The Lame Duck Session is underway with two crucial items on the menu, the Respect for Marriage Act and the Electoral Count Reform Act

Politics
84

Well, all they have to do is manufacture a religious objection, and the Supremes will buy it.

1 Like
85

Right…just religion or one own morals?

86

It does NOT undo the decisions made regarding bakers and other artistic creators. They will still be able to decline to do business with gay couples on religious or conscious grounds.

However, those whose services do not involve artistry or original creations will be required to do business. Which is as it stands already, the new law would change nothing in that regard.

87

So why create more laws?

1 Like
88

Because Justice Thomas opened his big mouth about Obergefell and Congress is about to shut his trap.

Blame Justice Thomas.

4 Likes
89

They are very receptive to religious objections. That’s the route I would take

90

I see…not having to recognizing homosexual marriage isn’t a fundamental liberties?

1 Like
91

This is in regards to the State recognizing the marriages.

92

Individuals don’t have to PERSONALLY recognize or acknowledge homosexual marriage. Neither do they have to socialize or associate privately with gays if they don’t want to.

And for most individuals, this won’t make a difference.

Unless a person is an insurance company or a medical company or an insurance agent, real estate agent or some such, this won’t make the slightest difference in their life. Insurance companies will be compelled to write policies to gay couples and real estate agents and banks will be required to treat gay couples as married for purposes of transactions.

If a person is a cashier, waiter or waitress or other pedestrian job, they are likely already working with and serving gay couples on a regular basis.

But if a person does not want to associate with gays in their private life, they won’t have to.

1 Like
93

Again, the state is picking winner and losers and who is exempt. It does not protect small business running crews etc.

1 Like
94

Or…consider this.

Homosexual acts should be treated like heterosexual acts - legal, however unrequired and completely optional for all consenting adults.

4 Likes
95

How? Are you personally required to recognize a straight marriage? IF not, how does this make you personally recognize a gay marriage?

96

Why are you insisting picking winners and losers?

1 Like
97

I don’t see how I am. If straight people can get married in the eyes of the state, then so should gay people.

1 Like
98

I am trying to figure out who are the winners and losers?
And what do they win or lose?

99

That seems to be the opposite of picking winners and losers… that looks to me like treating all marriage equally.

100

Well obviously, the losers are those that want to discriminate against gay people.

1 Like
101

I say it’s the right thing to do. But only for government.

102

“They” whom?

103

Bakers. Photographers.

1 Like