Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage

[del]

I do like to troll the liberals because they are so much fun to upset, but this time I'm serious. Watch. Discrimination will be used.

not even a chance. reread the first amendment.

Oh my. You realize how often the First Amendment has been trampled? Surely you jest. Was that you holding that big fish?

no, that was my spouse. could you link me to a case where the govt forced a church to do something that goes against the 1st amendment? i can't seem to recall a single one. thanks.

 

[Red Dawn]

xcited knows that, he's just trolling. But remember, he's "only kidding!"

I do like to troll the liberals because they are so much fun to upset, but this time I'm serious. Watch. Discrimination will be used.

Th

e First Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that expressly prohibits the United States Congress from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to peaceably assemble, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

.

ouch!


that's gonna leave a mark.

 

[dilloduck]

not even a chance. reread the first amendment.

Oh my. You realize how often the First Amendment has been trampled? Surely you jest. Was that you holding that big fish?

no, that was my spouse. could you link me to a case where the govt forced a church to do something that goes against the 1st amendment? i can't seem to recall a single one. thanks.

You're already married !
You asshole !!!

 

[del]

Oh my. You realize how often the First Amendment has been trampled? Surely you jest. Was that you holding that big fish?

no, that was my spouse. could you link me to a case where the govt forced a church to do something that goes against the 1st amendment? i can't seem to recall a single one. thanks.

You're already married !
You asshole !!!

it's cool. i own property in utah.

 

[dilloduck]

no, that was my spouse. could you link me to a case where the govt forced a church to do something that goes against the 1st amendment? i can't seem to recall a single one. thanks.

You're already married !
You asshole !!!

it's cool. i own property in utah.

ok--I'll share dammit.

 

[del]

You're already married !
You asshole !!!

it's cool. i own property in utah.

ok--I'll share dammit.

read the fine print in the pre-nup.
you'll share and you'll like it.

 

[dilloduck]

it's cool. i own property in utah.

ok--I'll share dammit.

read the fine print in the pre-nup.
you'll share and you'll like it.

I knew I shoulda read that shit with my glasses on.

 

[del]

ok--I'll share dammit.

read the fine print in the pre-nup.
you'll share and you'll like it.

I knew I shoulda read that shit with my glasses on.

glasses
the wedding's off.

 

[Red Dawn]

xsited, if your view is correct (which we all know its not), why hasn't the government forced the catholic church to ordain female priests?

surely, by your logic, that is one of the most egregious and long-standing cases of blatant discrimination in american history.

 

[xsited1]

xcited knows that, he's just trolling. But remember, he's "only kidding!"

I do like to troll the liberals because they are so much fun to upset, but this time I'm serious. Watch. Discrimination will be used.

discrimination laws, as I understand them, only apply to education, commerce, and housing.


Please tel me where these discrimination laws are that allow the government to regulate private church ceremonial services.

I'll wait.

Polygamy is one. Islam allows a man to have up to 4 wives. That is not allowed in the United States. Remember, discrimination includes treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit. In this case, a person is being discriminated against because he is a Muslim, a religion which has been around for over 1,000 years.

And the Ministerial exception is treading on thin ice. Here's some background:

Ministerial exception: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal to discriminate against employees because of race. But when Congress enacted that law, it carved out a "ministerial exception." This means that churches and religious organizations cannot be sued for gender, religious, national origin or racial discrimination.

Religion Clause: Court Says Ministerial Exception Does Not Apply In Suit Against Archdiocese

Ministerial exception - the end is coming - LawMemo Employment Law Blog

You can find more links. It's an interesting topic.

 

[Red Dawn]

when Congress enacted that law, it carved out a "ministerial exception." This means that churches and religious organizations cannot be sued for gender, religious, national origin or racial discrimination.

so I was correct, and this whole exercise what a waste of time.

 

[KittenKoder]

I do like to troll the liberals because they are so much fun to upset, but this time I'm serious. Watch. Discrimination will be used.

discrimination laws, as I understand them, only apply to education, commerce, and housing.


Please tel me where these discrimination laws are that allow the government to regulate private church ceremonial services.

I'll wait.

Polygamy is one. Islam allows a man to have up to 4 wives. That is not allowed in the United States. Remember, discrimination includes treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit. In this case, a person is being discriminated against because he is a Muslim, a religion which has been around for over 1,000 years.

And the Ministerial exception is treading on thin ice. Here's some background:

Ministerial exception: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal to discriminate against employees because of race. But when Congress enacted that law, it carved out a "ministerial exception." This means that churches and religious organizations cannot be sued for gender, religious, national origin or racial discrimination.

Religion Clause: Court Says Ministerial Exception Does Not Apply In Suit Against Archdiocese

Ministerial exception - the end is coming - LawMemo Employment Law Blog

You can find more links. It's an interesting topic.

Seems the only time they use this is to deny homosexual marriage .. but ignore it when coming up with arguments against it. What you forget, and many groups have figured out, they are not denied the right to a religious marriage to 4 wives, if they choose, however they are only afforded the LEGAL rights to one, something which is more to prevent the abuse of those legal rights. They can still have a religious marriage and are not being forced to ignore their religion or being excluded because of it. The legal rights of marriage are different from the religious rights and homosexual marriage should be afforded that same difference.

 

[LoThunder]

Ha ha ha ha ha! I knew this would happen.

Now wait until churches aren't forced to marry gay people. What other ridiculous arguments against homosexuality will religious-types come up with?


Too late, dumbass. Churches and religious people are already being harassed legally.

And I thank God for that.
I will always fight to keep it legal to harass Churches...

And as we can see, the ridiculous response we're hearing from the anti-religious types like you is to look bewildered and go, "Whut?"

Whut?

 

[Red Dawn]

so xsited, now that your one concern about gay marriage has evaporated, not that its been shown to be something you don't have to worry about, I take it you will become a vigourous proponent of gay marriage? I mean, the one reason you gave for being against it has been completely debunked, so you don't have a reason to be against it anymore, right?

 

[xsited1]

not even a chance. reread the first amendment.

Oh my. You realize how often the First Amendment has been trampled? Surely you jest. Was that you holding that big fish?

no, that was my spouse. could you link me to a case where the govt forced a church to do something that goes against the 1st amendment? i can't seem to recall a single one. thanks.

I know we can both agree that some 1st Amendment rights have come under attack over the years. We can say the same thing about 2nd Amendment rights. Fortunately for us, there are strong lobbying groups which are ever vigilant in protecting these rights. Now where the church is concerned, it is virtually impossible for the government to force them to do something that goes against the 1st Amendment.

Of course I've mentioned things like polygamy which could be interpreted as discrimination against a certain group of people. If a church promotes polygamy during a sermon, that's a big no-no. And I've mentioned drugs that are used in some churches around the world that are prohibited in the US. Yet another no-no.

In another post, I brought the Ministerial exception clause which has been under fire for some time.

 

[xsited1]

discrimination laws, as I understand them, only apply to education, commerce, and housing.


Please tel me where these discrimination laws are that allow the government to regulate private church ceremonial services.

I'll wait.

Polygamy is one. Islam allows a man to have up to 4 wives. That is not allowed in the United States. Remember, discrimination includes treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit. In this case, a person is being discriminated against because he is a Muslim, a religion which has been around for over 1,000 years.

And the Ministerial exception is treading on thin ice. Here's some background:

Ministerial exception: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal to discriminate against employees because of race. But when Congress enacted that law, it carved out a "ministerial exception." This means that churches and religious organizations cannot be sued for gender, religious, national origin or racial discrimination.

Religion Clause: Court Says Ministerial Exception Does Not Apply In Suit Against Archdiocese

Ministerial exception - the end is coming - LawMemo Employment Law Blog

You can find more links. It's an interesting topic.

Seems the only time they use this is to deny homosexual marriage .. but ignore it when coming up with arguments against it. What you forget, and many groups have figured out, they are not denied the right to a religious marriage to 4 wives, if they choose, however they are only afforded the LEGAL rights to one, something which is more to prevent the abuse of those legal rights. They can still have a religious marriage and are not being forced to ignore their religion or being excluded because of it. The legal rights of marriage are different from the religious rights and homosexual marriage should be afforded that same difference.

