Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[RKMBrown]

True, the courts are the bullies

How has any court specifically bullied you on the gay marriage issue?

This ought to be rich.

I agree with KAZ that courts harm the public and integrity of the Constitution/govt
with rulings that are flawed.

In particular I find the ruling on ACA as a tax to be flawed,
as the ACA imposes the right to health care through govt as a nationalized belief
that excludes and discriminates by creed against those who believe in free market health care as a natural right, and requires a Constitutional Amendment to authorize govt.

I believe courts are not authorized to takes sides on marriage laws that involve religious or political beliefs, such as "the right to marriage" or "marriage as between one man and one woman only".

If marriage laws being contested are not equally protecting beliefs, or the ACA is written to force regulations mandates and fines instead of reserving free choice for people of all beliefs, those laws should be revised and not pushed to the courts to rule yes or no.

If I were a judge in court and two parties came to me with this kind of religiously based conflict, I would order them to mediate and rewrite the contracts where they can both sign their names to it. Not fight over two different versions of the contract, and then expect me to order one party or the other to sign their names to the version they disagree with.

Sorry, to me that is violating consent, the spirit of the laws, and the Constitution.
I believe in equal protection of the laws, and supporting unobstructed justice and due process to establish agreement on laws that all parties respect and consent to.

otherwise we have a zoo of politics making decisions based on who paid the bigger bully to lobby, legislate or lawyer for them. that isn't equal for all people, so that's why we don't have Equal Justice under Law as inscribed on the Supreme Court.

Equal consent to the laws makes all parties equal regardless of belief, party, standing or status. if you buy and sell people's interest and consent, you have lawlessness and people making money off the process to make it even more biased and unfair. NO THANKS!

The ACA tax/fine is a tax/fine. The issue of "whether ACA imposes the right to health care through govt as a nationalized belief that excludes and discriminates by creed against those who believe in free market health care as a natural right" did not come up and was not the point of the ruling. You are just making stuff up, or parroting someone else who did. The issue of whether the government can tax us for health care is long past. See medicare, see medicaid, ...

You'll note that the ACA health care plans are being run by the states. The feds are merely setting the guidelines. Not a subtle deflection. Again see medicaid and medicare for similar systems. The feds circumvent the constitutional issue by using the states as proxy. The taxing stuff is in the 16th amendment. Life liberty and all that jazz can be taken with due process by the states. See 14th amendment due process clause if the states follow due process.

 

[emilynghiem]

When Jesus was crusified, His death paid the price for all the sins of the world, and His Resurection is what makes Christianity the ONLY True religion in the WORLD!!!
Mohammad, or allah, or budah, or any other religous "guru"
could not even save themselves, let alone the rest of the world!
They are ALL still dead and buried....Jesus is the ONLY way we can get to Heaven (Acts 4: 12)
And for those of you that think homosexuals are "born" that way, that is a lie straight from the pit of hell! Anyone that spreads lies like that is Truly the Hateful one, and NOT a friend ...And I do not hate you or anyone else, so don't call me a homophobe!!! I love you enough to tell you the TRUTH !!!, NOT all the LIES that everyone rlse is spewing about homosexuality.......You were NOT born "gay" and it is NOT an "alternative lifestyle" to be a homosexual.....It is a perversion...That is why the Homosexual Lobby is pushing so hard, they are trying to make the rest of society think their "lifestyle" is on equal footing as normal Heterosexuality..

[MENTION=42952]GISMYS[/MENTION]

1. Matthew 19:12 reminds us that some eunuch are born from the womb, some made by man, and some for the spiritual purposes of God.

2. What makes Christianity the unifying message to save all humanity is
a. Agreement by Christ or by CONSCIENCE to establish universal TRUTH
b. Christ Jesus as RESTORATIVE JUSTICE which brings healing grace to right all wrongs
c. CHARITY and forgiveness to bring the love of truth, justice and peace to all humanity

Let us please pray in a unifying spirit that is universal to all people of all faiths.
Let us ask God's help to remove any thing preventing healing and harmony in Christ Jesus to unify all tribes and nations as one, all made new and whole for God's purpose. Amen.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi [MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION]
1. I totally agree the problems were in the ACA to begin with, and even the Court could not fix those. But they did change the interpretation to a tax, which would not have passed through Congress in that way. So that is a problem with the Court changing the law indirectly by changing the interpretation instead of striking it down as requiring a Constitutional Amendment because of its contents. Sure, if the people failed to present the argument to the Court, the problem is with the legal teams, including the one that argued it was a tax if it was sold through Congress as not a tax, due to political bias and conflict of interest with party (in violation of the Code of Ethics of Govt Service not to put party before Constitutional duty to the public)

2. the mandates still impose either a tax penalty for people who do not believe in govt-required insurance. You cannot avoid the fine just because you believe govt does not have authority to require buying private insurance, and that health care belongs to the free market, and/or requires a Constitutional amendment to add to federal govt. if you believe in free choice to pay for health care other ways, that belief and choice is fined and thus discriminated against by creed. you are required to comply with beliefs that govt has the jurisdiction to require buying private insurance even without passing a Constitutional Amendment first granting federal govt this authority.

