the iron horse
Rock n' Roll Doggie
The World Only Sins Forward
The World Only Sins Forward
Yes. But sometimes majorities are wrong. What if the majority wanted slavery again, would you just sit back and say "the citizens have spoken"?Do American citizens have the Constitutionally-protected right to vote on the values that will shape their society?
I really don't know what this has to do with anything, intimidation has always played a role in voting. Remember "we'll have another terrorist attack if we vote in a Democrat"?Do American citizens have the Constitutionally-protected right to vote without fear of intimidation?
No, that's why we've locked up all the racists, misogynists, and the entire congregation of the "god hates fags" church?Do American citizens have the Constitutionally-protected right to vote, live, and speak according to their faith and beliefs?
Care to elaborate?Do non-profit charities in America have the Constitutionally-protected right to operate without government interference?
You have become blind. This has nothing specifically to do with gay marriage. These stretched examples you give happen with any controversial subject, the Iraq war for example breeded a lot of these types of scenarios.Because these are just a few of the Constitutionally-protected rights that have already under fire in the inevitable march towards gay marriage (a right whose Constitutional protection is dubious at best).
In your case it probably is...But perhaps it's true what they say about horses and water.
Do non-profit charities in America have the Constitutionally-protected right to operate without government interference?
I don't think that extends to legalised bigotry, especially when it is based on a religious book.Do American citizens have the Constitutionally-protected right to vote on the values that will shape their society?
On what issues? Do you think that the American people are able to vote and overturn the first and second amendments?Do American citizens have the Constitutionally-protected right to vote without fear of intimidation?
This doesn't extend to deciding how others should live their lives, you have explicitly announced that the move to ban gay marriage is based on religion, and the first amendment is quite clear about the validity of those laws.Do American citizens have the Constitutionally-protected right to vote, live, and speak according to their faith and beliefs?
No, if they receive tax exempt status then they shouldn't be allowed to promulgate toxic attitudes in the community, if these groups paid taxes then they should be allowed to do whatever they want, I just don't think they should get public subsidy.Do non-profit charities in America have the Constitutionally-protected right to operate without government interference?
You make the claims without context, refuse to recognise the major infringements of having religious attitudes guide a public policy which discriminates against a large segment of taxpayers.Because these are just a few of the Constitutionally-protected rights that have already under fire in the inevitable march towards gay marriage (a right whose Constitutional protection is dubious at best).
Oh those crafty faggots are pushing hard on hard working Americans.But perhaps it's true what they say about horses and water.
Do American citizens have the Constitutionally-protected right to vote on the values that will shape their society?
Neither the State nor any subdivision or agency thereof shall deny, limit or abridge, directly or indirectly, the right of any person, who is willing or desires to sell, lease or rent any part or all of his real property, to decline to sell, lease or rent such property to such person or persons as he, in his absolute discretion, chooses.
The initiative proved to be overwhelmingly popular, and was passed by a 65% majority vote in the 1964 California elections.[2]
Three years later, in 1967, the amendment was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in the case of Reitman v. Mulkey. The Supreme Court ruled that the amendment was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
I'll repost my reply from a previous thread, since you've asked this question before:Do American citizens have the Constitutionally-protected right to vote on the values that will shape their society?
Federal law contains no provisions concerning referenda or ballot initiatives, which is why only some states offer them. While the California Constitution obviously provides for them, and prescribes the means by which CA citizens may qualify a measure for the ballot, the California courts are nonetheless empowered to order qualified initiatives to be removed from the ballot, as well as to annul successfully passed initiatives, both of which have happened before. If such actions actually violated federally protected voting rights, as you're suggesting, then obviously the federal government wouldn't have allowed that.
Of course, it's also true that same-sex couples' right to marry (or to enter into civil unions, for that matter) isn't presently federally protected either. So unless the California courts decide to annul Proposition 8 on the basis of the currently pending lawsuits, which is unlikely, then you'll get what you voted for. It's not your "voting rights," however, which are at stake, because neither the US Constitution nor the CA Constitution guarantee you the "right" to see a successfully passed ballot initiative that you supported upheld by the courts.
