Author Topic: Supreme Court of the United States Recent Rulings (Read 74000 times)

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #360 on:** June 28, 2015, 05:15:35 PM »

Quote from: zale on June 28, 2015, 03:22:33 PM

This is really a different topic, but the Old Testament is compiled from the Torah. The primary change Christians (i.e. some off the beaten path Jews) made is to the concept of G-D, where they believe that G-D is not one being, but made up of multiple elements.

Many here claim the constitution is based on Christian values so it is germane to this subject. They try to turn it into that it is also based on Judaism. That is factually wrong.

How many books are in the Torah? How many books in the old testament of the Bible? Also the Holy Trinity you talk about is a Catholic teaching.

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #361 on:** June 28, 2015, 05:19:44 PM »

Quote from: eis517 on June 28, 2015, 04:31:54 PM

I usually disagree with him. And I am not asking for your stance on the issue. However, here he is completely right.

He sure makes a lot of sense on this issue.

Emkay · « **Reply #362 on:** June 28, 2015, 05:24:41 PM »

Quote from: eis517 on June 28, 2015, 04:31:54 PM

In my opinion here he is completely right.

ftfy

elit · « **Reply #363 on:** June 28, 2015, 05:35:50 PM »

Quote from: Aj3042 on June 28, 2015, 03:44:14 PM

So we finally agree on something. Who was it that said they don't even give this guy the legitimacy of reading what he writes? He's predictable wrong and disgusting on every issue.

That was me. Though i must say all these people saying he's right this time is tempting me

Emkay · « **Reply #364 on:** June 28, 2015, 05:37:40 PM »

cry all you want but at the end of the day you know who caused this

Aj3042 · « **Reply #365 on:** June 28, 2015, 06:00:13 PM »

Quote from: Emkay on June 28, 2015, 05:37:40 PM

cry all you want but at the end of the day you know who caused this

Unfortunately he's partially right.

zale · « **Reply #366 on:** June 28, 2015, 06:16:11 PM »

Moving on to the next question: what are the actual ramifications of this new law?

1. If a rabbi or a priest refuse to marry off a gay or lesbian couple, can they be prosecuted for civil rights violations? If a musician, photographer or caterer refuse their services to a gay wedding, can they be prosecuted?

2. If marriage can be redefined to include same-sex couples, will it also continue to be redefined over the years to include polygamy and/or other types of relationships? Can Tom Hanks marry His soccer ball Wilson from Castaway?

zale · « **Reply #367 on:** June 28, 2015, 06:22:03 PM »

Quote from: Emkay on June 28, 2015, 05:37:40 PM

cry all you want but at the end of the day you know who caused this

The "Jews" that led the charge for LGBT rights are Liberals first and Jews a distant second. They usually identify only as Liberal. They only identify as Jewish when it suits them once in a while.

Ironically, to an anti-semite there is no differentiation. A Jew is a Jew is a Jew.

grodnoking · « **Reply #368 on:** June 28, 2015, 08:14:45 PM »

Quote from: zale on June 28, 2015, 06:16:11 PM

Moving on to the next question: what are the actual ramifications of this new law?

1. If a rabbi or a priest refuse to marry off a gay or lesbian couple, can they be prosecuted for civil rights violations? If a musician, photographer or caterer refuse their services to a gay wedding, can they be prosecuted?

2. If marriage can be redefined to include same-sex couples, will it also continue to be redefined over the years to include polygamy and/or other types of relationships? Can Tom Hanks marry His soccer ball Wilson from Castaway?

For number two refer to Ted2

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #369 on:** June 28, 2015, 08:46:36 PM »

Quote from: zale on June 28, 2015, 06:16:11 PM

Moving on to the next question: what are the actual ramifications of this new law?

1. If a rabbi or a priest refuse to marry off a gay or lesbian couple, can they be prosecuted for civil rights violations? If a musician, photographer or caterer refuse their services to a gay wedding, can they be prosecuted?

