Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Skylar]

Which might make some sense...if LGBT were a 'cult'. Or a 'religion'. Or any of the other nonsense you've made up.

Alas, its not.

You've read the OP of this thread I trust? A Legal Fork for SCOTUS How to Arrange Alphabet Soup Into a Viable Static Class. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Yup. And you citing you isn't a legal standard. As you're nobody.

Remember, you made up your own 14th amendment in the thread you just cited. The Supreme Court uses the real one.

 

[Silhouette]

Which might make some sense...if LGBT were a 'cult'. Or a 'religion'. Or any of the other nonsense you've made up.

Alas, its not.

You've read the OP of this thread I trust? A Legal Fork for SCOTUS How to Arrange Alphabet Soup Into a Viable Static Class. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Yup. And you citing you isn't a legal standard. As you're nobody.

Remember, you made up your own 14th amendment in the thread you just cited. The Supreme Court uses the real one.

Let's look at the quote from the OP then, to see if it's "me citing me". Let's take a listen straight from the horse's mouth on the group that's claiming a legal static status in order to force Christians to their knees:

(Remember, this passage is a quote from a person heading up the Northwest chapter of LGBT, not "me")

What the future of the LGBTQ movement holds Portland Pride 2015 OregonLive.com

Debra Porta, president of Pride Northwest – the nonprofit that organized this weekend's Portland Pride festivities – said the LGBTQ movement has a very strong future ahead, but it hinges on the community all sticking together...."Gay" became LGB to recognize lesbians and bisexuals. It grew into LGBT with the addition of the trans community, then to LGBTQ with those who identify as queer or questioning. Some intersex people have even pushed for an extension to LGBTIQ....It's a mouthful, to say the least....

The "alphabet soup" as some in the community call it, is consistently under discussion, Porta said, leading to alternative catchall terms for the diverse group. Some have suggested GSRM – Gender, Sexual and Romantic Minorities – or the increasingly popular description "gender non-conforming."...The word "queer" has gained a lot of steam lately, but older people in the movement bristle at a word that was once thrown so commonly as a slur...."The phrasing that someone chooses to use is very sort of individual, and a lot of it is very generational," Porta said.

 

[Silhouette]

Well Skylar? Do you agree with Ms. Porta?

 

[Skylar]

Well Skylar? Do you agree with Ms. Porta?

What relevance does 'Ms. Porta' have with you making up an imaginary 'Viable Static Class' requirement.....a requirement that has no basis in law nor is used by the court?

And also, what does 'Ms. Porta' have to do with you making up 'categories of the 14th amendment' that the 14th amendment never mentions?

Again, your standard of 'static class' is pseudo-legal gibberish. No such requirement exists. And your 'categories of the 14th amendment' is just delusion. Neither are relevant to the law nor the outcome of any case.

 

[Silhouette]

Well Skylar? Do you agree with Ms. Porta?

What relevance does 'Ms. Porta' have with you making up an imaginary 'Viable Static Class' requirement.....a requirement that has no basis in law nor is used by the court?

And also, what does 'Ms. Porta' have to do with you making up 'categories of the 14th amendment' that the 14th amendment never mentions?

Again, your standard of 'static class' is pseudo-legal gibberish. No such requirement exists. And your 'categories of the 14th amendment' is just delusion. Neither are relevant to the law nor the outcome of any case.

OK, so as a hypothetical example of your position, your stance is that, say, "Bulimic Americans" can sue all the way to the Supreme Court and win to have vomit urns placed on restaurant tables so their eating-orientation-identity isn't discriminated against?

That would be an example of another minority behavioral-group claiming a static identity on their behavior, and then using that false premise to launch a "rights campaign" that, even if repugnant to the majority, would trump the majority.

 

[Silhouette]

you made up your own 14th amendment in the thread you just cited. The Supreme Court uses the real one.

...and if your false premise succeeds, the "real one" will have to accomodate the example I just gave in my last post.

 

[Skylar]

you made up your own 14th amendment in the thread you just cited. The Supreme Court uses the real one.

...and if your false premise succeeds, the "real one" will have to accomodate the example I just gave in my last post.

The premise isn't 'false'. Your made up 14th amendment is. You cited 'race', 'country of origin', 'religion' and 'gender' as the categories in the 14th amendment. But 14th makes no mention of any of them. It has no such categories. You made that up.

And when the Supreme Court reads the 14th amendment they're going to read the one that actually exists. Not the made up 'categorical' 14th that you imagined.

 

[Skylar]

Well Skylar? Do you agree with Ms. Porta?

What relevance does 'Ms. Porta' have with you making up an imaginary 'Viable Static Class' requirement.....a requirement that has no basis in law nor is used by the court?

And also, what does 'Ms. Porta' have to do with you making up 'categories of the 14th amendment' that the 14th amendment never mentions?

Again, your standard of 'static class' is pseudo-legal gibberish. No such requirement exists. And your 'categories of the 14th amendment' is just delusion. Neither are relevant to the law nor the outcome of any case.

OK, so as a hypothetical example of your position, your stance is that, say, "Bulimic Americans" can sue all the way to the Supreme Court and win to have vomit urns placed on restaurant tables so their eating-orientation-identity isn't discriminated against?

There's no 'hypothetical'. The court has never used your 'static class' babble in any case involving gays. Nor have they ever based a ruling that protected gays on gays being a 'static class'.

You made all that up.

And your made up pseudo-legal gibberish has no relevance to the law or the outcome of any case. And in case there was any confusion, I'm referring to the actual law and the outcomes of actual cases. Not the hypothetical nonsense you imagine.

You can make up whatever you'd like. But it obligates no one to do anything.

 

[Silhouette]

There's no 'hypothetical'. The court has never used your 'static class' babble in any case involving gays. Nor have they ever based a ruling that protected gays on gays being a 'static class'..

The question really isn't whether or not they HAVE used the static consideration when weighing these cases. It's whether or not they SHOULD. Given that precedent paves the way for others to follow, setting a precident where people who don't even understand who they themselves are, or who shift around and are too fluid to nail down, based on behaviors, the Court should be thinking ahead to the future who will be citing the "Gay 2015" case as a wedge to gain access to the same "rights and protections"... So far behaviors have never gotten special protection outside religion. This would be a first.

 

[Skylar]

There's no 'hypothetical'. The court has never used your 'static class' babble in any case involving gays. Nor have they ever based a ruling that protected gays on gays being a 'static class'..

The question really isn't whether or not they HAVE used the static consideration when weighing these cases. It's whether or not they SHOULD.

Nope. As its irrelevant to the questions the court is answering:

1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

There's no significant legal question as to what 'same sex' is. Rendering your entire argument more pseudo-legal gibberish.

 

[Silhouette]

There's no 'hypothetical'. The court has never used your 'static class' babble in any case involving gays. Nor have they ever based a ruling that protected gays on gays being a 'static class'..

The question really isn't whether or not they HAVE used the static consideration when weighing these cases. It's whether or not they SHOULD.

Nope. As its irrelevant to the questions the court is answering:

1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

There's no significant legal question as to what 'same sex' is. Rendering your entire argument more pseudo-legal gibberish.

There isn't much I can really guarantee you about this case Skylar. But one thing I can guarantee you at least. The Court isn't going to be putting on blinders and taking a dissective myopic view of forcing gay marriage on the states whose majority does not want it...or at least wants to debate it a bit longer.

You can drive a nail in the wall and hang your hat on the fact that the Court is really deliberating this one. Hence the reason we haven't heard anything yet. The reason they are is because children are not only involved in marriage, but are the main characters in it and the reason marriage was created in the first place. People knew that when men and women got together, babies come along. Marriage is a union to bind those babies parents together to make sure they have both a mother and a father to best grow up and meet the world under the daily mentoring thereby.

 

[Skylar]

There's no 'hypothetical'. The court has never used your 'static class' babble in any case involving gays. Nor have they ever based a ruling that protected gays on gays being a 'static class'..

The question really isn't whether or not they HAVE used the static consideration when weighing these cases. It's whether or not they SHOULD.

Nope. As its irrelevant to the questions the court is answering:

1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?

There's no significant legal question as to what 'same sex' is. Rendering your entire argument more pseudo-legal gibberish.

There isn't much I can really guarantee you about this case Skylar. But one thing I can guarantee you at least. The Court isn't going to be putting on blinders and taking a dissective myopic view of forcing gay marriage on the states whose majority does not want it...or at least wants to debate it a bit longer.

And wow, did you ever move your goal posts. As you abandoned your 'static class' gibberish entirely.

Is there any claim I can't run you off of?

 

[Silhouette]

I said the question wasn't whether or not they HAVE. I didn't say they had. Can you read english?

 

[Skylar]

I said the question wasn't whether or not they HAVE. I didn't say they had. Can you read english?