So I agree the ACA was flawed to begin with, and the Courts can only answer arguments as presented.

3. In general both the
A. Arguments about gay marriage "assume the belief that marriage is a right"
and many people disagree and have a completely different belief about marriage
B. Arguments about health care "assume the belief that health care is a right or in the jurisdiction of federal govt" and many people have a different belief this goes
against natural laws (which their opponents don't believe in either)

RKMB it just seems fair to me,
that if belief in "natural laws" CANNOT be imposed on people who believe govt has the authority to alter those or impose anything by majority rule regardless of such "beliefs"

then likewise THOSE people's beliefs that govt can impose such laws
CANNOT be imposed on people who believe in natural laws and limits on govt
unless the people consent

I am just trying to be fair.
I recognize that not all people recognize these views as beliefs.
People are used to seeing their views as right and the others wrong,
not as conflicting beliefs that both should be equally accommodated by law.

I do NOT expect this to apply to ALL conflicts, such as whether to make a road go this direction or that direction through a city, that is not a religious belief or conflict.

but for inherent religiously held beliefs, I do not BELIEVE these should be subject to majority rule or one-sided court rulings.

I do not need to "parrot" other people, I am just explaining their beliefs in opposition.
My point is to show they cannot be reconciled and so the laws should be revised
to avoid these irreconcilable conflicts, regardless how people express their objections.

The ACA tax/fine is a tax/fine. The issue of "whether ACA imposes the right to health care through govt as a nationalized belief that excludes and discriminates by creed against those who believe in free market health care as a natural right" did not come up and was not the point of the ruling. You are just making stuff up, or parroting someone else who did. The issue of whether the government can tax us for health care is long past. See medicare, see medicaid, ...

You'll note that the ACA health care plans are being run by the states. The feds are merely setting the guidelines. Not a subtle deflection. Again see medicaid and medicare for similar systems. The feds circumvent the constitutional issue by using the states as proxy. The taxing stuff is in the 16th amendment. Life liberty and all that jazz can be taken with due process by the states. See 14th amendment due process clause if the states follow due process.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Windsor's finding is that the states cannot violate civilian civil liberties.

14th trumphs, Sil.

 

[RKMBrown]

Windsor's finding is that the states cannot violate civilian civil liberties.

14th trumphs, Sil.

Wrong. It says the opposite.

They can't violate civil liberties without first providing for due process. IOW we were better off wrt liberties before the 14th amendment.

 

[Gadawg73]

What kind of football did you play? Flag?

Cracking heads of fugitives didn't involve bullying the fugitives?

Sure, right, a full ride for flag football, that is the ticket.

"bullying fugitives" what is that?

bul·lied bul·ly·ing
transitive verb
1: to treat abusively
2: to affect by means of force or coercion

Websters.


Tell me you did not get your way on the football field and/or "crack heads of fugitives" by asking your opponents to please do as you please. Tell me you did not use force or coercion.

You left out the "fugitives"
What is "bullying fugitives"

How is coercion bullying?

Not "Websters", just common sense.

 

[Gadawg73]

True, the courts are the bullies

How has any court specifically bullied you on the gay marriage issue?

This ought to be rich.

Never heard the phrase bully pulpit? The courts, like it or not, hold great sway over how our liberties are regulated.

I'm gonna guess you're leaning on the libtard definition of bullying that relates to beating up kids in school for their lunch money, or just because the kids are strange. That's just one use of the term. If you use words in context, you don't have to assume someone is using the words out of context.

How are your liberties "bullied" or "affected" by the courts ruling gay folk can marry?

That claim would be "leaning libtard" wimpy.
Unlike you, I can articulate my opinions without guessing.

 

[emilynghiem]

Windsor's finding is that the states cannot violate civilian civil liberties.

14th trumphs, Sil.

Wrong. It says the opposite.

They can't violate civil liberties without first providing for due process. IOW we were better off wrt liberties before the 14th amendment.

Dear [MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION]

For ACA it is argued that the mandates "deprive lawabiding citizens
of the liberty" to buy health care other ways by free choice,
besides insurance or else pay a fine to govt.

There is no "due process" for distinguishing WHICH citizens would otherwise
impose on the public by not having other means of paying their costs.

Instead ALL citizens are treated the same, assuming they have no choice but to buy insurance or pay a fine (unless they fit regulations on exemptions that thus far are determined based on religious affiliation or political which is even worse -- either way govt is regulating exemption from tax/fine based on creed, where believing in paying for health care other ways DOES NOT COUNT as an exempted choice)

Proponents argue that there was "due process" by going through Congress and Courts to pass this bill. Opponents argue their beliefs in natural rights not taken away by govt without a Constitutional Amendment were violated by political agenda (where the votes and pushing the bill as a tax to get it past the Court can be argued as Politically biased and following Party affiliation and agenda as a Conflict of Interest in violating the Code of Ethics for Govt Service).

What do we do now, sue the President and Party for passing a law without passing a Constitutional Amendment first?
Petition both Parties to set up their own systems and revise ACA to be optional, but required just for members of the groups that agree to enforce it?

If people do not even believe there is a problem, imposing on the other side's beliefs but only if their beliefs are violated, how is this ever going to be fixed?

Aren't both sides, pushing their own political beliefs as law through govt, violating the equal protection of the others who disagree and demand due process to restore their rights?

 

[Gadawg73]

True, the courts are the bullies

How has any court specifically bullied you on the gay marriage issue?

This ought to be rich.

Any violation of the Constitution harms all citizens, that particular judicial legislation directly harms me is irrelevant, it harms be because it further establishes that the courts can decree anything they want based on nothing but their own politics. Yeah, that harms me, you and everyone else, including the people it directly "helps." Their next fiat could be anything.

Uh, hate to tell you but there has never been any ruling ever that allowing gays to marry based on the Constitution is illegal
Why?.
Because the Constitution does not ban it or address it.
The Constitution does not address heterosexual marriage.

So under your theory all marriage is a violation of the Constitution.
Heterosexual marriage according to you if it is addressed by the courts and deemed legal is going to then open the door for anything and everything based on politics only.

Wow, amazing the ignorance spread here as hardly anyone understands anything about the Constitution.

Deary, The United States Constitution protects the rights of THE INDIVIDUAL, not the majority. The Constitution tells the GOVERNMENT what it can not do, NOT THE INDIVIDUAL.

You need to go and read the Constitution, an interesting document, you will learn something.

 

[RKMBrown]

Hi [MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION]
1. I totally agree the problems were in the ACA to begin with, and even the Court could not fix those. But they did change the interpretation to a tax, which would not have passed through Congress in that way. So that is a problem with the Court changing the law indirectly by changing the interpretation instead of striking it down as requiring a Constitutional Amendment because of its contents. Sure, if the people failed to present the argument to the Court, the problem is with the legal teams, including the one that argued it was a tax if it was sold through Congress as not a tax, due to political bias and conflict of interest with party (in violation of the Code of Ethics of Govt Service not to put party before Constitutional duty to the public)

2. the mandates still impose either a tax penalty for people who do not believe in govt-required insurance. You cannot avoid the fine just because you believe govt does not have authority to require buying private insurance, and that health care belongs to the free market, and/or requires a Constitutional amendment to add to federal govt. if you believe in free choice to pay for health care other ways, that belief and choice is fined and thus discriminated against by creed. you are required to comply with beliefs that govt has the jurisdiction to require buying private insurance even without passing a Constitutional Amendment first granting federal govt this authority.

So I agree the ACA was flawed to begin with, and the Courts can only answer arguments as presented.

3. In general both the
A. Arguments about gay marriage "assume the belief that marriage is a right"
and many people disagree and have a completely different belief about marriage
B. Arguments about health care "assume the belief that health care is a right or in the jurisdiction of federal govt" and many people have a different belief this goes
against natural laws (which their opponents don't believe in either)

RKMB it just seems fair to me,
that if belief in "natural laws" CANNOT be imposed on people who believe govt has the authority to alter those or impose anything by majority rule regardless of such "beliefs"

then likewise THOSE people's beliefs that govt can impose such laws
CANNOT be imposed on people who believe in natural laws and limits on govt
unless the people consent

I am just trying to be fair.
I recognize that not all people recognize these views as beliefs.
People are used to seeing their views as right and the others wrong,
not as conflicting beliefs that both should be equally accommodated by law.

I do NOT expect this to apply to ALL conflicts, such as whether to make a road go this direction or that direction through a city, that is not a religious belief or conflict.

but for inherent religiously held beliefs, I do not BELIEVE these should be subject to majority rule or one-sided court rulings.

I do not need to "parrot" other people, I am just explaining their beliefs in opposition.
My point is to show they cannot be reconciled and so the laws should be revised
to avoid these irreconcilable conflicts, regardless how people express their objections.

The ACA tax/fine is a tax/fine. The issue of "whether ACA imposes the right to health care through govt as a nationalized belief that excludes and discriminates by creed against those who believe in free market health care as a natural right" did not come up and was not the point of the ruling. You are just making stuff up, or parroting someone else who did. The issue of whether the government can tax us for health care is long past. See medicare, see medicaid, ...

You'll note that the ACA health care plans are being run by the states. The feds are merely setting the guidelines. Not a subtle deflection. Again see medicaid and medicare for similar systems. The feds circumvent the constitutional issue by using the states as proxy. The taxing stuff is in the 16th amendment. Life liberty and all that jazz can be taken with due process by the states. See 14th amendment due process clause if the states follow due process.

You are dead wrong.

Change what interpretation? nah that's not what happened..

They looked at the mandate and decided, correctly that the so called mandate was not a mandate in the literal sense, it was a tax in the literal sense. They could have called the mandate a marriage license. The name of the thing does not matter it is merely a name. To many people look at names and associate meaning. Unfortunately the ass hats in congress pulled one over the media and most republicans.

The people who named it a mandate and said it was not a tax were effing liars who were attempting to redefine the english language to confuse the media, citizens, and other fools.

Congress is in charge of themselves, it's not the courts job to teach them the english language, and tell them how to enforce their own rules. Irregardless, the house originated the final bill throwing the point out the door that only the house can originate a taxing bill. The republicans caved.

And you were lied to. Both in what the mandate was, which was a tax, and also as to whether or not the house originated the final bill which they did. If the house originates the final bill it does not matter whether it has taxes or not. Thus for every reason the whole mandate thing was just a red-herring.

Additionally, you are also wrong with regard to your statement that "the Courts can only answer arguments as presented." They also do their own investigations and their own reading and draw their own conclusions and make their own arguments and answers to the issue presented. The issue presented however was not whether or not the ACA is constitutional. The issue was one minor point in the ACA. For example, it had nothing to do with the other minor point that they just struck down, regarding whether the ACA can force a private company to provide contraceptives in general, and abortifacents in particular against the owner's personally held religious beliefs.


Marriage is a part of the right to life protected by the first amendment. This has already been ruled by the courts. The issue, thus has been whether the states have used due process (see 14th amendment) in taking away the right to life of gays. I honestly don't think the states have, nor do I think the federal laws have. I really don't see how the laws restricting life of gays can stand to any reasoned honest scrutiny.

Access to health care is a part of the right to life. The question thus, is can our government(s) restrict access to health care through legislation. Note I said access not free health care. No one ever said life would be fair or free or accommodating. That is not a right. That is a pipe dream.

 

[emilynghiem]

How are your liberties "bullied" or "affected" by the courts ruling gay folk can marry?

That claim would be "leaning libtard" wimpy.
Unlike you, I can articulate my opinions without guessing.

1. there is nothing wrong with affirming the freedom to marry in church or in private
2. if people do not agree with state endorsing gay marriage by law that is different than just allowing it

atheists don't have a problem with people "praying" wherever they want on their own,
but not have public institutions endorsing and incorporating prayer through govt functions

 

[Gadawg73]

Hi [MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION]
1. I totally agree the problems were in the ACA to begin with, and even the Court could not fix those. But they did change the interpretation to a tax, which would not have passed through Congress in that way. So that is a problem with the Court changing the law indirectly by changing the interpretation instead of striking it down as requiring a Constitutional Amendment because of its contents. Sure, if the people failed to present the argument to the Court, the problem is with the legal teams, including the one that argued it was a tax if it was sold through Congress as not a tax, due to political bias and conflict of interest with party (in violation of the Code of Ethics of Govt Service not to put party before Constitutional duty to the public)

2. the mandates still impose either a tax penalty for people who do not believe in govt-required insurance. You cannot avoid the fine just because you believe govt does not have authority to require buying private insurance, and that health care belongs to the free market, and/or requires a Constitutional amendment to add to federal govt. if you believe in free choice to pay for health care other ways, that belief and choice is fined and thus discriminated against by creed. you are required to comply with beliefs that govt has the jurisdiction to require buying private insurance even without passing a Constitutional Amendment first granting federal govt this authority.

