SCOTUS makes a good call for once!

You have been conned.

nonameisgood said:

It is ultimately the highest purpose of the Court to take power away from government and hand it back to the individual. That is all that happened here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

What happened here is simply an attack on freedom of conscience, freedom of association, and freedom of religion. A new preferred class of homosexuals has been created that can claim discrimination and sue people who disagree with their conduct. The highest purpose of the court is to uphold the Constitution.

This ruling is a destruction of the Constitution. Sex between individuals of the same gender has nothing to do with marriage. The decision redefines a word that has had a specific meaning for millennia. Calling a dog's tail a leg does not make it a leg. There was no legal ground for this decision, so Kennedy just made up reasons. The court just made up law out of thin air. Only five years ago, the same justices struck down the Defense of Marriage Act because they said the definition of marriage was up to the states.

Now the same five justices say that it is not up to the states, it is up to them.

When words mean nothing, the Constitution means nothing.

ccwinstructor said:

What happened here is simply an attack on freedom of conscience, freedom of association, and freedom of religion. A new preferred class of homosexuals has been created that can claim discrimination and sue people who disagree with their conduct. The highest purpose of the court is to uphold the Constitution.

This ruling is a destruction of the Constitution. Sex between individuals of the same gender has nothing to do with marriage. The decision redefines a word that has had a specific meaning for millennia. Calling a dog's tail a leg does not make it a leg. There was no legal ground for this decision, so Kennedy just made up reasons. The court just made up law out of thin air. Only five years ago, the same justices struck down the Defense of Marriage Act because they said the definition of marriage was up to the states.

Now the same five justices say that it is not up to the states, it is up to them.

When words mean nothing, the Constitution means nothing.

Click to expand...

http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/

Marriage is not about sex. It is about permanent (or semi-permanent) relationships. At the time of the bible, most marriages were about property. Wives were chattel. Men had multiple wives. Men had sex with other women but women were held and controlled by one man. In some places, it is still that way.
Stop defining marriage on your terms. It is not one thing to all people.
Why would a group who values committed relationships not endorse more of these instead if fewer? Because it doesn't fit their narrow view and because they are so heavily invested in a lie that changing now would damage their image and agenda (which is about control, nothing more.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

nonameisgood said:

I think you may be incorrect. At least as far as the IRS is concerned. If it operates as most churches, that is that they operate as a business that receives money from people and then disburses that money to the needy and those who run the organization, then IRS rules would apply. For federal purposes, they are not exempt unless they declare themselves so. Some states may automatically exempt them from property or sales tax, but the IRS still holds them to rules, including as a 501(c)(3). The main differentiation between churches and other not-for-profit operations is that they do not have to file certain reports.

If a church does not claim 501(c)(3) or a similar exemption, contributions to them would not be deductible for the givers. In exchange, under the rules for 501(c)(3), there are restrictions on political activity.

A church that doesn't accept or spend money doesn't owe taxes or file returns.
A church that receives, gives, and consumes money can operate as a regular business that has no net income and thus pays no income tax and has no restrictions on speech.
Once they ask for special treatment there are special restrictions.

Click to expand...

Ask all the churches in your area if they claim 501(c)(3) status.

You might learn something. Every church I have inquired about was 501(c)(3). There are few limited exceptions to this rule.

twoskinsonemanns said:

huh?

Click to expand...

You claimed that no-one should be exempt from taxes.

When will SCOTUS uphold marriage to multiple women/men (polygamy)?

Freedom1Man said:

You claimed that no-one should be exempt from taxes.

Click to expand...

Right. Everyone should be violated the same. I think my view was pretty clear. I just didn't understand yours.

willy1094 said:

When will SCOTUS uphold marriage to multiple women/men (polygamy)?

Click to expand...

Never.

twoskinsonemanns said:

...
Never.

Click to expand...

Never say never

And once oppression and subjugation are removed from that equation, who cares.

After all, it is biblical.

Citizen said:

Hey! That's right! Thanks for pointing that out! I hadn't thought of that before!

Some religionists are co-opting marriage by arguing it is (insert religious argument here). Heck, marriage might pre-date religion by millennia.

Click to expand...

LOL, you might want to re-think that one, friend...

twoskinsonemanns said:

Fine if you think it's wrong to be gay, appalling you wish the government to force your twisted views on others. Slaver.

Click to expand...

H8 WINS: OREGON THREATENS HOME OF CHRISTIAN BAKERS
The Oregonian via AP

Fox News is reporting that the fascist state of Oregon is ramping up its persecution campaign against Christian bakers who declined to bake a wedding cake for a same sex lesbian couple. Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, have been told that if they don’t pay the $135,000 awarded to the lesbian couple who sued them, a lien will be placed against their home next week.

Speaking to Todd Starnes of Fox News, Klein said that the case in on appeal and the couple is worried that if they win the appeal, they will never get their money back. ” “This is intimidation and bullying – that’s exactly what it is,” Klein said.....




Yes Gay Marriage is just about 'Peace and Love'.

All of this is the result of an out of control Federal Government - this 'Ruling' is un-Constitutional - it was cooked up by using a Civil War Bill of Right created to protect rights of people born with colored skin - not immoral acts. The 'Ruling' has left a 'wide-open' door for Polygamy, Nambla, etc. This is not consent of the governed - it is a made up steaming pile pulled out of thin air.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How many states still hold laws again sodomy? The KRS (KY) is 510.100

It's Fox News, I have watched them lie profusely. Please cite a reliable source.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

nonameisgood said:

Marriage is not about sex. It is about permanent (or semi-permanent) relationships. At the time of the bible, most marriages were about property. Wives were chattel. Men had multiple wives. Men had sex with other women but women were held and controlled by one man. In some places, it is still that way.
Stop defining marriage on your terms. It is not one thing to all people.
Why would a group who values committed relationships not endorse more of these instead if fewer? Because it doesn't fit their narrow view and because they are so heavily invested in a lie that changing now would damage their image and agenda (which is about control, nothing more.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

First of all "stop defining marriage on your terms"? Then why don't you stop defining marriage on yours? No, everyone defines it on their own terms, and they should generally be free to do so. You need to be very careful to not fall head-long into hypocrisy here. You're telling others to not try and control the term but your method and reasoning is critically near forcing your own personal definition onto them. You're not making things equal or free, you're just trying to reverse who's in charge. That's the problem here, and generally probably a big part of the problem with this ruling.

If that's how you define marriage then a license from the state isn't needed for marriage and homosexuals have had the ability to get married prior to this ruling.

If you agree that marriage is not merely a government institution and that it is a relationship, or covenant, between individuals, then surely you'd agree that it shouldn't be regulated by government at all, and that each person should be free to call what they want marriage, which is to include religious persons declining to recognize or participate in celebration of a "marriage" between two men or two women? In such a case, this ruling is not wonderful, because it solidifies federal regulation of marriage, government definition of marriage (which then precludes personal, individual definition, which is a freedom lost) and the recognition thereof, which could easily have adverse effects on additional freedoms down the line.

In too many cases the LBGT movement is misguided, as they're clamouring for additional government regulation rather than less, and then falsely labelling it freedom. Freedom isn't just getting to do what you want. It's more than that. When groups fighting for "rights" fail so miserably to understand that, we get problems like this one. But, then, perhaps many of them, such as appears to be the case with Drake here, don't really want freedom, but actually just want to get what they want, screw the freedom.

twoskinsonemanns said:

Right. Everyone should be violated the same. I think my view was pretty clear. I just didn't understand yours.

Click to expand...

Wow. What a sad, sad worldview when you've given up on freedom so hard that you think that just getting everyone to be violated the same is somehow a noble goal.

We agree that government might not even have the authority to control marriage. However, for as long as they exercise that power, the states do need to be restrained from unfairly applying arbitrary rules when no compelling public interest can be found.
I agree that all kinds of movements have wackos. I'm not gay, but I can see that times are changing and society at large needs to recognize relationships different from those my parents envisioned.
I simply cannot see how 1) a third party's religion should have anything to do with government action. And 2) how anyone can claim harm from taking away from the states the power to unequally apply laws regarding marriage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

willy1094 said:

When will SCOTUS uphold marriage to multiple women/men (polygamy)?

Click to expand...

your capabilities to facilitate al gore's invention must be broke...found it in less time than it too me to type the word 'court and bigamy' in ...

it upheld it all right... even leading to the 1890 Manifesto proclamation by President Woodruff even caused a splinter group to form ~
Polygamist Mormon Sect.

sorry still against the law...

ipse

nonameisgood said:

It's Fox News, I have watched them lie profusely. Please cite a reliable source.

Click to expand...

