Same sex marriage OR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

[AntiParty]

We need another black guy or a woman. Let's ensure the Bigots vote down everything.

 

[BlackSand]

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.

.

 

[Judicial review]

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.

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?

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

I'm right on topic. You start eliminating individual rights like freedom of religion we become just like them. A mirror image. Add in Obama's executive orders and bypassing congress we are closer to that point than we should have ever of been.

I'm ready for a constitutional convention. I was hesitant about it before, but now this decision has officially sold me on it.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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?

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?

Not once. Not ever.

JR is arguing that he knows the future. Based on.....his assurances that he knows the future.

 

[S.J.]

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.

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?

Has it happened yet? If so, what was the outcome?

Of course it hasn't happened yet, they just ruled on it this morning, airhead.

 

[AntiParty]

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.

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?

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?

None, the furthest this has been pushed is "cake making" or personal business.

 

[Judicial review]

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.

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?

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.

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

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?

Has it happened yet? If so, what was the outcome?

Of course it hasn't happened yet, they just ruled on it this morning, airhead.

OK, when has a church ever been forced by government to perform any wedding?

 

[Skylar]

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.

So now churches aren't subject to PA laws. Then how, pray tell, could they be forced to accommodate a wedding they don't want to perform?

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

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?

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.

I agree, you can't answer the question.

 

[Judicial review]

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.

.

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.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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?

Has it happened yet? If so, what was the outcome?

Of course it hasn't happened yet, they just ruled on it this morning, airhead.

The ruling doesn't even mention PA laws or churches. So what relevance would todays ruling have with churches being forced to perform any wedding?

 

[AntiParty]

I wonder what it was like for gays to get married "yesterday"

It's almost like some states still hold bigotry perspectives.

NICE POST

 

[Skylar]

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 guess its just iggy for everyone tonight, huh JR.

I take it your argument isn't going well.

 

[BlackSand]

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 ... You Bastard.

.

 

[AntiParty]

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." ~ Judicial review

 

[S.J.]

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.

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?

Has it happened yet? If so, what was the outcome?

Of course it hasn't happened yet, they just ruled on it this morning, airhead.

OK, when has a church ever been forced by government to perform any wedding?

Did you not see my last comment to you?

 

[AntiParty]

Cults always want you to ignore information. CRAZY!

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

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?

Has it happened yet? If so, what was the outcome?

Of course it hasn't happened yet, they just ruled on it this morning, airhead.

OK, when has a church ever been forced by government to perform any wedding?

Did you not see my last comment to you?

Yep. I'll ask again and be clearer. When has any church ever been forced by the government to perform ANY wedding that was against their beliefs?

 

[Judicial review]

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.

.

My trolling is for the FZ ONLY. People a there are supposed to expect it, but they never see me coming. This issue is all real and me 100%. This is horrible for our country.