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.

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?

That is correct. The Christian baker cannot refuse to bake a cake for an interracial couple, why should they be able to refuse a gay couple?

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

Nope, simple equality. If the Christian baker can refuse me service I should be able to refuse him service. The law prevents that.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Who is disadvantaged by gays having equal access to legal, civil marriage?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

And yet NOBODY is going after the Federal PA laws, just the state and local laws. To be EQUAL, either you get rid of Title II of the CRA and everyone gets to discriminate against everyone or you add gays to existing laws. That would be EQUAL.

 

[Crepitus]

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

How is someone else's wedding a threat to you?

Are you that delicate a snowflake?

 

[Crepitus]

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.

Who is disadvantaged by gays having equal access to legal, civil marriage?

Absolutely no one.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

The "opressors" are the people who refuse to provide services to the gay couple. They are oppressing the rights of their customers to their service. They are not being required to attend the wedding or do anything but deliver the cake, which they do for anyone else who asks - divorced people, adulterers, blasphemers, but not gays. What exactly are they being asked to do here that would violate any religiouos freedom.

When I was a law clerk, one of the lawyers asked me to handle the liquor license renewal for a strip club/house of prostitution, located in my neighbourhood. I wanted that place GONE! The streetcar transfer stop to go downtown right outside the door the exit door had to be moved after many complaints from women sexual harassment by drunks coming out of there. The girls were offering "additional services" to the customers in the VIP room. The club was the last remnant of seedy neighbourhood that had been that area until gentrification 20 years earlier. Now it was a middle class neighbourhood, and this seedy flophouse needed to go.

I objected to helping these people get their liquor license renewal on religious grounds, on the grounds that I didn't want them in my neighbourhood, and that the place was a haven to criminals and whores, but it was my job, and I went back to my desk and got them their damn license.

 

[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.

Who is disadvantaged by gays having equal access to legal, civil marriage?

Nobody. Except those who wish to practice their faith freely. Essentially, you must bar yourself from entrepreneurial endeavors if you are a strict adherent to the Christian faith. That is a disadvantage.

Curious, why is a cake such a critical thing for a wedding anyway? If you want one, you don't have to force the proprietor of the establishment to put messages on it that they disagree with. You don't even have to tell them you're gay. It's an easy workaround, Seawytch.

 

[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.

Who is disadvantaged by gays having equal access to legal, civil marriage?

Absolutely no one.

How naive. The law by its very nature, any law for that matter, places one group or another at a disadvantage. If you want me to be honest, equality is a myth. An unattainable goal.

 

[DGS49]

Sorry for not reading all five pages here, but it seems to me like this is a stupid thread.

The Constitutional issue is NOT one that would threaten gay marriage. AT WORST it would make FUTURE gay marriages a little more inconvenient.

The reason is because the Constitution includes what is called the "full faith and credit" clause.

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

What this means is that every state must recognize the formal acts of every other state. So if ANY state recognizes gay marriages, then every other state must recognize those marriages. if you live in, for example, Utah, and Utah doesn't have gay marriage, all a gay couple would have to do is drive over the California and get married. Utah would then have to recognize that marriage as fully as if it had been done in Utah.

The dispute about the previous decision (Oberkfell?) is the Constitutional BASIS for that case, which is extremely dubious. But regardless, no existing gay marriage is in jeopardy and no gay couple is without the ability to get legally married.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Who is disadvantaged by gays having equal access to legal, civil marriage?

Nobody. Except those who wish to practice their faith freely. Essentially, you must bar yourself from entrepreneurial endeavors if you are a strict adherent to the Christian faith. That is a disadvantage.

Curious, why is a cake such a critical thing for a wedding anyway? If you want one, you don't have to force the proprietor of the establishment to put messages on it that they disagree with. You don't even have to tell them you're gay. It's an easy workaround, Seawytch.

Nobody is prevented from practicing their faith freely. That is a ridiculous statement on its face.

A Christian opposed to interracial marriage has to bake the damn cake too, but nobody seems worried about their "religious freedom" .

A wedding cake is a wedding cake. No one is asking for anything written on it. The easy workaround is to follow the laws of your state or locality.

 

[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.

The "opressors" are the people who refuse to provide services to the gay couple. They are oppressing the rights of their customers to their service. They are not being required to attend the wedding or do anything but deliver the cake, which they do for anyone else who asks - divorced people, adulterers, blasphemers, but not gays. What exactly are they being asked to do here that would violate any religiouos freedom.

When I was a law clerk, one of the lawyers asked me to handle the liquor license renewal for a strip club/house of prostitution, located in my neighbourhood. I wanted that place GONE! The streetcar transfer stop to go downtown right outside the door the exit door had to be moved after many complaints from women sexual harassment by drunks coming out of there. The girls were offering "additional services" to the customers in the VIP room. The club was the last remnant of seedy neighbourhood that had been that area until gentrification 20 years earlier. Now it was a middle class neighbourhood, and this seedy flophouse needed to go.

