Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Skylar]

The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.

If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?

In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that. We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all) deviant behaviors as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point you to the fact that you're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice (the courts myopia) to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution. If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...

We've seen how far into the elementary schools they've shoved their sexualized agenda. Folks, on the deviant scale of "anything goes"...they are just getting warmed up...

This is why in this case more than most, the US Supreme Court needs to remove its blindfold and take a look at the Big Picture over the long term and come to grips with what's really going on with the "we just want equal rights to marraige" proposed-redaction to the thousand's year old word..

I don't trust the government to decide what is and isn't deviant. I just oppose the courts legislating

The courts aren't 'legislating'. They're deciding if the States can deny a marriage certificate to a same sex couple under the 14th amendment.

Which is exactly what they are supposed to do.

 

[kaz]

The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.

If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?

In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that. We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all) deviant behaviors as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point you to the fact that you're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice (the courts myopia) to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution. If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...

We've seen how far into the elementary schools they've shoved their sexualized agenda. Folks, on the deviant scale of "anything goes"...they are just getting warmed up...

This is why in this case more than most, the US Supreme Court needs to remove its blindfold and take a look at the Big Picture over the long term and come to grips with what's really going on with the "we just want equal rights to marraige" proposed-redaction to the thousand's year old word..

I don't trust the government to decide what is and isn't deviant. I just oppose the courts legislating

The courts aren't 'legislating'. They're deciding if the States can deny a marriage certificate to a same sex couple under the 14th amendment.

Which is exactly what they are supposed to do.

And they are legislating when they decide that same sex marriage can be decreed based on the 14th because it can't. Being black changed who you could marry for every black, that is a valid use of the 14th. Being gay changes who you can marry for zero gays. Actually read the 14th, it is very clear on that. That makes it a job for the courts to punt it to the legislature to do something about it ... or not ...

 

[Skylar]

The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.

If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?

In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that. We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all) deviant behaviors as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point you to the fact that you're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution. If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...

The issue of whether or not gays are protected was decided nearly 20 years ago in Romer v. Evans. They are. The question of whether the USSC can overturn unconstitutional standards of State marriage was decided nearly 50 years ago in Loving V. Virginia. The issue of whether gay marriage is constitutionally permissible was decided 2 years ago with Windsor v. US.

These aren't new issues. These are the logical application of existing precedent. That you insist they are 'behavior' based is irrelevant. Religion is a behavior. And yet the religious are protected. Speech is a behavior. Yet speech is protected.

Your 'behavior' standard....isn't.

Loving isn't a precedent in any way for gay marriage. Being black changed who you could marry, that has nothing to do with gay marriage

And yet the Courts have cited 4 different race based discrimination cases when describing why discrimination against gays is invalid. And they even cited Loving while doing it. You can claim that race discrimation cases are irrelevant to gay discrimination cases. But the Court clearly disagrees.

And to be clear, the precedent that I claim that Loving established was the Court's ability to overturn unconstitutional state marriage laws. Removing any argument that the Court lacks the authority to rule on State marriage laws. Loving establishes jurisdiction.

It also establishes that the standards of State marriage law themselves must meet constitutional muster. Applying an unconstitutionally discriminatory standard to everyone doesn't work.

Whether or not State marriage laws and their standards are indeed unconstitutional is the question before the court.

 

[Skylar]

The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.

If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?

In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that. We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all) deviant behaviors as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point you to the fact that you're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice (the courts myopia) to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution. If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...

We've seen how far into the elementary schools they've shoved their sexualized agenda. Folks, on the deviant scale of "anything goes"...they are just getting warmed up...

This is why in this case more than most, the US Supreme Court needs to remove its blindfold and take a look at the Big Picture over the long term and come to grips with what's really going on with the "we just want equal rights to marraige" proposed-redaction to the thousand's year old word..

I don't trust the government to decide what is and isn't deviant. I just oppose the courts legislating

The courts aren't 'legislating'. They're deciding if the States can deny a marriage certificate to a same sex couple under the 14th amendment.

Which is exactly what they are supposed to do.

And they are legislating when they decide that same sex marriage can be decreed based on the 14th because it can't.

Nope. They're deciding if the state marriage laws violate the 14th amendment. If they do, those laws invalid. If they don't, they're not.

Deciding if a given law is consistent with the constitution is exactly what the court is supposed to do.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one really cares what the libertarians think because they are too few in number and almost no influence on anything other than our patience.

