Umm Emily, you are calling for separate but equal, which has been deemed unconstitutional how many times? What if I don't like the term Civil Unions? Can I call it Fried Cauliflower? Just like we can't have separate lines for drinking fountains, or forced segregation, we can't call marriage civil unions for one part of the population, and marriage for the other. Religious marriage is Holy Matrimony. Civil Marriage is Marriage, and is completely different. If you have a Holy Matrimony and your priest/rabbi/Imam/minister fails to sign the state document signifying you are married, you aren't legally married. So, the fact is, marriage is a secular contract between two persons (who can sign a contract and give consent). I'm not sure where you obtain your legal answers from (on-line or mail-order, perhaps?), but according to attorneys and judges on both sides of the issue, we don't vote on the rights of the individual or group. Check the Loving case and educate yourself. You'll never have 100 percent turn out, and you have no clue as to the millions if not billions of dollars it would take to modify or create new laws granting civil unions the same rights as marriage (putting aside the fact that it's not constitutional). Are you willing to personally fund this? Your blather about it being unconstitutional and one is forcing gay marriage onto Christians is laughable, since the Supreme Court ruling, not even one Christian has been forced to be gay married, and I challenge you to prove differently. Also, no church has been forced to gay marry anyone, which would violate their first amendment rights. You are out of gas, and just like to hear yourself talk. We don't get to vote on the meaning of words, you are foolish.
Gay marriage is not a constitutional right
- Thread starter IndependantAce
- Start date
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Dear C_Clayton_Jones and Sneekin
In Sneekin post, two excerpts are highlighted in boldface:
1. Your quote which I also agree with on not disenfranchised or excluding others especially minorities
2. My quote on how neither of us is going to change each other's beliefs, so that neither should govt force either to do so
Can we focus there:
1. I do believe it is unconstitional to exclude gay marriage by law that should be free to exercise as anyone else beliefs including Christians for example, but I don't believe the way the correction is presented is the solution but creates equal problems and unintended consequences
2. You make it clear you do not believe it imposes but only corrects, and I disagree. I have compared this to right to life beliefs that banning choice of abortion doesn't impose because abortion is murder and isn't a choice to begin with. You keep arguing that your right to choice in marriage is like right to choice in abortion and still leaves it open to choice. But marriage does NOT have to be through govt, it can be managed in private and privatize social benefits also, OR contract can be secularization as civil unions if people agree on that term and don't agree on marriage
3. There remains a general difference in beliefs that
A. Govt and courts can be used to decide matters of religious or faith based beliefs, while I say no, consent of the governed determines if states can pass such laws or not and federal govt can only find if it's constitutionally inclusive or unconstitutionally biased unequally and needs to be rewritten
B. Secular and political beliefs are different from religious beliefs instead of respecting creeds of persons equally and requiring consensus on law and process how to handle conflicting beliefs that include political beliefs on govt and limits or powers govt has or has not
I believe in addressing these as part of that process I hold legally necessary if I'm going to defend your beliefs equally as my own.
I don't believe I have or the govt has the right to abuse the legal or legislative system to deny abridge discriminate against or threaten your rights beliefs and protections of law and due process.
So how can I describe the problem here and the solution, so I may write letters to fellow Democrats Constitutionalists LGBT Greens and Libertarians asking help to organize a system for addressing and resolving these differences especially beliefs we cannot change?
THANK YOU
In Sneekin post, two excerpts are highlighted in boldface:
1. Your quote which I also agree with on not disenfranchised or excluding others especially minorities
2. My quote on how neither of us is going to change each other's beliefs, so that neither should govt force either to do so
Can we focus there:
1. I do believe it is unconstitional to exclude gay marriage by law that should be free to exercise as anyone else beliefs including Christians for example, but I don't believe the way the correction is presented is the solution but creates equal problems and unintended consequences
2. You make it clear you do not believe it imposes but only corrects, and I disagree. I have compared this to right to life beliefs that banning choice of abortion doesn't impose because abortion is murder and isn't a choice to begin with. You keep arguing that your right to choice in marriage is like right to choice in abortion and still leaves it open to choice. But marriage does NOT have to be through govt, it can be managed in private and privatize social benefits also, OR contract can be secularization as civil unions if people agree on that term and don't agree on marriage
3. There remains a general difference in beliefs that
A. Govt and courts can be used to decide matters of religious or faith based beliefs, while I say no, consent of the governed determines if states can pass such laws or not and federal govt can only find if it's constitutionally inclusive or unconstitutionally biased unequally and needs to be rewritten
B. Secular and political beliefs are different from religious beliefs instead of respecting creeds of persons equally and requiring consensus on law and process how to handle conflicting beliefs that include political beliefs on govt and limits or powers govt has or has not
I believe in addressing these as part of that process I hold legally necessary if I'm going to defend your beliefs equally as my own.
I don't believe I have or the govt has the right to abuse the legal or legislative system to deny abridge discriminate against or threaten your rights beliefs and protections of law and due process.
So how can I describe the problem here and the solution, so I may write letters to fellow Democrats Constitutionalists LGBT Greens and Libertarians asking help to organize a system for addressing and resolving these differences especially beliefs we cannot change?
THANK YOU
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Dear Sneekin That's where I compare "moment of silence" that was accepted and passed into state laws but "prayer" is not endorsed for public institutions only for individuals.
This is more than just wording but preference on how the practice is done. Christians who believe in collective prayer joined in Christ aren't happy either with reducing it to moment of silence that isn't the same as agreeing in Christ what is prayed for.
But that's all the public could agree on.
The other issue is benefits which again can be privatized for all people so it's equal.
GALVESTON has its own social security system that residents pay their taxes to instead of federal. We can all do the same.
The LGBT may even save up more money than others as the LGBT business community that already invests in LGBT friendly businesses does financially well.
If people don't agree on a state level because of beliefs, find out how to make this balanced.
I know other Christians who like this idea of opening up public institutions to God Jesup and prayer in public if the LGBT expressions and practices are going to be endorsed and implemented in public policy.
If you are going to preach inclusion, then allow and endorse it equally for Christian beliefs and practices. Don't require their beliefs in public prayer joined in Christian to be excluded from public functions by reducing it to moment of silence in private which is different, then expect to be included when it's your turn to want gay marriage incorporated in govt instead of secular civil unions.
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Dear Sneekin Syriusly C_Clayton_Jones
1. By faith based I mean the beliefs about orientation and identity as natural born or unnatural choice are faith based, neither being proven or disproven.
Both my beliefs these are spiritual, some are natural some are unnatural, some can change some cannot
Equally count as a belief
As do your beliefs that it should be protected as a distinct designation to avoid discrimination
And as do other ppl belief that it is solely a behavior or an unnatural choice and can be discriminated against by law because ppl cannot be forced to accept a faith based belief or to change their own beliefs for another
The first step is to recognize all three are beliefs, then find the best way we can agree not to impose on each other's
2. By separate but equal I am referring to marriage rituals as a practice where ppl of different beliefs are expected to practice these in their own groups separately and equally instead of imposing their beliefs about baptism, funerals, communion prayer marriage etc on other groups
The legal recognition and benefits can all be done as civil unions where everyone is treated the same, and remove any condition on personal relationship so this is neutral, similar to reducing public prayer to moment of silence that strips any other attached condition or relationship to the process.
Last edited:
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Dear Sneekin where is your reply in the post that quotes previous ones?
YES I have been funding independent programs so people can govern their own community by democratically elected leaders and sustainable investment based on campus models.
www.campusplan.org
I have been working two jobs since 2008 to support grassroots volunteers developing nonprofit programs in this direction, but struggling because all the tax money goes toward corporate and political interests and campaigns for office and is sucked out of the communities with no funding support.
So the nonprofits do the work for free while volunteers work 2-3jobs to pay costs.
I believe if people invest our labor and income directly in nonprofit communities organized like campuses we can directly represent and fund our own policies including education and health care through collective coops.
Www.rightsfortheworkers.org
We start by assessing restitution owed to taxpayers for crimes, corporate corruption and abuse of govt funds, and criminal racketeering including abuse of govt to conspire to violate equal civil rights. Passing DOMA and ACA are examples of wasting public resources on unconstitutional legislation contested on grounds of imposing faith based beliefs that discriminated against others by creed.
Drug and human trafficking are another source of restitution, where the victims and communities affected can claim ownership of property confiscated under RICO.
The assessment and restitution for wrongs, debts and damages can then be invested in creating solutions to the problems the right way which the flawed legislation sought to address
My plan is either hold the wrongdoers responsible for paying the restitution in order to cover costs of corrections, such as the cost of separating health care and social benefits policies under separate parties, or give credits or tax breaks to people who do invest their time labor or resources in solutions, or let citizens buy out debts or share ownership in programs for investing.
