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

[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?

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

And you think that's going to be the end of it? Price for one soul's eternal damnation = one wedding cake? I think people are going to opt for their soul and take that option all the way up to SCOTUS; who then will have to choose between telling the Vatican and relgious leaders across the country that they now have to redact certain dire warnings and passages in the New Testament, or, uphold that Christians can object.

If they Uphold that Christians can object (Hobby Lobby makes that an excellent prognosis of "yes"), then why can't voters object/regulate behaviors at the state level?

I'll await your detailed answer. Usually you send in World watcher or one of your other payroll bloggers at this point. Ad hominem diversions aren't going to help you now..

 

[Syriusly]

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?

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

And you think that's going to be the end of it? Price for one soul's eternal damnation = one wedding cake? .

I think that everyone will ignore your loony rantings.

Christ never said people will go to hell for making a wedding cake.

 

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

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

And you think that's going to be the end of it? Price for one soul's eternal damnation = one wedding cake?

If making cake results in eternal damnation....then the cake business clearly isn't for you.

I think people are going to opt for their soul and take that option all the way up to SCOTUS; who then will have to choose between telling the Vatican and relgious leaders across the country that they now have to redact certain dire warnings and passages in the New Testament, or, uphold that Christians can object.

The USSC has already rejected cert for a photographer offering religious objections as his reason for defying PA law discrimination laws against gays.

Your 'quagmire' isn't. You've imagined it.

Remember: you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, Sil has gone completely nutzoid

But to have some fun.

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?

Under most circumstances, no. But you Homophobes got Bush-43 a second term, and that gave you ALito and Roberts, which gave you Citizens United. You've outlived your usefulness. That's what you don't get.

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..

Sorry, I don't believe in magic sky faries. I refuse to believe the fucked up diety of the bible is the creator of anything.

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.

Well, that's not true, really. The guy who had the autoshop in Michigan didn't get any money. Further, GoFundMe and other sites aren't doing fundraising for homophobic businesses.

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.

Not really. Hobby Lobby covered benefits. These kind of laws would cover public accommedation, and they've already ruled that businesses can't discriminate against customers.

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..

Not a question of that. You have a religion. Your business does not. If your religion says you can't bake cakes for gay people, you have a remedy. Close down your bakery.

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?

The problem is, gay sex isn't considered "deviant" in a legal sense after Lawrence v. Texas struck down all the sodomy laws.

 

[hazlnut]

Here's one case:

Today the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that Christianphotographers cannot decline to participate in gay-marriage commitment ceremonies,even though that state does not have gay marriage and the court acknowledgedthat providing services for the ceremony violated the Christian’ssincerely-held, traditional religious beliefs. This becomes one of the firstmajor cases where religious liberty collides with gay rights, and could now goto the Supreme Court of the United States. New Mexico Court Christian Photographer Cannot Refuse Gay-Marriage Ceremony - Breitbart

And another:

DENVER – A gay couple is pursuing a discrimination complaint against a Colorado bakery, saying the business refused them a wedding cake to honor their Massachusetts ceremony, and alleging that the owners have a history of turning away same-sex couples.
As more states move to legalize same-sex marriage and civil unions, the case highlights a growing tension between gay rights advocates and supporters of religious freedom. Gay Colorado couple sues bakery for allegedly refusing them wedding cake Fox News

And another:

NEW YORK — Christian farm owners in upstate New York who declined a lesbian couple’s request to hold a wedding ceremony on their property have been fined $10,000 and ordered to pay the women $1,500 each. Farm owners fined for saying no to lesbian wedding - The Washington Post

And another (non American but coming our way soon)

Not fully satisfied with the British government’s approval of same-sex marriage, a homosexual duo in Britain has decided to go to court to force churches to perform “gay wedding” ceremonies...The Essex Chronicle reported Barrie and Tony Drewitt-Barlow, who signed up for a civil partnership in 2006, want now to get married in a church. Gays to sue church to perform marriage ceremonies

And another: (the one I believe on appeal...but there may be others..)