If that's the standard we're to follow, should anyone listen to you?

willy1094 said:

How many states still hold laws again sodomy? The KRS (KY) is 510.100

Click to expand...

willy, quit passing misinformation and do your own homework...you are doing a tremendous disservice to the august membership as well as the general public who access this forum, thus degrading and tarnishing the forum's reputation.

quote: Kentucky made up for its slow movement through the 19th and earlier 20th centuries. In 1992, the Kentucky Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that the sodomy law was an unconstitutional violation both of privacy and equal protection of the laws. The sweeping language used by the Court labeled Gay men and Lesbians as suspect classes under Kentucky law, something that has very broad implications for areas of law such as government employment and child custody. Kentucky thus is the only state in the nation currently where Gay men and Lesbian have received such a legal standing.

The age of consent for sodomy is 16. unquote http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/sensibilities/kentucky.htm

except for nine other states...

quote all other states in the United States have repealed their "crimes against nature" laws. Furthermore, in 2003, in Lawrence v. Texas, the US Supreme Court held that nonremunerative sex between consenting adults in private was protected by the Constitution and could not be criminalized under "crimes against nature" laws. Thus, fellatio, cunnilingus and homosexual sex can no longer fall within the scope of such laws. unquote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_nature

ipse

stealthyeliminator said:

snipppp...

In too many cases the LBGT movement is misguided, as they're clamouring for additional government regulation rather than less, and then falsely labelling it freedom. Freedom isn't just getting to do what you want. It's more than that. When groups fighting for "rights" fail so miserably to understand that, we get problems like this one. But, then, perhaps many of them, such as appears to be the case with Drake here, don't really want freedom, but actually just want to get what they want, screw the freedom.

Click to expand...

nope this effort was not in any way misguided but carefully calculated, quite precisely, to obtain equality so those in the GLBT community be allowed to share in the same governmental marital regulations currently afforded hets...medical, SSI, etc.

hets are afforded the governmental 'freedoms' of SSI, Medical, and lengthy list of other 'freedoms' guaranteed by governmental regulations.

while you are married to an individual of the opposite sex, you are significantly delusional if you believe you are not free from governmental regulations what-so-ever!!

ipse

ps: the GLBT national campaign was carefully planned, calculated, implemented to a successful conclusion which the 2A effort might wish to emulate to get their goals reached...

solus said:

willy, quit passing misinformation and do your own homework...you are doing a tremendous disservice to the august membership as well as the general public who access this forum, thus degrading and tarnishing the forum's reputation.

quote: Kentucky made up for its slow movement through the 19th and earlier 20th centuries. In 1992, the Kentucky Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that the sodomy law was an unconstitutional violation both of privacy and equal protection of the laws. The sweeping language used by the Court labeled Gay men and Lesbians as suspect classes under Kentucky law, something that has very broad implications for areas of law such as government employment and child custody. Kentucky thus is the only state in the nation currently where Gay men and Lesbian have received such a legal standing.

The age of consent for sodomy is 16. unquote http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/sensibilities/kentucky.htm

except for nine other states...

quote all other states in the United States have repealed their "crimes against nature" laws. Furthermore, in 2003, in Lawrence v. Texas, the US Supreme Court held that nonremunerative sex between consenting adults in private was protected by the Constitution and could not be criminalized under "crimes against nature" laws. Thus, fellatio, cunnilingus and homosexual sex can no longer fall within the scope of such laws. unquote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_nature

ipse

Click to expand...

Bold below is mine

510.100 Sodomy in the fourth degree.
(1)
A person is guilty of sodomy in the fourth degree when he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another person of the same sex.
(2)
Notwithstanding the provisions of KRS 510.020, consent of the other person shall not be a defense under this section, nor shall lack of consent of the other person be an element of this offense.
(3)
Sodomy in the fourth degree is a Class A misdemeanor.
Effective:
January 1, 1975
History:
Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 90, effective January 1, 1975

Click to expand...

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=19767

This is the most official site I know of that lists the KRS. Sites such as those you posted also like to claim you are allowed to ride in the back of of pickup truck in Kentucky. I posted as a question because I do not know all case law in Kentucky. I also posted it as a question to perhaps start a discussion as to what might be done to make the written law reflect the new decision. What tarnish have I brought to ANYONE? If you are saying I should have known already, then I guess any forum on the web should just shut down. No reason for someone to go to a forum and ask a question that someone else might already have an answer to. After all, they can just go look it up themselves. No misinformation here. It's in black and white from a reputable source. Sorry I didn't just google something and spout it as fact.

The information about the case law was informative and helpful in answering my question. Instead assuming I have some other motive a simple and informative answer would have sufficed. My question/point still stands. Why not take these laws down if they do not apply?

Side note: The city of Florence KY also has an anti-sodomy law on the books