Supreme Court justices RIP ruling forcing states to recognize same-sex marriages - 'Threat To Religious Freedom!'

[Seawytch]

This is settled law, get over it.

It's settled law until it isn't.

It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.

Separate but Equal was "settled law" for decades until overturned.

That was an injustice. This is not. Your fever dream ain’t gonna happen. This IS done and won’t be undone.

Sorry, but "bake or die" is an injustice, you just don't see it because you support the oppressors.

And when the constitution is litigated from the bench, it is maybe not an injustice, but it's short sighted and stupid.

And it's funny you had to add a qualifier to your position when called out.

Your "bake or die" hangup isn't on us. Take it up with Title II of the CRA. PA laws protecting gays are STATE laws, cupcake.

PA laws cannot trump Free Exercise, even at the State level.

Your "force people to accept us using the government bayonet" mindset is on you.

You don't want tolerance, you want forced acceptance.

So far every court (and most people) disagree with you. Maybe you’ll get lucky the hundredth time around.

 

[Seawytch]

This is settled law, get over it.

It's settled law until it isn't.

It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.

You're being naive if you think law is ever settled. Bans against gay marriage were "settled law" until they were overturned in SCOTUS by those two same rulings.

It was a 7-2 decision. Over 300,000 couples have been married. Gay marriage isn’t being reversed.

Ha. Then you know nothing about the tendencies of the Supreme Court.

On another note, I know you are gay as well as I, so do not attempt to speak for me. I want equality under the law, but not at the expense of other people's legal rights.

We're not supposed to be conquering people, we should be getting them to accept us!

If you want equality under the law, then you should want to be protected by the same laws that protect other minorities.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This is settled law, get over it.

It's settled law until it isn't.

It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.

You're being naive if you think law is ever settled. Bans against gay marriage were "settled law" until they were overturned in SCOTUS by those two same rulings.

It was a 7-2 decision. Over 300,000 couples have been married. Gay marriage isn’t being reversed.

Ha. Then you know nothing about the tendencies of the Supreme Court.

On another note, I know you are gay as well as I, so do not attempt to speak for me. I want equality under the law, but not at the expense of other people's legal rights.

We're not supposed to be conquering people, we should be getting them to accept us!

If you want equality under the law, then you should want to be protected by the same laws that protect other minorities.

Interesting... I want the law to treat me as equally as everyone else. But I don't want the law to give me special treatment. That's the difference, Seawytch. You don't want equality, you want special treatment. Forcing people to accept you is not acceptance, it's subversion.

You are entitled to nothing but equal treatment, not special treatment. That is something you need to understand.

 

[Seawytch]

This is settled law, get over it.

It's settled law until it isn't.

It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.

You're being naive if you think law is ever settled. Bans against gay marriage were "settled law" until they were overturned in SCOTUS by those two same rulings.

It was a 7-2 decision. Over 300,000 couples have been married. Gay marriage isn’t being reversed.

Ha. Then you know nothing about the tendencies of the Supreme Court.

On another note, I know you are gay as well as I, so do not attempt to speak for me. I want equality under the law, but not at the expense of other people's legal rights.

We're not supposed to be conquering people, we should be getting them to accept us!

If you want equality under the law, then you should want to be protected by the same laws that protect other minorities.

Interesting... I want the law to treat me as equally as everyone else. But I don't want the law to give me special treatment. That's the difference, Seawytch. You don't want equality, you want special treatment. Forcing people to accept you is not acceptance, it's subversion.

You are entitled to nothing but equal treatment, not special treatment. That is something you need to understand.

To be treated exactly like other minorities is equal. You want special treatment for gays if you want them to be able to be discriminated against where you cannot do the same for other minorities.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This is settled law, get over it.

It's settled law until it isn't.

It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.

You're being naive if you think law is ever settled. Bans against gay marriage were "settled law" until they were overturned in SCOTUS by those two same rulings.

It was a 7-2 decision. Over 300,000 couples have been married. Gay marriage isn’t being reversed.

Ha. Then you know nothing about the tendencies of the Supreme Court.

On another note, I know you are gay as well as I, so do not attempt to speak for me. I want equality under the law, but not at the expense of other people's legal rights.

We're not supposed to be conquering people, we should be getting them to accept us!

If you want equality under the law, then you should want to be protected by the same laws that protect other minorities.

Interesting... I want the law to treat me as equally as everyone else. But I don't want the law to give me special treatment. That's the difference, Seawytch. You don't want equality, you want special treatment. Forcing people to accept you is not acceptance, it's subversion.

You are entitled to nothing but equal treatment, not special treatment. That is something you need to understand.

To be treated exactly like other minorities is equal. You want special treatment for gays if you want them to be able to be discriminated against where you cannot do the same for other minorities.

No. Absolutely not.

You are totally missing the point. We are not minorities, we are equals among our peers. There should be no minority or majority. We want the same treatment as the majority; but by asking for special treatment, by classifying us as "minorities" you are thereby already committing the act of discrimination. We are not a niche population, we are Americans like everyone else.

To ask for equal treatment among minorities only is not equality. That is exclusion. You cannot see the forest for the trees. What you do is only corrupt our cause beyond its original purpose, you only drive people away, you aren't gaining their acceptance, only their contempt.

I will fight for LGBT rights insomuch as my rights do not come at the expense of the freedoms of others. Period, full stop.

I will not advocate for methods that suppress the freedoms of others. We do not do to others what they are already doing to us.

Am I clear? We are already having our freedoms suppressed, what is there to gain by going on a revenge campaign? That's all I see the fight for LGBT rights by the mainstream community as.

I will sooner be damned than do something so spiteful and vile. We want tolerance but are unwilling to give it in return. Such puerile behavior.

 

[martybegan]

This is settled law, get over it.

It's settled law until it isn't.

It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.

Separate but Equal was "settled law" for decades until overturned.

That was an injustice. This is not. Your fever dream ain’t gonna happen. This IS done and won’t be undone.

Sorry, but "bake or die" is an injustice, you just don't see it because you support the oppressors.

And when the constitution is litigated from the bench, it is maybe not an injustice, but it's short sighted and stupid.

And it's funny you had to add a qualifier to your position when called out.

Your "bake or die" hangup isn't on us. Take it up with Title II of the CRA. PA laws protecting gays are STATE laws, cupcake.

PA laws cannot trump Free Exercise, even at the State level.

Your "force people to accept us using the government bayonet" mindset is on you.

You don't want tolerance, you want forced acceptance.

So far every court (and most people) disagree with you. Maybe you’ll get lucky the hundredth time around.

appeal to the masses isn't a response, it's a dodge.

 

[Seawytch]

This is settled law, get over it.

It's settled law until it isn't.

It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.

You're being naive if you think law is ever settled. Bans against gay marriage were "settled law" until they were overturned in SCOTUS by those two same rulings.

It was a 7-2 decision. Over 300,000 couples have been married. Gay marriage isn’t being reversed.

Ha. Then you know nothing about the tendencies of the Supreme Court.

On another note, I know you are gay as well as I, so do not attempt to speak for me. I want equality under the law, but not at the expense of other people's legal rights.

We're not supposed to be conquering people, we should be getting them to accept us!

If you want equality under the law, then you should want to be protected by the same laws that protect other minorities.

Interesting... I want the law to treat me as equally as everyone else. But I don't want the law to give me special treatment. That's the difference, Seawytch. You don't want equality, you want special treatment. Forcing people to accept you is not acceptance, it's subversion.

You are entitled to nothing but equal treatment, not special treatment. That is something you need to understand.

To be treated exactly like other minorities is equal. You want special treatment for gays if you want them to be able to be discriminated against where you cannot do the same for other minorities.

No. Absolutely not.

You are totally missing the point. We are not minorities, we are equals among our peers. There should be no minority or majority. We want the same treatment as the majority; but by asking for special treatment, by classifying us as "minorities" you are thereby already committing the act of discrimination. We are not a niche population, we are Americans like everyone else.

To ask for equal treatment among minorities only is not equality. That is exclusion. You cannot see the forest for the trees. What you do is only corrupt our cause beyond its original purpose, you only drive people away, you aren't gaining their acceptance, only their contempt.

I will fight for LGBT rights insomuch as my rights do not come at the expense of the freedoms of others. Period, full stop.

I will not advocate for methods that suppress the freedoms of others. We do not do to others what they are already doing to us.

Am I clear? We are already having our freedoms suppressed, what is there to gain by going on a revenge campaign? That's all I see the fight for LGBT rights by the mainstream community as.

