about prayer and Christian expression as a CREED or BELIEF.

How you EXPRESS your orientation and how people react to your expression
is the same as how people EXPRESS their beliefs about prayer or denomination
and how people react to that expression.

I'd be okay if Christians and others AGREE that if you are going
to create special laws to defend "orientation" and expression of that,
then the same laws OUGHT to defend denomination and expression of other beliefs as well.

If everyone AGREES how to write and enforce such faith-based laws, GREAT!
I have no problem if everyone AGREES that the laws are so well written
that NOBODY feels imposed upon. however you want to achieve that, but
it must be by agreement and not coercion by govt where beliefs are involved.
If people consent, that means the issues were resolved, so that's a fair standard
to protect both sides from opposing beliefs.

So that's my belief, C_Clayton_Jones
I believe in respecting the BELIEFS of both sides since neither is proven to each other.
It has been proven to me this is a SPIRITUAL process of someone's identity and path in life
to go through either heterosexual, homosexual, LGBT or other such relationships or attractions,
BUT I DON'T IMPOSE MY SPIRITUAL BELIEFS ABOUT IT ON OTHERS.
I give equal free choice for you to believe one thing, and others to believe otherwise.

So I do NOT believe Govt has any authority to try to write or pass laws
concerning SPIRITUAL BELIEFS and differences over how to address or view homosexuality
and transgender orientation.

I believe in treating BOTH sides as spiritual BELIEFS, and/or religious and political beliefs,
and not to impose anybody's beliefs about this on any other.

So the only way i will support govt making laws on SPIRITUAL faith-based matters like this,
is to have an agreement on how such policies are WRITTEN interpreted and ENFORCED.

If people AGREE, that's fine, states can pass laws and these won't impose on people's BELIEFS.

If you don't believe this counts as BELIEFS, that IS part of your belief and I recognize that.
If you cannot resolve YOUR belief with that of someone else who BELIEVES it is choice of behavior, then either SEPARATE policies or go through conflict resolution to write a policy by consensus you both can live under.

But not a CONTESTED policy that people already object to on grounds of their BELIEFS being excluded.
If that is what they believe, I respect their right to defend those beliefs,
equally as I respect yours. You both have to resolve conflicts or else keep it out of govt.

So either agree on consensus policy or agree to separate policies,
but I do NOT believe in one side imposing on the other. Not by govt!
You can discriminate all you want in private, but this does NOT
belong in public policy unless there is an AGREEMENT among people of different BELIEFS.

You will NOT change my mind about these beliefs,
I will NOT change yours, thus govt has no authority to do so either!!!!

“…because 'sexual orientation' is FAITH BASED
Not EVERYONE believes in recognizing that, they don't agree
if it's natural unnatural, or both in distinct cases, a choice of behavior or not, etc.
So the beliefs about that remain FAITH BASED and can't be legislated
by govt where it violates the beliefs of others.”

Government isn’t ‘legislating’ anything.

Private citizens are at liberty to believe whatever they wish: to be heterosexual or homosexual, to believe in a ‘god’ or be free from faith altogether – unaffected by the fact of law that state governments may not deny same-sex couples access to marriage contract law they’re eligible to participate in, the fundamental tenet of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

 

[emilynghiem]

Again C_Clayton_Jones this is what the Christians are arguing the LGBT are doing and abusing govt for:
when laws are enforced FORCING Bakers or Photographers to attend gay weddings
and to FINE and PENALIZE them by law for discrimination for seeking to defend and practice their beliefs not to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs,
that is
private persons ... using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.

You still don’t understand.

And once again you’re confusing two different legal principles, one having nothing to do with the other.

The Commerce Clause authorizes government to enact necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures with regard to the markets, to ensure the integrity of the markets, and all other interrelated markets (Wickard v. Filburn).

Public accommodations laws are an example of necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US).

State and local public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation in no way ‘violate’ the rights or religious liberties of Christians or any other faith; and Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence has never sanctioned citizens ignoring or violating just and proper laws using religious expression as an ‘excuse’ or ‘justification’ – requiring citizens to follow just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws, does not interfere with religious liberty (Employment Division v. Smith).

Consequently, you’ve confused 14th Amendment jurisprudence with Commerce Clause jurisprudence – the former an example of government restriction in accordance with the Constitution, the latter an example of government regulation authorized by the Constitution.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
YES THEY DO because 'sexual orientation' is FAITH BASED!

No it isn't.

Perhaps your sexual orientation is faith based but mine isn't.

Syriusly compared with race which is determined by genetics.

Why are you comparing faith with race? Or sexual orientation with race?

Is being left handed faith based? Is liking the taste of cilantro faith based?

Syriusly
Because of critics opposed to LGBT laws as seeking special rights and recognition as a class who believe that homosexual and transgender identity are choices of BEHAVIOR and should not be protected from discrimination because ppl have the right to reject BEHAVIOR they don't agree with.

If you change all those people mind first, and they freely agree to adopt beliefs such as with Christian beliefs or Muslim beliefs, that's fine, but not be force of govt where they are vocally objecting on grounds of their beliefs.s

So yes if you want to compare with preference for foods, that is another choice of BEHAVIOR.

If people have beliefs about rejecting pork or beef, or meat in general, they can defend that based on religious freedom, and cant be forced by govt to violate their beliefs, but govt cannot make laws endorsing a particular belief for all people unless they agree, based on this same principle. Where govt can neither establish nor prohibit the free exercise of faith based belief religion or creed or it violates equal rights of those dissenting. If nobody dissents but all agree to laws passed by states, it's possible to have that on a state level. If people agree on a federal level, it's possible to pass laws there too without objection or lawsuit to challenge constitutionality.

 

[emilynghiem]

And prohibiting private persons from using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.

Again C_Clayton_Jones this is what the Christians are arguing the LGBT are doing and abusing govt for:
when laws are enforced FORCING Bakers or Photographers to attend gay weddings
and to FINE and PENALIZE them by law for discrimination for seeking to defend and practice their beliefs not to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs,
that is
private persons ... using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.

You still don’t understand.

And once again you’re confusing two different legal principles, one having nothing to do with the other.

The Commerce Clause authorizes government to enact necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures with regard to the markets, to ensure the integrity of the markets, and all other interrelated markets (Wickard v. Filburn).

Public accommodations laws are an example of necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US).

State and local public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation in no way ‘violate’ the rights or religious liberties of Christians or any other faith; and Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence has never sanctioned citizens ignoring or violating just and proper laws using religious expression as an ‘excuse’ or ‘justification’ – requiring citizens to follow just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws, does not interfere with religious liberty (Employment Division v. Smith).

Consequently, you’ve confused 14th Amendment jurisprudence with Commerce Clause jurisprudence – the former an example of government restriction in accordance with the Constitution, the latter an example of government regulation authorized by the Constitution.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
YES THEY DO because 'sexual orientation' is FAITH BASED
Not EVERYONE believes in recognizing that, they don't agree
if it's natural unnatural, or both in distinct cases, a choice of behavior or not, etc.
So the beliefs about that remain FAITH BASED and can't be legislated
by govt where it violates the beliefs of others.

Trying to protect this as a special category is like trying to protect
someone's preference of prayer or denomination that is FAITH BASED.

The right wing who BELIEVE that this is BEHAVIOR and CHOICE
ARE BEING IMPOSED UPON.

So if people AGREE to protect BELIEFS about orientation as a CREED,
that is equal to protecting beliefs about prayer and Christian expression as a CREED or BELIEF.

How you EXPRESS your orientation and how people react to your expression
is the same as how people EXPRESS their beliefs about prayer or denomination
and how people react to that expression.

I'd be okay if Christians and others AGREE that if you are going
to create special laws to defend "orientation" and expression of that,
then the same laws OUGHT to defend denomination and expression of other beliefs as well.

If everyone AGREES how to write and enforce such faith-based laws, GREAT!
I have no problem if everyone AGREES that the laws are so well written
that NOBODY feels imposed upon. however you want to achieve that, but
it must be by agreement and not coercion by govt where beliefs are involved.
If people consent, that means the issues were resolved, so that's a fair standard
to protect both sides from opposing beliefs.

So that's my belief, C_Clayton_Jones
I believe in respecting the BELIEFS of both sides since neither is proven to each other.
It has been proven to me this is a SPIRITUAL process of someone's identity and path in life
to go through either heterosexual, homosexual, LGBT or other such relationships or attractions,
BUT I DON'T IMPOSE MY SPIRITUAL BELIEFS ABOUT IT ON OTHERS.
I give equal free choice for you to believe one thing, and others to believe otherwise.

