Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My prediction on the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    Only in your fantasy construct land. The reality of the 14th and how courts handle it is entirely different. But we can't let facts get in the way.

    Churches and Ministers don't work for the State.
    Where in the Constitution are government employees stripped of their First Amendment rights?

    You have read the majority opinion... Right?

    Did you miss this on page 27 of Kennedy's majority opinion?
    Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.

    Wow! People of faith are still allowed to talk about their religious opposition to gay marriage. So, if you work for the State, the non-enumerated rights of LGBTEIEIOU folk do trump your enumerated rights.


    Roberts' replied to the majority's fantasy world on page 28 of his dissenting opinion...
    Federal courts are blunt instruments when it comes to creating rights. They have constitutional power only to resolve concrete cases or controversies; they do not have the flexibility of legislatures to address concerns of parties not before the court or to anticipate problems that may arise from the exercise of a new right. Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority— actually spelled out in the Constitution. Amdt. 1.

    Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice. The majority’s decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. Ante, at 27. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
      I'm sorry, I didn't know my opinion was dependent on what Jefferson told Baptists.
      The facts are.
      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
        Where in the Constitution are government employees stripped of their First Amendment rights?

        You have read the majority opinion... Right?

        Did you miss this on page 27 of Kennedy's majority opinion?
        Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.

        Wow! People of faith are still allowed to talk about their religious opposition to gay marriage. So, if you work for the State, the non-enumerated rights of LGBTEIEIOU folk do trump your enumerated rights.


        Roberts' replied to the majority's fantasy world on page 28 of his dissenting opinion...
        Federal courts are blunt instruments when it comes to creating rights. They have constitutional power only to resolve concrete cases or controversies; they do not have the flexibility of legislatures to address concerns of parties not before the court or to anticipate problems that may arise from the exercise of a new right. Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority— actually spelled out in the Constitution. Amdt. 1.

        Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice. The majority’s decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. Ante, at 27. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.
        Here are a few examples.

        1. A racist has sincere views that whites and blacks shouldn't intermarry, but he works for the government and is forced to violate his strongly held religious beliefs. The state forces him to marry these interracial couples.

        2. A Muslim works for the government amd has strong religious beliefs that Christian should not marry. The government forces him to violate his faith.

        If government workers can refuse to do their jobs because of religious convictions they need new jobs.
        First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
          Here are a few examples.

          1. A racist has sincere views that whites and blacks shouldn't intermarry, but he works for the government and is forced to violate his strongly held religious beliefs. The state forces him to marry these interracial couples.

          2. A Muslim works for the government amd has strong religious beliefs that Christian should not marry. The government forces him to violate his faith.

          If government workers can refuse to do their jobs because of religious convictions they need new jobs.
          You are offering a false equivalence / false dilemma here. In both cases, the government employee upon hiring affirmed that their religion would not interfere with their job and that they would uphold equal opportunity as defined by law.
          So, the racist either lied or is able to put aside his prejudice and do his job. The same goes for the Muslim.

          If either refused they could be terminated for cause.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
            Religion should not be part of the public, ie. government, sphere. It should be left solely up to the individual, with government not interfering to regulate what is or isn't a religion.
            Agreed, the government also shouldn't interfere with marriage and sexual preferences.
            "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
              Here are a few examples.

              1. A racist has sincere views that whites and blacks shouldn't intermarry, but he works for the government and is forced to violate his strongly held religious beliefs. The state forces him to marry these interracial couples.

              2. A Muslim works for the government amd has strong religious beliefs that Christian should not marry. The government forces him to violate his faith.

              If government workers can refuse to do their jobs because of religious convictions they need new jobs.
              Point of order; racism is not a religion.
              "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                An atheist government is a government taking on a religious view. A secular government is one taking on no religious view.
                Exactly. But, a government actively trying to remove all religious symbols, references, and such from public view and government infrastructure is acting far more Atheist than secular.
                Instead of ignoring small amounts of religious trappings in government without regard to which religion they are from (e.g. not showing favoritism to any religion) they are acting to favor one religion (Atheism) over others when trying to get rid of any and all religious trappings and not permitting any religious practice at all within government.

                An example might be last December the VA hospital that refused to allow Christmas cards with some Christian content to be delivered to patients by an outside group. That leans heavily towards Atheism not Secularism.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                  Where in the Constitution are government employees stripped of their First Amendment rights?

                  You have read the majority opinion... Right?

                  Did you miss this on page 27 of Kennedy's majority opinion?
                  Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.

                  Wow! People of faith are still allowed to talk about their religious opposition to gay marriage. So, if you work for the State, the non-enumerated rights of LGBTEIEIOU folk do trump your enumerated rights.


