Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide

PJ_Soul · July 2015

Hiw do you contest a federal supreme court ruling? Perhaps they are trying to get in some caveats?
But since when can a government employee apply their own religious morals to what they do? There is still separation of church and state in the US, right?

Bentleyspop · July 2015

PJ_Soul said:
Hiw do you contest a federal supreme court ruling? Perhaps they are trying to get in some caveats?
But since when can a government employee apply their own religious morals to what they do? There is still separation of church and state in the US, right?

Yes in theory there is supposed to be separation of church and state. But apparently judge roy moore's alabama is not part of the United States and does not have to do what the SCOTUS says it should do.

PJ_Soul · July 2015

Crazy..... Sometimes I don't understand America. Gay marriage was virtually non-controversial when it became legal in Canada. Sure, a few of the most conservative politicians said they were disappointed, but that's about it. Life went on as usual from day one. If any of them and started shooting off like so many are in thebStates theybwoukd have been driven outnof office almost immediately. No offense, but I am surprised that Americans have allowed their country to support so any wackos in government. Is it apathy? People just sit sit back and let mental cases run things, and the majority whom doesn't agree simply don't vote? If so, why?? Or does America just have so many wackos that all these mental cases in office really reflect the population proportionately?
Either way, do any of you think there will.come a time when Americans actually start doing something about this problem in government? How bad does it have to get? Now they are saying that supreme court rulings should be ignored because they're exercising tyranny, whihc i see as a dorect threat against your Constitution and justice system.... isn't everyone extremely concerned about that? Isn't that the point where people should be marching in the streets and shit in protest against their leaders? Or am I missing something?

mickeyrat · July 2015

PJ_Soul said:
Crazy..... Sometimes I don't understand America. Gay marriage was virtually non-controversial when it became legal in Canada. Sure, a few of the most conservative politicians said they were disappointed, but that's about it. Life went on as usual from day one. If any of them and started shooting off like so many are in thebStates theybwoukd have been driven outnof office almost immediately. No offense, but I am surprised that Americans have allowed their country to support so any wackos in government. Is it apathy? People just sit sit back and let mental cases run things, and the majority whom doesn't agree simply don't vote? If so, why?? Or does America just have so many wackos that all these mental cases in office really reflect the population proportionately?
Either way, do any of you think there will.come a time when Americans actually start doing something about this problem in government? How bad does it have to get? Now they are saying that supreme court rulings should be ignored because they're exercising tyranny, whihc i see as a dorect threat against your Constitution and justice system.... isn't everyone extremely concerned about that? Isn't that the point where people should be marching in the streets and shit in protest against their leaders? Or am I missing something?

More and more are coming around. Actually, this is all a good lesson in civics. What is occuring with these delays is a part of the due process we are built upon.

As for the rhetoric, its all about pandering to the "faithful" , not that that will do much for them in the end.

rgambs · July 2015

PJ_Soul said:
Crazy..... Sometimes I don't understand America. Gay marriage was virtually non-controversial when it became legal in Canada. Sure, a few of the most conservative politicians said they were disappointed, but that's about it. Life went on as usual from day one. If any of them and started shooting off like so many are in thebStates theybwoukd have been driven outnof office almost immediately. No offense, but I am surprised that Americans have allowed their country to support so any wackos in government. Is it apathy? People just sit sit back and let mental cases run things, and the majority whom doesn't agree simply don't vote? If so, why?? Or does America just have so many wackos that all these mental cases in office really reflect the population proportionately?
Either way, do any of you think there will.come a time when Americans actually start doing something about this problem in government? How bad does it have to get? Now they are saying that supreme court rulings should be ignored because they're exercising tyranny, whihc i see as a dorect threat against your Constitution and justice system.... isn't everyone extremely concerned about that? Isn't that the point where people should be marching in the streets and shit in protest against their leaders? Or am I missing something?

Yep we do. Religious nutjobs mostly. There is also a culture of rebellion that has always existed in America. It is part of the reason we have been able to be so dominate, but it has an ugly side which we are seeing lately with racism, xenophobia, homophobia, etc.

Godfather. · July 2015

the wheels on the bus go round and round............just because a group does not want or agree with G/M does not mean they're nutjobs, God and Country afford us the opertunity to think for ourselfs...too many people take this country and it's freedoms for granted and have no understanding of that, all they see is what they want to see.
wacko's, hillbillys, fat wives, nutjobs,...which one do you fall under ? because..trust me somewhere to somebody you may fall under one of these "sterotypes", for a forum that claims to be "peacefull and loving" some of you extend a lot of hate to people that don't look like you or think like you, think about that nexy time you use the words biggot or racist.

Godfather.

rgambs · July 2015

Godfather. said:
the wheels on the bus go round and round............just because a group does not want or agree with G/M does not mean they're nutjobs, God and Country afford us the opertunity to think for ourselfs...too many people take this country and it's freedoms for granted and have no understanding of that, all they see is what they want to see.
wacko's, hillbillys, fat wives, nutjobs,...which one do you fall under ? because..trust me somewhere to somebody you may fall under one of these "sterotypes", for a forum that claims to be "peacefull and loving" some of you extend a lot of hate to people that don't look like you or think like you, think about that nexy time you use the words biggot or racist.

