Gay Marriage Protected by the 14th Amendment?

[Culvercreek hunt club]

We butt heads a lot but politically you and I are pretty well aligned. I'm 100% with you on big government, the government cheese and rules and regulations being a big, big issue in our country.

 

But I view the government allowing gays to marry as the exact opposite. They are now "butting out" of your business and letting you do as you wish. It's the same thing we all are asking for when it comes to gun control. View this as a win for government de-regulating and stop viewing it as a loss for your religious beliefs. You can still go to church on Sundays and your neighbor can still go to to temple and your other neighbor can still pray to Mecca 5 times a day and the other guy down the road can go to his cabin in the woods and poke dolls with needles. That's what makes America great.

 

I find it odd and what bothers me most about what just took place, is the inconsistency in the process and approach. Let me start by saying I don't care who marries whom. I am glad you put the two topics in the same post, gay marriage rights and gun rights. We have the former that is  not an enumerated right in the constitution and the latter that is.  We have two groups of citizens and by the numbers I have seen there are more gun owners than gay. The differing approaches to secure a "freedom" can ONLY be viewed as political hokus pokus when they are not given at least equal effort. Popular votes against gay marriage in states are nullified yet popular support in a state are used as justification for current or future gun control. This was a left vote grab, plain and simple.  

 

On another note. since the line in the sand  has been officially moved for a legal marriage, what is next? How can we say no to Polygamy? Wait until the cost of that tax code rewrite come around...lol. How about things like family insurance plans?

[virgil]

The gun rights vs. gay marriage rights comparison is an interesting one.  But, I don't see it as a direct comparison.  A more direct comparison would be if gay people were not allowed to legally own a gun, while straight people are allowed.

[Meat First]

Hhhmmm my sister is a lesbian and she and her partner raised 3 kids and have been together for 30 years...own a home have careers...a time share and grand kids now. Why shouldn't they have the same legal obligations  Mr B and I have had to have for the last 36 yrs? When it came to getting college money why shouldn't they have had to combine incomes...when it came to any type of income based funds such as a sonny may mortgage...why shouldn't combined incomes be asked for?

 

I agree they have the right to be miserable like anyone else!!!

[Culvercreek hunt club]

The gun rights vs. gay marriage rights comparison is an interesting one.  But, I don't see it as a direct comparison.  A more direct comparison would be if gay people were not allowed to legally own a gun, while straight people are allowed.

I was speaking to the unequal approach to "interpreting" the Constitution.  

[EspressoBuzz]

Chapters and verses demonstrating the things you are claiming. Please.

 

http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/

 

I see a circle jerk and it's the ones spouting Biblical reasons for hate doing it. This dog is done chasing tail...

[Five Seasons]

I find it odd and what bothers me most about what just took place, is the inconsistency in the process and approach. Let me start by saying I don't care who marries whom. I am glad you put the two topics in the same post, gay marriage rights and gun rights. We have the former that is  not an enumerated right in the constitution and the latter that is.  We have two groups of citizens and by the numbers I have seen there are more gun owners than gay. The differing approaches to secure a "freedom" can ONLY be viewed as political hokus pokus when they are not given at least equal effort. Popular votes against gay marriage in states are nullified yet popular support in a state are used as justification for current or future gun control. This was a left vote grab, plain and simple.  

 

On another note. since the line in the sand  has been officially moved for a legal marriage, what is next? How can we say no to Polygamy? Wait until the cost of that tax code rewrite come around...lol. How about things like family insurance plans?

 

If it's the process by how the law was changed, I can agree with you. I strongly dislike how the left has a hold of social media and their tendency to knee jerk when it comes to flags and gun rights. There is a lot of hypocrisy as well. They seem to pick and choose which freedoms are ok to tamper with. That's total and utter bs. They also seem to think it's fine to call any southerner, christian or country boy every name under the sun for their beliefs, but absolutely loose their shit when the reverse takes place.

 

However, it's my understanding that the gay rights vote did go through proper channels. What's popular is not always right either. Woman's rights and black rights never would have been voted in by popular vote.

 

this is a solid watch

https://www.facebook.com/conservative50plus/videos/10153142898460873/?pnref=story

[Skillet]

http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/

I see a circle jerk and it's the ones spouting Biblical reasons for hate doing it. This dog is done chasing tail...

Classy, as usual.

Who said anything about hate?

[Culvercreek hunt club]

 

 

However, it's my understanding that the gay rights vote did go through proper channels. What's popular is not always right either. Woman's rights and black rights never would have been voted in by popular vote.

 

 

What vote are you referring to? The only "votes' I am aware of were at the State levels.

