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

Originally Posted by tres borrachos

Forgive me for snipping your post. All of it was interesting but that stands out for me. I'm not willing to bet my mortgage payment that your statement is correct. I don't think it's quite as simple as you make it out to be, and I'll venture to guess I'm not alone in that thinking. Unless religious exemption is guaranteed forever, this is debatable, IMO.

It is called the 1st Amendment. I am a man in a same sex marriage, and I would personally fight any attempt to force a church that does not want to perform a same sex marriage to do so by the state. I even posted a thread on this forum not too long ago asking if a church should be required to perform same sex marriages even if they were made legal nationwide, and 98% of the posters in that thread agreed they should not. Nobody thinks this way but paranoid conservatives.

Originally Posted by iguanaman

Because those laws violated equal protection. The U.S is the 21st country to legalize SSM, it is not like we are blazing any new ground with this. You can always join ISIS and throw gays off buildings if that is your thing.

pretty sure ISIS wouldn't take him

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

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.

nope your distortion of the argument is noted.

nothing in there protects church or pastors from lawsuits.

as stated before pastors act in the power of the state to sign marriage licenses. it would be very easy for them to be sued for not marrying a gay couple.
churches offer their buildings to all sorts of outside events from garage sales to bake sales etc for different things. marriages and funerals.
again technically all churches are open to anyone that wants to enter. they can easily be sued under public accomidation laws.

nothing in the ruling protect freedom of religion. it will have to work it's way through the court system.

Originally Posted by tres borrachos

Geezus, thanks for calling me a paranoid conservative. I'm not, and that's pretty goddamn rude.

you should get use to it seel alito's dissent that I posted.

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.


they already do this now.

Originally Posted by Henrin

Nine old dudes though are totally qualified.

"You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate" - some idiot senator from arkansas