Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

The Supreme Court is the final authority on interpretations of the US Constitution and the SCOTUS gets to decide what laws apply. In this instance it is the anti-discrimination provisions of the US Constitution and the Laws passed by Congress that they were interpreting.No new laws were made by the SCOTUS.AbE:Another chance to learn stuff Faith.Issues only get to the Supreme Court by moving through the lower courts first. Anyone that tells you the Supreme Court creates new laws is simply ignorant or more likely lying to you.That is just not how the system works. The fools at the bakeries first had to break a local or Federal law that was already in existence. That is how the process starts.Once the issues move up through the various courts the Supreme Court can decide to hear or not hear the case.But the Supreme Court does not originate or start the process or write the laws.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

As a Christian I call bullshit on that assertion. In addition as you have been shown the Bible says that even common courtesy overrides obedience to God's laws. Well golly gosh darn, it was in fact in message 13 Message 13 of this very thread. Helping others, even in something as major as their worship of a different God is not just forgiven but seen as actually obeying God.Those who refuse to bake a cake or rent a room or any other act of discrimination because they believe it is a sin are simply ignorant of what we are charged by the Bible to do. God would simply tell them to "Go in peace and bake the finest wedding cake for them that you can."

Once again Faith, reality shows you are wrong. It was not the Supreme Court that legalized gay marriage but rather many different legislatures. The Supreme Court simply upheld lower court decisions and affirmed that such laws were Constitutional.AbE: Before the Supreme Court affirmed that same-sex marriage was Constitutional thirty-seven States and the District of Columbia has passed laws allowing same-sex marriages.
sourceThe Supreme Court did not make any law but only affirmed that the laws passed by the States were Constitutional.What that affirmation did do is affirm that the so called "Defense of Marriage Acts" passed in some States were NOT Constitutional.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

No, Christians do not have to refuse and that is the point even if you shout.Even if they believe gay marriage is a sin there is no reason to refuse. Even the Bible says that there is no reason to refuse and the passages from the Bible have been presented to you in this very thread several times.Only ignorant Christians need suffer because gay marriage is a fact and they suffer by choice, because they want to suffer not because it is what God wants or commands.That is what is relevant.Edited by jar, : fix sub-titleEdited by jar, : finish sentence

This thread is a great example to support Tangle's position. There are times when the more effective tactic is to simply stop responding then to continue making a point but in a manner that causes even those who agree with you to simply turn off anything you say.Bigots will always be with us.The laws are in place.The issue is when to make use of such laws and when to simply ignore the bigotry. Where is effort best spent?

In the case of the US I would say that there is a very high probability of that happening.The political party that currently controls the House and the Senate as well as the Executive Branch are also in the position to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice that will determine whether it is a liberal or conservative court as well as over 100 Federal Court Judges and any other Supreme Courts seats that come open in at least the next four years.In the US those judges pretty much serve for life or until they decide to retire and it is very difficult to "fire" one.The issue of same-sex marriages is already not a popular position with the political base of the party in power.

I think that helped play a big part. I think that is a really stupid pair of questions that are classic bumper sticker conman tactics.I'm not sure what 'national outrage' or the 'rest of society' are or why they would matter. What will determine what happens in the US over the next decade or so will depend to a great extent on what the folk like Faith think. The lawsuits won can be over turned far more easily than it might seem. The Party in Power in the US can fill the court system with justices that will make decisions based on criteria that can lead to results that overturn any lawsuits won in the past. It's not a matter of what other people think but rather about what the party in power wants. That's simply. Ignorance. And do not think for a second that the reality in the US is that Religious Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Association and may other things we have considered as settled are not also threatened.But the response is that those issue only effect "THEM" and not us.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin and left out half a word

That part is relatively easy to answer.First, if the service denial is not something that effects safety, economic well being or health then the question should be asked is this the place to make a point?Second, is the service denial institutional; that is is it government sanctioned? If it is not then the question should be asked is this the place to make a point?Third, if the issue is denial of service at a particular shop or store and not systemic then the question should be asked is this the place to make a point?There is no right to not be offended. Many might wish that were the case but it is not. There are areas I believe well worth fight over, the right to get married, the right to access in health care, the rights of inheritance and of adopting kids and holding a job and basic health care and so many, many other things. These are issue where a case can be made that there is a general benefit to all from anti-discrimination laws and enforcement.The reality in the US right now though is that there is not just a possibility but rather a likelihood of a reactionary backlash that can easily undo any advancements made during the last half century or more and undo them in a manner that will preclude restoration within several generations.

And I would reply that that is simply a meaningless bumpersticker carny con job.Life and reality are not symmetrical. Nor has anyone suggested 'don't sue over denial of services because you threaten the victories you've won' but rather don't sue over small annoyances or things that offend you unless you can make a marketable case that will stand up to public opinion as well as legalities. WOW. And here I thought it was to actually get public accommodation.

Yawn.And Yawn yet again.You have every right to believe as you do.Good luck.

I think the important issue is what can be done in the US to prevent those battles that have been won from being lost for decades to come.The rights will be determined in the US by the courts, by the legislature and by the position of the Executive Branch.For at least the next four years the position of the Executive Branch is that protecting LBGT rights is NOT a Federal issue but rather should be decided at the State and even Local level.The Courts are currently divided. There is one current opening at the Supreme Court with two or three more openings over the next decade likely. There are over 100 openings at Federal Judgeships.Those positions will get filled by appointees selected by the Executive Branch and confirmed by the Legislative Branch.Currently the Federal level Legislative Branch is dominated by a political Party that agrees with the Executive that LBGT (and many other civil rights issues) should NOT be a Federal mandate but rather decided at the State and Local level. These are the people who will confirm the court appointments.At the State and local level there is fairly widespread (though not a majority) support to deny equal protection under the law on LBGT issues and disallow same-sex marriage.If past gains relating to LBGT issues and Womens Rights and Religious Freedom and the Rights of Free Association and Freedom from unwarranted search and seizure are to be maintained and advanced the primary goal needs to be at the political level. Candidates that will support those positions must be identified and that information broadcast among those who will support such rights and every local, State and Federal election must be targets to change the makeup of the current Federal Legislature.We cannot afford more Bernie/Hillary splits. We cannot afford to NOT address the elephant in the room called the Federal Court appointments.

It is clear that the Trump Administration will not be on the side of the LBGT community. Last month the Trump Administration revoked federal guidelines specifying that transgender students have the right to use public school restrooms that match their gender identity.But it goes beyond just the Executive branch.

quote:

---

Others said the practical effect on the nation’s schools would be muted, in part because a federal judge already had blocked the Obama guidance in response to a lawsuit from 13 states that argued it violated states’ rights. And it is possible the U.S. Supreme Court could settle the matter soon, as it plans to consider a Virginia case involving a transgender teenager who was barred from using the boys’ bathroom at his high school.

---

And the Supreme Court did NOT hear the case since it said the Trump revocation of the Obama directives made the case moot.
sourceThe court went further and also wiped off the lower court ruling that had supported Gavin Grimm.Edited by jar, : fix quote box

And gay marriage is still not an attack on Christianity.

Which of course is simply not true as you have been shown several times in this thread.The issue is not Christian issues but rather ignorance of so many Christians about what the Bible actually says. When Christians are taught to worship and evil vile picayune God and taught falsehoods about the Bible, who wrote the Bible and what the Bible actually says the result is Christians acting out of ignorance instead of God will.There is nothing in the Bible that proscribes even Christians from honoring and even celebrating a gay wedding and there are passages in the Bible that say that even common courtesy overrides Gods commandments. Above all we are charged to do for others as we wish others did for us.If Christians simply learned to be nice and not bigots then God would be happy.

Nah, haven't heard about it and yes, I would certainly think it's something to joke about. But witchcraft is not Satan's main religion; Evangelical Fundamentalist Biblical Christianity is Satan's main religion. And it is also the source for what Jesus will term the Goats.But again, that still has nothing to do with the topic or the fact that Gay Marriage is not an attack on Christianity.