|
Post by stevec on Jun 27, 2015 21:28:18 GMT -6
Hip hip hurray....................anyone gonna join me?
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jul 9, 2015 14:01:02 GMT -6
Hip hip hurray....................anyone gonna join me? Hi Steve: Which case are you hooraying? I'm glad that gays have the right to marry. In an ideal world, I would have preferred that it be handled by the vote of the people - state by state. I was surprised that Kennedy did not decide the case on traditional equal protection grounds. I had been making the equal protection argument for years and it turns out that equal protection was not the controlling point... That surprised me. I am disturbed that the ink was not even dry on the opinion when some of the more hard core activists began calling for the government to override any religious objection to sanctifying gay marriage. I don't like the vilification of those Christians, Jews and Muslims who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds at all. I don't think that the activists and press are giving the 1st Amendment its due respect when they attack those who still oppose gay marriage on religious grounds. Also, I felt a bit of nostalgia for Flitz when the gay marriage opinion came down. She and I had been allies in that rhetorical battle for a long time. The reslution came quicker than either of us had predicted several years ago. I was sad not to be able to remark what an interesting trip it had been. I think that Roberts' ACA opinion is pretty weak. In both ACA cases he tortured the law to implement the "intent" of the razor thin majority that passed this statute in such a hasty and poor manner. I do think (hope) that diluting the pressing nature of both the gay marriage and ACA issues will help the Rs in 16, and I am fine with that. Jim
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jul 12, 2015 19:27:10 GMT -6
Jim,
I don't understand how you can imagine(obviously you can, because you did) that civil rights are better served or more fairly attained through state by state voting. All you're doing is creating more distinctions for the courts to settle, for example, non-SSM states recognizing marriages and rights attained in SSM states. Why would you put up roadblocks to gays when you support their right to marry? We both know it's quite possible for bigotted views to prevail in southern states and that gays would be denied their rights. You can't leave civil rights to the mercy of voting booths. If you have read Christian propaganda concerning SSM, it's clearly based on various combinations of ignorance, hate, and fear. Religion can not be counted on to produce the right outcome. Why give ignorant, hateful, and fearful views the opportunity to win?
Why shouldn't orthodox/fundamentalist religious types be vilified for their opposition to SSM? Have they shown mercy or compassion the LGBT cause? Why should one gay person continue to be denied civil rights or business services for religious reasons?
We'll have to wait for the courts to decide 1st Amendment issues related to SSM and the rights of religious fundamentslists to continue to push their cause in the public sector. I can see the courts letting religious people continue business as usual within the confines of private homes and churches. I could care less about what "sanctity of marriage" means, so let churches decide. AFAIC, all marraiges are equal.
I don't care how SCOTUS justified the decision, I'm just happy with the results - sort of like Superbowl XLIX.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Jul 13, 2015 11:07:59 GMT -6
Jim, I don't understand how you can imagine(obviously you can, because you did) that civil rights are better served or more fairly attained through state by state voting. All you're doing is creating more distinctions for the courts to settle, for example, non-SSM states recognizing marriages and rights attained in SSM states. Why would you put up roadblocks to gays when you support their right to marry? We both know it's quite possible for bigotted views to prevail in southern states and that gays would be denied their rights. You can't leave civil rights to the mercy of voting booths. If you have read Christian propaganda concerning SSM, it's clearly based on various combinations of ignorance, hate, and fear. Religion can not be counted on to produce the right outcome. Why give ignorant, hateful, and fearful views the opportunity to win? Why shouldn't orthodox/fundamentalist religious types be vilified for their opposition to SSM? Have they shown mercy or compassion the LGBT cause? Why should one gay person continue to be denied civil rights or business services for religious reasons? We'll have to wait for the courts to decide 1st Amendment issues related to SSM and the rights of religious fundamentslists to continue to push their cause in the public sector. I can see the courts letting religious people continue business as usual within the confines of private homes and churches. I could care less about what "sanctity of marriage" means, so let churches decide. AFAIC, all marraiges are equal. I don't care how SCOTUS justified the decision, I'm just happy with the results - sort of like Superbowl XLIX. Hi Steve: If the rights were voted on state by state, there might be less discord in the long run. When gay marriage is approved by statute, the anti-gay rights crowd is denied the argument that this turn of legal events was forced upon them by activist courts. This is a lesson from Roe v. Wade. That is why I think that state by state votes would have been "better." I did say "in an ideal world" in my first post though and I am pleased with the SC decision. Bottom line, in an ideal world this issue would have been resolved by the state legislatures reflecting the universal will of the majority. We don't live in an ideal world. "Why should one gay person continue to be denied civil rights or business services for religious reasons?" It is now settled that gays can not legally be denied the fundamental right to marry. Our key civil rights (the right to life, liberty, free speech, free exercise, right vote, right to peaceably assemble, bear arms etc.) have not recently been denied to gays under any law I am aware of. As an offshoot of this SC decision, gays probably can't be denied non-religious business services. For example, a cafe owner would not get far after (or even before) this decision denying services to gays. Is marrying people a business service though? If conservative Christian, Jew and Muslim ministers refuse to marry gays based upon the admonitions of their scripture are we the people going to force them to do so? More germane perhaps, are we going to strip the non-profit tax status from religious institutions that refuse to marry gays? fusion.net/story/158096/does-your-church-ban-gay-marriage-then-it-should-start-paying-taxes/#mail-share time.com/3939143/nows-the-time-to-end-tax-exemptions-for-religious-institutions/I would not. I am glad to see that you would not force conservative ministers to marry gays. What do you think about the tax exempt status? Would you punish the churches in that manner? Some activists are going to force these issue, and I genuinely hope that the 1st Amendment wins. I'm 98% certain the 1st Amendment will win. Only short-sighted fools want to use the force of government to strip 1st Amendment rights from others whom they disagree with, no matter how "wrong" the "other" viewpoint may seem to be. Jim
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jul 15, 2015 9:29:38 GMT -6
I don't understand how you can imagine(obviously you can, because you did) that civil rights are better served or more fairly attained through state by state voting. All you're doing is creating more distinctions for the courts to settle, for example, non-SSM states recognizing marriages and rights attained in SSM states. Why would you put up roadblocks to gays when you support their right to marry? We both know it's quite possible for bigotted views to prevail in southern states and that gays would be denied their rights. You can't leave civil rights to the mercy of voting booths. If you have read Christian propaganda concerning SSM, it's clearly based on various combinations of ignorance, hate, and fear. Religion can not be counted on to produce the right outcome. Why give ignorant, hateful, and fearful views the opportunity to win? Why shouldn't orthodox/fundamentalist religious types be vilified for their opposition to SSM? Have they shown mercy or compassion the LGBT cause? Why should one gay person continue to be denied civil rights or business services for religious reasons? We'll have to wait for the courts to decide 1st Amendment issues related to SSM and the rights of religious fundamentslists to continue to push their cause in the public sector. I can see the courts letting religious people continue business as usual within the confines of private homes and churches. I could care less about what "sanctity of marriage" means, so let churches decide. AFAIC, all marraiges are equal. I don't care how SCOTUS justified the decision, I'm just happy with the results - sort of like Superbowl XLIX. Hi Steve: If the rights were voted on state by state, there might be less discord in the long run. When gay marriage is approved by statute, the anti-gay rights crowd is denied the argument that this turn of legal events was forced upon them by activist courts. This is a lesson from Roe v. Wade. That is why I think that state by state votes would have been "better." I did say "in an ideal world" in my first post though and I am pleased with the SC decision. Bottom line, in an ideal world this issue would have been resolved by the state legislatures reflecting the universal will of the majority. We don't live in an ideal world. I have to dIsaggree with your less discord statement. The fundamentalists are bitching about the courts because they feel the courts have betrayed god and the Bible. If state legislatures had ratified SSM, they would be bitching about evil liberal legislatures forcing god's people to compromise their values. If SSM had been voted into being though a national referendum, they would be bitching about a spiritually sick society guided by Satan. I based my opinion on the fact that there was never any attempt at compromise from either side? Inevitably, there was going to be a big loser and a big winner, which would have created a breeding ground for discord regardless of the outcome. SCOTUS did the nation a favor by ending this national debate in the shortest amount of time and least amount of suffering, thereby giving gays what they rightfully deserve and fundamentalists time to move on. It also forced fundamentslists the opportunity to reflect on where they went wrong. Can you imagine what they would have tried next if they had won? God forbid!!! I'm hardly a constitutional expert, but I would interpret DOMA as infringing on those rights. Those issues represent the next legal battlefield. I wish the LGBT forces would bsck off from pressing forward, but fundamentalists were so nasty with the dehumanization of gays and lesbians during this debate, that once again, it's inevitable that LGBT would try to hurt the religious lobby where they live. The courts have looked favorably on religious institutions' beliefs as far as employment policies and healthcare issues are concerned, so I believe they will win the next legal SSM battle. I wouldn't want to get married in a church that despises me, but we both know that many people live for confrontation and to be in the spotlight. In the end, the courts will produce a compromise that should have been made a long time ago and the fundamentalists will walk away feeling slightly better, though beaten badly within the broader picture. SCOTUS made this all possible with the least amount of pain and financial expense. I believe your legislative solution would have extended a painful situation for gays and would have been more expensive and devisive, so from that perspective, I could never justify that route. As far as tax exemption is concerned, there are some religious practices and personalities that should be taxed. You know them by their luxurious lifestyles.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Aug 31, 2015 10:36:31 GMT -6
LOL... I think this is common in a swath no matter whose camp it is. If they had favored marriage as defined for millennia, then SSM would feel that the courts have betrayed them. If state legislatures didn't ratify SSM, they would be be bitching about how the majority is so mean (when the majority, when you remove the fringes, are so loving). As far as comprise... there isn't a middle ground that i can see. One is either for it or against. it. Is there a middle ground? LOl... I think we will see what is going to happen now that SSM won. Stop dehumanizing me. That's good. Certainly churches have been formed around any and every viewpoint. Even atheists have churches. "And in the name of survival of the fittest, we now pronounce you one". Everybody's income is taxes according to their lifestyles. ? Happy New Year!
