Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lesbian Wisconsin Senator: First Amendment Makes Clear Christians Must Participate In Gay Weddings
PatDollard.com ^ | June 28, 2015 | Spit Stixx

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


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Wisconsin
KEYWORDS: 1stamendment; 2016election; abortion; blackkk; christians; deathpanels; election2016; firstamendment; homosexualagenda; libertarians; medicalmarijuana; obamacare; obamanation; redistribution; reparations; scottwalker; whiteprivilege; wisconsin; zerocare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-167 next last
To: dsm69
SCOTUS won't take the case if it went the way they wanted. There were what, 5 or 6 circuit court decisions that found a right to homo marriage in the constitution. Each time, the loser petitioned SCOTUS, and each time, SCOTUS turned them down.

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.

101 posted on 06/28/2015 1:34:48 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

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.


102 posted on 06/28/2015 1:35:10 PM PDT by L,TOWM (Is it still too soon to start shooting? [No social transformation without representation])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: dsm69

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.


103 posted on 06/28/2015 1:35:33 PM PDT by ansel12 (libertarians have always been for gay marriage and polygamy, gay Scout leaders, gay military.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

This proof positive that liberalism is indeed a mental illness!


104 posted on 06/28/2015 1:35:36 PM PDT by subvet73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: L,TOWM
-- And when the FBI shows up at your church to arrest your pastor after he preaches out of Romans 1, will that threaten it? --

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.

105 posted on 06/28/2015 1:40:10 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Well, this ruling doesn't even apply to Incorporated churches.

Why would you think that? What do you think "incorporated means?

106 posted on 06/28/2015 1:43:12 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: annieokie
The short answer is yes, I think, but it's going to take a gay couple to walk into a mosque and demand it for anything to come of it. For some head-scratching reason, I don't think that's likely to happen anytime soon.

-PJ

107 posted on 06/28/2015 1:43:36 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Lesbian Wisconsin Senator: First Amendment Makes Clear Christians Must Participate In Gay Weddings


DYKES for Dystrophia...


108 posted on 06/28/2015 1:48:22 PM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited (specifically) to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
“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."

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."

109 posted on 06/28/2015 1:49:03 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Talisker
I explained why I don't think this ruling applies to churches. That explanation has nothing to do with "incorporated" or not.

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.

110 posted on 06/28/2015 1:49:30 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

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.


111 posted on 06/28/2015 2:00:19 PM PDT by dsm69 (Boycott News Media/Hollywood Advertisers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

Or better, by the Second Amendment all Americans need to back the hell off!


112 posted on 06/28/2015 2:00:31 PM PDT by wastoute (Government cannot redistribute wealth. Government can only redistribute poverty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
What happened to the freedom of association?

The Supreme Court interpretation stopped at "freedom of ass

113 posted on 06/28/2015 2:01:26 PM PDT by Dr.Deth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
I'm sorry, but from a legal point of view you are wrong. The government is incorporated. A nonprofit church filed with the government IS a corporation. From the perspective of this ruling - in statutory corporate law - they are the SAME.

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.

114 posted on 06/28/2015 2:02:19 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Talisker
-- I'm sorry, but from a legal point of view you are wrong. --

No need to apologize, and clearly, you are well enough versed on this that any rebuttal from me would be insulting.

115 posted on 06/28/2015 2:04:31 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Make them a cake with Preparation-H for frosting.


116 posted on 06/28/2015 2:07:26 PM PDT by Iron Munro (We may be paranoid but that doesn't mean they aren't really after us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

Except that under Sharia law, people like her would be among the first tossed from tall buildings.


117 posted on 06/28/2015 2:08:14 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare
“Nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof” she didn’t read that part, did she?

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.

118 posted on 06/28/2015 2:11:19 PM PDT by Teacher317 (We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

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.


119 posted on 06/28/2015 2:11:27 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: M Kehoe

Ann Barnhardt’s been reporting that for some time now.


120 posted on 06/28/2015 2:12:31 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-167 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson