same sex Marriage question

[WorldWatcher]

Our society is getting more and more litigous as time goes on.

And to be honest, pastors will be the last step. What we are seeing now is photographers, florists and bakers being sued or penalized under discrimination laws of they don't want to work a gay wedding ceremony or reception.

Let me be clear I am against anti-discrimination laws at the current time except for all levels of government, and certain nessasary modes of commerce. We needed them in the 60's to clear out the filth, but they are not really consitutional.
Our society is e

1. We agree it's time to repeal them as they apply to private businesses.

2. We disagree, anti-discrimination laws enacted by the states are fully Constitutional under the 10th Amendment. Anti-discrimination laws at the federal level are a different matter. However the photographer (NW), forists (WA) and baker (CA) were not "sued" under federal law, they were reported to the states Equal Rights Commission and fined under State Public Accommodation Laws.



>>>>

I agree at the federal level such laws, unless they apply to interstate commerce are unconsitutional. Thier consitutional value per state relies on the state constituions.

I would not rescind them entirely. Places such as supermarkets, hotels and other crucial forms of commerce should have to follow anti-discrimination laws. Other things like chocolate stores, hairdressers and specialty clothing stores? Not so much.

Just curious, how would you write that into law? Would you list each type of business?


In other words if you sell food, you can't discriminate. So supermarkets, restaurants, caterers, etc. - they can't discriminate. If you run a hotel, bed & breakfast, or rent lodgings - they can't discriminate.

Or would you go by size of the organization. Say if you have more than 10 people, including the owners, that work for the business - you can't discriminate?


>>>>

 

[martybegan]

1. We agree it's time to repeal them as they apply to private businesses.

2. We disagree, anti-discrimination laws enacted by the states are fully Constitutional under the 10th Amendment. Anti-discrimination laws at the federal level are a different matter. However the photographer (NW), forists (WA) and baker (CA) were not "sued" under federal law, they were reported to the states Equal Rights Commission and fined under State Public Accommodation Laws.



>>>>

I agree at the federal level such laws, unless they apply to interstate commerce are unconsitutional. Thier consitutional value per state relies on the state constituions.

I would not rescind them entirely. Places such as supermarkets, hotels and other crucial forms of commerce should have to follow anti-discrimination laws. Other things like chocolate stores, hairdressers and specialty clothing stores? Not so much.

Just curious, how would you write that into law? Would you list each type of business?


In other words if you sell food, you can't discriminate. So supermarkets, restaurants, caterers, etc. - they can't discriminate. If you run a hotel, bed & breakfast, or rent lodgings - they can't discriminate.

Or would you go by size of the organization. Say if you have more than 10 people, including the owners, that work for the business - you can't discriminate?


>>>>

It would have to be well defined, so people know that if you get into buisiness "X" you have to accomodate all: Of course any level of government could not discriminate at all:

The following would have to follow all anti-discrimination laws:

1. Any company that runs any public entity for a state, federal or local government agency. So if that golf course is a public golf course, it can't discriminate, because the government can't. Same goes for concession stands given a permit on public beaches, airport/port stores on agency land, and highway concession stands.

2. Basic types of large stores: Supermarkets, Big Box Stores, Department Stores.

3. Resturants and hotels within a mile of a Interstate highway exit.

4. Private Hospitals, Clinics, etc. Pharmacies.


After that? Let em at it. Public pressure is enough at this point to prevent most places from discriminating, and those that dont care about that will find they only have a small niche market.

 

[PratchettFan]

I have some Questions on Same sex Marriage that I am going to ask in some upcoming threads. The first is:
If the supreme court makes it legal in all states what will stop conservative pastors from being sued for not marrying a Same sex couple? I have heard many conservative pastors say that if it is legalized they will have to stop marrying anyone in order to protect themselves. In all my reading on the subject this is never discussed.

Currently, a Catholic priest will refuse to marry you unless you are Catholic. Are they being sued?

