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

[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.

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

Excuse me? How bigoted is it that you would question the fact I am gay? I mean seriously, do you really think you own us? Do I have to agree with you to be gay? How dare you. Such arrogance. I am just as passionate about gay rights as I am the rights of the faithful. I do not see one group of people as greater than another.

Screw you. I am nobody's pawn, and I will hold whatever positions I wish, understand?

On a side note, I never said anything about gays not getting married, you simple-minded creatures. The sooner you learn to read the better.

 

[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.

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?

What are you talking about?

I am not resisting anything, nor am I trying to deny the marriage rights of my fellows, but simply put, I will not attain such rights when they come at the expense of other people's.

If you don't want someone denying you your confectionary delights, go elsewhere. The one thing we gays have is a choice.

How does your attitude garner the respect of anyone around you?

 

[Coyote]

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."

There is a lot of stuff not explicitly in the Constitution. Women’s rights, a standing Army, Space Force...

Same Sex Marriage is here to stay

And? If it isn't mandated in the Constitution, it shouldn't be mandated on the population it governs. It matters not who passes the mandate. Trump or Obama.

Being a part of the LGBT community now, I can tell that the majority of the community do not want to force itself onto society, we just want equal treatment under law. But what is there to gain from our equal status in society if it comes by trampling the rights of others? If my rights come at the cost of other's rights, I don't want them.

Tell me, how is that fair? My grandmother is a devout Christian. She also knows I'm gay as well, as she was the one I came out to first. But I will not force her to change her beliefs to accept me. That is wrong. Just as wrong as someone trying to change me because of my sexual affiliation.

This is something I don't understand.

First - should rights, in particular the equal application of those rights, be contingent upon popular approval?

Second - how does acknowledging those rights, legally, force anyone to change their beliefs?

There are many beliefs that people hold that do not line up with what we recognize as rights.

There are also rights that have been extended to cover a greater number of people, that at the time violated people's "beliefs". One example would be ending miscegenation laws in America.

It seems to me that the basis of coming to terms with this is not excluding those categories of people from rights but doing what I think your grandmother is doing (I'm guessing) - she loves you, no matter what. She doesn't approve of your sexuality, but she loves you anyway. And you have enough respect and love for her, that you would not hurt her by forcing her to acknowledge more or challenge her beliefs.

 

[progressive hunter]

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."

There is a lot of stuff not explicitly in the Constitution. Women’s rights, a standing Army, Space Force...

Same Sex Marriage is here to stay

And? If it isn't mandated in the Constitution, it shouldn't be mandated on the population it governs. It matters not who passes the mandate. Trump or Obama.

Being a part of the LGBT community now, I can tell that the majority of the community do not want to force itself onto society, we just want equal treatment under law. But what is there to gain from our equal status in society if it comes by trampling the rights of others? If my rights come at the cost of other's rights, I don't want them.

Tell me, how is that fair? My grandmother is a devout Christian. She also knows I'm gay as well, as she was the one I came out to first. But I will not force her to change her beliefs to accept me. That is wrong. Just as wrong as someone trying to change me because of my sexual affiliation.

This is something I don't understand.

First - should rights, in particular the equal application of those rights, be contingent upon popular approval?

Second - how does acknowledging those rights, legally, force anyone to change their beliefs?

There are many beliefs that people hold that do not line up with what we recognize as rights.

There are also rights that have been extended to cover a greater number of people, that at the time violated people's "beliefs". One example would be ending miscegenation laws in America.

It seems to me that the basis of coming to terms with this is not excluding those categories of people from rights but doing what I think your grandmother is doing (I'm guessing) - she loves you, no matter what. She doesn't approve of your sexuality, but she loves you anyway. And you have enough respect and love for her, that you would not hurt her by forcing her to acknowledge more or challenge her beliefs.

I think youre confusing true rights with government granted privilege's that are often called rights,,,

a true right doesnt require application of any kind, it requires all others to accept it whether they like it or not,,,

 

[Coyote]

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."

There is a lot of stuff not explicitly in the Constitution. Women’s rights, a standing Army, Space Force...

Same Sex Marriage is here to stay

And? If it isn't mandated in the Constitution, it shouldn't be mandated on the population it governs. It matters not who passes the mandate. Trump or Obama.

Being a part of the LGBT community now, I can tell that the majority of the community do not want to force itself onto society, we just want equal treatment under law. But what is there to gain from our equal status in society if it comes by trampling the rights of others? If my rights come at the cost of other's rights, I don't want them.

