Acts 5:29
Posted on 06/28/2015 12:18:09 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
What she’s saying is that the First Amendment means that you can believe in your heart and mind what you want, but you can’t act on it without federal permission, as far as religion goes. As to her point about a religious objection to providing medical care, Christianity doesn’t allow for letting gays die by refusing them medical care, so that’s a red herring. Big difference between refusing to participate in a wedding and depraved heart manslaughter by refusing to save a life.
“Certainly the first amendment says that in institutions of faith that there is absolute power to, you know, to observe deeply held religious beliefs. I don’t think it extends far beyond that. We’ve seen the set of arguments play out in issues such as access to contraception. Should it be the individual pharmacist whose religious beliefs guides whether a prescription is filled, or in this context, they’re talking about expanding this far beyond our churches and synagogues to businesses and individuals across this country. I think there are clear limits that have been set in other contexts and we ought to abide by those in this new context across America.” – Sen. Baldwin
bs
Dont worry the Supreme Court will be clarifying this by weeks end.
Is anyone surprised?
Anyone?
Buehler, Buhler?
Those people who are involved in civil marriage (e.g., county clerks) have the choice I described. Exercise of religion and civil disobedience; or obey the law.
That’s what they want! to force Christians to choose between their faith and their job.
The persecution has just begun.
Or sonderkommandos.
Here we go.
Just wait for a fag couple to show up at a traditional, Bible Believing church and demand they marry them. When the pastor turns them away, they will sue and watch what will happen.
The Court will order the church to marry them or face court sanctions including fines, loss of tax excempt status and jailing the pastor for contempt of court if they still refuse. The court will claim the fags “right to marry” trumps the church’s/pastor’s First Amendment Freedom of Religion Rights to freely practice their religion without government interference.
This same Supreme Court that made fag marriages legal across the land would then nullify the First Amendment Freedom of Religion protections when the case reaches them, despite the words of their fag marriage ruling that churches could not be forced to marry fag couples - that promise will be tossed aside for political expediency.
Of course, they would nullify the Second Amendment first to prevent themselves from getting whacked by angry citizens.
UN declared marriage is between a man and a woman 67 years ago.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948 at the Palais de Chaillot, Paris.
Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.”
This is where our fight begins. All over the world this weekend, people are parading in Pride for their lifestyle. We Jews and Christians need to show the same Pride. And it won’t involve us dressing up as condoms. In your business you should be free to practice your religion. Every religious business owner should make an association with others. Decide what you as Christian wedding bakers, etc, can do, and stick to it. Our society is balkanizing. I think it is sad, but that is where it has gone.
Gays want to kiss and cuddle in restaurants, they want to insist on any cake shop making their wedding cakes, this is far from “we just want to be left alone and not be beat up” like they said 20 years ago. Just decide what your association does, make that public knowledge, and do your business.
We need to be free to exercise this.
Myself, I am not afraid of businesses being forced. To me, that is not as important. As a Jew, I can halachically make a cake for ANYONE. And in a kosher deli, you can’t force me to serve you a ham sandwich because we don’t carry it. We can give you the address of where you could get one. But I am far more afraid that laws will be put up to stop actual religious practices like circumcision.
Hmm, wouldn’t the first amendment guarantee the right of people to disagree with her openly?
Ahhhh, yes.
Don't call it "Pride".
SHAMELESSNESS is what it really is.
LOL! Seems like just about everything that comes out of scotus these days is crystal clear.
No one can go to a minister and demand that he marry them, or baptize them.
There was a business “wedding chapel” that faced that issue, but as a commercial marriage business, not a church.
To the senator...a paraphrase:
“Think you used enough bullcrap, there Butch?”
Heads up.
5.56mm
Thanks to insights provided by related threads, I’m now aware of what I believe to be major constitutional problems with the way that the Supreme Court has decided Obergefell v. Hodges.
To begin with, the Court’s constitutionally indefensible decision in Obergefell v. Hodges not only exposes major corruption in both Congress and the Supreme Court, but is an excellent example of the constitutional gridlock ultimately being caused by the ill-conceived 17th Amendment (17A).
More specifically, the corrupt Senate, the most unconstitutionally powerful offiice in the land thanks to 17A imo, has repeatedly shown that it is not willing to do its constitutional duty to protect the states by working with the House to remove corrupt federal government “leaders” from office, state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices in this case.
Consider that since activist justices don’t have to worry about getting impeached and removed from office, the Court’s opinion in Obergefell V. Hodges starts out with the biggest spin on the 14th Amendment that I can recall seeing.
"Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State."
In a nutshell, what corrupt Congress can be expected to ignore about the Court’s perverted interpretation of the 14th Amendment is this. Not only did activist justices breach the Founding States’ division of state and federal government powers, stealing unique state legislative powers in order to wrongly legalize gay marriage from the bench, but consider the following.
By arguing a tortured interpretation of the 14th Amendment to bluff that gay marriage in one state must be respected by all states, justices have also stolen Congress’s constitutional power to regulate the effect of one state’s records in other states as evidenced by the Full Faith and Credit Clause, Section 1 of Article IV.
In fact, noting that Section 2 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is evidently still in effect, by legalizing gay marriage outside the framework of the Constitution, activist justices protected by Congress’s irresponsible silence about the mischief that these justices are actually up to have wrongly ignored that Congress has exercised its Full Faith and Credit powers to clarify that states do not have to honor gay marriages from other states.
DOMA:
This Act may be cited as the “Defense of Marriage Act”.
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
Obergefell v. Hodges was nothing more than a dog-and-pony show by activist justices imo, a show intended to intended to deceive low-information citizens by sweeping Congress’s constitutional power to decide the effect of one state’s records in other states under the carpet. This is because Congress had already used that power to clarify that the states don’t have to honor gay marriages from other states, regardless what activist justices want eveybody to think about the 14th Amendment.
Note that by also stealing federal legislative powers, the Supremes have also violated Sections 1-3 of Article I imo, the Founding States making Sections 1-3 to clarify that all federal legislative powers are vested in the elected members of Congress, not in the executive or judicial branches.
So just as corrupt Congress has been routinely unconstitutionally delegating constitutionally nonexistent federal legislative / regulatory powers to non-elected federal bureaucrats such as those running the EPA, federal bureaucrats using these bogus “constitutional” powers to cause problems for many citizens which they cannot resolve with their voting power, please consider the following.
Congress is probably pleased that activist justices have now done Congress's dirty work for it by effectively reversing the intent of DOMA’s Section 2 from the bench so that members of Congress don’t have to worry about being the bad guy in regards to protecting state powers to prohibit gay marriage and lose support from LGBT voters as a consequence.
Are we having fun yet?
Again, by stealing 10th Amendment-protected state power to regulate marriage, the corrupt feds have once again abused 14A by throwing constitutionally non-enumerated rights at the states, presumably to win votes for liberal politicians.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and corrupt senators and activist justices along with it.
“I can ‘freely exercise’ but you can’t” is the living and growing meaning of the Constitution that leftists and she did read and understand as the meaning of it.
Acts 5:29
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.