• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

SSM Ruling IMPACTS CHRISTIANITY![W:161]

vesper said:
A lot of you responding in this thread keep parroting the same answer that the legalization of SSM will not effect people of faith. But the warnings of the coming persecution for people of faith didn't come from some student of Bible prophecy, they came from all four dissenting Supreme Court justices and can be found in their written opinions in Obergefell v. Hodges . According to Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts the threats are real.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't see the ominious warnings of those old Roman Catholic men coming true.
 
Re: SSM Ruling IMPACTS CHRISTIANITY!

I fail to see how SSM impacts Christianity at all. Nobody is forcing churches to marry anyone or Christians to say that any gay person is married or a good person in the eyes of God. The closest is maybe requiring government officials to perform their duties and issue licenses or conduct secular same-sex weddings. But if you are a government employee you have to put the law above your own religion, IMO. I don't want anybody working for the government who is going to prioritize their own personal views over the law. And I don't think anyone else who is thinking objectively about the issue would either.
 
vesper said:
In the very first sentence of the quote reveals the flawed view of the majority.

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

In what way are you no longer free to "exercise" your religion now that gay people can have their relationships legally recognized everywhere in the nation, which is literally the only thing the Obergefell ruling changed?
 
Andalublue said:
According to Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor they are not. Who you gonna believe?
Click to expand...

Take a wild guess.

To the four dissenters, the "right" of some religious folks to not have their delicate sensibilities offended trumps the right of committed same-sex couples to enjoy the benefits of a legally recognized pairing.
 
vesper said:
A lot of you responding in this thread keep parroting the same answer that the legalization of SSM will not effect people of faith. But the warnings of the coming persecution for people of faith didn't come from some student of Bible prophecy, they came from all four dissenting Supreme Court justices and can be found in their written opinions in Obergefell v. Hodges . According to Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts the threats are real.
Click to expand...

Disagreeing with your views is not persecution. The dissent basically claims that religious folks might get their feelings hurt. Well, tough ****. Rights trump feelings.
 
Re: SSM Ruling IMPACTS CHRISTIANITY!

Krhazy said:
I fail to see how SSM impacts Christianity at all. Nobody is forcing churches to marry anyone or Christians to say that any gay person is married or a good person in the eyes of God. The closest is maybe requiring government officials to perform their duties and issue licenses or conduct secular same-sex weddings. But if you are a government employee you have to put the law above your own religion, IMO. I don't want anybody working for the government who is going to prioritize their own personal views over the law. And I don't think anyone else who is thinking objectively about the issue would either.
Click to expand...

DING DING DING DING 100% correct

IM a christian and I can tell you that it factually doesnt impact Christianity at all. All my religious rights are exactly the same and all the things required of me as a Christian can still be done and practiced. This is why the claim in the OP holds no water and cant be supported.
 
Kobie said:
In what way are you no longer free to "exercise" your religion now that gay people can have their relationships legally recognized everywhere in the nation, which is literally the only thing the Obergefell ruling changed?
Click to expand...

The dissenting opinions of the four justices lay out how the ruling will effect people of faith and the lawsuits that are surely to follow. Even the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage.

Justice Alito argued that after this ruling will make it "impossible" for further religious exemptions to be created.
"If the issue of same-sex marriage had been left to the people of the States, it is likely that some States would recognize same-sex marriage and others would not. It is also possible that some States would tie recognition to protection for conscience rights," he writes. "The majority today makes that impossible. By imposing its own views on the entire country, the majority facilitates the marginalization of the many Americans who have traditional ideas."
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

A person doesn't have to be a meteorologist to figure out which way the wind is blowing......
 
Yes, bigots will be called bigots. Oh, the horror!
 
vesper said:
The dissenting opinions of the four justices lay out how the ruling will effect people of faith and the lawsuits that are surely to follow. Even the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage.

Justice Alito argued that after this ruling will make it "impossible" for further religious exemptions to be created.

Alito notes:



A person doesn't have to be a meteorologist to figure out which way the wind is blowing......
Click to expand...

nope it just gives opinions and even what you qoute FURTHER shows that.. . the opinion that something NEW wont be as easy to create is not an actual effect now is it. lol
fact remains SSM doesnt impact any religious rights or freedoms in anyway (hence why nobody can list those rights impacted) and the things required to practice Christianity are still the same and also no impacted by the ruling. THanks for your OPINION but theres no logic or facts to support your false claim. None, zero, notta, ziltch

Who else finds it funny that this claim is made but yet not ONE accurate and factual example of it can be provided. Not ONE right thats impacted and not ONE way practicing is hindered. :shrug:
facts win again
 
In his own dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas argues that "the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect."
"It appears all but inevitable that [civil marriage and religious marriage] will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples," Thomas writes. He continues:


The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability. It makes only a weak gesture toward religious liberty in a single paragraph. And even that gesture indicates a misunderstanding of religious liberty in our Nation’s tradition.

Religious liberty is about more than just the protection for “religious organizations and persons . . . as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.” Religious liberty is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally, and the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religious practice.

Although our Constitution provides some protection against such governmental restrictions on religious practices, the People have long elected to afford broader protections than this Court’s constitutional precedents mandate. Had the majority allowed the definition of marriage to be left to the political process—as the Constitution requires—the People could have considered the religious liberty implications of deviating from the traditional definition as part of their deliberative process.

Instead, the majority’s decision short-circuits that process, with potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty.
Click to expand...
 
vesper said:
The dissenting opinions of the four justices lay out how the ruling will effect people of faith and the lawsuits that are surely to follow. Even the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage.

Justice Alito argued that after this ruling will make it "impossible" for further religious exemptions to be created.

Alito notes:

A person doesn't have to be a meteorologist to figure out which way the wind is blowing......
Click to expand...

Regarding Alito's comment: where does the First Amendment guarantee you the right to not be labeled a bigot?

Regarding Thomas' comment: religious liberty does not mean "religious people get to have their beliefs codified into law, at the expense of others, to protect their feelings."
 
Thorgasm said:
Yes, bigots will be called bigots. Oh, the horror!
Click to expand...

ANd thats the REAL issue

because the people that are actively trying to stop equal rights and want to break the law and treat others as lesser KNOW that it actually has NOTHING to do with Christianity. Luckily the vast majority of Christians understand this fact, and the fringe groups that claim the lie otherwise arn't taken seriously and will continue to be defeated by equal rights just like those that were against equal rights for minorities and women and against interracial marriage.
 
Kobie said:
Regarding Alito's comment: where does the First Amendment guarantee you the right to not be labeled a bigot?

Regarding Thomas' comment: religious liberty does not mean "religious people get to have their beliefs codified into law, at the expense of others, to protect their feelings."
Click to expand...

And you think these dissenting justices' opinions are frivolous based on hurt feelings and name calling? <sigh> You don't have to look any further than this forum from those who despise anyone for speaking boldly about their faith and marriage to see these justices are point on.
 
vesper said:
And you think these dissenting justices' opinions are frivolous based on hurt feelings and name calling? <sigh> You don't have to look any further than this forum from those who despise anyone for speaking boldly about their faith and marriage to see these justices are point on.
Click to expand...

Again, point to where in the Bill of Rights where it says your religious beliefs are exempt from criticism. I'll wait.
 
vesper said:
1.) And you think these dissenting justices' opinions are frivolous
2.)You don't have to look any further than this forum from those who despise anyone for speaking boldly about their faith and marriage to see these justices are point on.
Click to expand...

1.) since nobody can list any factual rights lost or actual factual restrictions not allowing one to be able to practice . . . . yes
2.) this doesnt affect law and rights anymore than the fringe misguided religious people that attack others not practicing thier faith... theres two sides of that coin no surprising you post ignores one.

facts remains ZERO rights were lost and ZERO impacts were made to my ability to practice . . disagree prove otherwise
facts win again
 
Kobie said:
Again, point to where in the Bill of Rights where it says your religious beliefs are exempt from criticism. I'll wait.
Click to expand...

and the reverse side of that . . . . what about all the religious people that are misguided and criticize those not practicing thier subjective opinions of right/wrong/religion.

Funny how the failed OP seems based on "hey I dont want people telling me im wrong when I tell them they are wrong" LMAO hypocrisy and dishonesty at its most transparent.
 
Kobie said:
Again, point to where in the Bill of Rights where it says your religious beliefs are exempt from criticism. I'll wait.
Click to expand...

It is being intellectually dishonest to make the claim that this is about being exempt from criticism. The Solicitor General acknowledged before the justices that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. That alone is a far cry from just criticism.
 
vesper said:
It is being intellectually dishonest to make the claim that this is about being exempt from criticism. The Solicitor General acknowledged before the justices that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. That alone is a far cry from just criticism.
Click to expand...

