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

[flan327]

Only by depraved sexual perverts and their allies.

Like you?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Precisely. You do realize, each state already has their own department of education,.right? They each have their own department of health.

And no, I don't think the federal government t should be doling out money, because if we did things the way the cotus says, the federal gov wouldn't have any money to dole out, nor would it need to. It should have just enough money to run its legitimate functions, and a little bit extra for modest salaries, as prescribed by the cotus.

As far as social security, Medicare, food and safety, all those things would have worked themselves out eventually through state agencies, and locally. If the federal government can do it, each state could do it as well.

I'm not saying that social security and Medicare are bad things, but they should not be run by the Federal Government. These should be state based agencies. As we've seen, the best way to waste or lose money is to give it to the federal government.

On top of that, social security is starting to decline. People now are getting less out of it than they put in, and I think I heard the figure they by..2030? People can expect to draw about 70% of what they put in.

Holy fucking shit on a shingle!! You are more extreme that I ever imagined! You are hostile to the very concept of a United States of America!! You are advocating the balkanization of the country where each state is autonomous and left to fend for themselves. That is insane!

There is already considerable disparity among the states in terms individual and collective wealth, public health and safety . And that is AFTER the federal government regulations are put in place and it redistributes a good deal of resources in various ways, not the least of which is the redistribution of funds collected through taxes.

And you think that each state should individually regulate food and drugs and I suppose other products? Seriously? You do understand that most or all products cros state lines. How the fuck would that work with a patchwork of 50 different regulatory systems. Ya think that might put a damper on commerce? Or maybe you thing that coal producing states should be able to impliment their own environmental rules despite thet fact that air polution does not stop at the state line. Clearly, you have not thought this through. The more I think about this, the more stupid it seems

You would be creating Fiefdoms of a sort. It would not be long before tribal warfrare between the well off and not so well off states ensued.

Yet you continue to claim that the Federal Constitution protects the rights of state residents including the right to gay marriage. There is something seriously wrong with that picture. You are increasingly hard to believe, This post is a fucking classic case of insanity.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

On top of that, social security is starting to decline. People now are getting less out of it than they put in, and I think I heard the figure they by..2030? People can expect to draw about 70% of what they put in.

That's funny, I've been getting raises. But even if true, how the fuck woud the states do better?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Bullshit!

MSN

www.msn.com

And apparently he did. For some reason, and against all odd..BOTH were subjected to a deep dive audit

MSN

www.msn.com

Neal and Pascrell Seek Expanded Probe of Unprecedented Trump Use of IRS

WASHINGTON, DC—Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard E. Neal (D-MA) and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-NJ) today called on the U.S. Treasury Department to expand its probe of former President Donald Trump’s use of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to target his...

waysandmeans.house.gov

I don't know know, from the first article you posted:

The IRS says the audits are random and denies that they were politically motivated, and Trump said he had no knowledge of the audits, but the fact that two former high-level FBI officials reviled by Trump were selected led to questions about the program.

The irs themselves said the audits were not politically motivated.

Regardless, we still shouldn't forget Lois lerner and her targeting of groups based on political affiliation.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Because they can't "just do it" silly. They need to have a case brought before them by someone who has standing

Do they? I mean, they overturned roe without a case having been brought to them didn't they? They can take up a case based on a past ruling without a case having been brought to them.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Justices Thomas, Alito Blast Supreme Court Decision On Same-Sex Marriage Rights

The two justices said the court's 2015 decision Obergefell v. Hodges hurt religious liberty and "created a problem that only it can fix."

www.npr.org

They are fundamentally opposed to same sex marriage

Ok, so, their argument wasn't in the banning of gay marriage, it was about one cotus liberty vs another's religious freedoms.

By choosing to endorse "a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment, and by doing so undemocratically, the court has created a problem that only it can fix," they said. "Until then, Obergefell will continue to have ruinous consequences for religious liberty

 

[ThisIsMe]

Give me a fucking break!! There are a number of states that do not protect gays from work place discrimination, housing , discrimination, discrimination in financial transactions, and public accomodations

In addition, some states still restrict of prohibit addoption by gay people. And don't forget, marriage is allowed only because of Obergefell in some states

Home

We are a national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and everyone living with HIV.

www.lambdalegal.org

Ok, so here we find that the bill (mississippi HB 1523) was enacted to protect religious freedom.

