Gay Marriage is GO...

[Harambe]

No one thinks that a marriage or a wedding is just a license. Not performing a wedding ceremony(license or not) for Gay people is contrary to public policy and discriminatory, by definition. For a truly private institution or individual there is likely no legal recourse. Haters gunna hate. IF, on the other hand, you are a non profit than your policies must be nondiscriminatory falling in line with public policy and the constitution.

From the Supreme Court Hearing on Gay Marriage

-During oral arguments in March, Justice Samuel Alito compared the case to that of Bob Jones University, a fundamentalist Christian university in South Carolina. The Supreme Court ruled in 1983 the school was not entitled to a tax-exempt status if it barred interracial marriage.

Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., arguing for the same-sex couples on behalf of the Obama administration, said,”You know, **I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is –it is going to be an issue.”-

No, the government cannot force churches to perform ceremonies but it can revoke tax exempt status if they don't. In the Bob Jones case they are discussing above the University lost its tax exempt status not for refusing to sign a marriage license, not even for refusing to perform the ceremony but for not admitting people who where in a mixed race marriage.

If a tax exempt org discriminates against people in a legal union they could lose their exempt status even if they had nothing to do with the ceremony or signing the license. So taking the signing of marriage licenses out of the hands of clergy or whatever does not resolve the issue. The IRS will have to act. Which eventually they will. Then it will have to go before the court and I would think that there is a fair probability that they will uphold revoking that tax exempt status.

Did you even bother reading the part at the end, where I agreed allowing a tax exempt status would be subsidizing discrimination, Or did you just want to throw out more words? It doesn't seem like you're catching what I'm throwing at all, which is nothing new.

1. An officiant should be allowed to choose to do a ceremony, or not, at their discretion
2. If your answer to why not is "u gay bros, my organization ain't play dat", you, and your organization certainly shouldn't be getting a tax exemption

 

[Harambe]

fixed

Marriage is a legal union, and has been around longer than most religions. It is also the status quo; not letting homosexual couples into the status quo based on their orientation is discrimination. Therefore, the term marriage should belong to the people, not any religion. Hence having religions get out of the marriage game, instead of the people getting out of it.

Even though it was put trollish, an oddly good question DJ. Thanks for actually bringing something.

 

[DutchJazzer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrnFiiU63Cs

TEXAS FOR THE WIN, or loss depending how u look at the issue

 

[Gameface]

Didn't watch the video, but if you can't respect the rulings of the Supreme Court then you ain't 'merican. You might as well piss on the Constitution at that point.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Didn't watch the video, but if you can't respect the rulings of the Supreme Court then you ain't 'merican. You might as well piss on the Constitution at that point.

why if i may inquire, it is from the orignal cnn youtube channel.
because i posted it?
or you dont watch the leftist mainstream media?
or you dont watch stuff you dont agree with?

 

[Stoked]

Didn't watch the video, but if you can't respect the rulings of the Supreme Court then you ain't 'merican. You might as well piss on the Constitution at that point.

Refusing to follow the rulings of the Supreme Court seems like as final as it gets. Wonder where this will leads. Idiots.

 

[bigb]

To interrupt a little, why is it so important for religious organizations to be able to discriminate? Why does it seem like being able to hate on gay people is one of the tenets of so many denominations.

There has been hoopla here in Canada over a Christian university being able to give out law degrees, and it has to do with the university is question banning gay sex. And I'm sitting here wonder where the hell in the Bible did gay sex get singled out as the single worst sin you can do, meriting expulsion for students. And I tried to google whether the university has expelled people in the past for violating the 10 commandments or committing a deadly sin. You know, kids going home during a break and getting into mad fights with their parents over switching from Business to Poli Sci and getting expelled or someone eating 4 medium pepperoni pizzas at Pizza Hut's all-you-can-eat lunch buffet and getting kicked out of school. Couldn't find anything.

So, why then is homosexuality so much worse than taking the Lord's name in vain, gluttony, or greed? Why do mission statements of these school single out homosexuality instead of saying "We are against all sinful behaviour, as per our holy text?" Why is it so important to them to constantly single out and rebuke gay people?

So a church not officiating a gay marriage means they hate gays? Into over reacting much? I don't drink coffee. Does that mean I hate coffee drinkers?

 

[DutchJazzer]

So a church not officiating a gay marriage means they hate gays? Into over reacting much? I don't drink coffee. Does that mean I hate coffee drinkers?

sadly thats what the mainstream media wants you to think.
extremly bias reporting towards gays.
pro love, love wins yada yada. giving it a postivie spin
while the opposistion is labeled as homophobes, biggots and haters.

so if your "against" homosexual matrimony. doesnt matter whhy or what you believe you HATE gays

 

[LogGrad98]

Refusing to follow the rulings of the Supreme Court seems like as final as it gets. Wonder where this will leads. Idiots.