So I do NOT believe Govt has any authority to try to write or pass laws
concerning SPIRITUAL BELIEFS and differences over how to address or view homosexuality
and transgender orientation.

I believe in treating BOTH sides as spiritual BELIEFS, and/or religious and political beliefs,
and not to impose anybody's beliefs about this on any other.

So the only way i will support govt making laws on SPIRITUAL faith-based matters like this,
is to have an agreement on how such policies are WRITTEN interpreted and ENFORCED.

If people AGREE, that's fine, states can pass laws and these won't impose on people's BELIEFS.

If you don't believe this counts as BELIEFS, that IS part of your belief and I recognize that.
If you cannot resolve YOUR belief with that of someone else who BELIEVES it is choice of behavior, then either SEPARATE policies or go through conflict resolution to write a policy by consensus you both can live under.

But not a CONTESTED policy that people already object to on grounds of their BELIEFS being excluded.
If that is what they believe, I respect their right to defend those beliefs,
equally as I respect yours. You both have to resolve conflicts or else keep it out of govt.

So either agree on consensus policy or agree to separate policies,
but I do NOT believe in one side imposing on the other. Not by govt!
You can discriminate all you want in private, but this does NOT
belong in public policy unless there is an AGREEMENT among people of different BELIEFS.

You will NOT change my mind about these beliefs,
I will NOT change yours, thus govt has no authority to do so either!!!!

“…because 'sexual orientation' is FAITH BASED
Not EVERYONE believes in recognizing that, they don't agree
if it's natural unnatural, or both in distinct cases, a choice of behavior or not, etc.
So the beliefs about that remain FAITH BASED and can't be legislated
by govt where it violates the beliefs of others.”

Government isn’t ‘legislating’ anything.

Private citizens are at liberty to believe whatever they wish: to be heterosexual or homosexual, to believe in a ‘god’ or be free from faith altogether – unaffected by the fact of law that state governments may not deny same-sex couples access to marriage contract law they’re eligible to participate in, the fundamental tenet of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
No, not all people agree to grant Marriage license on these terms but might agree to Civil Unions.
Just like not all people may agree on prayer to God but may consent to moment of silence.

The people of each state have the right to arrive at their own consensus on their laws. No, they cannot force a law on people against or excluding their beliefs or its unconstitutional; and by that same standard if the word Marriage or God is not agreed upon, that language may need to be changed in order to pass and achieve consensus among the people of that state.

My suggestion is offer people of each state a choice: if opponents concede and allow Marriage to be used as the term instead of civil unions or domestic contracts, can schools and public institutions be allowed to endorse
GOD Jesus prayers crosses Bibles and all manner of Christian expression even if it conflicts with beliefs of others.

 

[Sneekin]

And prohibiting private persons from using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.

Again C_Clayton_Jones this is what the Christians are arguing the LGBT are doing and abusing govt for:
when laws are enforced FORCING Bakers or Photographers to attend gay weddings
and to FINE and PENALIZE them by law for discrimination for seeking to defend and practice their beliefs not to participate in gay weddings against their beliefs,
that is
private persons ... using the power and authority of government to disadvantage an unpopular minority through force of law is not to ‘prohibit’ those persons from practicing their beliefs.

You still don’t understand.

And once again you’re confusing two different legal principles, one having nothing to do with the other.

The Commerce Clause authorizes government to enact necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures with regard to the markets, to ensure the integrity of the markets, and all other interrelated markets (Wickard v. Filburn).

Public accommodations laws are an example of necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US).

State and local public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation in no way ‘violate’ the rights or religious liberties of Christians or any other faith; and Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence has never sanctioned citizens ignoring or violating just and proper laws using religious expression as an ‘excuse’ or ‘justification’ – requiring citizens to follow just and proper laws, such as public accommodations laws, does not interfere with religious liberty (Employment Division v. Smith).

Consequently, you’ve confused 14th Amendment jurisprudence with Commerce Clause jurisprudence – the former an example of government restriction in accordance with the Constitution, the latter an example of government regulation authorized by the Constitution.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
YES THEY DO because 'sexual orientation' is FAITH BASED
Not EVERYONE believes in recognizing that, they don't agree
if it's natural unnatural, or both in distinct cases, a choice of behavior or not, etc.
So the beliefs about that remain FAITH BASED and can't be legislated
by govt where it violates the beliefs of others.