 

[Katzndogz]

Thanks for your insight. I have been told My feelings are close to some other countries on this matter.
I believe there should be 2 different ceremonies. The Civil one and the religious one. The civil one, performed by a magistrate, would be the only one the government would recognize and be open to all. The religious one would be left up to the churches to decide who they will marry with no government interference and would not be recognized so a couple married by a preacher would also have to be married by a magistrate to be recognized by the government. This would also solve my fears of Conservative pastors being sued.

You put too much faith in ceremony. Legal marriage is the signing of the marriage certificate. There need not be a ceremony. Also true is that you could have 100 ceremonies and still not be married if the certificate is not signed. A person authorized to siign a marriage certicicate is clergy, a judge, a clerk at the county clerk's office or anyone else who fills out the application form and gets authorization.

 

[Noomi]

I have some Questions on Same sex Marriage that I am going to ask in some upcoming threads. The first is:
If the supreme court makes it legal in all states what will stop conservative pastors from being sued for not marrying a Same sex couple? I have heard many conservative pastors say that if it is legalized they will have to stop marrying anyone in order to protect themselves. In all my reading on the subject this is never discussed.

A church pastor should not be forced into marrying a same sex couple if he doesn't want to.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I have some Questions on Same sex Marriage that I am going to ask in some upcoming threads. The first is:
If the supreme court makes it legal in all states what will stop conservative pastors from being sued for not marrying a Same sex couple? I have heard many conservative pastors say that if it is legalized they will have to stop marrying anyone in order to protect themselves. In all my reading on the subject this is never discussed.

It’s likely never discussed because it’s idiocy.

The 14th Amendment applies to the states and local jurisdictions, not private entities such as religious institutions.

‘Conservative pastors’ would be free to exclude same-sex couples with impunity, as there would be no grounds for a lawsuit.

It’s troubling that so many on the right would stoop to such lies to advance their agenda of hate.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I agree at the federal level such laws, unless they apply to interstate commerce are unconsitutional. Thier consitutional value per state relies on the state constituions.

I would not rescind them entirely. Places such as supermarkets, hotels and other crucial forms of commerce should have to follow anti-discrimination laws. Other things like chocolate stores, hairdressers and specialty clothing stores? Not so much.

Just curious, how would you write that into law? Would you list each type of business?


In other words if you sell food, you can't discriminate. So supermarkets, restaurants, caterers, etc. - they can't discriminate. If you run a hotel, bed & breakfast, or rent lodgings - they can't discriminate.

Or would you go by size of the organization. Say if you have more than 10 people, including the owners, that work for the business - you can't discriminate?


>>>>

It would have to be well defined, so people know that if you get into buisiness "X" you have to accomodate all: Of course any level of government could not discriminate at all:

The following would have to follow all anti-discrimination laws:

1. Any company that runs any public entity for a state, federal or local government agency. So if that golf course is a public golf course, it can't discriminate, because the government can't. Same goes for concession stands given a permit on public beaches, airport/port stores on agency land, and highway concession stands.

2. Basic types of large stores: Supermarkets, Big Box Stores, Department Stores.

3. Resturants and hotels within a mile of a Interstate highway exit.

4. Private Hospitals, Clinics, etc. Pharmacies.


After that? Let em at it. Public pressure is enough at this point to prevent most places from discriminating, and those that dont care about that will find they only have a small niche market.

Incorrect.

The ‘size’ of the market is irrelevant, all market activity is interrelated, regardless how small. See: Wickard v. Filburn (1942), Gonzales v. Raich (2005).

Consequently, the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate markets concerning pubic accommodations. See: Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States (1964).

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They just have not gotten the right judge yet.

The millions and millions of people involved in interracial, interfaith, divorced, and same-sex Civil Marriage...

..................................... Just haven't gotten the right judge to sue a pastor yet?



Good think even if they did there is an appeal process so no one judge has the final say.



>>>>

Our society is getting more and more litigous as time goes on.

And to be honest, pastors will be the last step. What we are seeing now is photographers, florists and bakers being sued or penalized under discrimination laws of they don't want to work a gay wedding ceremony or reception.

