(06-28-2015 07:49 PM)Smaug Wrote:  That comment and previous one seem to be pointed specifically at public accommodations, and he's right. Either it's legal, or it ain't, and if it is, then public servants should do their damn jobs or find another job.

Yes, he's consistent on those talking points. It's his denials about going after churches I don't believe. He attacks churches in every thread about taxes and such. I mean, there is a reason many of us don't exactly find him genuine when he says there will be no going after churches. Other gays will and I find it hard to believe that he wont be siding with them.

(06-28-2015 07:54 PM)Paul M Wrote:  He's had the likes of Owl and Hambone call him out for dishonesty. They're pretty respected round here. His dishonesty is pretty well known.

(06-28-2015 07:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 07:49 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 07:38 PM)Paul M Wrote:  "Lets see what happens on Monday. No additional wait for Gay couples over that of straight couples. No more delays. No disparate treatment. Equal is equal."

You seriously think this is someone who is going to be hands off the churches Smaug? Seriously.

I disagree with Tom about a lot of things, but he's never struck me as dishonest.

Besides, there are lots of churches out there willing to marry gay couples.

Tomorrow isn't about churches. Its about the government. What our criminally indicted AG has tried to do is to encourage government officials to deny LGBT persons equal due process under the law. And no, making Gay folks wait longer because the employee that handles licensing is on break while straight couples get served is not acceptable. We're even going to sue if persons of a higher rank sign some licenses and not others (why should the Chief Clerk sign some licenses but refuse to sign ours?). We don't accept that a government official ever treat a LGBT persons 'less than'. And if the state wants to try to violate our due process rights, we will make it really expensive indeed.

Perhaps the way it could work is as follows. Five clerks working. Four are bigots and won't serve Gays. Gay couple is in line and 20 other straight couples are in line behind them. Only clerk willing to serve Gays is at lunch. Once the Gay couple gets to the front of the line...and there's no one to serve them...or the clerk is busy with another customer...then all the clerks have to wait and cannot serve anyone until the Gay couple is served. Nah, that probably won't work either, because even though everyone is now waiting...the Gay couple would still have to wait longer than they would have than if they were straight. Heck if the employees computer that serves the Gay couples crashes, then they'd have to turn off everyone's computers too. It is going to be nearly impossible for the state to ensure equal treatment.

An official that refuses to serve LGBT persons in their capacity as an agent of the state shouldn't be employed by the state.

My opposition to taxpayer funding/subsidization of discriminatory clubs and churches is unrelated to Gay rights and is rooted in tax policy issues.

Just make sure you post some pics from your wedding here. I'll never get the pleasure of attending one of these freak shows, so you're pretty much all I have.

(06-28-2015 08:07 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Nullification is perfectly valid.

In this particular instance, I think it is an erroneous use of it. Since it is a relatively unpopular position being used in this instance, I think Texas will indeed lose and will indeed cave.

The interesting item is when a state uses nullification for a major popular matter (say, to nullify ObamaCare). And then they MEAN it. Then it matters little what some DC circuit rules ... how are the Feds gonna enforce it? You gonna send the military into Texas? Then you're violating Posse Comitatus. What are you going to do if the rest of the 2/3 of the country that doesn't want ObamaCare joins in?

You may mock nullification and suggest it died at Appomattox (which it didn't). But you'd do well to realize how fragile your federal do-as-I-say courts are when the rubber meets the road.

Nullification didn't die at Appomattox. We saw plenty of it in Alabama in the 1960's. And they meant it. And the Federal position was deeply unpopular in the South. And the Feds still figured out a way to enforce those Federal orders

(06-28-2015 07:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 07:49 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 07:38 PM)Paul M Wrote:  "Lets see what happens on Monday. No additional wait for Gay couples over that of straight couples. No more delays. No disparate treatment. Equal is equal."

You seriously think this is someone who is going to be hands off the churches Smaug? Seriously.

I disagree with Tom about a lot of things, but he's never struck me as dishonest.

Besides, there are lots of churches out there willing to marry gay couples.

Tomorrow isn't about churches.

I'm aware. I'm talking about when it inevitably comes up. And it will. And forgive me but your history of "we wont wait one minute longer. No more discrimination" and treatment of Christian businesses and constant criticism of churches doesn't instill confidence in me that you wont be a leading in those fights too.

(06-28-2015 08:12 PM)MemphisTiger15 Wrote:  Just make sure you post some pics from your wedding here. I'll never get the pleasure of attending one of these freak shows, so you're pretty much all I have.

Freak shows? Would you say that if your son or daughter were gay? Or would you just disown or murder them?

Take a higher road than that garbage.

(06-28-2015 08:07 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 07:54 PM)Paul M Wrote:  He's had the likes of Owl and Hambone call him out for dishonesty. They're pretty respected round here. His dishonesty is pretty well known.

I didn't say universally.

I have always respected them myself though Ham has given me pause lately. But that's just a mod issue.

(06-28-2015 08:15 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 08:12 PM)MemphisTiger15 Wrote:  Just make sure you post some pics from your wedding here. I'll never get the pleasure of attending one of these freak shows, so you're pretty much all I have.

Freak shows? Would you say that if your son or daughter were gay? Or would you just disown or murder them?

Take a higher road than that garbage.

I was discussing this today with someone, and I think I'd hold a gay wedding invitation to the same standard I hold straight ones.

I don't care for weddings, generally. Bottom line: Will I be missed if I don't show?

Some high school classmate who sent out 200 invitations? **** that.

Close relative I'm going to have to see on major holidays? Probably.

New civil war? Will Texas secede? Does that break up the Big 12? Can UCF still join?

(06-28-2015 09:45 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  New civil war? Will Texas secede? Does that break up the Big 12? Can UCF still join?

Good question. If there was a referendum on secession, would it pass in Texas? I bet it would get some votes in favor (10%? 30%?). Not enough to pass.

Add the Confederate states and those numbers would go up.

(06-28-2015 06:33 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 06:31 PM)PlainTiger Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 06:19 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 06:16 PM)PlainTiger Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 04:37 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Here's the first one.

Texas' ethically challenged, and incredibly stupid AG, issued this whopper

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2015/06/28/exas-...y-couples/

Monday is going to be fun. Hundreds of lawsuits are being prepared against County Clerks and Judges. The state will lose every single one of them. And they're gonna have to pay legal fees and damages too.

This will probably get Texas' pastor "protection" bill thrown out too.

What is Texas' pastor protection bill? First I have heard of it.

It was a pointless piece of legislation that attempted to put a figleaf on nullification. But if they're going to try and use it to violate a Supreme Court Ruling, then the bill will probably be thrown out. Either way, expect lawsuits tomorrow. And in civil rights lawsuits, the state must pay legal costs if they lose.

That was not the level of detail I was hoping for. So I researched it for myself.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/11/g...ction-act/

That link says it has been signed into law.

It has been signed into law. Not disputing that. But since it appears to be used to attempt to justify nullification of a Supreme Court Ruling, it is now open to being struck down.

The county clerks and judges will have to issue the marriage licenses.

The pastor protection bill won't be struck down.

(06-28-2015 07:27 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 07:13 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 07:04 PM)MemphisTiger15 Wrote:  But you wont be getting married in a church that doesn't want you there.

#religousfreedomwins

Make your church all about discrimination for all I care. It won't bring anyone to Christ but will rather continue to repel millions.

#biggerpicture

Not their mandate to worry whether or not you accept their message, only that they give it.

Exactly, far more damage to a church's reputation and credibility will be from their marrying homosexuals.

I'm a perfect world no church will ever marry them but I know some will feel they have to buckle under pressure. Those weak pastors will pay a large price for it too.

Liberal churches should be allowed to marry gays. Conservative churches should be allowed not to.

If we start forcing people to act against their religious beliefs in their own church, we will be in deep, deep sh-t.

(06-28-2015 11:09 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Liberal churches should be allowed to marry gays. Conservative churches should be allowed not to.

If we start forcing people to act against their religious beliefs in their own church, we will be in deep, deep sh-t.

I'd hope that very few people disagree with you. In my mind, a church is like any other club with limited membership, and therefore should be able to discriminate based on any arbitrary criteria.

As an atheist, I wouldn't go to a church with the expectation that they'd perform a marriage for me. It'd be a lot easier to get away with, but I wouldn't be offended if they found out and said "no".

Here's how its going to go.

1) Any county that refuses to issue a license to a Gay couple will be sued. Denton, Fort Bend, Williamson, and Tom Green Counties in Texas will be tested. So will Geneva, Tuscaloosa, Pike, and Washington in Alabama.
2) Any county that makes a Gay couple to wait any longer than a straight couple to receive the paperwork, to file the paperwork, or to process the paperwork will be sued. You can't create the 'colored window - only open with prior notice' for Gay persons). Just like straights, we should be able to just stroll on in to any county office offering licenses to straights and walk right on out of there with our licenses, with the same amount of wait time and access that straights have.
3) Any county that refuses the same respect (e.g., type of employee, level of employee) to Gay couples will be sued. See 'colored window' above. Our marriages deserve the same respect by the state. We need full time clerks who normally perform those duties to straights to process our applications if that's who are processing straight applications and licenses. Authorizing untrained staff that don't process those applications in the normal course of their duties to straight persons for the sole purpose of not making those trained, full time, experienced, employees exempt from providing services to Gay couples isn't going to cut it.
4) We're not going to tolerate a system where government employees are paid to be at the courthouse at the Judge level and are willing to serve straight couples in performing marriages but where no full time employees at the same level are available at the courthouse are willing to do so for Gays. If a Judge doesn't want to perform a Gay marriage, he/she cannot do so for anyone. And if there are no judges willing to perform them for Gay couples, then NO judge at the courthouse can provide that service to straights.
5) Gay marriage is the law of the land today. Trying to run the clock out and then change the laws so that government is 'out of the marriage business' will result in additional lawsuits. You want to change marriage laws to make it a 'notary' thing...fine. But every jurisdiction will marry Gays before that will be acceptable. So, Mississippi, you're going to have to have your full time government officials recognize our marriages and process them.
6) Tomorrow morning, state agencies like Texas DPS (driver's licenses) and other agencies will be bombarded by Gays already married in other jurisdictions demanding immediate recognition of their marriages for things like name changes, spousal benefits for state employees etc. Any delays or refusals on the part of state employees in recognition will be met with lawsuits.