So it's similar to owning your own campus that comes with a medical or health care service program owned by the members. And the members elect and manage their own policies of terms and conditions on benefits, marriage, etc. Instead of fighting with other people or parties.
YES I have been funding independent programs so people can govern their own community by democratically elected leaders and sustainable investment based on campus models.
www.campusplan.org
I have been working two jobs since 2008 to support grassroots volunteers developing nonprofit programs in this direction, but struggling because all the tax money goes toward corporate and political interests and campaigns for office and is sucked out of the communities with no funding support.
So the nonprofits do the work for free while volunteers work 2-3jobs to pay costs.
I believe if people invest our labor and income directly in nonprofit communities organized like campuses we can directly represent and fund our own policies including education and health care through collective coops.
Www.rightsfortheworkers.org
We start by assessing restitution owed to taxpayers for crimes, corporate corruption and abuse of govt funds, and criminal racketeering including abuse of govt to conspire to violate equal civil rights. Passing DOMA and ACA are examples of wasting public resources on unconstitutional legislation contested on grounds of imposing faith based beliefs that discriminated against others by creed.
Drug and human trafficking are another source of restitution, where the victims and communities affected can claim ownership of property confiscated under RICO.
The assessment and restitution for wrongs, debts and damages can then be invested in creating solutions to the problems the right way which the flawed legislation sought to address
My plan is either hold the wrongdoers responsible for paying the restitution in order to cover costs of corrections, such as the cost of separating health care and social benefits policies under separate parties, or give credits or tax breaks to people who do invest their time labor or resources in solutions, or let citizens buy out debts or share ownership in programs for investing.
So it's similar to owning your own campus that comes with a medical or health care service program owned by the members. And the members elect and manage their own policies of terms and conditions on benefits, marriage, etc. Instead of fighting with other people or parties.
perhaps you aren't listening, Emily. Are you from the United States? Is English even your first language? You see, in this country, we don't vote to take away civil rights, as you have repeatedly done through this thread. You seem to have no grasp on the law in the US. We are NOT a democracy, majority doesn't ALWAYS rule. Maybe in your country, but not the United States.
Onto your religious psycho-babble. You are claiming Marriage is religious (it's not, it's secular ONLY), a right for all adults. YOUR religion can put additional rules, but cannot alter the laws - if your church believes in multple wives, you cannot get 20 marriage licenses and be married to all 20 wives at the same time - only one. Secular law says ONE. It's that nasty first amendment, where we have freedom FROM your religion.
Something else.- the individual states did not all vote to allow a moment of silent prayer. Don't be foolish. Prayer in a public school is patently illegal, as the government cannot force a religion or religious belief onto anyone. The government cannot, however, legislate what you do during your quiet time. So if we have a moment of silence, you are free to pray, Fred is free to play a game on his phone, my spouse and Fred's spouse are free to chit-chat. You've always been able to do that emily - understand?
Again, what country are you from? RIght to life? The entire Roe V Wade is first based on a Right to Privacy. Stipulations were also put on at first (usually not performed after the first trimester). Even though you harp on it, there is no such thing as a full-term or partial birth abortion, read the facts about it. The courts have ruled, move on. Being LGBT or having an abortion doesn't make one "unnatural born", which is the most offensive and insulting term you can use. Quit trying to insert your religion into OUR constitution, and take at least a Junior High School Civics class, you are ignorant of laws. Maybe watch "I'm Just A Bill" on school house rock. I'm sure it will enlighten you.
Civil Unions have been repeatedly addressed, and ruled patently wrong and illegal. So just drop it, you are making a fool out of yourself. Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships are being removed from laws and business contracts. Please get a clue and come down to earth. Try not to make up any more law.
Finally, Marriage is not the same as baptism, or funeral rights. Marriage is a LEGAL CONTRACT. In the christian faith, you are referring to Holy Matrimony - if you want to call your ceremony in your church a civil union, have at it. If you expect any of the over 1100 benefits at the federal and state level, the courts have ALREADY RULED. The term is Marriage. And NO, YOU DON'T GET TO VOTE ON IT. Kapish? Already rule. All the way up and down, and also legislated at the state and local legislatures. Educate yourself.
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
HI Sneekin
You bring up so many points, can you start a new thread on the others, they are all good and worth resolving in full.
1. I was born in Texas where I did read someone taking credit for the moment of silence that got passed. So maybe that's a local thing. But it speaks to states right and laws that can be passed by states and not affect the entire nation. Individual states can vote to recognize it as civil unions, civil marriages or marriages in general, as long as their citizens agree it doesn't impose on their beliefs as being contested now.
