It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If The U.S. Supreme Court ‘Goes Rogue’ ...

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
I don't see any laws requiring churches to perform same sex marriages. The only people claiming this are anti-gay marriage proponents as a way to fear monger people away from support of same sex marriages. By all means, I have no issue about laws being passed to 'protect' these pastors (even though that protection was never going a way) but it's really just political fear mongering.

So what if two adults can now legally get married? Mind your own business, worry about your own life, your own sins, your own connect with God.


I'm not a particularly religious man, but you basically summed up the words I've been grasping at -- so to you sir, I say AMEN.




posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: FarleyWayne

I am so tired on the endless debate on the subject. I wish the Supreme Court would overturn all marriage then it wouldn't be an issue.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Do you oppose state recognition of gay marriage Ketsuko? If so, why? Putting aside who's forcing who.

a reply to: ketsuko


The gay couple has already forced photographers who didn't want to take their marriage shots to do it,


Do you have a source for this? Wow being force to take pictures at a wedding? I'd be curious to read up on this case.


forced bakers who didn't want to bake their wedding cake to do it,


Oh the injustice, they must feel violated for *gasp* baking another cake as they do everyday.

So much drama from the righwing over this. It really makes you wonder why they care so much about two adults getting married?



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

You've either misread my post or are twisting it. I may not be 'happy' about gay marriage-I could care less- but being FORCED into contributing to that marriage is another thing altogether.

A clear distinction between the two and where the line is crossed and the reaction comes from.

This legislation is an example of that.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: FarleyWayne

I am so tired on the endless debate on the subject. I wish the Supreme Court would overturn all marriage then it wouldn't be an issue.


LOL

Now that would be a sight.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   
amazing that only two democrats seemed to realize that the bill was rather useless to begin with....

if "equal protection under the law" had ever interferred with churches, well why isn't it extended to women in the catholic church??? just like they have never tried to force the cathlolic church to appoint women priest they aren't gonna force any church to wed gays.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Show me where the courts ruled that the Boy Scouts had to allow gay scouts. I triple dog dare ya.

Churches and private clubs/organizations have always been exempt from discrimination laws. Public accommodations have not.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
I don't see any laws requiring churches to perform same sex marriages. The only people claiming this are anti-gay marriage proponents as a way to fear monger people away from support of same sex marriages. By all means, I have no issue about laws being passed to 'protect' these pastors (even though that protection was never going a way) but it's really just political fear mongering.

So what if two adults can now legally get married? Mind your own business, worry about your own life, your own sins, your own connect with God.


I'm not a particularly religious man, but you basically summed up the words I've been grasping at -- so to you sir, I say AMEN.


They do in England. The pastors are forced to perform gay marriages.

But I would like to say, if it's just political fear-mongering and this is nothing no one need ever worry about, then why the vapors over it? It will be a law that will never come up.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Lol


It all seriousness I keep reading comments about freedom and the constitution when the subject is brought up. Myself I could not care in the least about who marries whom. What bothers me is that in the name of freedom and equality people are denying other people of those very freedoms. The Baker was not free to choose whether he wanted to make a cake or not, the churches may not be free to decide whether they want to marry certain people or not.

The whole idea of bringing this issue up under equality and freedom is a oxymoron.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Do you oppose making same sex marriage legal Ketsuko?

a reply to: ketsuko


They do in England.


1. This isn't England, we're talking about the United States. Where are pastors being forced to perform gay marriages here?
2. I actually did a google search on pastors being forced to perforce gay marriages in England, I've only come up with rightwing news sources. I really see nothing but talk from them on this.


if it's just political fear-mongering and this is nothing no one need ever worry about, then why the vapors over it?


Vapors? The only people going on about being pastors being forced into anything are those on the right opposed to gay marriage in the first place. It's not really hard to understand.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: FarleyWayne

A "Pastor Protection Bill" is absolutely necessary. NO ONE should be forced to directly violate their principles and be part of a ceremony they think is contrary to their religious beliefs. This goes beyond baking a cake and while I support gay marriage I DO NOT support people being forced to participate.

Forcing a religious figure to participate in a ceremony that they consider sinful goes against every freedom this country was founded on...just no. Forcing ministers to do this is a great way to alienate people like me from the cause.
edit on 2015/5/22 by Metallicus because: fix



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Texas is losing what little brains it had left. Two bills in short order that make what already is law... law again? double the pleasure, double the fun? Texas is so big it has to do everything twice?

Yeehaw y'all!



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Look if anti-gay marriage proponents want to pass this law, all power to them (even if it's really a political ploy). It's not going to stop gay marriage from happening. Really.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   
If the Supreme Court states that churches have to marry people from the LGBT community, there will be people celebrating it.

As much as people say differently, just reading some of the posts here are a clear indicator as to how people perceive the issue.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights be damned!

As so many here think the 2nnd Amendment should be overturned, many will demand a re-write of the 1st Amendment.

Now I am all for gays getting married, I think it's a tempest in a teapot!

But if it creates a situation where the 1st Amendment is in jeopardy, then I will speak out.

But by then, of course, it'll be too late.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
I don't see any laws requiring churches to perform same sex marriages. The only people claiming this are anti-gay marriage proponents as a way to fear monger people away from support of same sex marriages. By all means, I have no issue about laws being passed to 'protect' these pastors (even though that protection was never going a way) but it's really just political fear mongering.

So what if two adults can now legally get married? Mind your own business, worry about your own life, your own sins, your own connect with God.


I'm not a particularly religious man, but you basically summed up the words I've been grasping at -- so to you sir, I say AMEN.


But I would like to say, if it's just political fear-mongering and this is nothing no one need ever worry about, then why the vapors over it? It will be a law that will never come up.


The only reason why this bothers me is that it just perpetuates state- sanctioned hatred and intolerance of gays. I know that churches will never have to use this law. It's just my state's way of publicly thumbing their nose at the gay population, and it pisses me off.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Personally - - I think all these useless nonsense attempts at anti-gay laws by "Fundies" paid by tax payers is starting to piss people off.

Enough's enough. Church's and pastors are already protected by the Constitution.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Snarl

The whole idea of bringing this issue up under equality and freedom is a oxymoron.


That ... and it's so easy to put a ring through people's noses and lead them around wherever you like.

The government has no business recognizing that a State of Marriage exists between two people. Marriage is an institute of the Church. This is why I was very insistent on my wife and I being married by the Church. We had already been married twice before "by the State" and that wasn't good enough to cover all the bases. The 'bonds of matrimony' are a curious thing indeed ... thanks to the meddling of the State.

I see this issue running along the same lines as the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It's a given ... and several words in the Bill of Rights are too often casually overlooked. Do the words "Shall Make No Law" and "Shall Not Be Infringed" carry so little weight?

Everyone and anyone who has ever trifled with those words should have their citizenship stripped and be summarily thrown into the ocean to 'swim for it'.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

There is a difference there. A church, by all definition is a non profit, and non accommodating institution. A business that makes money and a profit, has to be accommodating and the use of religion as grounds to deny services have been found to not be supported by the constitution of the USA. This was shown and demonstrated in the the 1960's US Supreme Court Case: Heart of Atlanta. In that case the argument was brought up and the court struck that down and stated as much.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: FarleyWayne
The Pastor protection bill: is a complete waste of time and effort, along with the money that was spent.
The reason why this is a totally useless bill, is that there is already a federal law, and has been upheld by the courts in the past, called the Minister Exclusion. In short, a minister in a church can refuse to do any ceremony and even discriminate in a church when it comes to hiring of persons. And more times than not, the courts often, in most cases of a civil nature, side with the churches and minsters when it comes to church business. That means, if say a couple comes in, one who is white and an person of African descent, the minister can say no that he/she will not perform the ceremony in the church, and there is no legal recourse. A minister also can refuse to hire someone who is handicap from working in a church, and here again, there is no legal recourse.

The only time that the court has ever restrained any church activity is when it violates criminal law or if they are straying too far into the political realm.
The reality is that no one can force, even legally force a minister in a church to do any ceremony that violates its faith. Not even the US military can compel those who work in the military chapels to carry a weapon, especially if their faith dictates against it.
So all of this talk about legal action against churches to compel them to do same sex marriages, is pretty much empty rhetoric. The only way it would happen, is that then the federal government would have to first remove the federal law, then pass a new law and then defend it, which the courts would strike down, as then it would show that the government is abridging the freedom of religion.



posted on May, 22 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko
Ah, but a minister in a church can, and has refused to marry 2 people like that, even as recently as a few months ago.




top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join