Godfather.

Sounds nice but it's empty. When you seek to limit the civil rights of an entire group of people because of a fairytale you read in a book, you ARE a nutjob bigot.
All the arguments you put forward were used in the 1850's, and the 1950's and sixties to defend racial discrimination.
They were just thinking for themselves as well, they were just people who had their own opinions in a free country.
Well guess what, some opinions are wrong. Just because it's an opinion doesn't make it ok.

If you want to address my Wal-Mart story, which seems to have bothered you in , entirely predictable way, please do so in the Confederate flag thread.

callen · July 2015

God/Mother Nature creates humans that are sexually attracted to their same gender. The way humans, and other species develop, there will be mutations creating humans with different wiring. Same as birth defects, naturally occurring. Gonna happen with billions of births. So how can we punish humans for how they were created?

Have been informed from my Christian friends that homosexuals are okay but they shouldn't act on their sexual urges.
Fk that has to suck and is downright cruel.

Treat others as you want to be treated. That should trump any other Rules.

rollings · July 2015

callen said:

eddiec said:

callen said:
Am torn on Christian photographer being forced to shoot gay marriage. They are in it. Setting up poses, getting couple to smile.

Baking a cake eh. Catering eh. But maybe there is a line?

Thoughts?

Don't you have to hire a photographer?

Don't understand your question.

I can explain, I think .
You said about a photographer being "forced".
the above user thought that photographers were hired, as in not forced .

callen · July 2015

rollings said:

callen said:

eddiec said:

callen said:
Am torn on Christian photographer being forced to shoot gay marriage. They are in it. Setting up poses, getting couple to smile.

Baking a cake eh. Catering eh. But maybe there is a line?

Thoughts?

Don't you have to hire a photographer?

Don't understand your question.
I can explain, I think .
You said about a photographer being "forced".
the above user thought that photographers were hired, as in not forced .

Okay got it thanks.

In places where sexual orientation is classified as a protected group one can't deny service due to this reason hence the word force or be sued/fined.

So I would ordinarily have black and white position on not being able to deny service due to religious beliefs but not so sure anymore though impossible to draw the line I guess.

PJ_Soul · July 2015

callen said:

rollings said:

callen said:

eddiec said:

callen said:
Am torn on Christian photographer being forced to shoot gay marriage. They are in it. Setting up poses, getting couple to smile.

Baking a cake eh. Catering eh. But maybe there is a line?

Thoughts?

Don't you have to hire a photographer?

Don't understand your question.
I can explain, I think .
You said about a photographer being "forced".
the above user thought that photographers were hired, as in not forced .
Okay got it thanks.

In places where sexual orientation is classified as a protected group one can't deny service due to this reason hence the word force or be sued/fined.

So I would ordinarily have black and white position on not being able to deny service due to religious beliefs but not so sure anymore though impossible to draw the line I guess.

So just say you're busy that day and don't do it. It's only illegal if you are stupid enough and mean enough to tell someone you won't work for them because of how they were born.

Last-12-Exit · July 2015

PJ_Soul said:

callen said:

rollings said:

callen said:

eddiec said:

callen said:
Am torn on Christian photographer being forced to shoot gay marriage. They are in it. Setting up poses, getting couple to smile.

Baking a cake eh. Catering eh. But maybe there is a line?

Thoughts?

Don't you have to hire a photographer?

Don't understand your question.
I can explain, I think .
You said about a photographer being "forced".
the above user thought that photographers were hired, as in not forced .
Okay got it thanks.

In places where sexual orientation is classified as a protected group one can't deny service due to this reason hence the word force or be sued/fined.

So I would ordinarily have black and white position on not being able to deny service due to religious beliefs but not so sure anymore though impossible to draw the line I guess.
So just say you're busy that day and don't do it. It's only illegal if you are stupid enough and mean enough to tell someone you won't work for them because of how they were born.

When I said this to my father in law he replied "why should we have to lie? Christians have values and God's word we have to follow." I tried very hard not I laugh, but I couldn't resist.

oftenreading · July 2015

PJ_Soul said:

callen said:

rollings said:

callen said:

eddiec said:

callen said:
Am torn on Christian photographer being forced to shoot gay marriage. They are in it. Setting up poses, getting couple to smile.

Baking a cake eh. Catering eh. But maybe there is a line?

Thoughts?

Don't you have to hire a photographer?

Don't understand your question.
I can explain, I think .
You said about a photographer being "forced".
the above user thought that photographers were hired, as in not forced .
Okay got it thanks.

In places where sexual orientation is classified as a protected group one can't deny service due to this reason hence the word force or be sued/fined.

So I would ordinarily have black and white position on not being able to deny service due to religious beliefs but not so sure anymore though impossible to draw the line I guess.
So just say you're busy that day and don't do it. It's only illegal if you are stupid enough and mean enough to tell someone you won't work for them because of how they were born.

