Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
a little reading comprehension goes a long way, note that i said a FUTURE COURT, just may use this ruling as a precedent to force churches to perform gay marriages. try understanding what someone write as a FUTURE POSSIBILITY and not a current one.
No it won't because the Supreme Court said that in their decision :-P.
i understand how the first amendment is worded, however, how many scotus decisions have been made in the recent past where the constitution was trashed? two rulings on obamacare, both done by rewriting the law by the judges to make the law work, instead of doing what they should have done and returning the law to congress to fix. and there are plenty of other decisions where activist judges on the court decided for and against things where the proper judgement should have been the opposite.
for instance when FDR threatened to pack the scotus with 16 judges, suddenly most of what FDR wanted to get through the scotus went through. so what i said was that it is possible that a future scotus can make a decision exactly as i said despite what the first amendment says.
It is not going to happen. It has not happened in all the years since 1968 when interracial marriage bans were abolished. Separation of Church and State
It is not a religious infringement to have to sign a paper declining to be religiously infringed upon.
The court ruled that they just have to file a form to get their religious exemption.
Exactly and.................... Similarly, I don't know what a church has to do to get its tax exemption but I would expect they have to file some type of paperwork with the IRS. Bet they won't have a problem filing?
the good sister is right on this. anytime the government can force their will on religion, it is another step to eliminating the constitution. and you can bet that a future court may just hold that churches have to perform gay marriages as a result of this ruling.
So it's okay with the sisters to indulge in sexual intercourse as long as you don't use birth control?
No it won't because the Supreme Court said that in their decision :-P.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDragonslayer
It is not going to happen. It has not happened in all the years since 1968 when interracial marriage bans were abolished. Separation of Church and State
once again, while the court today will not force churches to perform gay marriages, what is to stop a future court from violating the constitution through a court order and force the issue? in point of fact, there is NOTHING stopping the scotus from doing just that if they get enough activist judges on the bench.
a little reading comprehension goes a long way, note that i said a FUTURE COURT, just may use this ruling as a precedent to force churches to perform gay marriages. try understanding what someone write as a FUTURE POSSIBILITY and not a current one.
It will never happen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