I will sooner be damned than do something so spiteful and vile. We want tolerance but are unwilling to give it in return. Such puerile behavior.

What are you ranting about? It is simple. Title II of the FEDERAL Civil Rights Act is your “bake the damn cake” boogie man, not local and state laws. Either add gays, a historically oppressed minority, to the other historically oppressed minorities protected by it or get rid of PA protection for religion, race, gender, etc.

 

[Seawytch]

This is settled law, get over it.

It's settled law until it isn't.

It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.

Separate but Equal was "settled law" for decades until overturned.

That was an injustice. This is not. Your fever dream ain’t gonna happen. This IS done and won’t be undone.

Sorry, but "bake or die" is an injustice, you just don't see it because you support the oppressors.

And when the constitution is litigated from the bench, it is maybe not an injustice, but it's short sighted and stupid.

And it's funny you had to add a qualifier to your position when called out.

Your "bake or die" hangup isn't on us. Take it up with Title II of the CRA. PA laws protecting gays are STATE laws, cupcake.

PA laws cannot trump Free Exercise, even at the State level.

Your "force people to accept us using the government bayonet" mindset is on you.

You don't want tolerance, you want forced acceptance.

So far every court (and most people) disagree with you. Maybe you’ll get lucky the hundredth time around.

appeal to the masses isn't a response, it's a dodge.

It’s a fact. Most Americans want gays protected alongside other minorities...and nobody has the balls to go after Title II of the CRA.

 

[Faun]

That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!

"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."

"The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."

Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance."



"Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss," he wrote. "In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals."

Just because you have a deep RELIGIOUS conviction regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and does not include same-sex marriages does NOT make one a Bigot or Homophobe and protects that religious belief / conviction.

Thomas added: "This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as 'disparag[ing]' homosexuals and 'diminish[ing] their personhood' through '[d]ignitary wounds.'"

Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case

The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.

www.foxnews.com

"That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution"

Of course it is...

Fourteenth Amendment

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

Marriage is a state sanctioned legal contract. The state cannot say one person can marry the person they love but another person can't. Doing so was not applying the law equally. That's thd reason same sex marriage was deemed constitutional by our Supreme Court.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This is settled law, get over it.

It's settled law until it isn't.

It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.

You're being naive if you think law is ever settled. Bans against gay marriage were "settled law" until they were overturned in SCOTUS by those two same rulings.

It was a 7-2 decision. Over 300,000 couples have been married. Gay marriage isn’t being reversed.

Ha. Then you know nothing about the tendencies of the Supreme Court.

On another note, I know you are gay as well as I, so do not attempt to speak for me. I want equality under the law, but not at the expense of other people's legal rights.

We're not supposed to be conquering people, we should be getting them to accept us!

If you want equality under the law, then you should want to be protected by the same laws that protect other minorities.

Interesting... I want the law to treat me as equally as everyone else. But I don't want the law to give me special treatment. That's the difference, Seawytch. You don't want equality, you want special treatment. Forcing people to accept you is not acceptance, it's subversion.

You are entitled to nothing but equal treatment, not special treatment. That is something you need to understand.

To be treated exactly like other minorities is equal. You want special treatment for gays if you want them to be able to be discriminated against where you cannot do the same for other minorities.

No. Absolutely not.

You are totally missing the point. We are not minorities, we are equals among our peers. There should be no minority or majority. We want the same treatment as the majority; but by asking for special treatment, by classifying us as "minorities" you are thereby already committing the act of discrimination. We are not a niche population, we are Americans like everyone else.

To ask for equal treatment among minorities only is not equality. That is exclusion. You cannot see the forest for the trees. What you do is only corrupt our cause beyond its original purpose, you only drive people away, you aren't gaining their acceptance, only their contempt.

I will fight for LGBT rights insomuch as my rights do not come at the expense of the freedoms of others. Period, full stop.

I will not advocate for methods that suppress the freedoms of others. We do not do to others what they are already doing to us.

Am I clear? We are already having our freedoms suppressed, what is there to gain by going on a revenge campaign? That's all I see the fight for LGBT rights by the mainstream community as.

I will sooner be damned than do something so spiteful and vile. We want tolerance but are unwilling to give it in return. Such puerile behavior.