Let me be clear I am against anti-discrimination laws at the current time except for all levels of government, and certain nessasary modes of commerce. We needed them in the 60's to clear out the filth, but they are not really consitutional.
Our society is e

Nonsense.

Judging from your posts and the posts of others on the right, public accommodations laws are needed as much now as during the 60s; the ‘filth’ is far from ‘cleared out.’

 

[DarkLion]

Thanks for your insight. I have been told My feelings are close to some other countries on this matter.
I believe there should be 2 different ceremonies. The Civil one and the religious one. The civil one, performed by a magistrate, would be the only one the government would recognize and be open to all. The religious one would be left up to the churches to decide who they will marry with no government interference and would not be recognized so a couple married by a preacher would also have to be married by a magistrate to be recognized by the government. This would also solve my fears of Conservative pastors being sued.

I have long felt that is how it should be

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have some Questions on Same sex Marriage that I am going to ask in some upcoming threads. The first is:
If the supreme court makes it legal in all states what will stop conservative pastors from being sued for not marrying a Same sex couple? I have heard many conservative pastors say that if it is legalized they will have to stop marrying anyone in order to protect themselves. In all my reading on the subject this is never discussed.

Have you ever read the Tenth Amendment? Or any part of the Constitution?

The Supreme court does not make laws, they interpret them and no federal law has been enacted to legalize same sex marriage. Therefore they cannot make something legal that doesn't exist.

If the Justices truly believe in the Constitution then they would let the States make the decision about marriage themselves. It is not a federal issue.

The Supreme Court certainly can make it legal in every state if they rule upon the right to get married or rule on it as a privacy issue, as they did with Roe v. Wade. And, given the cases before them now, they have the opportunity to do so if they wish.

Excuse me? Did you think they said pains when they were passing out brains?

Marriage cannot possibly be a privacy issue. All marriage licenses are a matter of public record, and the government regulates every freaking aspect of them. Only a complete idiot would even try to argue on that basis.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have some Questions on Same sex Marriage that I am going to ask in some upcoming threads. The first is:
If the supreme court makes it legal in all states what will stop conservative pastors from being sued for not marrying a Same sex couple? I have heard many conservative pastors say that if it is legalized they will have to stop marrying anyone in order to protect themselves. In all my reading on the subject this is never discussed.

I suppose they could be sued, but I doubt the suit would be very successful for the simple reason that marriage is a legal contract and a legal ceremony which does not require the involvement of a preacher. If a pastor refused to conduct a same sex marriage, he would probably be within his 1st Amendment rights because the couple would have the option of going to a Justice of the Peace.

If a couple demanded a church marriage, which is only a ceremony with no legally binding effect without a state issued marriage license, they'd run head on against the 1st Amendment.

Never forget that in the debate over same sex marriage, we're talking about two separate and very distinct marriage ceremonies. One is religious and non-binding without the involvement of the state, and the other is a state, or secular, marriage which is contractual in nature.

It helps to never confuse the two.....but, most people do.

New Mexico filed suit against a photographer for not photographing a gay wedding, and Washington just filed suit against a baker for not making the cake for a gay wedding. I seriously doubt either of those places were the only fucking business in the city that did that type of thing, yet they are still getting sued. Want to explain that using your theory that people can always go someplace else?

Never forget that what we are actually talking about here is so far beyond your comprehension that it is like talking to a mouse about how to make cheese.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have some Questions on Same sex Marriage that I am going to ask in some upcoming threads. The first is:
If the supreme court makes it legal in all states what will stop conservative pastors from being sued for not marrying a Same sex couple? I have heard many conservative pastors say that if it is legalized they will have to stop marrying anyone in order to protect themselves. In all my reading on the subject this is never discussed.

No government can force a clergy person to marry anyone, per the 1st Amendment.

