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

[danielpalos]

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

Nobody takes right-wingers more seriously than mere practitioners of the abomination of hypocrisy (unto God, with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.)

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Be Legal to express Law not just hypocrites in border threads, Right-Wingers.

 

[Seawytch]

"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."

Yeah, actually it does. We call the people that hold deep religious convictions about interracial marriage bigots. Same/same.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What problem do we have today started by legal marriage?

I don't know what it is with you leftists, but you ask questions, we answer, and you keep asking the same questions over and over again as if you didn't read a word. If your memory is that bad, I suggest speed read the previous replies to get your answer AGAIN!

 

[Seawytch]

It was a JOKE. Do you leftists ever have a sense of humor. I am still married lol. My wife hasn’t kicked me out yet. Obviously marriages won’t be banned. How did you take that literally? OMG!

It's called Poe's Law. Quite a few on this thread are proposing that exact thing. How are we supposed to know one out of the throng is joking?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's not about visitation, but DECISIONS. A legal spouse can make medical and legal decisions for their partner.

Also, a spouse cannot be compelled to testify. You glossed over these very important privileges of civil marriage.

Then we get rid of government sponsored marriages and replace it with a social contract that gives them such rights. Problem solved.

 

[Seawytch]

Doesn't matter ....

It is still a violation of her 1st Amendment Rights as the SCOTUS Justices point out!!

The losing opinion. It absolutely was not a violation of her 1st amendment rights. Your religion doesn't guarantee you a job. If your religion prevents you from performing your job, you have two choices...get a new job or a new religion.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

It's called Poe's Law. Quite a few on this thread are proposing that exact thing. How are we supposed to know one out of the throng is joking?

LOL

Intuition? It’s called common sense. The wedding industry is massive. No chance marriages ever get banned even if someone were to really try to. Actually I have never seen you exhibit any sense of humor here. You’re always negative and monotone. You must be a blast at parties….

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

One more reason we need to not recognize religious rites of marriage as legal.

Giving a religious organization the power to sanction anything as legal and binding seems to me to be a violation of the First Amendment.

Which is why marriage should be contained to the religion only and not involve government at all. If you are a Catholic, get married in the Catholic church, you are married in the eyes of that religion and the people who are also part of that religion.

 

[Seawytch]

Then we get rid of government sponsored marriages and replace it with a social contract that gives them such rights. Problem solved.

We don't have a problem. Civil marriage isn't a problem except to some bigots that don't like sharing the goodies they've given themselves.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The losing opinion. It absolutely was not a violation of her 1st amendment rights. Your religion doesn't guarantee you a job. If your religion prevents you from performing your job, you have two choices...get a new job or a new religion.

Unless that religion is Islam. Then we seem to bow and cower. I actually would agree with you if not for the hypocrisy of bowing to Islam.

 

[Seawytch]

LOL

Intuition? It’s called common sense. The wedding industry is massive. No chance marriages ever get banned even if someone were to really try to. Actually I have never seen you exhibit any sense of humor here. You’re always negative and monotone. You must be a blast at parties….

call the doctor, I have irony poisoning!

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

call the doctor, I have irony poisoning!

What? I am very funny on here. You just don’t want to admit it. At least you ve shown some life with that post. Congratulations!!!! Bravo! A childish emoji even.

 

[Seawytch]

Unless that religion is Islam. Then we seem to bow and cower. I actually would agree with you if not for the hypocrisy of bowing to Islam.

Really?

Muslim cab drivers lose round in court

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday against the cabbies' attempt to block penalties for refusing service to passengers who carry alcohol.

www.mprnews.org

 

[progressive hunter]

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

not voting for those that support it,, and getting fascist pricks like you to expose yourself for what you are,,,

those are just starters,,

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Really?

Muslim cab drivers lose round in court

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday against the cabbies' attempt to block penalties for refusing service to passengers who carry alcohol.

www.mprnews.org

We are getting better. But usually we cower to that ideology. Do we not?

 

[Blues Man]

Which is why marriage should be contained to the religion only and not involve government at all. If you are a Catholic, get married in the Catholic church, you are married in the eyes of that religion and the people who are also part of that religion.

And the state should not recognize religious marriage as a legal property contract.

 

[John T. Ford]

It was a JOKE. Do you leftists ever have a sense of humor. I am still married lol. My wife hasn’t kicked me out yet. Obviously marriages won’t be banned. How did you take that literally? OMG!

Humor requires a double digit IQ.

You will not find much humor around Leftist.

 

[John T. Ford]

The losing opinion. It absolutely was not a violation of her 1st amendment rights. Your religion doesn't guarantee you a job. If your religion prevents you from performing your job, you have two choices...get a new job or a new religion.

You need to go back to your crayons and hot cocoa and stop trying to understand Constitutional Law.

 

[bodecea]

What the article said is what I said, and that is hospital visitation are regulated by hospitals--not government. It's the hospital that refused this woman to see her other. And as your article points out, they did the very same with heterosexual couples as well.

And the wife had no LEGAL recourse. She would have if gay marriage had been legal then. So spending a load of time and money on Lawyers really isn't the answer/replacement for legalized marriage, is it?

 

[bodecea]

Humor requires a double digit IQ.

You will not find much humor around Leftist.

You again admit to your double digit IQ.......