Legal Quagmire: Hobby Lobby v Gay Marriage; Showdown at the SCOTUS Corral

[Silhouette]

Not sure what you mean; our 1st Amendment has less standing than Article 4, Section 2 in Public accommodations.

"Less standing?" Really? Let me introduce you to the 9th Amendment:

Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people US Constitution - Ninth Amendment

You are saying that Article 4, Section 2 dominates, suppresses or expunges the 1st Amendment. But it can't, because the 1st Amendment is a right retained by the people. The 9th Amendment guarantees the full force and application of the 1st Amendment and that it may not be suppressed by other ennumerated rights.

Long story short, the SCOTUS has just created a nightmare for itself on the next round of the cult of LGBT vs Christians/religion.

 

[Silhouette]

From this thread enters the problem of overreach and the 1st and 9th Amendments: So What s the Next Perversion that Liberals Will Seek to Normalize Page 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Ahhhh, it comes out. you're just another religious fuckwit who lets your religion do your thinking for you. You may as well read tea leaves or toss chicken bones on a dirt floor for divination about what's true and what isn't. Religions can certainly believe whatever they want, that is the essence of freedom of religion. But it has not an iota of legality in a secular world. Thank God.

I got two torpedos for your conclusion there pal. The 1st Amendment and the 9th Amendment. A couple of southern states are fast-tracking the LGBT cult vs Christians case to the SCOTUS as we speak. When that case gets there, the challenge the Court will face is how their flawed interpretation that just some deviant sexual behaviors repugnant to the regulating majority get "special new Constitutional considerations" while other behaviors somehow don't...AND..if Hobby Lobby applies, does it not always apply? And if Christians are allowed to opt out of recognizing or participating in "gay marriage" as their faith demands they do just that or perish in hell for eternity (Jude 1), then why aren't voters allowed to do the same?

Oh, it's going to be like watching the nine do the game Twister.

They're going to find that in order to amend the Constitution to include such a legally-devastating and unworkable class as "some minority behaviors" as "protected" to this carefully pondered set of bylaws, it had to take a ratification in Congress. The Judicial is not allowed to alter the Constitution from the bench. What they did on Friday was not an interpretation, it was an alteration. That is forbidden by law. Congress should vote to annul Friday's Ruling because of that very fact, or this is going to be nightmare on legal-quagmire street. Behaviors are to be regulated at the state level for a reason. This is a new constitutional amendment, de facto....done from the WRONG branch of government.

They have overreached and that power must now be checked by Congress.

 

[nuhuh]

You seriously think you have something there? I'll tell you what you have and that's straws and your grip on them is slipping Look up the doctrine of stare decicis and then look up overturned Supreme Court decisions. There are quite a few that were modified by the court. Whoever wrote your challenge probably hasn't even graduated from law school. It would probably help you if you listened to genuine law professors before you try to convince us of un-winnable crap.

 

[Skylar]

From this thread enters the problem of overreach and the 1st and 9th Amendments: So What s the Next Perversion that Liberals Will Seek to Normalize Page 7 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Ahhhh, it comes out. you're just another religious fuckwit who lets your religion do your thinking for you. You may as well read tea leaves or toss chicken bones on a dirt floor for divination about what's true and what isn't. Religions can certainly believe whatever they want, that is the essence of freedom of religion. But it has not an iota of legality in a secular world. Thank God.

I got two torpedos for your conclusion there pal. The 1st Amendment and the 9th Amendment. A couple of southern states are fast-tracking the LGBT cult vs Christians case to the SCOTUS as we speak. When that case gets there, the challenge the Court will face is how their flawed interpretation that just some deviant sexual behaviors repugnant to the regulating majority get "special new Constitutional considerations" while other behaviors somehow don't...AND..if Hobby Lobby applies, does it not always apply? And if Christians are allowed to opt out of recognizing or participating in "gay marriage" as their faith demands they do just that or perish in hell for eternity (Jude 1), then why aren't voters allowed to do the same?