Not every government in the world is restricted by the Constitution Jake, you really should stop lying. This is the 4th I have caught you in since you tried to say you don't lie.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have some Questions on Same sex Marriage that I am going to ask in some upcoming threads. The first is:
If the supreme court makes it legal in all states what will stop conservative pastors from being sued for not marrying a Same sex couple? I have heard many conservative pastors say that if it is legalized they will have to stop marrying anyone in order to protect themselves. In all my reading on the subject this is never discussed.

Those "conservative pastors" are engaging fear mongering as a means of influencing the debate, there is no rational basis to think that (a) a Church or Pastor would be sued for refusing to perform a religious ceremony, and (b) even if some wacko-a-doodle did try to sue, the case would be dismissed as on 1st Amendment grounds.

Now, with that said please contemplate the following:

Interracial marriage has been the law of the land for about 50 years. Interfaith marriages way longer than that. Divorce has been available for 240 years. Same-sex Civil Marriage available in this country in at least one state for about a decade.

1. Try to think of an example of the United States (or State) government forcing an individual Church to perform an interracial marriage when the Church has refused to do so because of it's religious beliefs,

2. Try to think of an example of the United States (or State) government forcing an individual Church to perform an interfaith marriage when the Church has refused to do so because of it's religious beliefs,

3. Try to think of an example of the United States (or State) government forcing an individual Church to perform an marriage when one (or both) of the participants are divorced against the religious beliefs of the Church and has refused to do so,

4. And, since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been available in at least one state for at least a decade, Try to think of an example of the United States (or State) government forcing an individual Church to perform a Same-sex marriage when the Church has refused to do so because of it's religious beliefs.​

If Churches and pastors haven't been sued to perform interracial, interfaith, divorced, or same-sex religious services in the past, what basis is there to assume that when Same-sex Civil Marriage because a law within a specific jurisdiction, that it will automatically lead to government requiring the performance of a religious ceremony for them.

The SCOTUS already ruled that as a private organization the Boys Scouts could discriminate based on atheism and homosexuality, what makes you think that a suit against a Church or pastor may succeed?



>>>>

I have a challenge for you, try to think.

The question was not whether a government would force them to perform a marriage, it was could they be sued?

Want to back up and actually answer the question that was asked, or do you prefer to act like an pompous ass?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Those "conservative pastors" are engaging fear mongering as a means of influencing the debate, there is no rational basis to think that (a) a Church or Pastor would be sued for refusing to perform a religious ceremony, and (b) even if some wacko-a-doodle did try to sue, the case would be dismissed as on 1st Amendment grounds.

Now, with that said please contemplate the following:

Interracial marriage has been the law of the land for about 50 years. Interfaith marriages way longer than that. Divorce has been available for 240 years. Same-sex Civil Marriage available in this country in at least one state for about a decade.

1. Try to think of an example of the United States (or State) government forcing an individual Church to perform an interracial marriage when the Church has refused to do so because of it's religious beliefs,

2. Try to think of an example of the United States (or State) government forcing an individual Church to perform an interfaith marriage when the Church has refused to do so because of it's religious beliefs,

3. Try to think of an example of the United States (or State) government forcing an individual Church to perform an marriage when one (or both) of the participants are divorced against the religious beliefs of the Church and has refused to do so,

4. And, since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been available in at least one state for at least a decade, Try to think of an example of the United States (or State) government forcing an individual Church to perform a Same-sex marriage when the Church has refused to do so because of it's religious beliefs.​

If Churches and pastors haven't been sued to perform interracial, interfaith, divorced, or same-sex religious services in the past, what basis is there to assume that when Same-sex Civil Marriage because a law within a specific jurisdiction, that it will automatically lead to government requiring the performance of a religious ceremony for them.

The SCOTUS already ruled that as a private organization the Boys Scouts could discriminate based on atheism and homosexuality, what makes you think that a suit against a Church or pastor may succeed?



>>>>

They just have not gotten the right judge yet.

The millions and millions of people involved in interracial, interfaith, divorced, and same-sex Civil Marriage...

..................................... Just haven't gotten the right judge to sue a pastor yet?



Good think even if they did there is an appeal process so no one judge has the final say.