2. No I'm not trying to subvert any civil rights people have but to do the opposite and defend this from legal and political abuses. I live and volunteer in freedmens town that has a long history of suppression of rights because of political abuse of govt.
The solutions I found to defend minority interests work by consensus and mediation to resolve conflicts. The traditional way is to outvote, overrule, or outbully the minority voice so the majority can dominate. I found out the hard way that system is abused to censor and violate equal rights by oppression and exclusion, even using legal means to justify silencing the opposition.
From what you say, you and I are both against violating the rights of others by majority bullying and discrimination.
You and I just don't agree yet how to stop that abuse correctly where it doesn't go too far the other way and impose beliefs either on one side or the other where both complain.
3. I do understand the laws we have now on religious freedom and creed do not specifically recognize or address what to do about political beliefs.
I understand this is causing major offense in appearing to support imposing religious beliefs instead of defending all beliefs equally.
Can we start there?
Thanks and I still want to get to all your other points later as we go. Thank you.
I normally write long thoughts, and since I've been on my cell phone it's coming out even sloppier and unedited. Sorry for that.
Also about language, for you and me if we don't have an issue with using the term 'marriage' being for same sex but someone else does by their beliefs, that doesn't give us the right to override their dissent. For example, shariah law may mean unlawful oppression by imposing religious beliefs or punishment on others without consent, but to a Muslim Shariah means all the practices in Islam including fasting prayer and charity that believers do by choice and commitment not by force. So it is wrongful to pass a law banning Shariah if we don't agree on the meaning of that term. And I have found this true with terms like marriage just like God or Jesus that there ARE beliefs attached and it isn't a neutral term for all people.
Last edited:
Ok, I've reduced what you've written to a few points.
1. Working for 35 plus years with EEO, Affirmative Action, and numerous unions, it really has to be done with some sort of mediation, and to be sure, leaving the nagging thought that the aggressor/abuser will face court and jail time, possible loss of employment, family, reputation, etc. Can't shout them down. These people have to be made aware that they can't vote rights away nor suppress them. If / When the aggressor starts their reprisal, action needs to occur immediately. Police called if necessary. In the 80's I handled a case involving the military where an atheist gay male was being harassed by the wife of his male boss. She would put religious literature on his desk, highlighting anti-gay portions. Informed others in the office what she was doing to the F**. Step 1 - spoke with her, she claimed it was her religious right (which is not true in a government position). Her boss said she would stop. She didn't. Spoke with his boss (her husband). Harassment continued. Spoke with the man's COL. No action. Made an appointment with the 3 Star General, and a call to EEOC. They sent an investigator out who's only job was to sit and observe. Within hours of speaking with the General, the woman was suspended until such time as my client got a different job. The immediate supervisor was suspended without pay as well, for 2 weeks. Personnel, the following day provided a list of jobs for him to review and choose from. He "left the building" and went to work away from all. He was compensated for a period of the time off he took (the actions triggered PTSD symptoms).
Another case involved 3 females who's supervisor was making lewd statements. Outcome? They were secretaries in a shop setting, they were transferred out of their agency to a new one. They all ended up moving up the ladder, breaking glass ceilings, and retired at 5 times the pay they were making as secretaries.
Again, the people have no voice in how the word marriage is used. It's being used in the case of a legal contract. A Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist etc can object to the use, however, the first amendment allows us to use the word. The 14th amendment allows any couple that meets the US / State requirements to be married.
Banning Sharia violates our First Amendment right to freedom of religion. It tells you how to live your life, every step. The Qur'an is holy scripture (think Old Testament, they are close to identical), and the Sunna. The Sunna is essentially the prophetic example embodied in the sayings and conduct of the Prophet Mohammed. Sharia law has been used. One example would be divorce, where once spouse may be US, the other from the middle east (say, Egypt). A US judge must determine whether he has jurisdiction and whether state law governs this dispute. If the conflict of laws of the US state requires that Egyptian law govern the issue of validity, the court would require expert testimony about Egyptian law that is based on Islamic law (Sharia Law).
You may ask if Sharia is used in U.S. courts any differently than other foreign or religious systems of law? No, it is utilized the same way as Jewish law or canon law or any other law. Another example may be if a wife asks for a restraining order because her husband raped her. He claims that his religion allows relations whenever he demands. Local courts found him not guilty (religious reasons); but the appellate courts overturned his decision - because it was based on Sharia Law, which prohibits spousal abuse.