How about we leave out the ridicules? I am hoping the courts side with the rabbi or priest.

aradisc · « **Reply #370 on:** June 28, 2015, 08:48:30 PM »

Quote from: zale on June 28, 2015, 06:16:11 PM

1. If a rabbi or a priest refuse to marry off a gay or lesbian couple, can they be prosecuted for civil rights violations? If a musician, photographer or caterer refuse their services to a gay wedding, can they be prosecuted?

2. If marriage can be redefined to include same-sex couples, will it also continue to be redefined over the years to include polygamy and/or other types of relationships? Can Tom Hanks marry His soccer ball Wilson from Castaway?

The answer to all of those is no.

efflpetzel · « **Reply #371 on:** June 28, 2015, 09:02:37 PM »

Quote from: zale on June 28, 2015, 06:16:11 PM

Moving on to the next question: what are the actual ramifications of this new law?

1. If a rabbi or a priest refuse to marry off a gay or lesbian couple, can they be prosecuted for civil rights violations? If a musician, photographer or caterer refuse their services to a gay wedding, can they be prosecuted?

2. If marriage can be redefined to include same-sex couples, will it also continue to be redefined over the years to include polygamy and/or other types of relationships? Can Tom Hanks marry His soccer ball Wilson from Castaway?

why is polygamy illegal?, it seems to me to be very hypocritical to me that a gay couple can get married (however retarded that is) yet people in a polygamous relationship cannot.

Why?

zale · « **Reply #372 on:** June 28, 2015, 09:21:28 PM »

Quote from: aradisc on June 28, 2015, 08:48:30 PM

The answer to all of those is no.

No as in "no, I have combed over the law, and have concluded that an orthodox Jewish caterer can't be sued for turning down a gay customer"

Or

No as in "no, I don't think so".

Which one is it?

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #373 on:** June 28, 2015, 09:23:47 PM »

No means NO!

Aj3042 · « **Reply #374 on:** June 28, 2015, 09:32:01 PM »

Quote from: ChaimMoskowitz on June 28, 2015, 09:23:47 PM

No means NO!

Quote from: ChaimMoskowitz on June 28, 2015, 02:42:23 PM

You saying something does not make it so.

ChaimMoskowitz · « **Reply #375 on:** June 28, 2015, 09:49:27 PM »

Quote from: Aj3042 on June 28, 2015, 09:32:01 PM

...but when the courts say it then it is so.

Sport · « **Reply #376 on:** June 28, 2015, 09:49:38 PM »

Perhaps they wont be prosecuted or sued, but someone commenting on the Fink article brought up a diffrent concern. Is the tax exempt status of a non profit orginization that refuses to marry a gay couple going to be at risk? I dont know much about this topic but the commenter claims that the irs retracts tax exempt status from non profits that are discriminatory.

elit · « **Reply #377 on:** June 28, 2015, 10:11:01 PM »

Quote from: Sport on June 28, 2015, 09:49:38 PM

Perhaps they wont be prosecuted or sued, but someone commenting on the Fink article brought up a diffrent concern. Is the tax exempt status of a non profit orginization that refuses to marry a gay couple going to be at risk? I dont know much about this topic but the commenter claims that the irs retracts tax exempt status from non profits that are discriminatory.

Correct my resident expert on this topic says that's the first and most likely result of this ruling

Sport · « **Reply #378 on:** June 28, 2015, 10:12:29 PM »

Quote from: elit on June 28, 2015, 10:11:01 PM

Correct my resident expert on this topic says that's the first and most likely result of this ruling

Then thats pretty troublesome.

Aaaron · « **Reply #379 on:** June 28, 2015, 10:13:05 PM »

Quote from: elit on June 28, 2015, 10:11:01 PM

Correct my resident expert on this topic says that's the first and most likely result of this ruling

I'm not so sure that's true. Religious institutions can discriminate in certain instances, i.e. not allow female clergy. That would be illegal discrimination against a protected class in any other situation.