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.

Don't ask me why, but I remember that to this day

@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*

https://www.pscp.tv/w/1ypJdgWRMwdGW

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

I just mean that laws are often broken, regardless if they're already law.

Yeah, I would like to see the case because I know there was a case where a homo teacher sued a church that wouldn't allow her to work there but the church won

So even though all humans should be under the umbrella of discrimination laws, if a case is brought saying that those laws were broken, then the ruling has to decide on what the intrepretation is

Very true

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf

That was the case that conservatives railed against Roberts for

I hate to say but I agree with Roberts on that one, I understand why the conservatives were so upset about it though. But that's more about moral faith than it is about human rights. I wish I could force them to stop sinning but even God says you have the right to choose

As for the case with the church, I agree with the Church, the state can't tell a religion to go against their own rules. That's separation

So then discrimination protection can't be truly across the board though

Sure it can. Why not?