Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage

[ThisIsMe]

It has nothing to do with my religious beliefs or lack of same. It has to do with our divergent beliefs about what religious freedom is and is not,, and its apparent that that will never be resolved

I agree. We are free to practice our religion according to cotus. Practice meaning our observations and adherence to beliefs, in this case, the belief that if one uses their talents in the service, specifically, of a gay wedding, that would be a conflict of their adherence to their beliefs.

Had they said "sorry, we refuse to do business with gay people, period", then I'd agree with you, they would have violates PA laws, because, because, that would be discrimination. Kind of like if a wedding planner were asked to work for the preparation of a gay wedding, and they conflicted with their religious beliefs, I don't think they should be required to perform that service because it conflicts with their beliefs. To me, it's not about hate, it's about being forced into something that conflicts with their own religious beliefs.

But, maybe you're right about one thing, maybe you shouldn't go into business of you are a Christian and said business could conflict with your values, because one day, someone may come along and force you to compromise those values. Maybe that is the answer to all of this. If you have religious convictions, just don't open a business, because your own rights are subject to the desires of everyone else.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Constitutional law has evlolved over time. While the language of the original articles can be both ridgid and, coversly vague, the framers were wise enough to know that for the Constituion to endure, it would have to evolve. They know that times would change and that issues would arise that they could not possibly dream of. That is why they provided for amendments, and for a judiciary that would interpret the constitution in relation to new laws and new societal developments. There is nothing authoritarian about that, unless you wind up with a court that is made up of theocrats and idiologues who are willing to advance an adgenda that flys in the face of freedom and become the moral police.

I don't believe the cotus is fluid like you do. Having that be the case means it really has no force because the meanings could change depending on the political leanings of the people in power. It's one of the reasons we are having this discussion, even now, and why I think the whole scotus is bullshit. We fight over positions on scotus because we want people of our own ideology to interpret the constitution to mean what our party wants, when they should be sticking strictly to the words, and the founders intent, and leave everything else to the states. It's simpler that way. Go with the original meaning, that way there is no argument, no ambiguity. If we want to change it, then we have a convention of states called to make amendments. Allowing it to be fluid takes us further and further away from the original idea of the document, and limited government, and actually takes power away from the people, and puts it in the hands of centralized government, which has no possible way to do things that will be in the benefit of everyone. This is why states rights are so important. Local government is where the real power should be, not with a federal gov.

 

[Redfish]

No it is not democractic. It would be the tyranny or a majority. You do not get to vote on the rights of others.

but you think that you do, hypocrisy is your middle name.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You're right, it doesn't say that in the Constitution, because getting a job, or traveling is not a constitutionally protected right. Actually, I think the right to travel is on the cotus, I'm not sure.

Really? Not constitutionally protected? What do you think would happen if a state or local government tried to restrict a persons movements without a good reason such as their having been convicted of a crime, and the case went to SCOTUS>??

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You can't have implied rights in the cotus because people will say it means all sorts of things. You forget, the cotus was designed to only regulate certain things, most it is a protection of the people by placing limits on government.

And not allowing government to restrict your movements or activities without a good reason protects the people just as you say. You are really struggling to prove that there is not such thing as implied rights

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

But you can't cite their quotes. I'm not disagreeing that there are people out there that use religion to justify all sorts of things, what I'm saying is that their views are not based in Biblical teachings, which is why I want you to post this documented evidence so I can see if they actually cite the Bible, or where they come up with these ideas.

You're the bible thumper You look it up. I do not care about where exactly they get it from, the fact is that they put that shit out there

But thanks for admitting that this sort of thing actually exists.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I agree. We are free to practice our religion according to cotus. Practice meaning our observations and adherence to beliefs, in this case, the belief that if one uses their talents in the service, specifically, of a gay wedding, that would be a conflict of their adherence to their beliefs.

A made up belief to justify discrimination. You can't have everyone just decided what religious freedome is, There has to be consensus Why should the rights of the religious cake baker trump the rights of another to be free of discrimination. And how about those Devil worshipers? What about their religious rights

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Had they said "sorry, we refuse to do business with gay people, period", then I'd agree with you, they would have violates PA laws, because, because, that would be discrimination. Kind of like if a wedding planner were asked to work for the preparation of a gay wedding, and they conflicted with their religious beliefs, I don't think they should be required to perform that service because it conflicts with their beliefs. To me, it's not about hate, it's about being forced into something that conflicts with their own religious beliefs.

Wedding planners and photographers may be a different matter because there is much more involvement in theactual wedding. I might cut then some slack

 

[ThisIsMe]

Really? Not constitutionally protected? What do you think would happen if a state or local government tried to restrict a persons movements without a good reason such as their having been convicted of a crime, and the case went to SCOTUS>??

Youre right, i mispoke. Its not an implied right, likely they would use a clause in the current text of cotus, to fight it.

When I say you can't have implied rights, I mean, yeah, there are things, like general freedoms, that people just understand as being common sense, but you can't take that to mean whatever you want it to mean. When you come into a conflict of a states PA laws vs someone's constitutional protected rights, the cotus spells out the absolute rights of the people, and the limitations on the federal government.

The tenth ammendment was placed there because they knew that the federal government was to be constrained by the cotus, and they wanted to make sure that the federal gov had limited power and that the states and the people were where the power was supposed to be.

 

[ThisIsMe]

A made up belief to justify discrimination. You can't have everyone just decided what religious freedome is, There has to be consensus Why should the rights of the religious cake baker trump the rights of another to be free of discrimination. And how about those Devil worshipers? What about their religious rights

It's not a made up belief. if it's in the bible, then it's part of the religion. From my reading the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, and therefore, Christians are to have no part of it. That does not mean that Christians should treat then poorly because of their sin, but that they should not partake in, or help another person commit the sin.

They believe that if they bake a cake specifically for the wedding, then that us then helping another person commit the sin.

I don't know anything about devil worshipers. I would assume that they are allowed the same protections as everyone else. As the cotus states that people are free to practice whatever religion they see fit.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Wedding planners and photographers may be a different matter because there is much more involvement in theactual wedding. I might cut then some slack

I see them as the same because of the involvement of themselves and their skills specificall toward the wedding.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You're the bible thumper You look it up. I do not care about where exactly they get it from, the fact is that they put that shit out there

But thanks for admitting that this sort of thing actually exists.

I'm actually not a Bible thumper, I've read some of the Bible, but I'm in no way a thumper. I just believe the freedom to exercise one's religion is a cotus protected right, that you can't just take away because you feel your personal rights trump someone else's.


The fact that some may try to justify their actions based on their religion doesn't mean it's actually part of the religion.

I've never denied that it exists. In fact, I've stated that people will use religion to justify all sort of things, but that doesn't mean that that is what the religion teaches, it just means they are wrong.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

but you think that you do, hypocrisy is your middle name.

I think that I do what?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

'm actually not a Bible thumper, I've read some of the Bible, but I'm in no way a thumper. I just believe the freedom to exercise one's religion is a cotus protected right, that you can't just take away because you feel your personal rights trump someone else's.

So you are saying that religious rights have supremacy over other rights? Not buying into that at all.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The fact that some may try to justify their actions based on their religion doesn't mean it's actually part of the religion.

I am not passing judgement of the validity of their claims that religion justifies their bigotry. My only point is that they make that claim whether or not they believe it. I am not blaming religion. I am blaming the bigots who weaponize religion.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I don't believe the cotus is fluid like you do. Having that be the case means it really has no force because the meanings could change depending on the political leanings of the people in power. It's one of the reasons we are having this discussion, even now, and why I think the whole scotus is bullshit. We fight over positions on scotus because we want people of our own ideology to interpret the constitution to mean what our party wants, when they should be sticking strictly to the words, and the founders intent, and leave everything else to the states. It's simpler that way. Go with the original meaning, that way there is no argument, no ambiguity. If we want to change it, then we have a convention of states called to make amendments. Allowing it to be fluid takes us further and further away from the original idea of the document, and limited government, and actually takes power away from the people, and puts it in the hands of centralized government, which has no possible way to do things that will be in the benefit of everyone. This is why states rights are so important. Local government is where the real power should be, not with a federal gov.

That is actually a well written and cogent explanation of what you believe and why. I agree, that while the courts are supposed to be a political and objective, that is far from the reality. Individual Judges and Justices take up extreme positions and when it becomes unbalanced in terms of the number of liberal vs. conservatives on the bench, it sets the stage for one side or the other imposing their views on the whole nation, and in some cases contrary to public opinion. Part of the answer would be to reform the court with measures such as term limits and a less partisan selection and confirmation process to ensure a better balance. I don't think that SCOTUS is bullshit, but it is fast becoming a court that is squandering their legitimacy.


I would also support a constitutional convention, but in less partisan time, to clarify the role of the federal courts, update the language and clean up some of the vague passages such as the 2nd Amendment. Maybe even the 1st Amendment.

Having said that, I will add that I vehemently disagree with your textualist/originalist preference. If we strictly adhered to that view, there would be no room for growth or evolution in keeping with changing times and values. There would be stagnation and stagnation is quicky followed by death and extinction. And strictly adhering the words of the founders would not avoid conflict since there is plenty of room for interpretation as to when some of it actually means.

I am also not a big fan of limited federal government and leaving it all to the states. The shit hole red states fuck it all up and trample on individual rights in many areas like voting rights, abortion, same sex marriage and much more. This is a constitutional Republic and a strong central government and enforcement of the Constitution is critical. Otherwise, we would Balkanized and making it hard to recognize individual states as being part of the same country.

Lastly, while you see a strong central government as taking power away from people, I see it as empowering people, especially oppressed minorities such as LGBT people and racial/religious minorities. A weak central government powers thos who are in power locally. It sets up a survival of the fittest. A culture of Social Darwinism or Libertarian values which are closely aligned with conservative Republicans

Anyway, it appears that we understand each other- to a point although to be sure we will never agree on certain things. So be it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I see them as the same because of the involvement of themselves and their skills specificall toward the wedding.

Planners and photographers have to be at the wedding. The cake baker just has to bake the fucking cake

 

[Blues Man]

Ok, so they didn't refuse service, they said they would sell them anything already made, they refused their labor to specifically make a product. You are not entitled to violate someone's constitutionally protected freedom of religion.

From Colorado PA laws, it goes into a whole list of things that are considered discriminatory, and yes, sexual orientation is one of them, but, at the bottom, it says this:



That, to me, sounds like if the request violates the privileges of the business (constitutionally protected rights), then it gives them an exemption.

2016 Colorado Revised Statutes :: Title 24 - :: Government - State :: Principal Departments :: Article 34 - :: Department of Regulatory Agencies :: Part 6 - :: Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation :: § 24-34-601. Discrimination in places

law.justia.com

If they make custom cakes for any segment of the public they cannot legally refuse to make a custom cake for a homosexual.

 

[ThisIsMe]

So you are saying that religious rights have supremacy over other rights? Not buying into that at all.

I'm saying that constitutionally protected rights probably would have Supremacy over state laws, yes. Where there is a conflict like this, how do you resolve one person's rights over anothers? If you say the baker must be forced into violating his cotus rights, or if the gay couple have the right to enjoy the PA laws...I mean, yeah, I'd say cotus first, then everything else is left to the states.

So, in this case, freedom to exercise religion is cotus protected, so that would trump state law.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Sure, and I agree, but that should not be an attack on the religion itself if it does teach those things. And you can't say that they are being justified by the religion, because it's not there.