As long as a provision in Jewish law, canon law or sharia does not offend our constitutional protections and public policy, courts will consider it. Otherwise, courts would not consider it. In other words, foreign law or religious law in American courts is considered within American constitutional strictures. Our constitution is wonderful.
A federal court recently held that a ban prohibiting Sharia Law would likely violate the Supremacy Clause and the First Amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional.
1. Working for 35 plus years with EEO, Affirmative Action, and numerous unions, it really has to be done with some sort of mediation, and to be sure, leaving the nagging thought that the aggressor/abuser will face court and jail time, possible loss of employment, family, reputation, etc. Can't shout them down. These people have to be made aware that they can't vote rights away nor suppress them. If / When the aggressor starts their reprisal, action needs to occur immediately. Police called if necessary. In the 80's I handled a case involving the military where an atheist gay male was being harassed by the wife of his male boss. She would put religious literature on his desk, highlighting anti-gay portions. Informed others in the office what she was doing to the F**. Step 1 - spoke with her, she claimed it was her religious right (which is not true in a government position). Her boss said she would stop. She didn't. Spoke with his boss (her husband). Harassment continued. Spoke with the man's COL. No action. Made an appointment with the 3 Star General, and a call to EEOC. They sent an investigator out who's only job was to sit and observe. Within hours of speaking with the General, the woman was suspended until such time as my client got a different job. The immediate supervisor was suspended without pay as well, for 2 weeks. Personnel, the following day provided a list of jobs for him to review and choose from. He "left the building" and went to work away from all. He was compensated for a period of the time off he took (the actions triggered PTSD symptoms).
Another case involved 3 females who's supervisor was making lewd statements. Outcome? They were secretaries in a shop setting, they were transferred out of their agency to a new one. They all ended up moving up the ladder, breaking glass ceilings, and retired at 5 times the pay they were making as secretaries.
Again, the people have no voice in how the word marriage is used. It's being used in the case of a legal contract. A Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist etc can object to the use, however, the first amendment allows us to use the word. The 14th amendment allows any couple that meets the US / State requirements to be married.
Banning Sharia violates our First Amendment right to freedom of religion. It tells you how to live your life, every step. The Qur'an is holy scripture (think Old Testament, they are close to identical), and the Sunna. The Sunna is essentially the prophetic example embodied in the sayings and conduct of the Prophet Mohammed. Sharia law has been used. One example would be divorce, where once spouse may be US, the other from the middle east (say, Egypt). A US judge must determine whether he has jurisdiction and whether state law governs this dispute. If the conflict of laws of the US state requires that Egyptian law govern the issue of validity, the court would require expert testimony about Egyptian law that is based on Islamic law (Sharia Law).
You may ask if Sharia is used in U.S. courts any differently than other foreign or religious systems of law? No, it is utilized the same way as Jewish law or canon law or any other law. Another example may be if a wife asks for a restraining order because her husband raped her. He claims that his religion allows relations whenever he demands. Local courts found him not guilty (religious reasons); but the appellate courts overturned his decision - because it was based on Sharia Law, which prohibits spousal abuse.
As long as a provision in Jewish law, canon law or sharia does not offend our constitutional protections and public policy, courts will consider it. Otherwise, courts would not consider it. In other words, foreign law or religious law in American courts is considered within American constitutional strictures. Our constitution is wonderful.
A federal court recently held that a ban prohibiting Sharia Law would likely violate the Supremacy Clause and the First Amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional.
Tennyson
Senior Member
- Mar 19, 2015
- 310
- 13
- 51
Banning Sharia law does not violate the First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Sharia law is not used the same as Jewish law in the US.