Tell me, how is that fair? My grandmother is a devout Christian. She also knows I'm gay as well, as she was the one I came out to first. But I will not force her to change her beliefs to accept me. That is wrong. Just as wrong as someone trying to change me because of my sexual affiliation.

This is something I don't understand.

First - should rights, in particular the equal application of those rights, be contingent upon popular approval?

Second - how does acknowledging those rights, legally, force anyone to change their beliefs?

There are many beliefs that people hold that do not line up with what we recognize as rights.

There are also rights that have been extended to cover a greater number of people, that at the time violated people's "beliefs". One example would be ending miscegenation laws in America.

It seems to me that the basis of coming to terms with this is not excluding those categories of people from rights but doing what I think your grandmother is doing (I'm guessing) - she loves you, no matter what. She doesn't approve of your sexuality, but she loves you anyway. And you have enough respect and love for her, that you would not hurt her by forcing her to acknowledge more or challenge her beliefs.

I think youre confusing true rights with government granted privilege's that are often called rights,,,

a true right doesnt require application of any kind, it requires all others to accept it whether they like it or not,,,

Interesting point...
I think the same reasoning would apply - though.

 

[progressive hunter]

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."

There is a lot of stuff not explicitly in the Constitution. Women’s rights, a standing Army, Space Force...

Same Sex Marriage is here to stay

And? If it isn't mandated in the Constitution, it shouldn't be mandated on the population it governs. It matters not who passes the mandate. Trump or Obama.

Being a part of the LGBT community now, I can tell that the majority of the community do not want to force itself onto society, we just want equal treatment under law. But what is there to gain from our equal status in society if it comes by trampling the rights of others? If my rights come at the cost of other's rights, I don't want them.

Tell me, how is that fair? My grandmother is a devout Christian. She also knows I'm gay as well, as she was the one I came out to first. But I will not force her to change her beliefs to accept me. That is wrong. Just as wrong as someone trying to change me because of my sexual affiliation.

This is something I don't understand.

First - should rights, in particular the equal application of those rights, be contingent upon popular approval?

Second - how does acknowledging those rights, legally, force anyone to change their beliefs?

There are many beliefs that people hold that do not line up with what we recognize as rights.

There are also rights that have been extended to cover a greater number of people, that at the time violated people's "beliefs". One example would be ending miscegenation laws in America.

It seems to me that the basis of coming to terms with this is not excluding those categories of people from rights but doing what I think your grandmother is doing (I'm guessing) - she loves you, no matter what. She doesn't approve of your sexuality, but she loves you anyway. And you have enough respect and love for her, that you would not hurt her by forcing her to acknowledge more or challenge her beliefs.

I think youre confusing true rights with government granted privilege's that are often called rights,,,

a true right doesnt require application of any kind, it requires all others to accept it whether they like it or not,,,

Interesting point...
I think the same reasoning would apply - though.

its a case by case basis where specifics would need to be presented,,,

as for gay marriage the 1st A is clear we have a right to assemble with who we please

 

[TemplarKormac]

First - should rights, in particular the equal application of those rights, be contingent upon popular approval?

Yes, if they are just and fair. Problem is, who determines that?

Second - how does acknowledging those rights, legally, force anyone to change their beliefs?

By having PA laws to start with, you are forcing a proprietor to choose between his or her religious beliefs and their livelihood. That is not fair.

I have already read stories of other gays having to choose between their job and their sexual affiliation, equally as unfair.

So, my conclusion is that there should be a solution which does not compromise the rights of either side.

There are many beliefs that people hold that do not line up with what we recognize as rights.

Free exercise of religion, is, however, a universally accepted right in this country. The nature of their religious beliefs are irrelevant.

 

[rightwinger]

Hard to believe we still have two idiotic Justices that can’t acknowledge how they missed the boat on same sex marriage

 

[Coyote]

First - should rights, in particular the equal application of those rights, be contingent upon popular approval?

Yes, if they are just and fair. Problem is, who determines that?

Second - how does acknowledging those rights, legally, force anyone to change their beliefs?

By having PA laws to start with, you are forcing a proprietor to choose between his or her religious beliefs and their livelihood. That is not fair.

You mean public accommodation laws?

In my opinion there is a fine line between violating a person's religious beliefs and using religious beliefs to violate another person's rights. I have seen cases where it's clear, for example, that a person has selected a business solely to make an issue of being violated. Likewise, I have seen cases where a person is using "religion" as an excuse for thinly veiled bigotry. So where would you draw the line?

In the case of Public Accommodation laws, there is also an ugly history of service refused to people on the basis of race (and religious views have been used to forward those arguments). Black people could not rely on being able to get a hotel if they travel, unless they used a special guide that was put out just for that purpose.

If proprietors could refuse to provide business for any reason, under the guise of "religious beliefs" - at what point does it violate someone else's rights? What if enough people within an area feel that way, and no business will serve them?

I have already read stories of other gays having to choose between their job and their sexual affiliation, equally as unfair.

So, my conclusion is that there should be a solution which does not compromise the rights of either side.

I agree.

There are many beliefs that people hold that do not line up with what we recognize as rights.

Free exercise of religion, is, however, a universally accepted right in this country. The nature of their religious beliefs are irrelevant.

Actually the nature IS relevant. There are still things you can not do in the name of religious beliefs. For example polygamy. Sacrificing virgins. That sort of stuff...

 

[Seawytch]

Free exercise of religion, is, however, a universally accepted right in this country. The nature of their religious beliefs are irrelevant.

Is it? Can a satanist practice ritual sacrifice? Can a Rastafarian legally use illicit drugs? Can Mormons legally marry multiple women? Can racists deny service to interracial couples?

 

[rightwinger]

Free exercise of religion, is, however, a universally accepted right in this country. The nature of their religious beliefs are irrelevant.

Is it? Can a satanist practice ritual sacrifice? Can a Rastafarian legally use illicit drugs? Can Mormons legally marry multiple women? Can racists deny service to interracial couples?

Let’s bring in Sharia Law to appease religious fundamentalists

 

[TemplarKormac]

First - should rights, in particular the equal application of those rights, be contingent upon popular approval?

Yes, if they are just and fair. Problem is, who determines that?

Second - how does acknowledging those rights, legally, force anyone to change their beliefs?

By having PA laws to start with, you are forcing a proprietor to choose between his or her religious beliefs and their livelihood. That is not fair.

You mean public accommodation laws?

In my opinion there is a fine line between violating a person's religious beliefs and using religious beliefs to violate another person's rights. I have seen cases where it's clear, for example, that a person has selected a business solely to make an issue of being violated. Likewise, I have seen cases where a person is using "religion" as an excuse for thinly veiled bigotry. So where would you draw the line?

In the case of Public Accommodation laws, there is also an ugly history of service refused to people on the basis of race (and religious views have been used to forward those arguments). Black people could not rely on being able to get a hotel if they travel, unless they used a special guide that was put out just for that purpose.

If proprietors could refuse to provide business for any reason, under the guise of "religious beliefs" - at what point does it violate someone else's rights? What if enough people within an area feel that way, and no business will serve them?

I have already read stories of other gays having to choose between their job and their sexual affiliation, equally as unfair.

So, my conclusion is that there should be a solution which does not compromise the rights of either side.

I agree.

There are many beliefs that people hold that do not line up with what we recognize as rights.

Free exercise of religion, is, however, a universally accepted right in this country. The nature of their religious beliefs are irrelevant.

Actually the nature IS relevant. There are still things you can not do in the name of religious beliefs. For example polygamy. Sacrificing virgins. That sort of stuff...

Okay. So, back to my original point. Why must a person choose between their beliefs and their livelihood? It's like... someone having to abandon what they believe in in order to make a living. That is plain wrong. But all I see is people like me making unreasonable demands of the faithful. And yes, I know, I have been and still am part of both sides of the coin. I know what it feels like to be a Christian and have my brethren chastised and ridiculed because they believe marriage is between one man and one woman. I have had gay friends who have been treated like shit by Christians claiming to be tolerant. I have seen gays treating Christians the same way demanding tolerance from them.

So no, the nature of belief is irrelevant. If you are truly interested in reaching a compromise that preserves the right of both parties, you leave the presumptions at the door. Period. Full stop.

I have experienced both sides. I still am. I have adapted my beliefs to be tolerant of other gay people, because I myself am one. I can see the reasoning behind both arguments, and I can tell you that compromise is impossible if you automatically assume the ideas and beliefs of the other side from the beginning.

Are all Christians Bible thumping bigots? No. Some are, a great deal of them aren't. I can tell you that also because my devout grandmother still thinks homosexuality is a sin, but not to the point where she openly disowned me when I came out to her a couple years back.

Are all gays simple-minded sexual deviants? No. In fact, I am gay and asexual. I have no interest in romance, so I know from personal experience that such an assumption isn't true.

PA laws are secular. As they should be. But they need to be ethical to both sides, not just one or the other. I will not stand at the counter and force a Christian store owner to choose between feeding his or her kids and accomodating my sexual affiliation against the teaching of their faith.

Free exercise of religion, is, however, a universally accepted right in this country. The nature of their religious beliefs are irrelevant.

Is it? Can a satanist practice ritual sacrifice? Can a Rastafarian legally use illicit drugs? Can Mormons legally marry multiple women? Can racists deny service to interracial couples?

I've known Satanists in my life, and they do nothing like what you describe. What the hell is a Rastafarian? Polygamy is illegal even in the Bible (See Genesis 2:23-24 and set aside the whole "man-woman" thing. God made his intent clear from the very beginning that marriage is between two people. Not 20.) Racism is not a religious ideal, it is evil.

And before you get started, no, I am not going to dive into the theological weeds with you. So don't bother.

Now, your presumptions about people of faith has led you to be as vindictive as you can possibly be. No wonder we in the LGBT community can't get the other side to look at us and out cause positively. People like you are just as full of hatred and spite as some Christians are. Both sides have burned their bridges, and continue doing so.

Spare me the lecture. And don't preach tolerance to me when you can't even accept that another gay person has a different opinion than you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

...

There has to be a way to fight for your rights without ruining someone.

There just has to be.

 

[rightwinger]

...

There has to be a way to fight for your rights without ruining someone.

There just has to be.

How does same sex marriage ruin anyone outside of pissing off the bigots?

 

[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

Excuse me? How bigoted is it that you would question the fact I am gay? I mean seriously, do you really think you own us? Do I have to agree with you to be gay? How dare you. Such arrogance. I am just as passionate about gay rights as I am the rights of the faithful. I do not see one group of people as greater than another.

Screw you. I am nobody's pawn, and I will hold whatever positions I wish, understand?

On a side note, I never said anything about gays not getting married, you simple-minded creatures. The sooner you learn to read the better.

You're a gay person who is against gay rights.

I'm sure that happens all the time, lol.

Please try to be serious.

 

[TemplarKormac]

...

There has to be a way to fight for your rights without ruining someone.

There just has to be.

How does same sex marriage ruin anyone outside of pissing off the bigots?

You miss the point entirely. As such, it would be a waste of time trying.

You can only see this issue from one perspective. A biased one.

Same sex marriage itself does not "ruin" anyone or anything. Forcing someone to put messages that endorse a practice their religion teaches against does, and as we have all seen, they were swiftly put out of business for it. That should not be. There has to be a way to accommodate the gay and the Christian alike.

 

[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.

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

Excuse me? How bigoted is it that you would question the fact I am gay? I mean seriously, do you really think you own us? Do I have to agree with you to be gay? How dare you. Such arrogance. I am just as passionate about gay rights as I am the rights of the faithful. I do not see one group of people as greater than another.

Screw you. I am nobody's pawn, and I will hold whatever positions I wish, understand?

On a side note, I never said anything about gays not getting married, you simple-minded creatures. The sooner you learn to read the better.

You're a gay person who is against gay rights.

I'm sure that happens all the time, lol.

Please try to be serious.

I am serious. You act like a mind reader when you aren't one. You read into my statements things that aren't there. You can't be bothered to read any of my statements in this thread, except for the ones you disagree with. Your interpretation is therefore flawed. Your biases are evident.

You only fight for gay people because it benefits you. Not because you want it to benefit them, me.

I am a gay person with a mind of my own. I'm sorry that scares the bigot out of you. You treat black people and women, or any minority the same way. If they don't share your political ideals, they must not be who they say they are.

Excuse me? What? Do not dare lecture me about diversity and tolerance when your ideals and political beliefs are as rigid and dogmatic as those in religion.

You can kindly gfy.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Let me ask you two something:

How is asking for equal accommodations for gays and Christians tantamount to being against gay marriage? I thought you wanted equality? Equality means equality of opportunity, not of equal outcome.

It appears you only want submission and silence.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Coyote

Is this how liberals treat gay people like me? Like monsters? I would like to hear your response specifically.

 

[rightwinger]

...

There has to be a way to fight for your rights without ruining someone.

There just has to be.

How does same sex marriage ruin anyone outside of pissing off the bigots?

You miss the point entirely. As such, it would be a waste of time trying.

You can only see this issue from one perspective. A biased one.

Same sex marriage itself does not "ruin" anyone or anything. Forcing someone to put messages that endorse a practice their religion teaches against does, and as we have all seen, they were swiftly put out of business for it. That should not be. There has to be a way to accommodate the gay and the Christian alike.

It’s quite simple actually......
Mind your own business and keep your opinions to yourself

If Christians cannot tolerate gays.......pray for them and STFU