Or.....you don't know what you're talking about. Remember, Sil.....you don't actually understand how the law works. You don't understand stays, you don't understand precedent, you don't understand the federal/state system, you don't understand constitutional guarantees. You're making a series of sweeping assumptions of what the court must consider....

....and your record on this matter is absolutely awful. You've made similarly predictions regarding the Obergefell decision. Telling us what the court had to consider, what the ruling was going to be, what cases were relevant, what the Court intended, and a litany of other pseudo-legal babble.

And when the ruling came down nothing you'd predicted happened. You don't know what you're talking about.

Oh, it's going to be like watching the nine do the game Twister.

Or....watching them simply deny cert and allow lower court rulings on the matter to stand. As they have on photograhers who ran afoul of PA laws and gay weddings.

Remember, you don't know what you're talking about. And your predictions on the court's actions have been perfect;uy wrong. You've never gotten a single detail correct.

But this time is different? Um, why?

 

[Skylar]

You seriously think you have something there? I'll tell you what you have and that's straws and your grip on them is slipping Look up the doctrine of stare decicis and then look up overturned Supreme Court decisions. There are quite a few that were modified by the court. Whoever wrote your challenge probably hasn't even graduated from law school. It would probably help you if you listened to genuine law professors before you try to convince us of un-winnable crap.

Its Sil's schtick. Just before the Obergefell ruling he had spent days insisting that the court had to consider 'static status' of gays. As without it they couldn't determine who gays were.

And what is 'static status'? Just a piece of pseudo-legal gibberish that Sil made up that the court never bothered with, nor played any role in the Obergefell ruling. Making up imaginary 'requirements' for the court or for gays is kinda Sil's hobby. It never has the slightest thing to do with reality.

 

[Skylar]

Not sure what you mean; our 1st Amendment has less standing than Article 4, Section 2 in Public accommodations.

"Less standing?" Really? Let me introduce you to the 9th Amendment:

Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people US Constitution - Ninth Amendment

You are saying that Article 4, Section 2 dominates, suppresses or expunges the 1st Amendment. But it can't, because the 1st Amendment is a right retained by the people. The 9th Amendment guarantees the full force and application of the 1st Amendment and that it may not be suppressed by other ennumerated rights.

And who says the 1st amendment is being 'suppressed'? You do. Citing you. And you're nobody.

Remember, your allegations and your beliefs have no relevance nor create any obligation on the courts. Just because YOU believe that the 1st amendment is being 'suppressed' doesn't mean that the courts have to agree with you. Or even acknowledge your assumptions.

This is the mistake you keep making. You project your personal opinion onto the courts. And then assume they're bound by whatever hapless batshit you make up.

As the obergefell decision demonstrated elegantly.....your personal opinion is irrelevant to the courts.

Long story short, the SCOTUS has just created a nightmare for itself on the next round of the cult of LGBT vs Christians/religion.

Long story short, you still don't have the slighest clue what you're talking about. Its just pseudo-legal gibberish. None of your allegations have been supported by court findings.

 

[OnePercenter]

A little ditty for the Justices to remember on this thread and ignoring two things last Friday's Ruling.

1. Children and their rights to a father and mother in marriage outweigh any other argument and

2. Gay is a behavior, not a static state or a race of people. Penal & civil codes are about behaviors, regulated locally. Where do you draw the line??

"Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive..."

The Supreme Court granted a landmark victory for religious liberty this morning, ruling that individuals do not lose their religious freedom when they open a family business. The court ruled 5-4 in favor of David and Barbara Green and their family business, Hobby Lobby ruling they do not have to violate their faith or pay severe fines. The Decision - The Hobby Lobby Case

And then the gay marriage Ruling June 26, 2015.

Can anyone see the problem?