So I agree the ACA was flawed to begin with, and the Courts can only answer arguments as presented.

3. In general both the
A. Arguments about gay marriage "assume the belief that marriage is a right"
and many people disagree and have a completely different belief about marriage
B. Arguments about health care "assume the belief that health care is a right or in the jurisdiction of federal govt" and many people have a different belief this goes
against natural laws (which their opponents don't believe in either)

RKMB it just seems fair to me,
that if belief in "natural laws" CANNOT be imposed on people who believe govt has the authority to alter those or impose anything by majority rule regardless of such "beliefs"

then likewise THOSE people's beliefs that govt can impose such laws
CANNOT be imposed on people who believe in natural laws and limits on govt
unless the people consent

I am just trying to be fair.
I recognize that not all people recognize these views as beliefs.
People are used to seeing their views as right and the others wrong,
not as conflicting beliefs that both should be equally accommodated by law.

I do NOT expect this to apply to ALL conflicts, such as whether to make a road go this direction or that direction through a city, that is not a religious belief or conflict.

but for inherent religiously held beliefs, I do not BELIEVE these should be subject to majority rule or one-sided court rulings.

I do not need to "parrot" other people, I am just explaining their beliefs in opposition.
My point is to show they cannot be reconciled and so the laws should be revised
to avoid these irreconcilable conflicts, regardless how people express their objections.

The ACA tax/fine is a tax/fine. The issue of "whether ACA imposes the right to health care through govt as a nationalized belief that excludes and discriminates by creed against those who believe in free market health care as a natural right" did not come up and was not the point of the ruling. You are just making stuff up, or parroting someone else who did. The issue of whether the government can tax us for health care is long past. See medicare, see medicaid, ...

You'll note that the ACA health care plans are being run by the states. The feds are merely setting the guidelines. Not a subtle deflection. Again see medicaid and medicare for similar systems. The feds circumvent the constitutional issue by using the states as proxy. The taxing stuff is in the 16th amendment. Life liberty and all that jazz can be taken with due process by the states. See 14th amendment due process clause if the states follow due process.

You are dead wrong.

Change what interpretation? nah that's not what happened..

They looked at the mandate and decided, correctly that the so called mandate was not a mandate in the literal sense, it was a tax in the literal sense. They could have called the mandate a marriage license. The name of the thing does not matter it is merely a name. To many people look at names and associate meaning. Unfortunately the ass hats in congress pulled one over the media and most republicans.

The people who named it a mandate and said it was not a tax were effing liars who were attempting to redefine the english language to confuse the media, citizens, and other fools.

Congress is in charge of themselves, it's not the courts job to teach them the english language, and tell them how to enforce their own rules. Irregardless, the house originated the final bill throwing the point out the door that only the house can originate a taxing bill. The republicans caved.

And you were lied to. Both in what the mandate was, which was a tax, and also as to whether or not the house originated the final bill which they did. If the house originates the final bill it does not matter whether it has taxes or not. Thus for every reason the whole mandate thing was just a red-herring.

Additionally, you are also wrong with regard to your statement that "the Courts can only answer arguments as presented." They also do their own investigations and their own reading and draw their own conclusions and make their own arguments and answers to the issue presented. The issue presented however was not whether or not the ACA is constitutional. The issue was one minor point in the ACA. For example, it had nothing to do with the other minor point that they just struck down, regarding whether the ACA can force a private company to provide contraceptives in general, and abortifacents in particular against the owner's personally held religious beliefs.


Marriage is a part of the right to life protected by the first amendment. This has already been ruled by the courts. The issue, thus has been whether the states have used due process (see 14th amendment) in taking away the right to life of gays. I honestly don't think the states have, nor do I think the federal laws have. I really don't see how the laws restricting life of gays can stand to any reasoned honest scrutiny.

Access to health care is a part of the right to life. The question thus, is can our government(s) restrict access to health care through legislation. Note I said access not free health care. No one ever said life would be fair or free or accommodating. That is not a right. That is a pipe dream.

So states can take away the rights of heterosexuals to marry also?

 

[emilynghiem]

1. Yes, [MENTION=18558]Gadawg73[/MENTION] it can be argued that all marriage violates limits on govt jurisdiction.
The death penalty can also be argued as crossing into religious areas outside govt.
The difference is if people AGREE to laws even if they cross the line.

We used to have a general consensus to leave marriage laws alone, even though technically, as you point out, they already cross the line between church and state. yes they do, that is the problem; when the public generally agreed on policy, it didn't matter; but when people don't agree, then it becomes pronounced that the state is technically crossing the line with marriage and getting into church or private territory

Uh, hate to tell you but there has never been any ruling ever that allowing gays to marry based on the Constitution is illegal
Why?.
Because the Constitution does not ban it or address it.
The Constitution does not address heterosexual marriage.

