[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Let me clarify, when you say agent, you mean proprietor?

Agent meaning anyone acting in a capacity for the organization.

I don't have any employees yet myself, but when I do I will absolutely respect their requests and requirements regarding their religious beliefs (within reason) even though I consider it all to be utter horse shit and not because the law requires me to do so.

If I was against contraception but I ran a company healthcare plan I wouldn't dream of refusing to cover the costs of someone else's contraception just because I don't agree with it. Thats what the right to religious freedom is. You don't get to dictate, restrict or discriminate based on your views. You are allowed your views and thats it. No more than that.

Agreed, but do you consider being forced by law to act in direct violation of those beliefs to be acceptable?

Allowing companies or organisations to impose these restrictions is tantamount to feudalism. The rich boss gets to tell his minions how to live or they get evicted and starve in the streets? Its unconscionable.

The boss gets to determine how his organization is run, and which ethical and moral paradigms to follow (within the law, of course - Bill of Rights preempting all others).

If you don't like it, find a new job or start your own business. If the views of the original business owner are so hard to follow, I am sure it would not be difficult to poach all of his talent for your business and those employees would be eager to jump ship. Codifying what you can and can't believe and act on into law is not the government's role.

I hope someone from Hobby Lobby has triplets and sues the company for the entire cost of raising them until they turn 21. Food, clothes, bigger house, babysitters, education, holidays, cars when they are old enough, the works. See how they feel about paying for a few pills after a quarter of their employees charge them for all their kids.

Why? I've been on this earth 28 years and have had my share of fun while managing not to knock anyone up. I don't expect someone else to take responsibility/pay for me making sure I don't pop out any mini-Snow-i's. Hell, I don't even mind letting the 51% of the nation on foodstamps use that money for condoms and birth control.

Unlike a feudal system, no one is forcing any Hobby Lobby employees to be in their service, nor to perform any actions that violate their religious beliefs.

This is yet another reason we must break the chains between healthcare and the employee/employer relationship and remove the potential for this conflict altogether.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Dining with "infidels" is expressly frowned on in the Koran.

Dine with != perform religious service, and those devout muslims are well within their rights to serve only Muslims in their mess halls. Such a business I don't think would be too successful - i.e. the need for government intervention is just not there.

Then make the place an actual church.

I think this is where we're going off track. What is the difference between an "actual church" and someone's legally owned assets? (I'll give you a hint, under 1A there is none).

It's not stopping anyone from exercising their religious beliefs, you simply have to decide if you're a pastor or a proprietor.

I'm not sure where you're getting this from. No where in the 1A does it say that you must mark yourself as a pastor to exercise your religious beliefs and be free from the government forcing you to act against them. Infact, it says quite clearly that it applies across the board.

Yes you can, I know Jews who work in EMS careers who have been forced to work on Shabbat.

Nothing forces them to do so. It is a condition set forth by the employer that the employees must follow. The government isn't forcing anyone to violate their religious beliefs (the issue at hand). If ya don't like it, find a new job. Just like, if you're homosexual and don't like the views of a particular church - find a different one. It's not rocket science.

but you do have to be a religious institution if you want to discriminate for religious reasons.

Please provide a citation for this. You might think this is how it ought to be, but this is not what the 1A stipulates. As a private citizen, I can discriminate all I want on religious grounds. By your logic, I should be able to go to any Rabbi I want to get married. Try pulling that one off and let me know how it turns out and what the government has to say about it.

To put it within a Biblical context, you can't serve both God and mammon (money).

This has nothing to do with the Bible and everything to do with the 1st amendment, which says you can serve whatever religion you god damn please without fear of the government legislating otherwise, regardless of whether you declare yourself as a church or not.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The public's recourse is to boycott and shun that business, who will quickly fold and/or lose it's significance. Vote with your wallet and with your own speech.

This doesn't work.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

This doesn't work.

Oh it works when the public's sentiment is there.

The reality is we are not there with gay marriage yet, and it is not the government's role to legislate our morality on the issue especially while shredding the 1st amendment in the process.