That's a big crock of BS. It's used all the time in NY divorce courts. Sharia Law is the same as a Christian's Biblical Law, which is the same as Judaic Law. It's everything - in Judaic law, you can't mix certain foods. It must be Kosher, specific grounds for marriage, divorce, etc. Sharia law tells you the same, food must be halal, what to avoid (haram), marriage contracts, etc. Certain sects within Judaism tell you how to dress, how to wear your hair, and that women must keep their heads covered (which is why they wear wigs) and dress modestly. Under Catholic Law, Nuns could only display their faces and hands after taking their vows (Pre-Vatican 2) unless directed otherwise (missionaries, for example, who would be in too much danger). These religious laws were at times used as the foundation for our common law and written laws. Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc all have the commandment - thou shalt not kill. We have a law prohibiting murder. Sharia law says we cannot harm our spouses (or women in general) - hmm, Tennyson, your comment doesn't pass the sniff test, as we've had domestic violence laws on the books for years. But getting back to it all, it's been used as the foundation, as is used many times - it may have to be used when a us citizen is "up against" someone who claims their religious law claims "X". i suggest you research more and stop your bloviating about things you obviously have no knowledge of. New Jersey lawyer Abed Awad has processed over100 cases involving sharia law with US law. In regards to a ban, it would strip judges of their ability to fully and fairly consider such cases, and deprive Muslims of their right to marry and divorce according to their religious beliefs. Not a nice try, and no cigar. In many states, the Imam won’t issue a divorce unless to a married couple until they can bring a certificate from the county/state/parish.
Tennyson
Senior Member
- Mar 19, 2015
- 310
- 13
- 51
I believe using google for a law degee has confused you.
You are confusing the First Amendment’s free exercise clause “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” with sharia law and the body of laws within the legal framework of Islamic jurisprudence. The First Amendment does not address nor does it protect a law or laws.
Sharia law is also a foreign legal tradition and operates as a body of religious and administrative law, and that is not compatible or allowed to conflict with American law. Sharia law is in direct conflict with the inalienable rights of the Bill of Rights. Sharia law does not function as a religion nor does it protect Islam but only as a legal punishment mechanism. There is no provision or right in the Constitution for the consideration of religious sectarian law. Under the doctrine of strict scrutiny and a compelling state’s interest, the outlawing of hacking off someone’s hand or stoning to death is a concept that a first year art major would grasp. Sharia law is not a religion, and if it were, the First Amendment doctrine of protection from government intrusion and the protection from religious intrusion on the government would make Sharia law an intrusion on federal, state, and local law.
Actually we do not have a bi-judicial system. The Beth Din of America only functions as arbitration panels and if the outcome is outside a state or federal statutory law, the courts overturn them. They function no differently than private arbitrators for contract law.
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Thanks Sneekin for replying in
great depth and detail
I'm reading your post out of sequence and still on my cell phone so sorry if this is cut short for now (or maybe that's better that way!)
1. For the issues of religious harassment in the military and workplace, I am recommending not only training and assistance in Constitutional education and mediation, but an agreement to adhere to policies and a process for resolving them.
If all collective organizations require their members to sign agreements to respect the policies and process, this prevents or reduces conflicts so there is no need to enact further legislation for each type of harassment possible.
This not only cuts costs by preventing and addressing issues without having to resort to legal actions and costs, but helps with troubleshooting in advance. If a company or group of staff know in advance of religious conflicts, they can address and resolve them before a confrontation occurs or agree to keep people separated. Such as when there could be a conflict with a parent and child being teacher and student, the school may separate them so they don't appear to have conflicting interests interfering with equal treatment. Some students can take their parents class and be treated like others, but some may opt out.
If someone has an abuse issues, this needs to be addressed regardless if the target is a person of another gender, race, religion, orientation etc. If that person cannot follow rules of civil standards then that's the problem not a the target of the harassment.
This also saves time and money by screening people with mental or criminal issues or behavior disorders where they are not legally competent, and I would recommend holding people to signed agreement to pay costs of any such abuses or damages they inflict as a way to screen out people who require legal guardians or supervision because of disorders or abusive addictions that threaten others.
If the dept has an issue not enforcing or disciplining that's the dept violating equal protections, due process, or right to redress grievances. If they are putting the beliefs of the harassed over the beliefs of the target, that's discrimination and unequal treatment but it's based on religion and creed, not just the orientation of the person.
The person is basically putting their beliefs before those of the target person to their beliefs, and the dept taking sides is also discriminating by belief.
(If you want to use the example you gave that the person is violating their own laws, that is another way to rebuke that person to prevent or correct this, but that is their problem on their side of the fence.) My point is it's not necessary to define a person by their orientation to defend them against abuses that are already unlawful. The law should be taught and enforced equally to defend all persons from harassment. So this is still an example of people discriminating by creed, independent of the specific issues or beliefs involved in the conflict itself.
2. What I meant by shariah is that in one context it's used to mean the practices enforced publicly as law which you describe, but in general shariah does not mean law as your example discusses. It means something totally different. It means the spiritual practice that remains voluntary and is never forced by anyone which is against the practice.
