Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 06/30/2015 2:55:15 PM PDT by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: markomalley

It’s too bad we can’t post the entire article for the Catholic Register.

**[Update: A legal source just contacted me to corract part of McGurn’s argument.
“McGurn is not quite right: these protections weren’t built in to the decision; they had to be passed by Congress and legislatures,” she told me. This lawyer also noted that “Christian lawyer googlegroups post-Obergefell talking about what this all means, including one discussion about the semantic and practical differences between ‘conscience’ protection vs. ‘protecting religious freedom’ vs. the focus-grouped phrase ‘freedom to believe.’ I pointed out that ‘freedom to believe’ scores highest with focus groups precisely because it avoids the issue, which is freedom to act or not act. The opposite of ‘freedom to believe’ is thought crimes. But expect to hear a lot about ‘free to believe’ in the upcoming days,’] weeks, and months.]**


2 posted on 06/30/2015 3:23:56 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley
Obergefell is Roe on steroids.

The German root "Obergefallen", in English, means "super fallen one": a strange harbinger of outcome.

3 posted on 07/01/2015 5:55:00 AM PDT by Does so (SCOTUS Newbies Will Imperil America...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson