8: Mormon Proposition

[Spencer]

Hopefully this does not lead to another even more costly round of donations, telephone banks, pamphlets, full moons, book burnings, torch-bearing villagers storming the castle, wild hounds on the moors and door-to-door campaigning.

I'm sure that will all happen, not necessarily in that order however.

[Melissa569]

Just saw the new development on the prop 8 thing today.....

U.S. judge overturns California gay marriage ban | General Headlines | Comcast.net

[Soulsearcher]

Do people not read these threads? I only ask because we have 4 link all reporting the same new, one link to the actual ruling and another complete thread on this going right now. I love the ruling lol but honestly how many times do we need links giving the same news lol.

[Soulsearcher]

Do people not read these threads? I only ask because we have 4 links all reporting the same news, one link to the actual ruling and another complete thread on this going right now. I love the ruling lol but honestly how many times do we need links giving the same news lol.

[bytor2112]

Seems like some Judge understands that Equal Protection Clause in the Constitution. Who would've thought?

Hopefully this does not lead to another even more costly round of donations, telephone banks, pamphlets, full moons, book burnings, torch-bearing villagers storming the castle, wild hounds on the moors and door-to-door campaigning.

Dear Moksha,

I will visit you in the Terrestrial Kingdom.

Your friend,

Bytor

[Moksha]

Dear Moksha,

I will visit you in the Terrestrial Kingdom.

Your friend,

Bytor

Hey Neighbor!

[Soulsearcher]

Dear Moksha,

I will visit you in the Terrestrial Kingdom.

Your friend,

Bytor

Are you able to visit from the Telestial kingdom?

[bytor2112]

Are you able to visit from the Telestial kingdom?

Sure.....after I have visited the Telestial..I will pop in on Moksha on my way back to the Celestial;)

[Wingnut]

Not with that attitude.

[Just_A_Guy]

Seems like some Judge understands that Equal Protection Clause in the Constitution. Who would've thought?

State actions virtually always survive "rational basis" scrutiny, which is what the judge claimed to be applying to this case.

As I explain in more detail here, the current opinion just shows that His Honor thinks anyone who disagrees with him is completely nuts. Tolerance, indeed.

By the way: Anyone see the irony in a Massachusetts federal court striking down DOMA because the the feds aren't supposed to tell the states how to define marriage--and then a federal court in San Francisco doing just that, a couple of months later?

Edited August 5, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Moksha]

State actions virtually always survive "rational basis" scrutiny, ...

So the South will rise again?

Equal protection under the law is a good thing. It benefits both Mormons and everyone else from some majority taking away the rights of disfavored groups.

[RanMan]

I cannot prove to you that all the money was donated through this vessel, just as you cannot prove to me it wasn't. But it would be silly not to logically deduce that a vast majority was donated through these means as it is how members are used to giving money.

Can you prove that any of the money was donated by this method?

I find it interesting that facts seem to be unimportant in your making a decision on this issue. Although, I think if I were to do that and fall on the oppsite side of this issue I would be labled biased and judgmental.

:)

[RanMan]

So you agree that it is ok to take rights away from citizens in order to better fit the views of a church?

Sorry, I see that you already answered my question.

:)

Edited August 5, 2010 by RanMan

[Spencer]

Edited August 5, 2010 by Spencer

[Soulsearcher]

Spencer, you really are not helping.

The only proof we have of anything that's questionable is statements by members that bishops used their tithing summaries to tell them what they thought they should give based on their declared income. Again the donations went through members themselves so really it doesn't change anything.

[Just_A_Guy]

So the South will rise again?

If you're referring to segregation against blacks, Brown wasn't a rational-basis case.

Equal protection under the law is a good thing. It benefits both Mormons and everyone else from some majority taking away the rights of disfavored groups.

How 'bout that photographer in New Mexico who was uncomfortable being forced to photograph gay weddings?

Fat lotta good "equal protection" did for her religious beliefs.

[FunkyTown]

How 'bout that photographer in New Mexico who was uncomfortable being forced to photograph gay weddings?

Fat lotta good "equal protection" did for her religious beliefs.

Bam.

[MarginOfError]

If you're referring to segregation against blacks, Brown wasn't a rational-basis case.

How 'bout that photographer in New Mexico who was uncomfortable being forced to photograph gay weddings?

Fat lotta good "equal protection" did for her religious beliefs.

I'm still a bit miffed about that one.

Am I correct in my understanding that equal protection doesn't apply to commerce? I mean, if I opened up my own consultation business, I could legally refuse to give my services to african americans, right? It'd be career suicide, I'm sure, but it's legal, isn't it?

[Spencer]

Spencer, you really are not helping.

The only proof we have of anything that's questionable is statements by members that bishops used their tithing summaries to tell them what they thought they should give based on their declared income. Again the donations went through members themselves so really it doesn't change anything.

You're right, my apologies my emotions got the better of me.

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm still a bit miffed about that one.

Am I correct in my understanding that equal protection doesn't apply to commerce? I mean, if I opened up my own consultation business, I could legally refuse to give my services to african americans, right? It'd be career suicide, I'm sure, but it's legal, isn't it?

"Equal protection" as a general principle does apply to private parties engaged in commerce, simply by virtue of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its progeny.

But as a matter of constitutional law, I believe the Fourteenth Amendment only applies to state actors.

[MarginOfError]

"Equal protection" as a general principle does apply to private parties engaged in commerce, simply by virtue of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its progeny.

But as a matter of constitutional law, I believe the Fourteenth Amendment only applies to state actors.

Oh. Well then, I stand corrected. Thanks.

[ADoyle90815]

"Equal protection" as a general principle does apply to private parties engaged in commerce, simply by virtue of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its progeny.

But as a matter of constitutional law, I believe the Fourteenth Amendment only applies to state actors.

That's what I think as well, any photographer who doesn't want to take pictures of gay couples won't be forced to. After all, there will still be plenty of heterosexuals who will continue to get married. By the way, the judge who made this decision was appointed by George HW Bush.

[Just_A_Guy]

That's what I think as well, any photographer who doesn't want to take pictures of gay couples won't be forced to.

I appreciate your post, ADoyle, but the fact is that it has already been done.

[FunkyTown]

I appreciate your post, ADoyle, but the fact is that it has already been done.

Allow me to reiterate my eloquent support of this argument.

Bam.

[MarginOfError]

Allow me to reiterate my eloquent support of this argument.

Bam.

And allow me to post an even more eloquent statement of your eloquent support.

http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=pattisoriginals.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpattisoriginals.files.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F09%2Fbambam.gif&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fpattisoriginals.wordpress.com%2F2008%2F09%2F15%2Fbam-bam%2F