I objected to helping these people get their liquor license renewal on religious grounds, on the grounds that I didn't want them in my neighbourhood, and that the place was a haven to criminals and whores, but it was my job, and I went back to my desk and got them their damn license.

What "right" to a service or good? Who are you to say and force what level of participation they are required to perform? In all these cases point of sale generic items were not denied, just one specific contracted item for one specific event.

Criminal lawyers deal with defending people they know are guilty all the time, thus deal with things they don't agree with. That is actually part of the job. In this case if you truly didn't want to work on it, you can quit, and probably get the same type job somewhere else. In your case you are an EMPLOYEE, not a Business owner. And not doing this one thing doesn't ruin your chance to get similar employment or do similar things. You also don't have the investment an owner does in a business, you can walk away with no loss.

As usual, with SJW twat snowflakes such as yourself it all boils down to MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

Who is disadvantaged by gays having equal access to legal, civil marriage?

Nobody. Except those who wish to practice their faith freely. Essentially, you must bar yourself from entrepreneurial endeavors if you are a strict adherent to the Christian faith. That is a disadvantage.

Curious, why is a cake such a critical thing for a wedding anyway? If you want one, you don't have to force the proprietor of the establishment to put messages on it that they disagree with. You don't even have to tell them you're gay. It's an easy workaround, Seawytch.

Well that's tough shit. If you want to open a business, you are required to obey ALL of the laws. Jesus even said to his followers to respect the law - "render unto Ceasar that which is Cesears", so the baker is violation of Jesus teachings too.

When His followers tried to turn people away from him, Jesus rebuked them - EVERY SINGLE TIME. Jesus turned away no one. As a Sunday School teacher and a Presbyterian elder, the idea denying people service is the very antithesis of Jesus teachings.

According to you, the onus is on the gay couple to keep from having their existence offend the baker. This is EXACTLY the kind of discrimination that is offensive and disgusting to anyone. Hide, don't let anyone know who you are because it's offensive to others.

If the baker was refusing to make a wedding cake for a Down's Syndrome couple because the baker believed that such people shouldn't be allowed to breed, would you be OK with that too. The reason for public accommodation laws is once you start down this slope, where does it end. How do "undesireables" navigate their lives getting service?

 

[martybegan]

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.

Who is disadvantaged by gays having equal access to legal, civil marriage?

Nobody. Except those who wish to practice their faith freely. Essentially, you must bar yourself from entrepreneurial endeavors if you are a strict adherent to the Christian faith. That is a disadvantage.

Curious, why is a cake such a critical thing for a wedding anyway? If you want one, you don't have to force the proprietor of the establishment to put messages on it that they disagree with. You don't even have to tell them you're gay. It's an easy workaround, Seawytch.

Well that's tough shit. If you want to open a business, you are required to obey ALL of the laws. Jesus even said to his followers to respect the law - "render unto Ceasar that which is Cesears", so the baker is violation of Jesus teachings too.

When His followers tried to turn people away from him, Jesus rebuked them - EVERY SINGLE TIME. Jesus turned away no one. As a Sunday School teacher and a Presbyterian elder, the idea denying people service is the very antithesis of Jesus teachings.

According to you, the onus is on the gay couple to keep from having their existence offend the baker. This is EXACTLY the kind of discrimination that is offensive and disgusting to anyone. Hide, don't let anyone know who you are because it's offensive to others.

If the baker was refusing to make a wedding cake for a Down's Syndrome couple because the baker believed that such people shouldn't be allowed to breed, would you be OK with that too. The reason for public accommodation laws is once you start down this slope, where does it end. How do "undesireables" navigate their lives getting service?

PA laws shouldn't be applied to a contracted service in the first place.

Your solution of forcing your morality on others via the government gun just shows what a gutless fucking dried up old cat lady twat you are.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

Who is disadvantaged by gays having equal access to legal, civil marriage?

Absolutely no one.

How naive. The law by its very nature, any law for that matter, places one group or another at a disadvantage. If you want me to be honest, equality is a myth. An unattainable goal.

If you don't like same sex marriage, don't get same sex married.

Or are you afraid you won't be able to resist?

 

[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.

Who is disadvantaged by gays having equal access to legal, civil marriage?

Absolutely no one.

How naive. The law by its very nature, any law for that matter, places one group or another at a disadvantage. If you want me to be honest, equality is a myth. An unattainable goal.

If you don't like same sex marriage, don't get same sex married.

Or are you afraid you won't be able to resist?