What this country lacks is tolerance for opposing viewpoints, once a staple of American society. Using the government to legislate that morality will only leave us wide open to get even more ****ed by the ruling class.

Should we allow gays to marry? Absolutely.
Should we force people who don't agree with that notion to perform the ceremonies? Hell no.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Oh it works when the public's sentiment is there.

Do you have any national examples?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

it is not the government's role to legislate our morality

It is, however, it's role to protect people's rights. What's to stop someone from claiming religion for withholding services based on gender or race?

[subego]

As I've said before, I like the idea of letting businesses serve whomever and however they wish. The issue is your ability to chose whom you patronize will directly correlate with your income. People making minimum wage have neither the freedom of movement or available free time to make that choice.

[The Final Dakar]

Puerto Rico federal court dismisses same-sex marriage lawsuit - The Washington Post

United States District Judge Juan Perez-Gimenez has dismissed a challenge to Puerto Rico’s law limiting marriage to one man and one woman. He concluded the outcome was controlled by the Supreme Court’s summary rejection of same-sex marriage claims in Baker v. Nelson in 1972, a view that has been rejected by every other federal court since United States v. Windsor on the grounds that doctrinal changes have eroded Baker.

Recent affirmances of same-gender marriage seem to suffer from a peculiar inability to recall the principles embodied in existing marriage law. Traditional marriage is “exclusively [an] opposite-sex institution . . . inextricably linked to procreation and biological kinship,” Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2718 (Alito, J., dissenting). Traditional marriage is the fundamental unit of the political order. And ultimately the very survival of the political order depends upon the procreative potential embodied in traditional marriage. Those are the well-tested, well-proven principles on which we have relied for centuries. The question now is whether judicial
“wisdom” may contrive methods by which those solid principles can be circumvented or even discarded.

He quoted the Windsor dissent in dismissing the case?!

Good news, Chongo:

In addition to the threat same-sex marriage may pose to “the fundamental unit of the political order,” Judge Perez-Giminez went on to raise the specter of a constitutional right to polygamous and incestuous marriages.

the issue of Baker‘s effect is actively being considered in other circuits. Most immediately, the Sixth Circuit is already considering a case that turns in part on whether Baker controls. In the Eighth Circuit, a motion to dismiss a same-sex marriage challenge was argued in a South Dakota district court last Friday. (The challenge was brought by my former student Joshua Newville.) And the Fifth Circuit will soon schedule argument in Texas’s appeal from a district court decision striking down that state’s limitation on marriage.

[Chongo]

This groups claims several successful boycotts.
http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/porta...20boycotts.pdf

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

As I've said before, I like the idea of letting businesses serve whomever and however they wish. The issue is your ability to chose whom you patronize will directly correlate with your income. People making minimum wage have neither the freedom of movement or available free time to make that choice.

Here's my thing: How long do you think segregated restaurants would have survived in the South if left to market forces? I'd say at least til the 80s. And that's assuming racial integration becoming accepted had zero to do with civil rights legislation.

It's funny, but I think the LGBT movement owes a lot to Karl Rove. If 2004s legislative push hadn't happened I don't think it would have become the prominent issue it was. They made it into the national debate, and once people started thinking about it, it actually hurt the movement.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Here's my thing: How long do you think segregated restaurants would have survived in the South if left to market forces? I'd say at least til the 80s. And that's assuming racial integration becoming accepted had zero to do with civil rights legislation.

I think we're saying the same things, only I'm coming from a "theoretical" angle, and you're coming from an "applied" one.

Your analysis of how long it would take segregation to end is correct in my estimation, but is contingent upon having a bunch of poor people lacking the ability to go somewhere else. If this wasn't the case, the segregators would be suddenly faced with a huge loss.

This is the libertarian saw, but usually fails to acknowledge poor people don't have the same freedoms many libertarians take for granted.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Your analysis of how long it would take segregation to end is correct in my estimation

I based on when interracial marriage became acceptable to a majority of americans. A weak link, but all I had.

Originally Posted by subego 

is contingent upon having a bunch of poor people lacking the ability to go somewhere else. If this wasn't the case, the segregators would be suddenly faced with a huge loss.

It's also contingent on getting some type of support anywhere. And not having to worry about reprisal for bucking the local status quo.

[subego]

If there was a substantial amount of business on the block, I'd venture support would have swelled.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Agreed, but do you consider being forced by law to act in direct violation of those beliefs to be acceptable?

I guess I see it as the same as having to work around my employees religious beliefs. I may not like the fact that as an employer I have to let a Muslim employee stop working to pray several times a day and provide a space for that or that I might have to stock special food in the company canteen for any religious diets as well as medical ones or simply personal choices but I'll do it and on a more human level I'll be happy to.
If my company provides my employees with healthcare, then the type of care they choose for their health comes down their chic, their best interests, and what the budget/policy allows for. The below argument works here in reverse. If I don't want staff to do certain things on my company plan, then they should be able to opt out or there is no company plan to begin with and everyone gets paid more instead of getting covered.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The boss gets to determine how his organization is run, and which ethical and moral paradigms to follow (within the law, of course - Bill of Rights preempting all others).

If you don't like it, find a new job or start your own business. If the views of the original business owner are so hard to follow, I am sure it would not be difficult to poach all of his talent for your business and those employees would be eager to jump ship. Codifying what you can and can't believe and act on into law is not the government's role.

Part of the problem I have with Hobby Lobby is their attitude that the healthcare is a favour. If they didm;t offer it, they'd pay more in wages to cover the shortfall. By covering lots of people in one policy, they spread the risk and they get a bulk discount instead of having to pay enough extra wages for everyone to get their own individual, non-discounted cover. If health insurance is part of your contractually agreed compensation, then any restriction imposed by the employer after the fact for non-medical or financial reasons is no different than if I were to go to my employees houses and fine them for or ban them from spending their wages on subscriptions to tabloid newspapers or buying cosmetics that were tested on animals or any other stuff I don't approve of. If being against contraception is a religious belief, then in cases such as this being for it must also come under your religious freedom too so any way I spin it, to me this is one persons rights trumping anothers simply because he or she employs them.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Why? I've been on this earth 28 years and have had my share of fun while managing not to knock anyone up. I don't expect someone else to take responsibility/pay for me making sure I don't pop out any mini-Snow-i's. Hell, I don't even mind letting the 51% of the nation on foodstamps use that money for condoms and birth control.

Its really not about the specifics of it. {Though since you bring it up, are you saying you've never used any birth control? And neither has anyone you've been with?) If the you have a policy which covers it, why would you pay extra on top? Thats just silly. Birth control isn't that cheap once you get above student age in this country, I imagine its worse over there.

[QUOTE=Snow-i;4296734]Unlike a feudal system, no one is forcing any Hobby Lobby employees to be in their service, nor to perform any actions that violate their religious beliefs. [QUOTE]

No and yes. This is very much like the argument against polygamy. Its all fine as long as everyone agrees but you can never really be sure that there isn't someone or something pressuring someone to do something they don't want to. When the job market is healthy, sure you can quit on a principle. Other times, not so much.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

This is yet another reason we must break the chains between healthcare and the employee/employer relationship and remove the potential for this conflict altogether.

Maybe. This issue is more about giving a corporation a degree of personhood and the start of a slippery slope/opening of a floodgate that potentially represents.
Overall I think its just a safer option to keep these rights personal and not corporate. The state can always tell the employer that its a matter of law and then he gets the choice of owning a company and making lots of cash, or sticking to his religious principles and if he feels that paying for others to flout them is tantamount to doing it himself selling up or not starting in the first place.

