Gay Married Man Gets Green Card

Gay Married Man Gets Green Card

There are 734 comments on the EDGE story from Jul 3, 2013, titled Gay Married Man Gets Green Card. In it, EDGE reports that:

Late Friday, just two days after the US Supreme Court released their decision gutting the Defense of Marriage Act, a permanent visa, aka green card, was issued to Traian Popov, a Bulgarian man married to Florida-based club DJ Julian Marsh.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#765 Aug 1, 2013
GodSmacked wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I have read this however I see the florist case very differently.
See that's just it.....IT'S NOT DIFFERENT because the florist is using some of the same exact arguments and it clearly shows that the florist will LOSE!!!

I can't believe that you are this blind to this entire issue.......but then in one sense it makes total sense regarding the poster you have become!!!

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#766 Aug 1, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's untrue; I've always written there is nothing wrong with homosexuals or homosexuality. I stand by everyone's freedom of association; not special rights to rewrite marriage law for everyone.
Name ONE special right any LGBT person has asked for. ONE. I thought this the land of the free and equal right for all. I assume that some are more equal than others in your eyes.

And do NOT trot out that tired old "why can't I marry my pet or be polygamous" or those tired old arguments that have ZERO in common with what I just said. Not the same at all, and you know it.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#767 Aug 1, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Civics lesson for Ricky: All U.S. states also have a provision by which legislative decisions can be vetoed by the governor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto#U.S._states...
Vetos are the constitutional responsibility of the chief executive, in the legislative process. The California legislature didn't have the votes to overturn the veto.
I was actually aware of that dear and said nothing to the contrary. I merely pointed out the error in your statement that marriage had never been approved by their elected representatives in California. I pointed out that it had been vetoed and the stated reason he did so, twice, to let the Courts decide.
Brian_G wrote:
Here's a history lesson for Ricky too, California's voters twice voted to define marriage as one man and one woman; courts overturned those lawful referendums both times. That's why same sex marriage is antidemocratic.
The referendums were lawful, what they called for was not. Sorry. The people do not have a voter's veto over constitutionally guaranteed rights and the courts have been empowered with the authority to make that determination. Whether you agree with that or not.

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Manalapan, FL

#768 Aug 1, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Again GS, it doesn't matter if she is the ONLY florist or if there are others.......this was the florist the couple picked because of their previous business relationship with her......and she opted to discriminate against them in this particular situation!!!
You really should read the ruling against the Photographer that I gave you........it clearly will answer most of your questions!!!
I have read it NOrCal and it has been appealed to the New Mexico State Supreme Court and not made its way to the federal system. This particular case employees over 50 employees in the company and appears to be a multi-partnership with shareholders thus defining a public domain company. The florist case is nothing like this case you keep referring to.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#769 Aug 1, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
I think one poster is confusing STATE laws and policies with Federal laws and this issue is being ruled on in the federal courts by the appeals of the photographer from New Mexico who has made these EXACT same claims has has continued to lose both at the state level in New Mexico and at the federal appeals level as well!!
The Camp Meeting Association couldn't even carve out a case for religious exceptionalism in New Jersey and they are an actual religious group. These folk have yet to have any success in selling this nonsense on any level. On the federal level, the standard is, if the law applies to all and does not specifically prohibit a religious belief or practice and as long as a compelling interest of the state is served by it, the law survives the strict scrutiny of it that the Constitution requires. Anti-discrimination laws are not aimed at Christian blessed bigotry, but all bigotry and preventing discrimination in the public square has long been viewed a compelling governmental interest. They really don't have a prayer, but they are going to go down screaming.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#770 Aug 1, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>I was actually aware of that dear and said nothing to the contrary. I merely pointed out the error in your statement that marriage had never been approved by their elected representatives in California. I pointed out that it had been vetoed and the stated reason he did so, twice, to let the Courts decide.
<quoted text>The referendums were lawful, what they called for was not. Sorry. The people do not have a voter's veto over constitutionally guaranteed rights and the courts have been empowered with the authority to make that determination. Whether you agree with that or not.
Come now Rick......Brian knows that, he just doesn't like it!!!

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Manalapan, FL

#771 Aug 1, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
See that's just it.....IT'S NOT DIFFERENT because the florist is using some of the same exact arguments and it clearly shows that the florist will LOSE!!!
I can't believe that you are this blind to this entire issue.......but then in one sense it makes total sense regarding the poster you have become!!!
Yes it is much different NorCal and I explained it in my previous post.