My point was if laws were made against the abuses you discuss as an example, you'd have to agree what language to use that is general, to cover all cases of Religious Abuse, so it's not discriminating against just one form in one religion. I'm saying Muslims would have a point not to abuse or spread the misuse of the term Shariah to mean this type of law which does not exist in their practice and confuses people with what they reserve the term Shariah for which means their spiritual practice that is completely private and personal. So if they complain to the state not to use Shariah in that context and to use general terms to describe the religious abuse or cult system being banned,
That's what I'm saying should be respected and remove the term Shariah that otherwise establishes a conflicting meaning and belief about practices.
great depth and detail
I'm reading your post out of sequence and still on my cell phone so sorry if this is cut short for now (or maybe that's better that way!)
1. For the issues of religious harassment in the military and workplace, I am recommending not only training and assistance in Constitutional education and mediation, but an agreement to adhere to policies and a process for resolving them.
If all collective organizations require their members to sign agreements to respect the policies and process, this prevents or reduces conflicts so there is no need to enact further legislation for each type of harassment possible.
This not only cuts costs by preventing and addressing issues without having to resort to legal actions and costs, but helps with troubleshooting in advance. If a company or group of staff know in advance of religious conflicts, they can address and resolve them before a confrontation occurs or agree to keep people separated. Such as when there could be a conflict with a parent and child being teacher and student, the school may separate them so they don't appear to have conflicting interests interfering with equal treatment. Some students can take their parents class and be treated like others, but some may opt out.
If someone has an abuse issues, this needs to be addressed regardless if the target is a person of another gender, race, religion, orientation etc. If that person cannot follow rules of civil standards then that's the problem not a the target of the harassment.
This also saves time and money by screening people with mental or criminal issues or behavior disorders where they are not legally competent, and I would recommend holding people to signed agreement to pay costs of any such abuses or damages they inflict as a way to screen out people who require legal guardians or supervision because of disorders or abusive addictions that threaten others.
If the dept has an issue not enforcing or disciplining that's the dept violating equal protections, due process, or right to redress grievances. If they are putting the beliefs of the harassed over the beliefs of the target, that's discrimination and unequal treatment but it's based on religion and creed, not just the orientation of the person.
The person is basically putting their beliefs before those of the target person to their beliefs, and the dept taking sides is also discriminating by belief.
(If you want to use the example you gave that the person is violating their own laws, that is another way to rebuke that person to prevent or correct this, but that is their problem on their side of the fence.) My point is it's not necessary to define a person by their orientation to defend them against abuses that are already unlawful. The law should be taught and enforced equally to defend all persons from harassment. So this is still an example of people discriminating by creed, independent of the specific issues or beliefs involved in the conflict itself.
2. What I meant by shariah is that in one context it's used to mean the practices enforced publicly as law which you describe, but in general shariah does not mean law as your example discusses. It means something totally different. It means the spiritual practice that remains voluntary and is never forced by anyone which is against the practice.
My point was if laws were made against the abuses you discuss as an example, you'd have to agree what language to use that is general, to cover all cases of Religious Abuse, so it's not discriminating against just one form in one religion. I'm saying Muslims would have a point not to abuse or spread the misuse of the term Shariah to mean this type of law which does not exist in their practice and confuses people with what they reserve the term Shariah for which means their spiritual practice that is completely private and personal. So if they complain to the state not to use Shariah in that context and to use general terms to describe the religious abuse or cult system being banned,
That's what I'm saying should be respected and remove the term Shariah that otherwise establishes a conflicting meaning and belief about practices.
Dear Sneekin I'm reading this post out of sequen
Last edited:
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Dear Sneekin I think
Your answer shows again how marriage laws do inevitable get into people's personal beliefs about marriage so it is NOT secular
If the secular law only governed getting into and out of a Civil Union or contract, this would not affect the couple's beliefs or arguments touching marriage under their creeds, whether Islam or Christian or LGBT.
So you demonstrate the point very clearly by example, Thank you!
While you may have graduated from Trump U or Google U, the rest of us attended real law school, and quoted real attorneys and quoting actual case law. Now pull your head out of where it's obviously at right now, I confuse nothing. Apparently you have. That's ok, little one. Maybe one of your offspring may actually have the intelligence to pass the LSAT. You, apparently, cannot even spell it, and sleep with a picture of Antonin under your pillow. Be a good boy, and let the adults talk. Everyone is sick and tired of your grandstanding and false facts. Maybe you could get out of the basement and ask your mommy if you could go and play with your friends.
