Gay marriage is not a constitutional right

[emilynghiem]

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.

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.

Thank you Tennyson and Sneekin for your honest speech feedback details and defenses

I'm willing to set aside any remarks made personally or off topic, as you both show sincerity in answering in full and presenting what shapes your decision or perceptions

I don't think any of us here can say we don't have an unchecked ego ourselves at times, except we help check each other. That's true in general especially online and I appreciate your help in this.

Tennyson I hope we don't insult your intelligence or burden you as trolls do

I believe the intent is sincere and no insults or condescending remarks are intended. We are honestly ignorant of where each other is coming from, and the only way to learn is to ask even if it makes us look stupid to others.

Sorry if what we ask or say disappoints or taxes your time and energy, but I'm happy to continue this discourse and direction despite those hiccups and would rather keep hearing from you and Sneekin so we finish where we can go with this! Thank you both!
Yours truly Emily
If new threads are needed please tag me and I'll follow your lead there

 

[Syriusly]

[
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.

And Sharia law in the United States can only act the same way.

Banning Sharia from doing arbitration in the way that Beth Din does would violate the Constitution.

Meanwhile, any Sharia in the United States that violated U.S. law would be overturned by the courts, or face criminal prosecution if it broke criminal laws.

 

[Syriusly]

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

No- atheists are not arguing that religious symbols must be kept in private- only that no specific religious belief be promoted on public grounds. Either all religions need to be offered the same opportunity to display their symbology on public land- Muslims, Hindu's, Satanists, etc- or no one should. Seems simpler to have none- though I am fine with exceptions for grandfathering in religious symbology that has historic significance.

If a Christian wants to put up a cross in his front yard- or builds a church on private property I have no objection to it at all.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

No- atheists are not arguing that religious symbols must be kept in private- only that no specific religious belief be promoted on public grounds. Either all religions need to be offered the same opportunity to display their symbology on public land- Muslims, Hindu's, Satanists, etc- or no one should. Seems simpler to have none- though I am fine with exceptions for grandfathering in religious symbology that has historic significance.

If a Christian wants to put up a cross in his front yard- or builds a church on private property I have no objection to it at all.

Yes Syriusly
But they HAVE sued to REMOVE crosses from public property. One case required selling the land to private ownership to settle the issue. So likewise opponents can SUE to remove MARRIAGE from states and keep it private. Or sue to remove it from federal and enforce it by states, where I recommend separating policy by party if needed to resolve this on State level where it belongs.

If you have Statist beliefs that federal should control marriage then take that up with Boss who agrees Statist constitutes a political creed. We can't discriminate against your Statist beliefs if you don't violate our belief in States rights. Agreed? Or do you really think you can argue to impose your beliefs and creeds about marriage and govt on people who believe otherwise while you complain about the same thing!

Sure people CAN agree to allow crosses if everyone else can display their beliefs, but that isn't what's happening. So I agree let's be fair and treat them the same. And let states decide how to settle this constituionally. Not dictated by courts who can only say yes or no. The resolutions are written and passed by process through the states. It relies on the people affected since beliefs and creeds are involved. Feds can't make laws for states and people unless they agree; if you agree to be ruled by judges that's your free choice not mine. If all people agree on such a law or ruling, that's fine. Otherwise forcing people to change their beliefs is not for govt to impose. If you do not agree that's your belief and you can choose to be imposed on all you like. Not me!

 

[emilynghiem]

Boss is it possible to write a law or agreement that if Statist legally require feds to pass laws or make rulings before they can invoke equal rights, they can have that without affecting others who believe those rights exist naturally or belong to states or people not feds. RWS suggested a separate govt that isn't connected to the external one. I suggested connecting Parties like States in a union but JakeStarkey had a herd of NOOOO cows and said that would disrupt the govt process. I asked isnt unchecked coercion and Collusion already happening with parties, media, and corporations outside govt checks and this is to address abuses and correct causes of conflict. Can parties and media be combined in better ways?

 

[emilynghiem]

BTW I think Statist is a,much better term for this belief on depending on federal govt. Shariah Democrats might work if ir werent such an insult to Muslims who don't use the word that way. But neither do people use govt the same way obviously!

 

[Sneekin]

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.

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.

Well, Tennyson, perhaps if you graduate high school, and college, take your LSAT, and move to where I teach, you'll get your answers. I don't answer questions from people like yourself, who simply troll and attack. Plessy was decided based on "Separate but Equal" Begone, gnat.