It all comes down to who you place the burden on.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I guess I see it as the same as having to work around my employees religious beliefs. I may not like the fact that as an employer I have to let a Muslim employee stop working to pray several times a day and provide a space for that or that I might have to stock special food in the company canteen for any religious diets as well as medical ones or simply personal choices but I'll do it and on a more human level I'll be happy to.
If my company provides my employees with healthcare, then the type of care they choose for their health comes down their chic, their best interests, and what the budget/policy allows for. The below argument works here in reverse. If I don't want staff to do certain things on my company plan, then they should be able to opt out or there is no company plan to begin with and everyone gets paid more instead of getting covered.

I can totally emphasize with you here. My problem is we aren't talking about "letting someone practice their religion" we are "forcing them to perform services that violate their beliefs".

Part of the problem I have with Hobby Lobby is their attitude that the healthcare is a favour. If they didm;t offer it, they'd pay more in wages to cover the shortfall. By covering lots of people in one policy, they spread the risk and they get a bulk discount instead of having to pay enough extra wages for everyone to get their own individual, non-discounted cover. If health insurance is part of your contractually agreed compensation, then any restriction imposed by the employer after the fact for non-medical or financial reasons is no different than if I were to go to my employees houses and fine them for or ban them from spending their wages on subscriptions to tabloid newspapers or buying cosmetics that were tested on animals or any other stuff I don't approve of. If being against contraception is a religious belief, then in cases such as this being for it must also come under your religious freedom too so any way I spin it, to me this is one persons rights trumping anothers simply because he or she employs them.

This is why we need to divorce health-care and employment.

Its really not about the specifics of it. {Though since you bring it up, are you saying you've never used any birth control? And neither has anyone you've been with?) If the you have a policy which covers it, why would you pay extra on top? Thats just silly. Birth control isn't that cheap once you get above student age in this country, I imagine its worse over there.

I would not expect my job to pay for condoms and my (sadly hypothetical) lady's birth control. Thats our decision and we bear the responsibility to make sure we don't make any mistakes.

That said, I understand the societal benefits of providing birth control for free/cheap, and I would very much like to make that a reality. To me, this is another issue we address directly and not using a healthcare system overburdened with waste, fraud, and bureaucratic meddling and political divisiveness. Washington has proved time and again it's inability to bear results, and I just don't trust them with yet another entitlement. We can find a way to address this together, but first we have to get pharma out of bed with the government as best we can.

No and yes. This is very much like the argument against polygamy. Its all fine as long as everyone agrees but you can never really be sure that there isn't someone or something pressuring someone to do something they don't want to. When the job market is healthy, sure you can quit on a principle. Other times, not so much.

This is very true, but I don't see birth control as a right just for working. Times may be tough, which is a great reason to not buy that shiny new iPhone with a $180/mo contract, but to work hard to improve your condition and put your money where it needs to go. The fact that Hobby Lobby's Health Care plans would not offer birth control via a very public religious stance, I have a hard time with any employee that walks in the door with their iPhone in their pocket telling everyone what they are entitled to. If you want it, need it, or would benefit from it - work for it and handle it yourself. I know it's possible because I did it myself, and am still doing it.

Maybe. This issue is more about giving a corporation a degree of personhood and the start of a slippery slope/opening of a floodgate that potentially represents.

The question is not personhood of a corporation but the degree to which society should be able to influence any given business's business decisions (whatever their motivation). There are valid arguments to both sides of this continuum

Overall I think its just a safer option to keep these rights personal and not corporate.

Exactly why we should divorce the corporations from the equation altogether and preempt these issues.

The state can always tell the employer that its a matter of law and then he gets the choice of owning a company and making lots of cash, or sticking to his religious principles and if he feels that paying for others to flout them is tantamount to doing it himself selling up or not starting in the first place.

It is not the government's role to give business owners that ultimatum. The bill of rights guarantees the opposite, actually - and I think we ought to ensure it stays that way, because once the precedent is set it can be applied anywhere. This is why I can support gay marriage and advocate birth control whileat the same time side with hobby lobby and this pastor, because I don't trust opening this door for our government to meddle in our private affairs that are directly contrary to the rights the 1st amendment guarantees.

It all comes down to who you place the burden on.

Very true.

[Waragainstsleep]

Whether or not your company health plan should cover birth control to those that want it is not really the point. I can entirely see the arguments not to, but what if Hobby Lobby was run by Jehovas Witnesses? Would that entitle them to block their company health plan from paying for blood transfusions? Or any treatment that contained or required one or even the chance of one?

Its an extreme point and in all likelihood not one that is likely to ever cause too much fuss but only because the Witnesses don't make up 30% or more of the population. At its core though, how is this scenario really different from Hobby Lobby in terms of rights?

It just strikes me as far easier and fairer to everyone involved to treat any company health plan as part of a worker's compensation package and thus the guys complaining that they will go to hell because they pay the bill to the insurance company need to just think of it that way and let people get whatever are they want under the scope of the plan. I'm sure if demand requires it, there will soon be dozens of such corporate plans that do not include any birth control cover.
The SC decision to grant this power is a really dangerous one and they really should know better.

As for the issue of performing marriages you don't agree with, I'm a little more torn on that one. I think I prefer that if you are operating a for profit service that includes a public space, you should have no right to refuse that service to anyone who walks in.
I realise this may violate some people religious beliefs, but they are as free to not run a business as anyone else is to not frequent one. I realise one of those is a greater concession but I just think if you disincentives that kind of behaviour for a generation or two, it will start to die out and then it won't be a problem any more. While this might be in some opposition to some pretty basic rights and freedoms, the same could be said of banning segregation in the south, whenever it was that happened. Was it the 50s?

So as long as marriage involves a government license and contract and legal status, I can't really see how anyone who expects to b licensed to perform them can expect to have the right to refuse people who meet the criteria.
It will no doubt strike some people as unthinkable to force Catholic priests to perform gay weddings in their churches, but I think there is very strong distinction that needs to be made regarding religious freedom: You are free to believe whatever the hell you want. This does not mean you are free to do whatever the hell you want.

I don't particularly like the idea of government regulation of this kind of thing though, so in a perfect world I think a few test cases would be rushed through to create precedent. You can refuse to marry two gay people, or to sell them a cake or whatever, but if you do they can sue you and they will win a set amount of money from you. Something like that.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

*long rebuttal*

Truthfully, I was playing a bit of Devil's Advocate, sort of trying on that POV to "see how it fits" (I like challenging my views) and frankly speaking it felt intellectually dishonest (and a lot like bullying). I can see the point of view of wanting to force wedding chapel-type businesses to perform same-sex weddings, but it really isn't the same as race-based exclusion. From even a moderate Christian perspective, gay marriage is an oxymoron and not supported in any way by scripture, and forcing a believer to do such a thing is just as bad as disallowing same-sex marriage in the first place.

It is something that I'm going to keep thinking about, however.

[The Final Dakar]

BOOM!
Gay marriage bans in four states upheld on appeal

The ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit reversed district court rulings that had struck down gay marriage bans in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.

The six cases before the three-judge panel involved not only whether gays and lesbians should be able to marry, but whether marriages performed elsewhere should be recognized, whether same-sex couples should be able to adopt children, and whether their names should be placed on partners' death certificates.

Ouch.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner...x-marriage-ban

“When the courts do not let the people resolve new social issues like this one, they perpetuate the idea that the heroes in these change events are judges and lawyers. Better in this instance, we think, to allow change through the customary political processes, in which the people, gay and straight alike, become the heroes of their own stories by meeting each other not as adversaries in a court system but as fellow citizens seeking to resolve a new social issue in a fair-minded way.”

Actually, it'd be the person who brought the suit. But I guess Brown v. Board of Education should have been left up to the people, right?

Anyway, the Supreme Court just lost it's ability to dodge the issue.

[The Final Dakar]

Judge orders Houston to stop employee benefits to same-sex couples | abc13.com

A state district judge signed an order Wednesday to stop offering health and life insurance benefits to the same-sex spouses of married city employees.

For the 12 years they were together, Pritchett never had insurance coverage. After the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, Mayor Annise Parker extended benefits to any city employee with a legally valid marriage license. That meant Pritchett got coverage.

"It's not like these benefits are being handed to me for free. We pay for the benefits; we get what we pay for, just like everybody else," said Pritchett.

[Atheist]

I guess the pendulum had to swing back the other way at some point. I'm sure the social conservatives feel emboldened after the election. We may see more of this.


As for the 6th Circuits ruling, I'm speechless. What a bunch of pussies.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

I guess the pendulum had to swing back the other way at some point. I'm sure the social conservatives feel emboldened after the election. We may see more of this.

I wouldn't correlate the two.

[The Final Dakar]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...79184187,d.aWw

Decisions issued by the Sixth Circuit were reversed by the United States Supreme Court 24 out of the 25 times they were reviewed in the five annual terms starting in October 2008 and ending in June 2013 — a higher frequency than any other federal appellate court during that time period

---

[Chongo]

The Ninth wants its title back.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

I guess the pendulum had to swing back the other way at some point. I'm sure the social conservatives feel emboldened after the election. We may see more of this.

Emboldened social conservatives will only fuel the divisiveness in this country. Let us hope the GOP understands this fully and embraces the future rather than holding onto the past. Our country cannot afford otherwise.

As for the 6th Circuits ruling, I'm speechless. What a bunch of pussies.

Can't we just legalize once and for all and move onto the things that are actually threatening our economy and security?

I think it'd be awesome if the GOP would put forth a bill that legalizes homosexual marriage/civil union across the board, preempting these state laws and saving the country a decade of bitter debate on an issue that has one obviously tenable position - allow gays to marry. We must unite.

Maybe then we can all work together to reform the ridiculous tax code, reform the atrocious ACA, reform the civil rights-adverse Patriot Act, and start to move our citizens out of the dependency class and into the middle. IMO, it's a no brainer for the GOP.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Let us hope the GOP understands this fully and embraces the future rather than holding onto the past. Our country cannot afford otherwise.

If you see homosexuals as an affront to god, their marriage an affront to tradition and family, and tolerance as a symbol of the deterioration of America and its morals, I don't think compromise (let alone acceptance) is going to be within your abilities.

Now is always the time you have to hold fast because too much has already been let go, and that's how we got here to begin with.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Emboldened social conservatives will only fuel the divisiveness in this country.

Emboldened social conservatives aren't issue so much as emboldened political parties. The former have wants. The latter can actual act.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

If you see homosexuals as an affront to god, their marriage an affront to tradition and family, and tolerance as a symbol of the deterioration of America and its morals, I don't think compromise (let alone acceptance) is going to be within your abilities.

Now is always the time you have to hold fast because too much has already been let go, and that's how we got here to begin with.

I still feel you can move things along by distinguishing marriage from holy matrimony.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I still feel you can move things along by distinguishing marriage from holy matrimony.

Tolerating them is accepting them. Why should we change our laws (which have worked for thousands of years, BTW) to accept the needs of a few amoral abominations? What kind of message does that send to our kids or God?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Tolerating them is accepting them.

I don't believe that's correct. I can tolerate almost anything, the number of things that I actually accept is substantially smaller.

Tolerance: "This can exist, but I don't have to like it or be a party to it. I may not help this along, but I won't try to stop it either."
Acceptance: "This is fine, and even though I don't necessarily approve, I believe there is some value in it and can support it."
Approval: "This is the kitty's titties, where do I sign up?"

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I don't believe that's correct.

Neither do I, but I find there are a lot of intolerant people don't seem to appreciate the difference.

[The Final Dakar]

Not sure its newsworthy, but SCs ban just got overturned and the ruling has a one week stay pending appeal.

[The Final Dakar]

Helloooooo Montana!
Federal Judge Overturns Montana's Gay Marriage Ban, Says Couples Can Wed Immediately - ABC News
34?

[The Final Dakar]

Kansas agencies not recognizing same-sex marriages despite court rulings | The Wichita Eagle

Although same-sex couples can legally marry in Kansas after a string of court decisions, state agencies are not offering them the same treatment as newly married heterosexual couples.

State offices will not change their policies while the state appeals the federal ruling that overturned Kansas’ ban on same-sex marriage, the governor’s office said Wednesday.

For example, gay and lesbian Kansans can’t change their last names to that of their spouse on their driver’s licenses.

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt told the Associated Press on Wednesday that his vigorous defense of the state’s gay marriage ban is designed to get a final U.S. Supreme Court ruling on whether such bans are constitutional.

Witt said that same-sex couples might be forced to sue other agencies in order to receive equal treatment when they file their taxes, for example.

Schmidt has contended that the federal ruling applied to only Sedgwick and Douglas counties. But as of Wednesday, couples had been able to obtain marriage licenses in 19 counties, according to Witt.

The Kansas Supreme Court order clearly states that couples can use marriage licenses obtained in any county across the state.

I'm sure this is causing some conservative hard-ons. Not surprised the state with one of the worst governors in the country s pulling this nonsense.

[The Final Dakar]

Judge overturns Mississippi same-sex marriage ban

In reviewing the arguments of the parties and conducting its own research, the court determined that an objective person must answer affirmatively to the following questions:

Can gay and lesbian citizens love?
Can gay and lesbian citizens have long-lasting and committed relationships?
Can gay and lesbian citizens love and care for children? Can gay and lesbian citizens provide what is best for their children?
Can gay and lesbian citizens help make their children good and productive citizens?
Without the right to marry, are gay and lesbian citizens subjected to humiliation and indignity?
Without the right to marry, are gay and lesbian citizens subjected to state-sanctioned prejudice?

Answering “Yes” to each of these questions leads the court to the inescapable conclusion that same-sex couples should be allowed to share in the benefits, and burdens, for better or for worse, of marriage.

Arkansas, Mississippi Gay Marriage Bans Overturned - ABC News

[Chongo]

Can Fill in the blank citizens love?
Can fill in the blank citizens have long-lasting and committed relationships?
Can fill in the blank citizens love and care for children? Can fill in the blank citizens citizens provide what is best for their children?
Can fill in the blank citizens citizens help make their children good and productive citizens?

These can apply to any "couple".

Without the right to marry, are fill in the blank citizens citizens subjected to humiliation and indignity?
Without the right to marry, are fill in the blank citizens citizens subjected to state-sanctioned prejudice?

Can you provide examples because these can apply to any "couple" as well. (especially an example of humiliation)

[subego]

I'm all pro gay all over the place, but I still don't understand the legal framework upon which these flips are being built.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm all pro gay all over the place, but I still don't understand the legal framework upon which these flips are being built.

It's all a communist plot.

The Naked Communist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

26.Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

[The Final Dakar]

Appeals Court Denies To Stop Florida Same Sex Marriages « CBS Miami
Penis shaped state to get penis marriage

[Chongo]

Media bias at play?
Major Media Ignore Arrest of Gay Activist and Democratic Donor - Crisis Magazine

[The Final Dakar]

It's been a while. Federal judge strikes down South Dakota's gay marriage ban

No marriages yet.

[Chongo]

Have any of you seen this? The Rianbow Shirts did not want you to. They started a petition drive that TLC ignored. It chronicles four Mormon couples each with a husband with "Same Sex Attraction" (SSA) and how they have chosen to live according to the Scriptures. The ones who trumptet Pope Francis's "who am I to judge'" (taken out of context BTW) are now the ones doing the judging. Intolerance from those preaching tolerance?
My Husband's Not Gay {Repackage}: My Husband's Not Gay : Video : TLC

Gay Activists Try to Silence Men Attracted to Men -- Who Marry Women | CNS News

[OAW]

Looks like some semblance of legal finality is at hand one way or the other ....

The U.S. Supreme Court decided Friday it will tackle the issue of whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, or whether states are allowed to ban gay marriage.

The nine justices are expected to hear oral arguments in April and deliver a ruling by June.

The Court had before it petitions from four states -- Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky and Michigan - all in the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals which recently went against the national trend and upheld gay marriage bans. The court granted petitions for all four states.

Earlier this month Florida became the 36th state in the country, in addition to the District of Columbia, to allow gay marriage.

In October, the court refused to hear several gay marriage cases -- but this time is different. The lower federal courts across the country are now divided on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans.

On June 26, 2013 -- in its first rulings on gay marriage -- the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a victory to gay rights advocates by rejecting parts of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act in a 5-4 decision. The court ruled legally married gay couples are entitled to the same federal benefits as male-female married couples.

However, it stopped short of a nationwide ruling that would have made gay marriage legal in every state.

Supreme Court agrees to take on same-sex marriage issue - CNN.com

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Mississippi town repeals anti-discrimination resolution in secret | MSNBC

As the New York Times noted in November, Starkville had even passed an anti-discrimination resolution that included sexual orientation and identity.

Starkville was the first place in Mississippi to take that step, in January 2014. Their aldermen led the way for other cities in the state to debate and pass resolutions of their own. In September, Starkville added a policy that extended health benefits to domestic partners of city employees. After that second move, the pressure from local religious leaders to overturn those decisions – “to move the policies and positions for this city back to a Judeo-Christian position,” as one pastor told the board – began immediately.

....why does a city need to hold Judeo-Christian positions? Anyway...

On Tuesday, in a closed-door executive session, the Starkville alderman voted to repeal both the new anti-discrimination statement and the policy providing health benefits for same-sex couples. Mayor Parker Wiseman says the aldermen behind the repeal provided no notice that they intended to hold those votes or any explanation for doing so.

The vote in Starkville was five to two, enough to override a veto from Mayor Wiseman.

[The Final Dakar]

Complaint: Baker refused to write anti-gay words on cake

A Colorado bakery is under investigation for religious discrimination after a baker refused to write anti-gay words on a cake.

...

Silva says Jack pulled out a piece of paper with phrases like "God hates gays" and requested her to write them on his cakes.

He wouldn't let employees make a copy of the paper and would not read the words out loud, Silva claims. The bakery owner also says the customer wanted an image of two men holding hands with an "X" on top.

I'm sure this was completely spontaneous and won't make its way to the court system.

[subego]

I'm all for the civil liberties, such as the right not to be forced to make cakes which offend you.

That said, just like when this happened in the other direction and the baker didn't want to make a gay wedding cake...

Lie, FFS.

I've refused jobs because I hated the mother****er trying to hire me. I didn't tell them that was why I refused. I was just "busy".

[The Final Dakar]

I'm just not sure this is well thought out. If their goal is to get previous anti-discriminatory ruling overturned, it's not going to happen. Best case scenario, they get their POV enshrined. Which, whatever, cost of freedom and whatnot.

[subego]

If he's trying to setup grounds for a lawsuit, the proper course of action is for every baker to agree. Then the guy gets and pays for 400 no-homo cakes he doesn't actually need.

[The Final Dakar]

Alabama got knocked down and put on stay.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Lawmakers Consider Preventing ALL Marriage In Oklahoma - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports |

Oklahoma wanting to get out of the marriage business? They're proposing that all domestic partnerships be considered civil unions. Very cool, IMO.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Lawmakers Consider Preventing ALL Marriage In Oklahoma - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports |

Oklahoma wanting to get out of the marriage business?

Sour grapes. It'd be like closing all schools rather than integrating. Give the gays 150 years and the we can talk.

Edit: Which is not to say it's not ideologically consistent, but the proof is in the timing. Even if they didn't do it in '04 when the first round of gay marriage fear wen through the states, they had additional opportunities when the tide was turning by opinion (2008) or legally after that. Now with only a handful of states left where bans haven't been struck down they act? Total BS.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

In this instance I don't care, it's a step forward to what all such partnerships should be, in the eyes of the government, civil unions.