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

[John T. Ford]

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

I saw your opinion the first time you posted them.

Don't be like dumbass gene and keep posting them over and over.

It does not make them any more factual then the first time you posted them.

I am simply posting what the SCOTUS Justices are saying.

It may not come up again .....

You may be right ....

But, the fact that it will continue to deny Americans their 1st Amendment Rights tells me it's only a matter of time before it is once again challenged and rightfully so.

You simply cannot provide Freedom and Liberty to one group by taking it from another.

That is EXACTLY what Obergefell does.

They will get it figured out.

 

[meaner gene]

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.

This is no different than many other cases where someone tries to pit their religion against their job. The problem is that people should chose their job to be in line with their religious beliefs, and not force their job to be in line with their religious beliefs.

 

[meaner gene]

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

4 votes to grant certiorari
Standing is a separate matter.

 

[meaner gene]

I saw your opinion the first time you posted them.

Don't be like dumbass gene and keep posting them over and over.

It does not make them any more factual then the first time you posted them.

I am simply posting what the SCOTUS Justices are saying.

You know that dissenting opinions mean nothing. You might as well quote mad magazine.

 

[meaner gene]

But, the fact that it will continue to deny Americans their 1st Amendment Rights tells me it's only a matter of time before it is once again challenged and rightfully so.

Kim Davis while acting as an agent of the state had no 1st amendment rights.

Ex: Government employees can be prevented from making or wearing political statements while on duty. And that doesn't violate their right to do so in private.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not necessarily....https://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=7633058&page=1

You didn't even realize your link supports my point, didn't you? Thanks for the 12 year old article though.

 

[progressive hunter]

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?

so what youre saying is I am right and you wonder what I'm doing about it???

 

[Flopper]

After the ruling people just gave up. No sense in fighting city hall. Nobody cares anymore and marriage has transformed from a sacred institution into a joke. You can't be a true liberal unless you are ruining things for other people.

The sacred institution of marriage is not the same as the legal (civil) institution of marriage. A religious marriage is a religious contract. A civil marriage is legal contract. The Supreme Court ruling that makes gay marriage legal in all states applies to the legal institution of marriage, not religious institution of marriage The marriage rules have never been same for legal and religious marriages. Today, most marriages are civil ceremonies and not religious. The civil institution of marriage is certainly no joke, not sure about religious marriages.

There are many religious denominations that sanction gay marriage including the Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church, Presbyterian, Unitarian, United Church of Christ, etc....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The civil institution of marriage is certainly no joke, not sure about religious marriages.

Of course it's a joke, and it's liberals turned it into a joke.

 

[Flopper]

Of course it's a joke, and it's liberals turned it into a joke.

I think religious marriages have been joke long before gay marriage. The legal marriage contract is what protects marriages and the rights of marriage partners. The religious marriage contracts different with ever religion. The legal contract does not.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think religious marriages have been joke long before gay marriage. The legal marriage contract is what protects marriages and the rights of marriage partners. The religious marriage contracts different with ever religion. The legal contract does not.

Which is why marriage should have always been (and it has) the only kind of marriage. Government didn't come up with marriage--religion did. Government took over marriages and that was the start of the problem we have today.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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

Let’s just ban all marriages. Most end in divorce anyway.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Let’s just ban all marriages. Most end in divorce anyway.

The Constitution prohibits government interfering in religious rites, but I agree with you on the ban of government sponsored marriages. Since they destroyed that, just convert it to some sort of social contract enabling all benefits between any two people, and leave marriage where it belongs--with religions.

 

[Unkotare]

.... some sort of social contract enabling all benefits between any two people.....

That's what marriage is.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Which is why marriage should have always been (and it has) the only kind of marriage. Government didn't come up with marriage--religion did. Government took over marriages and that was the start of the problem we have today.

The problems that we have today?? I'm still waiting for you to explain how gay marriage has effected to personnally, or has been detrimental to society. You must have something to say about that considering your hostility to marriage equality.

 

[Colin norris]

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

How does two gays getting married threaten religious freedom?
What your really saying is your again st it and using it to promote your freedom is at risk. That's bullshit. You're still to criticise and speak on behave if God.

Why would it be in the constitution?
Neither was row v wade but it's still law.
Get over it.

 

[bodecea]

You didn't even realize your link supports my point, didn't you? Thanks for the 12 year old article though.

It doesn't support your point...that couple got a power of attorney and that Florida hospital REFUSED to recognize it. And yes, it was a 12 year old article.........shows what it was like BEFORE legalized gay marriage had happened. You want to go back to that. It's not going to happen.

 

[bodecea]

so what youre saying is I am right and you wonder what I'm doing about it???

What are you ACTIVELY doing to end civil marriage? Or are you just whining on a message board?

 

[bodecea]

Of course it's a joke, and it's liberals turned it into a joke.

That is only your opinion......try to treat it as a joke when a legally married couple exercises one of their rights as a married couple. https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/...pension, worker's compensation, or disability

 

[bodecea]

Which is why marriage should have always been (and it has) the only kind of marriage. Government didn't come up with marriage--religion did. Government took over marriages and that was the start of the problem we have today.

What problem do we have today started by legal marriage?