Prop. 8 backers urge U.S. Supreme Court to rule on California's gay marriage ban

[WeTheSheeple]

Jonathon Coultas wrote:

<quoted text>
You don't have to be a stupid dick. That liberal bastard judge ignored that church's rights which were protected by the constitution. I with they had took it to a higher court and got that stupid-assed judge reprimanded, but that costs money and a lot of judges are hesitant to reverse the decision of lower courts, so it might have went all the way to the supreme court of the United States, and there was no way of knowing how much it would cost.It was 100% an unconstitutional ruling, though.

Hmmmmm, let's see. Your opinion or the opinion of an ACTUAL constitutional expert........

Gee, I think I'll go with the expert opinion.

[WeTheSheeple]

Jonathon Coultas wrote:

<quoted text>
You don't have to be a stupid dick. That liberal bastard judge ignored that church's rights which were protected by the constitution. I with they had took it to a higher court and got that stupid-assed judge reprimanded, but that costs money and a lot of judges are hesitant to reverse the decision of lower courts, so it might have went all the way to the supreme court of the United States, and there was no way of knowing how much it would cost.It was 100% an unconstitutional ruling, though.

Btw, I don't HAVE to be a "stupid dick", but that's ALSO a constitutional right.......

And it's just SO much fun!

[Jonathon Coultas]

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, but if a Church decides to raise money from a public venue.....THEY DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISOBEY ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS........now, if they want to do what the Boy Scouts do, then they will have the right to discriminate......but a group CAN'T have it both ways........so, they got in trouble and made a choice!!!!

Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, federal, state, and local laws interfering with religious exercise would have to be supported by a compelling state interest and be as little restrictive of religious freedom as possible.

----

This means that no local government can restrict a churches free exercise of religion without a damned good reason, and the practice, whatever it is, would have to be pretty damned extreme, like ritual murder or something. Local government damn sure has no authority to tell a church how to use it's places of worship.

----

Wow, you just don't get it. You, like so many liberal dipshits (and my entire family are democrats) just don't respect the Constitution. If you did respect it, you wouldn't pick and choose the parts you like like a total retard. And my entire democrat family agrees with that. We hate how democrats nowadays are attacking freedom of religion and our right to keep and bare arms.

[FaFoxy]

Jonathon Coultas wrote:

<quoted text>
I hate how some morons seem to only like the Constitution when they can interpret it in ways that the writers of the constitution never intended that suits their interests, but they hate it when people like me point out the reality of the Constitution as it was and is supposed to be. I like how they were all talking big and I shut them all up, lol, idiots.

I'm a constitutional literalist and strict constructionist.

:)

The U.S. Constitution says what it means, and means what it says; no more and no less.

[RnL2008]

Jonathon Coultas wrote:

<quoted text>
Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, federal, state, and local laws interfering with religious exercise would have to be supported by a compelling state interest and be as little restrictive of religious freedom as possible.
----
This means that no local government can restrict a churches free exercise of religion without a damned good reason, and the practice, whatever it is, would have to be pretty damned extreme, like ritual murder or something. Local government damn sure has no authority to tell a church how to use it's places of worship.
----
Wow, you just don't get it. You, like so many liberal dipshits (and my entire family are democrats) just don't respect the Constitution. If you did respect it, you wouldn't pick and choose the parts you like like a total retard. And my entire democrat family agrees with that. We hate how democrats nowadays are attacking freedom of religion and our right to keep and bare arms.

There was a damn good reason......and the Church opened themselves up to it the moment they opened up the Pavilion as a public venue and collected money for it........they then had to obey the anti-discrimination policies like any other PUBLIC entity!!!

And you can continue to post that act all ya want.....it's not applicable with regards to the Pavilion issue in New Jersey......sorry, but that's life and the Court ruled properly!!!

[WeTheSheeple]

Jonathon Coultas wrote:

<quoted text>
Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, federal, state, and local laws interfering with religious exercise would have to be supported by a compelling state interest and be as little restrictive of religious freedom as possible.
----
This means that no local government can restrict a churches free exercise of religion without a damned good reason, and the practice, whatever it is, would have to be pretty damned extreme, like ritual murder or something. Local government damn sure has no authority to tell a church how to use it's places of worship.
In is unconstitutional for federal, state, and local laws (INCLUDING TAX LAWS DUMBSHIT!) to interfere with religious exercise.
The constitution protects churches from being taxed, not some discretionary tax exemption.

Pssst, the Religious Freedom Act of 1993 was found UNCONSTITUTIONAL by the SCOTUS as applicable to state & local jurisdictions. It only applies to FEDERAL law, not state or local laws.

In addition, it was passed primarily to protect the religious practices of Native Americans.

It has ZERO application to state laws or local jurisdictions.

You really aren't very good at this........

[RnL2008]

Jonathon Coultas wrote:

Wow, you just don't get it. You, like so many liberal dipshits (and my entire family are democrats) just don't respect the Constitution. If you did respect it, you wouldn't pick and choose the parts you like like a total retard. And my entire democrat family agrees with that. We hate how democrats nowadays are attacking freedom of religion and our right to keep and bare arms.

