Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah

[Jughead]

Nowhere, and I mean nowhere, in the bible does it say that you cannot conduct business with someone who doesn't believe the same thing you do.

I agree, and I do conduct business all the time with folks who don't share my faith, and yes gay folks as well. I have no issues with that. What I do have a problem with is being required to participate in an activity that would be in conflict with my faith. For instance if a neighbor who was gay was to invite me to his wedding, I would politely decline the invitation.

This is different. Before you were talking about denying same sex couple through your job. What your talking about now is not acknowledging them in your personal life. Apples and oranges. I have no issue with the latter. It's when religious people snub their noses and deny business with people who live their lives differently that I have a problem.

It would clearly depend on the job. For instance, someone who works as an auto mechanic should not have any issues serving anyone who is gay as fixing cars is not a gay themed event. However, someone who's employed as a Justice of the Peace may indeed have a conflict with his faith if he were required to perform a gay wedding ceremony.

 

[Nosmo King]

I agree, and I do conduct business all the time with folks who don't share my faith, and yes gay folks as well. I have no issues with that. What I do have a problem with is being required to participate in an activity that would be in conflict with my faith. For instance if a neighbor who was gay was to invite me to his wedding, I would politely decline the invitation.

This is different. Before you were talking about denying same sex couple through your job. What your talking about now is not acknowledging them in your personal life. Apples and oranges. I have no issue with the latter. It's when religious people snub their noses and deny business with people who live their lives differently that I have a problem.

It would clearly depend on the job. For instance, someone who works as an auto mechanic should not have any issues serving anyone who is gay as fixing cars is not a gay themed event. However, someone who's employed as a Justice of the Peace may indeed have a conflict with his faith if he were required to perform a gay wedding ceremony.

No. A Justice of the Peace is an officer of the court. Justice is blind, not faith driven.

Occasionally, we may find some backwoods hick self proclaimed "minister" who will hide behind his misinterpretation of his "faith" and deny marriage equality, but that does not preclude the couple from seeking a civil ceremony.

 

[Seawytch]

I agree, and I do conduct business all the time with folks who don't share my faith, and yes gay folks as well. I have no issues with that. What I do have a problem with is being required to participate in an activity that would be in conflict with my faith. For instance if a neighbor who was gay was to invite me to his wedding, I would politely decline the invitation.

This is different. Before you were talking about denying same sex couple through your job. What your talking about now is not acknowledging them in your personal life. Apples and oranges. I have no issue with the latter. It's when religious people snub their noses and deny business with people who live their lives differently that I have a problem.

It would clearly depend on the job. For instance, someone who works as an auto mechanic should not have any issues serving anyone who is gay as fixing cars is not a gay themed event. However, someone who's employed as a Justice of the Peace may indeed have a conflict with his faith if he were required to perform a gay wedding ceremony.

So a JoP whose faith dictates whites shouldn't marry blacks is justified in not performing interracial marriages? Jesus actually spoke against divorce. Should a Christian JoP be able to use his faith and not marry divorced people?

 

[SwimExpert]

It would clearly depend on the job. For instance, someone who works as an auto mechanic should not have any issues serving anyone who is gay as fixing cars is not a gay themed event.

It is if it's a Jetta or a Prius.

 

[Jughead]

This is different. Before you were talking about denying same sex couple through your job. What your talking about now is not acknowledging them in your personal life. Apples and oranges. I have no issue with the latter. It's when religious people snub their noses and deny business with people who live their lives differently that I have a problem.

It would clearly depend on the job. For instance, someone who works as an auto mechanic should not have any issues serving anyone who is gay as fixing cars is not a gay themed event. However, someone who's employed as a Justice of the Peace may indeed have a conflict with his faith if he were required to perform a gay wedding ceremony.

No. A Justice of the Peace is an officer of the court. Justice is blind, not faith driven.

Occasionally, we may find some backwoods hick self proclaimed "minister" who will hide behind his misinterpretation of his "faith" and deny marriage equality, but that does not preclude the couple from seeking a civil ceremony.

I would surely not renounce my faith because of my job. Looks like the only option in most cases would unfortunately be for the justice of the peace to to resign. Here is a similar case:

Judge Reprimanded for Refusing to Officiate Same-Sex Weddings for Religious Reasons

Thurston County, Washington Superior Court Judge Gary Tabor has been formally reprimanded by the Judicial Conduct Commission for his refusal to officiate at same-sex weddings. Tabor gave “philosophical and religious reasons” for his refusal.

