Marriage Amendments....

[Metsfanmax]

TGD: Please explain how gay marriage results in violations of the Constitution.

Phatscotty, two years later: Here's a legal case about a gay pride parade. It has nothing to do with gay marriage, but since it involves fags it's fair game I guess.

so, whats your take on why 1st amendment rights were not upheld?
what's your take that firefighters were forced against their will to embrace what is against their religion? Do you see anything wrong here at all?

The problem is not as simple as you think it is. What if their religion told them that black people are evil? Would you still endorse their right to refuse participating in the parade?

And I'm glad in what you probably believe was an intelligent post by yourself here you are saying that gay marriage and gay pride have nothing to do with each other....

So, Mets, what do you think is the #1 thing the gay community is proud about and celebrates in the streets?

thanks for playing

Well, if you'd pay attention to the thing you posted, you'd note that the gay pride parade happened in 2001.

The number of US states with legalized gay marriage in 2001? Zero.

So you tell me. Perhaps there's just slightly more to being gay than whether you can get married?

[Phatscotty]

TGD: Please explain how gay marriage results in violations of the Constitution.

Phatscotty, two years later: Here's a legal case about a gay pride parade. It has nothing to do with gay marriage, but since it involves fags it's fair game I guess.

so, whats your take on why 1st amendment rights were not upheld?
what's your take that firefighters were forced against their will to embrace what is against their religion? Do you see anything wrong here at all?

The problem is not as simple as you think it is. What if their religion told them that black people are evil? Would you still endorse their right to refuse participating in the parade?

And I'm glad in what you probably believe was an intelligent post by yourself here you are saying that gay marriage and gay pride have nothing to do with each other....

So, Mets, what do you think is the #1 thing the gay community is proud about and celebrates in the streets?

thanks for playing

Well, if you'd pay attention to the thing you posted, you'd note that the gay pride parade happened in 2001.

The number of US states with legalized gay marriage in 2001? Zero.

So you tell me. Perhaps there's just slightly more to being gay than whether you can get married?

One more chance before you get nominated. Mets, what's your comment on the issue, the 2 firefighters being forced to embrace and take part in celebration something that goes against their religion

that's right, zero in 2001. That's why the case stalled for 14 years. Now, where it is legal in the state of discussion, along with all the other laws of which were my point specifically, now the courts have precedent for tossing out lawsuits claiming violations of constitutional amendments, specifically, the first amendment rights.

You must forget, this is not the first 'full frontal'. At the time Grekko and I had our disagreement, we agreed that we couldn't say anymore, mostly because these kinds of things I said would happen had not happened, and because Grekko said because they had not happened, and such intentions had not been declared publicly by only the most honest politicians, that we would have to wait and see. I noted that when the time came, I would remind him.

I will bump my threads about how gay marriage would indirectly and directly end up nullifying American's first amendment rights if you want me to. I seem to remember you saying that nobody's 1st amendment rights would be trampled on at one time as well....

[Metsfanmax]

One more chance before you get nominated. Mets, what's your comment on the issue, the 2 firefighters being forced to embrace and take part in celebration something that goes against their religion

My comment is that it is an unfortunate situation. I have no real comment on the constitutionality of the issue except to trust the courts, as I am not a constitutional lawyer. If this were up to me, knowing what I know, I would have ruled the same way, because as far as I can tell the firefighters in particular were chosen simply because it was their jurisdiction. If their employer had targeted them for the job because the employer knew that they don't like gay people, that would be different, but that's not what happened. It is hard to believe that this is a religious issue unless there's some proscription in the Bible against having gay pride parades.

[Phatscotty]

One more chance before you get nominated. Mets, what's your comment on the issue, the 2 firefighters being forced to embrace and take part in celebration something that goes against their religion

My comment is that it is an unfortunate situation. I have no real comment on the constitutionality of the issue except to trust the courts, as I am not a constitutional lawyer. If this were up to me, knowing what I know, I would have ruled the same way, because as far as I can tell the firefighters in particular were chosen simply because it was their jurisdiction. If their employer had targeted them for the job because the employer knew that they don't like gay people, that would be different, but that's not what happened. It is hard to believe that this is a religious issue unless there's some proscription in the Bible against having gay pride parades.

But, does what happened sound like Freedom to you? It doesn't really matter what the reason is that someone does not want to do something, they don't need a reason nor do they need to give a reason. I get that you have a problem all major religions have an issue with homosexuality. But how you feel has nothing to do with someone else's feelings, what they like/don't like. Forcing someone to do something against their will is the antithesis of Freedom, not to mention something so specifically protected.

