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
One circuit went the other way, and said that the states could restrict marriage to heterosexual couples. That is the case that SCOTUS took up.
And when the FBI shows up at your church to arrest your pastor after he preaches out of Romans 1, will that threaten it? How about when you show up Sunday Morningand your church is padlocked, but the Presbyterian church with rainbow robed pastor down the road is open for business? Then, maybe?
I do fear you are right though. Claire Wolfe’s bar for the beginning of a revolt was set too high, I think.
The government ordering churches to baptize people on demand, forced to allow Muslims and atheists to take communion, to marry people that have nothing to do with them, as though they are public marriage businesses, to perform marriages that are against their religion, or where the couple don’t meet their requirements, we are no where near that.
This proof positive that liberalism is indeed a mental illness!
That probably would, yes. But this edict "only" throws practicing Christians out of government jobs.
Don't get me wrong, I think the decision is worse than a travesty. It is a mockery of God, and it is even a mockery of man-made law. it makes a shambles of the constitution, and renders SCOTUS illegitimate.
But even with all that, it is not grounds for any sort of violence in response.
Why would you think that? What do you think "incorporated means?
-PJ
Lesbian Wisconsin Senator: First Amendment Makes Clear Christians Must Participate In Gay Weddings
DYKES for Dystrophia...
Stinking, lying bitch.
John Roberts: "The majority graciously suggests that religious believers may continue to “advocate” and “teach” their views of marriage. The First Amendment guarantees, however, the freedom to “exercise” religion. Ominously, that is not a word the majority uses."
This ruling applies to marriages performed outside of churches, and does not apply to marriages performed inside of churches. SCOTUS is ordering the state government apparati (which emphatically aren't churches, this is government officies, about as heathen as heathen gets) to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples, and to perform civil marriage ceremonies for homosexual couples, and to recognize this civil union when performed in any other state.
None of that says that a church must perform a marriage ceremony for a homosexual couple, although I am sure many churches are jumping at the chance to do so.
Your right, they will wait for a more conservative appellate court to rule differently than the Marxist ninth circuit and side for a church and against the fag couple and take that case in order to gut the First Amendmnent Freedoms of Religion, Speech and Assembly.
Or better, by the Second Amendment all Americans need to back the hell off!
The Supreme Court interpretation stopped at "freedom of ass
How do you think the Left plans on exploiting this ruling, if not against the churches themselves? That's why I say churches must disincorporate and challenge the taxing authorities on the internal restraints of the tax code itself.
Because this is a TAX battle, nothing else. Without incorporation, this law, this ruling, is irrelevant against churches.
And once people figure out that it only applies to non-human, incorporated "persons," they won't care what it is called, because it's operating outside of humanity itself.
In fact, that should be the cry of conservatives to Gays RIGHT NOW - that the cost of their "marriage" is, IN FACT, the loss of their very humanity before the law, and all the rights that went with it, in exchange for limited, restricted, corporate privileges.
No need to apologize, and clearly, you are well enough versed on this that any rebuttal from me would be insulting.
Make them a cake with Preparation-H for frosting.
Except that under Sharia law, people like her would be among the first tossed from tall buildings.
In Friday's decision, those words were not used ONCE. Usually, an opinion will discuss the merits of both sides of a case, and then detail why the judge or judges chose to rule the way that they did... and in a landmark, long-term battle between two First Amendment clauses, one side of the debate is not even mentioned. This should tell you all that you need to know about how appropriate and just the ruling was.
You don’t actually believe that, do you?
This week’s SCOTUScare ruling proved yet again that what’s clearly written in black-and-white can be utterly disregarded if the regime desires a different outcome.
Ann Barnhardt’s been reporting that for some time now.
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.