From the bill:

After the legalization of same-sex marriage, religious adoption and foster care agencies in Massachusetts, Illinois and the District of Columbia were forced to close because of their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage. Further, a religious educational institution in Massachusetts was threatened by the government with loss of its accreditation because of its sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage, and small family-owned wedding businesses in Oregon, Washington, Iowa, New York and elsewhere have endured fines or financial penalties or have been forced to close because they operated consistent with their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage;

So, again, this goes back to one's rights to love whom they choose vs someone's religious freedoms. In this case, as we see in the text above, there were businesses and organizations who had to shut down or were being threatened by the government because of their operation based on their religious beliefs.

It's not like the state just made a bill to discriminate against gay people, they just passed a bill to protect people freedom of religion.

 

[AsherN]

ThisIsMe, there are a few things to unpack from your post. First, it depends how the law is written. In Canada, our law specifically excludes religious institutions from having to perform marriages they don't agree with. Marriage, the legal aspect is strictly secular. Clergy are authorized as agents of the state, but a couple getting married fills out 2 sets of document, one civil and one religious.

As far as businesses, once you open a business open to the public, you must abide by the PAs in your jurisdiction. You can't be forced to sell things you don't carry, but you can't discriminate who you sell your inventory to.

 

[Papageorgio]

n 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 Paul lists some sinful lifestyles that give evidence that a person is not saved: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men . . . will inherit the kingdom of God.” In other words, a practicing, unrepentant idolater, adulterer, or homosexual is fooling himself if he thinks he is going to heaven. Christians are saved from such sins.
-----------------------------
Here I thought God was all forgiving.

Where are any of them asking to be forgiven?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Do they? I mean, they overturned roe without a case having been brought to them didn't they? They can take up a case based on a past ruling without a case having been brought to them.

You can't be fucking serious. There most certainly was a case that was brought. Now I'm beginning tto think that you are just plain stupid

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization | Constitution Center

National Constitution Center Supreme Court Case Library: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

constitutioncenter.org

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Ok, so here we find that the bill (mississippi HB 1523) was enacted to protect religious freedom.

From the bill:



So, again, this goes back to one's rights to love whom they choose vs someone's religious freedoms. In this case, as we see in the text above, there were businesses and organizations who had to shut down or were being threatened by the government because of their operation based on their religious beliefs.

It's not like the state just made a bill to discriminate against gay people, they just passed a bill to protect people freedom of religion.

First of all, I provided you with a searchable data base for all states. My point stands. Gay people may bediscriminated against in many states in a number of different ways

Secondly, the one case that you focused on just goes back to the old issue of what exactly religious freedom is, and I maintain that it is not the freedome to discriminate. Adoption agencies are not churches and do not have religious exemptions

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Ok, so, their argument wasn't in the banning of gay marriage, it was about one cotus liberty vs another's religious freedoms.

No, they cited religious freedom as an excuse to ban gay marriage by stupidly claiming that if marriage is allowed religious people who oppose it will be called bigots. But my original pont was that they are poised to overturn Obergefell. It does not matter why

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No, they cited religious freedom as an excuse to ban gay marriage by stupidly claiming that if marriage is allowed religious people who oppose it will be called bigots.

And that claim has been proven to be true. Worse than that, those of us who stand for basic morals, decency, and reason, are now routinely harassed, discriminated against, and having our very livelihoods threatened for it.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Holy fucking shit on a shingle!! You are more extreme that I ever imagined! You are hostile to the very concept of a United States of America!! You are advocating the balkanization of the country where each state is autonomous and left to fend for themselves. That is insane!

There is already considerable disparity among the states in terms individual and collective wealth, public health and safety . And that is AFTER the federal government regulations are put in place and it redistributes a good deal of resources in various ways, not the least of which is the redistribution of funds collected through taxes.

And you think that each state should individually regulate food and drugs and I suppose other products? Seriously? You do understand that most or all products cros state lines. How the fuck would that work with a patchwork of 50 different regulatory systems. Ya think that might put a damper on commerce? Or maybe you thing that coal producing states should be able to impliment their own environmental rules despite thet fact that air polution does not stop at the state line. Clearly, you have not thought this through. The more I think about this, the more stupid it seems

You would be creating Fiefdoms of a sort. It would not be long before tribal warfrare between the well off and not so well off states ensued.

Yet you continue to claim that the Federal Constitution protects the rights of state residents including the right to gay marriage. There is something seriously wrong with that picture. You are increasingly hard to believe, This post is a fucking classic case of insanity.

The adherence to the cotus makes me an extremist? I disagree.

Article 1 section 8 of the cotus says that the government has the power to regulate commerce, so that is a legitimate function of the federal government.

You talk about the government redistributing funds across different states. Why do we need to have money flow from the states, to the government, then back to the States, that kind of inefficient. Let's just reduce the size of government, get rid of all the beauracrasies that are not supposed to exists within thr federal government, which would reduce the waste and fraud inside the federal government, and just let the states keep the money.

Your solution is socialism. You want all the states to be beholden to the federal government, where money flows from a central government. If that's what you want, then get an article 5 convention together and have the states change the cotus from a republic to a socialistic society. That's fine if that's what you want to do, but to just ignore the cotus like you want to do means, why even have a cotus?...which is your ultimate goal, really...

If states were to have to compete with each other, it would actually improve the quality of goods and services. Having a single authority regulating everything actually probably stifles innovation. Let's have states competing with each other and when one state does something stellar, the other states will be like "oh yeah??? Hold my beer!"

And yes, the 14A requires equal protection and due process, so it does protect gay marriage.

 

[ThisIsMe]

That's funny, I've been getting raises. But even if true, how the fuck woud the states do better?

Well, for certain they couldn't do any worse. I think it would be better because it would be managed on a local level, less red tape, less people wanting to get at that money.

 

[ThisIsMe]

No, they cited religious freedom as an excuse to ban gay marriage by stupidly claiming that if marriage is allowed religious people who oppose it will be called bigots. But my original pont was that they are poised to overturn Obergefell. It does not matter why

No, they cited religious freedom as an excuse to ban gay marriage

They never made any statement about banning gay marriage, they said obergefell could cause problems with religious freedoms. That was the reason that Thomas and Alito were mentioning obergefell.

Writing for himself and Alito, Thomas said that the court's decision "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."

Nevertheless, they said, the case "provides a stark reminder" of the consequences of the same-sex marriage decision. By choosing to endorse "a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment, and by doing so undemocratically, the court has created a problem that only it can fix," they said. "Until then, Obergefell will continue to have ruinous consequences for religious liberty."

They are just addressing an issue with what they feel is a problem with obergefell conflicting with religious freedom. At no point has either one of them said "I want to ban gay marriage because I don't like it"....as I stated, they are concerned with a legal issue of two conflicting freedoms.

 

[ThisIsMe]

ThisIsMe, there are a few things to unpack from your post. First, it depends how the law is written. In Canada, our law specifically excludes religious institutions from having to perform marriages they don't agree with. Marriage, the legal aspect is strictly secular. Clergy are authorized as agents of the state, but a couple getting married fills out 2 sets of document, one civil and one religious.

As far as businesses, once you open a business open to the public, you must abide by the PAs in your jurisdiction. You can't be forced to sell things you don't carry, but you can't discriminate who you sell your inventory to.

I'm not familiar with Canada's laws, so I can't comment, but, in the states we have a constitution, and that document guarantees certain freedoms, one being the free exercise of one's religion. Now, I agree, and I would never advocate for discrimination. In the case of masterpiece bakery, they didn't refuse to sell the gay couple a cake, they actually said they would sell them any cake they already had prepared, they just said that making a cake specifically for a gay wedding would be akin to them participating in the activity by the use of their labor and talents for that specific purpose, which they felt was in conflict with their religious views.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You can't be fucking serious. There most certainly was a case that was brought. Now I'm beginning tto think that you are just plain stupid

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization | Constitution Center

National Constitution Center Supreme Court Case Library: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

constitutioncenter.org

But they don't have to have a case, they can revisit a decision they've made in the past.

 

[ThisIsMe]

First of all, I provided you with a searchable data base for all states. My point stands. Gay people may bediscriminated against in many states in a number of different ways

Secondly, the one case that you focused on just goes back to the old issue of what exactly religious freedom is, and I maintain that it is not the freedome to discriminate. Adoption agencies are not churches and do not have religious exemptions

The link you posted just goes back to lambda legal and the heading about Mississippi HB 1523, I didn't know there was a searchable database lol, sorry.

Anyway, I clicked around on that state map on a few states, mostly came up.with nothing. I think there was one article about a lawsuit because a transgender boy was asked to use a gender neutral bathroom in a public high school.

If you have a particular state in mind, feel free to post it and I'll be happy to take a look at it and read about it.

 

[ThisIsMe]

First of all, I provided you with a searchable data base for all states. My point stands. Gay people may bediscriminated against in many states in a number of different ways

Secondly, the one case that you focused on just goes back to the old issue of what exactly religious freedom is, and I maintain that it is not the freedome to discriminate. Adoption agencies are not churches and do not have religious exemptions

Adoption agencies are not churches and do not have religious exemptions

I'm not aware of the agencies in question, it lists some things that happened in other states, but it does say that these were agencies that had a religious charter of some sort....and churches, I would think, are explicitly covered under religious freedoms....