For the record, I don't have a problem with act of gay marriage. My problem is the way we went about it, the way it was exploited and the emotional manipulation, and the unintended consequences of doing it the way we did it, not to mention my opinion that a lot of the derivatives of one un-elected politically appointed judge overruling statewide democratic votes/constitutional amendments, how this way was going to pave the way for incest being accepted, how the 1st Amendment would be trumped again and again, how young children's education and school bathrooms/locker rooms would be changed as well as boys n girls sports, prom king/queen, canceling century old traditional 'father/daughter/ dances because one girl had 2 moms and felt discriminated against. None of that has anything to do with 'marriage' no matter what type it is, but all of those HAVE changed because of the new laws and the way courts work and the precedents it sets. In other words, I just thought it through... I have ALWAYS stated that the government should not dictate marriage (no gov't permission slips) and if it's marriage a gay couple really wants (not the benefits/rights/entitlements/tax code) there were some churches already willing to perform and bless the ceremony and no doubt there would be more now. And if it was about the rights/financial benefits etc, then the best way would have been to make laws including civil unions, so that hospitals would not only let a married partner visit, civil union would be included, as well as many tax code purposes, etc.

[Metsfanmax]

But, does what happened sound like Freedom to you? It doesn't really matter what the reason is that someone does not want to do something, they don't need a reason nor do they need to give a reason. I get that you have a problem all major religions have an issue with homosexuality. But how you feel has nothing to do with someone else's feelings, what they like/don't like. Forcing someone to do something against their will is the antithesis of Freedom, not to mention something so specifically protected.

The guys had a job. If you have a job, you do what your boss tells you to, even if you don't like it. Freedom's got nothing to do with it.

For the record, I don't have a problem with act of gay marriage.

I am pretty sure you do, and I wish you would be honest about it.

not to mention my opinion that a lot of the derivatives of one un-elected politically appointed judge overruling statewide democratic votes/constitutional amendments

Yes, we learned a long time ago that you like the Constitution until it results in things you don't like.

[thegreekdog]

TGD: Please explain how gay marriage results in violations of the Constitution.

I need a more specific scenario or question. In my opinion, the state recognition of gay marriage does not violate the Constitution.

[Metsfanmax]

TGD: Please explain how gay marriage results in violations of the Constitution.

I need a more specific scenario or question. In my opinion, the state recognition of gay marriage does not violate the Constitution.

I no longer remember why I asked that question, so forget it ;-P

[Phatscotty]

But, does what happened sound like Freedom to you? It doesn't really matter what the reason is that someone does not want to do something, they don't need a reason nor do they need to give a reason. I get that you have a problem all major religions have an issue with homosexuality. But how you feel has nothing to do with someone else's feelings, what they like/don't like. Forcing someone to do something against their will is the antithesis of Freedom, not to mention something so specifically protected.

The guys had a job. If you have a job, you do what your boss tells you to, even if you don't like it. Freedom's got nothing to do with it.

And what if your boss tells you not to put out the fire at a certain house because black people live ther Or how about because gay people live there? Are they still just 'doing what their boss tells them to do'???

This is where it gets good

[Phatscotty]

TGD: Please explain how gay marriage results in violations of the Constitution.

I need a more specific scenario or question. In my opinion, the state recognition of gay marriage does not violate the Constitution.

this is the specific topic I brought up last week

Roman Catholic Firefighters Forced to Appear in Gay Pride Parade

Lawsuit claiming Constitutional rights violated, thrown out

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — The Rhode Island Supreme Court has thrown out lawsuits brought by two Providence firefighters who said their constitutional rights were violated when they were ordered to drive a truck in a gay pride parade despite their religious objections.

The firefighters, Theodore Fabrizio and Stephen Deninno, argued that they are Roman Catholics and therefore do not support or condone homosexuality.

Justice William Robinson, writing for all five members of the high court this month, said the men appeared in the 2001 parade as public servants who were "relatively anonymous." He called it a legitimate work assignment.

"The respondents' appearance in the parade, solely as members of the Providence Fire Department, did not constitute a form of expression on their part. Rather, it was simply the accomplishing of a task assigned to an engine company of the Providence Fire Department," Robinson wrote.

The two lawsuits, filed in 2004, were brought against former Mayor Buddy Cianci and James Rattigan, who was fire chief in 2001. The firefighters sought compensatory and punitive damages for alleged violations of their freedom of religion and speech.

The court said the men were assigned to work the parade because they served in an engine company that was closest to the parade route. They asked to be reassigned but were refused, according to their lawyer. They said that during and after the parade, they experienced sexual harassment from parade-goers and their co-workers.

A lawyer for the city told the court during arguments in September that the city sent trucks to various parades as a matter of course, including the Columbus Day parade, Purim parade and others.

