1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

DOMA unconstitutional (5-4); Court punts on gay marriage (no standing)

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Dick Whitman, Jun 26, 2013.

  1. Bob Cook

    Bob Cook Active Member

    DOMA doesn't establish them as a protected class, but New Mexico law did. As for "why did they hire that photographer," I would have to know if the shooter advertised in an overtly religious way, or if the shooter happened to be the best in town, or was the only one available. Point is, as YF said earlier, the photographer can invent a reason (I'm busy) without tying it to the potential clients' sexual orientation.

    Mizzou, in reading some more on this, for now I'm sure that political affiliation will decide who has marriage equality now, and who doesn't. But as Scalia pointed out, the DOMA ruling basically gives those fighting to overturn bans a textbook on how to do that. So even though the court didn't "legalize gay marriage," it basically put the wheels in motion for anyone suing to overturn a ban. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't attorneys working right now to put those in motion.
     
  2. dog eat dog world

    dog eat dog world New Member

    Rectify my ass. No man was restricted from marrying a woman, and vice versa. Next, dogs. And besides, rules aren't very important to you, which is REALLY pathetic.
     
  3. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    Can dogs say, "I do", or sign a marriage certificate?
     
  4. dog eat dog world

    dog eat dog world New Member

    When a business man or woman refuses to do business related to a gay marriage on the basis of his or her faith gets bullied by this government, it will bring us to a crossroads of contradiction. During the draft, one could step away on the basis of their faith and the libocrites embraced it. So the libocrites can't have it both ways, though they may try and therefore, blur separation of church and state.
     
  5. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    What's hypocritical about that? If you support one conscientous objector, you are not obligated to support them all. A bunch of guys flew airplanes into buildings based upon faith. I object to that. Am I a hypocrite?
     
  6. Bob Cook

    Bob Cook Active Member

    They say, "Rye roo," and a paw print establishes consent.
     
  7. dog eat dog world

    dog eat dog world New Member

    They can go to another photographer.

    You're trying to equate wedding photographers with Muslim terrorists?

    HYPOCRITES!!!!!
     
  8. Big Circus

    Big Circus Well-Known Member

  9. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Yes.

    Because you have indicated that once one supports one faith-based act of conscience, one must support them all. Lest they be a hypocrite.

    And that's fucking insane.
     
  10. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    Only Christian faith-based acts.

    Duh.
     
  11. milkboneunderwear

    milkboneunderwear New Member

    Rectify your ass? OH MY! The plot thickens. Don't be mad at yourself for having repressed homosexual desires.

    I AM A PROPHET!
     
  12. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    If anyone should have to stay in the closet, it should be the bigots.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page