Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You're running a business, not a church.How does gay marriage impose on your civil rights?
Eh, you haven't been reading the news this past year, have you? Arizona, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oregon, Colorado? Do any of those ring a bell?
If I must sacrifice my religious teachings to appease a customer who represents the antithesis of my faith, then I have been forced to surrender my civil rights as far as far as religion goes. The law making me do so also violates my civil rights.
No, TK, learn to read for comprehension.
What he is saying is that the thing from the get go is not a legal matter involving the 1st, but rather, the 5th and the 14th.
Many have held this view. This is nothing new.
Typical bandwagon fallacy, appealing to popularity. You ignore the fact that the Constitution says nothing about marriage. None. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. This whole presumed premise about "equality" can be debunked on it's face. I can no more codify my rejection of gay marriage than you can codify your belief that marriage should be equal for all. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.
The 5th simply protects someone from incriminating themselves, also it protects government infringement on a person's "life, liberty, or property" and establishes precedent for imminent domain. But since we are debating the 5th, I can say that the first word it uses, "life" and "liberty" can be construed to work both ways.
By banning same sex marriage, you are affecting the life of the proponents, by condoning it, you conversely affect the lives of it's opponents, ergo those who hold the faith. By condoning or rejecting, you are affecting the very fabric of American society. One way or another.
By banning same sex marriage, you infringe on a liberty. By condoning it, you also infringe on a liberty, namely that of religious liberty. If I cannot abstain from serving someone or appeasing something that violates my faith, my religious liberty has been infringed upon. One right cannot come at the expense of the other. Vise versa. This isn't my bias speaking, that's my objectivity talking.
The 14th would apply, if only there were clauses or amendments in the Constitution concerning marriage; the laws which govern marriage now have zero root in the Constitution itself. They are simply judged by their constitutional merits. Actually, Stat, I can read and comprehend just fine, thanks.
The bolded: no it doesn't. Hogwash. It may offend someone's sensibilities, but it doesn't impinge on their liberties.
You do realize that those very same arguments were used against mixed-race marriages not all that long ago.
But it's nice to know you are a constitutional scholar and already know everything. You are also a Bible scholar and know everything, so there is no need for further discussion.
You're running a business, not a church.How does gay marriage impose on your civil rights?
Eh, you haven't been reading the news this past year, have you? Arizona, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oregon, Colorado? Do any of those ring a bell?
If I must sacrifice my religious teachings to appease a customer who represents the antithesis of my faith, then I have been forced to surrender my civil rights as far as far as religion goes. The law making me do so also violates my civil rights.
Only the shittiest businessman would turn down money from paying customers. 23% of the world population is Muslim, another 15% is Hindu. Nearly 70% of the world population is non-Christian and you don't want to do business with them because of a bedtime story?
In what possible way does two women marrying each other effect someone else's religion?
Your religious tirades were good for a laugh for a brief moment but now it's just absurd.THIS ""IS"" THE WORD OF GOD!! Do you deny that truth?????? Dont you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Dont fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, 10 or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat peoplenone of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. 11 Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1 corinthians 6:9-11==ALMIGHTY GOD has the first and last word on the sin of sick sexual perversion.=== So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each others bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.
28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. 30 They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. 31 They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. 32 They know Gods justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.
Romans 1:24-32
In what way is the business owner's faith threatened? It's a business that makes wedding cakes that doesn't want to make wedding cakes for paying customers. That sounds like a really stupid fucking business model.You're running a business, not a church.Eh, you haven't been reading the news this past year, have you? Arizona, Kansas, Oklahoma, Oregon, Colorado? Do any of those ring a bell?
If I must sacrifice my religious teachings to appease a customer who represents the antithesis of my faith, then I have been forced to surrender my civil rights as far as far as religion goes. The law making me do so also violates my civil rights.
