SCOUTUS Unanimous Decision in Favor of Phil Catholic Charities

[Hagar]

Fantastic, and unanimous!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

From FOX.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[LumRaiderFan]

More proof that the LGBTQ crowd doesn't want to simply be left alone.

[Hagar]

1 minute ago, LumRaiderFan said:

More proof that the LGBTQ crowd doesn't want to simply be left alone.

Not at all.  It’s like the NAACP initially just wanting equal rights.  To hear many folks in the black community now, you’d think they were treated worst than 1950.  There’s no end to these movements.  Never enough.  Squeaky wheel gets the grease.  Same thing with LGBTQ crowd.

[CardinalBacker]

1 hour ago, Hagar said:

Not at all.  It’s like the NAACP initially just wanting equal rights.  To hear many folks in the black community now, you’d think they were treated worst than 1950.  There’s no end to these movements.  Never enough.  Squeaky wheel gets the grease.  Same thing with LGBTQ crowd.

In the old days people wanted equality of opportunity.  Now they want JUSTICE for something that they never experienced.  Justice typically means somebody's gonna get punished. 

Don't get me wrong.  We're all equal in the eyes of God, and should be in the eyes of man.  I'm not at all complaining about much deserved Civil Rights for EVERYBODY.  I just think that the wheels have fallen off at this point, at least as far as racially, and probably in regards to LGBTQ issues as well.  I've never heard of a good reason why gay couples who wanted to be married shouldn't have been afforded the same rights and benefits as hetero married couples.

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

In the old days people wanted equality of opportunity.  Now they want JUSTICE for something that they never experienced.  Justice typically means somebody's gonna get punished. 

Don't get me wrong.  We're all equal in the eyes of God, and should be in the eyes of man.  I'm not at all complaining about much deserved Civil Rights for EVERYBODY.  I just think that the wheels have fallen off at this point, at least as far as racially, and probably in regards to LGBTQ issues as well.  I've never heard of a good reason why gay couples who wanted to be married shouldn't have been afforded the same rights and benefits as hetero married couples.

There should be no rights or benefits to marriage at all.  Gov should not be in the business of marriage licenses and deciding that you can pay less taxes if you're married.  Equal gov benefits for all....none.

[CardinalBacker]

2 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

There should be no rights or benefits to marriage at all.  Gov should not be in the business of marriage licenses and deciding that you can pay less taxes if you're married.  Equal gov benefits for all....none.

If I die with a wife but no will, she inherits my stuff. If I die with a live-in gf but no will, she’s at the mercy of my kids. 
I can add my wife to my health insurance, but a gay man can’t add his life partner. The list goes on and on. I believe that homosexuality is a sin, but I also believe that there’s no reason (other than my personally held convictions regarding homosexuality) why gay couples can’t have the same civil rights as long term Herero couples who want to make a commitment to one another. But I don’t think that my Priest should be sued if he doesn’t want to bless their homo Union. 
 

I’m a hoot at parties. 

[tvc184]

It seems like the biggest push for separation of church and state is the left.

Now a unanimous Supreme Court appears to have ruled that the government cannot tell the church what to do. Now those same leftists are angry that the Supreme Court sided with separation of church and state.

I read the decision from the Supreme Court and it comes down to saying that the city cannot tell  the church how it must believe. The Catholic Church had denied services to other religions such as Jewish and Muslim and in the case of foster children, denied same-sex couples because it was against our religion.

Since I read and teach supreme court decisions, I found something about this case that is repeated sometimes over and over again. This case went to appeal in front of the federal circuit court and a unanimous circuit court sided with Philadelphia over the Catholic Church. Then the Supreme Court heard the case and it was unanimous in the other direction. I have read so many cases that were unanimous in the lower court and were overturned by a unanimous Supreme Court. It is almost like many of the lower court decisions do not read the prior supreme court decisions on the same topic.

There is a legal concept called stare decisis. In that concept, appeals court decisions should be based on precedents set in prior decisions. Some people do not believe in stare decisis and believe that each case should stand on its own matter what the  prior caselaw. I sometimes feel like the lower courts do not look at the supreme court decisions wish they should. There are simply a lot of cases where the lower court will rule one way and the Supreme Court, not in a split decision which might be understandable, but in an overwhelming unanimous decision will slap the lower court and basically say, what in the heck were you thinking?

[tvc184]

3 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

There should be no rights or benefits to marriage at all.  Gov should not be in the business of marriage licenses and deciding that you can pay less taxes if you're married.  Equal gov benefits for all....none.

That is not possible because there are too many laws that simply depend on marriage. You might call it a civil union, you might think it’s OK same sex or whatever. It is impossible in the law to escape unions. 

[LumRaiderFan]

12 hours ago, tvc184 said:

That is not possible because there are too many laws that simply depend on marriage. You might call it a civil union, you might think it’s OK same sex or whatever. It is impossible in the law to escape unions. 

I probably should have been more specific.  I understand the "rights" one has with marriage (inheritance, etc.) but I was speaking more to the point that CB made about the gov benefits that are extended to man/women marriage and not to gay couples.  I don't agree that you should be taxed at a different rate just because you are married or have kids, if that carrot was removed for straight married couples then argument over, no one else would be lobbying to get it.  I also disagree that SS should only be eligible to be passed on to certain family members, it's their money, they should be able to pass it on to whoever they wish, straight or gay.  I'm tired of this gov picking winners and losers.

I understand this is as likely to happen as the flat tax or term limits, but one can wish.