SCOTUS Rules Same Sex Marriage is legal

[jdgregory84]

We can argue about existing before/after & fiction another time, but right now the government has made it mandate on the what it is and can now be subject to discriminatory if you don't allow it in your church, whatever religion it is. At least, that's what I foresee.

You know that getting married in a church is just ceremonial right? You actually don't get married in a church. You get married when you get the marriage license signed in a government building. It hasn't changed what is being allowed in whatever church you go to.

[GhostTX]

You do realize not everyone is a Christian, right?



Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion. Plenty of Christians are fine with it. I'm ashamed of some of my Christian friends. Days like today reminds me why I don't hang out with them. Then there's that whole "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" thing. Every Christian I know sins. Many of which do so frequently without remorse and with no intention of stopping, under the guise of making it right Sunday morning. That isn't Christianity. It is hypocritical.


Abbott is a delusional fucking clown, yet again. Par for the course.

One thing to sin. Another to condone it and allow it to be repeatable. If you're Christian, the Bible is very clear on it stance with homosexuality. To ignore that and say let's let them be married is hypocritical.

[GhostTX]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the institute of marriage existed before the bible, why should the bible be used as the source of what marriage is? Athiests get married all the time. So do Muslims, Hindus, and people of other religions that do not acknowledge the bible as being more than a fictional piece of literature.

We can argue about existing before/after & fiction another time, but right now the government has made it mandate on the what it is and can now be subject to discriminatory if you don't allow it in your church, whatever religion it is. At least, that's what I foresee.

[Moose242]

Those would be nice distractions from the long term screw job we are about to get, but this court case is one of those that will have both political and social consequences for decades to come.

8 years of Hillary with during that time:

1. a Senate certain to flip in `16 or `18.
2. At least one conservative justice retiring or dying.
3. A Census in 2020 ( a presidential election year ) with data that will be used by the state legislatures that were elected that year to do Congressional Districts.
4. Trends of rising government dependence we all can agree that will simply grow worse.
5. Obama care? It will morph into socialized medicine.

I find those FAR more frightening than Isis or Putin and his bankrupt country.

Russia invading the Baltic States or ISIS getting a nuke > all that shit.

[bcoop]

The bible is clear on the marriage thing.

You do realize not everyone is a Christian, right?

Religious freedom is now up in the air. I would love to find any Christian that believes gay is ok, to find such passages in the Bible.

Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion. Plenty of Christians are fine with it. I'm ashamed of some of my Christian friends. Days like today reminds me why I don't hang out with them. Then there's that whole "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" thing. Every Christian I know sins. Many of which do so frequently without remorse and with no intention of stopping, under the guise of making it right Sunday morning. That isn't Christianity. It is hypocritical.


Abbott is a delusional fucking clown, yet again. Par for the course.

[jdgregory84]

Religious freedom is now up in the air. How soon until the government starts tearing down churches who believe homosexuality is a sin? I would love to find any Christian that believes gay is ok, to find such passages in the Bible.

On that note, Abbot and Paxton response:

http://www.kxii.com/home/headlines/T...310085181.html

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the institute of marriage existed before the bible, why should the bible be used as the source of what marriage is? Athiests get married all the time. So do Muslims, Hindus, and people of other religions that do not acknowledge the bible as being more than a fictional piece of literature.

[GhostTX]

Religious freedom is now up in the air. How soon until the government starts tearing down churches who believe homosexuality is a sin? I would love to find any Christian that believes gay is ok, to find such passages in the Bible.

On that note, Abbot and Paxton response:

AUSTIN -- Governor Greg Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton released statements regarding the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling:

“The Supreme Court has abandoned its role as an impartial judicial arbiter and has become an unelected nine-member legislature. Five Justices on the Supreme Court have imposed on the entire county their personal views on an issue that the Constitution and the Court’s previous decisions reserve to the people of the States.

“Despite the Supreme Court’s rulings, Texans’ fundamental right to religious liberty remains protected. No Texan is required by the Supreme Court’s decision to act contrary to his or her religious beliefs regarding marriage.

