Can The Govt FORCE You To Promote A Choice That Goes Against Your Religion? The Fight Continues...

[emilynghiem]

1. Please point to the specific language in the Constitution the referencing a white man marrying a black woman.


>>>>

14th Amendment. Word = "race". I looked. I didn't see a word about homosexuality there. Nothing about polygamy or any other sexuality either. A black man (race) and a white woman (race) are still a man and a woman and so, only race set them apart from state law being able to marry. So, they could marry.

Silhouette
there is also creed by the Civil Rights act and related statutes.
The First Amendment free exercise of religion would tell
us that people who want to practice gay marriage as part of their religion
cannot be banned from doing so.

The reason this isn't cited is people want to ESTABLISH gay marriage
by govt and the First Amendment would bar govt from going that far!

So if we use the First Amendment, yes it would prevent bans barring gay marriage
but would also prevent govt from endorsing either this or other marriage beliefs.
marriage would remain either neutral as civil unions or domestic contracts,
or be kept private and out of govt as the Libertarians are arguing.

 

[dblack]

It'll be interesting to see if attitudes toward thought crime change when Trump is driving the party bus.

 

[emilynghiem]

My posts are merely restatements of settled, accepted, and acknowledged Constitutional case law, fundamental legal jurisprudence that is beyond dispute, as determined by the Supreme Court.

Obergefell "beyond dispute"?

How about children being deprived via contract of either a mother or father for life (illegal: see "Infant Doctrine/necessities/contracts")? How about there can't be just one sexual orientation guaranteed marriage while other orientations (polyamory) are still denied? How about there's no language in the Constitution guaranteeing behaviors as having rights; if you cite religion, I'll ask LGBT for their tax-exempt status. Otherwise NIL. How about two of the Justices were performing with glee, and publicly, gay marriages while the highly-controversial case was pending to be heard in their Court? (Caperton vs Massey Coal 2009 says if there's a reasonable suspicion that a judge might be biased, that judge is required by law to recuse him/herself from the case).

Shall I go on?

Speech is a behavior. Owning a gun is a behavior. Having a faith is a behavior. Assembling is a behavior. The Constitution protects many behaviors despite your willful ignorance.

Your post is nothing more than a greatest hits of failed legal shit you've thrown against the wall.

Maybe you would be better served worrying about your own family instead of mine. If you did then perhaps you could find a father for your children.

Dear mdk
And behavior is regulated.
1. You can't abuse free speech to slander or libel, misrepresent and commit fraud, sexually harass or make death threats.
2. You can't abuse a gun to commit crimes, to threaten and cause a breach of the peace, to shoot past someone's head even when interrogating a terrorist as Allen west got in trouble for even though he successfully secured information that saved his men from deadly attacks being planned.

Even if you achieve your goal that is still abusive to impose your behavior through govt. In ways that violate the rights and due process of others before depriving them of rights.

West would have to prove that man had information and get the information legally but instead he violated rules to get it faster.

If he got booted out for breaking rules, when it even saved lives, then so.do LGBT need to follow rules and not violate equal rights beliefs and protections of other citizens to get their way.

Neutral restrooms would achieve the same goals without violating anyone's rights or beliefs. We'd all be equal and no one treated differently if the bathrooms have no labels at all.

All single or all neutral gender.


That is equal.

 

[emilynghiem]

I don't think they are putting their LGBT orientation above someone else's religious beliefs

They are merely testing who they are and expecting equal treatment under our laws

Well I think I'm the Queen of England and the US didn't win the Revolutionary war. So hand over your taxes to me or I'll sue you. Anyone who disagrees is a bigot and a hater and shall be fined for daring to challenge me with an alternate opinion!

Dear Silhouette:
Beside you "believing you are the Queen of England on the inside" and a friend who argued what's to stop people who believe they are co-equal with the President in issuing executive orders as free citizens,
here's some more I'd like to try out to set legal precedence:

1. What if I don't feel the age on my birth certificate?
I actually feel 65-70 even if It SAYS I'm only 50.
Does that mean I get retirement benefits
and can start collecting Social Security?

How DARE you discriminate against me because
you go by chronological age on birth certificates,
and I go by "spiritual age" of what I "identify with"

2. I feel 25 years old, not 17. All my friends and family
will tell you I've always acted older than my physical age.
Does that mean I can have a beer and vote?
I work, I pay taxes so isn't this denying me representation?
How DARE you prejudge me and deny me rights based on my birth age.
I test at a college level, I identity with that crowd.
Never mind what psychologists say about the brain not fully developing until 25.
I don't believe in that, so you can't abuse govt to impose those beliefs over mine!

3. I'm not drunk. I'm not high.
The tests may show otherwise, but I "FEEL" sober. Can I drive?
I drive better when I'm hyped up like this. That's what I believe,
so you can't discriminate against my creed just because you believe differently!

 

[emilynghiem]

No one is trying to shut you up, unfortunately. Your religious freedom does not extend to discriminating against others if you are in business.

So then a gay artist can't refuse on principle to print a billboard for a Christian that reads "Homosexuality is a sin unto God". Right? He can be fined or jailed for refusing to do that.

If the gay artist provides art for billboards- no he cannot turn it down just because he disapproves of the religious beliefs of the customer.

He would be acting just like the baker- and violating the law the same way.

So then it's time to put that one to a legal test. Christians? Know any gay graphic art companies in your town?

Dear Silhouette and Syriusly
By the Christians' own beliefs, they would not associate or give money to "gay graphic art companies"

the equivalent is that Christians cannot pass laws SPECIFICALLY naming and protecting
Christians and biased toward anti-gay beliefs,
the same way they complain that the liberal policies
ARE biased toward and SPECIFICALLY naming LGBT and pro-gay as protected.

Because they believe the LGBT are BEHAVIOR based and not born like race.
And because this isn't proven by science, one way or another, but remains faith based,
then it becomes like two opposing beliefs seeking protection from imposition by the other.

The laws should be written where both sides, and all people, feel equally included and protected, not just one set of beliefs while others are punished by law!

 

[emilynghiem]

Well since I am not arguing that any gay person is part of a Creed- I don't have any reason to argue with that.

But you are correct- gay Christians have their rights protected under the Constitution too.

Christians still have to follow the law though.

Yes Syriusly I agree the point is to write and enforce laws so that
BOTH Christians and LGBT can follow it consistently.

That is why I suggest treating both sides' beliefs as creeds, so these can be equally protected under law.

It's not that "gay people are part of a creed" but to distinguish
the gay BEHAVIOR that affects others in public similar to EXERCISE of religion in public.
People have the right to BELIEFS that don't need to be proven or justified by law;
but the EXERCISE/BEHAVIOR that affects other people can be rejected by others.

This BEHAVIOR isn't automatically included and protected "unconditionally" because
neither is religious freedom protected to the point that ANY behavior has to be protected.

If your religious mode of dress creates safety hazards at a workplace, it may have to be removed.
If dressing up as a man/woman causes disruption to other people, this is considered outward
BEHAVIOR and not like race or gender that is born and cannot be changed. So that is why
people who BELIEVE it is external behavior are saying govt cannot impose policies otherwise
that are faith based, and not proven that such behavior is inborn and cannot be changed.