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Sept 3, 2015 16:19:38 GMT -6
LOL.marriagenk this is common in a swath no matter whose camp it is. If they had favored marriage as defined for millennia, then SSM would feel that the courts have betrayed them. If state legislatures didn't ratify SSM, they would be be bitching about how the majority is so mean (when the majority, when you remove the fringes, are so loving). As far as comprise... there isn't a middle ground that i can see. One is either for it or against. it. Is there a middle ground? I LOl... I think we will see what is going to happen now that SSM won. Stop dehumanizing me. That's good. Certainly churches have been formed around any and every viewpoint. Even atheists have churches. "And in the name of survival of the fittest, we now pronounce you one". Everybody's income is taxes according to their lifestyles. ? Happy New Year! So Ken, how do you feel about the Kentucky court clerk being arrested for not issuing marraige licences?
|
|
|
Post by ken on Sept 3, 2015 21:14:53 GMT -6
So Ken, how do you feel about the Kentucky court clerk being arrested for not issuing marraige licences? I think this falls under that heading that we talked about. Now that the Supreme Court has come to their conclusion, what is next? Throw Christians in jail, of course. What do I think about it? The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. I'm sure her boss could come down and issue the document. Basically, they are saying when you clock in you no longer have the free exercise of religion. Like in other countries, the next step is to say that churches of faith can't say it is wrong or it will be labeled as a hate speech. (Although apparently it is ok to say I hate policemen)
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Sept 3, 2015 21:55:12 GMT -6
So Ken, how do you feel about the Kentucky court clerk being arrested for not issuing marraige licences? I think this falls under that heading that we talked about. Now that the Supreme Court has come to their conclusion, what is next? Throw Christians in jail, of course. What do I think about it? The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. I'm sure her boss could come down and issue the document. Basically, they are saying when you clock in you no longer have the free exercise of religion. Like in other countries, the next step is to say that churches of faith can't say it is wrong or it will be labeled as a hate speech. (Although apparently it is ok to say I hate policemen) Yes Ken, it is time to throw Christians in jail for taking their religious biases to their very public jobs. The Constitution still guarantees that Christians be allowed to behave in that manner in their homes and churches, but I'm afraid, it's illegal in the public sector. I'd like to see her spare everyone from this drama by quitting. If she is truly doing this on god's behalf, perhaps god will provide her with another $80k position. It's comical that this poster child for traditional marraige and moral values has been married three times, divorced, and has had two children out of wedlock.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Sept 3, 2015 21:58:29 GMT -6
Ken,
What should be the penalty for illegally denying gays to marry?
|
|
|
Post by ken on Sept 4, 2015 10:51:20 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by ken on Sept 4, 2015 11:42:37 GMT -6
I think this falls under that heading that we talked about. Now that the Supreme Court has come to their conclusion, what is next? Throw Christians in jail, of course. What do I think about it? The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. I'm sure her boss could come down and issue the document. Basically, they are saying when you clock in you no longer have the free exercise of religion. Like in other countries, the next step is to say that churches of faith can't say it is wrong or it will be labeled as a hate speech. (Although apparently it is ok to say I hate policemen) Yes Ken, it is time to throw Christians in jail for taking their religious biases to their very public jobs. The Constitution still guarantees that Christians be allowed to behave in that manner in their homes and churches, but I'm afraid, it's illegal in the public sector. I'd like to see her spare everyone from this drama by quitting. If she is truly doing this on god's behalf, perhaps god will provide her with another $80k position. It's comical that this poster child for traditional marraige and moral values has been married three times, divorced, and has had two children out of wedlock. We have gone way beyond jail. We get beheaded for our faith too. As Pastor Eliseo Villar in Cuba can testify, jail time for Jesus is an honor and not a punishment. As the Colosseum Christocide showed, people aren't afraid to stand for their faith. Our fore fathers understood that and thus the First Amendment, but we all know it doesn't stop King's Court from abridging that right. As Jesus said, "If they persecuted and killed the master, then expect them to persecute and kill the servants". (Paraphrased). People still aren't afraid of what man can do against them.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Sept 4, 2015 11:51:02 GMT -6
Ken, What should be inhe penalty for illegally denying gays to marry? What should be the penalty for illegally forcing someone to deny their faith when the Constitution says that one shouldn't impede the free exercise of religion? A violation of the Constitution supersedes the value of this law. Please note, you don't have to comeone in jail violating their freedom of religion: www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/04/with-clerk-jailed-gay-kentucky-couple-gets-in Christianarriage-license/?intcmp=hplnws There is an easy out where EVERYONE can be happy. Where was the easy way out where EVERYONE can be happy? Have you been following this story? The clerk admitted that she would do everything in her power to deny the marriage license requests. Her deputy clerks were free to issue the requests only after a judge threw her in jail. Her job is to service the public, not god. God is not paying her salary. The public, which includes gays, are expecting her to fulfill her lawful commitment to provide services. If you stop supplying religious services to your church followers, should you be allowed to keep your job? The Constitution does not guarantee what you think it does. By law, the court clerk has to issue the licenses, that legal issue is over, the battle has been lost. It's rather silly of Christians to believe the Constitution gives them the right to apply their religious biases to the public work place. Ultimately the court clerk sill be fired if she doesn't do her job. The county will carefully document every transgression, issue appropriate warnings, all of which will provide the perfect groundwork to dismiss her. She will become another ugly foot for Christianity. I'm sure she will be able to get another job at Hobby Lobby or Chick Fillet cashiering for either of those two fine Christian companies.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Sept 4, 2015 19:32:27 GMT -6
What should be the penalty for illegally forcing someone to deny their faith when the Constitution says that one shouldn't impede the free exercise of religion? A violation of the Constitution supersedes the value of this law. Please note, you don't have to comeone in jail violating their freedom of religion: www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/04/with-clerk-jailed-gay-kentucky-couple-gets-in Christianarriage-license/?intcmp=hplnws There is an easy out where EVERYONE can be happy. Where was the easy way out where EVERYONE can be happy? Have you been following this story? The clerk admitted that she would do everything in her power to deny the marriage license requests. Her deputy clerks were free to issue the requests only after a judge threw her in jail. Her job is to service the public, not god. God is not paying her salary. The public, which includes gays, are expecting her to fulfill her lawful commitment to provide services. If you stop supplying religious services to your church followers, should you be allowed to keep your job? The Constitution does not guarantee what you think it does. By law, the court clerk has to issue the licenses, that legal issue is over, the battle has been lost. It's rather silly of Christians to believe the Constitution gives them the right to apply their religious biases to the public work place. Ultimately the court clerk sill be fired if she doesn't do her job. The county will carefully document every transgression, issue appropriate warnings, all of which will provide the perfect groundwork to dismiss her. She will become another ugly foot for Christianity. I'm sure she will be able to get another job at Hobby Lobby or Chick Fillet cashiering for either of those two fine Christian companies. I'm sorry, but one doesn't check out their faith when they clock into their job. And, yes, The Constitution does guarantee freedom of the exercise of religion. Some people even demanded that others to not walk into a workplace with a cross. The initial job description was with a man and a woman. Imagine if you were hired as an electrical engineer and then they demanded that you scrub the toilets. Now, if you decided you weren't going to scrub the toilets, then they fire you, they don't put you in jail. No one can demand that you scrub the toilet "or else you go to jail". It is simply ludicrous.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Sept 4, 2015 22:00:29 GMT -6
Ken,
It all depends on what you consider checking your faith and what the job is. Christians are now severly limited as to how far they can let their religious biases affect other people's rights in the public sector. As we have all witnessed in life, everyone can be replaced. This court clerk was affecting the civil rights of people in her community, which is illegal. Her religious rights on the job are irrelevant now according to SCOTUS's interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution no longer guarantees she keep her job while continuing her abhorrent and illegal behavior.As we have seen, there are good Christians in her office willing to take over her job and they don't have a problem serving god at the same time. So there are people willing to check their faith, or as I would prefer to say, not choose the bigoted path. She is free to quit her job, that's what the Constitution now guaratees her if she feels her interpretation of serving god is more important. Btw, the electrical engineer is free to walk away from the toilet cleaning job and search for other opportunities in his field, so can she. I have to believe you feel god will reward her in this life, unless of course, your faith in god's prosperity sharing ability has wavered.
|
|