Only the shittiest businessman would turn down money from paying customers. 23% of the world population is Muslim, another 15% is Hindu. Nearly 70% of the world population is non-Christian and you don't want to do business with them because of a bedtime story?
In what possible way does two women marrying each other effect someone else's religion?
The religious rights of the business owner, versus the civil liberties of the same sex couple wanting to peruse the services of the business. How can you not see that? My gosh, are you that ill observant?
Your religious tirades were good for a laugh for a brief moment but now it's just absurd.THIS ""IS"" THE WORD OF GOD!! Do you deny that truth?????? Dont you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Dont fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, 10 or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat peoplenone of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. 11 Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1 corinthians 6:9-11==ALMIGHTY GOD has the first and last word on the sin of sick sexual perversion.=== So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each others bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.
28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. 30 They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. 31 They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. 32 They know Gods justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.
Romans 1:24-32
Please stop.
Typical bandwagon fallacy, appealing to popularity. You ignore the fact that the Constitution says nothing about marriage. None. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. This whole presumed premise about "equality" can be debunked on it's face. I can no more codify my rejection of gay marriage than you can codify your belief that marriage should be equal for all. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.
The 5th simply protects someone from incriminating themselves, also it protects government infringement on a person's "life, liberty, or property" and establishes precedent for imminent domain. But since we are debating the 5th, I can say that the first word it uses, "life" and "liberty" can be construed to work both ways.
By banning same sex marriage, you are affecting the life of the proponents, by condoning it, you conversely affect the lives of it's opponents, ergo those who hold the faith. By condoning or rejecting, you are affecting the very fabric of American society. One way or another.
By banning same sex marriage, you infringe on a liberty. By condoning it, you also infringe on a liberty, namely that of religious liberty. If I cannot abstain from serving someone or appeasing something that violates my faith, my religious liberty has been infringed upon. One right cannot come at the expense of the other. Vise versa. This isn't my bias speaking, that's my objectivity talking.
The 14th would apply, if only there were clauses or amendments in the Constitution concerning marriage; the laws which govern marriage now have zero root in the Constitution itself. They are simply judged by their constitutional merits. Actually, Stat, I can read and comprehend just fine, thanks.
The bolded: no it doesn't. Hogwash. It may offend someone's sensibilities, but it doesn't impinge on their liberties.
You do realize that those very same arguments were used against mixed-race marriages not all that long ago.
But it's nice to know you are a constitutional scholar and already know everything. You are also a Bible scholar and know everything, so there is no need for further discussion.
Bolded:
You do realize that Democrats made those arguments, correct?
Italicized:
And who is it running away now, Stat? It's nice to know that when confronted with actual reasoning on the subject, you tuck tail and run. That's nice to know.
In what way is the business owner's faith threatened? It's a business that makes wedding cakes that doesn't want to make wedding cakes for paying customers. That sounds like a really stupid fucking business model.You're running a business, not a church.
Only the shittiest businessman would turn down money from paying customers. 23% of the world population is Muslim, another 15% is Hindu. Nearly 70% of the world population is non-Christian and you don't want to do business with them because of a bedtime story?
In what possible way does two women marrying each other effect someone else's religion?
The religious rights of the business owner, versus the civil liberties of the same sex couple wanting to peruse the services of the business. How can you not see that? My gosh, are you that ill observant?
Dear CCJ:
You could also say the same of LIBERALS.
When LIBERALS push for "separation of church and state"
when it suits their agenda.
But in the case of gay marriage crossing the line and imposing a church function
of marriage on the state, suddenly LIBERALS WANT to mix church and state functions.
Why is that?
Can you tell me how "gay marriage" respects "separation of church and state"?
No, one could not also say the same of liberals.
Liberals correctly understand that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, and they respect and follow that case law, including that of First Amendment jurisprudence, which maintains there is indeed to be a separation of church and state, where the case law in no way disadvantages religious expression.
Liberals arent pushing for anything, nor do they have an agenda, save that of ensuring subjective religious dogma not be codified in secular law, in accordance with the Framers wishes.
Take, for example, the case of Lee v. Weisman (1992), invalidating a school policy authorizing prayer during graduation ceremonies, which the Supreme Court correctly found to be in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. This ruling was predicated on long-standing Establishment Clause jurisprudence, exhaustively reviewed by the courts in an objective, factual manner, and decided having nothing to do with a liberal agenda.
Moreover, the ruling in no way violated religious expression, where theists are at liberty to pray, provided it not be at the behest of the state.
Otherwise, your question with regard to gay marriage and the Constitutions requirement that church and state remain separate makes no sense.
First, there is no such thing as gay marriage, there is only marriage law, as written by the states and administered by state courts; this is the same law afforded to both same- and opposite-sex couples, as both are eligible to enter into marriage contracts.
Second, the issue has nothing to do with the First Amendments Religion Clauses, as this is a 5th and 14th Amendment issue pertaining to the right to due process and equal protection of the laws, in this case equal access to marriage law.
Last, that theists perceive some sort to religious aspect to the issue is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, as religious dogma has no bearing on the issue. Federal courts recognizing the equal protection rights of same-sex couples to access marriage law is based on 14th Amendment jurisprudence in the context of substantive due process, where the state has failed to establish a rational, compelling reason to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law pursuant to a proper legislative end. Indeed, to seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law predicated on religious dogma is un-Constitutional because it is not rational, it lacks objective facts and evidence in support, and it fails to pursue a proper legislative end.
A religious objection to affording same sex couples access to marriage law is mere demagoguery on the part of the social right, realizing theyve long ago lost the legal argument.
So basically, the First Amendment be damned, correct?
Well...I assumed that you believe that the bible us the "word of god"....and therefore the word of Jesus. If you don't, please accept my apologies.
You assumed that I believe something I have never said.
Interesting.
Yes. Do you believe it? Is the bible the word of god? Pretty simple question.
No, one could not also say the same of liberals.
Liberals correctly understand that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, and they respect and follow that case law, including that of First Amendment jurisprudence, which maintains there is indeed to be a separation of church and state, where the case law in no way disadvantages religious expression.
Liberals arent pushing for anything, nor do they have an agenda, save that of ensuring subjective religious dogma not be codified in secular law, in accordance with the Framers wishes.
Take, for example, the case of Lee v. Weisman (1992), invalidating a school policy authorizing prayer during graduation ceremonies, which the Supreme Court correctly found to be in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. This ruling was predicated on long-standing Establishment Clause jurisprudence, exhaustively reviewed by the courts in an objective, factual manner, and decided having nothing to do with a liberal agenda.
Moreover, the ruling in no way violated religious expression, where theists are at liberty to pray, provided it not be at the behest of the state.
Otherwise, your question with regard to gay marriage and the Constitutions requirement that church and state remain separate makes no sense.
First, there is no such thing as gay marriage, there is only marriage law, as written by the states and administered by state courts; this is the same law afforded to both same- and opposite-sex couples, as both are eligible to enter into marriage contracts.
Second, the issue has nothing to do with the First Amendments Religion Clauses, as this is a 5th and 14th Amendment issue pertaining to the right to due process and equal protection of the laws, in this case equal access to marriage law.
Last, that theists perceive some sort to religious aspect to the issue is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, as religious dogma has no bearing on the issue. Federal courts recognizing the equal protection rights of same-sex couples to access marriage law is based on 14th Amendment jurisprudence in the context of substantive due process, where the state has failed to establish a rational, compelling reason to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law pursuant to a proper legislative end. Indeed, to seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law predicated on religious dogma is un-Constitutional because it is not rational, it lacks objective facts and evidence in support, and it fails to pursue a proper legislative end.
A religious objection to affording same sex couples access to marriage law is mere demagoguery on the part of the social right, realizing theyve long ago lost the legal argument.