Trying to protect this as a special category is like trying to protect
someone's preference of prayer or denomination that is FAITH BASED.

The right wing who BELIEVE that this is BEHAVIOR and CHOICE
ARE BEING IMPOSED UPON.

So if people AGREE to protect BELIEFS about orientation as a CREED,
that is equal to protecting beliefs about prayer and Christian expression as a CREED or BELIEF.

How you EXPRESS your orientation and how people react to your expression
is the same as how people EXPRESS their beliefs about prayer or denomination
and how people react to that expression.

I'd be okay if Christians and others AGREE that if you are going
to create special laws to defend "orientation" and expression of that,
then the same laws OUGHT to defend denomination and expression of other beliefs as well.

If everyone AGREES how to write and enforce such faith-based laws, GREAT!
I have no problem if everyone AGREES that the laws are so well written
that NOBODY feels imposed upon. however you want to achieve that, but
it must be by agreement and not coercion by govt where beliefs are involved.
If people consent, that means the issues were resolved, so that's a fair standard
to protect both sides from opposing beliefs.

So that's my belief, C_Clayton_Jones
I believe in respecting the BELIEFS of both sides since neither is proven to each other.
It has been proven to me this is a SPIRITUAL process of someone's identity and path in life
to go through either heterosexual, homosexual, LGBT or other such relationships or attractions,
BUT I DON'T IMPOSE MY SPIRITUAL BELIEFS ABOUT IT ON OTHERS.
I give equal free choice for you to believe one thing, and others to believe otherwise.

So I do NOT believe Govt has any authority to try to write or pass laws
concerning SPIRITUAL BELIEFS and differences over how to address or view homosexuality
and transgender orientation.

I believe in treating BOTH sides as spiritual BELIEFS, and/or religious and political beliefs,
and not to impose anybody's beliefs about this on any other.

So the only way i will support govt making laws on SPIRITUAL faith-based matters like this,
is to have an agreement on how such policies are WRITTEN interpreted and ENFORCED.

If people AGREE, that's fine, states can pass laws and these won't impose on people's BELIEFS.

If you don't believe this counts as BELIEFS, that IS part of your belief and I recognize that.
If you cannot resolve YOUR belief with that of someone else who BELIEVES it is choice of behavior, then either SEPARATE policies or go through conflict resolution to write a policy by consensus you both can live under.

But not a CONTESTED policy that people already object to on grounds of their BELIEFS being excluded.
If that is what they believe, I respect their right to defend those beliefs,
equally as I respect yours. You both have to resolve conflicts or else keep it out of govt.

So either agree on consensus policy or agree to separate policies,
but I do NOT believe in one side imposing on the other. Not by govt!
You can discriminate all you want in private, but this does NOT
belong in public policy unless there is an AGREEMENT among people of different BELIEFS.

You will NOT change my mind about these beliefs,
I will NOT change yours, thus govt has no authority to do so either!!!!

“…because 'sexual orientation' is FAITH BASED
Not EVERYONE believes in recognizing that, they don't agree
if it's natural unnatural, or both in distinct cases, a choice of behavior or not, etc.
So the beliefs about that remain FAITH BASED and can't be legislated
by govt where it violates the beliefs of others.”

Government isn’t ‘legislating’ anything.

Private citizens are at liberty to believe whatever they wish: to be heterosexual or homosexual, to believe in a ‘god’ or be free from faith altogether – unaffected by the fact of law that state governments may not deny same-sex couples access to marriage contract law they’re eligible to participate in, the fundamental tenet of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
No, not all people agree to grant Marriage license on these terms but might agree to Civil Unions.
Just like not all people may agree on prayer to God but may consent to moment of silence.

The people of each state have the right to arrive at their own consensus on their laws. No, they cannot force a law on people against or excluding their beliefs or its unconstitutional; and by that same standard if the word Marriage or God is not agreed upon, that language may need to be changed in order to pass and achieve consensus among the people of that state.

My suggestion is offer people of each state a choice: if opponents concede and allow Marriage to be used as the term instead of civil unions or domestic contracts, can schools and public institutions be allowed to endorse
GOD Jesus prayers crosses Bibles and all manner of Christian expression even if it conflicts with beliefs of others.