I do not see how defending small business changes my view on LGBT. I have been a support since its inception. The small business owner has rights that need to be protected under the law regardless if I agree with them or not.

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Manalapan, FL

#772 Aug 1, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>

And everything you claim this florist might win her case on has already been proven that she will lose as I posted the court ruling regarding the photographer in New Mexico!!!!
Personally, outside of a few Churches refusing to not perform our wedding ceremony....we had no other issues and all those who helped make our wedding day successful were polite and very professional with regards to our Minister, photographer and our Cake decorators......all were very happy for us and to be a part of our day:-)
You didn't answer my question however I am glad to read your marriage went well.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#773 Aug 1, 2013
GodSmacked wrote:
<quoted text>
I have read it NOrCal and it has been appealed to the New Mexico State Supreme Court and not made its way to the federal system. This particular case employees over 50 employees in the company and appears to be a multi-partnership with shareholders thus defining a public domain company. The florist case is nothing like this case you keep referring to.
Go back and read it again......it has been appealed and she has lost at all level of legal challenges so far......and her lawyers have to continue to argue the same thing at each level with the same information and she will lose....just like this florist will!!!

Regardless of what you think may happen.....the facts remain that she is a PUBLIC Business and she can not DISCRIMINATE based solely on her religious beliefs.

You can continue to repeat your posts, but it won't change the facts and UNLESS the florist opts to NOT provide flowers for ANY weddings regardless of the gender make-up of the couple......she will either comply to the laws or continue to face daily fines and persecution!!!

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Manalapan, FL

#774 Aug 1, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text> On the federal level, the standard is, if the law applies to all and does not specifically prohibit a religious belief or practice and as long as a compelling interest of the state is served by it, the law survives the strict scrutiny of it that the Constitution requires. Anti-discrimination laws are not aimed at Christian blessed bigotry, but all bigotry and preventing discrimination in the public square has long been viewed a compelling governmental interest. They really don't have a prayer, but they are going to go down screaming.


The federal courts have not ever ruled on a case such as the florist to compel a small business to comply with a law against that sole proprietorship Free Exercise Clause.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#775 Aug 1, 2013
GodSmacked wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't answer my question however I am glad to read your marriage went well.
Again GS, I did answer your question.......we would have found someone else, BUT just because we may have opted to do that, other couples might not and at some point in time SOMEONE has to stand up and say enough is enough!!!

Our wedding ceremony was really perfect........and we did our research and found great folks who helped make it memorable.......the couple in Washington probably had NO IDEA that this woman would have said what she had said because they had been customers of her business for over 9 years.

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Manalapan, FL

#776 Aug 1, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Go back and read it again......it has been appealed and she has lost at all level of legal challenges so far......and her lawyers have to continue to argue the same thing at each level with the same information and she will lose....just like this florist will!!!
Regardless of what you think may happen.....the facts remain that she is a PUBLIC Business and she can not DISCRIMINATE based solely on her religious beliefs.
You can continue to repeat your posts, but it won't change the facts and UNLESS the florist opts to NOT provide flowers for ANY weddings regardless of the gender make-up of the couple......she will either comply to the laws or continue to face daily fines and persecution!!!
The case is now in the New Mexico Supreme Court and has not made its way into the federal system. I do believe the photography will have a difficult time due to the company being an LLC, employees over 50 employees in the company and appears to be a multi-partnership with shareholders thus defining a public domain company.

The Florist is in no way the same type of business.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#777 Aug 1, 2013
GodSmacked wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it is much different NorCal and I explained it in my previous post.
I do not see how defending small business changes my view on LGBT. I have been a support since its inception. The small business owner has rights that need to be protected under the law regardless if I agree with them or not.
It does because you feel that Christians should NOT be required to obey the laws of their State......you repeat this over in the Christian forum and now here......her rights to believe as she wants to are NOT being violated.......however, just because she has those beliefs DOESN'T give her the right to discriminate against those she doesn't believe should have the right to marry!!!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#778 Aug 1, 2013
GodSmacked wrote:
And that is the key to the Florist case Rick.
I'm glad you finally get it. Or do you?
GodSmacked wrote:
Okay Rick, lets have all out war on every small business in this country and target each one that has their own religious convictions. Let's turn into a witch hunt and sue every "small business" sole proprietor who has a religious background. This is a very slipper slope and society is watching cautiously.
Sorry, but a small business has no more right to inflict their religious beliefs on their customers than large business owners. The law says you cannot hang out a sign that says no gays allowed, why you should imagine that would be dependent on how large a business you own is ridiculous. I was a small business owner for decades, never had more than a half dozen employees at any one time. I still had to abide by all the civil rights protections of the city, state and federal level and as someone renting housing, I faced more than a florist. It was illegal for me to discriminate on the basis of marital or family status. If I morally disapproved of a couple shacking up, too bad, I could not legally hold that against them,
GodSmacked wrote:
It is in no way a special right Rick it is the owners Free Exercise clause. Gays have the right to not use those business for their services instead it appears to me those are the ones being targeted to compel, make example of each and everyone of them.
You are asking for an exemption to a law that would still apply to all business owners who can't blame God for their bigotry. Tell me again how that wouldn't be a special right.

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Manalapan, FL

#779 Aug 1, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Again GS, I did answer your question.......we would have found someone else, BUT just because we may have opted to do that, other couples might not and at some point in time SOMEONE has to stand up and say enough is enough!!!
Our wedding ceremony was really perfect........and we did our research and found great folks who helped make it memorable.......the couple in Washington probably had NO IDEA that this woman would have said what she had said because they had been customers of her business for over 9 years.
I am glad you had a perfect ceremony.

9 years of service speaks volumes about the florist however I believe she as a small business has the right to invoke her Free Exercise Clause. The Florist business, in my view, does not define a public domain company.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#780 Aug 1, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>The Camp Meeting Association couldn't even carve out a case for religious exceptionalism in New Jersey and they are an actual religious group. These folk have yet to have any success in selling this nonsense on any level. On the federal level, the standard is, if the law applies to all and does not specifically prohibit a religious belief or practice and as long as a compelling interest of the state is served by it, the law survives the strict scrutiny of it that the Constitution requires. Anti-discrimination laws are not aimed at Christian blessed bigotry, but all bigotry and preventing discrimination in the public square has long been viewed a compelling governmental interest. They really don't have a prayer, but they are going to go down screaming.
I agree......I mean I gave GS a link to the case involving the photographer from New Mexico who used pretty much the exact same arguments as this florist is using in her counter suit.......and so far the Photographer has lost at every level and this florist will too!!!
Broseph

New Castle, DE

#781 Aug 1, 2013
GodSmacked wrote:
<quoted text>
The federal courts have not ever ruled on a case such as the florist to compel a small business to comply with a law against that sole proprietorship Free Exercise Clause.
Why should she be able to play god, at the expense of people's well-being?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#782 Aug 1, 2013
GodSmacked wrote:
<quoted text>
The case is now in the New Mexico Supreme Court and has not made its way into the federal system. I do believe the photography will have a difficult time due to the company being an LLC, employees over 50 employees in the company and appears to be a multi-partnership with shareholders thus defining a public domain company.
The Florist is in no way the same type of business.
The photographer doesn't have 50 or more employees......it's just her and her husband.....and to be under an LLC is just a liability issue and has nothing to do with how many people may work for her!!!

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Manalapan, FL

#783 Aug 1, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
It does because you feel that Christians should NOT be required to obey the laws of their State......you repeat this over in the Christian forum and now here......her rights to believe as she wants to are NOT being violated.......however, just because she has those beliefs DOESN'T give her the right to discriminate against those she doesn't believe should have the right to marry!!!
I don't know if the florist did or did not violate the law because the federal courts have not ever ruled on a case such as this one in Washington. I believe the owner is within her rights as a sole proprietorship to do as such however that doesn't mean I agree with her actions.

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Manalapan, FL

#784 Aug 1, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree......I mean I gave GS a link to the case involving the photographer from New Mexico who used pretty much the exact same arguments as this florist is using in her counter suit.......and so far the Photographer has lost at every level and this florist will too!!!
NorCal these are two different business models that I have explained. The florist is a sole proprietorship and the photographer is a multi-partnership with share holders.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 10 min Rosa_Winkel 4,998
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 17 min carter county res... 24,068
Why Are We Being Forced To Accept Homosexuality? (Feb '12) 35 min Baron 959
News Inside Gays for Trump's Deploraball Dance Party 1 hr Cordwainer Trout 5
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Respect71 44,157
News DeGeneres says her show is no place for anti-ga... 1 hr Phillip 340
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 2 hr June VanDerMark 12,682
More from around the web