No one but you has claimed Sharia is a religion but you yourself, foolish one. It is the sum total of the Sunna and Qur'an, fool, and is the religious LAW of Muslims. The fact you are so ignorant that you claim Muslims hack off hands or stone to death clearly outlines your stupidity. Sharia is deeply intertwined with Islam, and courts have ruled NUMEROUS (hint, that means many) TIMES based on Sharia Law in American courts. Call the Attorney who's name I mentioned, and ask him to explain it to you in monosyllabic terms, because it's quite apparent you lack even a modicum of intelligence when it comes to the law. Sharia is used in tandem with US law, fool, and not an intrusion. Examples given, you failed to understand, as usual. Be a good boy, and be gone. We grow weary of your continued bloviating.
Odd, considering I was speaking only of religious divorce. Marriage is civil law. Holy Matrimony is religious only. My child, an atheist went to city hall to get married. In no way did her personal religious beliefs enter into the picture (her husband is Christian). Quite the opposite. It was, and continues to be, secular.
For your Holy matrimony to be recognized by State, Local and Federal Governments, a county application must be completed by you and your spouse, and signed by the religious celebrant. You are confused. This signing of forms by all parties didn't affect your beliefs, nor did they affect my daughter's beliefs. If my daughter was mandated to be married in a church, it would violate her constitutional rights. If I decide to get married, I can be any race, color, creed, sex, or gender, including Muslim, Christian or LGBT. I am never required to go to a religious organization, I must be joined in marriage by someone authorized by the state (not all priests/rabbis/imans are).
I think you are very close to understanding the law. I hope this helps you to understand.
Tennyson
Senior Member
- Mar 19, 2015
- 310
- 13
- 51
You seem to have a penchant for making condescending replies to Elmily, who asks legitimate questions out of curiosity, and treats everyone with respect. You seem to have an unchecked ego. Based on your posts regarding the law, your ego is on shaky ground.
Why don't you give me the reason why Plessy was wrongly decided and why Brown was rightly decided with the constitutional basis.
Tennyson
Senior Member
- Mar 19, 2015
- 310
- 13
- 51
Your post makes no sense, is devoid of an argument to my post, and demonstrates your are over your depth. That is par for someone trying to convince everyone on the Internet that they are an attorney.
You are definitely some random internet troll, boring, and a waste of time. Your only goal is to distrupt threads and insult. Those déclassé characteristics are a dime a dozen on the Internet.
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Dear Sneekin
If the process requires signing by clergy yes it is mixing church and state.
Some require just witnessing by justice of the peace.
The issue is if people of a state consent to terms, then yes they may agree to mix religious with secular authorities.
It's when people DON'T agree to a practice, then they yell and protest imposition of beliefs on them.
So you prove the point that marriage has involved religion mixed with state.
Either agree on those terms or change the terms where people do agree!
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
PS Sneekin when Atheists have sued to remove crosses from public property,
It was NOT because they were being forced to join or change their faith!
They argue on principle that references to beliefs not all people share should not be endorsed or adopted as public policy such as in schools or on bldg s
These should be Removed or kept in private
And same should be respected for Christians asking to remove references to beliefs not everyone shares
It does not have to be forced on someone or force someone to join
In order to be removed on principle alone that not all people believe in it
It was NOT because they were being forced to join or change their faith!
They argue on principle that references to beliefs not all people share should not be endorsed or adopted as public policy such as in schools or on bldg s
These should be Removed or kept in private
And same should be respected for Christians asking to remove references to beliefs not everyone shares
It does not have to be forced on someone or force someone to join
In order to be removed on principle alone that not all people believe in it
ScienceRocks
Democrat all the way!
- Banned
- #980
And neither is marriage between a man and a women. The constitution is all about NO's and allows a lot of room for the yeses with congress.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Is it time for JD to stake his claim as the next President ?- Started by Tommy Tainant
- Replies: 1
-
If China does not invade Taiwan while the USA is occupied in war...is Taiwan safe from Chinese invasion?- Started by Invisibleflash
- Replies: 0
-
Joseph Kent (director of the National Counterterrorism Center) resigns- Started by YoursTruly
- Replies: 7
-
Will anyone in the current administration be charged with war crimes?
- Started by Invisibleflash
- Replies: 3
-
No BBC: Islamist Terror Hezbollah's attacks on Israel were not and are not "Retaliatory."- Started by Pastelli
- Replies: 1
