Standby terminology if US Supreme Court says same sex is legal definition

[KCfromNC]

All that proves to me is that it's possible to find some cranks or extremists somewhere who will say that whatever the situation is, it's because God wills it. That's not the issue here.

Isn't is? Perhaps those worried about losing control of the word marriage are the very "cranks or extremists" in the first place.

 

[Albion]

Isn't is? Perhaps those worried about losing control of the word marriage are the very "cranks or extremists" in the first place.

The point remains, however, that our history and our system of government do not give a pass on any lawbreaking so long as the criminal says "But that's my religious belief." If it were so, any murderer, arsonist, and the like would have a foolproof excuse and be let go free.

And you know that this is not the case, so it's also not relevant to this discussion.

 

[tulc]

A little levity every so often makes the forum go better.

I agree...of course my point was right though.
tulc(loves to be funny AND right!)

 

[Albion]

Name a single church, anywhere in the US, that was ever -- EVER -- compelled by law to administer a Sacrament against its will.

C'mon; just one.

You seem not to be paying attention. We are contemplating the effects of a change in the nation's laws that could establish a basis for additional changes. This has happened many times in American history.

 

[Cute Tink]

You seem not to be paying attention. We are contemplating the effects of a change in the nation's laws that could establish a basis for additional changes. This has happened many times in American history.

What reason do we have to believe that this change is a consequence?

 

[TLK Valentine]

The point remains, however, that our history and our system of government do not give a pass on any lawbreaking so long as the criminal says "But that's my religious belief." If it were so, any murderer, arsonist, and the like would have a foolproof excuse and be let go free.

So why does the religious right want to change this?

 

[TLK Valentine]

You seem not to be paying attention. We are contemplating the effects of a change in the nation's laws that could establish a basis for additional changes. This has happened many times in American history.

And as a result of any -- ANY -- of those past changes, has a church in the US ever -- EVER -- been forced to administer a Sacrament against its will?

Just one example... can you do it?

 

[TLK Valentine]

What reason do we have to believe that this change is a consequence?

Absolutely none whatsoever.

 

[Cute Tink]

Absolutely none whatsoever.

I have the same opinion. Since the rules relating to the relevant issues are not changing at all, no change should be expected.

 

[Maren]

Considering hurt feelings to constitute a reason for invalidating an article of the US Constitution. I realize that some lower courts have rendered some bad decisions in certain cases, but I don't remember the Supreme Court having taken a stand.

The Supreme Court has upheld Civil Rights accommodation laws multiple times, even in cases where the business being sued was claiming that it would violate their religious beliefs -- though those cases were typically centered on racial bias. I doubt the Supreme Court will hear any of the current cases.

It is worth pointing out, again, that it is businesses that are being required to produce these items under accommodation laws, not individuals. As such, the law does not give religious protections to businesses, though they do give some very limited religious rights for the way the owners operate their business -- which do not apply to accommodation laws. As I've pointed out previously, the business must take and fill the owner but the government will not force an individual baker to fill that owner. If the owner of the business is the main baker, he is still free to contract out the making of a cake to another bakery or baker, so that he is not personally involved in making/delivering the cake, but the business is required to take the order and provide the cake.

 

[Maren]

The point remains, however, that our history and our system of government do not give a pass on any lawbreaking so long as the criminal says "But that's my religious belief." If it were so, any murderer, arsonist, and the like would have a foolproof excuse and be let go free.

And you know that this is not the case, so it's also not relevant to this discussion.

So why are you requiring it now? As I point out above, the Supreme Court has already ruled that businesses cannot discriminate against protected classes, regardless of the owner's religious beliefs. So you are the one requiring the change.

 

[AirPo]

You seem not to be paying attention. We are contemplating the effects of a change in the nation's laws that could establish a basis for additional changes. This has happened many times in American history.

First it's contemplating, then it's happened.

How about an example of how it's happened?

 

[Maren]

Because it is guaranteed that gay advocacy organizations will bring suit the minute SS marriages are legalized across the nation, claiming that it violates their clients' civil rights and that it "hurt" them, since it caused great mental anguish by forcing them to be married by someone other than their first choice and in some place other than they'd allegedly intended. It might also be alleged that it violated their freedom of religion if the parties claim that the church which refused was the one that most closely approximated the religious beliefs of the litigants. All it would take is for some lower court judge to see it their way, and that is more than likely.

How is this "guaranteed" that gays will sue for pastors to marry them? I can't say that I've seen this happen in places where same sex marriage is legal, much less "the minute SS marriages [were] legalized," in any country. And, as has been pointed out, in the United States churches have exemptions for their beliefs in civil rights laws.

And just to clear this up in case someone tries to twist the facts, in Britain there is a movement to allow same sex couples to be married in Churches. The fact in that case is that the British law prevented same sex couples from being married in any church, even in churches that had no problem marrying a same sex couple. They aren't trying to force churches to marry same sex couples, merely trying to make it legal for them to be married in churches that will agree to marry them. There are additionally legal issues in that the Church of England is tied with the British Monarchy, in essence it is tied to the government, and so there are extra legal ramifications that no church in America would have -- where there is separation of church and state.

 

[Albion]

So why does the religious right want to change this?

To the best of my knowledge, it doesn't.


.

 

[Albion]

I have the same opinion. Since the rules relating to the relevant issues are not changing at all, no change should be expected.

You are aware that the case is before the Supreme Court at the present moment, aren't you?

.

 

[Albion]

First it's contemplating, then it's happened.

Are you just trying to be difficult? There is a change that is being contemplated by the court. The consequence of court rulings has been to affect other, related, laws. That has happened many times in the past, so it may well happen again. Get it?

.

 

[AirPo]

Are you just trying to be difficult? There is a change that is being contemplated by the court. The consequence of court rulings has been to affect other, related, laws. That has happened many times in the past, so it may well happen again. Get it?

.

All I'm asking for is an example of said "happenings." Get it?

 

[Cute Tink]

You are aware that the case is before the Supreme Court at the present moment, aren't you?

.

I am aware that the case governing whether states can not recognize gay marriage or not allow the issuance of gay marriage licenses. The case before the Supreme Court will decide whether those issues are Constitutionally acceptable. If they decide there is a Constitutional right for same sex couples to get married, that has no effect on whether a religious figure can decline to perform any marriage.

Keep in mind, Loving v. Virginia was the same type of argument, resulted in a Constitutional declaration by the Court, and yet religious figures can still decline to marry them.

This idea that a Constitutional right means that religious figures will be forced to conduct their ceremonies is nothing but a lack of understanding.

 

[TLK Valentine]

To the best of my knowledge, it doesn't.

Allow me to improve your knowledge.

Discrimination used to be illegal. If the Religious Right gets their way, discrimination because "God says so" will be legal.

Of course, it's all fun and games until a Christian finds himself on the receiving end...

 

[TLK Valentine]

I am aware that the case governing whether states can not recognize gay marriage or not allow the issuance of gay marriage licenses. The case before the Supreme Court will decide whether those issues are Constitutionally acceptable. If they decide there is a Constitutional right for same sex couples to get married, that has no effect on whether a religious figure can decline to perform any marriage.

Keep in mind, Loving v. Virginia was the same type of argument, resulted in a Constitutional declaration by the Court, and yet religious figures can still decline to marry them.

Indeed -- Churches are still allowed to be as racist as they wish... all in the name of God, of course.

This idea that a Constitutional right means that religious figures will be forced to conduct their ceremonies is nothing but a lack of understanding.

A lot of that going around...