Page 104 of 193 FirstFirst ... 45494102103104105106114154 ... LastLast
Results 1,031 to 1,040 of 1930

Thread: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

  1. #1031
    Tavern Bartender
    #NeverTrumpOrClinton tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 08:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    33,335

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by EnigmaO01 View Post
    And the retards will get their tax exempt status revoked! Yee haw!
    Wait - are you calling churches "retards"? Don't you think that's a little much?

    I have no use for religion, but millions of people do, and lots of people on this board do.
    Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields

  2. #1032
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    16,305

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    "The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to 'advocate' and 'teach' their views of marriage," writes Roberts. "The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to 'exercise' religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses."

    Roberts looks ahead to the likelihood of future conflicts between gay rights and religious rights, such as the tax status of conservative Christian colleges. He notes:


    Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage.

    There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Unfortunately, people of faith can take no comfort in the treatment they receive from the majority today.

    Alito notes:


    The majority attempts, toward the end of its opinion, to reassure those who oppose same-sex marriage that their rights of conscience will be protected. We will soon see whether this proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.

    he is right because that happens now before that decision.



    read the dissent that railed on that language used. there is nothing there that says they cannot sue. these militant activist will sue and press more and more lawsuits.

    it isn't impossible. they can file whatever lawsuit they want.
    we will see.
    Roberts is an idiot. The majority spelled it out. If any court rules against a religious organization, then they would be citing Robert's deluded interpretation of the majority's ruling, not what the majority actually said.

  3. #1033
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:28 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,321

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    You are moving the goals posts. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that a church will be forced to marry same sex couples, or even successfully sued for it. However, a college or adoption agency is not an inherently religious organization and those situations could potentially be much more complicated. Also, a business which offers a venue for weddings could be required by localities to host same sex weddings under public accommodation laws but that varies significantly depending on the state and area. It is really tough to say how those will work out, but I imagine there will be a push for same sex couples to simply publicize such businesses so people can vote with their wallets and choose not to do business with them of their own accord rather than to bring the state into it by suing.
    I am not moving the goalposts at all.

    Church offer their buildings for various activities to people outside of their church. From weddings to funerals etc ...
    someone could easily argue that it is open to the public for use and gay should be allowed to marry.

    these aren't businesses but churches.

    the other justices did not rule it out of context for the very thing you said to happen happen.
    Notre Dame is very much a religious school yet could lose it's status for exercising a 1st amendment right.

    no these militant advocates do not just march with their wallets they bring the courts into it and force their way.

  4. #1034
    Student Bethlehem Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Bethlehem, PA
    Last Seen
    03-10-16 @ 09:50 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    294

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    That isn't a remotely accurate portrayal of that decision.
    i was referring to this bit from his opinion:
    "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not destroy them,” writes Chief Justice John Roberts in his 6-3 majority decision in the case of King v. Burwell. “If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter"

    i thought their job was to interpret what was constitutional or not constitutional - not interpret what congress meant and adjust the ruling accordingly.

    i don't want to derail this thread, i made a similar comment in the thread about the king/burwell ruling and we can take it up over there...

    for the gay marriage one, i thought it should have been a no-brainer, 9-0, obviously constitutional for same sex couples to be entitled to marriage licenses from the state

    and to the slippery slopers out there - go ahead and petition the court for your ability to marry your brother or your dog or your big screen tv. then we can have that debate. theres a reason that the scope of this argument has been limited to man/man & woman/woman - because no one else is demanding the right to marry a pet.

  5. #1035
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,096

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Uhh, people at the time argued that overturning interracial marriage bans was changing the definition of marriage. They used that exact phraseology. Also invoked tradition and God's will. Oh, and "will of the people."
    They did? I wonder why, since it was still between a man and a woman? How many people argued that? Kind of a stupid argument, isn't it? Since it was, quite obviously, not changing the definition at all, as the did today.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  6. #1036
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:28 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,321

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Roberts is an idiot. The majority spelled it out. If any court rules against a religious organization, then they would be citing Robert's deluded interpretation of the majority's ruling, not what the majority actually said.
    No he calls you out on what you said can't happen. maybe it is you that don't get it.

    the court just slammed the door on the 1st amendment that protects peoples religious freedoms and practices.
    no they would be citing the majority ruling. as the majority ruling did not put freedom of religion in their majority writing.

  7. #1037
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    45,926

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Bethlehem Bill View Post
    i was referring to this bit from his opinion:
    "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not destroy them,” writes Chief Justice John Roberts in his 6-3 majority decision in the case of King v. Burwell. “If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter"

    i thought their job was to interpret what was constitutional or not constitutional - not interpret what congress meant and adjust the ruling accordingly.

    i don't want to derail this thread, i made a similar comment in the thread about the king/burwell ruling and we can take it up over there...

    for the gay marriage one, i thought it should have been a no-brainer, 9-0, obviously constitutional for same sex couples to be entitled to marriage licenses from the state

    and to the slippery slopers out there - go ahead and petition the court for your ability to marry your brother or your dog or your big screen tv. then we can have that debate. theres a reason that the scope of this argument has been limited to man/man & woman/woman - because no one else is demanding the right to marry a pet.
    Like many, you are making the mistake of taking one sentence out of a legal opinion and treating it like it is in a vacuum.

  8. #1038
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    16,305

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    I am not moving the goalposts at all.

    Church offer their buildings for various activities to people outside of their church. From weddings to funerals etc ...
    someone could easily argue that it is open to the public for use and gay should be allowed to marry.

    these aren't businesses but churches.

    the other justices did not rule it out of context for the very thing you said to happen happen.
    Notre Dame is very much a religious school yet could lose it's status for exercising a 1st amendment right.

    no these militant advocates do not just march with their wallets they bring the courts into it and force their way.
    You are very clearly moving the goal posts. You went from "churches will be forced to marry same sex couples" to "churches will be forced to allow their facilities, which are generally open to the public, to be used by same sex couples." That is quite a different argument. I do not know if the latter case will occur, and I hope nobody is petty enough to make it an issue, but we shall see. Regardless, since you will not admit it, I will state it for you...churches will not be required to marry same sex couples. Case closed.

  9. #1039
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:28 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,321

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Signing the marriage license itself is separate from the actual marriage. And really, the most the state could do is simply remove the ability of pastors/clergy to sign marriage licenses, which hurts the state (financially) more than it does anything else.
    no it isn't you can't officially be married without someone signing the license whether it is a justice of the peace or a clergy member.

  10. #1040
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    45,926

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    They did? I wonder why, since it was still between a man and a woman? How many people argued that? Kind of a stupid argument, isn't it? Since it was, quite obviously, not changing the definition at all, as the did today.
    Because to them, marriage had always been between a man and a woman of the same race. It had been this way for centuries, it was tradition, it was the will of God. It was the will of the people, and you darn liberals were forcing your changing definition of marriage on them via judicial fiat.

    You can see why, today, you saying exactly the same thing, is not compelling.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •