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.
Sigh. The title of the article. The first sentence. Etc, etc. You completely missed the point of the article.
Seems like you did. Its about religious liberty, not gay marriage.
Conservatives aren't going to overturn a law that would create chaos.
No smart Republican wants it overturned because it has been overwhelmingly accepted. And a lot of Republicans have libertarian leanings. The gay marriage ruling doesn't really harm anyone.
That said, its one of the worst and scariest decisions of all time. A court that can invent a right nobody dreamed was a right 10 years before can also take away a right that everyone believed in. Free speech, right to bear arms, freedom of religion, all of these are under attack by the left.
Even a lot of the criminal justice rights are under attack if the accused isn't of the right political persuasion.
Sigh. The title of the article. The first sentence. Etc, etc. You completely missed the point of the article.
There were two points to the article:
1) The supreme court, including the conservative justices ruled against the anti-gay marriage lady.
2) The authors point which was that since 2 justices wrote about religious freedoms relating to gay marriage means that there is going to be this big change in gay marriage coming with more conservatives on the court.
The point you missed was #1, I didn't miss point #2...it was just extremely weak fearmongering.
They denied her appeal but I truly do not understand the point made by Thomas. This is where this textualist nonsense to uphold the constitution is contradicted by their rulings, Thomas is worried about "labels". What exactly are the ruinous consequences for Davis other than not performing her function as an administrator. There was nothing preventing here from practicing her religion and of course she seems to pick and choose what part of her religion she honors.
Agree, it's a ridiculous legal argument.
“Congress shall make no law … abridging freedom of speech.” From the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
Consider the words of Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Justice Oliver. In the 1892 case of McAuliffe v. City of New Bedford, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that with regard to a police officer’s First Amendment rights, he “may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman.”
She has a Constitutional right to "practice her religion" but she has no Constitutional right to be a County clerk.
There was also a diversity of opinion on whether restaurant owners wanted to serve black people, and some were hiding behind the guise of religion.
And also whether black and white people could enter marry.
It's the exact same thing here, deciding whether an employee has to serve (and by that, I mean serve, not marry, serve as in process their legal documentation. No one is telling her to marry a gay person), gay people, vs. serve black people.
It's the same thing.
Let's recap, the Supreme court votes 8-0 against the lady that wouldn't give out the gay marriage licenses.
You claim this is going to undo civil rights of the last 60+ years.
Perhaps a bit conservative of me, but I was never real happy with the decision to allow gay marriage. Still, it seemed to be what the country wanted, so that's how it is. Will a more conservative SCOTUS rule against it in the future? It seems unlikely, since it is fairly well established now. At least it probably helps reduce the spread of STDs.
Yea, that's really conservative of you actually. Even centrist Republicans for the most part are cool with gay marriage.
Yea, because gays are the ones that are making the spread of STDs go through the roof.
Kim Davis is not the ideal plaintiff for a case involving religion. She's been married four times with a bit of adultery thrown in (resulting in pregnancy). Of course, granting her the right to discriminate opens up other doors. Can we discriminate against those who have tattoos since that is Biblically prohibited?
She really gives those of us who live in the south a bad name.
Allowing gays a civil union instead of a traditional marriage is discrimination?
Gays weren't allowed to form civil unions, either. In fact, so-called conservatives went to great lengths to keep civil unions from happening by modifying state constitutions. It wasn't until you and yours were cornered like rats and facing certain defeat that you developed this sudden, extremely convenient, liking for civil unions.
Then move to a state that does recognize civil unions. I'd like a link to your claims anyway. Do you believe in a traditional marriage between first cousins, etc.? Sorry, but I think of a traditional marriage as one between a man and a woman. Disagree if you wish but that's my stance on it.
Yep, and it was the purview of the elected legislators not the Court to define marriage and decide if there would be gay marriage or not. There's also state's rights issue. The public was against gay marriage, and the media went on a gay propaganda blitz campaign until a majority supported it. So gay marriage would have been legislated eventually. It'd still be bad law but at least it would come about in a legitimate way.
Kim Davis is not the ideal plaintiff for a case involving religion.
Well, "ideal" has several meanings, right? In the sense of "optimal", she certainly isn't. But in the Platonic sense of "embodies all the characteristics of the category", I'd say she qualifies nicely.
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.