What are you ranting about? It is simple. Title II of the FEDERAL Civil Rights Act is your “bake the damn cake” boogie man, not local and state laws. Either add gays, a historically oppressed minority, to the other historically oppressed minorities protected by it or get rid of PA protection for religion, race, gender, etc.

Your ignorance of the nuances of law is astounding.

So Title II says we must circumvent the religious beliefs of someone rendering a service? Is that what you're getting at?

No, you want protection for one, but not the other.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!

"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."

"The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."

Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance."



"Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss," he wrote. "In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals."

Just because you have a deep RELIGIOUS conviction regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and does not include same-sex marriages does NOT make one a Bigot or Homophobe and protects that religious belief / conviction.

Thomas added: "This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as 'disparag[ing]' homosexuals and 'diminish[ing] their personhood' through '[d]ignitary wounds.'"

Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case

The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.

www.foxnews.com

"That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution"

Of course it is...

Fourteenth Amendment​

​

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

Marriage is a state sanctioned legal contract. The state cannot say one person can marry the person they love but another person can't. Doing so was not applying the law equally. That's thd reason same sex marriage was deemed constitutional by our Supreme Court.

Interesting, Faun thinks he has superior legal knowledge as compared to the judge who offered that dissent, who spent years of his life studying the very law itself.

You're funny.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This is settled law, get over it.

It's settled law until it isn't.

It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.

Separate but Equal was "settled law" for decades until overturned.

That was an injustice. This is not. Your fever dream ain’t gonna happen. This IS done and won’t be undone.

Sorry, but "bake or die" is an injustice, you just don't see it because you support the oppressors.

And when the constitution is litigated from the bench, it is maybe not an injustice, but it's short sighted and stupid.

And it's funny you had to add a qualifier to your position when called out.

Your "bake or die" hangup isn't on us. Take it up with Title II of the CRA. PA laws protecting gays are STATE laws, cupcake.

PA laws cannot trump Free Exercise, even at the State level.

Your "force people to accept us using the government bayonet" mindset is on you.

You don't want tolerance, you want forced acceptance.

So far every court (and most people) disagree with you. Maybe you’ll get lucky the hundredth time around.

appeal to the masses isn't a response, it's a dodge.

It’s a fact. Most Americans want gays protected alongside other minorities...and nobody has the balls to go after Title II of the CRA.

Curious, what does that accomplish?

 

[TemplarKormac]

What are you ranting about?

That question tells me you weren't interested in the content of my post. Do not speak to me until you read it. Or exit the conversation.

I tire of people who want to debate with emotions instead of attacking the points and contentions of an argument with fact-based rebuttals.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It is simple. Title II of the FEDERAL Civil Rights Act is your “bake the damn cake” boogie man

I make the contention the law isn't ethical to either party, not just minorities. And as I can see, you aren't concerned with the ethics in regards to the legal impact it has on people of faith. This is a suppression campaign in response to suppression. That is revenge. Nothing more.

 

[martybegan]

This is settled law, get over it.

It's settled law until it isn't.

It won't ever not be. The court will no more reverse Obergerfell than they would reverse Loving. The genie is out of the bottle. It's not going back in.

Separate but Equal was "settled law" for decades until overturned.

That was an injustice. This is not. Your fever dream ain’t gonna happen. This IS done and won’t be undone.

Sorry, but "bake or die" is an injustice, you just don't see it because you support the oppressors.

And when the constitution is litigated from the bench, it is maybe not an injustice, but it's short sighted and stupid.

And it's funny you had to add a qualifier to your position when called out.

Your "bake or die" hangup isn't on us. Take it up with Title II of the CRA. PA laws protecting gays are STATE laws, cupcake.

PA laws cannot trump Free Exercise, even at the State level.

Your "force people to accept us using the government bayonet" mindset is on you.

You don't want tolerance, you want forced acceptance.

So far every court (and most people) disagree with you. Maybe you’ll get lucky the hundredth time around.

appeal to the masses isn't a response, it's a dodge.

It’s a fact. Most Americans want gays protected alongside other minorities...and nobody has the balls to go after Title II of the CRA.

Do most Americans agree a baker should be ruined if they don't want to provide one contracted service?

All those polls you would quote are worded in a way to get what the poll taker wants, and you know it.

And again with appeal to the masses instead of justifying why you get a chubby out of ruining people that you disagree with politically, you dried up old cow.