                  Roberts' replied to the majority's fantasy world on page 28 of his dissenting opinion...
                  Federal courts are blunt instruments when it comes to creating rights. They have constitutional power only to resolve concrete cases or controversies; they do not have the flexibility of legislatures to address concerns of parties not before the court or to anticipate problems that may arise from the exercise of a new right. Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right imagined by the majority— actually spelled out in the Constitution. Amdt. 1.

                  Respect for sincere religious conviction has led voters and legislators in every State that has adopted same-sex marriage democratically to include accommodations for religious practice. The majority’s decision imposing same-sex marriage cannot, of course, create any such accommodations. The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. Ante, at 27. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.
                  Never said they were. When you accept a job you agree to take on the responsibilities of that job and to discharge those duties. If a religious conviction prohibits you from doing something that makes up that job and when a accommodation can't be found, they you either do it or quit.
                  “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
                  “To talk of many things:
                  Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
                  Of cabbages—and kings—
                  And why the sea is boiling hot—
                  And whether pigs have wings.”
                  ― Lewis Carroll

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                    You are offering a false equivalence / false dilemma here. In both cases, the government employee upon hiring affirmed that their religion would not interfere with their job and that they would uphold equal opportunity as defined by law.
                    So, the racist either lied or is able to put aside his prejudice and do his job. The same goes for the Muslim.

                    If either refused they could be terminated for cause.
                    Them the same goes for the government worker tasked with marrying a gay couple or giving them a marriage license. It's legal now and has the same status as interracial or Christian marriages so if the worker refuses he will be terminated.
                    First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                      Point of order; racism is not a religion.
                      Yes it is. You don't know the people who preach Jesus was white and how he said whites were better than any other race? Racism itself isn't a religion but many incorporate racist views into their religion.
                      First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
                        Them the same goes for the government worker tasked with marrying a gay couple or giving them a marriage license. It's legal now and has the same status as interracial or Christian marriages so if the worker refuses he will be terminated.
                        I agree that people can't pick and choose the laws they are or aren't going to follow. If you can't/won't do it, get another job. However, I see a big flaw in your argument, there is no such thing as a "white" or "black" person or a "Christian" or "non-Christian" person. Those are things people can identify themselves as. There is no way someone else can identify someone as such when they go to get married. However, when two people of the same sex go to get married, that is discernible.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
                          Here are a few examples.

                          1. A racist has sincere views that whites and blacks shouldn't intermarry, but he works for the government and is forced to violate his strongly held religious beliefs. The state forces him to marry these interracial couples.
                          Correct.

                          A SCOTUS interpretation of the 14th Amendment trumped the explicit language of the 1st Amendment.

                          Originally posted by Delenda estRoma
                          2. A Muslim works for the government amd has strong religious beliefs that Christian should not marry. The government forces him to violate his faith.
                          The First Amendment rights of one person cannot override the First Amendment rights of another.

                          Originally posted by Delenda estRoma
                          If government workers can refuse to do their jobs because of religious convictions they need new jobs.
                          Correct. However, most States explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of race or religion. Very few prohibit discrimination based on sexual deviance.
                          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                            Correct.

                            A SCOTUS interpretation of the 14th Amendment trumped the explicit language of the 1st Amendment.



                            The First Amendment rights of one person cannot override the First Amendment rights of another.



                            Correct. However, most States explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of race or religion. Very few prohibit discrimination based on sexual deviance.
                            They are not allowed to pick and choose what parts of their job they can do. It's legal for gays to marry amd if they are refusing to do their job they can be fired.
                            First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                              Never said they were. When you accept a job you agree to take on the responsibilities of that job and to discharge those duties. If a religious conviction prohibits you from doing something that makes up that job and when a accommodation can't be found, they you either do it or quit.
                              The point is that the majority opinion stated that these people were still free to talk about their Freedom of Religion. As Roberts noted,

                              The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. Ante, at 27. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses.


                              In this case, the majority made the arbitrary and capricious decision to subordinate the enumerated rights of one group of people to the non-enumerated rights of another group of people.

                              SCOTUS subordinated the enumerated rights county clerks, judges and JP's to the non-enumerated rights of one group of people based on one specific sexual deviance that they favored.
                              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by lakechampainer View Post
                                I agree that people can't pick and choose the laws they are or aren't going to follow. If you can't/won't do it, get another job. However, I see a big flaw in your argument, there is no such thing as a "white" or "black" person or a "Christian" or "non-Christian" person. Those are things people can identify themselves as. There is no way someone else can identify someone as such when they go to get married. However, when two people of the same sex go to get married, that is discernible.
                                As are interracial marriages...
                                First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X