>>>>

Actually, as usual, it means you are ignorant. Under many public accomodation laws anyone that offers a good, product, or service to the public has to make it available to everyone. In other words, of you perform marriages, or rent your church facilities out for marriages, you are fucked if a same sex couple decides to score some quick cash.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2007/aug/07082104

 

[Quantum Windbag]

1. We agree it's time to repeal them as they apply to private businesses.

2. We disagree, anti-discrimination laws enacted by the states are fully Constitutional under the 10th Amendment. Anti-discrimination laws at the federal level are a different matter. However the photographer (NW), forists (WA) and baker (CA) were not "sued" under federal law, they were reported to the states Equal Rights Commission and fined under State Public Accommodation Laws.



>>>>

That's right, they are sued under state law. The loophole is removing your business from Public Accommodation. That is what is happening, slowly right now, but inexorably. I was sued under Public Accommodation laws and won, because it was never proved that my services were offered to the public. The photographer in my art group likewise removed his business from Public Accommodation. My mechanic removed his business from Public Accommodation long ago. He has chosen his customers on a case by case basis for 15 years.

The photographer case from New Mexico, advertised they they performed services for weddings and other special events.

The florists case from Washington, she advertised they she performed services for weddings and other special events.

The "baker" case (if I'm remembering it correctly) was actually a cupcake maker the advertised they provided catering services.



I'm not saying I agree with the law, just saying that Public Accommodation laws exists and that putting a sign up will not insulate you from following the law.



>>>>

Fuck the law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have some Questions on Same sex Marriage that I am going to ask in some upcoming threads. The first is:
If the supreme court makes it legal in all states what will stop conservative pastors from being sued for not marrying a Same sex couple? I have heard many conservative pastors say that if it is legalized they will have to stop marrying anyone in order to protect themselves. In all my reading on the subject this is never discussed.

Currently, a Catholic priest will refuse to marry you unless you are Catholic. Are they being sued?

Currently, each priest makes his own mind up about that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have some Questions on Same sex Marriage that I am going to ask in some upcoming threads. The first is:
If the supreme court makes it legal in all states what will stop conservative pastors from being sued for not marrying a Same sex couple? I have heard many conservative pastors say that if it is legalized they will have to stop marrying anyone in order to protect themselves. In all my reading on the subject this is never discussed.

It’s likely never discussed because it’s idiocy.

The 14th Amendment applies to the states and local jurisdictions, not private entities such as religious institutions.

‘Conservative pastors’ would be free to exclude same-sex couples with impunity, as there would be no grounds for a lawsuit.

It’s troubling that so many on the right would stoop to such lies to advance their agenda of hate.

Are you trying to tell me laws that require businesses to accept customers without discrimination are unconstitutional? Do you have any case law to back that up, because everything I know says that is horse puckey.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Just curious, how would you write that into law? Would you list each type of business?


In other words if you sell food, you can't discriminate. So supermarkets, restaurants, caterers, etc. - they can't discriminate. If you run a hotel, bed & breakfast, or rent lodgings - they can't discriminate.

Or would you go by size of the organization. Say if you have more than 10 people, including the owners, that work for the business - you can't discriminate?


>>>>

It would have to be well defined, so people know that if you get into buisiness "X" you have to accomodate all: Of course any level of government could not discriminate at all:

The following would have to follow all anti-discrimination laws:

1. Any company that runs any public entity for a state, federal or local government agency. So if that golf course is a public golf course, it can't discriminate, because the government can't. Same goes for concession stands given a permit on public beaches, airport/port stores on agency land, and highway concession stands.

2. Basic types of large stores: Supermarkets, Big Box Stores, Department Stores.

3. Resturants and hotels within a mile of a Interstate highway exit.

4. Private Hospitals, Clinics, etc. Pharmacies.


After that? Let em at it. Public pressure is enough at this point to prevent most places from discriminating, and those that dont care about that will find they only have a small niche market.

Incorrect.

The ‘size’ of the market is irrelevant, all market activity is interrelated, regardless how small. See: Wickard v. Filburn (1942), Gonzales v. Raich (2005).

Consequently, the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate markets concerning pubic accommodations. See: Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States (1964).

Didn't you just say they couldn't do that?

By the way, you are wrong about the extent of the commerce clause also.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The millions and millions of people involved in interracial, interfaith, divorced, and same-sex Civil Marriage...

..................................... Just haven't gotten the right judge to sue a pastor yet?



Good think even if they did there is an appeal process so no one judge has the final say.



>>>>

Our society is getting more and more litigous as time goes on.

And to be honest, pastors will be the last step. What we are seeing now is photographers, florists and bakers being sued or penalized under discrimination laws of they don't want to work a gay wedding ceremony or reception.

Let me be clear I am against anti-discrimination laws at the current time except for all levels of government, and certain nessasary modes of commerce. We needed them in the 60's to clear out the filth, but they are not really consitutional.
Our society is e

Nonsense.

Judging from your posts and the posts of others on the right, public accommodations laws are needed as much now as during the 60s; the ‘filth’ is far from ‘cleared out.’

Fuck off, sometimes there is no fucking room at the inn.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I have some Questions on Same sex Marriage that I am going to ask in some upcoming threads. The first is:
If the supreme court makes it legal in all states what will stop conservative pastors from being sued for not marrying a Same sex couple? I have heard many conservative pastors say that if it is legalized they will have to stop marrying anyone in order to protect themselves. In all my reading on the subject this is never discussed.

Those "conservative pastors" are engaging fear mongering as a means of influencing the debate, there is no rational basis to think that (a) a Church or Pastor would be sued for refusing to perform a religious ceremony, and (b) even if some wacko-a-doodle did try to sue, the case would be dismissed as on 1st Amendment grounds.

Now, with that said please contemplate the following:

Interracial marriage has been the law of the land for about 50 years. Interfaith marriages way longer than that. Divorce has been available for 240 years. Same-sex Civil Marriage available in this country in at least one state for about a decade.

1. Try to think of an example of the United States (or State) government forcing an individual Church to perform an interracial marriage when the Church has refused to do so because of it's religious beliefs,

2. Try to think of an example of the United States (or State) government forcing an individual Church to perform an interfaith marriage when the Church has refused to do so because of it's religious beliefs,

3. Try to think of an example of the United States (or State) government forcing an individual Church to perform an marriage when one (or both) of the participants are divorced against the religious beliefs of the Church and has refused to do so,

4. And, since Same-sex Civil Marriage has been available in at least one state for at least a decade, Try to think of an example of the United States (or State) government forcing an individual Church to perform a Same-sex marriage when the Church has refused to do so because of it's religious beliefs.​

If Churches and pastors haven't been sued to perform interracial, interfaith, divorced, or same-sex religious services in the past, what basis is there to assume that when Same-sex Civil Marriage because a law within a specific jurisdiction, that it will automatically lead to government requiring the performance of a religious ceremony for them.

The SCOTUS already ruled that as a private organization the Boys Scouts could discriminate based on atheism and homosexuality, what makes you think that a suit against a Church or pastor may succeed?



>>>>

I have a challenge for you, try to think.

The question was not whether a government would force them to perform a marriage, it was could they be sued?

Want to back up and actually answer the question that was asked, or do you prefer to act like an pompous ass?

Any person can sue any other person for any reason they want, whether someone can file a lawsuit is not the question - whether such action would be successful is the question.

Have interracial couples ever sued a Church or Pastor for not performing an interracial marriage? Don't know, don't care. The fact is that such suit was never won.

Have interfaith couples ever sued a Church or Pastor for not performing an interfaith marriage? Don't know, don't care. The fact is that such suit was never won.

Have divorced couples ever sued a Church or Pastor for not performing an divorced marriage? Don't know, don't care. The fact is that such suit was never won.

Have same-sex couples ever sued a Church or Pastor for not performing an same-sex marriage? Don't know, don't care. The fact is that such suit was never won.


>>>>