That idiot says he's gay but that gays shouldn't have the same rights as straights.

 

[Dragonlady]

Sorry for not reading all five pages here, but it seems to me like this is a stupid thread.

The Constitutional issue is NOT one that would threaten gay marriage. AT WORST it would make FUTURE gay marriages a little more inconvenient.

The reason is because the Constitution includes what is called the "full faith and credit" clause.

"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

What this means is that every state must recognize the formal acts of every other state. So if ANY state recognizes gay marriages, then every other state must recognize those marriages. if you live in, for example, Utah, and Utah doesn't have gay marriage, all a gay couple would have to do is drive over the California and get married. Utah would then have to recognize that marriage as fully as if it had been done in Utah.

The dispute about the previous decision (Oberkfell?) is the Constitutional BASIS for that case, which is extremely dubious. But regardless, no existing gay marriage is in jeopardy and no gay couple is without the ability to get legally married.

Why should a gay couple have to drive out of state to marry, when straight couples don't have to do that? You're whole premise is that in states which discrimate against you, you can find an "end around". Why must gays or others always look for "end around"?

This has been an argument for those seeking to restrict abortion rights. Well if your state bans abortion, you can always go to another state and get one. Not always. And why should women have to travel out of state to get a medical procedure? Such barriers always effect the poor the most because they can't "just travel out of state".

Why is it that the people who consistently say thing like "why don't you just . . . . " are those who will never have to deal with the situations those who are discriminated against or face having to find an "end around" for something that anyone else can get just by walking in the door.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

Who is disadvantaged by gays having equal access to legal, civil marriage?

Absolutely no one.

How naive. The law by its very nature, any law for that matter, places one group or another at a disadvantage. If you want me to be honest, equality is a myth. An unattainable goal.

If you don't like same sex marriage, don't get same sex married.

Or are you afraid you won't be able to resist?

That idiot says he's gay but that gays shouldn't have the same rights as straights.

He's most likely a paid troll. They do crap like that. Like Muslims claiming to be tRump supporters and women against women's rights

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

The "opressors" are the people who refuse to provide services to the gay couple. They are oppressing the rights of their customers to their service. They are not being required to attend the wedding or do anything but deliver the cake, which they do for anyone else who asks - divorced people, adulterers, blasphemers, but not gays. What exactly are they being asked to do here that would violate any religiouos freedom.

When I was a law clerk, one of the lawyers asked me to handle the liquor license renewal for a strip club/house of prostitution, located in my neighbourhood. I wanted that place GONE! The streetcar transfer stop to go downtown right outside the door the exit door had to be moved after many complaints from women sexual harassment by drunks coming out of there. The girls were offering "additional services" to the customers in the VIP room. The club was the last remnant of seedy neighbourhood that had been that area until gentrification 20 years earlier. Now it was a middle class neighbourhood, and this seedy flophouse needed to go.

I objected to helping these people get their liquor license renewal on religious grounds, on the grounds that I didn't want them in my neighbourhood, and that the place was a haven to criminals and whores, but it was my job, and I went back to my desk and got them their damn license.

What "right" to a service or good? Who are you to say and force what level of participation they are required to perform? In all these cases point of sale generic items were not denied, just one specific contracted item for one specific event.

Criminal lawyers deal with defending people they know are guilty all the time, thus deal with things they don't agree with. That is actually part of the job. In this case if you truly didn't want to work on it, you can quit, and probably get the same type job somewhere else. In your case you are an EMPLOYEE, not a Business owner. And not doing this one thing doesn't ruin your chance to get similar employment or do similar things. You also don't have the investment an owner does in a business, you can walk away with no loss.

As usual, with SJW twat snowflakes such as yourself it all boils down to MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Of course the baker is the one who is screaming that it's all about MEEEEEEEEEEE, and that's the part you fools don't get. I don't want to do this and you can't make me!!!

When you apply for a business license, you agree to abide by all of the laws of the jurisdiction in running that business. That includes public accommodations laws. If you are unwilling to live up to that obligation, you should have your license lifted. What if this guy doesn't want to bake a wedding cake Down's Syndrome couples because his Church believes such people should not breed. Are you OK with that? Or Jews, because Jews killed Jesus?

Just because you choose to believe things that are foolish, hurtful and wrong, doesn't mean you get to inflict your beliefs on others and treat them badly. And people that biased and prejudiced shouldn't be allowed to poison the business environment for others.

Jesus said to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Jesus himself gathered and showed kindness to sinner, lepers, and the outcasts of society, and rebuked his Disciples for keeping such "unclean" people away from him. He stopped the stoning of a woman accused of adultery saying "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her". That is how Jesus treated with "sinners".

So when you try to use religious grounds to deny service to others, you're not only on shaky legal grounds, you are going against both the teachings of your Lord and Saviour, but his Second Commandment, and his leadership by example.

 

[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.

The "opressors" are the people who refuse to provide services to the gay couple. They are oppressing the rights of their customers to their service. They are not being required to attend the wedding or do anything but deliver the cake, which they do for anyone else who asks - divorced people, adulterers, blasphemers, but not gays. What exactly are they being asked to do here that would violate any religiouos freedom.

When I was a law clerk, one of the lawyers asked me to handle the liquor license renewal for a strip club/house of prostitution, located in my neighbourhood. I wanted that place GONE! The streetcar transfer stop to go downtown right outside the door the exit door had to be moved after many complaints from women sexual harassment by drunks coming out of there. The girls were offering "additional services" to the customers in the VIP room. The club was the last remnant of seedy neighbourhood that had been that area until gentrification 20 years earlier. Now it was a middle class neighbourhood, and this seedy flophouse needed to go.

I objected to helping these people get their liquor license renewal on religious grounds, on the grounds that I didn't want them in my neighbourhood, and that the place was a haven to criminals and whores, but it was my job, and I went back to my desk and got them their damn license.

What "right" to a service or good? Who are you to say and force what level of participation they are required to perform? In all these cases point of sale generic items were not denied, just one specific contracted item for one specific event.

Criminal lawyers deal with defending people they know are guilty all the time, thus deal with things they don't agree with. That is actually part of the job. In this case if you truly didn't want to work on it, you can quit, and probably get the same type job somewhere else. In your case you are an EMPLOYEE, not a Business owner. And not doing this one thing doesn't ruin your chance to get similar employment or do similar things. You also don't have the investment an owner does in a business, you can walk away with no loss.

As usual, with SJW twat snowflakes such as yourself it all boils down to MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Of course the baker is the one who is screaming that it's all about MEEEEEEEEEEE, and that's the part you fools don't get. I don't want to do this and you can't make me!!!

When you apply for a business license, you agree to abide by all of the laws of the jurisdiction in running that business. That includes public accommodations laws. If you are unwilling to live up to that obligation, you should have your license lifted. What if this guy doesn't want to bake a wedding cake Down's Syndrome couples because his Church believes such people should not breed. Are you OK with that? Or Jews, because Jews killed Jesus?

Just because you choose to believe things that are foolish, hurtful and wrong, doesn't mean you get to inflict your beliefs on others and treat them badly. And people that biased and prejudiced shouldn't be allowed to poison the business environment for others.

Jesus said to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Jesus himself gathered and showed kindness to sinner, lepers, and the outcasts of society, and rebuked his Disciples for keeping such "unclean" people away from him. He stopped the stoning of a woman accused of adultery saying "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her". That is how Jesus treated with "sinners".

So when you try to use religious grounds to deny service to others, you're not only on shaky legal grounds, you are going against both the teachings of your Lord and Saviour, but his Second Commandment, and his leadership by example.

One single service, one non-life required easily obtainable elsewhere service, usually booked months in advanced, and you SJW progressive control freaks can't even let that go.

Again, and get this through your thick empty head, PA laws cannot trump Free Exercise. You are saying either follow our morality or lose your business, which is so laughably fascist that it's amazing even a drooling idiot like you can't pick up on that.

All your religious arguments fall flat, because you don't really believe in any of it, you are just using it as a cudgel to whack on those you despise, i.e. anyone who doesn't "think" just like you.

You don't care about the harm to the bakers because you hate them and wish they would just bend the knee to your morality and position.

Well fuck you, you dried up old cat lady, hopefully when your time comes, they will eat you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

According to you, the onus is on the gay couple to keep from having their existence offend the baker. This is EXACTLY the kind of discrimination that is offensive and disgusting to anyone. Hide, don't let anyone know who you are because it's offensive to others.

If the baker was refusing to make a wedding cake for a Down's Syndrome couple because the baker believed that such people shouldn't be allowed to breed, would you be OK with that too. The reason for public accommodation laws is once you start down this slope, where does it end. How do "undesireables" navigate their lives getting service?

Down's syndrome has nothing to do with religion. Our Constitution guarantees us the right to freedom of religion, and there is no exception for public accommodation laws.

In those cases, the baker in the past has served the gay couple knowing they were gay. However baking a cake specifically for their wedding was getting involved in their ceremony which was against his religion. He even offered to make a cake for them excluding the wedding parts. In another case I remember, the gay couple admitted to singling out that particular bakery because they knew of his strong religious beliefs.

In all cases, they could simply take their business to another bakery, but they chose to make trouble instead.

Since you believe that anybody deserves service from a vendor, should a black baker be forced by law to make a cake for a senior member of the KKK birthday party?