If The U.S. Supreme Court ‘Goes Rogue’ ...

a reply to: FarleyWayne


Rest assure that it will be challenged and declared unconstitutional.

a reply to: marg6043

In order for that happen, someone has to try to force a pastor to marry them. That means that what so many people here assure us no one wants or would do must happen.

a reply to: ketsuko

My god didn't say that...in fact she told me marriage is about consenting adults.
So when I ask a baker for a gay wedding and he refuses he is infringing on ny religious rights also...
See how silly it can get?.
Just leave your religious views out of your business.
oh and lets not pretend it is really anything to do with christianity...its just bigots hiding behind their religion.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: ketsuko

My god didn't say that...in fact she told me marriage is about consenting adults.
So when I ask a baker for a gay wedding and he refuses he is infringing on ny religious rights also...
See how silly it can get?.
Just leave your religious views out of your business.
oh and lets not pretend it is really anything to do with christianity...its just bigots hiding behind their religion.

So basically, no one can live their lives according to their religious views now?

a reply to: ketsuko

Rep. Cecil a cheater, with a very nice history of cheating on his first wife with his second one is now playing the self-righteous role behind this bill, he is actually challenging any supreme court ruling in favor of same sex marriage. He is been doing this like throwing crap at the wall to see if it sticks.

He is going to lose, because same sex marriage is going to be rule under discrimination.

a reply to: marg6043

Again, if the bill is aimed specifically at protecting pastors and churches from being forced to perform ss weddings ... then someone has to actually try to force a church to do one in order to claim standing to sue.

If what everyone says in this thread is true, no gay couple would ever dream of doing that.

Are you saying that isn't true?

a reply to: ketsuko

We will see how far such a bill will go, taking into consideration that opponents of the bill said that the bill is open to no only discrimination against same sex but any person that can perform marriage to discriminate in other areas no limited to same sex.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: ketsuko

We will see how far such a bill will go, taking into consideration that opponents of the bill said that the bill is open to no only discrimination against same sex but any person that can perform marriage to discriminate in other areas no limited to same sex.

Now saying it won't pass is different than saying it will be challenged in court. Are you back-tracking? Do you mean to say that gay people won't try to force churches to marry them?

a reply to: ketsuko

I think that it will not get that far, I see it the same way that I see everything, unless is some kind of agenda, why will a person that is pursuing to get marry will go to somebody that do not approve, it will be more simple to find those that list themselves as friendly to same sex.

But when you look at some of the laws that some states are pushing for in the name of religious protecting, is about banning completely any same sex marriage.

And to answer your question I say, NO, nobody should be forced to do something they do not want

In America is always something there for everybody, looking for equality no always has to mean forcing views unto others., I am sure it will be a big market to cater to same sex couples to be explored.

While the majority of churches are opposed to it because they view homosexuality and transgenderism as incompatible with Biblical teaching and traditional Christian practice,[1] there are an increasing number of Christian churches and communities that are open to the ordination of people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, and/or transgender. These are mainly moderate and liberal Protestant churches. The first mainline denomination in the USA to ordain openly gay clergy was the United Church of Christ—UCC in 1972. Other groups include the Metropolitan Community Church and the Church of Sweden where clergy may serve in senior clerical positions. In 2003 the United Church of Christ General Synod called for full inclusion of transgender persons.[2]

en.wikipedia.org...

Religious fundamentalist are the ones making it into a targeted issue.

originally posted by: ketsuko
God first said marriage is between a man and a woman. Later on Christ followed up on this. A marriage is a sacred ceremony where a man and a woman are joined in God's eyes.

To hold a ceremony that attempts to do otherwise is a mockery of what God has decreed for a believing Christian. Of course, there are some who will decide to believe otherwise.

The reason why we don't call other weddings straight weddings is because it never occurred to anyone that a wedding would ever be between two men or two women. A wedding has always been for more than just two people to selfishly affirm their love.

Can you show me where it is in the bible it says that???

Selfishly affirming their love??? Ya, it used to be more of a Property Transfer from Father to Husband. That was obviously much better. In fact it's still viewed that way to some degree even now which I hardly find to be sanctimonious.

Just because no one seems to care doesn't mean no one does. Divorce is also wrong except in certain narrow circumstances.

Yes I know. That's my point. Equally as wrong for marriage would be being part of a Divorced couple Marriage, Interracial Marriage, or a Marriage of Different Faiths which some churches still don't allow either. However no business is crying foul and refusing service to them or passing laws about Religious Freedom about them either. Why the double standard then when it comes to Gays???

Up until the past four or five years, a person COULD just bake cakes and sell flowers and not have to worry about it.

And how many times did the person baking cakes or selling flowers turn away the pregnant bride? Did it happen? We don't know. You know why? Because up until the gay lobby started decided they had a right to force everyone to bow down and serve them, no one sued someone for saying "I don't think I can do that." So you can't really claim that "no one" cared about it.

Ya, well it's not their place to worry about it either since they aren't a religious institution though. They're a baker or a florist or whatever. Just because the owner is Christian doesn't make it a church or place of worship. If they are morally threatened by the different kinds of marriages then they shouldn't cater weddings.

Gay lobby forcing people to "bow down to them and serve them" huh?? Ya, once again that would be Religion that expects people to bow down and serve not the other way around.

Telling someone you don't think you can do a service isn't about "preaching religion."

But I would agree that your own personal bias might be coloring some of your opinions on the subject.

The next time someone asks you to do something against your own morals consider that you are not there to preach anything and you better just suck it up buttercup as that seems to be your position on things.

No, but telling someone you can't service them because they are gay which is against God is "preaching religion".

I would say your personal bias is effecting your thinking as well.

Well, as far as doing my job and them simply asking me to do my job like I would for anyone else that is exactly what I do, even if I don't want to. I suck it up like a big boy, don't sit and cry about it, don't blame it on my personal feelings and I do my job. That is how the adult world works ya see. We don't force people off the playground for cooties and stuff like that because we've grown up and know how ridiculous it is to treat others like that. I think it even says something similar in that book you seem to cherish so much.

Most of you are missing the most basic, and fundamental, issue here -- the argument which I am hearing-- via citation of examples which highlight individuals being forced to provide service(s) they do not wish to serve; this is not about marriage, rather, it is blatant homophobia spurred up by a religious front.

The fact is, these individuals are not 'married' when asking a photographer to take pictures of them. These same individuals are not 'married' when asking for a cake to be baked. Clearly this is not an issue about marriage. In fact, I would venture to declare that if a single gay man--or woman--were to go into any of these, previously mentioned, places of business, they would still be denied service; individuals discriminating on other individuals' lifestyle choice(s) conducted either overtly or covertly. What I have just described happens all the time in America. In example, housing communities often do not rent to minorities and will make up excuses, such as, being at capacity; however, such behavior does not make discrimination acceptable or constitutional. In fact, as I see it, the posturing on this issue is religiously fueled, extremist in nature, and entirely out of touch with generational sociological development. A minority in America is attempting to deny public service to American men and women -- some of whom have fought and bled for this country. Despicable.

Let's stop for a moment and consider the law.

Businesses, which provide a public service, are taxed separately from organizations with closed membership policies. As such, if a business owner is declaring themselves a public business, they then must provide said public service to everyone and can be held liable for denying that service on grounds of discrimination. Therefore, hypothetically speaking, if I were to walk into a Mexican bakery and was refused service, because of the color of my skin, that would be discrimination. If I owned a public pool and did not allow African-Americans entry, that would be discrimination. If I wanted to ride, on a public transit system, in a gentrified part of a city, and was not allowed to ride -- that would be discrimination. More so, the 501c3 (Tax-Exempt status which churches take advantage of) specifically prohibits any church of organizing opposition to anything that the government, through public approval, has made legal. Therefore, any church which is taking advantage of the American taxation system, by avoiding taxes and promoting descent on this issue, are, in-fact, in violation of this clause. Furthermore, individuals who attend these churches and then turn to the public to spread said misinformation, are, in fact, violating the very establishment they believe they are fighting for. Although religious freedoms are protected by the constitution, the economic rights, associated with churches, are not divine. A tax exempt status is a privilege which must adhere to specific guidelines-- necessary to avoid flourishing fanaticism.

Our society is constructed, in this manner, in order to sustain our judicial system-- which protects citizens rights who have served time for crime--, minorities and gender. This is not an argument based on what America was founded on, or what it could be -- this is the America we live in today.

The OP, and supporters, promote discrimination within our society. If you are going to operate, financially, in the public markets, then you need to own up to the responsibilities of being an American business owner -- in a country with hundreds of belief systems, different sexes and lifestyles. I hope I am not being to hard on the OP, but realize that they are quite upset with the way things are. You still have a choice. This great country has allowed you the opportunity to voice your concern and rally support for your cause. May I suggest, rather than promoting descent and discrimination, promote exclusivity.

Take the homophobic businesses, limit their interactions to private membership-- exclusivity-- and tax them appropriately. Any 'extremist' church--not just Christian--which wishes to promote ideology that incites dissent on established principals upheld by the American legal system, should be stripped of their tax-exempt status and forced to adhere to the same economic standards as any [other] business promoting exclusivity. Let's see how well free-market capitalism works when fanatic ideology gets in the way of financial law and American constitutional-ism.

The US supreme court has become a strange institution. An old friend of mine, who would often times be found in some stage of waking up or falling asleep, or other times being awake, told me something very interesting about the supreme court.

So the building that all the decisions take place in had all of the steel reinforcements made from a company that produces steel. Now the company that makes the steel has many employees as one would imagine, and they where a union shop, but one of the employees was caught cheating on a math test that he was taking in college. He was working at the steel place but at nights and weekends would go to college to get a degree in nefarious performance arts because he was unsatisfied with his work with steel.

The way he cheated on the test was to copy all of the rules for differentiation on a piece of paper and glued it to the back of his calculator so he could see them while taking the test. He was taking the test and had his calculator out and kept cheating off the sheet he had hidden within, the teacher saw the calculator and sized it. Sometimes that teacher would use a coffee-stirrer as a straw but would have to use many of them since their diameter is so small and it would annoy other people at the place because they would run out and people would be lazy about buying more and replacing them.

The reason the teacher took off with the calculator was because it was stated that no calculators were allowed on the test, but he had one out anyway. And so when the teacher saw the calculator he didn't even need to know about the cheat cheat within, but he did eventually find it once he took the calculator away. The guy failed the class but it didn't matter anyway because calculus wasn't required for his nefarious performance arts degree although it did slightly effect his GPA. It was pretty hard for him to do both work at the steel place and go to school at the same time but you know some people can handle more on their plate at once than others.

a reply to: mOjOm

Ah, so if you were a doctor and felt it was morally wrong to perform an abortion and someone came to you asking for one, you'd suck it up even though you might feel it was murder? What about if it was a late term (third trimester) abortion?

You know we've had laws that protect health care providers from exactly that situation and have for a long time don't you? I'll bet those laws were just as contentious in the days right after Roe v. Wade.

Because basically this is about protecting people from forcing them to go against he dictates of their conscience.

But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,


“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”

24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

Genesis 2:20-24

God says marriage is between a man and a woman.

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Matthew 19:4-7

Jesus reminds the Pharisees of what God said way back in Genesis. Keep in mind he was teaching this in the midst of the very sexually libertine and homosexually tolerant Roman Empire. Had God wanted marriage to be altered, the teaching would have reflected this.

Just to point out a movie equivalent, when the Jedi masters had a certain member go rouge traitor, look what happened. One drop of poison is all it takes in a massive vat of fresh water for the village.

a reply to: marg6043
Any records of such? If there were I am sure the people of the state would be more than interested in such.

a reply to: ketsuko
But there is the irony of that: Marriage has not been a "Religious" in a very, very long time. After the fall of the absolute monarchy, the government took over the role of such. It requires, in all legal sense, permission from the state for such to happen. Even when there were absolute monarchies, high profile marriages, were more state matters, and not of 2 people.

And in the USA, not everyone follows the same belief, or wants to. Some follow the calling of a different belief and faith.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

And I've already made it clear that I get that and don't care what other people do. THey are welcome to do it. All I am asking is the right to live my beliefs and not be forced to participate where my beliefs do not allow.

I am fine with the gay couples who shop with me every week. I am fine with the ones I work with. I am fine with the ones who live down the street. They are people, but neither did any of them ask me to take part in something I feel I cannot. And had they and I declined, none of them further pursued in court of law to force my participation under the banner of equality.

a reply to: ketsuko

No one is forcing participation. Don't want to sell wedding cakes to gay couples or black couples or interracial couples or Muslim couples? Don't get in the wedding cake business. No one is forcing you to be in any kind of business.

a reply to: ketsuko
I was responding to your post about marriage and religion. I was pointing out that marriage has not been a part of the religion for a long time, that any more these days it falls under the control over the state.

But as you brought it up, here is the other aspect of that. The big problem is not about the individual, but about business. Do you run a bakery, or a florist or are a photographer? That is what a lot of this is about, where people with deep held beliefs, working and owning a business, having to give public accommodation refusing to give public accommodation. Having faith is not a bad thing, nor should it be, but using that faith as a weapon, that is what is wrong.
Since the year 2000, the rhetoric has been slowly getting more vile and foul against the LGBT community. There are still places in the United States, where if a person is gay, they can be denied services. And ever since the reality of same sex marriage is coming to pass, the rhetoric is getting far more foul and slanderous. Ever since the start of the year, it has been coming steadily. And at least 2 religious groups are calling for the mass murder of the LGBT community, and have helped at least one country in West Africa, Uganda, craft such a law. (It was later struck down by the courts in Uganda on a technicality) but it is not over yet.

No law is going to for a person to individually go and participate in same sex marriage, but as a business, the laws are different, they apply on a different level. Laws are like that, as businesses affect all aspects in life. And ultimately, as it has been shown, in prior court cases in the United States, religion is not a good enough reason to deny a person the services that a business provides.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Ah, so if you were a doctor and felt it was morally wrong to perform an abortion and someone came to you asking for one, you'd suck it up even though you might feel it was murder? What about if it was a late term (third trimester) abortion?

You know we've had laws that protect health care providers from exactly that situation and have for a long time don't you? I'll bet those laws were just as contentious in the days right after Roe v. Wade.

Because basically this is about protecting people from forcing them to go against he dictates of their conscience.

Are you really going to compare a late term abortion with baking a cake for a gay wedding???

But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs[g] and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said,


“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”

24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. Genesis 2:20-24

God says marriage is between a man and a woman.

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”Matthew 19:4-7

Jesus reminds the Pharisees of what God said way back in Genesis. Keep in mind he was teaching this in the midst of the very sexually libertine and homosexually tolerant Roman Empire. Had God wanted marriage to be altered, the teaching would have reflected this.

That's it??? That's what you're using to show God and/or Jesus dictating Marriage is between a man and a woman only??? That's not even about marriage. Even if you go so far as to interpret any of that to mean what you say it still says nothing about stopping gays from being married. Seriously there is absolutely nothing about that which states anything to do with marriage. There must be something more than that??? Because if that is all you've got then this whole Gay Marriage is against God BS is completely false. You might as well interpret anything to mean anything at that point.