So basically, the First Amendment be damned, correct?
Incorrect.
The First Amendment doesnt come into play at all.
This is due primarily to the fact that 14th Amendment jurisprudence doesnt apply to private persons or organizations churches cant be compelled to marry same-sex couples if their religious dogma forbids it.
And public accommodations laws as authorized by the Commerce Clause that prohibit discrimination against gay Americans, such as those in Colorado, do not violate religious liberty because their primary focus and intent is to regulate markets, not disadvantage religious practice (Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), Employment Division v. Smith (1990)).
The issue, therefore, is solely between same-sex couples and the states, where the states seek to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights in violation of the 14th Amendment; same-sex couples are the class of persons disadvantaged by the state, not a class of religious persons.
In order for there to be a First Amendment violation, the state would need to seek to disadvantage members of a particular faith, such as disallowing Catholics to marry, while allowing persons of other faiths to do so.
The bolded: no it doesn't. Hogwash. It may offend someone's sensibilities, but it doesn't impinge on their liberties.
You do realize that those very same arguments were used against mixed-race marriages not all that long ago.
But it's nice to know you are a constitutional scholar and already know everything. You are also a Bible scholar and know everything, so there is no need for further discussion.
Bolded:
You do realize that Democrats made those arguments, correct?
Italicized:
And who is it running away now, Stat? It's nice to know that when confronted with actual reasoning on the subject, you tuck tail and run. That's nice to know.
No: Racists made those arguments, racists who found their way into the loving arms Nixon's Republican Party, thanks to the Southern State Strategy.
I run away from nothing, but with you no one can debate anything. You already know everything. You still have not answered two questions, which means you are not interested or capable. So, I simply gave up on you.
No brutality, no infamy, no degradation in all the years of southern slavery, possessed such villainious character and such atrocious qualities as the provision of the laws of Illinois, Massachusetts, and other states which allow the marriage of the negro, Jack Johnson, to a woman of Caucasian strain. [applause]. Gentleman, I offer this resolution ... that the States of the Union may have an opportunity to ratifty it. ...
Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant to the very principles of Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery of white women to black beasts will bring this nation a conflict as fatal as ever reddened the soil of Virginia or crimsoned the mountain paths of Pennsylvania.
... Let us uproot and exterminate now this debasing, ultra-demoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy
Congressional Record, 62d. Congr., 3d. Sess., December 11, 1912, pp. 502503
In what way is the business owner's faith threatened? It's a business that makes wedding cakes that doesn't want to make wedding cakes for paying customers. That sounds like a really stupid fucking business model.You're running a business, not a church.
Only the shittiest businessman would turn down money from paying customers. 23% of the world population is Muslim, another 15% is Hindu. Nearly 70% of the world population is non-Christian and you don't want to do business with them because of a bedtime story?
In what possible way does two women marrying each other effect someone else's religion?
The religious rights of the business owner, versus the civil liberties of the same sex couple wanting to peruse the services of the business. How can you not see that? My gosh, are you that ill observant?
No, one could not also say the same of liberals.
Liberals correctly understand that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, and they respect and follow that case law, including that of First Amendment jurisprudence, which maintains there is indeed to be a separation of church and state, where the case law in no way disadvantages religious expression.
Liberals arent pushing for anything, nor do they have an agenda, save that of ensuring subjective religious dogma not be codified in secular law, in accordance with the Framers wishes.
Take, for example, the case of Lee v. Weisman (1992), invalidating a school policy authorizing prayer during graduation ceremonies, which the Supreme Court correctly found to be in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. This ruling was predicated on long-standing Establishment Clause jurisprudence, exhaustively reviewed by the courts in an objective, factual manner, and decided having nothing to do with a liberal agenda.
Moreover, the ruling in no way violated religious expression, where theists are at liberty to pray, provided it not be at the behest of the state.