The Court Ruled in Hobby Lobby that because of the Christian New Testament, the only teachings they are to follow religiously, Christians may opt out of certain services they provide. And I feel certain that when that other case makes it to the Court where the Christian was sued by gays to make her participate in their "gay wedding" she lost. When it makes it to the Court, she either has to win on appeal or the Court has to overturn Hobby Lobby.

So, she'll win. They just made that decision like what, two years ago? And they can't play favorites.

But this is where it gets really interesting. What the Court will have to affirm in that case is that a Christian may refuse to acknowledge gay weddings. That it's OK for them to opt out of acknowledging what the Court said yesterday was another person's "civil right".

Feeling chills yet? It gets better...

...legally, nobody is allowed to squelch another person's civil rights. It's a huge legal no-no and you can be sued for it it you try. And this is going to hit home first at adoption agencies. That's their very next goal and the ultimate prize for all this "gay marriage" hubbub anyway. The only thing missing in civil unions was they didn't allow them the legal wedge they needed to get at the orphans (enjoy the picture in my signature)

So, boiling it down to the bottom of the pan as I like to do, the SCOTUS has on the one hand, an affirmation of "gay marriage" as un undeniable civil right. On the other hand, the SCOTUS has on the Hobby Lobby Ruling, a statement that some people may violate this civil right if their religion says they can. The only way they can skirt around that would be for them to dictate which parts of the Bible a Christian may or may not follow. And in so doing they would declare themselves dominant to the Vatican. And I can surely see some loggerheads with that proclamation coming from Rome

Scraping even further down to the metal of the pan...

SCOTUS by so Saying, Says ultimately that it knows LGBT is a cult of behaviors and that it's legitimate for some to object to those. The question of behavior vs race, no matter how long Justice Kennedy and his pals want to put it off, will HAVE TO BE ANSWERED in the final showdown.

And why?

Because if some people are allowed to discriminate against gay marriage "as a civil right" then shouldn't the voters of the separate sovereign states have been allowed to do that to?

Enjoy! This one's going to be a very lively discussion...

(if there was such a thing as an annulment period on any Ruling, this might be the time to apply it. Wishful thinking I know but man is this situation going to snowball in a very unpleasant way. And the only thing I can see for sure in my crystal ball is that gross incompetance and lack of foresight and how judgments must be cast might result in a couple of Justices being impeached after 2016)

The issue is one persons right vs. anothers religious superstitions.

Sent from my SM-T217S using Tapatalk

 

[JoeB131]

I'm not sure if I feel sorry for Sil or not. In the 5 steps of grief, I'd say he's seriously in denial.

Here's the real reason why this is over. Big Corporations have decided gay marriage is good for business. Now that it's legal, they no longer have to create special carve outs for "domestic partners" where people who merely cohabitate with their employees can get benefits. Now you have to be married or not married.

They've also concluded gay employees who are happy in their jobs are more productive.

so I guess we can watch you all fight the battle of the bakeries, but i'm guessing less and less small businesses are really going to want to blow up their business to make you nuts happy.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm not sure if I feel sorry for Sil or not. In the 5 steps of grief, I'd say he's seriously in denial.
Here's the real reason why this is over. Big Corporations have decided gay marriage is good for business. Now that it's legal, they no longer have to create special carve outs for "domestic partners" where people who merely cohabitate with their employees can get benefits. Now you have to be married or not married. ...They've also concluded gay employees who are happy in their jobs are more productive. ...so I guess we can watch you all fight the battle of the bakeries, but i'm guessing less and less small businesses are really going to want to blow up their business to make you nuts happy .

Big business ruling our country? That's something the left is excited about is it? I guess you're a big fan of Citizen's United then?

The slippery and smooth speech referred to exactly in Jude 1 is exactly what this poster from the left is practicing. The Bible, brush up on Jude 1 or spend an eternity in the pit for failing to do so. That's what's going to decide this pal. And it's far, far from over..