Hey dipshit......I have MORE RESPECT FOR THE CONSTITUTION than you could possibly know......I would lay down my life defending it.........and I would lay down my life defending the rights of Religious freedoms......but the Church DOESN'T get to decide who it will collect money from in a public venue and who it won't.........that would be like me I have the right to discriminate against you because of whatever reason I want to.......if I'm running a public business......guess what, I can't......that's the law and I respect it......to bad Churches don't!!!!

[Jonathon Coultas]

FaFoxy wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm a constitutional literalist and strict constructionist.
:)
The U.S. Constitution says what it means, and means what it says; no more and no less.

I respect constitutionalists, as long as they aren't lazy, lol.

I was on unemployment after I lost my last job, but I've been trying to find a new one, but my last three employers went out of business, and when the job offers didn't come in I went on unemployment, which I had paid into, so it was my money there for emergency's, and I had an emergency, but that money dried up. I have medical problems, and the economy is so bad, so yeah, I'm not lazy and I don't care for lazy people, but I respect constitutionalists, particular those that want to preserve rights of religions and to keep and bear our guns.

[snyper]

Jonathon Coultas wrote:

<quoted text>
Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, federal, state, and local laws interfering with religious exercise would have to be supported by a compelling state interest and be as little restrictive of religious freedom as possible.
----
This means that no local government can restrict a churches free exercise of religion without a damned good reason, and the practice, whatever it is, would have to be pretty damned extreme, like ritual murder or something. Local government damn sure has no authority to tell a church how to use it's places of worship.
In is unconstitutional for federal, state, and local laws (INCLUDING TAX LAWS DUMBSHIT!) to interfere with religious exercise.
The constitution protects churches from being taxed, not some discretionary tax exemption.

The specific legislation that includes religious groups and their property IS law resepcting an establishment of religion, as is the Act you keep mentioning.

They violate the 1st Amendment. Property taxes property ownership, no matter who owns it. Income tax taxes income, no matter who has it.

To write Legislation which defines and declares any property, individual or group as exempt is to make Law respecting (regarding) such.

Someone had to write and pass Law respecting an establishment of religion in order to exempt them from taxation.

[The_Box]

Jonathon Coultas wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, the Constitution protects churches from being persecuted by the government for practicing their faith in their places of worship. Because they held services in that park during the summer time, it was a place of worship and the US Constitution protects their right to worship and practice their faith there as their conscience demanded. It was religious expression.

BS. They were operating a public business, not engaging in a private act of faith.
Your reasoning could be used to invalidate all anti-discrimination laws. Don't want to serve black people at your restaurant? Hold a "service" in the restaurant for your religion that says black people are bad. Now it's a place of worship!

Jonathon Coultas wrote:

Sure, they shared the park with people, but it was still treated as a chapel during the summer months

They can't have their cake and eat it too. If they want to make it a private chapel during the summer and rent it out the rest of the year, that's fine. But they don't get to rent it out publicly all year and selectively discriminate.

[Mona Lott]

Jonathon Coultas wrote:

<quoted text>
I hate how some morons seem to only like the Constitution when they can interpret it in ways that the writers of the constitution never intended that suits their interests, but they hate it when people like me point out the reality of the Constitution as it was and is supposed to be. I like how they were all talking big and I shut them all up, lol, idiots.

You shut them all up? Really? Who won the court case?

[Mona Lott]

Jonathon Coultas wrote:

<quoted text>
I respect constitutionalists, as long as they aren't lazy, lol.
I was on unemployment after I lost my last job, but I've been trying to find a new one, but my last three employers went out of business, and when the job offers didn't come in I went on unemployment, which I had paid into, so it was my money there for emergency's, and I had an emergency, but that money dried up. I have medical problems, and the economy is so bad, so yeah, I'm not lazy and I don't care for lazy people, but I respect constitutionalists, particular those that want to preserve rights of religions and to keep and bear our guns.

Excuse me. Workers DO NOT pay into unemployment.

[Mona Lott]

FaFoxy wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm a constitutional literalist and strict constructionist.
:)
The U.S. Constitution says what it means, and means what it says; no more and no less.

And just WHO determines what it says?????????? SCOTUS, that's who.

[Jonathon Coultas]

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
Excuse me. Workers DO NOT pay into unemployment.

It all comes down to interpretation. Employers are requred by law to pay into unemployment insurance relevant to how much I earned, so it was part of my wages for working, so I consider it me paying into it. Others are free to interpret it differently.

[Jane Dough]

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
It's an old bitchy joke between queens and dykes. Another is "She kills cactus" (extremely hard to do except through over-watering and over-fertilizing) I think you can see the "over-controlling" dig in that one.
As with the trashtalk on these boards, actual concrete fact is not required.

learn something new everyday...

[Jane Dough]

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
It doesn't "negate the rule" solely, only and exclusively because someone refuses to see that it does.
It's called intransigence.

you are going to have to explain this one a bit more...

[Mona Lott]

Jonathon Coultas wrote:

<quoted text>
It all comes down to interpretation. Employers are requred by law to pay into unemployment insurance relevant to how much I earned, so it was part of my wages for working, so I consider it me paying into it. Others are free to interpret it differently.

Your employer paid into it, not you. If unemployment insurance was considered part of your wages, you would be taxed on it. You are not.