According to Kirsten Andersen of LifeSiteNews, Tabor had discussed his personal discomfort with same-sex weddings last year during a private meeting with judges and court personnel after the state legislature passed a measure allowing them. Apparently, an attendee at the meeting later leaked his remarks to the press.

Tabor responded to reporters that his opposition to same-sex marriage was personal and related to his religious views. He said he believed that because judges are permitted, but not required, to officiate at weddings, he had the right to refuse marriages he was not comfortable supporting as long as he could find a replacement. However, the media frenzy over Tabor’s refusal to officiate at same-sex weddings led him to announce that he would now refuse all weddings.

In May, however, the Judicial Conduct Commission filed a complaint against Tabor, claiming that in refusing to perform gay weddings, he violated the state’s anti-discrimination law, which says that sexual orientation is a protected class. In short, the Commission argued that Tabor’s personal statements against gay marriage, rooted in his religious beliefs, could cause Washington state citizens to lose faith in their justice system.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...te-At-Same-Sex-Weddings-For-Religious-Reasons

 

[Jughead]

This is different. Before you were talking about denying same sex couple through your job. What your talking about now is not acknowledging them in your personal life. Apples and oranges. I have no issue with the latter. It's when religious people snub their noses and deny business with people who live their lives differently that I have a problem.

It would clearly depend on the job. For instance, someone who works as an auto mechanic should not have any issues serving anyone who is gay as fixing cars is not a gay themed event. However, someone who's employed as a Justice of the Peace may indeed have a conflict with his faith if he were required to perform a gay wedding ceremony.

So a JoP whose faith dictates whites shouldn't marry blacks is justified in not performing interracial marriages? Jesus actually spoke against divorce. Should a Christian JoP be able to use his faith and not marry divorced people?

Most of us have no issues with interracial marriage and divorce. However, under these exceptional circumstances, the JoP would have no alternative but to resign from his job.

 

[koshergrl]

This is different. Before you were talking about denying same sex couple through your job. What your talking about now is not acknowledging them in your personal life. Apples and oranges. I have no issue with the latter. It's when religious people snub their noses and deny business with people who live their lives differently that I have a problem.

It would clearly depend on the job. For instance, someone who works as an auto mechanic should not have any issues serving anyone who is gay as fixing cars is not a gay themed event. However, someone who's employed as a Justice of the Peace may indeed have a conflict with his faith if he were required to perform a gay wedding ceremony.

So a JoP whose faith dictates whites shouldn't marry blacks is justified in not performing interracial marriages? Jesus actually spoke against divorce. Should a Christian JoP be able to use his faith and not marry divorced people?

Justices of the peace are not obligated to perform any marriages at all. They perform the ones they choose to perform, as judges do. They aren't "on call" workers who exist to marry people at the pleasure of those people.

Nor do they grant divorces.

So your example is ridiculous, and has nothing to do with reality. Try again.

 

[Jughead]

It would clearly depend on the job. For instance, someone who works as an auto mechanic should not have any issues serving anyone who is gay as fixing cars is not a gay themed event. However, someone who's employed as a Justice of the Peace may indeed have a conflict with his faith if he were required to perform a gay wedding ceremony.

So a JoP whose faith dictates whites shouldn't marry blacks is justified in not performing interracial marriages? Jesus actually spoke against divorce. Should a Christian JoP be able to use his faith and not marry divorced people?

Justices of the peace are not obligated to perform any marriages at all. They perform the ones they choose to perform, as judges do. They aren't "on call" workers who exist to marry people at the pleasure of those people.

Nor do they grant divorces.

So your example is ridiculous, and has nothing to do with reality. Try again.

I agree that ideally Justices of the Peace/Judges should ideally be allowed to select the marriage ceremonies they want to perform or none if desired. Unfortunately sometimes the left wing media gets involved and a frenzy erupts.

Judge Reprimanded for Refusing to Officiate Same-Sex Weddings for Religious Reasons

Judge Reprimanded for Refusing to Officiate Same-Sex Weddings for Religious Reasons

Tabor responded to reporters that his opposition to same-sex marriage was personal and related to his religious views. He said he believed that because judges are permitted, but not required, to officiate at weddings, he had the right to refuse marriages he was not comfortable supporting as long as he could find a replacement. However, the media frenzy over Tabor’s refusal to officiate at same-sex weddings led him to announce that he would now refuse all weddings.

 

[koshergrl]

They are not obligated to perform. To my understanding, they never have been.

 

[Kondor3]

Marriage has been between a man and a woman since the beginning of time. Nice try guys

Marriage in the US used to be between a man and a woman of the same color, but times have changed, haven't they?

And now the country's Gay Lobby, with some support by the moral-relativism -favoring segment of the LibProg political faction, have pushed the country too far.

The question seems to be whether some of those recent 'gains' by Gays will be allowed to remain in force or whether they will eventually be overturned.

The 3% of Gays in this country are currently circumventing the will of much of the 97% of Straights in this country, and I find myself wondering whether that will prove to be sustainable in the long run.

Pro-Gay advocates plead 'Constitutionality' and smugly say 'Yes'.

Others contemplate more conservative re-interpretations of the Constitution and say "I wouldn't be so sure about that."

Faux analogies to the racially-focused civil rights movement of the 1960s notwithstanding.

Either way, the battle is still underway, and the outcome is not as certain as some might think.

The public relations disasters (massive mainstream popular backlash) experienced by the Gay Lobby in 2012 (Chick-Fil-A) and 2013 (A&E) demonstrate that this is so.

Should prove interesting to watch, either way.

 

[ScienceRocks]

How is two men marrying harm you???

 

[Kondor3]

How is two men marrying harm you???

It may prove more helpful to ask the question...

Why is homosexuality - its sexual practices, its lifestyle, its behaviors and mannerisms - viewed as detrimental and poisonous to society, in many quarters?

It's not JUST - nor even primarily - gay marriage.

It's homosexuality at-large.

Gay marriage is only one minor aspect of the broader range of objections to homosexuality, albeit one of the more visible ones in recent times.

Don't ask why people object to Gay marriage.

Rather, ask why people object to homosexuality in general.

If you want to get to the bottom of the problem, that's where the real battle is going to be fought.

You can't legislate how people feel.

And you can't keep battering them with charges of bigotry, intolerance, etc., for feeling the way they do, nor for insisting upon their freedom to express such feelings.

Sooner or later they'll turn on you, and things will get ugly - on the legislative and constitutional-interpretation and cultural fronts.

And when they represent 97% of the population, and you represent 3%, continuing to poke the bear with a sharp stick is not brightest-crayon-in-the-box thinking.

Just sayin'...

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Marriage has been between a man and a woman since the beginning of time. Nice try guys

Saying something must be, because that's the way its been, is a fallacy of logic.

Some things are true no matter how much you would rather they not be. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Simply because groups of people want to redefine it doesn't mean these new relationships are marriage.

When marriage became an action of the government instead of the church, religious people lost the ability to define anything about it. The government is now in control of defining marriage.

 

[Noomi]

This is indeed great news to hear. I am glad the SCOTUS stepped in and overruled a radical judge's ruling. Gay marriage should not be tolerated in the United States since it is a abomination. What we all should be promoting is the traditional marriage between man and woman. This is a win for moral family values and common decency.


Supreme Court puts gay marriage on hold in Utah | Fox News


The Supreme Court on Monday put gay marriage on hold in Utah, giving the state time to appeal a federal judge's ruling against Utah's same-sex marriage ban.

The court issued a brief order Monday blocking any new same-sex unions in the state. The ruling comes after a Dec. 20 ruling by U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violates gay and lesbian couples' constitutional rights.

It will happen, either way, so you better get used to it.

 

[Kondor3]

"...It will happen, either way, so you better get used to it."

Oh, vile, dishonorable surrender...

Somehow, I think this fight is just beginning, rather than approaching the end-game.

The next few years will tell that story.

Especially in the year or two following the swearing-in of a new Administration in Washington, although we'll have to wait until after January 20, 2017 to learn whether any high-level change-of-direction is actually going to materialize.

If a way is found to spin or interpret the Constitution differently, in connection with the legitimizing of homosexuality, the entire game could change again in a heartbeat.

And there are enough people opposed - actively and passively and even covertly - to homosexuality in general and to the Gay Lobby Agenda particularly - so as to make it likely that a great deal more Constitutional Exploration (in this context) is in our future.

It's what happens when you push The People too far.

Interesting times.