So far every business attacked by gay lawsuits for failing to abdicate their Christian faith and bow to the rainbow cult, have gotten swamped with so much cash from sympathetic donors that it was more lucrative for them to resist participating in fatherless/motherless marriages than it was to stay open while the flack flew.

You remember Hobby Lobby right? Well, it doesn't matter because the SCOTUS remembers Hobby Lobby. The Court at this point will either have to grant all Christians the right to refuse to participate in gay marriages on any level (county clerks included) or, they'll have to start redacting parts of the Bible they disagree with on principle.

What are your thoughts on allowing Christians to practice the mandates of Jude 1? How do you think the Court should handle that? Do you think the Court should tell the Vatican and leadership of many sects across the US that they can't pay attention to that dire warning in the Bible? Or will Christians get a legal pass to step out? Remember, Amendment 9 of the Constitution says that no one part of itself may impinge upon rights granted in another..

And finally, do you think it was a proper excercise of the Judicial branch of our government last week to declare they just revised the Constitution to include just some deviant sex behaviors "as a protected class" (but not others, though nobody is sure how they'll parse that out since behaviors are regulated at the state level)? Or if there is a significant and ponderous change to the Constitution, that the Legislative branch has to be the one to make the redaction? Who redacts the Constitution like what happened last Friday? The Court or Congress?

 

[Skylar]

I'm not sure if I feel sorry for Sil or not. In the 5 steps of grief, I'd say he's seriously in denial.
Here's the real reason why this is over. Big Corporations have decided gay marriage is good for business. Now that it's legal, they no longer have to create special carve outs for "domestic partners" where people who merely cohabitate with their employees can get benefits. Now you have to be married or not married. ...They've also concluded gay employees who are happy in their jobs are more productive. ...so I guess we can watch you all fight the battle of the bakeries, but i'm guessing less and less small businesses are really going to want to blow up their business to make you nuts happy .

Big business ruling our country? That's something the left is excited about is it? I guess you're a big fan of Citizen's United then?

The slippery and smooth speech referred to exactly in Jude 1 is exactly what this poster from the left is practicing. The Bible, brush up on Jude 1 or spend an eternity in the pit for failing to do so. That's what's going to decide this pal. And it's far, far from over..

Says you. And your every prediction regarding these issues has been wrong. All of your pseudo-legal gibberish was wrong. All of the imaginary 'requirements' you made up for the courts was wrong. All of your intepretations of legal precedent was wrong. All of the 'static status' nonsense you invented was wrong.

You literally got nothing right.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. And are projecting your beliefs and desires onto people who don't know you exist as a way of soothing the cognitive dissonance that comes when the world doesn't match what you think its supposed to.

 

[G.T.]

The meltdown continues

 

[Skylar]

The meltdown continues

Seriously. Its just a fountain of subjective pseudo-legal gibberish.

 

[mdk]

I am starting to feel bad for the dead horse Sil keeps beating.

Hasn't the horse suffered enough!?

 

[Syriusly]

2. Gay is a behavior, not a static state or a race of people. Penal & civil codes are about behaviors, regulated locally. Where do you draw the line??)

Marriage is a behavior and the Supreme Court just said that Americans- straight or gay- have the right to marry.

Religious belief is a behavior- and yet we cannot and should not criminalize religious beliefs.

And no matter how much you really, really want to criminalize being a homosexual- you can't do that either.

 

[Syriusly]

I'm not sure if I feel sorry for Sil or not. In the 5 steps of grief, I'd say he's seriously in denial.

Here's the real reason why this is over. Big Corporations have decided gay marriage is good for business. Now that it's legal, they no longer have to create special carve outs for "domestic partners" where people who merely cohabitate with their employees can get benefits. Now you have to be married or not married.

They've also concluded gay employees who are happy in their jobs are more productive.

so I guess we can watch you all fight the battle of the bakeries, but i'm guessing less and less small businesses are really going to want to blow up their business to make you nuts happy.

I was at the SF Pride Parade yesterday- every major employer in the Bay Area was there- officially there- with employees in the parade.

