Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hint: PA is not the PA you're thinking of.
Public Accommodation Laws ... Pennsylvania Laws ... It doesn't make a difference when the highest court in the land can change the meaning of the language in any law if they so chose.
At that point ... They are legislating from the bench.
.
When the legislative intent clearly matches the ruling, no, they aren't.
And there's no credible argument that it was the legislative intent to include churches in PA laws. As churches are explicitly exempted from them.
You simply don't know what you're talking about.
If the decision the court comes to is not what is written in the law ... And the intent was determined by what the justice thought was reasonable ... And specifically contradicts the written language of the legislation ... then that is attempting to legislate from the bench.
Following the intent of the legislation is what the court is supposed to do. As per legal precedent.
There's no credible argument that PA laws were intended to include churches. Your entire argument is baseless imagination backed by nothing but more imagination.
What are you, an idiot? They don't WANT somebody who LIKES them to perform the ceremony, they want somebody who is AGAINST them to be FORCED to marry them. Then when they refuse, they can SUE. Get it?Are you saying that a straight Catholic couple has the right to enter a synagogue and get married?
Religious institutions have the right to marry whoever they want to, that's completely their decision and that right is protected under the constitution. You're argument has no bearing, there is no legal dilemma between gay marriage and religious institutions, they don't have to participate. Some do currently and probably more will eventually but that is for those organizations to decide themselves.
When a same sex couple sues a church for failing to uphold their right to get married it will go to the SC.
Same sex couples can get married by someone who gets ordained online. Or the Courthouse.
Nearly no gays want a "Christian" or someone that doesn't believe in them to marry them. This concept is kind of stupid.
Ding ding ding!!! An uninformed person or a Communist. Plenty of those in our country.
Since you were off topic. Let me ask you this; What is a Communist
What are you, an idiot? They don't WANT somebody who LIKES them to perform the ceremony, they want somebody who is AGAINST them to be FORCED to marry them. Then when they refuse, they can SUE. Get it?When a same sex couple sues a church for failing to uphold their right to get married it will go to the SC.
Same sex couples can get married by someone who gets ordained online. Or the Courthouse.
Nearly no gays want a "Christian" or someone that doesn't believe in them to marry them. This concept is kind of stupid.
Has it happened yet? If so, what was the outcome?
The court has just welcomed it. Our country is being crushed from the very core. This is worse than anything Obama has done.
In state court, or any jurisdiction where gay marriage is legal, has a church been successfully sued to perform a gay wedding? Or any wedding for any reason that does not fit within their religious tenants? Maybe not even a gay wedding....any wedding? When has a church ever been forced by government to perform a wedding they wouldn't approve of?
Of course it hasn't happened yet, they just ruled on it this morning, airhead.What are you, an idiot? They don't WANT somebody who LIKES them to perform the ceremony, they want somebody who is AGAINST them to be FORCED to marry them. Then when they refuse, they can SUE. Get it?Takes about 20 minutes to get ordained online
No the US Constution has protected them. Now when you have 2 equally important rights protected now under the constitution like Same sex marriage and Freedom of religion they will have to meet in court becuase BOTH same sex couples AND Churches are fighting the same thing now that their rights are being violated and there can only be "1" ruling and "1" pick.
Are you saying that a straight Catholic couple has the right to enter a synagogue and get married?
Religious institutions have the right to marry whoever they want to, that's completely their decision and that right is protected under the constitution. You're argument has no bearing, there is no legal dilemma between gay marriage and religious institutions, they don't have to participate. Some do currently and probably more will eventually but that is for those organizations to decide themselves.
When a same sex couple sues a church for failing to uphold their right to get married it will go to the SC.
Same sex couples can get married by someone who gets ordained online. Or the Courthouse.
Nearly no gays want a "Christian" or someone that doesn't believe in them to marry them. This concept is kind of stupid.
Has it happened yet? If so, what was the outcome?
What are you, an idiot? They don't WANT somebody who LIKES them to perform the ceremony, they want somebody who is AGAINST them to be FORCED to marry them. Then when they refuse, they can SUE. Get it?When a same sex couple sues a church for failing to uphold their right to get married it will go to the SC.
Same sex couples can get married by someone who gets ordained online. Or the Courthouse.
Nearly no gays want a "Christian" or someone that doesn't believe in them to marry them. This concept is kind of stupid.
Has it happened yet? If so, what was the outcome?
The court has just welcomed it. Our country is being crushed from the very core. This is worse than anything Obama has done.
In state court, or any jurisdiction where gay marriage is legal, has a church been successfully sued to perform a gay wedding? Or any wedding for any reason that does not fit within their religious tenants? Maybe not even a gay wedding....any wedding? When has a church ever been forced by government to perform a wedding they wouldn't approve of?
What are you, an idiot? They don't WANT somebody who LIKES them to perform the ceremony, they want somebody who is AGAINST them to be FORCED to marry them. Then when they refuse, they can SUE. Get it?When a same sex couple sues a church for failing to uphold their right to get married it will go to the SC.
