Gay Married Man Gets Green Card

Full story: EDGE 734
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. Read more

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#621 Jul 30, 2013
GodSmacked wrote:
We shall see as the case progresses through the court system. I see it very differently than you.
Well, prepare for an education, because the way you see it is not the way the law is.

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Yunited States, North America

#622 Jul 30, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, prepare for an education, because the way you see it is not the way the law is.
I try to learn something new everyday.

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#623 Jul 30, 2013
GodSmacked wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I agree many have been lost however none have tried the case based on the federal laws that exist NorCal. Appeals are won because the case needs further investigation and you fail to see that. Much like the DOMA and Prop 8. I personally am only interested in this particular case for a few reasons and that is to see how the courts define several things that have occurred with the florist.
This case is NOT being tried in Federal Court, but in State Court......therefore your concerns will not even be addressed until an appeal is made......my guess is this case will be just like the photographer's case......both parties want their religious beliefs to justify their discrimination towards Gays and Lesbians.....not going to happen!!!

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Yunited States, North America

#624 Jul 30, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
This case is NOT being tried in Federal Court, but in State Court......therefore your concerns will not even be addressed until an appeal is made......my guess is this case will be just like the photographer's case......both parties want their religious beliefs to justify their discrimination towards Gays and Lesbians.....not going to happen!!!
It will make it to the Federal Court system. This is a very unique case in my view. I see it being one that will answer many questions.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#625 Jul 30, 2013
GodSmacked wrote:
Peyote--officially known to botanists as Lophophora williamsii--grows naturally only in these four counties, and it cannot be successfully cultivated anywhere. For non-Indians, possession is illegal and punishable by stiff narcotics laws. But the religious use of peyote is allowed for members of the Native American Church, a pan-tribal religion derived from the practices of native peoples who inhabited what is now southern Texas and northern Mexico.
Now if you read the case the Justices sited that "Peyote" is an illegal schedule 1 substance as defined by the DEA which is a federal ran and operated organization.
"All drug users" and as I have demonstrated Peyote is an illegal substances recognized on the federal level which was sited by Justice O'Connor and Justice Blackmun.
Florist case is much different than the one you keep bring up.
I've read the decision in the case dear, that is why I brought it up. Once again, on the RELIGIOUS FREEDOM issue, the Court ruled that the state's compelling interest outweighed the individual's free exercise right, just as will happen in this case.

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#626 Jul 30, 2013
GodSmacked wrote:
<quoted text>
It will make it to the Federal Court system. This is a very unique case in my view. I see it being one that will answer many questions.
Well, it's NOT unique because it is similar to the photographer's claim from New Mexico......if for some strange reason this florist should win.......then you will be okay with discriminating against Blacks because it violates one's religious convictions, right? or Muslims, Jewish people or anyone else's religious beliefs, right? Because basically that's what you are saying.......and you are entitle to your views and opinions......thee courts just more than likely aren't going to agree with ya.......in these sort of cases, the religious folks have lost and they will continue to do so!!!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#627 Jul 30, 2013
GodSmacked wrote:
Ahhh this is were you don't see how the case was ruled on. Both Justice O'Connor and Justice Blackmun sited a federal law DEA that is enforced to validate the state law as such.
While Both O'Connor and Blackmun cited it in their concurring opinions, Scalia wrote the majority opinion and that is the ONLY one which matters here. That is the opinion which sets the precedent that is going to tank the florist's case if this ever reaches the federal level. Sorry.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#628 Jul 30, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
Well, it's NOT unique because it is similar to the photographer's claim from New Mexico......if for some strange reason this florist should win.......then you will be okay with discriminating against Blacks because it violates one's religious convictions, right? or Muslims, Jewish people or anyone else's religious beliefs, right? Because basically that's what you are saying.......and you are entitle to your views and opinions......thee courts just more than likely aren't going to agree with ya.......in these sort of cases, the religious folks have lost and they will continue to do so!!!
In reality this has nothing to do with religion, and selling flowers for a gay wedding does not violate one's free exercise. These lawsuits will continue to be brought when bigots attempt to force their religious views onto others through their businesses, which is exactly what happened here.

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Yunited States, North America

#629 Jul 30, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it's NOT unique because it is similar to the photographer's claim from New Mexico......if for some strange reason this florist should win.......then you will be okay with discriminating against Blacks because it violates one's religious convictions, right? or Muslims, Jewish people or anyone else's religious beliefs, right? Because basically that's what you are saying.......and you are entitle to your views and opinions......thee courts just more than likely aren't going to agree with ya.......in these sort of cases, the religious folks have lost and they will continue to do so!!!
NorCal, it is very unique because the federal court system has not dealt with a case like this.

NOrCal I haven't stated if the florist should or shouldn't win however you are asserting I have. I see this as a very important case because of the Free Exercise Clause. Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner's private right to exclude is violated? How is public access defined by the courts? You are one issue focused here and I am focused on the big picture.