Sil wants to make the US, on the other hand, create a morality police for personal reasons he won't share. Tough. Won't happen.

SCOTUS will make marriage equality within three weeks.

 

[Skylar]

No one really cares what the libertarians think because they are too few in number and almost no influence on anything other than our patience.

The issues of libertarianism aren't my major concern in this thread. This thread being used as a proxy for libertarianism is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one really cares what the libertarians think because they are too few in number and almost no influence on anything other than our patience.

The issues of libertarianism aren't my major concern in this thread. This thread being used as a proxy for libertarianism is.

That's what libertarians do. They are guerrilla warriors with almost no fire power. So they may be fun to play with but easily dismissed.

St. Keys the Relativist offers a dangerous interpretation of religion and state. He would have made a terrifying Inquisitor.

Silhouette wants to create a morality state based on his strange fear of Marriage Equality. He has never shared his real reasons but they are obvious, I believe.

 

[dblack]

Exactly. Yes. Equal protection of the law is fundamental to just government, and far more important than any solitary law.

PA laws apply to public business. Churches aren't public business. Nixing any 'equal protection' issues.

Other than what I consider a misapplication of the First Amendment, I don't see how they aren't treated the same as other businesses. They provide public accommodations in a similar manner and make money by providing a service.

Because they aren't public businesses.

Sigh....we've done this before, Dblack. Where you think that all discrimination laws should be disbanded because they prioritize one form of discrimination while not prioritizing the other. Thus, you argue that everyone should be unable to discriminate against anyone for any reason......or that all discrimination laws should be eliminated entirely, and anyone can discriminate against anyone.

Do we just skip the back and forth on what constitutes a business, and why you think churches should be included.....and instead get to the fucking point.

You are the avatar of bullshit proxy issues. And I'd appreciate just skipping the bullshit.

The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.

That only took 18 posts. We're improving.

If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?

You're confused. Its not your position I think is bullshit. I disagree with you on your perspective on discrimination. But your position is principled and thought through. In comparison to most of the nonsense posted here, I actually kind of admire that.

Its the proxy issues one has to wade through for you to get to the fucking point that I think is bullshit. Where instead of simply making your argument on discrimination, one has to meander pointlessly through whatever proxy you're using as a screen for your argument.

In this case, religion as a 'business'. How many posts would have been wasted in debating that proxy issue before we *finally* got to your point about how you don't believe laws should regulate any form of discrimination? That's what I get sick of; wasting my time with pointless proxies just to get to the same destination you *always* end up at.

That you're libertarian. And you're pimping libertarian values.

The only proxying going on here is you using this thread as an excuse to dig up previous arguments that apparently frustrated you. You don't like libertarianism - I get it! I'm even trying to respect that, and focus squarely on the topic - whether churches should be exempt from discrimination laws protecting gay marriage.

Equal protection is not a uniquely libertarian value. Believe it or not, some liberals and conservatives find it worthwhile as well. If you'd rather ignore that and pick your scabs, it's your call. But please stop whining about it. If you don't like my posts, don't read them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

dblack, you are the one who is complaining. You simply don't like how the Constitution protects religion in its private capacity. That is not going change, and I suspect your complaining is not going to stop. The OP's question is a red herring. No church has ever had to accommodate homosexual weddings.

 

[Silhouette]

The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.

If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?

In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that. We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all) deviant behaviors as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point you to the fact that you're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution. If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...

The issue of whether or not gays are protected was decided nearly 20 years ago in Romer v. Evans. They are. The question of whether the USSC can overturn unconstitutional standards of State marriage was decided nearly 50 years ago in Loving V. Virginia. The issue of whether gay marriage is constitutionally permissible was decided 2 years ago with Windsor v. US.

These aren't new issues. These are the logical application of existing precedent. That you insist they are 'behavior' based is irrelevant. Religion is a behavior. And yet the religious are protected. Speech is a behavior. Yet speech is protected.

Your 'behavior' standard....isn't.

Romer can be revisited and Loving was about race. The key part of this situation is a Decision by the Court that doesn't...well..for lack of a better phrase "fuck up" the concept of self-rule by a majority. To put it simply. The Court needs to very carefully parse out and sift defintions of what is an innate state of being and what instead is merely a cult of behaviors. For the difference between the two from the standpoint of the Constitution, is as wide as the Grand Canyon.

