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.
I thought it was a pretty good law, since it did not violate anyone's rights. Obviously, a lot of people around here do not understand the law.
If such a law had been in place in Colorado, the baker would not have been forced to bake a cake which he viewed as abhorrent.
And if such a law had been in place in Kentucky, the clerk would not have been put through the wringer.
And no rights would have been violated in either case.
Maybe the court of Appeals will overturn Judge Reeves, maybe not. The Colorado Supreme Court refused to hear the baker's case because the baker had no law to protect him. Ditto in Kentucky.
But since the press has touted the Mississippi law as a hate law, and everyone has bought into that idea, it sure looks like an uphill battle.
FWIW: I strongly support the right to marry whomever one pleases, and all other gay/lesbian rights. I believe that holding the legal "boot on the neck" of people who do not share my beliefs is futile and will set the movement back. A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still....
No ones mind has been changed by this ruling, with the exception of a few individuals who will dig in their heels and become bigots.
The Colorado Supreme Court refused to hear the baker's case because the baker had no law to protect him. Really? The court refused to hear the case, telling the baker that, because baking was not a religious based business, that he had no reason to deny service based on his religious beliefs. The appeals court let the lower court ruling stand.
The Colorado Supreme Court refused to hear the baker's case because the baker had no law to protect him. Really? The court refused to hear the case, telling the baker that, because baking was not a religious based business, that he had no reason to deny service based on his religious beliefs. The appeals court let the lower court ruling stand.
Yah..you're right. Religious freedom is not an actual law that the courts recognize anymore.
Mississippi's legislative branch passed an unconstitutional law. The court corrected that, as they should.
No, they didn't. At least not in light of what the Constitution actually says. But when courts invent rights that don't exist it's easy to find laws that conflict with them.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,916,433 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
No, they didn't. At least not in light of what the Constitution actually says. But when courts invent rights that don't exist it's easy to find laws that conflict with them.
Well, seeing the Republican AG considers the law extra-constitutional, I suspect there will be no appeal, and it will stand. He warned the legislative branch that it would be struct down, as was his duty. Your interpretation of the Constitution is what you want it to say; the Courts are the arbitrator of what it really does say, and that has been the case since the very early 1800's. I can dig up the reference if you question that fact.
Well, seeing the Republican AG considers the law extra-constitutional, I suspect there will be no appeal, and it will stand. He warned the legislative branch that it would be struct down, as was his duty. Your interpretation of the Constitution is what you want it to say; the Courts are the arbitrator of what it really does say, and that has been the case since the very early 1800's. I can dig up the reference if you question that fact.
Do you think I should care more regarding what a Republican AG says over what a Democrat says? Does that matter when the courts are liberal and will invent rights?
I understand your point that the courts are to decide Constitutionality. I really do. My point is that the courts have become a joke--and instead of actually reading the Consitution, they simply legislate from the bench according to their beliefs. They are corrupt.
And again we see a Christian hoisting the Christian Flag over the American flag. Atheists don't. So just who is it that should be regarded as citizens and patriots?
Mississippi's legislative branch passed an unconstitutional law. The court corrected that, as they should.
"The Court" in Mississippi did not "correct that".
As usual...it voted based upon bias, prejudice, and personal preference. Not strictly by the Constitution, like they are supposed to.
Got a question for ya: If the SCOTUS (and State Supreme Courts) was made up of all Scalias, how "Unconstitutional" would many of the laws relative to SSM and LGBTQs, that have been "interpreted" to be so, would have been designated as such?
People all have their biases. The Government and the Courts are made up of people. This guarantees a flawed and bogus system when just a small group of people make laws and rulings that effect everyone.
The best you can do is please as many people as possible...so put as much as possible to a vote/referendum. With modern technology this is very easy to implement.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,916,433 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
"The Court" in Mississippi did not "correct that".
As usual...it voted based upon bias, prejudice, and personal preference. Not strictly by the Constitution, like they are supposed to.
Got a question for ya: If the SCOTUS (and State Supreme Courts) was made up of all Scalias, how "Unconstitutional" would many of the laws relative to SSM and LGBTQs, that have been "interpreted" to be so, would have been designated as such?
People all have their biases. The Government and the Courts are made up of people. This guarantees a flawed and bogus system when just a small group of people make laws and rulings that effect everyone.
The best you can do is please as many people as possible...so put as much as possible to a vote/referendum. With modern technology this is very easy to implement.
Senior judges are screened by legislatures, by representatives that are elected by the people. The composition of those legislatures change when the people believe a change is needed, and any judges appointed and screened will reflect the viewpoints at that point in time.
It would be better for Christians if the authority to marry people together was taken away , then the courts would have to marry every one
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.