After the September hearing, Cianci — who at the time was making an ultimately unsuccessful bid to reclaim the mayor's job he left in 2002 — complained about the glacial pace of the case before the court.

In his opinion, Robinson also made reference to the slow pace of the case, calling it a "jarndycean piece of litigation," an apparent reference to the fictional case Jarndyce v. Jarndyce in the Charles Dickens novel "Bleak House," which drones on for so long and is so complicated that no one alive knows what it means.

http://news.yahoo.com/court-throws-fire ... 45135.html

Just curious, in your opinion/speculation, what do you think would be worse for a religious person....to be forced to attend a gay wedding, or to be forced to participate in celebration of homosexuality, surrounded by hundreds or thousands of them, dressed to impressed in the most flammy/provacative costumes you can imagine, making out all over the place, rubbing genitals together in the street, asses pressed against the windows, throwing it in their face? Not exactly the same as choosing the pew in the back eh?

Is my clockwork orange picture at least in a slightly more 'correct' context now?

[BigBallinStalin]

AAAANNNNNNDDDD HOW MANY FIRE FIGHTER DEPARTMENTS DIDN'T HAVE TO SHOW UP FOR LOCAL GAY STUFF???

OHHH, NO STORIES OF THAT!!!

But wait! There's a story which confirms PS's bias! ACCEPT IT!

[thegreekdog]

Hmmm... that's somewhat disturbing, although I do not understand the factual background. Seems sketchy. They probably should have said no and then not done it (or called in sick).

[AndyDufresne]

I once knew a firefighter who who disliked putting out fires that affected Lutheran homes.


--Andy

[Dukasaur]

I once knew a firefighter who who disliked putting out fires that affected Lutheran homes.


--Andy

These firefighters dislike putting out flamers.

[Phatscotty]

Hmmm... that's somewhat disturbing, although I do not understand the factual background. Seems sketchy. They probably should have said no and then not done it (or called in sick).

Well, yeah, but then there's always the 'You'll lose your job' situation, or else the doghouse getting the crappy shifts, cut in hours.

[Phatscotty]

AAAANNNNNNDDDD HOW MANY FIRE FIGHTER DEPARTMENTS DIDN'T HAVE TO SHOW UP FOR LOCAL GAY STUFF???

OHHH, NO STORIES OF THAT!!!

But wait! There's a story which confirms PS's bias! ACCEPT IT!

Confirms my bias? LOL. Confirms my extremely specific prediction more like. I didn't know every single department in the country had to be forced to participate and celebrate gay pride in order for a citizen's rights to be violated....

WOODRUFFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Phatscotty]

I still wonder why people that claim to be in favor of civil liberties and against government intervention are so worried about what other people do with their lives.

Hypocrisy.

Here's a nice one that has come around full circle. Too bad we couldn't understand before. And how the heck is what the government did here not intervention?

The #1 rule of civil Liberty - Don't make laws that violate other's civil Liberty, even if the new law is in the name of civil Liberty. To do so says that certain Liberty is more for certain people/groups, and for others civil Liberty is not so important.

[Phatscotty]

I still wonder why people that claim to be in favor of civil liberties and against government intervention are so worried about what other people do with their lives.

Hypocrisy.

Maybe it isn't about caring what other people do with their lives at all, and is about not wanting to see the words "mother" and "father" banned from all official documents. Maybe its a lot of other reasons too.

....ban the words “mother” and “father” from legal documents under the country's plan to legalize homosexual “marriage” and give equal adoption rights to both traditional couples and same-sex partners. Under the proposal, which is being aggressively pushed forward, the term “parents” would replace “mother” and “father” in an identical marriage ceremony that will be used for both traditional and homosexual weddings.

You need the government to legitimize marriage (as between man and woman) and parenting (as between mother and father)? That's pretty sad dude.

I don't need anything. The only thing that is sad is you ignoring the consequences.

If the government were not so large and controlling and entrenched, this would not even be an issue. You should realize that demanding "government control" to enforce same sex marriages is obviously moving in the wrong direction. Go a little further in this direction, and people will need gov't licenses to have children.

So your path forward is to create further regulation of marriage by defining the term and excluding groups of people from engaging in marriage. That seems like a statist's path forward to me.

And you do need this. You need bigger, badder government with more regulation. You need the government to tell people what your definition of marriage is. This is not difficult to understand. It's why Republicans are seen as statists when it comes to social issues (such as marriage, sexuality, and religion) and why I jumped out of that political party. Now, I expected you to come in with a "yeah, but this is a state issue, not a federal one." But a state is as much an remover of freedoms from individuals as the federal government. And you're supporting increased Minnesota control over social issues. Thus, I dub you a statist. And that is a far more accurate description of you than the word "marxist" is of our current president.

Actually, the people were telling the government what marriage was and always has been, and the government (not sure if you can call a single un-elected judge 'the government', but....)and now we do have bigger and badder government with more regulation, even to the point of tossing out the lawsuit of religious firefighters forced to celebrate a gay pride parade, which no doubt sets precedent for the envelope to be pushed even further down the road.

I don't get what Freedom was taken away either. How can something that had never happened before be 'taken away'? But I will tell you what has been taken away and have been telling everyone the hundred ways this will impact society in ways that have nothing to do with marriage. Gender has been taken away. You may find that convenient and compassionate when it comes to marriage, but not so much when a large boy joins your daughters soccer team or has the spot next to your daughters in the girls locker room, and I don't think boys will like girls joining their cub scouts nor do I think men will enjoy a woman forcing their way into men's only clubs either.

[AndyDufresne]

Gender has been taken away.

It's true. I used a unisex restroom like a week or two ago. This is the beginning of the end.


--Andy

[Phatscotty]

Gender has been taken away.

It's true. I used a unisex restroom like a week or two ago. This is the beginning of the end.


--Andy

Cool BS story bro.

Unfortunately we are talking about men fighting in the women's MMA kind of 'gender doesn't matter', knocking women out in 26 seconds, broken eye sockets, blindness, even instant retirement. But, if you wanna keep it in your minimalist least offensive light possible, let's say your mom is in the women's bathroom, and some guys walk in and start getting pushy about needed to take a dump right this instant. What does your mom say to these men in the women's bathroom? Lemme guess your response...

okay, I will squeeze my buttcheeks and half my deuce so you boys can go, but hurry upI need to finish. sall good tho, there is no gender anymore, so I guess I will just go to the boys bathroom

or I wouldn't put it past you to just assume every building in the country that has at least 2 bathrooms just pony up the dough and build a 3rd bathroom, problem solved.

[Phatscotty]

But, does what happened sound like Freedom to you? It doesn't really matter what the reason is that someone does not want to do something, they don't need a reason nor do they need to give a reason. I get that you have a problem all major religions have an issue with homosexuality. But how you feel has nothing to do with someone else's feelings, what they like/don't like. Forcing someone to do something against their will is the antithesis of Freedom, not to mention something so specifically protected.

The guys had a job. If you have a job, you do what your boss tells you to, even if you don't like it. Freedom's got nothing to do with it.

For the record, I don't have a problem with act of gay marriage.

I am pretty sure you do, and I wish you would be honest about it.

not to mention my opinion that a lot of the derivatives of one un-elected politically appointed judge overruling statewide democratic votes/constitutional amendments

Yes, we learned a long time ago that you like the Constitution until it results in things you don't like.

you mean like the 1st amendment, Freedom of religion? Oh, that would be what you don't like...

I happened not to like that the Constitution has amendments that can cancel out other amendments, say, the 14th amendment trumping the 1st? That's not how it's supposed to work at all Mets, in fact it's supposed to be the total opposite. I seem to remember you saying that would never happen, and now that it has happened, you say 'well, Phatscotty just doesn't like the Constitution' I just watched a video of children who can make arguments better than you.

[Metsfanmax]

I happened not to like that the Constitution has amendments that can cancel out other amendments, say, the 14th amendment trumping the 1st?

You do understand what an amendment is, yes?

[Lootifer]

So say you are a extreme pacifist/conscientious objector and are vehemently opposed to anything that celebrates war (lets not discuss the merits of this stance, hell ill even let you call it an "idiotic perverse stance" if you like - that's not the point im making).

Say you are also a firefighter.

Is it also, in your mind PS, a violation of the extreme pacifists rights if they we forced to work the shift that looked after this:

http://www.alpharetta.ga.us/index.php?p=520

???

[thegreekdog]

So say you are a extreme pacifist/conscientious objector and are vehemently opposed to anything that celebrates war (lets not discuss the merits of this stance, hell ill even let you call it an "idiotic perverse stance" if you like - that's not the point im making).

Say you are also a firefighter.

Is it also, in your mind PS, a violation of the extreme pacifists rights if they we forced to work the shift that looked after this:

http://www.alpharetta.ga.us/index.php?p=520

???

I think there have been cases on "forced speech" (in other words, the government forcing you to engage in supporting something that goes against your free speech rights). I don't know the cases or the result and can't be bothered to check.

[AndyDufresne]

Gender has been taken away.

It's true. I used a unisex restroom like a week or two ago. This is the beginning of the end.


--Andy

Cool BS story bro.

I really did use a unisex bathroom. It was in a convenience store in Mexico. So it is a worldwide problem, as you can see.


--Andy