The thought of being denied the right to be bigots is terrifying to jesus freaks.

(September 7, 2014 at 7:54 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(September 7, 2014 at 11:46 am)Natachan Wrote: As I am a fierce supporter of gay marriage the idea of the issue going before THIS court scares me. IIRC there are five conservative and four liberal judges.

Yet this is the court that threw out DOMA and sent the jesus freaks scurrying for the bomb shelters.

This. Watch. The court will do one of a few things: deny cert, leaving the 9th circuit decision standing; issue a narrow ruling against Utah, or a broad ruling against Utah.

Just wait. Utah has put itself in a no-win scenario.

(September 7, 2014 at 8:03 pm)Natachan Wrote: They also said hobby lobby has the right to deny contraceptives based on religious preference.

As a matter of law, thee is zero similarity between that case and this one. The court would have to overturn it's own precedent to find for Utah. Whatever the makeup of the court, that ain't happening.

I'm not sure. The ruling against DOMA was a due process ruling, stating section 3 denied due process and was an overstep of the commerce clause. Since marriage is a state issue the federal government had no right to deny rights that are specific to states. A state law might well be held up as constitutional, as it was in Louisiana.

(September 7, 2014 at 9:10 pm)Natachan Wrote: I'm not sure. The ruling against DOMA was a due process ruling, stating section 3 denied due process and was an overstep of the commerce clause. Since marriage is a state issue the federal government had no right to deny rights that are specific to states. A state law might well be held up as constitutional, as it was in Louisiana.

There's a world of difference between a federal district court and the supreme court, hell, even a federal court of appeals. I fully appreciate the makeup of SCOTUS - but I'd bet a fair amount of money on the outcome of this case, and I don't like to bet when the odds aren't in my favor.

(September 7, 2014 at 5:08 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: I like how the phrase "religious liberties" means the right to persecute others.

That's what religious majority groups do, isn't it? Not persecuting the out-group technically is a limit on what they can and will do.

But yeah, I like how "religious freedom" has gone from "you can believe what you want, without fear of persecution" to a dog-whistle for bigotry.

(September 8, 2014 at 12:08 pm)RobbyPants Wrote: I like how "religious freedom" has gone from "you can believe what you want, without fear of persecution" to a dog-whistle for bigotry.

It's appalling that they can't see it for themselves.

(September 7, 2014 at 8:30 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(September 7, 2014 at 7:54 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Yet this is the court that threw out DOMA and sent the jesus freaks scurrying for the bomb shelters.

This. Watch. The court will do one of a few things: deny cert, leaving the 9th circuit decision standing; issue a narrow ruling against Utah, or a broad ruling against Utah.

Just wait. Utah has put itself in a no-win scenario.

Unless one Appeals court backs the bigots the SC does not even have to take the case. It can let the lower court rulings stand.

(September 8, 2014 at 12:14 pm)ShaMan Wrote:

(September 8, 2014 at 12:08 pm)RobbyPants Wrote: I like how "religious freedom" has gone from "you can believe what you want, without fear of persecution" to a dog-whistle for bigotry.

It's appalling that they can't see it for themselves.

The irony of this is they go from "people should have the freedom to practice their beliefs" to "we should have to freedom to stop people from practicing beliefs I don't like"... all as an argument of "freedom".

This is what happens when a group stays as a majority for so long.

Quote:SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — The Mormon church and four religious organizations are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene and settle once and for all the question of whether states can outlaw gay marriage.

Rumor has it that there was quite an altercation when a court clerk asked one of the lawyers if he "need[ed] help filing [his] briefs."