Dude.  I find two guys kissing to be disgusting, but I don't have even a little problem with guys doing that if they want.  Disgust isn't "hate."  In fact, I'd fight for their right to engage in their lifestyle as it harms no one.  Whatever makes them happy and if they are attracted to other guys, so be it.  But claiming I'm "Homophobic" because I just don't like the sight of guys swapping spit?  That's a stretch.  Anyway, I've had a bunch of gay friends over my lifetime, many of those were close friendships, both gay men and women.  I support their choice.  It's their lives, not mine.  But claiming I'm "homophobic" because I find guys kissing to be a major turnoff?   Nah.  I can watch a couple of lesbian swapping spit and I'm fine.  Figure that one out, 'eh? All it means is I'm a guy and I'm attracted to women, not men. But I don't "hate" anyone based on their sexuality.  

11 hours ago, KhunLA said:

 

If only the 'alternative' lifestyle folks extended that say courtesy to those that believe differently, instead of trying to force them to conform to their beliefs.

 

How is it even possible to sue someone, for not conforming to your beliefs or lifestyle.  They are the ones to live & let live.

 

Kudos for the judge to take the lead on that one 👍

 

That is not the issue.  A judge is supposed to be neutral and not influenced by personal beliefs or personal religion.

What happens if a child needs a life saving  blood transfusion and a judge who is a jehovah witness says no, because it goes against the judge's religious belief?

What happens if a family wishes to disconnect the life support of a brain dead person, who has been in a coma for 30 days and  cannot recover, and the judge says that it goes against the judges Catholic teaching forbidding such an  act?

 

A judge must stand  independent with only the law as the basis of action.

The Texas ruling will most likely be contested as unconstitutional.

Troll post removed.

 

@Cameroni rule 15.You may not discriminate, use slurs, or post hostile or abusive comments based on personal characteristics such as race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, nationality, disability, medical history, marital or family status, gender identity, or sexual orientation. Posts breaching this rule will be removed, and posting suspension or account closure may result

10 hours ago, cjinchiangrai said:

Incels need love too

Well I'm glad you found someone

6 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

 

That is not the issue.  A judge is supposed to be neutral and not influenced by personal beliefs or personal religion.

What happens if a child needs a life saving  blood transfusion and a judge who is a jehovah witness says no, because it goes against the judge's religious belief?

What happens if a family wishes to disconnect the life support of a brain dead person, who has been in a coma for 30 days and  cannot recover, and the judge says that it goes against the judges Catholic teaching forbidding such an  act?

 

A judge must stand  independent with only the law as the basis of action.

The Texas ruling will most likely be contested as unconstitutional.

A few counterpoints to your post:

 

"A judge is supposed to be neutral and not influenced by personal beliefs or personal religion." - judges from both sides have legislated from the bench for years so your comments, while true, is not reality.

 

"...a child needs a life saving  blood transfusion..." - definitely flawed logic; the Texas supreme court ruling only states a judge can opt out of performing same-sex marriages without facing sanctions.  Now if the judge was also a doctor and refused to perform a blood transfusion, then that's another matter.

 

"...disconnect the life support of a brain dead person..." - same as above; trying to compare opting out of performing a same-sex marriage is a far stretch from a medical life or death situation.

 

 

 

Troll post removed 

 

@Harrisfan

35 minutes ago, howlee101 said:

A few counterpoints to your post:

 

"A judge is supposed to be neutral and not influenced by personal beliefs or personal religion." - judges from both sides have legislated from the bench for years so your comments, while true, is not reality.

 

"...a child needs a life saving  blood transfusion..." - definitely flawed logic; the Texas supreme court ruling only states a judge can opt out of performing same-sex marriages without facing sanctions.  Now if the judge was also a doctor and refused to perform a blood transfusion, then that's another matter.

 

"...disconnect the life support of a brain dead person..." - same as above; trying to compare opting out of performing a same-sex marriage is a far stretch from a medical life or death situation.

Still a 1st amendment violation. If you can't do the job without inserting your religion, get another job.

19 hours ago, Social Media said:

Texas Supreme Court Backs Judges Who Refuse Same-Sex Weddings

 

Two men marry, surrounded by wedding party, in New Orleans, United States

 

Texas judges and justices of the peace can now legally refuse to perform same-sex marriages on religious grounds without facing disciplinary action, following a new ruling by the state’s highest court.

 

In an Oct. 24 revision to the Texas Judicial Code of Conduct, the Texas Supreme Court declared: “It is not a violation of these canons for a judge to publicly refrain from performing a wedding ceremony based upon a sincerely held religious belief.” The language, placed under a section governing extra-judicial activities, effectively shields judges who decline to officiate same-sex weddings — or potentially others — for faith-based reasons.

 

The move stems from a case involving Jack County Judge Brian Umphress, who sued the state after claiming he could face punishment for refusing to marry same-sex couples while continuing to perform opposite-sex ceremonies. His case reached the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which referred the matter to the Texas Supreme Court. Though the state court didn’t directly answer the federal query, its rule change appears to settle Umphress’s concerns.

 

Legal experts warn the new language could open the door to broader refusals. University of Illinois law professor Jason Mazzone noted that it could theoretically allow judges to deny interracial marriages as well. “Given the wording… a judge who says, ‘For religious reasons I’m not going to perform the interracial marriage,’ that too would fall within the scope,” he said, calling the decision a likely violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

 

LGBTQ advocates condemned the move. “No one’s religious freedom should be used as a weapon to harm other individuals,” said Brad Pritchett of Equality Texas. The ACLU of Texas echoed that sentiment, calling it “disappointing” and “discriminatory.”

 

Although same-sex marriage remains legal in Texas, the ruling places the state at odds with much of the nation and sets up a potential federal constitutional showdown.

 

Key Takeaways:

• Texas Supreme Court says judges can refuse weddings based on religious beliefs.

• Legal scholars warn it could justify discrimination against same-sex or interracial couples.

• LGBTQ and civil rights groups call the decision a step backward for equality.

 

Source: The Hill

 

 

 

A bad day in US history.

19 hours ago, MalcolmB said:

They have come a long way in 22 years.

 

Sodomy was only legalised in Taxas in 2003

And the connection between sodomy and homosexuality is what ????😳

If the celebrant refuses to marry them... find another that will.

 

Hardly rocket science.

20 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

Still a 1st amendment violation. If you can't do the job without inserting your religion, get another job.

Funny you say it's a 1st amendment violation...please explain.  But I guess you overlooked the first amendment part about religion "Free Exercise Clause: Protects individuals' rights to practice their religion freely".

 

If you are referring to same-sex marriage:

 

AI assisted:

Same-sex marriage is primarily recognized as a right under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, rather than the First Amendment. The Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges established that the right to marry is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution, but it does not specifically classify it as a First Amendment right.

 

IMO, the Texas Supreme Court isn't denying anyone from getting a same-sex marriage.  The court only says a judge won't be sanctioned if they opt out of performing the marriage.  Your strawman argument doesn't hold water.

 

 

1 hour ago, howlee101 said:

A few counterpoints to your post:

 

"A judge is supposed to be neutral and not influenced by personal beliefs or personal religion." - judges from both sides have legislated from the bench for years so your comments, while true, is not reality.

 

"...a child needs a life saving  blood transfusion..." - definitely flawed logic; the Texas supreme court ruling only states a judge can opt out of performing same-sex marriages without facing sanctions.  Now if the judge was also a doctor and refused to perform a blood transfusion, then that's another matter.

 

"...disconnect the life support of a brain dead person..." - same as above; trying to compare opting out of performing a same-sex marriage is a far stretch from a medical life or death situation.

 

 

The claim of "legislating from the bench" is often made by groups and people who have their own political agenda and who do not agree with the application of a law as written. In the event that there is "legislation from the bench", the  court decision can be  appealed and if it was based upon an error in the application of law, it can be reversed or vacated. That's the reality.

 

The  reference to  a blood transfusion is not  flawed logic, anymore than objecting to a cessation of life support. These are bonafide arguments already used in court rulings. The Texas ruling  cannot be specific to one circumstance. That is not how  such a ruling is applied. It is in effect a decision that a judge's personal religious beliefs are allowed to determine the judge's ruling. The US Constitution sets out a separation of  religion and state. You want this cas to be about same sex activity, but it is not. The core issue is the application of the low and the obligation of the judiciary to act in an unbiased manner. 

8 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

 

That is not the issue.  A judge is supposed to be neutral and not influenced by personal beliefs or personal religion.

What happens if a child needs a life saving  blood transfusion and a judge who is a jehovah witness says no, because it goes against the judge's religious belief?

What happens if a family wishes to disconnect the life support of a brain dead person, who has been in a coma for 30 days and  cannot recover, and the judge says that it goes against the judges Catholic teaching forbidding such an  act?

 

A judge must stand  independent with only the law as the basis of action.

The Texas ruling will most likely be contested as unconstitutional.

A judge can and should apply the law in criminal & civil case on his/her docket.   Has nothing to do with officiating a wedding against his/her beliefs.

 

If defendants don't agree or think judge was prejudicial, that's what appeal courts are for.

51 minutes ago, howlee101 said:

Funny you say it's a 1st amendment violation...please explain.  But I guess you overlooked the first amendment part about religion "Free Exercise Clause: Protects individuals' rights to practice their religion freely".

 

If you are referring to same-sex marriage:

 

AI assisted:

Same-sex marriage is primarily recognized as a right under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, rather than the First Amendment. The Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges established that the right to marry is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution, but it does not specifically classify it as a First Amendment right.

 

IMO, the Texas Supreme Court isn't denying anyone from getting a same-sex marriage.  The court only says a judge won't be sanctioned if they opt out of performing the marriage.  Your strawman argument doesn't hold water.

It is called the establishment clause for a reason.

23 hours ago, Will B Good said:

 

Genuinely thought it was compulsory there.

Only applies to interactions with farm animals.