Good night, tomorrow should be very fun. And very expensive for the nullifiers.

I'm hoping no lawsuits will be necessary. My guess is that there will be many filed.

Damn. SC sure has emboldened the fancies.

How are Tom's and gays intentions going forward not plain to see? He's telling you clearly where they intend to start. Can't see where it leads?

(06-28-2015 07:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 07:49 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(06-28-2015 07:38 PM)Paul M Wrote:  "Lets see what happens on Monday. No additional wait for Gay couples over that of straight couples. No more delays. No disparate treatment. Equal is equal."

You seriously think this is someone who is going to be hands off the churches Smaug? Seriously.

I disagree with Tom about a lot of things, but he's never struck me as dishonest.

Besides, there are lots of churches out there willing to marry gay couples.

Tomorrow isn't about churches. Its about the government. What our criminally indicted AG has tried to do is to encourage government officials to deny LGBT persons equal due process under the law. And no, making Gay folks wait longer because the employee that handles licensing is on break while straight couples get served is not acceptable. We're even going to sue if persons of a higher rank sign some licenses and not others (why should the Chief Clerk sign some licenses but refuse to sign ours?). We don't accept that a government official ever treat a LGBT persons 'less than'. And if the state wants to try to violate our due process rights, we will make it really expensive indeed.

Perhaps the way it could work is as follows. Five clerks working. Four are bigots and won't serve Gays. Gay couple is in line and 20 other straight couples are in line behind them. Only clerk willing to serve Gays is at lunch. Once the Gay couple gets to the front of the line...and there's no one to serve them...or the clerk is busy with another customer...then all the clerks have to wait and cannot serve anyone until the Gay couple is served. Nah, that probably won't work either, because even though everyone is now waiting...the Gay couple would still have to wait longer than they would have than if they were straight. Heck if the employees computer that serves the Gay couples crashes, then they'd have to turn off everyone's computers too. It is going to be nearly impossible for the state to ensure equal treatment.

An official that refuses to serve LGBT persons in their capacity as an agent of the state shouldn't be employed by the state.

My opposition to taxpayer funding/subsidization of discriminatory clubs and churches is unrelated to Gay rights and is rooted in tax policy issues.

They are directly related, you've just found a great argument that advances your POV.

(06-28-2015 11:09 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Liberal churches should be allowed to marry gays. Conservative churches should be allowed not to.

If we start forcing people to act against their religious beliefs in their own church, we will be in deep, deep sh-t.

Liberal churches should be allowed to do as they please, same as all churches. But they will harm churches that don't want to participate in sin.

1 baker will bake a cake... all must. 1 florist... all. Tom's laid it out above. Providing employees to comply with the new law isn't good enough. No one can keep their job if they wont serve, against their religion, all people. Doesn't matter if a full time employee is provided and absolutely zero inconvenience is encountered by a gay couple.

Liberal churches perform marriage? Just ammo to use against ones that wont. Churches wont... hate group. Gotta be punished. He goes on and on quite extensively about going after churches tax exemptions. If they take any taxpayer monies they must hire gays. Can't be any discrimination. Is it really an giant leap to see where this all leads.

Quote:My opposition to taxpayer funding/subsidization of discriminatory clubs and churches is unrelated to Gay rights and is rooted in tax policy issues.

Tax policy is created by congress, not the courts.

(06-28-2015 08:07 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Nullification is perfectly valid.

In this particular instance, I think it is an erroneous use of it. Since it is a relatively unpopular position being used in this instance, I think Texas will indeed lose and will indeed cave.

The interesting item is when a state uses nullification for a major popular matter (say, to nullify ObamaCare). And then they MEAN it. Then it matters little what some DC circuit rules ... how are the Feds gonna enforce it? You gonna send the military into Texas? Then you're violating Posse Comitatus. What are you going to do if the rest of the 2/3 of the country that doesn't want ObamaCare joins in?

You may mock nullification and suggest it died at Appomattox (which it didn't). But you'd do well to realize how fragile your federal do-as-I-say courts are when the rubber meets the road.

This ISN'T nullification. Its allowing individuals to opt out as long as there is someone who is willing to do it.