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

[surada]

I have no problem...but it is obvious you do.

You are projecting.

 

[bodecea]

you mean asking like prog slaves do today,,

Are you calling us slaves?

 

[bodecea]

so what youre saying is you know youve lost the discussion to the point you feel like an ass and now want to make it about me,,

got it,,

Serious question. You stated that you don't believe the government should be in the marriage business.....so what are you actively doing to make that happen?

 

[meaner gene]

I have no problem...but it is obvious you do.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,"

 

[easyt65]

You are projecting.

I never project. I speak for myself only.

You should try it sometime, snowflake.

 

[meaner gene]

Serious question. You stated that you don't believe the government should be in the marriage business.....so what are you actively doing to make that happen?

More importantly, who does he want in the marriage business in the governments place.

 

[Augustine_]

That ALL states MUST recognize same-sex MARRIAGES is found NO WHERE in the U.S. Constitution, & such a forced mandate on Religious persons and institutions poses a threat to religious freedom!

"Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said Monday that Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that mandated all states recognize same-sex marriages, is "found nowhere in the text" of the Constitution and threatens "the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman."

"The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses. The two justices said they agreed with the consensus of the court that it should not take Davis' case, but only because it did not "cleanly present" the "important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell."

Thomas and Alito dissented from the original Obergefell decision and their statement Monday could indicate that they would vote to overturn it if presented the chance."



"Obergefell enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss," he wrote. "In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest that being a public official with traditional Christian values was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward homosexuals."

Just because you have a deep RELIGIOUS conviction regarding marriage being between a man and a woman and does not include same-sex marriages does NOT make one a Bigot or Homophobe and protects that religious belief / conviction.

Thomas added: "This assessment flows directly from Obergefell’s language, which characterized such views as 'disparag[ing]' homosexuals and 'diminish[ing] their personhood' through '[d]ignitary wounds.'"

Justices Thomas, Alito slam Obergefell same-sex marriage decision as Supreme Court denies Kim Davis case

The statement was written by Thomas and joined by Alito about the case of Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who said she would not give same-sex couples marriage licenses.

www.foxnews.com

Gay people should just start their own religion and use this religious freedom bullshit to their advantage.

 

[bodecea]

More importantly, who does he want in the marriage business in the governments place.

If he states "religion", I've got news for him......religions were in the gay marriage "business" before the government was.

 

[bodecea]

Gay people should just start their own religion and use this religious freedom bullshit to their advantage.

True....it is also my religious belief that the government should issue marriage licenses to gay couples just as they do straight couples.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

Complete horseshit. You do not know what you are talking about. Obergefell was decided on the 14th Amendment and it does not violate anyones religious freedome

 

[John T. Ford]

Complete horseshit. You do not know what you are talking about. Obergefell was decided on the 14th Amendment and it does not violate anyones religious freedome

The SCOTUS Justices disagree.

Clearly it violated Kim Davis' religious freedoms.

In fact the SCOTUS Justices said that Obergefell is highly flawed and marginalizes those who do not believe in same-sex marriage.

The only reason the SCOTUS was able to get this unConstitutional ruling passed was because of RBG.

When it comes up again, it will be overturned.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The SCOTUS Justices disagree.

Clearly it violated Kim Davis' religious freedoms.

In fact the SCOTUS Justices said that Obergefell is highly flawed and marginalizes those who do not believe in same-sex marriage.

The only reason the SCOTUS was able to get this unConstitutional ruling passed was because of RBG.

When it comes up again, it will be overturned.

What justices said that Obergefell is flawed? Thomas? Alito, Scalia? That does not mean that it is. Those who oppose marriage equality should be marginalized. They are dinosours, An anachonism. They are bigots and they are selfish

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The SCOTUS Justices disagree.

Clearly it violated Kim Davis' religious freedoms.

In fact the SCOTUS Justices said that Obergefell is highly flawed and marginalizes those who do not believe in same-sex marriage.

The only reason the SCOTUS was able to get this unConstitutional ruling passed was because of RBG.

When it comes up again, it will be overturned.

It is not comming up again. It would take someone who can claim that they were personally harmed by same sex marriage so that they would have standing to bring a case. Ki,m Davis was shot down. That was the end of it.

The fact is that no one has been harmed by it. Have you been harmed? If so how? What do you want so badly to deprive gays access to an institution that you can take for granted? How would doing so make life better for you or others?

 

[meaner gene]

The SCOTUS Justices disagree.

Clearly it violated Kim Davis' religious freedoms.

Separation of church and state means that Kims freedom of religion begins and ends at the threshold of her job. Just like the state can't mandate a religious belief, the employees who work for them, while in the context of their job, can't either.

 

[John T. Ford]

What justices said that Obergefell is flawed? Thomas? Alito, Scalia? That does not mean that it is. Those who oppose marriage equality should bemarginalized. They are dinosours, An anachonism. They are bigots and they are selfish

You're right ....

It does not matter who said it.

But, the fact that Obergefell forced Davis to choose between her religious beliefs and her job does mean that it is flawed it will continue to have ruinous consequences for religious liberty until it is overturned.

I don't give a damn what you people do. I could care less.

But, it can't be at the expense of someone else Freedom or Liberty.

Including yours.

All Americans should demand that this unConstitutional ruling and any other be overturned regardless of who is or is not affected by it.

 

[John T. Ford]

It is not comming up again. It would take someonewho can claim that they were personally harmed by same sex marriage so that they would have standing to bring a case. Ki,m Davis was shot down. That was the end of it.

The fact is that no one has been harmed by it. Have you been harmed? If so how? What do you want so badly to deprive gays access to an institution that you can take for granted? How would doing so make life better for you or others?

That's not why the Court didn't hear the case.

And, she lost her job so she was harmed.

It will come up again.

 

[John T. Ford]

Separation of church and state means that Kims freedom of religion begins and ends at the threshold of her job. Just like the state can't mandate a religious belief, the employees who work for them, while in the context of their job, can't either.

Stop wasting my time.

Inform your self and stop word vomiting meaningless opinions.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You're right ....

It does not matter who said it.

But, the fact that Obergefell forced Davis to choose between her religious beliefs and her job does mean that it is flawed it will continue to have ruinous consequences for religious liberty until it is overturned.

I don't give a damn what you people do. I could care less.

But, it can't be at the expense of someone else Freedom or Liberty.

Including yours.

All Americans should demand that this unConstitutional ruling and any other be overturned regardless of who is or is not affected by it.

That is insane. Get over it, Not happening.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Stop wasting my time.

Inform your self and stop word vomiting meaningless opinions.

please take your own advise

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That's not why the Court didn't hear the case.

And, she lost her job so she was harmed.

It will come up again.

She harmed herself by refusing to do her job and choosing to be in contempt of court. Only Thomas and Alito thought that she had a case. Even id Barott had been on the court at the time, the outcome would have been that same. It takes 4 votes to grant standing