Marriage Amendments....

[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

???

Bump.

[Phatscotty]

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

???

Bump.

decent attempt. I would say pacifism is not specifically protected in the 1st amendment, while religion is specifically protected.

However, I would bet $100 that 9 times out of 10 the pacifist would be respected when it came to celebrating participating in a pro-war event

[Lootifer]

And likewise I am sure attempts were made to give the guys who had an issue with the parade time off. Sometimes its just not possible.

[Phatscotty]

And likewise I am sure attempts were made to give the guys who had an issue with the parade time off. Sometimes its just not possible.

You could be right, but I highly doubt it for a few reasons.....

#1 It just so happened to be the 2 Roman Catholic firefighters? Possible of course, doesn't seem very likely though that the only 2 people to have a religious issue were the only 2 available to celebrate gay pride.

#2 It's been shown time and time and time and time and time and time and time again, the objective goes far beyond equal rights and discrimination. The culture is particularly fond of forcing everyone else to embrace the culture at the expense of their own, especially on religious issues.

#3 What did it take, 10-11-12 years for the court to finally hear the case. Gee whiz Wally, it's like the court/judge was specifically waiting for marriage to be redefined in the state of Rhode Island.

Interesting isn't it? To understand how '...it doesn't affect my marriage' was probably the most common basis for support of redefinition also turned out to be the least relevant? Now, just a short year+ later, it's already becoming an instrument to dictate religion to Christianity, to discriminate against people based on their religious beliefs, to shun Christianity into the closet, to trump the Bible, to promote and cement the double standard that certain people have special rights and privileges and can flagrantly 'be who they are', while others can be fired if they ever speak a word about 'being who they are', and we aren't just talking about who people are and how they life their life in a vague sense. This is clearly and specifically protected in our very first and most important amendment.

Redefinition played a major role in transforming Freedom of Religion to Freedom from Religion, and an even bigger role in being able to force people to participate, celebrate, and embrace things that go against their religion.

It's the new and improved race card. And seeing how Muslims are in possession of the LGBT playbook in that they are now being granted special rights to pray in public schools all across America just as we finished denying Christians the exact same right and ripping every single related word that is slightly related to Christianity down from every single unit that has ever received a dime of public money, reciting our pledge of allegiance 'under Allah' just as American Christians have been prevented from reciting our pledge 'under God', not to mention a president who drops God repeatedly from our founding documents but goes out of his way to give credit to Muslims credit for building America and charges the head of NASA to make promoting Islam 'a primary goal and function' of our space program. oh, yeah, btw, anyone who thinks Bible trashing Koran preaching Obama is a Muslim, how dumb can you be?? dummy!

Pretty easy to understand how, now that the dust is settled, we've become a country where Islam is a highly respected, widely promoted, and government protected 'real' religion of peace and love, while Christianity is spit on at every chance, banned from every single nook and cranny possible, and regarded as 'phony' and a joke. Let me know when a Muslim baker is forced to make a gay wedding cake, k? Future generations are going to facepalm what you guys kicked and screamed about as discrimination. I'm sure these guys are going to love the Koran being shoved down their throats the way a Bible never ever ever ever ever was.

Kinda like the way complete fucking moronic dumbshits think that making everything 'free' without even the slightest damn clue how it's going to work is good and compassionate and we should just go ahead and force it f*ck everyone else f*ck freedom is really only rushing us to our collective slamming into the brick wall of generation zero, it's ironic many have thought they were fighting the good fight to get 'equal rights' in recognizing gay marriage while all too happily dealing a major blow to the evil evil evil evil Christian church (acceptably judged by what thousands of Christians did in the name of their religion a thousand years ago), which just happens to pave the way for peaceful honorable tolerant compassionate Islam recognized in public schools and endeared in government (cannot be judged by what thousands of Muslims do in the name of their religion yesterday, today, and tomorrow)

Best of luck. Some may see poetic justice, as for me this is nothing but sad , granted we so easlly could have accomplished the same exact thing concerning marriage for about 15-25% of the 1-3% of Americans without building n negative Liberty exoskeleton over our first amendment.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p1hnyIliF0&t=3m10s

Remember Alamo-Phats

[AndyDufresne]

#2 It's been shown time and time and time and time and time and time and time again, the objective goes far beyond equal rights and discrimination. The culture is particularly fond of forcing everyone else to embrace the culture at the expense of their own, especially on religious issues.

#3 What did it take, 10-11-12 years for the court to finally hear the case. Gee whiz Wally, it's like the court/judge was specifically waiting for marriage to be redefined in the state of Rhode Island.

--Andy

[crispybits]

Nice to see however long a break I take PS is still insane (I assume that charitably, surely nobody would lie this much on purpose right?)

And likewise I am sure attempts were made to give the guys who had an issue with the parade time off. Sometimes its just not possible.

You could be right, but I highly doubt it for a few reasons.....

#1 It just so happened to be the 2 Roman Catholic firefighters? Possible of course, doesn't seem very likely though that the only 2 people to have a religious issue were the only 2 available to celebrate gay pride.
citation needed
Do you know the reigious make-up of the other firefighters rostered on shift that day? Do you know if there were any tasks that required specialist skills that ruled certain other members of the shift out? Do you know the training level of these guys and the other guys on shift that day and whether a rational decision was to assign certain skillsets to certain tasks was made?

#2 It's been shown time and time and time and time and time and time and time again, the objective goes far beyond equal rights and discrimination. The culture is particularly fond of forcing everyone else to embrace the culture at the expense of their own, especially on religious issues.
citation needed
Nope, it's been shown time and time and time again that the agenda is that everyone should be treated equally. No special treatment for anyone. That means everyone gets to participate in the same institutions, everyone gets to enjoy the same rights, and everyone has to make the same sacrifices in terms of tolerating the beliefs and lifestyles of others. How many gay policemen and firefighters and doctors, etc etc have served rampantly homophobic people and institutions over the years I wonder? Given that about 8-10% of the population is gay and we haven't heard from gay policement litigating against their bosses for being forced to protect Westboro Baptist Church or similar... they were all just miraculously the straight ones that got assigned?

#3 What did it take, 10-11-12 years for the court to finally hear the case. Gee whiz Wally, it's like the court/judge was specifically waiting for marriage to be redefined in the state of Rhode Island.
citation needed
This case had nothing to do with gay marriage. Th ruling had nothing to do with gay marriage. This point is entirely non-sequitur

Interesting isn't it? To understand how '...it doesn't affect my marriage' was probably the most common basis for support of redefinition also turned out to be the least relevant? Now, just a short year+ later, it's already becoming an instrument to dictate religion to Christianity, to discriminate against people based on their religious beliefs, to shun Christianity into the closet, to trump the Bible, to promote and cement the double standard that certain people have special rights and privileges and can flagrantly 'be who they are', while others can be fired if they ever speak a word about 'being who they are', and we aren't just talking about who people are and how they life their life in a vague sense. This is clearly and specifically protected in our very first and most important amendment.
citation needed
To trump the Bible? Like the Bible was at any time a part of US law? Also discrimination is denying people rights or freedoms - which freedom that they would normally have while on duty were they deprived of just because of where and when they were asked to drive that truck? As government employees they certainly do not have the right to promote religious views while on paid government time...

Redefinition played a major role in transforming Freedom of Religion to Freedom from Religion, and an even bigger role in being able to force people to participate, celebrate, and embrace things that go against their religion.
citation needed
Can you point to where there has been any officially documented definitional shift from "freedom of" to "freedom from"? In order to have a freedom OF religion you need to have freedom FROM all the other religions. Also, is religion compulsory? Can you point to anywhere in the constitution, bill of rights, or any federal or state law that makes having no religion a crime? Freedom of religion means that people are free to choose "none"

It's the new and improved race card. And seeing how Muslims are in possession of the LGBT playbook in that they are now being granted special rights to pray in public schools all across America just as we finished denying Christians the exact same right and ripping every single related word that is slightly related to Christianity down from every single unit that has ever received a dime of public money, reciting our pledge of allegiance 'under Allah' just as American Christians have been prevented from reciting our pledge 'under God', not to mention a president who drops God repeatedly from our founding documents but goes out of his way to give credit to Muslims credit for building America and charges the head of NASA to make promoting Islam 'a primary goal and function' of our space program. oh, yeah, btw, anyone who thinks Bible trashing Koran preaching Obama is a Muslim, how dumb can you be?? dummy!
citation needed
Ah that old lie again. Christians have the right to pray whenever they want in their own time, even inside schools. The only prohibition is that government employees whilst on duty are not allowed to endorse, promote, etc any religious views. They can pray silently still (God can hear their thoughts remember). If you are seriosuly worried about muslims taking over the country you should want that wall of separation to be as strong as you can make it before those darned muslims come over and start trying to legislate shariah law into existence...

Pretty easy to understand how, now that the dust is settled, we've become a country where Islam is a highly respected, widely promoted, and government protected 'real' religion of peace and love, while Christianity is spit on at every chance, banned from every single nook and cranny possible, and regarded as 'phony' and a joke. Let me know when a Muslim baker is forced to make a gay wedding cake, k? Future generations are going to facepalm what you guys kicked and screamed about as discrimination. I'm sure these guys are going to love the Koran being shoved down their throats the way a Bible never ever ever ever ever was.
citation needed
Yes islam is highly respected .... (/sarcasm) .... is that why muslims polled as the second most hated group in the US recently (July 2014) - the most hated were atheists btw. Can you provide any legislation that protects Islam specifically?

Kinda like the way complete fucking moronic dumbshits think that making everything 'free' without even the slightest damn clue how it's going to work is good and compassionate and we should just go ahead and force it f*ck everyone else f*ck freedom is really only rushing us to our collective slamming into the brick wall of generation zero, it's ironic many have thought they were fighting the good fight to get 'equal rights' in recognizing gay marriage while all too happily dealing a major blow to the evil evil evil evil Christian church (acceptably judged by what thousands of Christians did in the name of their religion a thousand years ago), which just happens to pave the way for peaceful honorable tolerant compassionate Islam recognized in public schools and endeared in government (cannot be judged by what thousands of Muslims do in the name of their religion yesterday, today, and tomorrow)
citation needed
Yes making everything free sure is anti-freedom. We sure have taken away the freedom to be total dicks to certain minorities and that's outrageous - americans should have total freedom to do or say anything they like to whatever minority groups they please! Freedom for those who think the same way you do is not the kind of freedom the founding fathers envisaged when they said "we believe that ALL men... (etc etc)". If you have groups that are not free to do as they like within the law, like blacks or gays or atheists or muslims, or indeed christians, then you do not have freedom at all. The bit the christians are getting so upset about is that now the other groups are daring to actually call them out when they step over the bounds of those laws and enforce the laws against them. If the christians weren't breaking laws to begin with, then enforcing the laws wouldn't mean they get slap after slap after slap from the courts for doing so.

Best of luck. Some may see poetic justice, as for me this is nothing but sad , granted we so easlly could have accomplished the same exact thing concerning marriage for about 15-25% of the 1-3% of Americans without building n negative Liberty exoskeleton over our first amendment.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p1hnyIliF0&t=3m10s

Remember Alamo-Phats

.
^that's the forum's smallest violin - cry us a river PS....

[Lootifer]

#2 It's been shown time and time and time and time and time and time and time again, the objective goes far beyond equal rights and discrimination. The culture is particularly fond of forcing everyone else to embrace the culture at the expense of their own, especially on religious issues.

I assume I am part of "the culture", since I tend to disagree with most of your arguments on this topic PS.

So under that assumption I must be quite the outlier right? Because I am more than happy to respect the rights of religious individuals. I ask for nothing more than equal rights and removal of discrimination.

[thegreekdog]

#2 It's been shown time and time and time and time and time and time and time again, the objective goes far beyond equal rights and discrimination. The culture is particularly fond of forcing everyone else to embrace the culture at the expense of their own, especially on religious issues.

I assume I am part of "the culture", since I tend to disagree with most of your arguments on this topic PS.

So under that assumption I must be quite the outlier right? Because I am more than happy to respect the rights of religious individuals. I ask for nothing more than equal rights and removal of discrimination.

So you agree with Phatscotty.

[Lootifer]

In many high level respects, very much so.

Its the application of the ideals where we stray.

[Phatscotty]

#2 It's been shown time and time and time and time and time and time and time again, the objective goes far beyond equal rights and discrimination. The culture is particularly fond of forcing everyone else to embrace the culture at the expense of their own, especially on religious issues.

I assume I am part of "the culture", since I tend to disagree with most of your arguments on this topic PS.

So under that assumption I must be quite the outlier right? Because I am more than happy to respect the rights of religious individuals. I ask for nothing more than equal rights and removal of discrimination.

so why was redefining marriage the solution to removing discrimination and ensuring equal rights? has 'discrimination' been terminated?

[crispybits]

Nobody said it was THE solution to equal rights and discrimination, it was only the solution to equal rights and discrimination in the context of gay people being able to get married.

[Lootifer]

#2 It's been shown time and time and time and time and time and time and time again, the objective goes far beyond equal rights and discrimination. The culture is particularly fond of forcing everyone else to embrace the culture at the expense of their own, especially on religious issues.

I assume I am part of "the culture", since I tend to disagree with most of your arguments on this topic PS.

So under that assumption I must be quite the outlier right? Because I am more than happy to respect the rights of religious individuals. I ask for nothing more than equal rights and removal of discrimination.

so why was redefining marriage the solution to removing discrimination and ensuring equal rights? has 'discrimination' been terminated?

Er, enabling same sex relationships to enjoy the same culturally (and in some areas legally) accepted status as opposite sex relationships is just a step towards equal rights and cultural acceptance (and with cultural acceptance comes decreasing discrimination) - it was by no means a binary thing (ie redefined marriage, job done, equal rights achieved).

No discrimination has not been terminated, but we are making very good progress.

[Symmetry]

The re-definers lost. They tried to add laws that re-defined marriage to exclude homosexuals. They lost as they couldn't present a decent argument for heterosexuality being the sole way. They lost as soon as those laws got challenged.

Sorry Scotty, the re-definers lost.

[Metsfanmax]

The issue is pretty much over, 33 states have agreed unanimously.

Minnesota will be the 34th.

I usually support any option where the concept of "States rights" can be furthered. sue me

The Constitution is clear on this. The supremacy clause dictates that states' rights can NEVER be placed in front of equal protection in front of the law. I can understand a states' rights perspective on Obamacare. But not on a policy which explicitly violates the Constitution.

you mean "the good n plenty" clause.....The Supreme court had the option to hear challenges to the state amendments recently, they chose not to. As far was what is constitional, how familiar are you with the Minnesota Constitution????

is not whether we have the money for this in the first place relevant?

I'm talking about the U.S. Constitution. The supremacy clause also applies in overriding state constitutions as well as state laws. Even if you add this to the Minnesota Constitution, the U.S. Constitution still would make it illegal.

Also I would argue that a marriage amendment violates Article I, Section II of the Minnesota Constitution but that's not as obvious as the Equal Protection clause argument.

Also, you're absolutely right that it hasn't been as simple as "get the supreme court to rule on equal protection" when it comes to gay marriage. The intricacies of federal law are substantial. But that doesn't mean that's how it ought to be. I'm just arguing from a common sense perspective, and a plain reading of the Constitution, that there's no justification for discriminatory marriage laws. This reasoning was applied to strike down interracial marriage discrimination laws and it should still apply today.

So will this be your excuse for America when we eventually go bankrupt? "The 14th Amendment forced us to go bankrupt!"

Alright folks, the Supreme Court has now ruled based on the 14th amendment that state bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional. Anyone want to take bets on how long it is before the gays marrying leads to bank runs and the next great depression?

[AndyDufresne]

I tried to get in touch with some of those against the decision earlier today, but I think they are in their fallout shelters.


--Andy

[got tonkaed]

there are some strong takes out there on social media. Gonna be a big deal for reading tweets.

[mizery24]

I'm moving to Russia

[Phatscotty]

Love the constant double standard. If this were an issue Mets cared about, he'd be crying cuz Democracy suffered such a huge blow, how the votes of millions were tossed out the window. but since it's something he likes....well that's cool then, sall good



The comparison here is like if Scott Walker lost the recall vote, and all Mets's 'The people have spoken' - 'Democracy!' stuff, then a few days later some un-elected judge appointed by Republicans to lifelong terms ruled 'We're re-defining the concept of a recall vote.'

[Metsfanmax]

Love the constant double standard. If this were an issue Mets cared about, he'd be crying cuz Democracy suffered such a huge blow, how the votes of millions were tossed out the window. but since it's something he likes....well that's cool then, sall good'

It is not like this hasn't happened to us. Remember the 2000 presidential election?

At any rate, I have expressed multiple times that democratic votes for legislation cannot violate the Constitution, no matter how much we may or may not like them. And I did believe that laws restricting marriage were a violation of the 14th amendment. I also don't think that a state should be able to legislate slavery into existence, no matter how many votes the people have for it. Because we live in a country with rights, and those basic rights cannot be voted away by a simple majority. In this case, the right is for everyone to be treated equally under the law.

Said another way for an issue that you are close to, if a state completely banned all private firearms by popular vote, I would completely be in support of a Supreme Court ruling overturning that decision, even though I think that state might be safer as a result.

This is a constitutional issue, and if you love the constitution, then you hate to see it trampled on, even if it's the people themselves who are doing it.