Religious Freedom Act

[Jaylan]

Some people are more equal than others lol. Can you not see the absurdity?

Btw, sexual orientation is not a protected class entitled to heightened scrutiny under the 14th Amendment, even gender barely is. There is federal law on Gender though.

Explain those court cases I mentioned previously then. Looked like the Supreme Court used the 14th amendment in defending the rights of gays. Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, or am I mistaken?

Also, I have already listed many states that do have laws making gays a protected class. Sadly Indiana has no such law yet. Anyways, do I need to dig up State Supreme Court cases showing the 14th amendment or exist anti-discrimination laws were used to defend gay rights? Are people really refusing to do the research and remain adamant that gays are not protected?

Its also funny to me that people love bringing up bigots and hate mongerers like the KKK when discussing the rights of everyday gay citizens who just want to live life without being discriminated against. Oh no..the poor white nationalists are not a protected class...boo hoo.

This forum never ceases to amaze.

 

[Stagger Lee]

If gays want gay marriage licenses to be a constitutional right and sexual orientation to be a protected class, then they should do it through the legislature and amend the constitution. That would at least be democracy. Despite the elites being onboard the gay agenda and the massive brainwashing and arm twisting campaign, the gay agenda was losing big time in the legislature and when put to public vote. So gays turned to a few dictators in the judiciary who invent things in the constitution.

Gays were even offered civil unions that would give them the same right and privileges as a heterosexual marriage . They didn't want that. They wanted to redefine marriage, to infringe on religion and conscientious objectors, and to force everyone to fully accept and serve the gay agenda as a protected class. There was no real discrimination against gays. And keep in mind protected classes are not protected equally. Gays want superiority.

 

[Jaylan]

If gays want gay marriage licenses to be a constitutional right and sexual orientation to be a protected class, then they should do it through the legislature and amend the constitution. That would at least be democracy. Despite the elites being onboard the gay agenda and the massive brainwashing and arm twisting campaign, the gay agenda was losing big time in the legislature and when put to public vote. So gays turned to a few dictators in the judiciary who invent things in the constitution.

Gays were even offered civil unions that would give them the same right and privileges as a heterosexual marriage . They didn't want that. They wanted to redefine marriage, to infringe on religion and conscientious objectors, and to force everyone to fully accept and serve the gay agenda as a protected class. There was no real discrimination against gays. And keep in mind protected classes are not protected equally. Gays want superiority.

That may happen this summer when the Supreme Court decides on another gay marriage case. So 2015 may be the year its finally legal nation wide.

Those don't establish a protected class...oh wells

State laws dont establish a protected class? There are states with laws on the books establishing a protected class. There is also federal legislation regarding employment as well.

Obama's Executive Order 13672 is indeed constitutional. What is unconstitutional about gays being a protected class when it comes to government employment?

Did you even look up the states that have these same laws? Im guessing you didn't. And while youre whining about the constitution the Supreme Court has also cast down laws that discriminate against gays. Whats communist or dictatorial about LGBT people being protected under our nation's laws? Do you believe it is just and constitutional to discriminate against someone based on what gender they are attracted to?

Btw, here's a hint of state's that have laws protecting LGBT as a protected class. Please do your research this time instead of trying to steer focus onto something else. Whining about Obama and ignoring the rest of my post doesn't help your case.

Washington, Oregon, Nevada, California, New Mexico, Colorado, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Vermont, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and Washington D.C....all have laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. These laws cover employment, housing and public accommodations.

New York, Wisconsin and New Hampshire all have laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation but not gender identity. More states have laws forthcoming.

Would you like me to link each states law for you to read through, or will you do this research yourself this time?

 

[Stagger Lee]

I can't say that I have strong feelings on this subject, because my opinion on it is a little complicated.