Same sex couples can get married by someone who gets ordained online. Or the Courthouse.
Nearly no gays want a "Christian" or someone that doesn't believe in them to marry them. This concept is kind of stupid.
Has it happened yet? If so, what was the outcome?
The court has just welcomed it. Our country is being crushed from the very core. This is worse than anything Obama has done.
In state court, or any jurisdiction where gay marriage is legal, has a church been successfully sued to perform a gay wedding? Or any wedding for any reason that does not fit within their religious tenants? Maybe not even a gay wedding....any wedding? When has a church ever been forced by government to perform a wedding they wouldn't approve of?
Of course it hasn't happened yet, they just ruled on it this morning, airhead.What are you, an idiot? They don't WANT somebody who LIKES them to perform the ceremony, they want somebody who is AGAINST them to be FORCED to marry them. Then when they refuse, they can SUE. Get it?Are you saying that a straight Catholic couple has the right to enter a synagogue and get married?
Religious institutions have the right to marry whoever they want to, that's completely their decision and that right is protected under the constitution. You're argument has no bearing, there is no legal dilemma between gay marriage and religious institutions, they don't have to participate. Some do currently and probably more will eventually but that is for those organizations to decide themselves.
When a same sex couple sues a church for failing to uphold their right to get married it will go to the SC.
Same sex couples can get married by someone who gets ordained online. Or the Courthouse.
Nearly no gays want a "Christian" or someone that doesn't believe in them to marry them. This concept is kind of stupid.
Has it happened yet? If so, what was the outcome?
Hint: PA is not the PA you're thinking of.
Public Accommodation Laws ... Pennsylvania Laws ... It doesn't make a difference when the highest court in the land can change the meaning of the language in any law if they so chose.
At that point ... They are legislating from the bench.
.
When the legislative intent clearly matches the ruling, no, they aren't.
And there's no credible argument that it was the legislative intent to include churches in PA laws. As churches are explicitly exempted from them.
You simply don't know what you're talking about.
If the decision the court comes to is not what is written in the law ... And the intent was determined by what the justice thought was reasonable ... And specifically contradicts the written language of the legislation ... then that is attempting to legislate from the bench.
Following the intent of the legislation is what the court is supposed to do. As per legal precedent.
There's no credible argument that PA laws were intended to include churches. Your entire argument is baseless imagination backed by nothing but more imagination.
Okay peanut ... Go back and find where I said anything about PA laws including churches ... Or identify how that has anything to do with the SCOTUS decision involving Obamacare.
What are you, an idiot? They don't WANT somebody who LIKES them to perform the ceremony, they want somebody who is AGAINST them to be FORCED to marry them. Then when they refuse, they can SUE. Get it?Same sex couples can get married by someone who gets ordained online. Or the Courthouse.
Nearly no gays want a "Christian" or someone that doesn't believe in them to marry them. This concept is kind of stupid.
Has it happened yet? If so, what was the outcome?
The court has just welcomed it. Our country is being crushed from the very core. This is worse than anything Obama has done.
In state court, or any jurisdiction where gay marriage is legal, has a church been successfully sued to perform a gay wedding? Or any wedding for any reason that does not fit within their religious tenants? Maybe not even a gay wedding....any wedding? When has a church ever been forced by government to perform a wedding they wouldn't approve of?
I'm putting you on ignore for not reading or trolling either way it's worth it.
Hint: PA is not the PA you're thinking of.
Public Accommodation Laws ... Pennsylvania Laws ... It doesn't make a difference when the highest court in the land can change the meaning of the language in any law if they so chose.
At that point ... They are legislating from the bench.
.
When the legislative intent clearly matches the ruling, no, they aren't.
And there's no credible argument that it was the legislative intent to include churches in PA laws. As churches are explicitly exempted from them.
You simply don't know what you're talking about.
If the decision the court comes to is not what is written in the law ... And the intent was determined by what the justice thought was reasonable ... And specifically contradicts the written language of the legislation ... then that is attempting to legislate from the bench.
Following the intent of the legislation is what the court is supposed to do. As per legal precedent.
There's no credible argument that PA laws were intended to include churches. Your entire argument is baseless imagination backed by nothing but more imagination.
Okay peanut ... Go back and find where I said anything about PA laws including churches ... Or identify how that has anything to do with the SCOTUS decision involving Obamacare.
You are arguing with me about something I didn't refer to ...Outside of the implications another decision from SCOTUS referring to another case ... And how it makes any law irrelevant if a justice decides to ignore the written language of the law and legislate from the bench.
.
Of course it hasn't happened yet, they just ruled on it this morning, airhead.What are you, an idiot? They don't WANT somebody who LIKES them to perform the ceremony, they want somebody who is AGAINST them to be FORCED to marry them. Then when they refuse, they can SUE. Get it?Are you saying that a straight Catholic couple has the right to enter a synagogue and get married?