“The Texas Constitution guarantees that ‘[n]o human authority ought, in any case whatsoever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion.’ The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion; and the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, combined with the newly enacted Pastor Protection Act, provide robust legal protections to Texans whose faith commands them to adhere to the traditional understanding of marriage.

“As I have done in the past, I will continue to defend the religious liberties of all Texans—including those whose conscience dictates that marriage is only the union of one man and one woman. Later today, I will be issuing a directive to state agencies instructing them to prioritize the protection of Texans’ religious liberties.”

Said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton: “Today’s ruling by five Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court marks a radical departure from countless generations of societal law and tradition. The impact of this opinion on our society and the familial fabric of our nation will be profound. Far from a victory for anyone, this is instead a dilution of marriage as a societal institution.

“What is most disturbing is the extent to which this opinion is yet another assault on the actual text of the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law itself. Just as Roe v. Wade ripped from the hands of the American people the issue of life and placed it in the judge-made ‘penumbras’ of the Constitution, so has this opinion made clear that our governing document – the protector of our liberties through representative government – can be molded to mean anything by unelected judges.

“But no court, no law, no rule, and no words will change the simple truth that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Nothing will change the importance of a mother and a father to the raising of a child. And nothing will change our collective resolve that all Americans should be able to exercise their faith in their daily lives without infringement and harassment.

“We start by recognizing the primacy and importance of our first freedom – religious liberty. The truth is that the debate over the issue of marriage has increasingly devolved into personal and economic aggression against people of faith who have sought to live their lives consistent with their sincerely-held religious beliefs about marriage. In numerous incidents trumpeted and celebrated by a sympathetic media, progressives advocating the anti-traditional marriage agenda have used this issue to publicly mock, deride, and intimidate devout individuals for daring to believe differently than they do. This ruling will likely only embolden those who seek to punish people who take personal, moral stands based upon their conscience and the teachings of their religion.

“It is not acceptable that people of faith be exposed to such abuse. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects our religious liberty and shields people of faith from such persecution, but those aspects of its protections have been denigrated by radicals, echoed by the media and an increasingly-activist judiciary. Consistent with existing federal and state Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that should already protect religious liberty and prevent discrimination based on religion, we must work to ensure that the guarantees of the First Amendment, protecting freedom of religion, and its corollary freedom of conscience, are secure for all Americans.

“Our guiding principle should be to protect people who want to live, work and raise their families in accordance with their religious faith. We should ensure that people and businesses are not discriminated against by state and local governments based on a person’s religious beliefs, including discrimination against people of faith in the distribution of grants, licenses, certification or accreditation; we should prevent harassing lawsuits against people of faith, their businesses and religious organizations; we should protect non-profits and churches from state and local taxes if the federal government penalizes them by removing their 501(c)(3) status; and we should protect religious adoption and foster care organizations and the children and families they serve. Shortly, my office will be addressing questions about the religious liberties of clerks of court and justices of the peace.

“Displays of hate and intolerance against people of faith should be denounced by all people of good will and spark concern among anyone who believes in religious liberty and freedom for all.

“Despite this decision, I still have faith in America and the American people. We must be vigilant about our freedom and must use the democratic process to make sure America lives up to its promise as a land of freedom, religious tolerance and hope.”

http://www.kxii.com/home/headlines/Texas-Gov-AG-comment-on-SCOTUS-decision-on-same-sex-marriage-310085181.html

[Baron Von Crowder]

Different deal. and NO. The bible is clear on the marriage thing. I respect someones religion. I don't respect a racist.

So it's not cool to discriminate against someone for the color of their skin, their religious preference, but it's cool to discriminate due to sexual preferences.

Wait, what if it was two hot lesbians?

[dcs13]

But you're not OK with a buisness denying service to a black person, right?

Different deal. and NO. The bible is clear on the marriage thing. I respect someones religion. I don't respect a racist.