And by the way- great, great fun.

Had not been to a Pride Parade in years- I had forgotten how much fun and how much joy they are.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm not sure if I feel sorry for Sil or not. In the 5 steps of grief, I'd say he's seriously in denial.
Here's the real reason why this is over. Big Corporations have decided gay marriage is good for business. Now that it's legal, they no longer have to create special carve outs for "domestic partners" where people who merely cohabitate with their employees can get benefits. Now you have to be married or not married. ...They've also concluded gay employees who are happy in their jobs are more productive. ...so I guess we can watch you all fight the battle of the bakeries, but i'm guessing less and less small businesses are really going to want to blow up their business to make you nuts happy .

Big business ruling our country? That's something the left is excited about is it? I guess you're a big fan of Citizen's United then?

The slippery and smooth speech referred to exactly in Jude 1 is exactly what this poster from the left is practicing. The Bible, brush up on Jude 1 or spend an eternity in the pit for failing to do so. That's what's going to decide this pal. And it's far, far from over..

So far every business attacked by gay lawsuits for failing to abdicate their Christian faith and bow to the rainbow cult, have gotten swamped with so much cash from sympathetic donors that it was more lucrative for them to resist participating in fatherless/motherless marriages than it was to stay open while the flack flew.

You remember Hobby Lobby right? Well, it doesn't matter because the SCOTUS remembers Hobby Lobby. The Court at this point will either have to grant all Christians the right to refuse to participate in gay marriages on any level (county clerks included) or, they'll have to start redacting parts of the Bible they disagree with on principle.

What are your thoughts on allowing Christians to practice the mandates of Jude 1? How do you think the Court should handle that? Do you think the Court should tell the Vatican and leadership of many sects across the US that they can't pay attention to that dire warning in the Bible? Or will Christians get a legal pass to step out? Remember, Amendment 9 of the Constitution says that no one part of itself may impinge upon rights granted in another..

And finally, do you think it was a proper excercise of the Judicial branch of our government last week to declare they just revised the Constitution to include just some deviant sex behaviors "as a protected class" (but not others, though nobody is sure how they'll parse that out since behaviors are regulated at the state level)? Or if there is a significant and ponderous change to the Constitution, that the Legislative branch has to be the one to make the redaction? Who redacts the Constitution like what happened last Friday? The Court or Congress?

Says you. And your every prediction regarding these issues has been wrong. All of your pseudo-legal gibberish was wrong. All of the imaginary 'requirements' you made up for the courts was wrong. All of your intepretations of legal precedent was wrong. All of the 'static status' nonsense you invented was wrong.

You literally got nothing right.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. And are projecting your beliefs and desires onto people who don't know you exist as a way of soothing the cognitive dissonance that comes when the world doesn't match what you think its supposed to.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much...

However, I do know that the US Supreme Court may not make substantive changes to the Constitution. Adding "just some of their favorite deviant sex behaviors" as a newly-protected "class" (how do you define it when they can't define themselves even?). I'm not hallucinating that the responsibility of substantive updates to the Constitution is the Legistlative and the Legislative Branch's ONLY right and charged duty in the separation of powers.

Remember the separation of powers? Sure you do. But you keep on lathering up the ad hominems and maybe none of the other readers will notice you're not answering my undeniable points.

 

[Skylar]

I'm not sure if I feel sorry for Sil or not. In the 5 steps of grief, I'd say he's seriously in denial.
Here's the real reason why this is over. Big Corporations have decided gay marriage is good for business. Now that it's legal, they no longer have to create special carve outs for "domestic partners" where people who merely cohabitate with their employees can get benefits. Now you have to be married or not married. ...They've also concluded gay employees who are happy in their jobs are more productive. ...so I guess we can watch you all fight the battle of the bakeries, but i'm guessing less and less small businesses are really going to want to blow up their business to make you nuts happy .

Big business ruling our country? That's something the left is excited about is it? I guess you're a big fan of Citizen's United then?

The slippery and smooth speech referred to exactly in Jude 1 is exactly what this poster from the left is practicing. The Bible, brush up on Jude 1 or spend an eternity in the pit for failing to do so. That's what's going to decide this pal. And it's far, far from over..

So far every business attacked by gay lawsuits for failing to abdicate their Christian faith and bow to the rainbow cult, have gotten swamped with so much cash from sympathetic donors that it was more lucrative for them to resist participating in fatherless/motherless marriages than it was to stay open while the flack flew.

You remember Hobby Lobby right? Well, it doesn't matter because the SCOTUS remembers Hobby Lobby. The Court at this point will either have to grant all Christians the right to refuse to participate in gay marriages on any level (county clerks included) or, they'll have to start redacting parts of the Bible they disagree with on principle.

What are your thoughts on allowing Christians to practice the mandates of Jude 1? How do you think the Court should handle that? Do you think the Court should tell the Vatican and leadership of many sects across the US that they can't pay attention to that dire warning in the Bible? Or will Christians get a legal pass to step out? Remember, Amendment 9 of the Constitution says that no one part of itself may impinge upon rights granted in another..

And finally, do you think it was a proper excercise of the Judicial branch of our government last week to declare they just revised the Constitution to include just some deviant sex behaviors "as a protected class" (but not others, though nobody is sure how they'll parse that out since behaviors are regulated at the state level)? Or if there is a significant and ponderous change to the Constitution, that the Legislative branch has to be the one to make the redaction? Who redacts the Constitution like what happened last Friday? The Court or Congress?

Says you. And your every prediction regarding these issues has been wrong. All of your pseudo-legal gibberish was wrong. All of the imaginary 'requirements' you made up for the courts was wrong. All of your intepretations of legal precedent was wrong. All of the 'static status' nonsense you invented was wrong.

You literally got nothing right.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. And are projecting your beliefs and desires onto people who don't know you exist as a way of soothing the cognitive dissonance that comes when the world doesn't match what you think its supposed to.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much...

Or......I merely acknowledge reality. Your capacity to understand the law, recognize the intent of the courts, and apply existing precedent was tested.

You failed miserably. Nothing you predicted happened. No 'legal requirement' that you cited had any application in the ruling. Nothing you insisted must happen did happen. You completely misinterpreted the Windsor decision. You couldn't even accurately predict which cases the courts could cite.

You genuinely don't understand the law.

Making a brand new round of empty pseudo-legal gibberish you're spouting all the more meaningless. As you still don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And none of your claims have any relevance to the actual law or the outcome of any ruling. No matter how hard you pretend.

However, I do know that the US Supreme Court may not make substantive changes to the Constitution.

And who says that the Supreme Court did? You do. Citing you. See above about how useless your source is.

 

[danielpalos]

The meltdown continues

Seriously. Its just a fountain of subjective pseudo-legal gibberish.

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law; Article 4, Section 2 applies specifically to the several and sovereign but United States that ratified our federal Constitution.

 

[Silhouette]

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law; Article 4, Section 2 applies specifically to the several and sovereign but United States that ratified our federal Constitution.

And, Amendment #9 reinforces #1 and gives Christians the right to object to the Court's Amendment to Article 4, Section 2 that newly includes just some of their favorite deviant sex behaviors as protected from majority regulation at the state level.

Hey, can the Court do additions to the Constitution without Congress? Daniel? Your thoughts?

 

[Skylar]

There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law; Article 4, Section 2 applies specifically to the several and sovereign but United States that ratified our federal Constitution.

And, Amendment #9 reinforces #1 and gives Christians the right to object to the Court's Amendment to Article 4, Section 2 that newly includes just some of their favorite deviant sex behaviors as protected from majority regulation at the state level.

You can object to your heart's content. But if your religoius beliefs make your job impossible....that's on you.