Litigation and false apologies. Same old story. Ad nauseum.

 

[moevillini]

sadly thats what the mainstream media wants you to think.
extremly bias reporting towards gays.
pro love, love wins yada yada. giving it a postivie spin
while the opposistion is labeled as homophobes, biggots and haters.

so if your "against" homosexual matrimony. doesnt matter whhy or what you believe you HATE gays

Dutch, you seem to be the only one who's sticking labels on people. Why do you feel such a need to label?

 

[LogGrad98]

Dutch, you seem to be the only one who's sticking labels on people. Why do you feel such a need to label?

Are you saying he's a labeler?

Or are you a labeler enabler?

 

[Jamezz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrnFiiU63Cs

TEXAS FOR THE WIN, or loss depending how u look at the issue

Notice how Anderson Cooper looks at the correspondent, he's like mmm I want sum o' that!

 

[DutchJazzer]

Dutch, you seem to be the only one who's sticking labels on people. Why do you feel such a need to label?

not labeling *****. i am against gay "mariage" but everywhere you go from real live social circkels to twitter to internet forums, the moment you state your for tradional man woman mariage. you ar elabeled a homophobe and or biggot sometimes even a racist.

just saying what i experienced from my own personal experience. but watch different kinda mainstream en lowly media. i watch cnn, msnbc, fox, abc and even uber liberal faux news like young turks and conspiracy theorist anti governmant "liberal" alex jones.
and they seem to share same sentiment.


never mind low iwins paraderts spit on pastors and stopped at churches to spit on the stepp of churches.

now it might be an illusion or just my personal experience. but i reallye xperienced it when saying "mariage is between man an woman no exceptions".

 

[DutchJazzer]

moevillini View Post are you for or against gay "mariage"
if you are against it and voiced it and have not been labaled you must be lucky
if you are for it just as an experiment go ahead and take up devils advocate position. go on twitter go on internet forums go to certain social gatherings and state that you are against it. then come back and tell me you have not been labeled and looked down upon.

i cant recall if you are for or against it. but too lazy to look it up in your post history

 

[Jamezz]

not labeling *****. i am against gay "mariage" but everywhere you go from real live social circkels to twitter to internet forums, the moment you state your for tradional man woman mariage. you ar elabeled a homophobe and or biggot sometimes even a racist.

just saying what i experienced from my own personal experience. but watch different kinda mainstream en lowly media. i watch cnn, msnbc, fox, abc and even uber liberal faux news like young turks and conspiracy theorist anti governmant "liberal" alex jones.
and they seem to share same sentiment.


never mind low iwins paraderts spit on pastors and stopped at churches to spit on the stepp of churches.

now it might be an illusion or just my personal experience. but i reallye xperienced it when saying "mariage is between man an woman no exceptions".

I never got the use of the word 'homophobe' anyway.

Homo = Man (as in mankind)
Phobe = Hate

Homophobe = People that hate our species???

 

[DutchJazzer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=13&v=utph8ba8koo

 

[Stoked]

Litigation and false apologies. Same old story. Ad nauseum.

Parts of Texas and Kentucky along with the states of Alabama and Lousiana have taken action against the ruling. Some counties are simpyl refusing to comply and some state judges are trying to order stays on implimenting the new ruling to allow time for counter suits.

Wonder how far this spreads...

 

[moevillini]

let's simplify this for those who are too simple to grasp the complexities - - because it's really not that complex


the Supreme Court ruling basically says that the ability for two people to enter into a specific legal partnership status shall not be denied because of the gender of the those involved

prior to this ruling, some states could block the ability of certain individuals to enter into this particular status on the basis of their gender - - now all states must offer this partnership benefit equally regardless of the gender of those involved.

(this partnership status most commonly has been historically referred to as "marriage" but there's no point in splitting hairs over what we call it)

Dogs, cats, robots, cars, and other objects cannot enter into legal agreements.

Now the bigger question is:
What if a state (or county or whatever entity it is that issues the licenses) decides it's not going to issue them anymore for anyone? Do you think that's possible?

 

[moevillini]

I never got the use of the word 'homophobe' anyway.

Homo = Man (as in mankind)
Phobe = Hate

Homophobe = People that hate our species???

homo is also a prefix that means "the same" as in homogenous or homonym

and phobe more correctly is "fear"
(not hate, though it's not unheard of to hate that which causes fear)

 

[BabyPeterzz]

They're just delaying the inevitable.

Those who oppose civil liberty legislation do not fair well historically.