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.
Although I believe Gays should have the right to marry, going about it by this supreme court ruling is not what the supreme court is designed to do.. they are designed to uphold the constitution... since there is nothing in the constitution about marriage, whether it be gay or heterosexual, ultimately it was inappropriate for them to rule based on their personal beliefs. It should be up to the states, unless they amend the constitution with an amendment which would be the appropriate way to address the issue.
The states can turn around and ignore this ruling, and there's not much the feds can do about it. I'd imagine most will comply in the end though. I oppose this ruling because of the principle of the matter.... these politicians and judges are overstepping their authority in principle.. however I guess when I think about it, it's akin to a form of 'jury nullification' .. in the end I don't care that much... but it's a slippery slope when politicians overstep their authority/power.
The difference is: we are discussing the SACRAMENT of Marriage - For some people, marriage is tied to their religion...marriage is a private covenant with their God.
Good thing that they're not forced to be in a congregation that allows for same-sex marriage. You can put up a "No gays allowed" sign on your church door and be completely within your rights. I'm not sure it's what the Carpennter's Son would have wanted, but it's your right.
Quote:
There are always civil unions
And again. No. Same-sex civil unions were specifically and carefully banned in any number of states.
Quote:
Thus, there's no need to condemn any church that won't - or insist that a church go against their doctrine concerning same sex marriage.
Churches can refuse to marry mixed-race couples, or interfaith couples, or divorcees, or black people - they do so, and nobody bats an eyelid.
a business CAN discriminate if they are asked to do something that goes against their religious beliefs. for instance, if a gay couple wants to buy a bunch cupcakes for a party, thats fine. but if that same gay couple wants to buy a wedding cake for a gay wedding, and the owner of the business is against gay marriage on religious grounds, then that owner should not be forced to provide the couple in question a wedding cake.
the owner should also not have to have the militant gay lobby threaten them with bodily harm, property damage, or even death. like all businesses, if you dont like the fact that a particular bakery doesnt supply gay weddings, then dont frequent that business, go some where else.
remember that one persons rights END where the rights of another begin. you may have the right to get married to your same sex partner, but i have the right to refuse to service that wedding.
and dont forget that state laws allow business the right to refuse service to anyone.
False, it is none of the business's business to know what a private consumer plans to do with their product after purchasing. That is the problem I have with your logic.
If you bake wedding cakes, be prepared to sell wedding cakes to anyone who needs to buy a wedding cake.
Bakers are not asked to supply gay weddings, they are to bake and sell wedding cakes to consumers. What the consumer does with that product once they own it is up to them to decide, not the baker.
As for bodily harm, property damage, or even death, no business should have to endure that because that would be people breaking the law, but a business should be expected to be fined for their actions if they are discriminating against their customers.
As for the right to refuse service to anyone, that depends on how the laws are written when it comes to discrimination. You can't put up a sign that says "whites only" and think you can get away with it.
The states can turn around and ignore this ruling, and there's not much the feds can do about it.
Really? You can bet your last dollar that if some hick state decides that "You're not the boss of me" is a sound legal principle, the state citizens who are deprived of their rights will have a great lawsuit, and the state will lose.
Agree and a conservative, too. Be a good winner, liberals. Unlike most liberals, we don't all tow the line of our party.
Stop projecting
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.
In all seriousness this is excellent news. People should have equal rights.
They just picked up a whole lot of potential new clients.