 

[Faun]

Nowhere in this statement did Thomas and Alito address how the liberty of all persons is to be balanced against the "liberty" of those persons in the population who do not believe in same-sex marriage. They are implying that the rights of these people are more important than, and must be given precedence over, the rights of others, of all sexual orientations, who do not hold this belief and who are entitled under the U.S. Constitution to equal protection of the law.

The Obergefell decision addressed only the right to contract a marriage under civil law. It is certain that people who enter into same-sex marriages do not have a religious belief against it. Moreover, people of every religion have the right to enter a marriage according to the requirements of their respective faiths and undergo their faith's marriage rites and to choose whom to marry.

Someone should make Thomas and Alito aware that the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion.

Of course, there are further issues in this case of a public employee's right to refuse to perform the duties of his/her job.

To be totally honest, what they should have ruled is government needs to get out of marriage. Let the religions have their own marriage along with their own criteria and if they want to marry a gay couple, then it's up to them, not the government.

So what does equal protection under the law have to do with this? Government benefits.

You and Natural Citizen are arguing against contracting a marriage under civil law. But legal marriage involves not only government benefits, but also inheritance rights, the right to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapable spouse, tax treatment, court testimony in criminal cases, the rights of military spouses, and I'm sure there is more. These matters have nothing to do with religion, but your proposal would create the massive chaos of government having to figure out how to administer these rights with respect to each and every religion and each and every individual. Moreover, there are plenty of people who don't have a religion. What are they supposed to do?

Your proposal would require a massive re-write of many laws and regulations. It's absurd.

And all because of some people who are upset about whom some stranger marries. Idiotic.

Equality under the law means gaining the benefits, as well as suffering the liabilities of said law. Either treat everyone equally under the law or rewrite the law. Which would you prefer? We've already seen what rewriting the law does.

Great, so you agree to apply the law equally, a gay person has the same right to legally marry the person of their choice; just like a straight person?

 

[Faun]

You and Natural Citizen are arguing against contracting a marriage under civil law. But legal marriage involves not only government benefits, but also inheritance rights, the right to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapable spouse, tax treatment, court testimony in criminal cases, the rights of military spouses, and I'm sure there is more. These matters have nothing to do with religion, but your proposal would create the massive chaos of government having to figure out how to administer these rights with respect to each and every religion and each and every individual. Moreover, there are plenty of people who don't have a religion. What are they supposed to do?

Your proposal would require a massive re-write of many laws and regulations. It's absurd.

And all because of some people who are upset about whom some stranger marries. Idiotic.

You just made my point for me. Yes, it's because of all the government goodies, stupid laws and tax benefits to being married. Marriage is not a necessity. I've never been married in my life and never will be.

When this came up during the GW administration, many states put SSM on the ballot. In almost all states, it was voted down. Then the lower liberal courts started to get involved and said to hell with the will of the people. We know you voted against it, but we don't care. We're overturning your vote.

After that of course it went to a national level from there.

But as I stated earlier, if government benefits are the deciding factor in all this, what's wrong with father marrying daughter? What about mother marrying son? First cousins (yes, I know it's legal in several states already) do you see where I'm going with this?

The solution to this problem is to get government totally out of it. Everybody treated the same. If you want to get married, find a religion willing to marry you. If our federal government has to make changes, then make them. It's not like these people are terribly overworked.

Incestuous marriages are illegal because incest is illegal. Marriage for such folks is denied because marriage cannot make crimes legal. Whereas being gay is not criminal, so there is no compelling reason to deny a gay person access to laws available to straight people.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nowhere in this statement did Thomas and Alito address how the liberty of all persons is to be balanced against the "liberty" of those persons in the population who do not believe in same-sex marriage. They are implying that the rights of these people are more important than, and must be given precedence over, the rights of others, of all sexual orientations, who do not hold this belief and who are entitled under the U.S. Constitution to equal protection of the law.

The Obergefell decision addressed only the right to contract a marriage under civil law. It is certain that people who enter into same-sex marriages do not have a religious belief against it. Moreover, people of every religion have the right to enter a marriage according to the requirements of their respective faiths and undergo their faith's marriage rites and to choose whom to marry.

Someone should make Thomas and Alito aware that the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion.

Of course, there are further issues in this case of a public employee's right to refuse to perform the duties of his/her job.

To be totally honest, what they should have ruled is government needs to get out of marriage. Let the religions have their own marriage along with their own criteria and if they want to marry a gay couple, then it's up to them, not the government.

So what does equal protection under the law have to do with this? Government benefits.

You and Natural Citizen are arguing against contracting a marriage under civil law. But legal marriage involves not only government benefits, but also inheritance rights, the right to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapable spouse, tax treatment, court testimony in criminal cases, the rights of military spouses, and I'm sure there is more. These matters have nothing to do with religion, but your proposal would create the massive chaos of government having to figure out how to administer these rights with respect to each and every religion and each and every individual. Moreover, there are plenty of people who don't have a religion. What are they supposed to do?

Your proposal would require a massive re-write of many laws and regulations. It's absurd.

And all because of some people who are upset about whom some stranger marries. Idiotic.

Equality under the law means gaining the benefits, as well as suffering the liabilities of said law. Either treat everyone equally under the law or rewrite the law. Which would you prefer? We've already seen what rewriting the law does.

Great, so you agree to apply the law equally, a gay person has the same right to legally marry the person of their choice; just like a straight person?

Did I just not get through saying I was gay? I want the law to benefit both sides, not one. Neither side should be put at a disadvantage.

You want equal treatment? The do it, damn it.

 

[Faun]

That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!

"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."

"The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."

Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance."



"Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss," he wrote. "In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals."

Just because you have a deep RELIGIOUS conviction regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and does not include same-sex marriages does NOT make one a Bigot or Homophobe and protects that religious belief / conviction.

Thomas added: "This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as 'disparag[ing]' homosexuals and 'diminish[ing] their personhood' through '[d]ignitary wounds.'"

Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case

The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.

www.foxnews.com

"That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution"

Of course it is...

Fourteenth Amendment​

​

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

Marriage is a state sanctioned legal contract. The state cannot say one person can marry the person they love but another person can't. Doing so was not applying the law equally. That's thd reason same sex marriage was deemed constitutional by our Supreme Court.

Interesting, Faun thinks he has superior legal knowledge as compared to the judge who offered that dissent, who spent years of his life studying the very law itself.

You're funny.

LOL

You mean the dissent that was overruled by a majority of the court? At least you confess you don't have a clear understanding about what I posted.

 

[Faun]

Nowhere in this statement did Thomas and Alito address how the liberty of all persons is to be balanced against the "liberty" of those persons in the population who do not believe in same-sex marriage. They are implying that the rights of these people are more important than, and must be given precedence over, the rights of others, of all sexual orientations, who do not hold this belief and who are entitled under the U.S. Constitution to equal protection of the law.

The Obergefell decision addressed only the right to contract a marriage under civil law. It is certain that people who enter into same-sex marriages do not have a religious belief against it. Moreover, people of every religion have the right to enter a marriage according to the requirements of their respective faiths and undergo their faith's marriage rites and to choose whom to marry.

Someone should make Thomas and Alito aware that the First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion.

Of course, there are further issues in this case of a public employee's right to refuse to perform the duties of his/her job.

To be totally honest, what they should have ruled is government needs to get out of marriage. Let the religions have their own marriage along with their own criteria and if they want to marry a gay couple, then it's up to them, not the government.

So what does equal protection under the law have to do with this? Government benefits.

You and Natural Citizen are arguing against contracting a marriage under civil law. But legal marriage involves not only government benefits, but also inheritance rights, the right to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapable spouse, tax treatment, court testimony in criminal cases, the rights of military spouses, and I'm sure there is more. These matters have nothing to do with religion, but your proposal would create the massive chaos of government having to figure out how to administer these rights with respect to each and every religion and each and every individual. Moreover, there are plenty of people who don't have a religion. What are they supposed to do?

Your proposal would require a massive re-write of many laws and regulations. It's absurd.

And all because of some people who are upset about whom some stranger marries. Idiotic.

Equality under the law means gaining the benefits, as well as suffering the liabilities of said law. Either treat everyone equally under the law or rewrite the law. Which would you prefer? We've already seen what rewriting the law does.

Great, so you agree to apply the law equally, a gay person has the same right to legally marry the person of their choice; just like a straight person?

Did I just not get through saying I was gay? I want the law to benefit both sides, not one. Neither side should be put at a disadvantage.

You want equal treatment? The do it, damn it.

Your sexual preference has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Neither side is at a disadvantage by applying the law equally to straights and gays.