Otherwise, your question with regard to gay marriage and the Constitutions requirement that church and state remain separate makes no sense.
First, there is no such thing as gay marriage, there is only marriage law, as written by the states and administered by state courts; this is the same law afforded to both same- and opposite-sex couples, as both are eligible to enter into marriage contracts.
Second, the issue has nothing to do with the First Amendments Religion Clauses, as this is a 5th and 14th Amendment issue pertaining to the right to due process and equal protection of the laws, in this case equal access to marriage law.
Last, that theists perceive some sort to religious aspect to the issue is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, as religious dogma has no bearing on the issue. Federal courts recognizing the equal protection rights of same-sex couples to access marriage law is based on 14th Amendment jurisprudence in the context of substantive due process, where the state has failed to establish a rational, compelling reason to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law pursuant to a proper legislative end. Indeed, to seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law predicated on religious dogma is un-Constitutional because it is not rational, it lacks objective facts and evidence in support, and it fails to pursue a proper legislative end.
A religious objection to affording same sex couples access to marriage law is mere demagoguery on the part of the social right, realizing theyve long ago lost the legal argument.
So basically, the First Amendment be damned, correct?
Incorrect.
The First Amendment doesnt come into play at all.
This is due primarily to the fact that 14th Amendment jurisprudence doesnt apply to private persons or organizations churches cant be compelled to marry same-sex couples if their religious dogma forbids it.
And public accommodations laws as authorized by the Commerce Clause that prohibit discrimination against gay Americans, such as those in Colorado, do not violate religious liberty because their primary focus and intent is to regulate markets, not disadvantage religious practice (Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), Employment Division v. Smith (1990)).
The issue, therefore, is solely between same-sex couples and the states, where the states seek to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights in violation of the 14th Amendment; same-sex couples are the class of persons disadvantaged by the state, not a class of religious persons.
In order for there to be a First Amendment violation, the state would need to seek to disadvantage members of a particular faith, such as disallowing Catholics to marry, while allowing persons of other faiths to do so.
Maybe you have the religious right to do your job. A couple is getting married, they go look for a baker to make a wedding cake, they find one they like and ask for a wedding cake, the baker says, "No, I won't make a cake for you because God says you're evil."In what way is the business owner's faith threatened? It's a business that makes wedding cakes that doesn't want to make wedding cakes for paying customers. That sounds like a really stupid fucking business model.The religious rights of the business owner, versus the civil liberties of the same sex couple wanting to peruse the services of the business. How can you not see that? My gosh, are you that ill observant?
Wow, now you're being dense.
By asking him to violate the tenets of his faith to condone (by that I mean serve) that which he sees as sinful, you are threatening his religious liberty... no, stripping him of it. By what right do you have to do that to someone of any faith?
Bolded:
You do realize that Democrats made those arguments, correct?
Italicized:
And who is it running away now, Stat? It's nice to know that when confronted with actual reasoning on the subject, you tuck tail and run. That's nice to know.
No: Racists made those arguments, racists who found their way into the loving arms Nixon's Republican Party, thanks to the Southern State Strategy.
I run away from nothing, but with you no one can debate anything. You already know everything. You still have not answered two questions, which means you are not interested or capable. So, I simply gave up on you.
Your lack of knowledge in history is disturbing. You're reaching. The first anti miscegenation laws were passed in Virginia IN 1691! Not by the Nixon Administration. Moreover, A Georgia Democrat, Seaborn Roddenberry in 1912 and 1913, proposed a nationwide ban on interracial marriage.
No brutality, no infamy, no degradation in all the years of southern slavery, possessed such villainious character and such atrocious qualities as the provision of the laws of Illinois, Massachusetts, and other states which allow the marriage of the negro, Jack Johnson, to a woman of Caucasian strain. [applause]. Gentleman, I offer this resolution ... that the States of the Union may have an opportunity to ratifty it. ...
Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant to the very principles of Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery of white women to black beasts will bring this nation a conflict as fatal as ever reddened the soil of Virginia or crimsoned the mountain paths of Pennsylvania.
... Let us uproot and exterminate now this debasing, ultra-demoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy
Congressional Record, 62d. Congr., 3d. Sess., December 11, 1912, pp. 502503
In 1928, Senator Coleman Blease (Democrat of South Carolina) proposed another ban on interracial marriage which went far beyond Roddenberry's.
No, Stat. I think not.
No, one could not also say the same of liberals.
Liberals correctly understand that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, and they respect and follow that case law, including that of First Amendment jurisprudence, which maintains there is indeed to be a separation of church and state, where the case law in no way disadvantages religious expression.
Liberals arent pushing for anything, nor do they have an agenda, save that of ensuring subjective religious dogma not be codified in secular law, in accordance with the Framers wishes.
Take, for example, the case of Lee v. Weisman (1992), invalidating a school policy authorizing prayer during graduation ceremonies, which the Supreme Court correctly found to be in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. This ruling was predicated on long-standing Establishment Clause jurisprudence, exhaustively reviewed by the courts in an objective, factual manner, and decided having nothing to do with a liberal agenda.
Moreover, the ruling in no way violated religious expression, where theists are at liberty to pray, provided it not be at the behest of the state.
Otherwise, your question with regard to gay marriage and the Constitutions requirement that church and state remain separate makes no sense.
First, there is no such thing as gay marriage, there is only marriage law, as written by the states and administered by state courts; this is the same law afforded to both same- and opposite-sex couples, as both are eligible to enter into marriage contracts.
Second, the issue has nothing to do with the First Amendments Religion Clauses, as this is a 5th and 14th Amendment issue pertaining to the right to due process and equal protection of the laws, in this case equal access to marriage law.
Last, that theists perceive some sort to religious aspect to the issue is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, as religious dogma has no bearing on the issue. Federal courts recognizing the equal protection rights of same-sex couples to access marriage law is based on 14th Amendment jurisprudence in the context of substantive due process, where the state has failed to establish a rational, compelling reason to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law pursuant to a proper legislative end. Indeed, to seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law predicated on religious dogma is un-Constitutional because it is not rational, it lacks objective facts and evidence in support, and it fails to pursue a proper legislative end.
A religious objection to affording same sex couples access to marriage law is mere demagoguery on the part of the social right, realizing theyve long ago lost the legal argument.
So basically, the First Amendment be damned, correct?
Incorrect.
The First Amendment doesnt come into play at all.
This is due primarily to the fact that 14th Amendment jurisprudence doesnt apply to private persons or organizations churches cant be compelled to marry same-sex couples if their religious dogma forbids it.
And public accommodations laws as authorized by the Commerce Clause that prohibit discrimination against gay Americans, such as those in Colorado, do not violate religious liberty because their primary focus and intent is to regulate markets, not disadvantage religious practice (Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), Employment Division v. Smith (1990)).
The issue, therefore, is solely between same-sex couples and the states, where the states seek to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights in violation of the 14th Amendment; same-sex couples are the class of persons disadvantaged by the state, not a class of religious persons.
In order for there to be a First Amendment violation, the state would need to seek to disadvantage members of a particular faith, such as disallowing Catholics to marry, while allowing persons of other faiths to do so.
In what way is the business owner's faith threatened? It's a business that makes wedding cakes that doesn't want to make wedding cakes for paying customers. That sounds like a really stupid fucking business model.The religious rights of the business owner, versus the civil liberties of the same sex couple wanting to peruse the services of the business. How can you not see that? My gosh, are you that ill observant?
Exactly.
And such a reckless and capricious business model would prove detrimental to the local market, and consequently disrupt other markets as all markets are interrelated (Wickard v. Filburn (1942)).
.
GISMYS may be out there, but at least he wouldn't try to behead someone for being homosexual.
And we all know that.
.
