Supreme Court Rules All States Must License And Recognize Same-Sex Marriages

[bguy_1986]

Nobody's "religious liberties" extend as far as shoving jesus into the bedrooms of consenting adults. It's 2015, it's about time the religious right realised that other people's sex lives really are none of their business.

I agree, but that's not what I'm talking about.

 

We already seen one lawsuit about it.  If a cake decorator is against gay marriage because of religion, they shouldn't be forced to decorate a cake for a gay wedding.  If a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple, then they shouldn't have to, nor should they be labeled a hate group because of it.

[wakjak]

I agree, but that's not what I'm talking about.

We already seen one lawsuit about it. If a cake decorator is against gay marriage because of religion, they shouldn't be forced to decorate a cake for a gay wedding. If a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple, then they shouldn't have to, nor should they be labeled a hate group because of it.

The cake decorator wasn't forced to decorate the cake. There is no law on the books stating such.

There is now a law saying they don't have the right to disallow a marriage because the couple are gay.

[oldtimefighter]

wait for the confusion that comes out when you also allow incest. you can marry your whole family!!

I am wondering when you are going to figure out you aren't making a case agaiest same sex marriage but marriage itself...

[Noir Angel]

I agree with your first point, businesses should have the right to run their business as they see fit, but I don't agree with the second. If people hold views that are in fact hateful, it's not unfair to label them a hate group. Being bigoted and holding bigoted opinions has real world consequences, and if you choose to use your right to free speech in that way you'll have to deal with those consequences. In other words, you can sit there poking the pitbull all you want but eventually it's going to turn around and bite you.

[TPreston]

The ruling is based on the "commerce clause" - period.  (In other words, Loving v. Virginia was the precedent.)  My "nasty suspicion" was indeed confirmed; this decision CAN lead to recognition of plural marriage as long as a single state recognizes it. (No less than Chief Justice Roberts - who wrote the dissent - confirmed that basis via, of all things, Twitter - following the publishing of the decision itself.)  The ruling earlier this week on the ACA, however, was basically a punt - as booming as any from Ray Guy OR Reggie Roby in their respective heydays - but STILL a punt. They took the wording of the original legislation itself and rewrote it according to what the individual affirming Justices WANTED it to mean - shades of two of the WORST SCOTUS decisions in the court's history (Dred Scott and Plessey v. Ferguson).  However, the text of the majority opinion (Chief Roberts wrote it) gave future SCOTUS Justices an option to revisit in in future cases - he DOES see the decision being revisited, if not outright reversed, in a future ruling.

It takes quite a scoundrel to want to tear up peoples marriage licences.

[Stoffel]

I agree, but that's not what I'm talking about.

 

We already seen one lawsuit about it.  If a cake decorator is against gay marriage because of religion, they shouldn't be forced to decorate a cake for a gay wedding.  If a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple, then they shouldn't have to, nor should they be labeled a hate group because of it.

 

If you are a shop that makes cakes you can't discriminate!

I would agree that a church has any right to refuse a gay wedding though.

 

One of them is a business, the other a religious institution, that's the difference

[Night Prowler]

If people want to live in a polygamist relationship on their own volition, then why should I care? And why should you care?

 

Priests and Ministers can deny to marry couples already.

 

Just let them try denying this based on some sort of gender decision.

[bguy_1986]

The cake decorator wasn't forced to decorate the cake. There is no law on the books stating such.

There is now a law saying they don't have the right to disallow a marriage because the couple are gay.

There is no law yet is what I'm getting at.  There was already one lawsuit, more will follow.

[Night Prowler]

I am wondering when you are going to figure out you aren't making a case agaiest same sex marriage but marriage itself...

 

There was just a study, and marriage on the whole is in the decline, and has been for years.

[bguy_1986]

If you are a shop that makes cakes you can't discriminate!

I would agree that a church has any right to refuse a gay wedding though.

 

One of them is a business, the other a religious institution, that's the difference

You can first of all.  That's why the cake shop won.  It is the business owners right and is protected under the constitution.

There was just a study, and marriage on the whole is in the decline, and has been for years.

Society is degrading, morals have gone out the door.  Everybody is screwing everybody.  Glad I won't be alive 100 years from now...

[Clirion]

Not necessarily. If you move to another US state, you do not have to pass that state's driving exam. I'm sure the State reserves the right to decide if they want to extend that courtesy, but 99.999% of the time they will.

I have had to 3 times, and I am aware of my family members that have as well.

[TPreston]

There is no law yet is what I'm getting at.  There was already one lawsuit, more will follow.

oh no! christian cake makers will have to grant what they demand from everyone else (equal access to housing, employment and services)

You can first of all. That's why the cake shop won. It is the business owners right and is protected under the constitution.

Somebody tell that to the authors of the civil rights act.

Society is degrading, morals have gone out the door. Everybody is screwing everybody. Glad I won't be alive 100 years from now...

Yeah why you cant even own a slave anymore or rape your wife! WTF is going on!

[Clirion]

Already done:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_driving_licence

Actually not already done.  It is a recripical agreement with the same style of card. 

In other words the EU does not do the drivers license, they have in effect .... wait for it.....  "Full Faith and Credit Clause" amongst the countries involved.

 

Otherwise, those in England would be driving on the Right side of the Road instead of the Left side of the road.

[FloatingFatMan]

Otherwise, those in England would be driving on the Right side of the Road instead of the Left side of the road.

 

Other way around.

[Clirion]

Other way around.

Yep.... I am dyslectic.   There are days I think I am a dog!!!!

[FloatingFatMan]

Yep.... I am dyslectic.   There are days I think I am a dog!!!!

 

That must be ruff...

[DConnell Member]

oh no! christian cake makers will have to grant what they demand from everyone else (equal access to housing, employment and services)

 

 

So you can refuse service based on whether someone has shoes/shirt/proper attire, but not based on your beliefs?

 

That case wasn't about refusing service on site, but not catering a gay wedding. So its right to force someone to go to an environment in which they don't feel comfortable to provide a service? So blacks should be forced to provide services at a KKK event, I guess? Or an Irish pub should cater an Orangemen's event? (Look it up.)

 

Legal recognition of gay marriage is one thing, but how is it right to force people to participate in the event like you're suggesting? How does that promote acceptance or equality? I'm sorry, but I don't see how "Like it or else!" is a positive step. You can't bully people into agreeing with you, and attempts like this to do so are as reprehensible in their own way as the injustice the gay community is fighting. But the activists need to realize that "I don't agree with you" does not equal "I hate you".

[seta-san]

I am wondering when you are going to figure out you aren't making a case agaiest same sex marriage but marriage itself...

 

well yeah. I've had this opinion for a long time. I don't think government should be in the business of marriage.

 

http://ngemu.com/threads/county-clerk-protests-calif-gay-marriage-law.84895/#post-1077869

[Rippleman]

You can first of all.  That's why the cake shop won.  It is the business owners right and is protected under the constitution.

Society is degrading, morals have gone out the door.  Everybody is screwing everybody.  Glad I won't be alive 100 years from now...

 

The world is the best its ever been. It's all doom and gloom to those with that mindset of "when i was younger..."

[PGHammer]

I never said that it did.  However, the issue didn't (and hasn't) gone away.

All morality (like it or not) has its roots in a religious belief system.  Even in the United States (which is no less than a melting pot of Europe's rejectees, mixed with Asia's rejectees, leavened with Africa's ejectees (known fact: slaves that were sold to slaveowners in the United States were sold, by and large, originally by other African tribes under the "spoils of war" doctrine - which STILL persists in some parts of Africa today, and used to be part of the original rules of war) has not been able to free itself from the religious belief systems of those that rejected our ancestors.  That is why even SCOTUS decisions are not "cast in stone" - as no less than Chief Justice Roberts pithily pointed out in his earlier tweet today.

[Stoffel]

So you can refuse service based on whether someone has shoes/shirt/proper attire, but not based on your beliefs?

 

That case wasn't about refusing service on site, but not catering a gay wedding. So its right to force someone to go to an environment in which they don't feel comfortable to provide a service? So blacks should be forced to provide services at a KKK event, I guess? Or an Irish pub should cater an Orangemen's event? (Look it up.)

 

Legal recognition of gay marriage is one thing, but how is it right to force people to participate in the event like you're suggesting? How does that promote acceptance or equality? I'm sorry, but I don't see how "Like it or else!" is a positive step.

 

It's not your choice to be gay, IT IS your choice to be an ###### and be part of the KKK so that comparison doesn't work.

 

If you want to exclude people from your business I feel you should be up front and center about it and announce it at the front door in big letters so everybody can see clearly before they choose to do business with you people. That seems like a fair thing to do

[Rippleman]

well yeah. I've had this opinion for a long time. I don't think government should be in the business of marriage.

 

http://ngemu.com/threads/county-clerk-protests-calif-gay-marriage-law.84895/#post-1077869

 

If you didnt have it through society, then who's business would it be? Are you suggesting marriage is a religious thing? Its not, and existed in society long before church's tried to claim it as their own.

 

It SHOULD be the government and ONLY the government (society) that overlooks and controls marriage. Marriage in the most simplest form, is a contract between 2 people who wish to have benefits from society. Most of the time love/feelings are involved but is not necessary to be married.

[shockz]

Society is degrading, morals have gone out the door.  Everybody is screwing everybody.  Glad I won't be alive 100 years from now...

I'm honestly trying to figure out how you equate someone marrying a legal, consenting adult who isn't related, aka exactly the same as a straight couple as morals going out the door and allowing a society to degrade? Please explain that thought process...

 

There's plenty going wrong around the world right now, but I don't think gays are anywhere on that list....

[oldtimefighter]

well yeah. I've had this opinion for a long time. I don't think government should be in the business of marriage.

 

http://ngemu.com/threads/county-clerk-protests-calif-gay-marriage-law.84895/#post-1077869

I agree on a certain level government should not be in the marriage business and grant civil unions for tax purposes, etc. to all which can be ended easy. Mariage can be something granted by one's church (but no legal standing). Regardless, same sex couples would still have access to civil union and marriage so the result is still the same.

[Rippleman]

All morality (like it or not) has its roots in a religious belief system.

 

No, just simply no.