1. So under your theory all marriage is a violation of the Constitution.
Heterosexual marriage according to you if it is addressed by the courts and deemed legal is going to then open the door for anything and everything based on politics only.

Wow, amazing the ignorance spread here as hardly anyone understands anything about the Constitution.

Deary, 2. The United States Constitution protects the rights of THE INDIVIDUAL, not the majority. The Constitution tells the GOVERNMENT what it can not do, NOT THE INDIVIDUAL.

You need to go and read the Constitution, an interesting document, you will learn something.

2. by the Constitution and its amendments, Govt is supposed to respect equal religious freedom and equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed.

if people cannot agree on their BELIEFS about marriage, then laws cannot be made endorsed or enforced through the state that violate or exclude BELIEFS.

either treat beliefs equally or remove those laws from jurisdiction of the govt.
people used to consent to the marriage laws as was, but if they can't agree now they can't be imposed either way if that is going to deny equal protection to those of other beliefs.

 

[RKMBrown]

Sure, right, a full ride for flag football, that is the ticket.

"bullying fugitives" what is that?

bul·lied bul·ly·ing
transitive verb
1: to treat abusively
2: to affect by means of force or coercion

Websters.


Tell me you did not get your way on the football field and/or "crack heads of fugitives" by asking your opponents to please do as you please. Tell me you did not use force or coercion.

You left out the "fugitives"
What is "bullying fugitives"

How is coercion bullying?

Not "Websters", just common sense.

I don't really think you are asking me to show you the definition of coercion...

I believe you are incorrectly assuming the word bullying means only unwarranted bullying, and not realizing that there is also warranted bullying. Parents use force (bully) their children when the kids get out of line. Police use force (bully) suspects for the safety of both and other citizens.

 

[RKMBrown]

Hi [MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION]
1. I totally agree the problems were in the ACA to begin with, and even the Court could not fix those. But they did change the interpretation to a tax, which would not have passed through Congress in that way. So that is a problem with the Court changing the law indirectly by changing the interpretation instead of striking it down as requiring a Constitutional Amendment because of its contents. Sure, if the people failed to present the argument to the Court, the problem is with the legal teams, including the one that argued it was a tax if it was sold through Congress as not a tax, due to political bias and conflict of interest with party (in violation of the Code of Ethics of Govt Service not to put party before Constitutional duty to the public)

2. the mandates still impose either a tax penalty for people who do not believe in govt-required insurance. You cannot avoid the fine just because you believe govt does not have authority to require buying private insurance, and that health care belongs to the free market, and/or requires a Constitutional amendment to add to federal govt. if you believe in free choice to pay for health care other ways, that belief and choice is fined and thus discriminated against by creed. you are required to comply with beliefs that govt has the jurisdiction to require buying private insurance even without passing a Constitutional Amendment first granting federal govt this authority.

So I agree the ACA was flawed to begin with, and the Courts can only answer arguments as presented.

3. In general both the
A. Arguments about gay marriage "assume the belief that marriage is a right"
and many people disagree and have a completely different belief about marriage
B. Arguments about health care "assume the belief that health care is a right or in the jurisdiction of federal govt" and many people have a different belief this goes
against natural laws (which their opponents don't believe in either)

RKMB it just seems fair to me,
that if belief in "natural laws" CANNOT be imposed on people who believe govt has the authority to alter those or impose anything by majority rule regardless of such "beliefs"

then likewise THOSE people's beliefs that govt can impose such laws
CANNOT be imposed on people who believe in natural laws and limits on govt
unless the people consent

I am just trying to be fair.
I recognize that not all people recognize these views as beliefs.
People are used to seeing their views as right and the others wrong,
not as conflicting beliefs that both should be equally accommodated by law.

I do NOT expect this to apply to ALL conflicts, such as whether to make a road go this direction or that direction through a city, that is not a religious belief or conflict.

but for inherent religiously held beliefs, I do not BELIEVE these should be subject to majority rule or one-sided court rulings.

I do not need to "parrot" other people, I am just explaining their beliefs in opposition.
My point is to show they cannot be reconciled and so the laws should be revised
to avoid these irreconcilable conflicts, regardless how people express their objections.

You are dead wrong.

Change what interpretation? nah that's not what happened..

They looked at the mandate and decided, correctly that the so called mandate was not a mandate in the literal sense, it was a tax in the literal sense. They could have called the mandate a marriage license. The name of the thing does not matter it is merely a name. To many people look at names and associate meaning. Unfortunately the ass hats in congress pulled one over the media and most republicans.

The people who named it a mandate and said it was not a tax were effing liars who were attempting to redefine the english language to confuse the media, citizens, and other fools.

Congress is in charge of themselves, it's not the courts job to teach them the english language, and tell them how to enforce their own rules. Irregardless, the house originated the final bill throwing the point out the door that only the house can originate a taxing bill. The republicans caved.

And you were lied to. Both in what the mandate was, which was a tax, and also as to whether or not the house originated the final bill which they did. If the house originates the final bill it does not matter whether it has taxes or not. Thus for every reason the whole mandate thing was just a red-herring.

Additionally, you are also wrong with regard to your statement that "the Courts can only answer arguments as presented." They also do their own investigations and their own reading and draw their own conclusions and make their own arguments and answers to the issue presented. The issue presented however was not whether or not the ACA is constitutional. The issue was one minor point in the ACA. For example, it had nothing to do with the other minor point that they just struck down, regarding whether the ACA can force a private company to provide contraceptives in general, and abortifacents in particular against the owner's personally held religious beliefs.


Marriage is a part of the right to life protected by the first amendment. This has already been ruled by the courts. The issue, thus has been whether the states have used due process (see 14th amendment) in taking away the right to life of gays. I honestly don't think the states have, nor do I think the federal laws have. I really don't see how the laws restricting life of gays can stand to any reasoned honest scrutiny.

Access to health care is a part of the right to life. The question thus, is can our government(s) restrict access to health care through legislation. Note I said access not free health care. No one ever said life would be fair or free or accommodating. That is not a right. That is a pipe dream.

So states can take away the rights of heterosexuals to marry also?

Not only can they, they already do.

 

[Gadawg73]

bul·lied bul·ly·ing
transitive verb
1: to treat abusively
2: to affect by means of force or coercion

Websters.


Tell me you did not get your way on the football field and/or "crack heads of fugitives" by asking your opponents to please do as you please. Tell me you did not use force or coercion.

You left out the "fugitives"
What is "bullying fugitives"

How is coercion bullying?

Not "Websters", just common sense.

I don't really think you are asking me to show you the definition of coercion...

I believe you are incorrectly assuming the word bullying means only unwarranted bullying, and not realizing that there is also warranted bullying. Parents use force (bully) their children when the kids get out of line. Police use force (bully) suspects for the safety of both and other citizens.

No Brown, I am showing you that you have missed the boat straying off subject with lame attacks.
The subject is what? Bullying?
Not here, you were the one that went sideways with that nonsense.

Back to the subject at hand, stick with it.

 

[emilynghiem]

So states can take away the rights of heterosexuals to marry also?

Anyone has religious freedom to marry anyone in their own church service or private ceremony etc.
So no, [MENTION=18558]Gadawg73[/MENTION], the state cannot take that away. And the state "bans" on gay marriage get struck down as unconstitutional.

Only the people can agree how to write the laws so they preserve the rights/freedoms they already have.
So only the people can decide to removed marriage from state jurisdiction and keep it private if they all agree; they cannot be forced by the state,
but the people form a consensus and get the state to endorse that policy.

The laws that will likely end up lasting would be neutral where they neither ban nor impose "gay marriage" but accommodate all beliefs and interests equally to the satisfaction of the people of that state, where everyone consent to them as the best solution they agree to.

 

[RKMBrown]

How has any court specifically bullied you on the gay marriage issue?

This ought to be rich.

Never heard the phrase bully pulpit? The courts, like it or not, hold great sway over how our liberties are regulated.

I'm gonna guess you're leaning on the libtard definition of bullying that relates to beating up kids in school for their lunch money, or just because the kids are strange. That's just one use of the term. If you use words in context, you don't have to assume someone is using the words out of context.

How are your liberties "bullied" or "affected" by the courts ruling gay folk can marry?

That claim would be "leaning libtard" wimpy.
Unlike you, I can articulate my opinions without guessing.

>> How are your liberties "bullied" or "affected" by the courts ruling gay folk can marry?

They are not. FYI I'm a libertarian leaning conservative. Thought you knew that. My opinion is that the laws restricting gays marriages should be thrown out by the court.

>> That claim would be "leaning libtard" wimpy. Unlike you, I can articulate my opinions without guessing.

Again, not my fault you don't know how to use the word bullying. But it is apparent that you are practiced at the art of bullying. For example, by using terms like wimpy, and telling people they can't articulate their opinions without guessing. You're not the only one that played football and can carry themselves.

 

[Gadawg73]

You are dead wrong.

Change what interpretation? nah that's not what happened..

They looked at the mandate and decided, correctly that the so called mandate was not a mandate in the literal sense, it was a tax in the literal sense. They could have called the mandate a marriage license. The name of the thing does not matter it is merely a name. To many people look at names and associate meaning. Unfortunately the ass hats in congress pulled one over the media and most republicans.

The people who named it a mandate and said it was not a tax were effing liars who were attempting to redefine the english language to confuse the media, citizens, and other fools.

Congress is in charge of themselves, it's not the courts job to teach them the english language, and tell them how to enforce their own rules. Irregardless, the house originated the final bill throwing the point out the door that only the house can originate a taxing bill. The republicans caved.

And you were lied to. Both in what the mandate was, which was a tax, and also as to whether or not the house originated the final bill which they did. If the house originates the final bill it does not matter whether it has taxes or not. Thus for every reason the whole mandate thing was just a red-herring.

Additionally, you are also wrong with regard to your statement that "the Courts can only answer arguments as presented." They also do their own investigations and their own reading and draw their own conclusions and make their own arguments and answers to the issue presented. The issue presented however was not whether or not the ACA is constitutional. The issue was one minor point in the ACA. For example, it had nothing to do with the other minor point that they just struck down, regarding whether the ACA can force a private company to provide contraceptives in general, and abortifacents in particular against the owner's personally held religious beliefs.


Marriage is a part of the right to life protected by the first amendment. This has already been ruled by the courts. The issue, thus has been whether the states have used due process (see 14th amendment) in taking away the right to life of gays. I honestly don't think the states have, nor do I think the federal laws have. I really don't see how the laws restricting life of gays can stand to any reasoned honest scrutiny.

Access to health care is a part of the right to life. The question thus, is can our government(s) restrict access to health care through legislation. Note I said access not free health care. No one ever said life would be fair or free or accommodating. That is not a right. That is a pipe dream.

So states can take away the rights of heterosexuals to marry also?

Not only can they, they already do.

They did. And they have restrictions still on heterosexuals in some if not all states.
But not 2 ordinary folk.
A mass murderer in prison is restricted how if he wants to marry someone?
If they are the opposite sex.
If they are same sex 2 law abiding citizens they can not.
And folk come up with wishy washy 9 paragraphs to defend that?

Absurd. We are in shooting wars and folks believe this is a real issue.
If folk were really about the "sanctity of marriage" mumbo jumbo and the "it will violate the Constitution" and "open up a can of worms" then how can they justify the can of worms of:

50%+ of all heterosexual marriages now end in divorce
Mass murderers, convicted child abusers and domestic violence offenders can now LEGALLY MARRY.

If folk were really interested in "the sanctity of marriage" no way a guy that has beaten his 4 prior wives, has done 22 years in prison could legally marry again.

Common sense points to folk that oppose gay marriage and then offer BS really have a problem with gay folk obtaining equal rights.

And that shit has to end.

 

[Gadawg73]

Never heard the phrase bully pulpit? The courts, like it or not, hold great sway over how our liberties are regulated.

I'm gonna guess you're leaning on the libtard definition of bullying that relates to beating up kids in school for their lunch money, or just because the kids are strange. That's just one use of the term. If you use words in context, you don't have to assume someone is using the words out of context.

How are your liberties "bullied" or "affected" by the courts ruling gay folk can marry?

That claim would be "leaning libtard" wimpy.
Unlike you, I can articulate my opinions without guessing.

>> How are your liberties "bullied" or "affected" by the courts ruling gay folk can marry?

They are not. FYI I'm a libertarian leaning conservative. Thought you knew that. My opinion is that the laws restricting gays marriages should be thrown out by the court.

>> That claim would be "leaning libtard" wimpy. Unlike you, I can articulate my opinions without guessing.

Again, not my fault you don't know how to use the word bullying. But it is apparent that you are practiced at the art of bullying. For example, by using terms like wimpy, and telling people they can't articulate their opinions without guessing. You're not the only one that played football and can carry themselves.

"But it is apparent that you are practiced at the art of bullying"
You are full of shit and do not know me.
I have never, ever bullied anyone in my life. Defended myself apprehending felon criminals fleeing the justice system. You may support them but someone has to go get them. And when they attacked me I defended myself.
And never bullied anyone on the football field also. Not even a late hit 15 yard penalty in 15 years on the field.
So stick to the subject Brown because you are an Ofer bust in your weak attempts to bash me.
I do not know you and do not make childish claims about you.