 

That really is my point. gay marriage is not the popular view point in many areas of the nation however the Amendments are being used as vague  justification for it. In the same breath the "popular" stance on Gun Control is used as justification to side step a specified and enumerated right. I guess it just makes a difference which side it serves.

[The_Field_Ager]

Who said anything about hate?

 

 

Lefties use the word like they are talkin about the weather. Words like racist, hater and homophobe are so over used now, that they have no more power. 

[Borngeechee]

And the fight begins with Texas

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/06/texas_ag_says_clerks_an_refuse.html

[Five Seasons]

What vote are you referring to? The only "votes' I am aware of were at the State levels.

 

the supreme court vote

 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

the supreme court vote

 

I was referring to votes that reflect popular opinion. I don't get that same view from appointees.

[BellR]

And the fight begins with Texas

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/06/texas_ag_says_clerks_an_refuse.html

Ugh.  You are free to practice your religion, but if that interferes with your job it's time to find someone else who will do it.  If I told my employer it was against my religion to do my job they would fire me and find someone else, why should they be any different?  Maybe you can get a job with a church.

Edited June 30, 2015 by BellR

[ants]

http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/

 

I see a circle jerk and it's the ones spouting Biblical reasons for hate doing it. This dog is done chasing tail..

Explain your definition of "hate" as it relates to this post. (and the fact that you mention "circle jerk") on this topic is just plain old fashion funny!

Edited June 30, 2015 by ants

[virgil]

I agree with BellR.  If practicing your religion means breaking the law or discriminating against someone else, that's your problem.  Practice at your own risk.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

I agree with BellR.  If practicing your religion means breaking the law or discriminating against someone else, that's your problem.  Practice at your own risk.

how about the supermarket cashiers that are Muslim but refuse to ring up purchases that has pork? I seem to recall a case not that long ago where the employer had to make accommodations.

[ants]

Lefties use the word like they are talkin about the weather. Words like racist, hater and homophobe are so over used now, that they have no more power. 

Funny how they get to write the definitions…...

 

And everyone is still ignoring HOW the majority of this small group of unelected people, came to their decision. Pandora's box is officially open…… But hey……homophobes & haters....Right?

[BellR]

how about the supermarket cashiers that are Muslim but refuse to ring up purchases that has pork? I seem to recall a case not that long ago where the employer had to make accommodations.

Yep, they should also lose their job. If you can not complete your job duties for whatever reason, why should they pay you? If you don't get a job because of your religion it is discrimination and illegal, if you refuse to do your job because of your religion then you should have no protection. The constitution guarantees that you have freedom to practice your religion, not bring that religion to work with you and force your employer to make concessions due to it.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Yep, they should also lose their job. If you can not complete your job duties for whatever reason, why should they pay you? If you don't get a job because of your religion it is discrimination and illegal, if you refuse to do your job because of your religion then you should have no protection. The constitution guarantees that you have freedom to practice your religion, not bring that religion to work with you and force your employer to make concessions due to it.

Same feeling for specific religious holidays off?

[BellR]

Funny how they get to write the definitions…...

 

And everyone is still ignoring HOW the majority of this small group of unelected people, came to their decision. Pandora's box is officially open…… But hey……homophobes & haters....Right?

So you have a problem with our constitution? The judicial branch and the supreme court is one of the three main parts of our government and what they did was done under their power as it has been established. I'm confused why you think 1/3 of our government shouldn't have the powers the constitution gives it.

[BellR]

Same feeling for specific religious holidays off?

Yep. I don't think ANYONE should get Christmas, Ramadan or Chanukah off if they work for the government. A private industry can do whatever they like as far as I'm concerned since that is the decision on an individual as to what days they want to give their workers off.

Edited June 30, 2015 by BellR

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Yep.

how about a woman that becomes pregnant and can not longer physically perform the duties of her position?

[ants]

Yep, they should also lose their job. If you can not complete your job duties for whatever reason, why should they pay you? If you don't get a job because of your religion it is discrimination and illegal, if you refuse to do your job because of your religion then you should have no protection. The constitution guarantees that you have freedom to practice your religion, not bring that religion to work with you and force your employer to make concessions due to it.

Im waiting for a case to come out in favor of a Muslim, who knowingly took a job at a pork meat packing plant but could not work because of religious beliefs, about handling pork, so he/she was allowed to just sit at home and be mailed a weekly paycheck from the plant. Far fetched???

[BellR]

A woman and a man for that matter should be able to get the leave she/he has accrued. Getting pregnant is a choice. If you cant afford to take the time off from work, you probably shouldn't make that choice.

[ants]

A woman and a man for that matter should be able to get the leave she/he has accrued. Getting pregnant is a choice. If you cant afford to take the time off from work, you probably shouldn't make that choice.

Don't go clouding things with common sense…HATER!!!