And therein lies the problem. If, say, a Mormon man has 6 wives and he dies, the State will only recognize the rights of one. How is that not discriminatory?

 

[xsited1]

so xsited, now that your one concern about gay marriage has evaporated, not that its been shown to be something you don't have to worry about, I take it you will become a vigourous proponent of gay marriage? I mean, the one reason you gave for being against it has been completely debunked, so you don't have a reason to be against it anymore, right?

You must have me confused with someone else. I've never been against gay marriage.

 

[Inferno]

I couldn't tell from the story, are they using the terms "civil union" and marriage interchangeably? They seem to say that this gave the right to marry and they also said Vermont was the first state to grant civil unions. So I couldn't tell whether they gave the right to civil union and then followed that up with the right to marry or whether they were using the terms interchangeably.

In any case, I wholeheartedly support the manner in which this was done. Other states should follow suit on controversial issues. The court should not be put in the position of legislature of last resort.

Vermont was the first to grant civil unions. They now have same sex marriage.

Civil unions were not legal all across the country. They were legal in the state.

 

[KittenKoder]

Polygamy is one. Islam allows a man to have up to 4 wives. That is not allowed in the United States. Remember, discrimination includes treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit. In this case, a person is being discriminated against because he is a Muslim, a religion which has been around for over 1,000 years.

And the Ministerial exception is treading on thin ice. Here's some background:

Ministerial exception: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal to discriminate against employees because of race. But when Congress enacted that law, it carved out a "ministerial exception." This means that churches and religious organizations cannot be sued for gender, religious, national origin or racial discrimination.

Religion Clause: Court Says Ministerial Exception Does Not Apply In Suit Against Archdiocese

Ministerial exception - the end is coming - LawMemo Employment Law Blog

You can find more links. It's an interesting topic.

Seems the only time they use this is to deny homosexual marriage .. but ignore it when coming up with arguments against it. What you forget, and many groups have figured out, they are not denied the right to a religious marriage to 4 wives, if they choose, however they are only afforded the LEGAL rights to one, something which is more to prevent the abuse of those legal rights. They can still have a religious marriage and are not being forced to ignore their religion or being excluded because of it. The legal rights of marriage are different from the religious rights and homosexual marriage should be afforded that same difference.

And therein lies the problem. If, say, a Mormon man has 6 wives and he dies, the State will only recognize the rights of one. How is that not discriminatory?

Because if there are 6 people legally capable of claiming rights to the various aspects of the dead husband then the courts would be tied up with 6 cases of varying wishes fighting to have their rights respected while it would be impossible. It would also cost a fortune in court costs which would likely be funded in large through taxes, of which because of the tax laws of marriage the entire group would have paid much less than they use. Even if we assumed that this would have no impact on us, there are the burial arrangements, hospital care decisions, the list goes on. It's been a mess more often than not, so the legal decision to make only one spouse both accountable and liable solves all the problems.

 

[AnnECUCherry]

I do like to troll the liberals because they are so much fun to upset, but this time I'm serious. Watch. Discrimination will be used.

discrimination laws, as I understand them, only apply to education, commerce, and housing.


Please tel me where these discrimination laws are that allow the government to regulate private church ceremonial services.

I'll wait.

Polygamy is one. Islam allows a man to have up to 4 wives. That is not allowed in the United States. Remember, discrimination includes treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit. In this case, a person is being discriminated against because he is a Muslim, a religion which has been around for over 1,000 years.

And the Ministerial exception is treading on thin ice. Here's some background:

Ministerial exception: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal to discriminate against employees because of race. But when Congress enacted that law, it carved out a "ministerial exception." This means that churches and religious organizations cannot be sued for gender, religious, national origin or racial discrimination.

Religion Clause: Court Says Ministerial Exception Does Not Apply In Suit Against Archdiocese

Ministerial exception - the end is coming - LawMemo Employment Law Blog

You can find more links. It's an interesting topic.

The law in several states also prohibits the practice of snake handling in religious services.