Message from @SharpStuff
Discord ID: 785550509171146802
But if this kind of issue is ruled that it should remain in state court, that's why they might rule that way
Even if the evidence proves it.
But at the end of the day, they are judges and can rule how they want.
So they could just trump that thought-process and rule to throw out the election
Yeah, that's why it's good Trump put 300+ judges in courts
Elections have been put aside before due to fraud
I'm not sure if the Supreme Court did or if it was a lower court.
I don't know a lot about the courts, learning as move along this process
One big worry I have is that if the conservative justices, even the ones Trump appointed, rule against us, most conservatives will assume that they were bought off or are not real conservatives.
Because that's not necessarily true.
Yeah, speculations will fly, they always do. Look at John Robert's. The difference between us and the left side is that we don't take action we just make speculations until otherwise proven
For instance, even though I'm against gay marriage, I don't think the Supreme Court was necessarily wrong in it's decision in June 2015, Constitutionally speaking. The Equal Protections Clause has to give equal protections and rights to all, so you can't have marriage benefits for some and not for others. The shady issue becomes the definition of marriage, so it's a decision that could go either way, it's not as open-and-shut of a case as most conservatives would think.
honestly I think the government needs to stay out of marriage, it's a religious thing and not a government thing it never was a government thing and it never should have been a government thing. I don't care what you do in your bedroom, just keep it in the bedroom
According to the Bible marriage is between a man and a woman, a civil union ship is between two people at the same sex. It was defined by the Bible centuries ago
Keep in mind that homosexuality is in the Bible, this is not a new concept for Christians.
And just this past summer 2020, Roberts ruled with the liberal justices about extending federal discrimination protection to sexual orientation and gender identity. Conservatives were up in arms about that decision, but why shouldn't that protection be there ?
You can't really use the Bible as an arguement in the Supreme Court, especially if you wanna keep religion and government separate.
I remember where I was sitting when I saw the Obergefell decision come down.
@SharpStuff Were you for or against the decision ?
hardly for it
heat treated and tempered against
If you're going to say that then you shouldn't be for government controlling what marriages, cuz that separating church and state. and you're saying further protection against sexual orientation but that just to me sounds like human rights which I don't understand why a homosexual person is any different from any other person. Those discrimination laws should have already applied to them as a human being
You're just opening up more government control by allowing them to separate us as individuals than to just group us all together as human beings
Mind you, I'm not anti-homosexual person.
Just against homosexuality as a lifestyle
@stoneytoney Separating us as individuals in what way ?
Hia!
...huh?
*visible confusion*
By giving laws to specific groups like LGBT, black people, white people, etc. We're all human beings so the discrimination will also be applied to all of us as such
Meaning you'd be for this summer's decision I was talkin about ?
No because that's increasing government control, they should have already been covered you didn't need to add anything to the law in order to cover them. You're treating them like they're not human beings by saying all we have to add in homosexuality because they're different from humans
But the reason it had to be was because there was a lawsuit because apparently they were being discriminated against.
So their ruling basically interepreted the law as encompassing sexual orientation in the group of human-beings.
It might've be covered in the law already, but parties suing didn't think so since they were being discriminated against in jobs or whatever.
What was the case?
I don't know the full details, but obviously some kind of discrimination was alleged