Posted on 07/08/2015 4:46:20 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Anybody out there still think there is redress WITHIN THE EXISTING “legal system”?
Lock and load, boys and girls.
The left
STUDIOUSLY IGNORES
that Muslim bakers refuse to make gay “wedding” cakes.
Also, if Oregon’s Christians seek to beat the bureaucracy, the term is “general strike”.
I agree Eric. In view of those who worship before the Idol of “the Law” in the temple of “the court” There ought to be a law” I mean there is Malpractice laws protecting people from medical malpractice— and attorneys can be disbarred— even citizens can be ignored unless some benevolent judge decides they may have “standing” —WHY NOT a Constitutional Amendment providing for protection against Judicial malpractice.the Court/the Judge who decided against these citizens ought be required to pay double the penalty he /she/ it assessed. half or more to the people injured by the decision—the other portion to go into a special fund for victims of such crimes against the fundamental rights of citizens.
Just refuse to comply. Move your finances where they can't get them. Buy bolt cutters to cut the padlocks off the door every time they put one on.
How many denominations oppose this? There is no unity among the various denominations.
True.
There is primarily only doctrinal bickering between denominations: "We interpret correctly and you others don't, so we won't have anything to do with you losers."
How about Kenya?
The solution is to revoke government’s power to define and regulate marriage.
Government regulation of marriage has been taken over by the Pink Swastika crowd. Bake the cake or they will send government to destroy
your family business. They will grind you into the dust as far as they can like they did to the former CEO of Mozilla, Brendan Eich.
This is homo-fascism in action.
If we have a separation of church and state, in order to protect godly marriage, we must separate marriage and state. It is time to get
government out of the business of defining and regulating marriage.
When marriage is a private matter once again, the Pink Swastika crowd cannot force anyone to bake a cake they don’t want to.
#LoveWins => #BakeTheCake => #PinkSwastika => #LoveWins
And, for the same reason, the “government office holders” in SF should be held accountable for their sanctuary city decision that contributed to a young woman’s murder by a five time border violator.
These people should face criminal charges and certainly a few years of jail time.
It's called the community of Christians. The church in America. And it needs to wake up and unite.
This Supreme Court???
It started with Martin Luther and snowballed from there. The churches reflect the division in society.
RE: This is an open-and-shut Federal constitutional case, and, if appealed, I expect them to win easily.
Depends on what side of the bed Justice Kennedy wakes up in the morning.
Yes, but they are also (like it or not) very much about human power and control, going back to the pre-Luther RCC. IMHO.
I don't understand why you believe that. Private business have been sued for not providing services related to homosexual "weddings" in states where homosexual "marriage" is illegal.
If a homosexual "couple" were being "married" in a self-designed ceremony conducted by a friend with some fancy academic robes from a European university, with no license or other state involvement, they could still sue to force a photographer, baker, or venue to serve them. Under present interpretations of non-discrimination and civil-rights regulation, they have a good chance of winning.
I also think that Christians who work for IBM, Microsoft, and any other company that fought Indiana’s religious freedom law should file a class action suit against those companies for 1st amendment violations, thereby creating a hostile anti-Christian work environment, and ipso facto creating conditions for constructive termination; in effect denying them employment for being Christians.
I would also support a massive (millions as per Italy and France) march on Washington (meaning I would go) that persists until Congress votes for articles of impeachment against the 5 justices who voted for same-sex marriage, and until the Senate convicts; and finally until they pass a constitutional amendment against same sex marriage, and maybe abortion, while we’re at it.
Then march on the States until they ratify that amendment.
Marriage, as defined by God is a covenant, and thus totally outside of the realm of human government. You must be aware that government has insinuated itself into the institution of marriage for so many generations that many people automatically assume that a marriage must be conducted by someone with a “license”. License is the means of government regulation.
If we have separation of church and state, we must of necessity also have a separation of everything the State may attempt to control that comes from the church. Marriage is the primary instrument in that regard and that is exactly why secular forces in society cheered so loudly when the government seized full control of the definition of “marriage”.
Where government has power over marriage, no “license” can be issued. Just like the Second Amendment.
In legalizing a form of relationship that God calls an abomination, the secular forces have declared that God no longer has control over that aspect of civil life.
To my knowledge, there has been no litigation involving service providers denying service to anyone on the grounds that they were participating in some type of ceremony. The only denials of service have come about when service providers have declined to become an “enabler” of a marriage. Part of the government’s support for any action against such service providers was on the grounds that a protected civil right was violated. In this case, the right was the right to marry.
When the state does not have the power to marry or regulate marriage, it is no longer a civil right that has protected status. If there would be any grounds for litigation, it would have to be on some other basis. At this time, sexual orientation is not a federally protected civil right, although in some lesser jurisdictions it may be.
Where government has NO power over marriage, no license can be issued. Just like the Second Amendment.
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.