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Yunited States, North America

#630 Jul 30, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>While Both O'Connor and Blackmun cited it in their concurring opinions, Scalia wrote the majority opinion and that is the ONLY one which matters here. That is the opinion which sets the precedent that is going to tank the florist's case if this ever reaches the federal level. Sorry.
No, this case in no way sets any president for the florist's case because they are two totally different circumstances. Sorry I see the case making it to the Federal Level and clearly define what I have stated earlier.

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Yunited States, North America

#631 Jul 30, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
In reality this has nothing to do with religion, and selling flowers for a gay wedding does not violate one's free exercise. These lawsuits will continue to be brought when bigots attempt to force their religious views onto others through their businesses, which is exactly what happened here.
Really? WOW! The florist stated it clearly when she denied service to the couple.
Broseph

New Castle, DE

#632 Jul 30, 2013
GodSmacked wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? WOW! The florist stated it clearly when she denied service to the couple.
You didn't answer my question.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#633 Jul 30, 2013
GodSmacked wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? WOW! The florist stated it clearly when she denied service to the couple.
Providing a service for a gay wedding does not violate her free exercise. If you think it does, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to still you.

Feel free to explain in detail how get rights were violated. Be specific.

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Yunited States, North America

#634 Jul 30, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Providing a service for a gay wedding does not violate her free exercise. If you think it does, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to still you.
Feel free to explain in detail how get rights were violated. Be specific.
We don't agree and that is fine however I feel certain this case will be decided on the federal level to clarify many things. "Gay" is not the issue I am concerned with however you being a 1 topic focused poster see that as the only issue. I will let you continue down that path being closed minded to the bigger picture.

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Yunited States, North America

#635 Jul 30, 2013
Broseph wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't answer my question.
Sometimes I respond to none registered posters and sometimes I do not.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#636 Jul 30, 2013
GodSmacked wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't agree and that is fine however I feel certain this case will be decided on the federal level to clarify many things. "Gay" is not the issue I am concerned with however you being a 1 topic focused poster see that as the only issue. I will let you continue down that path being closed minded to the bigger picture.
The bigger picture is not tolerating discrimination. You have been invited to offer a specific argument as to how just rights would be violated by providing her services for the wedding. That you have elected not to do so is telling.

One could infer that you cannot.

“The Topix Legend of "GS8"!”

Since: Sep 10

Yunited States, North America

#637 Jul 30, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
The bigger picture is not tolerating discrimination. You have been invited to offer a specific argument as to how just rights would be violated by providing her services for the wedding. That you have elected not to do so is telling.
One could infer that you cannot.
You can infer anything you like because it is a one subject matter to you when in reality it deals with a much bigger question that I have posted numerous time. I have been an support of the LGBT since its inception and will continue to support what it stands for however this case deals with a small business and we as a country need to understand where the business owners rights end and the patriot of the business begins. The courts have not every decided a case such as the florist regardless of what you may think.

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#638 Jul 30, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
In reality this has nothing to do with religion, and selling flowers for a gay wedding does not violate one's free exercise. These lawsuits will continue to be brought when bigots attempt to force their religious views onto others through their businesses, which is exactly what happened here.
I do agree and when they lose.......it will be costly for them as it should!!!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#639 Jul 30, 2013
GodSmacked wrote:
No, this case in no way sets any president for the florist's case because they are two totally different circumstances. Sorry I see the case making it to the Federal Level and clearly define what I have stated earlier.
Sorry, the circumstances might be different, but the question is identical, whether the state's compelling interest in accomplishing a goal is sufficient to outweigh the individual's right to freely exercise their beliefs. The precedent for future cases set by the Smith case and that is, if the law, whether it be prohibiting drug use by the unemployed or prohibiting discrimination in public accommodation, does not prohibit a specific belief or practice and applies to all similarly situated, it does not violate the free exercise rights of those who run afoul of the law.

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#640 Jul 30, 2013
GodSmacked wrote:
<quoted text>
NorCal, it is very unique because the federal court system has not dealt with a case like this.
NOrCal I haven't stated if the florist should or shouldn't win however you are asserting I have. I see this as a very important case because of the Free Exercise Clause. Does the guaranteed right to public access mean the business owner's private right to exclude is violated? How is public access defined by the courts? You are one issue focused here and I am focused on the big picture.
Actually they have.....the photographer's case out of New Mexico......didn't you bother to read the article I gave you?

Yes, it does......one can NOT impose their religious beliefs in their PUBLIC BUSINESS.....now, if they want to be a PRIVATE BUSINESS.......that may be a different issue!!!!

Actually, you aren't focused on anything but some damn agenda and it's clear you are not on the side of the GLBTQI Community in my opinion!!!

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 3 min Sunshine 175,904
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Grey Ghost 1,207,241
News The View that Putin's Advisor Has on Obama's Uk... 4 min George 445
Obama makes first trip to Kenya as President 4 min ima-Ilis Myka Ash... 2
News Evangelicals: Pray for Boehner on immigration r... (Dec '13) 5 min swedenforever 19
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 8 min Fed Up Again 319,918
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 8 min Jacques Ottawa 185,930
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 30 min truth-facts 52,378
News Cheney: Obama Is 'Worst President in My Lifetime' 37 min Lawrence Wolf 479
News Ted Cruz defends presidential credentials 1 hr The Cure 39
More from around the web