[Baron Von Crowder]

Which is fine IF THEY WANT to. I don't care a rats ass about Tom and Dick getting married. I care about the goverment FORCING anyone to perform a service if their religious beliefs are infringed.
And it IS the Gay's fault. If I go to a store and don't feel welcome I move on to where I am. I don't sue them because they didn't cater to my ass.

Here's some fine examples:
:
 In Oregon, Christian bakers who refused to sell a wedding cake to two lesbians face hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.
In Washington state, an elderly Christian florist could face hefty fines after she refused to provide wedding flowers to two gay men.
A Christian Colorado baker is appealing a judge’s decision ordering him to start baking wedding cakes for homosexuals and to provide his staff with sensitivity training, after he refused to create a wedding cake for two gay guys.
 The US Supreme Court this year declined to hear the case of a Christian photographer from New Mexico who claimed that refusing to shoot the commitment ceremony of two lesbians was an expression not only of her constitutional right to religious freedom, it was protected by her First Amendment right to free speech. New Mexico’s Supreme Court and the state’s Human Rights Commission have decreed that her refusal to shoot equaled unlawful discrimination.

But you're not OK with a buisness denying service to a black person, right?

[jdgregory84]

How soon before some psycho tries shooting up a gay wedding? I hope it doesn't happen, but religion can make some people crazy.

[dcs13]

So, it's like, all the gay's fault?

There have been gay marriages in christian churches for years.

Which is fine IF THEY WANT to. I don't care a rats ass about Tom and Dick getting married. I care about the goverment FORCING anyone to perform a service if their religious beliefs are infringed.
And it IS the Gay's fault. If I go to a store and don't feel welcome I move on to where I am. I don't sue them because they didn't cater to my ass.

Here's some fine examples:
:
 In Oregon, Christian bakers who refused to sell a wedding cake to two lesbians face hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.
In Washington state, an elderly Christian florist could face hefty fines after she refused to provide wedding flowers to two gay men.
A Christian Colorado baker is appealing a judge’s decision ordering him to start baking wedding cakes for homosexuals and to provide his staff with sensitivity training, after he refused to create a wedding cake for two gay guys.
 The US Supreme Court this year declined to hear the case of a Christian photographer from New Mexico who claimed that refusing to shoot the commitment ceremony of two lesbians was an expression not only of her constitutional right to religious freedom, it was protected by her First Amendment right to free speech. New Mexico’s Supreme Court and the state’s Human Rights Commission have decreed that her refusal to shoot equaled unlawful discrimination.

[Baron Von Crowder]

Thats whats next, you can't refuse them a service. They're protected. But I bet there won't be anyone to take on the Mosque for not allowing a service.

These folks were fine 13k and had to attend sensitivity training for refusing to allow a gay wedding on their private property...
http://nypost.com/2014/11/10/couple-...on-their-farm/

So, it's like, all the gay's fault?

There have been gay marriages in christian churches for years.

[Mongoose]

I was hoping the nation would look at the spreading violent islamic movement in the mid-east or the freaking Bond villain eyeing the Baltic States and stirring up nationalism.

Those would be nice distractions from the long term screw job we are about to get, but this court case is one of those that will have both political and social consequences for decades to come.

8 years of Hillary with during that time:

1. a Senate certain to flip in `16 or `18.
2. At least one conservative justice retiring or dying.
3. A Census in 2020 ( a presidential election year ) with data that will be used by the state legislatures that were elected that year to do Congressional Districts.
4. Trends of rising government dependence we all can agree that will simply grow worse.
5. Obama care? It will morph into socialized medicine.

I find those FAR more frightening than Isis or Putin and his bankrupt country.

[dcs13]

huh?

Thats whats next, you can't refuse them a service. They're protected. But I bet there won't be anyone to take on the Mosque for not allowing a service.

These folks were fine 13k and had to attend sensitivity training for refusing to allow a gay wedding on their private property...

http://nypost.com/2014/11/10/couple-fined-for-refusing-to-host-same-sex-wedding-on-their-farm/