More accurately, none of your imaginary 'static class' requirements actually exist. Nor have any relevance to the rulings affirming the rights of gays or that protect them.

Remember.....you making up a 'legal requirement' for gays is meaningless. And obligates no one to do anything.

 

[Silhouette]

More accurately, none of your imaginary 'static class' requirements actually exist. Nor have any relevance to the rulings affirming the rights of gays or that protect them.

Remember.....you making up a 'legal requirement' for gays is meaningless. And obligates no one to do anything.

They do seem to exist and have relevance when LGBTs use that (false) premise as if they were a static class in order to force Christians to bend/abdicate their faith in order to accomodate their de facto waffling deviant sex cult. Then all of a sudden we're supposed to assume they have a static/identifiable identity.

 

[Skylar]

More accurately, none of your imaginary 'static class' requirements actually exist. Nor have any relevance to the rulings affirming the rights of gays or that protect them.

Remember.....you making up a 'legal requirement' for gays is meaningless. And obligates no one to do anything.

They do seem to exist when LGBTs use that premise as if they were a static class in order to force Christians to bend/abdicate their faith in order to accomodate their de facto waffling deviant sex cult. Then all of a sudden we're supposed to assume they have a static/identifiable identity.

Its the bakers who made that determination when they denied them service. And it doesn't matter what their sexual orientation is.....only that they were denied serviced based on it.

Someone denied because they are heterosexual would be just as protected.

 

[Silhouette]

More accurately, none of your imaginary 'static class' requirements actually exist. Nor have any relevance to the rulings affirming the rights of gays or that protect them.

Remember.....you making up a 'legal requirement' for gays is meaningless. And obligates no one to do anything.

They do seem to exist when LGBTs use that premise as if they were a static class in order to force Christians to bend/abdicate their faith in order to accomodate their de facto waffling deviant sex cult. Then all of a sudden we're supposed to assume they have a static/identifiable identity.

Its the bakers who made that determination when they denied them service. And it doesn't matter what their sexual orientation is.....only that they were denied serviced based on it.

Someone denied because they are heterosexual would be just as protected.

But who are "them"? Exactly? It's the act, not the person that is being denied. If they were people who like to publicly flaunt their homosexual preferences in public ("gays") getting a birthday cake or a graduation cake, no problem. Everyone has a birthday and everyone graduates from something. Just not everyone may marry. That includes polygamists and others; not JUST "gays". Christians however have to draw the line at "gay marriage" because marriage is the hub of society. It is the attempt at defilement of an institution for the most pure raising of children: father & mother. Christians cannot be a part of that....under threat of their eternal damnation. (Jude 1)

 

[Skylar]

But who are "them"? Exactly? It's the act, not the person that is being denied.

An 'act' doesn't order a cake. People do. And its the people that were turned down.

It is the attempt at defilement of an institution for the most pure raising of children: father & mother. Christians cannot be a part of that....under threat of their eternal damnation. (Jude 1)

Jude 1 never mentions cake. Or gay weddings. Or anything we're discussing.

If you believe that your religion makes your job impossible....get another job. Its your responsibility to find a profession that matches your faith. Not the job of the world to adapt to whatever you choose to believe.

It would be like Steve Young demanding that the Superbowl had to have been played on a Saturday....since he didn't work on Sunday. Or a Buddhist insisting that the slaughterhouse he worked at stop killing animals because it violates his religious beliefs.

Nope. That dog won't hunt

 

[Silhouette]

But who are "them"? Exactly? It's the act, not the person that is being denied.

An 'act' doesn't order a cake. People do. And its the people that were turned down.

Those people want other people (Christians) to participate in the act that the other people don't want to participate in from religious convictions. The mandate in Jude 1 includes any act a Christian might do that would not be "earnestly contending" the spread of a homosexual culture throughout any society, not just Sodom. Marriage is the nucleus, ground zero, the hub of any culture. Enabling homosexuals to use the word "marriage" (by baking a "wedding" cake or taking "wedding" photos or catering a "wedding" etc.) is a direct violation of Jude 1's mandate. And Christians cannot do that.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Its the bakers who made that determination when they denied them service.

And they did so stating their Reasons, which are specifically protected as being a right that government is expressly forbidden from infringing upon.

There is no right which requires another to accept one's perverse behavior. What's more the very concept of 'right' precludes the means to FORCE others to accept anything that they reject based upon fundamental principle.