Republicans plan to reintroduce Anti-LGBT ‘religious freedom’ bill supported by Trump

The part that says "marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage."

 

Can't wait to see Christians go ape(*)(*)(*)(*) when Muslim businesses tell them to get bent.....

 

By that logic wouldn't it also be incestphobic or poligamyphobic?

 

No, because it says nothing about familial relations and polygamy is not currently legal in this country.

 

Banning marriage to my dog never prevented men and women from having children out of wedlock. Not sure of your point. The interest isn't served by EXCLUDING anybody. It is only served by including men and women. The interest served in welfare isn't served by excluding Bill Gates. It is served by INCLUDING the impoverished.

 

Not seeing the homophobia, let alone even a mention of sexual orientation.

 

No one has to accept homosexuality. Until those who support it can make a case as to why society should accept it there is no reason for anyone to give a crap. Make it illegal. That is fine.

 

The liberals here have repeatedly run from the pandora's box they opened bastardizing the 14th amendment written to give slaves citizenship and pretended it granted gay marriage without creating their own amendment which the people of this country never supported.

Read the 14th amendment section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is what they cited as their justification. The problem is in their mind numbing stupidity they didn't take into account what it actually opened the door to. Specifically, ANY marriage between humans of any number or age of that human(s) because nothing in that passage limits rights by anything other than being a person.

This is exactly why the Founding Fathers created the amendment system to write new law not fabricate new meaning in existing law for a pet cause. It is an abomination of the Constitution to use this amendment for anything other than its original intent and by not following that logic, now any sexual preference can cite the exact same wording since all people are persons.

 

The point is that marriage does nothing to promote having children, only how they are cared for after they arrive. Same-sex couples are just as capable of caring for children as opposite-sex couples, so excluding them from marriage only restricts the interest served.

 

Don't let that pesky Constitution get in your way.

 

Can they conceive children on their own?

 

You will notice religion and religious practice is a protected class by not only the First Amendment to the Constitution as a constitutional right but also Codified in the Civil Rights Act. Alas LGBT is simply not there. That puts them in the same category as folks with red hair or thick mustaches and bushy eyebrows.

 

No, but as I said marriage is about raising children, not conceiving them. You do realize people were able to conceive children long before the institution of marriage even existed, don't you?

You'll notice that the protected class listed immediately after religion is "sex", therefore laws limiting who you can marry by sex are illegal discrimination.

 

Now you're making (*)(*)(*)(*) up. It means men or women can't be discriminated against, not what one pretends they are.

 

There are two states that allow incest if I recall correctly and its irrelevant. It was not too long age that homosexuality was illegal and there's nothing to stop a reversal of the current ruling. Besides, how is law connected to whether or not your homophobic?

 

How am I making anything up when it is right there in the First Amendment Defense Act? Any law that limits what one can do based on their sex, regardless of what they believe or how they act, is sexual discrimination.

If you can't see what is homophobic about a law that disproportional affects homosexuals even though it applies to all sexual orientations, then I don't think I can help you.

 

"Sexual Orientation" is NOT included in the Civil Rights Act.

 

You just don't get it, do you? The law violates the Civil Rights Act because it discriminates based on sex, not sexual orientation.

 

It says sex (gender) as in body parts, you know Male or Female. You're stretching the meaning in a way the SCOTUS has NOT.

 

Well said. Sex is not something you can announce at a press conference and change.

And sexual orientation is NEVER mentioned. But liberals don't have the votes to get new law passed so once again they try to fabricate it in existing law that doesn't cover their pet project.