If any previous law supports minority behaviors dictating to the majority (you would call it "being protected from the tyranny of the majority), then that law must be re-examined and overturned if necessary to preserve the fundamentals of our democracy. The Court MUST be very forward-looking on this and be considering the snowball-effect of how behaviors claiming static "race" status can be very damaging to us all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, no, it does not. Your reasoning is bogus, not set in law. Democratic majorities do not rule on these matters. Only amendments and courts make the final decisions on these issues. Your cult of hetero-fascism is being stopped in its tracks, and that is very good for America.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, no, it does not. Your reasoning is bogus, not set in law. Democratic majorities do not rule on these matters. Only amendments and courts make the final decisions on these issues. Your cult of hetero-fascism is being stopped in its tracks, and that is very good for America.

Majorities ABSOLUTELY regulate behaviors at a local level. What poli-sci class did you take in high school? What other minority behavior will use your precedent in the future, should it be mistakenly set today? Answer: any of them.

Remember, your'e the ones advocating blind justice on this one. "Put your blinders on Justices! Only look at Romer and Loving!!" Would you insist the Justices take off their blinders at a future date when a group of minority behaviors you don't approve of wants special protection from your ability to regulate them?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, you have failed as a philosopher and a lawyer, so now you will as a high school teacher. SCOTUS has jurisdiction over these matters, period. That you don't like it does not matter, period. I am not thrilled with this SCOTUS about a number of things, but American grown ups accept that the constitutional buck stops there.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, you have failed as a philosopher and a lawyer, so now you will as a high school teacher. SCOTUS has jurisdiction over these matters, period. That you don't like it does not matter, period. I am not thrilled with this SCOTUS about a number of things, but American grown ups accept that the constitutional buck stops there.

One man's "American grown ups" is another man's "poly-sci failures". We'll let the Court be the judge of what's what on that question for sure. That's why they're required to be so familiar with the system of government they were appointed to represent with complete and utter longterm wisdom for the country.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, you have failed as a philosopher and a lawyer, so now you will as a high school teacher. SCOTUS has jurisdiction over these matters, period. That you don't like it does not matter, period. I am not thrilled with this SCOTUS about a number of things, but American grown ups accept that the constitutional buck stops there.

One man's "American grown ups" is another man's "poly-sci failures". We'll let the Court be the judge of what's what on that question for sure. That's why they're required to be so familiar with the system of government they were appointed to represent with complete and utter longterm wisdom for the country.

Just so. You will lose on this decision, I think, but I hope you will support it fairly, as I will if it rules against my beliefs.

 

[Silhouette]

Just so. You will lose on this decision, I think, but I hope you will support it fairly, as I will if it rules against my beliefs.

The question isn't if I will support a decision to erode democracy at its foundation "fairly". The quesiton is if the mob who enjoys democratic rule on questions of objectionable minority behaviors will support it "fairly". My thoughts are that Americans get a bit hot under the collar when someone holds a lit match up to the US Constitution.

They won't just go quietly into the night. They are Americans, first and foremost. I believe England referred to us in the 1700s as "a most unruly bunch". And for good reason. The world shoved West the most headstrong and stubborn of their ranks until the Western shores of the Pacific could push them no further into the margins.. Enjoy any "victory" you might have because I get the feeling it's going to be very short lived..

 

[Skylar]

The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.

If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?

In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that. We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all) deviant behaviors as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point you to the fact that you're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution. If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...

The issue of whether or not gays are protected was decided nearly 20 years ago in Romer v. Evans. They are. The question of whether the USSC can overturn unconstitutional standards of State marriage was decided nearly 50 years ago in Loving V. Virginia. The issue of whether gay marriage is constitutionally permissible was decided 2 years ago with Windsor v. US.

These aren't new issues. These are the logical application of existing precedent. That you insist they are 'behavior' based is irrelevant. Religion is a behavior. And yet the religious are protected. Speech is a behavior. Yet speech is protected.

Your 'behavior' standard....isn't.

Romer can be revisited and Loving was about race.

Romer establishes that gays are protected. An explicit contradiction to your entire premise. Declaring that it can be 'revisited' changes nothing of its contradiction of your claims. Its already precedent that gays are protected.

As for Loving, it was about race. And yet between Romer and Windsor, the court cited 4 different race based discrimination cases when describing why discrimination against gays was invalid. You may insist that race discrimination has nothing to do with discrimination against gays. But the court clearly disagrees.

The key part of this situation is a Decision by the Court that doesn't...well..for lack of a better phrase "fuck up" the concept of self-rule by a majority.

Loving already decided this issue 50 years ago. If the majority votes in a marriage law that is constitutionally invalid, the law is invalid. This isn't a new issue. Its nearly half a century old.

To put it simply. The Court needs to very carefully parse out and sift defintions of what is an innate state of being and what instead is merely a cult of behaviors. For the difference between the two from the standpoint of the Constitution, is as wide as the Grand Canyon.

The 'cult of behaviors' schtick is yours. The court has never found this to be true. You keep projecting your beliefs onto the court. Your feelings are irrelevant to their decisions. Nor do they 'need' to accept your personal obsessions, prejudices and biases.

They need to decide if States must issue marriage licenses to same sex couples under the 14th amendment. As that's the question before it. Everything else you've imagined is just you citing yourself.

And as your 'Gallup has been infiltrated by homosexuals as part of an international conspiracy dating back to the 60' batshit conspiracy, you're effectively insane. Rendering your perspective less than valuable.

 

[Skylar]

Just so. You will lose on this decision, I think, but I hope you will support it fairly, as I will if it rules against my beliefs.

The question isn't if I will support a decision to erode democracy at its foundation "fairly". The quesiton is if the mob who enjoys democratic rule on questions of objectionable minority behaviors will support it "fairly". My thoughts are that Americans get a bit hot under the collar when someone holds a lit match up to the US Constitution.

And your thoughts are that all polling agencies that show majority support for gay marriage have been infiltrated by homosexuals, are falsifying polling results, and participating in a vast intentional conspiracy dating back to the 60s.

So your thoughts are quite mad. And don't reflect any semblance of reality. You are projecting your own beliefs, your own feelings. The majority of the nation simply doesn't share them.

They won't just go quietly into the night. They are Americans, first and foremost. I believe England referred to us in the 1700s as "a most unruly bunch". And for good reason. The world shoved West the most headstrong and stubborn of their ranks until the Western shores of the Pacific could push them no further into the margins.. Enjoy any "victory" you might have because I get the feeling it's going to be very short lived..

Vague thuggish threats to go along with a batshit conspiracy theory?

Who da thunk.

What a perfect closing argument.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Tell you now, Sil, and any who think like you, thuggish behavior from your ilk after the ruling will be met with immediate, swift LEO, court action, as well as your condemnation in the eye of the great majority of the public, many of whom will be those who don't like the ruling.

Don't be thugs, please. You will only do damage to yourself and your cause.

 

[dblack]

The "fucking point" is that laws that target specific groups for special penalties, benefits or exemptions constitute bad government. Period. If you think that's a "proxy" argument for general libertarian values, thank you. So do I.

If you think that's "bullshit", please feel free to ignore my posts. Wouldn't that be more pleasant than hurling insults?

In this instance we have an even more insidious version of that. We have for the first time in our country's history, people doing certain (but not all, yet) deviant behaviors as a minority, to the objection of the majority (say "the majority supports gay marriage" and I'll point the LGBT blogger to the fact that they're trying to remove the majority's consent on gay marriage..) and using blind justice (the courts myopia) to drive a meat cleaver through the US Constitution. If they are successful removing the regulation of behaviors at a local level and making their cult dominant to self-rule...well... welcome to the Rainbow Reicht...

We've seen how far into the elementary schools they've shoved their sexualized agenda. Folks, on the deviant scale of "anything goes"...they are just getting warmed up...

This is why in this case more than most, the US Supreme Court needs to remove its blindfold and take a look at the Big Picture over the long term and come to grips with what's really going on with the "we just want equal rights to marraige" proposed-redaction to the thousand's year old word.. Regulation of behaviors has always been at local levels in the penal, civil and family codes of each state, enacted and maintained by the push and pull of progressive vs conservative values. Progressives are like the unbrindled think-tank of "what if we try this?". Conservatives are the brakes on that system. You take the brakes off a vehicle like this rainbow-progressivism, for example, and you might as well hang it up. Majority rule preserves both the new ideas and the brakes on those new ideas. What LGBTs are asking the Court to do is nothing less than removing the braking system for that vehicle . These questions belong to the states' majorities. And that is where they must remain or we will have no democracy.

Uh. No. You're missing the point entirely. "Laws that target specific group for special penalties, benefits or exemptions" refers to giving giving certain religions groups exemptions from following the laws the rest of us are saddled with.