Supreme Court justices RIP ruling forcing states to recognize same-sex marriages - 'Threat To Religious Freedom!'

Who gets to visit you in the hospital is not law, it's hospital policy. You can plea the 5th to anything in court.
Its policy based on law. The definition of "immediate family" is a legal one.

And as for the 5th, that's to keep from incriminating yourself. It doesn't expand to others, except a spouse, a legal client, and a confession.
 
How did same sex marriage ruin things? For who? You?

I said for people, not particularly myself. That's besides the fact it doesn't have to ruin things for me in order to be against it. I don't have children or at this point, grandchildren. But that doesn't mean if the court ruled adults could have sex with children, I wouldn't be against it.
 
Its policy based on law. The definition of "immediate family" is a legal one.

And as for the 5th, that's to keep from incriminating yourself. It doesn't expand to others, except a spouse, a legal client, and a confession.

You can plea the fifth for anything if you don't want to testify against something. Laws don't apply if they have been ruled unconstitutional.
 
I said for people, not particularly myself. That's besides the fact it doesn't have to ruin things for me in order to be against it. I don't have children or at this point, grandchildren. But that doesn't mean if the court ruled adults could have sex with children, I wouldn't be against it.
Obergefell is unConstitutional and needs to be overturned.

It forced Davis to choose between her religious beliefs and her job.

Her religious beliefs are protected under the 1st amendment to the US Constitution.

The Obergefell ruling violates the 1st Amendment.
 
If that were the case we could marry animals, children and close blood relatives.
For animals, you would have to get past the "consent" requirement, besides, it's illegal to have sex with them for the same reason.

For blood relatives, different states draw the line at how close a blood relative can be in order to lessen the possibility to genetic defects.
 
SCOTUS is correct...
We don't ask Moslems to endorse eating Ham and cheese sandwiches with a shrimp cocktail...it violates their religious laws.

So by the same token we cannot ask believing Christians to endorse homosexual marriages. It's against their religious laws.

To do otherwise is to absolutely violate the "Freedom of Religion" bill of rights.

This is the basic constitutional right of every citizen of this nation...
It is so tied up with freedom of expression (freedom of speech) that they are intertwined with each other. You undo one and you have destroyed the other.
 
I said for people, not particularly myself. That's besides the fact it doesn't have to ruin things for me in order to be against it. I don't have children or at this point, grandchildren. But that doesn't mean if the court ruled adults could have sex with children, I wouldn't be against it.
The interesting thing is that people could use the bible to claim sex with children is protected by their religious beliefs.
 
Actually the bible also had marriage as the union between a man and a child.

Do you wish that be the way it stayed?

We used to have that in this country too. I worked with a guy who got married when he was 20 to his wife who was 14 at the time. As long as you had the parents permission, nobody bothered you about it.
 
The interesting thing is that people could use the bible to claim sex with children is protected by their religious beliefs.

So what religion is it that having sex with children is part of their creed? I don't know of any, but then again being a Catholic, I never studied other religions.
 
Do you have any idea what you're writing?


My apologies. It was gay employment rights:


Gay marriage rights have no impact on anyone other than gays getting married. I know bakers and other wedding services companies believe otherwise but their discrimination is illegal. They're not being required to "participate in the wedding". They're being asked to bake a cake.
 
For animals, you would have to get past the "consent" requirement, besides, it's illegal to have sex with them for the same reason.

Do animals give consent to being locked up in a house? Do animals give consent to being put on a leash to go outside for a walk? Your claim is ridiculous.
 
You can plea the fifth for anything if you don't want to testify against something. Laws don't apply if they have been ruled unconstitutional.
The 5th is limited to protection against self incrimination. You can't plead the 5th to protect somebody else, unless you are a co-conspirator.
 
We used to have that in this country too. I worked with a guy who got married when he was 20 to his wife who was 14 at the time. As long as you had the parents permission, nobody bothered you about it.
And you think that is OK because idiot parents gave permission? You are more fucked in the head than I ever could have thought. 14 fucking years old! Do you actually think that 14 year old is mature enough to consent? Do you not think that there had to be an element of coersion involved? What the fuck is wrong with you.? That childs life was most likely ruined.!
 
SCOTUS is correct...
We don't ask Moslems to endorse eating Ham and cheese sandwiches with a shrimp cocktail...it violates their religious laws.

So by the same token we cannot ask believing Christians to endorse homosexual marriages. It's against their religious laws.

To do otherwise is to absolutely violate the "Freedom of Religion" bill of rights.

This is the basic constitutional right of every citizen of this nation...
It is so tied up with freedom of expression (freedom of speech) that they are intertwined with each other. You undo one and you have destroyed the other.
And so you want religion to con-trol civil marriage?
 

Forum List

Back
Top