Religious institutions, in this case, being schools and adoption agencies that refuse to follow the law. Religious tax exemption is not an immutable right.
 
vesper said:
It is being intellectually dishonest to make the claim that this is about being exempt from criticism. The Solicitor General acknowledged before the justices that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. That alone is a far cry from just criticism.
Click to expand...

name these "religious institutions" and the "oppositions" you speak of i bet you are talkgin about institutions that arent not really religious (hosptials, public schools, business, foster care orgs etc) and these orgs breaking the law lol
 
Kobie said:
Religious institutions, in this case, being schools and adoption agencies that refuse to follow the law. Religious tax exemption is not an immutable right.
Click to expand...
And those of faith will have no choice but refuse to recognize the new law because their beliefs on marriage are a tenet of their faith and in turn lose the tax exempt status. And any grant money that most in this country generously agree to because of all the good these organizations do which benefits society as a whole, will be denied. That leaves them solely operating on donations....tithes and offerings of believers that the government will be allowed to tax taking their share off the top that would have been used to help people in need.
 
vesper said:
And those of faith will have no choice but refuse to recognize the new law because their beliefs on marriage are a tenet of their faith and in turn lose the tax exempt status. And any grant money that most in this country generously agree to because of all the good these organizations do which benefits society as a whole, will be denied. That leaves them solely operating on donations....tithes and offerings of believers that the government will be allowed to tax taking their share off the top that would have been used to help people in need.
Click to expand...

Grant money from who?

Why shouldn't churches operate solely on tithes and donations? Why am I supposed to subsidize your religion?
 
vesper said:
And those of faith will have no choice but refuse to recognize the new law because their beliefs on marriage are a tenet of their faith and in turn lose the tax exempt status. And any grant money that most in this country generously agree to because of all the good these organizations do which benefits society as a whole, will be denied. That leaves them solely operating on donations....tithes and offerings of believers that the government will be allowed to tax taking their share off the top that would have been used to help people in need.
Click to expand...

Discrimination against legal tax paying citizens is not a benefit to society.
 
Kobie said:
Grant money from who?

Why shouldn't churches operate solely on tithes and donations? Why am I supposed to subsidize your religion?
Click to expand...

There are the type that come from private donors and then there are the type where faith-based organizations partner with the government. The United States Supreme Court has said that faith-based organizations may not use direct government support to support "inherently religious" activities. Don't be put off by the term "inherently religious" - it's simply a phrase that has been used by the courts in church-state cases. Basically, it means you can not use any part of a direct Federal grant to fund religious worship, instruction, or proselytization. Instead, organizations may use government money only to support the non-religious social services that they provide. Therefore, faith-based organizations that receive direct governmental funds take steps to separate, in time or location, their inherently religious activities from the government-funded services that they offer. However, if that faith-based organization does not recognize SSM, the government funded services could now be denied.
 
vesper said:
And those of faith will have no choice but refuse to recognize the new law because their beliefs on marriage are a tenet of their faith and in turn lose the tax exempt status. And any grant money that most in this country generously agree to because of all the good these organizations do which benefits society as a whole, will be denied. That leaves them solely operating on donations....tithes and offerings of believers that the government will be allowed to tax taking their share off the top that would have been used to help people in need.
Click to expand...

Greetings, Vesper. :2wave:

Whatever happened to the concept of separation of Church and State? There was a reason our Founders felt that way - they had seen first hand the results of not doing what they did! And religion is not the only part of our Constitution and Bill of Rights they're trying to change - look at the attacks on the First and Second Amendments going on right now.
 
vesper said:
And those of faith will have no choice but refuse to recognize the new law because their beliefs on marriage are a tenet of their faith and in turn lose the tax exempt status. And any grant money that most in this country generously agree to because of all the good these organizations do which benefits society as a whole, will be denied. That leaves them solely operating on donations....tithes and offerings of believers that the government will be allowed to tax taking their share off the top that would have been used to help people in need.
Click to expand...


false they would have many choices if they choose to break the law thats on them, thier choice wouldnt violate thier rights or impact thier ability to practice in any legal way what so ever

thank you for proving your own claims wrong and that there is NO FORCE LMAO
facts win again
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom