Law Founding fathers rolling over in their graves

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

LGBT isn’t a religion

Being gay isn't a religion, but for the super activist types, the movement totally is taking the place of religion in their lives and imo has become their religion.

 

[Deorum]

Being gay isn't a religion, but for the super activist types, the movement totally is taking the place of religion in their lives and imo has become their religion.

The day activism should've died.

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which ruled that sanctions, including any form of criminal punishment to all forms of private, consensual adult sexual activities are Unconstitutional. The Court reaffirmed the concept of a right to privacy that earlier cases had found the U.S. Constitution provides. The 6-3 ruling invalidated the laws of 14 states, and the court based its ruling on the notions of personal autonomy to define one's own relationships and of American traditions of non-interference with any or all forms of private sexual activities between consenting adults.

If not then, when.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all 50 states to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Why can't we just have kids learning math and language arts?

And I'd argue that by definition, LGBTetc. is a religion. Its just not one based in "gawd".

LGBT+ isn't a religion, it's a lifestyle choice, and the main reason so many people have a problem with it is because of their own religious beliefs.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

These are same folks that consider the right to kill unborn kids as one of biggest political issues.

I hear even post birth abortions.

 

[Takes_Two_To_Tango]

 

[Limbo Pete]

The day activism should've died.

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which ruled that sanctions, including any form of criminal punishment to all forms of private, consensual adult sexual activities are Unconstitutional. The Court reaffirmed the concept of a right to privacy that earlier cases had found the U.S. Constitution provides. The 6-3 ruling invalidated the laws of 14 states, and the court based its ruling on the notions of personal autonomy to define one's own relationships and of American traditions of non-interference with any or all forms of private sexual activities between consenting adults.

If not then, when.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all 50 states to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities.

Setting the specific LGBT topic aside, it's important to remember that the SC is under no actual obligation to respect any past judgements and can rule however they want on anything

 

[Hdfi]

They just won’t quit with this bullshit. Bunch of fucking zealots.

Stop endorsing one religion over another, in school or government. It’s not hard.

who cares? If Christians are the majority, let them do as they please.

 

[Deorum]

Setting the specific LGBT topic aside, it's important to remember that the SC is under no actual obligation to respect any past judgements and can rule however they want on anything

As we've seen. The '03 Lawrence decision itself was an exercise in disregarding and overturning a previous ruling on the same issue (Bowers vs. Hardwick) and that had been as recent as 1986.

 

[Doctor Grudge]

who cares? If Christians are the majority, let them do as they please.

True, minorities never really mattered anyway.

 

[Hdfi]

True, minorities never really mattered anyway.

so you want to screw the majority to accommodate a minority?

 

[BFoe]

who cares? If Christians are the majority, let them do as they please.

The minority cares, that’s the obvious answer. And the Constitution cares about protecting their rights.

There used to be an expression about our system of government that was quite common: “majority rule, with minority rights,”
In recent times that seems to have changed to, “We’ll do whatever we want to do to you, because we have the votes. You can only stop us when you get enough votes (which, because of the way we’ve gerrymandered districts, will be never).”

This “Might Makes Right” nonsense is actually not how our system of government is supposed to function. Being in the majority is not carte blanche to do whatever the hell you want to other people.

so you want to screw the majority to accommodate a minority?

So, the majority is not getting “screwed” here. They can still practice their Judeo-Christian faith, both privately at home, or on school property in clubs and groups after hours—just like everyone else. As far as displays go they could, for example, to do a school display about the history of law in which they display the Ten Commandments along with the Code of Hammurabi, Laws of the Twelve Tables, or whatever. They could even do it in a religious display with the Ten Commandments along with other important texts from other religions.
What they can’t do is promote or endorse one religion over another.

It’s pretty disturbing to me that it’s become fashionable to believe that the rights of minorities aren’t important and don’t get to be protected.

 

[rearnakedchoke]

In which Muslim majority country would you NOT find that?

so the term American taliban is accurate.

 

[Brueskie]

In my grade school days, there was a woman who would come once a month and all us kids would gather in the cafeteria where she told us Bible stories, and we'd have a sing-along of "How Great Thou Art" at the end. I'm sure that sweet old lady would be crucified (heh) in today's world, and that school—which was public—sued into oblivion. I don't remember specifically, but I'm sure there were a few classrooms that had the Ten Commandments as part of the décor. There was one teacher—Mrs. Hensley, RIP—who at the end of the school day every Friday would tell us not to forget to go to church on Sunday. Christmas was always an unabashed celebration of Mary's miraculous womb, with nativity scenes and religious-themed Christmas plays organized by the school. I'm sure there are a bunch of other things I'm not remembering at the moment that would have today's hardcore "separation of church and state" types up seething and running for the nearest lawyer.

Despite the above, I grew up to be a good little atheist, and have fond memories of it all. That kind of thing wasn't unique to our local schools—it was very much a part of our national identity, and it certainly wouldn't bother me if it still was.

 

[BFoe]

In my grade school days, there was a woman who would come once a month and all us kids would gather in the cafeteria where she told us Bible stories, and we'd have a sing-along of "How Great Thou Art" at the end. I'm sure that sweet old lady would be crucified (heh) in today's world, and that school—which was public—sued into oblivion. I don't remember specifically, but I'm sure there were a few classrooms that had the Ten Commandments as part of the décor. There was one teacher—Mrs. Hensley, RIP—who at the end of the school day every Friday would tell us not to forget to go to church on Sunday. Christmas was always an unabashed celebration of Mary's miraculous womb, with nativity scenes and religious-themed Christmas plays organized by the school. I'm sure there are a bunch of other things I'm not remembering at the moment that would have today's hardcore "separation of church and state" types up seething and running for the nearest lawyer.

Despite the above, I grew up to be a good little atheist, and have fond memories of it all. That kind of thing wasn't unique to our local schools—it was very much a part of our national identity, and it certainly wouldn't bother me if it still was.

Well it definitely bothers me.

In high school (I think senior year), I got my class schedule and there was some weird class I didn’t recognize. I wasn’t even sure from the description what it was. I assumed there was a mistake, so I went to the office.
I was informed that it was Seminary. As in, Mormon Seminary.
—I am not Mormon.

What followed was a rather nasty argument:
“It’s Mormon Seminary.”
—“I am not Mormon, and I didn’t sign up for it.”
“It’s a required class.”
—“You and I both know that’s not true, or even legal. I also don’t even need these credits to graduate.”
“Every student takes it.”
—“Well I sure as hell don’t, and won’t.”

And around and around we went. I demanded to be enrolled in the class I had signed up for, and was told it was “too late.” I don’t think it actually was too late to join that class for any reason, they just wanted to fuck with me. In the end, they took Seminary off my class schedule and gave me study hall, where I sat with my thumb up my ass for an hour a day.

Being on the other end of a religious majority, when you are the minority, doesn’t feel very good at all in my experience. I don’t even really buy into this whole “national identity” argument. There’s just people with enough numbers or enough power to force other people to do things.

 

[nostradumbass]

so the term American taliban is accurate.

You know the nazis had pieces of flair that they made the jews wear.

 

[William Huggins]

They’re being honest here- the main purpose is about Pandering to their base so they can keep their cushy jobs and back door money

That's what they all do including the ones that pander to the other end of the spectrum......... With the Marxist drivel, destroy religion and destroy the family unit.....

They all behave the same on the far ends of the spectrum and they meet in a totalitarian state.......

 

[Barteh]

In my grade school days, there was a woman who would come once a month and all us kids would gather in the cafeteria where she told us Bible stories, and we'd have a sing-along of "How Great Thou Art" at the end. I'm sure that sweet old lady would be crucified (heh) in today's world, and that school—which was public—sued into oblivion. I don't remember specifically, but I'm sure there were a few classrooms that had the Ten Commandments as part of the décor. There was one teacher—Mrs. Hensley, RIP—who at the end of the school day every Friday would tell us not to forget to go to church on Sunday. Christmas was always an unabashed celebration of Mary's miraculous womb, with nativity scenes and religious-themed Christmas plays organized by the school. I'm sure there are a bunch of other things I'm not remembering at the moment that would have today's hardcore "separation of church and state" types up seething and running for the nearest lawyer.

Despite the above, I grew up to be a good little atheist, and have fond memories of it all. That kind of thing wasn't unique to our local schools—it was very much a part of our national identity, and it certainly wouldn't bother me if it still was.

Separation of state and church doesn't mean it's forbidden to have religious schools. It's forbidden for the state to mandate any kind of religion in schools. Big difference.

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

The day activism should've died.

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which ruled that sanctions, including any form of criminal punishment to all forms of private, consensual adult sexual activities are Unconstitutional. The Court reaffirmed the concept of a right to privacy that earlier cases had found the U.S. Constitution provides. The 6-3 ruling invalidated the laws of 14 states, and the court based its ruling on the notions of personal autonomy to define one's own relationships and of American traditions of non-interference with any or all forms of private sexual activities between consenting adults.

If not then, when.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The 5–4 ruling requires all 50 states to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities.

100%. I am 100% pro gay marriage rights because that's the actual conservative position. People should have the right to marry whoever they want so long as they're both consenting adults. That's the actual conservative position.

Now you have your rights, so be quiet.

 

[Deorum]

100%. I am 100% pro gay marriage rights because that's the actual conservative position. People should have the right to marry whoever they want so long as they're both consenting adults. That's the actual conservative position.

Now you have your rights, so be quiet.

It's the conservative political position and arguably even in a social sense given the otherwise rampant levels of promiscuity. But not the religious one, and that fusion with politics is where the objection comes from. It also wasn't even the end of it.

Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights decision in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is necessarily also discrimination "because of sex" as prohibited by Title VII. The ruling has been hailed as one of the most important legal decisions regarding LGBT rights in the United States, along with Lawrence v. Texas (2003) and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015).

^ The problem with all of these - which 'both sides' could take issue with depending on the lens they're viewed through - is that none of them were achieved the way they really should've been, which is through federal congressional legislation. It was the SCOTUS wielding its extraordinary power to legislate from the bench and determine law for all 50 states.

 

[Lucas1980]

True, minorities never really mattered anyway.

If that's what you believe the that's what you believe. I could really care less about this issue if that's what the majority of the people in the state want and I'm not religious but if everyone followed the Ten Commandments this country would be in a better place.