 

[Seawytch]

It would clearly depend on the job. For instance, someone who works as an auto mechanic should not have any issues serving anyone who is gay as fixing cars is not a gay themed event. However, someone who's employed as a Justice of the Peace may indeed have a conflict with his faith if he were required to perform a gay wedding ceremony.

So a JoP whose faith dictates whites shouldn't marry blacks is justified in not performing interracial marriages? Jesus actually spoke against divorce. Should a Christian JoP be able to use his faith and not marry divorced people?

Most of us have no issues with interracial marriage and divorce. However, under these exceptional circumstances, the JoP would have no alternative but to resign from his job.

And yet Jesus actually spoke out against divorce, unlike homosexuality so please help me understand how it is that you have "no problem" with divorced people but turn off the TV if it gets the ghey on it?

Luke 16:18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery"

Mark 10:2-12

2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”

3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied.

4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”

5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

 

[Kosh]

So a JoP whose faith dictates whites shouldn't marry blacks is justified in not performing interracial marriages? Jesus actually spoke against divorce. Should a Christian JoP be able to use his faith and not marry divorced people?

Most of us have no issues with interracial marriage and divorce. However, under these exceptional circumstances, the JoP would have no alternative but to resign from his job.

And yet Jesus actually spoke out against divorce, unlike homosexuality so please help me understand how it is that you have "no problem" with divorced people but turn off the TV if it gets the ghey on it?

Luke 16:18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery"

Mark 10:2-12

2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”

3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied.

4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”

5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

And the far left racist makes the far left propaganda posts to try and back their racist stance.

BTW: Being "GAY" is not a race.

 

[Seawytch]

How is two men marrying harm you???

It may prove more helpful to ask the question...

Why is homosexuality - its sexual practices, its lifestyle, its behaviors and mannerisms - viewed as detrimental and poisonous to society, in many quarters?

It's not JUST - nor even primarily - gay marriage.

It's homosexuality at-large.

Gay marriage is only one minor aspect of the broader range of objections to homosexuality, albeit one of the more visible ones in recent times.

Don't ask why people object to Gay marriage.

Rather, ask why people object to homosexuality in general.

If you want to get to the bottom of the problem, that's where the real battle is going to be fought.

You can't legislate how people feel.

And you can't keep battering them with charges of bigotry, intolerance, etc., for feeling the way they do, nor for insisting upon their freedom to express such feelings.

Sooner or later they'll turn on you, and things will get ugly - on the legislative and constitutional-interpretation and cultural fronts.

And when they represent 97% of the population, and you represent 3%, continuing to poke the bear with a sharp stick is not brightest-crayon-in-the-box thinking.

Just sayin'...

Oh wow...so you don't just want to keep the gheys from marrying, you want to round 'em up and put 'em on an island. Or do you want to exterminate like Russia and Uganda?

And despite being asked repeatedly, you've still yet to detail this supposed societal harm. Saying the gheys are "harmful" over and over doesn't make your case. Icky isn't harmful.

By the way Rip Van Winkle, "most people" don't feel the way you do about the gheys.

 

[Seawytch]

Most of us have no issues with interracial marriage and divorce. However, under these exceptional circumstances, the JoP would have no alternative but to resign from his job.

And yet Jesus actually spoke out against divorce, unlike homosexuality so please help me understand how it is that you have "no problem" with divorced people but turn off the TV if it gets the ghey on it?

Luke 16:18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery"

Mark 10:2-12

2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”

3 “What did Moses command you?” he replied.

4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.”

5 “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6 “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’[a] 7 ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.’[c] So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

And the far left racist makes the far left propaganda posts to try and back their racist stance.

BTW: Being "GAY" is not a race.

You still haven't explained how pointing out the concept of separate but equal is racist but perhaps that is a side effect of your odd Tourettes.

Nobody said gay is a race, but sexual orientation is an innate trait and the discrimination faced has startling parallels.

 

[Seawytch]

Sincere? I hope that was facetious. Anyway, one of us has to wear the panties and it isn't going to be you, Butch. Besides, they are really silky, though they tend to run up into my ...



... er ... I mean, next point ...

Yes, sincere. I sincerely want you to push for this legislation. Honest and truly.

I'll give your view all due consideration. Ignore the flushing sound...

Is the flushing sound your proposed legislation going down the drain? What would that look like, your legislation? Are you removing all reference to marriage from government documents or going the cheap and easy way and just ending the tax breaks?