Religious institutions have the right to marry whoever they want to, that's completely their decision and that right is protected under the constitution. You're argument has no bearing, there is no legal dilemma between gay marriage and religious institutions, they don't have to participate. Some do currently and probably more will eventually but that is for those organizations to decide themselves.
When a same sex couple sues a church for failing to uphold their right to get married it will go to the SC.
Same sex couples can get married by someone who gets ordained online. Or the Courthouse.
Nearly no gays want a "Christian" or someone that doesn't believe in them to marry them. This concept is kind of stupid.
Has it happened yet? If so, what was the outcome?
Public Accommodation Laws ... Pennsylvania Laws ... It doesn't make a difference when the highest court in the land can change the meaning of the language in any law if they so chose.
At that point ... They are legislating from the bench.
.
When the legislative intent clearly matches the ruling, no, they aren't.
And there's no credible argument that it was the legislative intent to include churches in PA laws. As churches are explicitly exempted from them.
You simply don't know what you're talking about.
If the decision the court comes to is not what is written in the law ... And the intent was determined by what the justice thought was reasonable ... And specifically contradicts the written language of the legislation ... then that is attempting to legislate from the bench.
Following the intent of the legislation is what the court is supposed to do. As per legal precedent.
There's no credible argument that PA laws were intended to include churches. Your entire argument is baseless imagination backed by nothing but more imagination.
Okay peanut ... Go back and find where I said anything about PA laws including churches ... Or identify how that has anything to do with the SCOTUS decision involving Obamacare.
You are arguing with me about something I didn't refer to ...Outside of the implications another decision from SCOTUS referring to another case ... And how it makes any law irrelevant if a justice decides to ignore the written language of the law and legislate from the bench.
.
I put him on ignore. He's not even reading your post. Trolling you all the way. I'm the best troll to ever hit this site, so I'd know. Take my word for it. He belongs in the flame zone.
I put him on ignore. He's not even reading your post. Trolling you all the way. I'm the best troll to ever hit this site, so I'd know. Take my word for it. He belongs in the flame zone.
Public Accommodation Laws ... Pennsylvania Laws ... It doesn't make a difference when the highest court in the land can change the meaning of the language in any law if they so chose.
At that point ... They are legislating from the bench.
.
When the legislative intent clearly matches the ruling, no, they aren't.
And there's no credible argument that it was the legislative intent to include churches in PA laws. As churches are explicitly exempted from them.
You simply don't know what you're talking about.
If the decision the court comes to is not what is written in the law ... And the intent was determined by what the justice thought was reasonable ... And specifically contradicts the written language of the legislation ... then that is attempting to legislate from the bench.
Following the intent of the legislation is what the court is supposed to do. As per legal precedent.
There's no credible argument that PA laws were intended to include churches. Your entire argument is baseless imagination backed by nothing but more imagination.
Okay peanut ... Go back and find where I said anything about PA laws including churches ... Or identify how that has anything to do with the SCOTUS decision involving Obamacare.
You are arguing with me about something I didn't refer to ...Outside of the implications another decision from SCOTUS referring to another case ... And how it makes any law irrelevant if a justice decides to ignore the written language of the law and legislate from the bench.
.
I put him on ignore. He's not even reading your post. Trolling you all the way. I'm the best troll to ever hit this site, so I'd know. Take my word for it. He belongs in the flame zone.
Did you not see my last comment to you?Of course it hasn't happened yet, they just ruled on it this morning, airhead.What are you, an idiot? They don't WANT somebody who LIKES them to perform the ceremony, they want somebody who is AGAINST them to be FORCED to marry them. Then when they refuse, they can SUE. Get it?When a same sex couple sues a church for failing to uphold their right to get married it will go to the SC.
Same sex couples can get married by someone who gets ordained online. Or the Courthouse.
Nearly no gays want a "Christian" or someone that doesn't believe in them to marry them. This concept is kind of stupid.
Has it happened yet? If so, what was the outcome?
OK, when has a church ever been forced by government to perform any wedding?
Did you not see my last comment to you?Of course it hasn't happened yet, they just ruled on it this morning, airhead.What are you, an idiot? They don't WANT somebody who LIKES them to perform the ceremony, they want somebody who is AGAINST them to be FORCED to marry them. Then when they refuse, they can SUE. Get it?Same sex couples can get married by someone who gets ordained online. Or the Courthouse.
Nearly no gays want a "Christian" or someone that doesn't believe in them to marry them. This concept is kind of stupid.
Has it happened yet? If so, what was the outcome?
OK, when has a church ever been forced by government to perform any wedding?
I put him on ignore. He's not even reading your post. Trolling you all the way. I'm the best troll to ever hit this site, so I'd know. Take my word for it. He belongs in the flame zone.
Oh Please ... Please don't send him there ... I was beginning to enjoy the place.
Then again .... Maybe that is your plan ... Bastard.
.