"Voter intimidation" is a specific felony offense category, the finding of which usually involves either behavior already explicitly defined in the relevant state's electoral code, or behavior judged by a court to meet the 'would cause a reasonable person fear of injury or harm' standard. In the US today, voter intimidation convictions are rare.Do American citizens have the Constitutionally-protected right to vote without fear of intimidation?
If by "live" you mean refusing service to particular categories of persons on religious grounds (such as a doctor refusing fertility treatments to a lesbian patient, or a therapist refusing relationship counseling to a lesbian patient), no. Think about the consequences if that were true; the Civil Rights Movement couldn't have succeeded if such 'religious exemption' loopholes existed, because then segregationists could have--and most happily would have--claimed 'freedom to practice my Christian beliefs' as their reason for continuing to bar black Americans from seeking their medical services, eating in their restaurants, shopping in their stores and so on.Do American citizens have the Constitutionally-protected right to vote, live, and speak according to their faith and beliefs?
What are you defining as "government interference"? An adoption agency losing the license permitting it to broker adoptions on behalf of the state because it refused on religious grounds to comply with that licenser's anti-discrimination laws? Bob Jones University losing its tax exemption because it refused until 2000, on religious grounds, to permit interracial dating among its students? Those wouldn't qualify as unconstitutional government interference, no.Do non-profit charities in America have the Constitutionally-protected right to operate without government interference?
Faith groups losing gay rights fights - Washington Post- msnbc.com
* A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney's costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple's commitment ceremony.
* A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship.
* Christian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment.
* A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional marriage.
To say nothing of Catholic adoption agencies forced to close in Boston, parents put in jail for refusing to allow their kids to learn about same-sex marriage, etc.
The World Only Sins Forward
Do American citizens have the Constitutionally-protected right to vote on the values that will shape their society?
Do American citizens have the Constitutionally-protected right to vote, live, and speak according to their faith and beliefs?
Do non-profit charities in America have the Constitutionally-protected right to operate without government interference?
Because these are just a few of the Constitutionally-protected rights that have already under fire in the inevitable march towards gay marriage (a right whose Constitutional protection is dubious at best).
this is offensive to me.
this is offensive to me.
go ahead, call me a sinner.
if you need to retain that little bit of assumed superiority over me using your own self-serving religion, then all i can do is feel pity at your small mindedness.
how greatly disappointing you must be to that Rebel From Nazareth.
Apparently, those "rights" are more important than social equality in the conservative mindset. And all this from our resident "libertarian" (who is really a de facto paleoconservative, by objective definition; a "social conservative libertarian" is an oxymoron).
And all this from our resident "libertarian" (who is really a de facto paleoconservative, by objective definition; a "social conservative libertarian" is an oxymoron).
Thank you for pointing this out. So called libertarians who would infringe on the human rights of others irk me. That's the antithesis of libertarianism, and I'm not sure why some fail to recognize that.
Sin is an absolute fraud. It does not exist.
It seems many religious people operate with this little "cheat sheet" attitude.
Like they have an automatic-pass guanantee.
Of course there is proper and correct behavior.
There is no magic, invisable being to obsolved me of harming myself and others.
My choices matter more now. It is liberating and refreshing.
It seems many religious people operate with this little "cheat sheet" attitude.
Like they have an automatic-pass guanantee.
His answers for why a lot of things should be the way they are is "because God wants it that way." I really wonder whether he ever actually gave any independent thought to something like gay marriage at all.
Religious conformity doesn't leave much room for independent thought which is probably fine for many conventionally religious people who would otherwise be too lazy to think beyond what they're told.
It can be fear as well, not just laziness.
this is offensive to me.
go ahead, call me a sinner.
if you need to retain that little bit of assumed superiority over me using your own self-serving religion, then all i can do is feel pity at your small mindedness.
how greatly disappointing you must be to that Rebel From Nazareth.