FYI - I'm not condescending. Emily can ask in 10,000 words what can be asked in 100 or 1000. She asks very interesting questions at times, but doesn't like the answers she receives on several, and refuses to admit when she is wrong on a particular issue.

Any more insults you wish to troll, Tenny? I assure you (as will my students) that my ego is fine. You have repeatedly been caught in lies, and refuse to quote case law or sources. It is you that has no knowledge of law, continue to make false allegations regarding the law, and have an ego comparable to none and grossly overblown.
I'm not on shaky ground, and neither is my ego - and the phrase has no meaning. Perhaps, Tenny, you meant to use my pride, or my confidence? Those words can be used and make sense, as opposed to your phrase. I apologize if English isn't your first language, and your translation software erroneously used the word. Don't waste our time, Tenny. Leave us alone until you have some knowledge in the subject.

 

[Sneekin]

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.

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!

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.

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!

I'm sorry, you are confused. It's not mixing church and state. "State" requires ONLY the completed document. No matter how many religious documents you get signed, none will allow you to claim you are legally married in the eyes of the law. You are never required to be married by clergy, that is your personal choice. No mixture - a mixture implies it's a requirement. I sincerely hope this helps you to understand.

If the state would require me to get married in say a Baptist church, that would be protested because the state would be imposing religious beliefs upon me.

Your claims that they are mandated are ludicrous - you can get married in your church, and not have it be recognized. To be legally married requires the marriage license. If the state says you have to get married by a judge, THEN they would be imposing their secular beliefs - but they don't.

 

[Sneekin]

BTW I think Statist is a,much better term for this belief on depending on federal govt. Shariah Democrats might work if ir werent such an insult to Muslims who don't use the word that way. But neither do people use govt the same way obviously!

Sharia is laws according to the Sunna and Qur'an, it has nothing to do with Democrats. In fact, there are thousands of Republican Muslims. Your comments, in fact, are rude and insulting. No Muslim uses that phrase, because it's a rude and insulting term - wouldn't you be offended if someone said all Republicans are all Talibani Christofacist Republicans? To me, that would be a gross misuse as well, and just as offensive.

How do people not use government the same way?

 

[Sneekin]

Boss is it possible to write a law or agreement that if Statist legally require feds to pass laws or make rulings before they can invoke equal rights, they can have that without affecting others who believe those rights exist naturally or belong to states or people not feds. RWS suggested a separate govt that isn't connected to the external one. I suggested connecting Parties like States in a union but JakeStarkey had a herd of NOOOO cows and said that would disrupt the govt process. I asked isnt unchecked coercion and Collusion already happening with parties, media, and corporations outside govt checks and this is to address abuses and correct causes of conflict. Can parties and media be combined in better ways?

Very interesting thoughts, Emily!

 

[Syriusly]

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

No- atheists are not arguing that religious symbols must be kept in private- only that no specific religious belief be promoted on public grounds. Either all religions need to be offered the same opportunity to display their symbology on public land- Muslims, Hindu's, Satanists, etc- or no one should. Seems simpler to have none- though I am fine with exceptions for grandfathering in religious symbology that has historic significance.

If a Christian wants to put up a cross in his front yard- or builds a church on private property I have no objection to it at all.

Yes Syriusly
But they HAVE sued to REMOVE crosses from public property. One case required selling the land to private ownership to settle the issue. So likewise opponents can SUE to remove MARRIAGE from states and keep it private. Or sue to remove it from federal and enforce it by states, where I recommend separating policy by party if needed to resolve this on State level where it belongs.

If you have Statist beliefs that federal should control marriage!

The federal government doesn't control marriage.

It is an interesting idea- to sue to remove marriage from being a legal institution- but what is the basis for the suit?

 

[Syriusly]

[ So I agree let's be fair and treat them the same. And let states decide how to settle this constituionally. Not dictated by courts who can only say yes or no. !

States don't decide on what is constitutional- that is what courts do.

If it were left up to the states- contraception might still be illegal in much of the United States- or even distributing literature that discusses contraception.
If it were left up to the states- mixed race marriage might still be illegal in much of the United States.
If it were left up to the states- gun ownership might be illegal in some states.
If it were left up to the states voters might still have to pay a poll tax in order to vote.

States can pass laws- but the Supreme Court is recourse for when those laws don't pass constitutional muster.

 

[Sneekin]

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

Sorry, Emily, but you are wrong. When Atheists sue to remove Crosses (as well as Menorahs. Ten Commandments, Creche, and other religious objects), they are suing because it violates their freedom FROM religion under the first amendment. To allow Crosses, the Ten Commandments, etc on public property gives the appearance of having or endorsing a state religion. Many Christians erroneously think that it violates their religious freedom, but the courts have decided several times that that is simply not true. In our city, the former mayor thought he had a work around, and for a few years, it worked - a cross/Creche would be allowed at Christmas time, as long as every other religion was represented if asked. A menorah came in one year, some pagans brought in something to celebrate the winter solstice. The last year, Satanists demanded that they have a goat head on display. He pitched a fit and told them they couldn't, they filed suit, and upon receipt, all persons were called and told to remove items from the city center.

 

[Sneekin]

[ So I agree let's be fair and treat them the same. And let states decide how to settle this constituionally. Not dictated by courts who can only say yes or no. !

States don't decide on what is constitutional- that is what courts do.

If it were left up to the states- contraception might still be illegal in much of the United States- or even distributing literature that discusses contraception.
If it were left up to the states- mixed race marriage might still be illegal in much of the United States.
If it were left up to the states- gun ownership might be illegal in some states.
If it were left up to the states voters might still have to pay a poll tax in order to vote.

States can pass laws- but the Supreme Court is recourse for when those laws don't pass constitutional muster.

That definitely deserves a big shout out!! Excellent comment.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Sorry, Emily, but you are wrong. When Atheists sue to remove Crosses (as well as Menorahs. Ten Commandments, Creche, and other religious objects), they are suing because it violates their freedom FROM religion under the first amendment. To allow Crosses, the Ten Commandments, etc on public property gives the appearance of having or endorsing a state religion. Many Christians erroneously think that it violates their religious freedom, but the courts have decided several times that that is simply not true. In our city, the former mayor thought he had a work around, and for a few years, it worked - a cross/Creche would be allowed at Christmas time, as long as every other religion was represented if asked. A menorah came in one year, some pagans brought in something to celebrate the winter solstice. The last year, Satanists demanded that they have a goat head on display. He pitched a fit and told them they couldn't, they filed suit, and upon receipt, all persons were called and told to remove items from the city center.

Well and that sort of displays the crux of the issue.

Generally people don't want freedom to have religious displays- they want to be able to have their religious displays on public property, but often are upset when religious displays that they don't agree with are displayed on public property.

Preventing all religious displays on public property means that Christians don't need to feel like their government is endorsing Islam or Buddhism, and Jews don't have to feel like their government is endorsing Catholicism or Mormons, etc, etc.

I am no purist when it comes to this- in general if no one has a problem with it, I don't really care, and I absolutely think that when a display has historical significance, then there should be room to grandfather it in.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

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.

Well, Tennyson, perhaps if you graduate high school, and college, take your LSAT, and move to where I teach, you'll get your answers. I don't answer questions from people like yourself, who simply troll and attack. Plessy was decided based on "Separate but Equal" Begone, gnat.

FYI - I'm not condescending. Emily can ask in 10,000 words what can be asked in 100 or 1000. She asks very interesting questions at times, but doesn't like the answers she receives on several, and refuses to admit when she is wrong on a particular issue.

Any more insults you wish to troll, Tenny? I assure you (as will my students) that my ego is fine. You have repeatedly been caught in lies, and refuse to quote case law or sources. It is you that has no knowledge of law, continue to make false allegations regarding the law, and have an ego comparable to none and grossly overblown.
I'm not on shaky ground, and neither is my ego - and the phrase has no meaning. Perhaps, Tenny, you meant to use my pride, or my confidence? Those words can be used and make sense, as opposed to your phrase. I apologize if English isn't your first language, and your translation software erroneously used the word. Don't waste our time, Tenny. Leave us alone until you have some knowledge in the subject.

Dear Sneekin and Tennyson
I see that we have different modes and means of communicating.
When I am "brainstorming" around, trying to find what angle to take with someone
where we can actually anchor in and gets somewhere,
yes, of course I ramble around trying to pick brains and do "process of elimination"
with the haystack of possibilities until we find the needle to work with!

