The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgiving

[burd]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

They argued that indivduals' freedom of religion trumps everyone elses' civil rights, so you can violate as many rights as you please, so long as you do it in the name of a religion. Hardly a compelling argument - and it's going to be fun to see how quickly its promulgators' abandon that line of thinking as Christianity fades into plurality with other religions and atheism.

I suppose it was to protect the sanctity of marriage. Looks like I'll have to read it. Like instructions I guess; you only read them when you're forced to.

[alfablue]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

They argued that indivduals' freedom of religion trumps everyone elses' civil rights, so you can violate as many rights as you please, so long as you do it in the name of a religion. Hardly a compelling argument - and it's going to be fun to see how quickly its promulgators' abandon that line of thinking as Christianity fades into plurality with other religions and atheism.

So my God does not approve of people being armed with guns. Wonder how well that will go over.

[joecct]

All this because she thinks the God she worships does not tolerate gay marriage. I have not read the decision, but what did the proponents argue was the compelling state interest supporting the law? Or, if it underwent intermediate scrutiny, what was the substantial state interest to justify the law? I mean, there is a faith-based position on the law, and there is one based on rationality. A person's position that is faith-based is that person's own and worthy of respect, but taken to a level of civil disobedience from a person sworn to administer that civil law, there must be some rationale behind the position other than simple, personal faith.

I suspect supporters of the law on this site will know what the proponents of the law argued. They certainly did not go before the Court saying "God wills it."

What if she's right that God condemns SSM?

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

What if she's right that God condemns SSM?

I'm more worried about if God thinks religion trumps free speech rights. Going to be a long eternity for many of us.

[burd]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

What if she's right that God condemns SSM?

Same thing if many were right that God condemns interracial marriage.

Same thing if God condemns marriage between Norwegians and Italians, as someone somewhere no doubt will attest to.

[Handyman]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

What if she's right that God condemns SSM?

Then God will punish them in the after life.

What if God doesnt care at all and you and your ilk, as always, are just pretending to know what God feels/knows?

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Here we go again....

WASHINGTON—A federal judge on Wednesday allowed House Republicans to proceed with part of a lawsuit challenging the Obama administration’s implementation of the 2010 health-care law....

Judge Collyer said the House has legal standing to bring claims alleging the Obama administration was violating the Constitution in how it was paying for part of the ACA. The judge rejected the Obama administration’s argument that the court shouldn’t referee a political dispute between the other two branches of government.

“The mere fact that the House of Representatives is the plaintiff does not turn this suit into a non-justiciable political dispute,” she wrote in a 43-page decision....

The House lawsuit alleged the administration was defying Congress by paying insurance companies billions of dollars for discounts on deductibles they must offer to very-low-income consumers under the health law. Lawmakers said they never appropriated funds for the administration to do this.

Judge Collyer ... said the House had a core constitutional interest in protecting its role in authorizing the spending of public money, which gave it a right to proceed in court against the Obama administration. “Congress’s power of the purse is the ultimate check on the otherwise unbounded power of the Executive,” she wrote.

[unofan]

What if she's right that God condemns SSM?

God's will doesn't trump the US Constitution when it comes to acting as a civil servant, so it doesn't matter.

God surely condemns war, yet that hasn't stopped any government officials from engaging in it.

[alfablue]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

What if she's right that God condemns SSM?

Then don't marry the same sex. Nothing for you to worry about. Done.

By YOUR measure, SSM harms nobody. So why not let people get married, and then they can face their God when the time comes.

What if Jews are right, and God condemns people who eat pork?

What if Hindus are right, and God condemns people who kill cows?

What if radical Muslims are right and God rewards martyrs with 40 virgins?

What if earth worshipers are right and God condemns people who cut trees and contribute to global warming?

Here's a tough one- what if Christians are NOT right that God forgives sin?

This can go on for a long time.

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

What if she's right that God condemns SSM?

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."

God's not Caesar.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

What if she's right that God condemns SSM?

Do you even bother with the Gospel? Or do you just stick with the Old Testament and the Mysoginist for your beliefs?

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Two legal questions:

(1) Will it require a legislative action for gays to achieve full legal equality, or can the Courts get them there?

It is still legal to discriminate against gays in many (most?) states, right? All Obergefell decided was that the state cannot deny gays the right to marry. That still means they are two rulings/laws short of absolute equality: (i) the state can't discriminate in any way against gays, and (ii) a privately owned place of public accommodation can't do the same. With race this was decided by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Do we need another act of Congress for gays?

Also: (2) If Congress repealed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and/or whatever the renewal(s) of that Act are, could restaurants stop serving black people?

[joecct]

Two legal questions:

(1) Will it require a legislative action for gays to achieve full legal equality, or can the Courts get them there?

It is still legal to discriminate against gays in many (most?) states, right? All Obergefell decided was that the state cannot deny gays the right to marry. That still means they are two rulings/laws short of absolute equality: (i) the state can't discriminate in any way against gays, and (ii) a privately owned place of public accommodation can't do the same. With race this was decided by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Do we need another act of Congress for gays?

Also: (2) If Congress repealed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and/or whatever the renewal(s) of that Act are, could restaurants stop serving black people?

1) Legislative is always the preferred route.
2) I supose they could, but I believe that's a failed business plan. However, I think the owner should be able to set different rental rates for the banquet room depending on the event being held.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Same thing if many were right that God condemns interracial marriage.

Same thing if God condemns marriage between Norwegians and Italians, as someone somewhere no doubt will attest to.

Same thing if God condemns pedophilia or incest. This is easy to flip around.

[joecct]

Do you even bother with the Gospel? Or do you just stick with the Old Testament and the Mysoginist for your beliefs?

I am saying that your view may not be the view of the Almighty. While I am not the Supreme Judge, He is. To presume to make God's opinion conform to our perception is presunptious on our part.

As everything for God is the present, His rules have never changed. What has changed is our interpretation, however imperfect, of His rules.