Uh Oh

[jimnyc]

But that's how you cite prior cases as precedent. Loving may be used and it might not be used, I don't know but I'm sure we'll find out eventually. Just because they haven't yet does not make the principle any less valid until it has been decided.

But it's a principle not yet rooted in a legal decision. There is no connection between Loving and gay marriage, other than in discussions or debates. No case that I'm aware of, has a judge referenced Loving as precedent. Things change each time a judge makes a decision based on prior court rulings. Each time they do so they are affirming the original decision to be applicable to the current one. Your desire to link the 2, Loving and gay marriage, is only theory at this point.

[fj1200]

But it's a principle not yet rooted in a legal decision. There is no connection between Loving and gay marriage, other than in discussions or debates. No case that I'm aware of, has a judge referenced Loving as precedent. Things change each time a judge makes a decision based on prior court rulings. Each time they do so they are affirming the original decision to be applicable to the current one. Your desire to link the 2, Loving and gay marriage, is only theory at this point.

I stated nothing different, or didn't mean too if I did. :hide:

[ConHog]

I would like to say that but you're getting into the CRA which might be its own thread. I don't believe that gays should be given Title VII protection today while blacks should have been back in the day.

this forum would be a good place for a discussion about that unconstitutional law.

[jimnyc]

Bingo zappo. that is what we've been saying for months. But I understand how the message could have gotten lost with WindSong in here screaming that that wasn't good enough either.

Oh PS Young people most assuredly can sue for age discrimination if they are discriminated on for being young. Would be a hard case to win for sure, but the 14th guarantees equal protection for all.

Won't happen unless you have incompetent counsel for the defendant and an incompetent judge. If anything, they would need to have federal law reversed. Age discrimination, based on EEOE standards, ONLY applies to those over the age of 40. Only in very rare cases, in certain states, in certain jobs, would someone have a hope in hell of winning such a case.

[fj1200]

this forum would be a good place for a discussion about that unconstitutional law.

Ring it up!

[ConHog]

Who deemed drugs not good for society? Society. If 99.99% of the nation wanted drugs legal, they would be. I don't know what is so difficult to understand about that. Especially considered since the beginning of time it's been societies dictating what is best for them as a whole. The burden is on voters aka society, to determine what they think is best for their neighborhoods/society/country.

And I have no clue where you get that crap from. I never said being a queer should be illegal. No skin off my back if people, in their privacy, want to work in destructive ways.

and if the people voted to make drugs legal, that would IMO not be unconstitutional. It would only be unconstitutional to tell someone they can't do something that is NOT illegal. Not the other way around. So if we made drugs legal then told gays they couldn't partake. ILLEGAL.

As for that "crap" I was asking a question, not claiming you were saying something.

[jimnyc]

I stated nothing different, or didn't mean too if I did. :hide:

My bad then. But in reality, and I suppose against my argument, it won't surprise me if in the future the SC decides that Loving set the legal precedent and meets the burden for gays to legally marry as well. I don't know. THEN, if they did, there would be actual "rights" granted to them, as per the OP. But I'm of the belief, that as it stands now, they have no standing to use the 14th.

[ConHog]

Won't happen unless you have incompetent counsel for the defendant and an incompetent judge. If anything, they would need to have federal law reversed. Age discrimination, based on EEOE standards, ONLY applies to those over the age of 40. Only in very rare cases, in certain states, in certain jobs, would someone have a hope in hell of winning such a case.

I agree it would take the right set of circumstance, but it could be won.

And I'm against ANY law which dictates who someone may hire or serve in the private sector.

[ConHog]

My bad then. But in reality, and I suppose against my argument, it won't surprise me if in the future the SC decides that Loving set the legal precedent and meets the burden for gays to legally marry as well. I don't know. THEN, if they did, there would be actual "rights" granted to them, as per the OP. But I'm of the belief, that as it stands now, they have no standing to use the 14th.

You're still quite correct the 14th does not apply. They SHOULD be using the first and then you would as a fair man have to admit that yes they have that right.

[jimnyc]

You're still quite correct the 14th does not apply. They SHOULD be using the first and then you would as a fair man have to admit that yes they have that right.

I don't see any protection under the 1st either. Where has the government made any laws about legal/illegal in a religion? I think that's what you were getting to earlier...

[ConHog]

I don't see any protection under the 1st either. Where has the government made any laws about legal/illegal in a religion? I think that's what you were getting to earlier...

How is it not protected under the first

gays : "our church wants to marry gays"
california : "sorry our population has voted that your religion is sick"

Now in order for that to be kosher CA now has the burden of showing that denying that particular religious freedom has some benefit to society as a whole. So far, they have not.

IMO if the gays are ever going to win they are going to have to drop the 14th amendment argument and get behind the first amendment, of course perversely the most vocal gays hate Christians so much that they would rather cut off their nose and destroy the first amendment to spite their face.

That's where the impasse is, you refuse to let them define marriage however they want and they insist that you define marriage however THEY want. Yall are two sides of the same coin. Both being stubborn for no real reason.

Why do you care what THEY call marriage and why do they insist that you accept their marriage? I sure don't accept Buddha as a God so why do I care if Buddhists perform gay marriages?

[OCA]

I don't see any protection under the 1st either. Where has the government made any laws about legal/illegal in a religion? I think that's what you were getting to earlier...

There is no protection under the 1st either.

[OCA]

How is it not protected under the first

gays : "our church wants to marry gays"
california : "sorry our population has voted that your religion is sick"

Now in order for that to be kosher CA now has the burden of showing that denying that particular religious freedom has some benefit to society as a whole. So far, they have not.

IMO if the gays are ever going to win they are going to have to drop the 14th amendment argument and get behind the first amendment, of course perversely the most vocal gays hate Christians so much that they would rather cut off their nose and destroy the first amendment to spite their face.

That's where the impasse is, you refuse to let them define marriage however they want and they insist that you define marriage however THEY want. Yall are two sides of the same coin. Both being stubborn for no real reason.

Why do you care what THEY call marriage and why do they insist that you accept their marriage? I sure don't accept Buddha as a God so why do I care if Buddhists perform gay marriages?

What if a church wants to human sacrifice willing participants?

There is no coverage for queers under the 1st, its not a religious issue.

[jimnyc]

How is it not protected under the first

gays : "our church wants to marry gays"
california : "sorry our population has voted that your religion is sick"

Now in order for that to be kosher CA now has the burden of showing that denying that particular religious freedom has some benefit to society as a whole. So far, they have not.

IMO if the gays are ever going to win they are going to have to drop the 14th amendment argument and get behind the first amendment, of course perversely the most vocal gays hate Christians so much that they would rather cut off their nose and destroy the first amendment to spite their face.

That's where the impasse is, you refuse to let them define marriage however they want and they insist that you define marriage however THEY want. Yall are two sides of the same coin. Both being stubborn for no real reason.

Why do you care what THEY call marriage and why do they insist that you accept their marriage? I sure don't accept Buddha as a God so why do I care if Buddhists perform gay marriages?

They struck down part of a religion somewhere? Nope, I believe it was JUST gay marriage. Wasn't anything to do with religion. You WANT it to be purely a religious institution, but as of now, it's not. Atheists can get married too, just not if they are gay in certain states.

[OCA]

They struck down part of a religion somewhere? Nope, I believe it was JUST gay marriage. Wasn't anything to do with religion. You WANT it to be purely a religious institution, but as of now, it's not. Atheists can get married too, just not if they are gay in certain states.

How about when you go to the JOP for a civil ceremony, is that a religious ceremony too?