In this case, I think we struck a chord with the "Shariah Law" issues.
My friend Mustafaa Carroll of Houston's CAIR is an award winning civic leader and volunteer with the local Peace and Justice community. He made it very clear to me that in traditional (not politicized) Muslim teachings, "Jihad and Shariah" DO NOT MEAN the political warfare and oppression that the militant groups use these for.
Mustafaa studies the Bible, has traditional Christian pastors in his own family, works with both the Christian and other leaders of faith on unity against war and promotion of nonviolent dialogue to foster stronger peaceful relations locally if we're going to do the same globally. He meets with any people who invite dialogue, he's met with Christian leaders who at least talked with him face to face.
If you have trouble understanding this, please also know he didn't know that believing and teaching natural laws as given by God was part of "Constitutionalism" and hadn't heard of that label either. So he did not know there is a name for what he goes around teaching about the Bill of Rights and Constitutional laws as a citizen and civic leader. He just does that naturally, and takes the history of natural laws from where Mohammad issued decrees and spread teachings on "no compulsion in religion" (the equivalent of religious freedom).

With both of you talking about Shariah Law used to mean the indoctrinated forced type of authority as in CULTS, I would THINK the more general laws to prevent such abuses would be focused against
* religious abuse
* cult abuse
and don't have to specifically be about Islamic imposition of "Shariah Law" on people or members of the community or family.

so this is a VERY good example for comparing the different between specifically targeting "Shariah Law"
and address ALL religious or cult abuse (or domestic and relationship abuse)
where ALL cases are covered, instead of just targeting abuses related to "Muslim" or "Shariah Law"

So with the case of the husband and wife in conflict and the husband is trying to cite religious freedom
for his beliefs that his authority or authority of Islam comes before her rights and consent,
then we can cite the 9th Amendment that religious freedom in the 1st Amendment cannot be
construed to violate the other rights the wife has including due process of law to defend liberty from deprivation,
protection from excessive punishment, "involuntary servitude unless as penalty for commission of a crime" etc. etc.

What I would propose IN GENERAL to cover ALL cases is to hold States
responsible for addressing complaints of ANY collective organization (any corporation or religious organization, nonprofit business educational, POLITICAL such as PACs or Parties, or MEDIA companies but not the content itself by the MANAGEMENT which is a business) for violating the same rights of citizens and individuals
that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect from collective abuse of authority influence or resources.

There should be a grievance process in place, similar to OSHA that has a code and a process for issuing citations and resolving penalties by correction or fines, or hearing/trial if necessary),
that is ACCESSIBLE to the public so that conflicts can be mediated or arbitrated to avoid
legal actions or costs in a court system that ISN'T affordable or accessible in part because it's so backlogged.

Sneekin by having a systematic way of addressing Religious Abuses, corporate or political abuses,
then the cases of gay/marriage/transgender issues and harassment/exclusion because of religious
conflicts can be included and addressed this way, targeting the Behavior of the Abuser, the Bullying
or Oppression of rights, instead of arguing over who believes what about homosexuality or marriage or
the content of the beliefs in conflict.

Trying to abuse parties or media to pass a law that others object to by religious beliefs or political creed,
causes disruptions and violations either way.

So it's that BEHAVIOR -- the bullying by coercion, imposition, exclusion or discrimination --
that can be focused on as wrongful and in violation of equal protections under law.

Political bullying, judicial and legal abuse should be addressed REGARDLESS
of the "content" of the sides and beliefs involved in the dispute.

So that is my proposal how to address this more generally, instead of
insulting attacking and harassing people for which side or belief they favor.

That's part of the problem, and taking one side over the other is never going to solve it.

 

[Tennyson]

[ So I agree let's be fair and treat them the same. And let states decide how to settle this constituionally. Not dictated by courts who can only say yes or no. !

States don't decide on what is constitutional- that is what courts do.

If it were left up to the states- contraception might still be illegal in much of the United States- or even distributing literature that discusses contraception.
If it were left up to the states- mixed race marriage might still be illegal in much of the United States.
If it were left up to the states- gun ownership might be illegal in some states.
If it were left up to the states voters might still have to pay a poll tax in order to vote.

States can pass laws- but the Supreme Court is recourse for when those laws don't pass constitutional muster.

There is no constitutional power granted to any branch of the federal government over a state's constitution or a state's law other than issues between states or any other state to state or individual to state or individual.

