What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

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

LynahFan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

LynahFan said:
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.
Click to expand...

So my God does not approve of people being armed with guns. Wonder how well that will go over.
 
burd said:
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."
Click to expand...

What if she's right that God condemns SSM?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

joecct said:
What if she's right that God condemns SSM?
Click to expand...
I'm more worried about if God thinks religion trumps free speech rights. Going to be a long eternity for many of us. :)
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

joecct said:
What if she's right that God condemns SSM?
Click to expand...

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

joecct said:
What if she's right that God condemns SSM?
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
Click to expand...
 
joecct said:
What if she's right that God condemns SSM?
Click to expand...

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

joecct said:
What if she's right that God condemns SSM?
Click to expand...

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

joecct said:
What if she's right that God condemns SSM?
Click to expand...

Do you even bother with the Gospel? Or do you just stick with the Old Testament and the Mysoginist for your beliefs?
 
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?
 
Last edited:
Kepler said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

burd said:
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.
Click to expand...
Same thing if God condemns pedophilia or incest. This is easy to flip around.
 
ScoobyDoo said:
Do you even bother with the Gospel? Or do you just stick with the Old Testament and the Mysoginist for your beliefs?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top