I believe in freedom. The Old West was free, and it was a very dangerous place. But this country has not been free for a long, long time. Ideally, anyone could serve or not serve anyone they wanted to. However, being as we don't live in a free country, there are laws that make it illegal to not serve someone based on their race. And while that is not exactly free, I have a hard time getting too upset over that.

That's reasonable. Though the old west wasn't just free because it was nearly lawless, only dangerous because it was lawless. I've seen statistics that you're more likely to be a victim of violent crime in a modern day city than the old west. This country was mostly free and safer even in the 1920, '40s or '50s.

I definitely think that a church or pastor should not be forced to marry gay couples. People should be allowed to have their faith. When it comes to businesses catering or providing flowers for gay weddings, things get stickier. If you are not going to allow people to discriminate because of race, in the present culture I don't see how you can allow people to discriminate because of sexual orientation.

See that points out the problem of protected classes and the government dictating commerce. When and where does it end? Race, sexual orientation and marriage are different things entirely just as incest is. What is the big problem for a rare religious person stating under their 1st amendment rights, they don't want to be involved with gay marriage? Common sense and free will needs to be applied.

You can allow it, but the businesses that don't do it are going to be labeled as hate mongers and will just be cutting their own throats, fairly or not.

Well it still should be their right. And people can call gays hate mongers too if they want. I'm very free speech but there's also slander and libel. Calling people "bigots, racist and hate-mongers" etc may at times cross the line into slander or libel.

I don't think it's fair that gays demand that everyone approve of their lifestyle, or be labeled a bigot. Judeo-Christian values have their roots going back 3000 years. Gay marriage has been around for what, 16 years?

I don't understand how polygamy is illegal, seriously. If gays can marry, why can't men have multiple spouses if their religion allows it?

See, that's the issue. How is it you can crush the practice of religion, yet allow gay marriage, but deny polygamy and incest, and crush "pedophila" activism etc? Gays had the same rights as anyone else, and could get the exact same marriage license as anyone else to marry the opposite sex. Can anyone just point to any other person or persons and claim the right to union and whatever rights and benefits marriage supposedly gives?

That may happen this summer when the Supreme Court decides on another gay marriage case. So 2015 may be the year its finally legal nation wide.

In other words, we have a 5-person dictatorship through judiciary. Just accept it :cheer:.

State laws dont establish a protected class? There are states with laws on the books establishing a protected class. There is also federal legislation regarding employment as well.

State or federal laws are not the constitution and may not be constitutional. We also had many state laws even state constitutional amendments and federal laws that sexual orientation was not a protected class and gay marriage was not permitted. Why don't you respect state laws and constitutional amendment, voters and federal laws enacted by legislatures and even approved by public vote in those cases?

 

[Tictac]

"Constitutional scholars" have been debating comma placement in different but still official versions of the Constitution's Second Amendment for about 25 years now.

Spare me if I don't think much of their 'scholarship'. They have reduced themselves to idiots.

 

[backbreaker]

With all due respect, the supreme court did at one time state

1. african americans count as 3/5ths of one person lol

2. Free African Americans were not citizens (Dred scott) and could not ever be citizens

3. It's okay to segregate black people from white people as long as you give black people "equal" establishments


4. that it was 100% legal to make your workers work 80 hours a week in unsanitary working conditions (Lochner v. NY)


5. Said it was perfectly legal to enslave anyone in the country with japanese heritage in concentration camps during world war 2 lol


6. Said that coperations were people and deserve all the rights of people


I'm not a fan of the supreme court


Basically this law is Jim Crow for homosexuals. I don't like the slope.

this is why i'm an entrepreneur. the first time i saw this the very first thing that popped in my head was damn if i stil lived in Arkansas i would open up a gay wedding company lol, just call it "Gay Weddings Inc" lol charge a grip becuase you got to pay it lol

 

[Stagger Lee]

this is why i'm an entrepreneur. the first time i saw this the very first thing that popped in my head was damn if i stil lived in Arkansas i would open up a gay wedding company lol, just call it "Gay Weddings Inc" lol charge a grip becuase you got to pay it lol

Good luck with that catering to possibly less than 1% of the marriage population when gays can already get wedding services without paying more at plenty of other businesses, religious freedom law or not.

Whether or not civil rights activism is mostly a hoax, gay rights activism surely is. By the way Dred Scott said that blacks could be citizens of a state but that didn't make them a citizen of another non-free state, or a US citizen.

 

[Peña]

Freedom is good.

 

[Maximus Rex]

For Clarity

1. african americans count as 3/5ths of one person lol

That was Constitutional Convention and the 3/5ths clause was a counting mechanism. The Southern states wanted the slaves included in the census to increase their representation in the House and the Northern states didn't want them included at all. The 3/5th clause was the comprise that the Founding Fathers came up with which basically said that for every three slaves you had, you got a representative in the House.

5. Said it was perfectly legal to enslave anyone in the country with japanese heritage in concentration camps during world war 2 lol

As f*cked up as it was, the Japanese weren't enslaved and they weren't in concentration camps during World War II. An interment camp in Utah is just a little bit different than Bergen-Belsen

I'm not a fan of the supreme court

For every f*cked up Supreme Court decision that has came down, I name three more that benefit the country.

Mapp v Ohio, (1961) which held that evidence gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment can't be used at trial.

Gideon v Wainwright, (1963) in the case the SCOTUS said that it's a constitutional right that you have a lawyer provided for you at a criminal trial.

Miranda v Arizona, (1966) because of this case, when you're placed under arrest, the police have to inform of your Fifth Amendment against self incrimination and the state will provide you with a lawyer.

Brady v Maryland, (1963) (not that they always do it,) but in this landmark case, prosecutors are supposed to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense.

Cooper v Aaron, (1958) States can't nullify the decisions of the federal courts.

The United States v Nixon, (1974) The president isn't above the law.

Georgia v. Randolph, (2006) Police cannot conduct a warrantless search in a home where one occupant consents and the other objects.

United States v. Jones, (2012) Attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and then using the device to monitor the vehicle’s movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.

Riley v. California, (2014) Police must obtain a warrant in order to search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested.

New York Times Co. v. United States, (1971) The federal government's desire to keep the Pentagon Papers classified is not strong enough to justify violating the First Amendment by imposing prior restraints on the material.

I can go on and on. Just because you don't like or agree with the composition of the current court doesn't necessarily mean that in history of the Supreme Court has been bad. The Warren Court had the biggest impact in regards protecting the rights of citizenry against a government that could have possibly ran amok. If you go on wikipedia and take a look at landmark Supreme Court cases, you'll find that most of them are for the greater good.

Basically this law is Jim Crow for homosexuals. I don't like the slope.

That's the problem, so where would it stop. However, for every legitimate claim that fags and dykes have, there are ten others that are straight bullsh*t. In the end we have to still with the fact that they're trying to homotize American and force their lifestyle down our throats.

 

[Stagger Lee]

What this really is about:

1. Does the 14th amendment require states to issue marriage licenses to marry the same-sex, relatives, multiple people, children, animals and inanimate objects (corporation are a person)?

2. Does the 14th amendment require states to recognize any such marriages in 1. legalized in other states.

3. Does the 14th amendment require people to give up their 1st amendment essential rights and fully accept and provide full service to marriage defined in 1.?

4. Does the 14th amendment make all those in 1. a protected class?

I have a different view. The 14th amendment as interpreted by the judiciary is tyrannical and needs amended.

 

[Stagger Lee]

If States had a backbone that don't want to be dictated to by federal judges and gay activist, they should just stop issuing marriage licenses all together. Gays and straights can both still have ceremonial marriages, but the state wouldn't be involved. Then let's see how many gays or women want to get married lol.

That would solve a lot of problems with marriage by taking state involvement out of it. Just treat married or dating people the same.