 

[Tennyson]

[
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.

And Sharia law in the United States can only act the same way.

Banning Sharia from doing arbitration in the way that Beth Din does would violate the Constitution.

Meanwhile, any Sharia in the United States that violated U.S. law would be overturned by the courts, or face criminal prosecution if it broke criminal laws.

There is no constitutional power over a state law regarding the banning of sharia law.

 

[Tennyson]

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

Sorry, Emily, but you are wrong. When Atheists sue to remove Crosses (as well as Menorahs. Ten Commandments, Creche, and other religious objects), they are suing because it violates their freedom FROM religion under the first amendment. To allow Crosses, the Ten Commandments, etc on public property gives the appearance of having or endorsing a state religion. Many Christians erroneously think that it violates their religious freedom, but the courts have decided several times that that is simply not true. In our city, the former mayor thought he had a work around, and for a few years, it worked - a cross/Creche would be allowed at Christmas time, as long as every other religion was represented if asked. A menorah came in one year, some pagans brought in something to celebrate the winter solstice. The last year, Satanists demanded that they have a goat head on display. He pitched a fit and told them they couldn't, they filed suit, and upon receipt, all persons were called and told to remove items from the city center.

Freedom from religion is not a constitutional concept. That is a twentieth century activist court's creation.

 

[emilynghiem]

BTW I think Statist is a,much better term for this belief on depending on federal govt. Shariah Democrats might work if ir werent such an insult to Muslims who don't use the word that way. But neither do people use govt the same way obviously!

Sharia is laws according to the Sunna and Qur'an, it has nothing to do with Democrats. In fact, there are thousands of Republican Muslims. Your comments, in fact, are rude and insulting. No Muslim uses that phrase, because it's a rude and insulting term - wouldn't you be offended if someone said all Republicans are all Talibani Christofacist Republicans? To me, that would be a gross misuse as well, and just as offensive.

How do people not use government the same way?

Dear Sneekin
My point exactly!

The Radical Liberals after Rousseau use Govt to establish the collective will of the people
where the whole compels the individual to comply.

The Classic Liberals after Locke, today's conservatives, believe in Limited Govt
where the Constitution is a "social contract" between the people and govt
on what duties to authorize govt to fulfill and no more.
Agreement between the people, or consent of the governed, is the basis of law and
social contracts, and what compels and gives authority to the govt, not vice versa.

So one model uses govt to mandate or impose laws,
the other empowers people to have natural rights and the govt and laws reflect the
consent and authority of the people.

Liberals and Democrats also believe "the people are the govt"
but somehow separate people "on the right" as "imposing their beliefs through govt"
while not recognizing they are doing the same with their "beliefs"
(which aren't recognized as religious since they are expressed in secular form).

Both sides are guilty of abusing govt to Compete or Bully between
these political beliefs, because
A. the beliefs on the left are NOT recognized as creeds but are allowed to be pushed through govt
B. the people on the right do not believe or trust that liberals can be reasoned with
to RECOGNIZE they are pushing secular beliefs similar to religious beliefs,
and thus they end up giving in to this same game of abusing majority rule to impose one belief on the other.

I've been trying to find people on BOTH sides who can recognize
that the beliefs on the left are that, and not merely "ignorance of history or law"
but TRULY what they believe. If someone believes in God or Nature as the default source of rights,
or someone believe in GOVERNMENT as the source of recognizing rights,
those beliefs cannot be changed by force of law.

Since they can't be changed, people go to political war trying to impose on the other side's ways.

What I think we really need is a
TRUCE a formal public recognition and resolution between parties
Recognizing that parties are pushing political religions beliefs or creeds
and to EMBRACE and RESPECT the fact that people BELIEVE in what they are defending.

once we get over that, and quit trying to compete to outshout or override or overrule
each other's beliefs,
maybe we can map out
how the heck we can ACCOMMODATE all these beliefs
that clash when we are trying to formulate and enforce public policies.

What do we keep public, and what do we revert to private
so the funding and resources can be where we agree to apply them collectively,
but where we disagree, we can organize separate means of
investing and managing our resources so we DON'T fight over terms and conditions in conflict.

That's where I think this conversation
and this country
are heading. We need to have THAT discussion, openly and transparently,
instead of tiptoeing around the huge Elephant (and Donkey) in the room.