Originally Posted by
deprav
The infamous gayfriendly-illuminato agenda
ahhh pig :3
(Sorry Rai I made a joke, gief infraction)
<biases intensify>
No fun allowed in this sub any more, did you really get infracted? :^)
Originally Posted by
Kyure
That is not what he is referring to. He is referring to how marriage has been around for such a long time, and stating that marriage is not even important anymore is a stupid thing to say. There are both legal reasons and traditional reasons as to why people want to get married. For two men to not have the same rights as a man and a woman is unjust, and violated the fourteenth amendment.
Lol what are you even talking about, firstly two men have ALWAYS had the same marriage rights as a man and a woman, what kind of ridiculous thinking is this?
Gay marriage DID NOT exist historically, hence an argument from tradition is complete and utter nonsense.
Originally Posted by
hawkesnightmare
You have obviously never actually read the first amendment. There are two clauses in the first amendment. The free exercise clause, and the establishment clause. The free exercise clause is what allows you to say "President Obama sucks dicks for money." The establishment clause prohibits the government from creating or enforcing any law that favors any one religion. And this is the meat of the argument here. Kim Davis is a public servant. Her actions while on the job are the actions of the government. That is why she got in trouble for denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Establishment of a law that disadvantages a religion would require the consideration of the RFRA, and due processes would have to be taken as in this case.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Not sure how this could be any clearer.
Originally Posted by
hawkesnightmare
Nice try, but no cigar. Hobby Lobby is a Christian company, and the employees are not public servants. The rules are different for private companies and their employees. And I guess you didn't even read the case, because it came out in Hobby Lobby's favor, not Sebelius'.
I have read the case, as you know the relevant information is that corporations are not covered by freedom of religion, where as people are.
Originally Posted by
hawkesnightmare
They can if they want. But there is no law against it on a government scale. And businesses won't put in a rule like that because it would severely hurt business if it was enforced.
Ok? But they can if they want.
By the way, how could you possibly know that in all situations it would hurt businesses? Come on mate, no need to make blanket statements like that, unless you have the literal foresight to back it up.
Originally Posted by
hawkesnightmare
Right, because that would be ridiculous. But private businesses can if they want, unless there is another law somewhere that blocks ridiculous rules like that.
Ok? Ridiculous as it may be, it was you who made that argument, not me...
Originally Posted by
hawkesnightmare
I never said that the resulting consequences were equal. But the legality (or lack thereof) of the rejection is.
You think not issuing a marriage license legally equivalent to willingly letting someone die because of their race??
Originally Posted by
hawkesnightmare
dis·crim·i·na·tion
dəˌskriməˈnāSH(ə)n/
noun
1.
the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
This is certainly not unjust and it is not prejudicial either. The SCOTUS did not target religion when interpreting the 14th amendment.
Just to be clear, we are talking about Christians in a Christian country being barred from being public servants for a Christian government and issuing licenses for a ritual that is a Christian import.
Yeah sure, no way that could be interpreted as unjust.
Originally Posted by
hawkesnightmare
I would argue that the government can burden Davis with compelling interest because of the simple utilitarianism of it. She is one person who is offended. She is denying potentially dozens of couples. If this is not the case, then your second statement can be considered. The county clerk office issues marriage licenses. This they MUST do. They need to find a way for the office to issue marriage licenses without Davis needing to affix her signature to the documents. Which they did. The problem is now solved.
Yes, the problem is solved, that was never part of the debate.
But this is part of a wider problem where a local majority overwhelm a national majority. We are not talking about less than 2% of the population overruling more than 70% of the population.
Originally Posted by
hawkesnightmare
Davis was not forced out of her job. She was arrested and jailed for five days for breaking the law, and then returned to her job, with new procedures in place. There was no harm that came of Kim Davis not being at work for five days.
Being put in prison for 5 days is no harm?
Originally Posted by
hawkesnightmare
As I said above, the constitution is law. Article VI of the constitution states that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all treaties made or shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land."
Lol.
"A law" is not the same as "the law". "A law" is a rule, "the law" is a framework. This is a non-trivial difference.