The ACLU then filed a civil suit after Stutzman ignored its demand that she apologize to the couple, donate $5,000 to a youth center affiliated with the gay community, and agree to sell flowers regardless of the sexual orientation of her customers.
“Because she refused to sell flowers to Mr. Ingersoll and Mr. Freed for their wedding,” the ACLU’s website states, “defendant Barronelle Stutzman aided Arlene’s Flowers in violating the Washington Law Against Discrimination by discriminating against the Plaintiffs on the basis of their sexual orientation.” Flower shop sued for shunning gay wedding - NY Daily News

And another:

A couple in California, where their upcoming marriage will be legal, say they were denied service by a caterer because they're gay...planned venue in Big Bear, Calif., initially agreed. But several hours later, she sent an email expressing a change of heart because of her "Christian beliefs."...Kaina and Rivera have so far decided not to pursue legal action. California Caterer Refuses to Serve Gay Wedding Over Christian Beliefs Advocate.com

...For now...

 

[JoeB131]

And you think that's going to be the end of it? Price for one soul's eternal damnation = one wedding cake? I think people are going to opt for their soul and take that option all the way up to SCOTUS; who then will have to choose between telling the Vatican and relgious leaders across the country that they now have to redact certain dire warnings and passages in the New Testament, or, uphold that Christians can object.

Well, a couple of things.

What kind of a God would burn someone for all eternity for baking a cake. Or having the "wrong' kind of sex? Why would you worship that kind of a sociopath once a week when you'd never want that person in your life if he were a real person?

Second, the bible says murder and rape are forgivable sins, but baking a homo cake isn't?

Third, if something is going to put your soul in danger, why would you want to do that for a living? As I pointed out, there's a whole lot of behavior at weddings God doesn't approve of. Shit, that bitch might wear some braids or start talking in church! Why take the chance?

 

[Silhouette]

Well, a couple of things.

What kind of a God would burn someone for all eternity for baking a cake. Or having the "wrong' kind of sex? Why would you worship that kind of a sociopath once a week when you'd never want that person in your life if he were a real person?

Second, the bible says murder and rape are forgivable sins, but baking a homo cake isn't?

Third, if something is going to put your soul in danger, why would you want to do that for a living? As I pointed out, there's a whole lot of behavior at weddings God doesn't approve of. Shit, that bitch might wear some braids or start talking in church! Why take the chance?

The kind of God that is wiser than you; who knows the habits of men become passed on socially and become permanent. The kind of God who would have made a plan for Its own specific reasons that would include a formative environment for subequent generations of souls who would actually have a chance at testing their spiritural resolve and restraint. I can see the problem with the homosexual mindset. It has little to no self restraint. It can't even abide by the basic laws of what genitals are made for. Allegorically, that renders out to an overall affect of blind indulgence to the point of being central to the core of a person...and by extension if enough people engage and abet...central to the core of any society.

It is conceivable then that if a God wanted souls to have an icecube's chance in hell of rising above self-indulgences, it would at least have to have a decent measure of exposure to collective values that head in that direction instead of what humanity always boils down to when self-indulgence is made a religion: a quagmire of brutality and selfishness. Study your history books for details.

Or just read Jude 1 of the New Testament. It explains it all in there pretty nicely actually.

 

[Silhouette]

Not really. Hobby Lobby covered benefits. These kind of laws would cover public accommedation, and they've already ruled that businesses can't discriminate against customers. .

Workers as a general rule have more stringent protection of their rights than customers. So, don't be so quick to conclude that Hobby Lobby wouldn't cover Christians refusing service to "gay weddings"...

 

[JoeB131]

The kind of God that is wiser than you; who knows the habits of men become passed on socially and become permanent. The kind of God who would have made a plan for Its own specific reasons that would include a formative environment for subequent generations of souls who would actually have a chance at testing their spiritural resolve and restraint. I can see the problem with the homosexual mindset. It has little to no self restraint. It can't even abide by the basic laws of what genitals are made for. Allegorically, that renders out to an overall affect of blind indulgence to the point of being central to the core of a person...and by extension if enough people engage and abet...central to the core of any society.

Uh, guy. Here's the thing. Gays aren't doing anything with their genitals that straights aren't doing with their genitals. Straight men are sticking their dicks in straight women's poopy holes, and straight people are applying their mouths to their partner's genitals just like gay people do.

Similarly, I know straight people who screw around with anything, while I've known gay people who've been with the same partner for decades. So much for "Self-Restraint".

It is conceivable then that if a God wanted souls to have an icecube's chance in hell of rising above self-indulgences, it would at least have to have a decent measure of exposure to collective values that head in that direction instead of what humanity always boils down to when self-indulgence is made a religion: a quagmire of brutality and selfishness. Study your history books for details.

I have studied history. And what I see is that religion has been a great excuse for genocide, racism, misogyny, child abuse all of which the perpetrators were able to pick up the Big Book of Judean Fairy Tales and point to a verse and say God agreed with them.

Maybe we need to ban religion, not homosexuality.

Or just read Jude 1 of the New Testament. It explains it all in there pretty nicely actually.

If you believe in those fairy tales.

Here's a great idea. I say we license religions. HEre's how you get your religion license. You report to our office on the 80th floor of the John Hancock Building. We throw you out the window.

If God catches you on the way down, you totally have a valid religion.

 

[JoeB131]

Workers as a general rule have more stringent protection of their rights than customers. So, don't be so quick to conclude that Hobby Lobby wouldn't cover Christians refusing service to "gay weddings"...

Again, Public Accommedations are black letter law. So no.

 

[danielpalos]

I believe a "labor council" should have been given an opportunity to provide input before capitalists decided to make rules due to their capital.

 

[Silhouette]

I believe a "labor council" should have been given an opportunity to provide input before capitalists decided to make rules due to their capital.

Changing the subject again with a non sequitur? Seems to be your specialty. Each one of you have your specialty don't you?

It has been alleged that anyone resisting Friday's ruling will wind up in irons.

In Texas, lawyers would accompany them in appeals based on their 1st Amendment rights, which the 9th Amendment tells us cannot be squelched by newly created and added classes by the judicial branch to the Constitution. (which is forbidden for them to do according to the separation of powers).

Then from there, the Court would have to either dictate to the Vatican and other church leaders that they have to tell their followers to ignore the warnings in Jude 1 of the New Testament (the one that Christians follow) that they will experience eternal soul-death if they enable the spread of homosexual culture. Or they would have to uphold that individual Christians may opt out of all phases, without penalty to themselves or their employment, of so-called "gay marriage".

From there, voters could launch lawsuits alleging it's unfair that Christians get to choose about gay marriage when they didn't. Which is a suppression of voters' civil right to have their vote count.

And so...enter the legal quagmire...

It could be simply addressed by Congress voting to annul last Friday's Ruling on the grounds that it is de facto legislating (creation of a new class...that only some can enjoy "behaviors as race"...just the court's favorites but not polygamy or incest..) from the judicial. That entire rat's nest that is, in fact, coming back to SCOTUS quite rapidly, can be avoided.

 

[Syriusly]

Well, a couple of things.

What kind of a God would burn someone for all eternity for baking a cake. Or having the "wrong' kind of sex? Why would you worship that kind of a sociopath once a week when you'd never want that person in your life if he were a real person?

Second, the bible says murder and rape are forgivable sins, but baking a homo cake isn't?

Third, if something is going to put your soul in danger, why would you want to do that for a living? As I pointed out, there's a whole lot of behavior at weddings God doesn't approve of. Shit, that bitch might wear some braids or start talking in church! Why take the chance?

Or just read Jude 1 of the New Testament. It explains it all in there pretty nicely actually.

I think Jesus explains everything much better

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

 

[Syriusly]

I believe a "labor council" should have been given an opportunity to provide input before capitalists decided to make rules due to their capital.

It could be simply addressed by Congress voting to annul last Friday's Ruling on the grounds that it is de facto legislating (creation of a new class...

Again- the voices in your head do not tell you the truth.

Congress has absolutely no authority to annul any court ruling. None.

 

[AceRothstein]

The meltdown continues

Sil's tears are so yummy.

 

[Silhouette]

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Yep, and showing compassion for individual homosexuals is urged in Jude 1 AT THE SAME TIME it also urges to never enable the spread of homosexuality itself as a behavior, under punishment of soul-death.

 

[JoeB131]

Yep, and showing compassion for individual homosexuals is urged in Jude 1 AT THE SAME TIME it also urges to never enable the spread of homosexuality itself as a behavior, under punishment of soul-death.

it should be pointed out that Jude is not Jesus... and contrary to your previous claims that he was Jesus' "Confidant", only two Gospels actually mention a disciple named "Jude" (Luke and John). Mark and Matthew mention a disciple named Thaddeus, which the church tries to claim was the same guy, but it's a dubious connection at best. Others try to claim Jude was the brother of Jesus, and the writer of the epistle makes this claim.

So your argument is that Jesus, who may have never existed, may or may not have had a disciple or brother named Jude, who might have been the author of a very short epistle that is very rarely read in churches today, that kind of goes on about Sodom and Gommorah and strange flesh, which may mean sexual immorality and not necessarily homosexuality.

Here's a fuller discussion of the verse which is quite

A note about the strange flesh of Jude 7

The key phrase in this passage is “giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh.” In it, the Greek word pornea is translated as “fornication” in the King James Bible, but it’s meaning would have been broader than that, and would have included all sexual misconduct.3 Robert Gagnon suggests that the sexual misconduct referred specifically to homosexual acts and the phrase “strange flesh” referred to the Sodomites’ “attempt to copulate with Lot’s angelic visitors.”4

 

[danielpalos]

I believe a "labor council" should have been given an opportunity to provide input before capitalists decided to make rules due to their capital.

Changing the subject again with a non sequitur? Seems to be your specialty. Each one of you have your specialty don't you?

It has been alleged that anyone resisting Friday's ruling will wind up in irons.

In Texas, lawyers would accompany them in appeals based on their 1st Amendment rights, which the 9th Amendment tells us cannot be squelched by newly created and added classes by the judicial branch to the Constitution. (which is forbidden for them to do according to the separation of powers).

Then from there, the Court would have to either dictate to the Vatican and other church leaders that they have to tell their followers to ignore the warnings in Jude 1 of the New Testament (the one that Christians follow) that they will experience eternal soul-death if they enable the spread of homosexual culture. Or they would have to uphold that individual Christians may opt out of all phases, without penalty to themselves or their employment, of so-called "gay marriage".

From there, voters could launch lawsuits alleging it's unfair that Christians get to choose about gay marriage when they didn't. Which is a suppression of voters' civil right to have their vote count.

And so...enter the legal quagmire...

It could be simply addressed by Congress voting to annul last Friday's Ruling on the grounds that it is de facto legislating (creation of a new class...that only some can enjoy "behaviors as race"...just the court's favorites but not polygamy or incest..) from the judicial. That entire rat's nest that is, in fact, coming back to SCOTUS quite rapidly, can be avoided.

Equality before the law even under our form of Capitalism, is the issue.

Public accommodations are a fixed Standard for Merchants in Commerce.

Is the Owner of that Firm also an Owner of the morals of others due simply to Capital and an establishment of religion?

Only Religious Authorities are authorized the Shepherd's staff for the "tending of their flock".

 

[Syriusly]

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Yep, and showing compassion for individual homosexuals is urged in Jude 1 AT THE SAME TIME it also urges to never enable the spread of homosexuality itself as a behavior, under punishment of soul-death.

And once again - you are just lying.

Which is violating one of the Commandments.

So off to hell with you.