That might be one option but you are speaking from the point of view of a person who lives in a big city with lots of options and a general public that is at the least neutral, and in many instances LGBT-friendly. What about the people who live in smaller towns in more conservative areas with fewer options - what do they do when the town's bakeries, photographers and caterers are all mysteriously totally booked up on their wedding day? Ideally the law protects everyone, not just those with plenty of options.

gimmesometruth27 · July 2015

the supreme court got one right.

in between moving stops last week i had a chance to read some of the dissents. i cringed at scalia's. that man is a menace.

kennedy's opinion was beautifully written. especially the final paragraphs.

congratulations to the lgbt community.

FoxyRedLa · July 2015

I apologize I haven't read this whole thread - a lot to keep up on too little time - I just read an article titled "Democrats now seeking to ban the words "husband" and "wife" because somehow they are offensive to gay people"

It talks about the forced gay lobbys agenda on the county. That they want gender neutral words like spouse or married couple. The continued push for equality.

Not sure how gender specific words can be found offensive. Even in a same sex marriage you are still gender specific right?

Why strip these words from the law? Why not simply add new words?

Why do straight people have to be stripped or offended in the process?

There are still other government programs that will always refer to them as same sex marriages cuz that's what they are. Because it's new law they have to differentiate.

rgambs · July 2015

FoxyRedLa said:
I apologize I haven't read this whole thread - a lot to keep up on too little time - I just read an article titled "Democrats now seeking to ban the words "husband" and "wife" because somehow they are offensive to gay people"

It talks about the forced gay lobbys agenda on the county. That they want gender neutral words like spouse or married couple. The continued push for equality.

Not sure how gender specific words can be found offensive. Even in a same sex marriage you are still gender specific right?

Why strip these words from the law? Why not simply add new words?

Why do straight people have to be stripped or offended in the process?

There are still other government programs that will always refer to them as same sex marriages cuz that's what they are. Because it's new law they have to differentiate.

I highly doubt there is any legitimate effort by Democrats to ban those words. There may be some fringe activists going down that road, but otherwise it sounds like typical far right hyperbole.

mickeyrat · July 2015

FoxyRedLa said:
I apologize I haven't read this whole thread - a lot to keep up on too little time - I just read an article titled "Democrats now seeking to ban the words "husband" and "wife" because somehow they are offensive to gay people"

It talks about the forced gay lobbys agenda on the county. That they want gender neutral words like spouse or married couple. The continued push for equality.

Not sure how gender specific words can be found offensive. Even in a same sex marriage you are still gender specific right?

Why strip these words from the law? Why not simply add new words?

Why do straight people have to be stripped or offended in the process?

There are still other government programs that will always refer to them as same sex marriages cuz that's what they are. Because it's new law they have to differentiate.

what law is this?

what I understand is some laws were struck DOWN based on the 14th amendment protections. No New LAW was enacted by the court. that isnt really possible.

FoxyRedLa · July 2015

Welfare and other federal and state funded programs/laws have to be written to reflect changes in eligibility.

bootlegger10 · July 2015

rgambs said:

FoxyRedLa said:
I apologize I haven't read this whole thread - a lot to keep up on too little time - I just read an article titled "Democrats now seeking to ban the words "husband" and "wife" because somehow they are offensive to gay people"

It talks about the forced gay lobbys agenda on the county. That they want gender neutral words like spouse or married couple. The continued push for equality.

Not sure how gender specific words can be found offensive. Even in a same sex marriage you are still gender specific right?

Why strip these words from the law? Why not simply add new words?

Why do straight people have to be stripped or offended in the process?

There are still other government programs that will always refer to them as same sex marriages cuz that's what they are. Because it's new law they have to differentiate.
I highly doubt there is any legitimate effort by Democrats to ban those words. There may be some fringe activists going down that road, but otherwise it sounds like typical far right hyperbole.

Based on the speed of change we are seeing I don't think there is much that is hyperbole anymore these days. Soon companies are going to be required to have three, four or five different separate bathrooms for every possible gender type out there.

brianlux · July 2015

bootlegger10 said:

rgambs said:

FoxyRedLa said:
I apologize I haven't read this whole thread - a lot to keep up on too little time - I just read an article titled "Democrats now seeking to ban the words "husband" and "wife" because somehow they are offensive to gay people"

It talks about the forced gay lobbys agenda on the county. That they want gender neutral words like spouse or married couple. The continued push for equality.

Not sure how gender specific words can be found offensive. Even in a same sex marriage you are still gender specific right?

Why strip these words from the law? Why not simply add new words?

Why do straight people have to be stripped or offended in the process?

There are still other government programs that will always refer to them as same sex marriages cuz that's what they are. Because it's new law they have to differentiate.
I highly doubt there is any legitimate effort by Democrats to ban those words. There may be some fringe activists going down that road, but otherwise it sounds like typical far right hyperbole.
Based on the speed of change we are seeing I don't think there is much that is hyperbole anymore these days. Soon companies are going to be required to have three, four or five different separate bathrooms for every possible gender type out there.

I suppose someone could argue for 58 bathrooms....

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/02/heres-a-list-of-58-gender-options-for-facebook-users/

... but I'm guessing it is more likely to be one-kind-fits-all bathroms in the future.

Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide

Comments

Categories