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 The Doctor View Post
    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.
    Their religious right don't trump the civil rights of others.
    First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
      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.
      Yep... and be sued... possibly even persecuted... er "prosecuted."
      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
        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.
        I think that's where we disagree.

        Things like wanting to remove "In God We Trust" is not atheist, but secular.

        Now, if the US government were waging a "war on religion" as some hysterical contend by, for instance, demanding that churches marry homosexuals, then the contention that they were engaging in anti-religious religious interference, then you would be right.

        But removing any mention of religion from the public sphere isn't atheistic at all. It's just actively being secularist. Only once the government begins to intrude into the private sphere by regulating or controlling religion does it cross over from secular into explicitly religious.

        And in that sense, the tax except status for churches is indeed non-secular behavior.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
          Their religious right don't trump the civil rights of others.
          The point is that SCOTUS subordinated their explicitly protected enumerated rights to the implied non-enumerated rights of another group of people.

          This was not a condition of their employment.
          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
            Yep... and be sued... possibly even persecuted... er "prosecuted."
            Why is it persecution? The government definition of marriage does not affect them in the least. They can of course have their own religious definition, but marriage by the state is not a religious affair. As an atheist I really don't care for religion being part of government marriage.
            First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

            Comment


            • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
              The point is that SCOTUS subordinated their explicitly protected enumerated rights to the implied non-enumerated rights of another group of people.

              This was not a condition of their employment.
              Yes it is. Their religious beliefs have no bearing on a seculararriage license issued by the government.
              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.
                It's NOT legal .Scotus has not the right to declare something legal : only congress can make legal same sex marriage by a law . Scotus can not make laws .

                Chief Justice Roberts : judges have the right to say what the law is, not what it should be .

                Judge Scalia : The ruling is a naked judicial claim to legislative power .


                This means : an attempt of a coup d'état .

                The reaction will be a mass civil disobedience which will make the enforcement of the ruling impossible .

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                  It's just actively being secularist. Only once the government begins to intrude into the private sphere by regulating or controlling religion does it cross over from secular into explicitly religious.

                  And in that sense, the tax except status for churches is indeed non-secular behavior.
                  If government begins to intrude into the private sphere by regulating or controlling religion,government is no longer democratic but dictatorial .

                  And it has already started : see the threats to the cake baker and the flower seller.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
                    Yes it is. Their religious beliefs have no bearing on a seculararriage license issued by the government.
                    According to who?
                    Amendment I

                    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.
                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
                      Why is it persecution? The government definition of marriage does not affect them in the least. They can of course have their own religious definition, but marriage by the state is not a religious affair. As an atheist I really don't care for religion being part of government marriage.
                      I shouldn't have to denote sarcasm with a smilie...

                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
                        Yes it is.
                        No, racism is not a religion.

                        You need to find some time between playing video games and posting religious hatred on the forum and crack open a book.
                        "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 The Doctor View Post
                          According to who?
                          Amendment I

                          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.
                          A person's religious rights and beliefs do not give them a license to discriminate or let them violate the law.

                          We don't allow Muslims to ban alcohol, force us to fast during Ramadan, and numerous other things they believe. So why are people to be forced to follow someone else's religious beliefs? That's a violation of my first amendment as well.
                          First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                            I shouldn't have to denote sarcasm with a smilie...

                            My statement stands.
                            First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                              No, racism is not a religion.

                              You need to find some time between playing video games and posting religious hatred on the forum and crack open a book.
                              You seem a bit off your game today.

                              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity

                              Christian Identity is a branch of Christianity which believes Jesus and the Israelites were white.
                              First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
                                You seem a bit off your game today.

                                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity

                                Christian Identity is a branch of Christianity which believes Jesus and the Israelites were white.
                                #occupyarmchairgeneral.
                                Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true. Demosthenes.
                                Against logic there is no armor like ignorance. Laurence J. Peter

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X