Obama appointee ...
To: Oldeconomybuyer
Is there no such thing as a gay Christian?
2 posted on
02/07/2019 1:17:19 PM PST by
sparklite2
(Don't mind me. I'm just a contrarian.)
To: Oldeconomybuyer
Perhaps the worm is beginning to turn.
3 posted on
02/07/2019 1:17:58 PM PST by
fwdude
(Think about it: Blacks were made slaves in Africa, but were made free men in America.)
To: Oldeconomybuyer
This decision will be overruled by an Obama appointee by 5PM (Hawaiian Standard Time) tomorrow.
8 posted on
02/07/2019 1:27:05 PM PST by
Gay State Conservative
(Mitt Romney: Bringing Massachusetts Values To The Great State Of Utah.)
To: Oldeconomybuyer
If they won’t allow homosexuals as leaders then why are they allowing them as members?
To: Oldeconomybuyer
It is a clear application of Freedom of Association. The United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama (1958) that freedom of association is an essential part of freedom of speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others. The Court decided in favor of the petitioners, holding that “Immunity from state scrutiny of petitioner's membership lists is here so related to the right of petitioner's members to pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others in doing so as to come within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment” and, further, that freedom to associate with organizations dedicated to the “advancement of beliefs and ideas” is an inseparable part of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In general, freedom of association includes the right to be free from compelled association. In Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 97 S. Ct. 1428, 51 L. Ed. 2d 752 (1977), and Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209, 97 S. Ct. 1782, 52 L. Ed. 2d 261 (1977), the Court held that freedom of association is unconstitutionally burdened where the state requires an individual to support or espouse ideals or beliefs with which he or she disagrees. Similarly, in Keller v. State Bar, 496 U.S. 1, 110 S. Ct. 2228, 110 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1990), the Court held that mandatory state bar membership dues could not be used to further ideological causes with which some members might disagree, unless the state could show that the expenditures were incurred for the purpose of regulating the legal profession or improving the quality of legal service.
To: Oldeconomybuyer
This judgement, in a sane world, is a dog-bites-man story.
Our insane world has converted this judgement into a man-bites-dog story.
21 posted on
02/07/2019 2:51:47 PM PST by
bkopto
To: Oldeconomybuyer
23 posted on
02/07/2019 3:16:44 PM PST by
jocon307
To: Oldeconomybuyer
Christian groups do not allow
Heterosexual
Or
Bisexual
Either
Adultery is not limited to one of these psychological profiles
24 posted on
02/07/2019 3:20:55 PM PST by
lonestar67
(America is exceptional)
To: Oldeconomybuyer
“Particularly when free speech is involved, the uneven application of any policy risks the most exacting standard of judicial scrutiny, which the defendants have failed to withstand,” she said.
Folks, we have all been given a voice here with precedent. Let us use it. Think of all the cracks in the lib position this creates.
34 posted on
02/10/2019 7:03:27 AM PST by
PeterPrinciple
(Thinking Caps are no longer being issued but there must be a warehouse full of them somewhere.)
To: Oldeconomybuyer
I know how I am going to get out of driving the church bus now.
35 posted on
02/10/2019 7:06:26 AM PST by
AppyPappy
(How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson