Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Syriusly]

Wasn't it a fact that Mohammad Ali sited his religion when he was slated to go to Vietnam, and that the feds backed off on him because of this religion issue in which he had claimed ? Now if the feds will step back and give him a break over his religious beliefs, and not force him to go to war like any other during that time period, then how is it that they expect that a Christian cake baker should be punished for not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding, and this as based upon his religion also ? It was all because of his religion that wouldn't allow him too do it, but the government threatened and shut down the cake baker didn't they ???? Yep it is just like Mohammad's religion, and how it wouldn't allow him to do something either when being forced to, but the cake maker somehow is held to a different standard now, but go figure.

Now why has this changed over the years now ? How is it that religious people are losing their religious freedom in this nation, and also their freedom of expression in all of this mess that we are seeing being shoved or forced down peoples throats today, and worse by the federal government in support of such things today ???????

How come the feds have become these special groups hit men in this nation, and this instead of staying out of such things all together ? It is simply a breach or violation of the separation of church and state in this nation big time now I think, where as Obama's feds are trashing the government for special interest groups and their constant whining, and that is a sin and a shame (IMHO), but hey it's par for the course these days don't cha think ?.

Well its possible that the Baker could prevail if his case went to the Supreme Court- I will point out that Mohammed Ali was arrested and convicted of draft evasion, and that was only overturned by the Supreme Court.

That would not be precedent in this case, but the bakers have the same opportunity to argue their case as Mohammed Ali did.

 

[Silhouette]

People scoff when I suggest that a 7-2 ruling is even possible. While improbable.....no body wants to be this generations Leon Bazile. You know Scalia is going full Bazile. And I don't think many justices are going to want their name attached to that dissent.

That's presuming none of the Justices have read Baker 1971, Windsor 2013 or Sutton's Opinion from the 6th circuit this month..

 

[Syriusly]

People scoff when I suggest that a 7-2 ruling is even possible. While improbable.....no body wants to be this generations Leon Bazile. You know Scalia is going full Bazile. And I don't think many justices are going to want their name attached to that dissent.

That's presuming none of the Justices have read Baker 1971, Windsor 2013 or Sutton's Opinion from the 6th circuit this month..

LOL......yes- that is presuming that the Justices have read Windsor and all of the Appellate Court decisions.........we already know how Kennedy feels about denying the children of gay parents legal protections.

 

[WorldWatcher]

People scoff when I suggest that a 7-2 ruling is even possible. While improbable.....no body wants to be this generations Leon Bazile. You know Scalia is going full Bazile. And I don't think many justices are going to want their name attached to that dissent.

That's presuming none of the Justices have read Baker 1971, Windsor 2013 or Sutton's Opinion from the 6th circuit this month..

RE: Baker & Windsor
Well we can pretty much assume all the current Justices have read Baker (1971) since it was only one sentenced and have read Windsor since all the current Justices were involved in deciding the case. So far every appeal from the Circuit Courts that has been processed by the SCOTUS and address Baker in their ruling (i.e. the 10th, 9th, 7th, and 4th). The Justices REJECTED those appeals and let the Circuit Court's interpretation that Baker had been superseded by doctrinal changes from the Supreme Court. If they had not (and it would have only taken 4), they would have issued a stay and accepted the Writ of Certiorari and then issued a summary judgement affirming Baker. They didn't.

RE: The 6th Circuit (i.e. "Suttons Ruling")
That ruling was not a factor in the rejection of the 10th, 9th, 7th, and 4th Circuit Court appeals that were rejected because the 6th Circuit ruling came AFTER those cases had already been closed. The importance of the 6th Circuit Court ruling is that it now generates a "split" in the Circuits which the SCOTUS will have to address and they are just now receiving the appeals. Appellants bypassed the an en banc review by the full Circuit, which itself would have taken a couple of months, going instead straight to the SCOTUS. Which - theorectically - provides enough time for appeals to be filed, responses to be filed, and amicus briefs by third parties and the court to then accept the case for review or issues a summary dismissal on the merits (basically an instant ruling like Baker that establishes binding precedence.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

RE: The 6th Circuit (i.e. "Suttons Ruling")
That ruling was not a factor in the rejection of the 10th, 9th, 7th, and 4th Circuit Court appeals that were rejected because the 6th Circuit ruling came AFTER those cases had already been closed. The importance of the 6th Circuit Court ruling is that it now generates a "split" in the Circuits which the SCOTUS will have to address and they are just now receiving the appeals. Appellants bypassed the an en banc review by the full Circuit, which itself would have taken a couple of months, going instead straight to the SCOTUS. Which - theorectically - provides enough time for appeals to be filed, responses to be filed, and amicus briefs by third parties and the court to then accept the case for review or issues a summary dismissal on the merits (basically an instant ruling like Baker that establishes binding precedence.

Well that's a nice tutorial on how the federal appellate courts work. But the question remains: is Sutton's Opinion going to be dismissed in favor of "the majority of lower court decisions". ie: will the Justices largely or wholly ignore his reasoning because his opinion and interpretations of the law is "outnumbered"? Or will the Supremes take what he said fully into account? Only give what he said 1/5th weight since he was just one of 5 total opinions?

You know the answer. I'd just like to see how you write them out here...

 

[Silhouette]

Anyone who wonders or who wants to measure the impact of if churches will be forced to perform gay marriages should look at the 2014 midterm results just after it was announced in Texas that pastors were going to have their sermons be audited by the LGBT cult..

 

[WorldWatcher]

RE: The 6th Circuit (i.e. "Suttons Ruling")
That ruling was not a factor in the rejection of the 10th, 9th, 7th, and 4th Circuit Court appeals that were rejected because the 6th Circuit ruling came AFTER those cases had already been closed. The importance of the 6th Circuit Court ruling is that it now generates a "split" in the Circuits which the SCOTUS will have to address and they are just now receiving the appeals. Appellants bypassed the an en banc review by the full Circuit, which itself would have taken a couple of months, going instead straight to the SCOTUS. Which - theorectically - provides enough time for appeals to be filed, responses to be filed, and amicus briefs by third parties and the court to then accept the case for review or issues a summary dismissal on the merits (basically an instant ruling like Baker that establishes binding precedence.

Well that's a nice tutorial on how the federal appellate courts work. But the question remains: is Sutton's Opinion going to be dismissed in favor of "the majority of lower court decisions". ie: will the Justices largely or wholly ignore his reasoning because his opinion and interpretations of the law is "outnumbered"? Or will the Supremes take what he said fully into account? Only give what he said 1/5th weight since he was just one of 5 total opinions?

You know the answer. I'd just like to see how you write them out here...

I disagree with your premise. If they overturned his ruling, it will not be because he's outnumbered, it will be because the majority of the court disagree with his reasoning.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

I disagree with your premise. If they overturned his ruling, it will not be because he's outnumbered, it will be because the majority of the court disagree with his reasoning.

You think Kennedy will be able to disagree with his reasoning here. In other words, do you think Kennedy (the deciding vote) will go down in history as "the Justice who inadvertently forced polygamy on the states"?

Judge Sutton's Opinion, Page 23:

"If it is constitutionally irrational to stand by the man-woman definition of marriage, it must be constitutionally irrational to stand by the monogamous definition of marriage. Plaintiffs have no answer to the point. What they might say they cannot: They might say that tradition or community mores provide a rational basis for States to stand by the monogamy definition of marriage, but they cannot say that because that is exactly what they claim is illegitimate about the States’ male-female definition of marriage.." 14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases

 

[WorldWatcher]

I disagree with your premise. If they overturned his ruling, it will not be because he's outnumbered, it will be because the majority of the court disagree with his reasoning.

You think Kennedy will be able to disagree with his reasoning here. In other words, do you think Kennedy (the deciding vote) will go down in history as "the Justice who inadvertently forced polygamy on the states"?

Judge Sutton's Opinion, Page 23:

"If it is constitutionally irrational to stand by the man-woman definition of marriage, it must be constitutionally irrational to stand by the monogamous definition of marriage. Plaintiffs have no answer to the point. What they might say they cannot: They might say that tradition or community mores provide a rational basis for States to stand by the monogamy definition of marriage, but they cannot say that because that is exactly what they claim is illegitimate about the States’ male-female definition of marriage.." 14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases

Yes, I think it would be very easy for Kennedy to disagree with Sutton's reasoning.

And it might not be Kennedy that is the deciding vote seeing as how Chief Justice Roberts has also agreed in the last two cases sent to the court for stay and voted to allow SSCM's to commence under Circuit Court rulings.

Just today South Carolina's request, which went to Chief Justice Roberts, was disapprovied. The only descent was from Scalia and Thomas. Roberts is not listed as one of the once opposed to letting SSCM's start.

Same-sex marriages can go ahead in South Carolina SCOTUSblog


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, I think it would be very easy for Kennedy to disagree with Sutton's reasoning.

And it might not be Kennedy that is the deciding vote seeing as how Chief Justice Roberts has also agreed in the last two cases sent to the court for stay and voted to allow SSCM's to commence under Circuit Court rulings.

Just today South Carolina's request, which went to Chief Justice Roberts, was disapprovied. The only descent was from Scalia and Thomas. Roberts is not listed as one of the once opposed to letting SSCM's start.

Yes, they still need to spur that runoff election in LA to victory so conservatives would think it useful to use that outrage so nearby...

Judge Sutton's Opinion, Page 23:
"If it is constitutionally irrational to stand by the man-woman definition of marriage, it must be constitutionally irrational to stand by the monogamous definition of marriage. Plaintiffs have no answer to the point. What they might say they cannot: They might say that tradition or community mores provide a rational basis for States to stand by the monogamy definition of marriage, but they cannot say that because that is exactly what they claim is illegitimate about the States’ male-female definition of marriage.." 14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases

You mentioned that Roberts would disagree with what Sutton said here in bold. Specifically how would you disagree with that reasoning if you were Justice Roberts or any of the others? I'm open for you to change my mind if you can convince me that gay marriage isn't the same as a precedent for polygamy as well, or rather, "marriage equality" is going to exclude polygamy..

 

[Syriusly]

RE: The 6th Circuit (i.e. "Suttons Ruling")
That ruling was not a factor in the rejection of the 10th, 9th, 7th, and 4th Circuit Court appeals that were rejected because the 6th Circuit ruling came AFTER those cases had already been closed. The importance of the 6th Circuit Court ruling is that it now generates a "split" in the Circuits which the SCOTUS will have to address and they are just now receiving the appeals. Appellants bypassed the an en banc review by the full Circuit, which itself would have taken a couple of months, going instead straight to the SCOTUS. Which - theorectically - provides enough time for appeals to be filed, responses to be filed, and amicus briefs by third parties and the court to then accept the case for review or issues a summary dismissal on the merits (basically an instant ruling like Baker that establishes binding precedence.

Well that's a nice tutorial on how the federal appellate courts work. But the question remains: is Sutton's Opinion going to be dismissed in favor of "the majority of lower court decisions"..

The Court would consider 'Sutton's' opinion, as they would consider the opinion of the other Appellate Courts that are contrary to Sutton's opinion.

You seem to keep forgetting that there are 4 other Appellate Court decisions that conflict with the 1 Appellate Court decision you agree with.

 

[Syriusly]

[ I'm open for you to change my mind..

LOL.....liar.

 

[Syriusly]

Anyone who wonders or who wants to measure the impact of if churches will be forced to perform gay marriages.

Sigh- more lies.

No churches will be forced to perform any marriages- not Jewish marriages, not Buddhist marriages, not African American marriages and not same gender marriages.

Just lies by anti-gay activists.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes, I think it would be very easy for Kennedy to disagree with Sutton's reasoning.

And it might not be Kennedy that is the deciding vote seeing as how Chief Justice Roberts has also agreed in the last two cases sent to the court for stay and voted to allow SSCM's to commence under Circuit Court rulings.

Just today South Carolina's request, which went to Chief Justice Roberts, was disapprovied. The only descent was from Scalia and Thomas. Roberts is not listed as one of the once opposed to letting SSCM's start.

Yes, they still need to spur that runoff election in LA to victory so conservatives would think it useful to use that outrage so nearby...

Judge Sutton's Opinion, Page 23:
"If it is constitutionally irrational to stand by the man-woman definition of marriage, it must be constitutionally irrational to stand by the monogamous definition of marriage. Plaintiffs have no answer to the point. What they might say they cannot: They might say that tradition or community mores provide a rational basis for States to stand by the monogamy definition of marriage, but they cannot say that because that is exactly what they claim is illegitimate about the States’ male-female definition of marriage.." 14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases

You mentioned that Roberts would disagree with what Sutton said here in bold. Specifically how would you disagree with that reasoning if you were Justice Roberts or any of the others? I'm open for you to change my mind if you can convince me that gay marriage isn't the same as a precedent for polygamy as well, or rather, "marriage equality" is going to exclude polygamy..

I have no desire to "change your mind" as I know you are not open to meaningful debate on the issue. I've been around enough of these threads to know (a) your understanding of how the law works is minimal, (b) your predictions about what legal proceedings mean and what their relevance has been toward future outcomes has been habitually wrong, and (c) even when presented with overwhelming evidence that your statements are incorrect you ignore those corrections and turn around and repeat the same false claims.

I'm not here to put words in the Chief Justices mouth, if you want an explanation on what he thinks might I suggest you write him and ask. I pointed out the FACT that the Chief Justice didn't issue a stay in the case and that he was not listed as one of the dissenting Justices and therefore voted to allow SSCM's to start in South Carolina. If **HE** thought Sutton's opinion was that valid he could have issued the stay on his own or voted against the stay (which he didn't). If you want his reasoning, ask him. With Kennedy it's a little easier, he authored all three of the major Civil Rights decisions for gay people (Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, and United States v. Windsor).


>>>>

 

[beagle9]

People scoff when I suggest that a 7-2 ruling is even possible. While improbable.....no body wants to be this generations Leon Bazile. You know Scalia is going full Bazile. And I don't think many justices are going to want their name attached to that dissent.

That's presuming none of the Justices have read Baker 1971, Windsor 2013 or Sutton's Opinion from the 6th circuit this month..

LOL......yes- that is presuming that the Justices have read Windsor and all of the Appellate Court decisions.........we already know how Kennedy feels about denying the children of gay parents legal protections.

Anyone who wonders or who wants to measure the impact of if churches will be forced to perform gay marriages should look at the 2014 midterm results just after it was announced in Texas that pastors were going to have their sermons be audited by the LGBT cult..

Excellent point, and yet another violation of Church and State was fixing to be exposed and/or would have been evident in that fiasco as well, because wasn't it the mayors office that requested such a thing as that ? People will try anything these days, it's just whether people are fooled by them or not is what's going on these days.

 

[Skylar]

Anyone who wonders or who wants to measure the impact of if churches will be forced to perform gay marriages should look at the 2014 midterm results just after it was announced in Texas that pastors were going to have their sermons be audited by the LGBT cult..

That's an enormous if. I think the closest you'd ever see would be a for-profit chapel. But its highly unlikely it would ever happen to a church. If it did, the opposition would be quite stark. As discrimination is inherent to religion. Without discrimination, you really can't have a functioning religion.

 

[Skylar]

[ I'm open for you to change my mind..

LOL.....liar.

Laughing.....Silo, even you don't believe your legal reasoning, as you've already insisted its bullshit. So how could we possibly convince you when you won't accept your own reasoning?

Its not the law that motivates you. Its your personal animus toward gay people. When your position is so deeply hypocritical, your position on your proxy issue (gay marriage) becomes as irrelevant as it is immutable.

 

[Syriusly]

People scoff when I suggest that a 7-2 ruling is even possible. While improbable.....no body wants to be this generations Leon Bazile. You know Scalia is going full Bazile. And I don't think many justices are going to want their name attached to that dissent.

That's presuming none of the Justices have read Baker 1971, Windsor 2013 or Sutton's Opinion from the 6th circuit this month..

LOL......yes- that is presuming that the Justices have read Windsor and all of the Appellate Court decisions.........we already know how Kennedy feels about denying the children of gay parents legal protections.

Anyone who wonders or who wants to measure the impact of if churches will be forced to perform gay marriages should look at the 2014 midterm results just after it was announced in Texas that pastors were going to have their sermons be audited by the LGBT cult..

Excellent point, and yet another violation of Church and State was fixing to be exposed and/or would have been evident in that fiasco as well, because wasn't it the mayors office that requested such a thing as that ? People will try anything these days, it's just whether people are fooled by them or not is what's going on these days.

I am not suggesting that there are not those who will not attempt to violate church and state- but any such attempts will shut down as quickly and as easily as what happened in Texas.

No church will be forced to marry anyone against the church's doctrine- not Jews, not blacks, not homosexuals.

 

[Skylar]

I am not suggesting that there are not those who will not attempt to violate church and state- but any such attempts will shut down as quickly and as easily as what happened in Texas.

No church will be forced to marry anyone against the church's doctrine- not Jews, not blacks, not homosexuals.

Exactly. Undoubtedly, some gay guy somewhere will levy a suit trying to force a church to marry him and his partner against the doctrine of that church's religion. And just as undoubtedly, that suit will be laughed out of the court room. As it should be.

The legal basis of such a suit is zero. The public support for such a move is nearly as low....among conservatives, moderates or liberals. The very basis of religion is discrimination. It cannot function without it. And there is essentially no chance that the courts are going to unmake organized religion.If they were going to, there have been an a myriad of other, much more well established bases of discrimination the courts could have used: the prohibition against female catholic priests, the Mormon prohibition against blacks being priests, etc.

It never happened.

Making the accusation of it occurring over gay marriage just empty fear mongering.

 

[beagle9]

Anyone who wonders or who wants to measure the impact of if churches will be forced to perform gay marriages.

Sigh- more lies.

No churches will be forced to perform any marriages- not Jewish marriages, not Buddhist marriages, not African American marriages and not same gender marriages.

Just lies by anti-gay activists.

Not sure how true this is, but someone told me today that churches could lose their tax exempt status if they choose to discriminate by virtue of their religion or religious beliefs as found in the ways that they live by and believe as a religious people do upon the issues that are being debated in America today.

Oh I'm sure they are a target, just like so many other things have since become a target in this nation now by the feds. Will the feds gain total control over this nation soon, and if so who does that control ultimately affect in a negative way, and what effect will it ultimately have on the nation or it's people when all is said and done ? It appears that no stone will be missed, as all of them will be turned over in this new transformation or want to be utopic world in which is being envisioned now in America by a few, but not quite yet by the majority.