(06-15-2020 03:12 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 02:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  if women are not supposed to proclaim the Gospel, how come the first three people in history to do it were named Mary, Mary, and Salome?

Is proclaiming the Gospel restricted to members of the clergy? Were Mary, Mary, and Salome members of the clergy?

No, and no.

(06-15-2020 03:15 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 03:12 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 02:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  if women are not supposed to proclaim the Gospel, how come the first three people in history to do it were named Mary, Mary, and Salome?

Is proclaiming the Gospel restricted to members of the clergy? Were Mary, Mary, and Salome members of the clergy?

No, and no.

Then what is the relevance of the question which I quoted, in terms of whether females should or should not be members of the clergy?

So a conservative supreme court votes in favor of the LGBT+ community...

Yet another fallacy in the argument that the right hates/is out to hurt gays.

This ruling also means you can't get fired for being straight, right?

(06-15-2020 03:27 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  This ruling also means you can't get fired for being straight, right?

We're not worried about heteroes... They've ruled the world long enough. Time for the "minorities" (gays/lesbians, etc) to rule now. Straight people are like white people, open game. If you're both.. Well you're f*cked.

(06-15-2020 10:08 AM)450bench Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 10:04 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Never heard of an employer firing someone for that reason..

Agreed...and who cares really? If you perform you task well, who cares. And why do libs just have to make a big deal out of carp like this? Seriously. Nobody cares.

As a gay employer, can I fire someone for being straight?

How about if she’s white? Or won’t bake a straight persons wedding cake?

How or why would I or should I even know?

The level of dumb these days (NOT directed at you in any way, just picked your post randomly) is astonishing.

Life’s pretty F#%^ing good in this magnificent country if THIS ^^^^ right here is what we got to b!tch about.

Wow

(06-15-2020 01:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  Out of curiosity I looked it up on Wiki:
14 Catholic
8 Jewish
33 Episcopal
18 Presbyterian
9 Unitarian
5 Methodist
3 Baptist
1 Lutheran
1 Quaker
15 nondefined Protestant

Rather interesting that the far and away largest protestant denominations have only 8 (Methodist and Baptist).

It seems as though Episcopalians may have have had an early boost in education and with the establishment, being that they were the then official church of the colonies.

(06-15-2020 10:51 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme...gbt-rights

In all 3 cases, the employer admitted they fired them because they were gay or transgender.

Gorsuch and Roberts were in the majority and Gorsuch wrote the opinion:

"...Ours is a society of written laws. Judges are not free to overlook plain statutory commands on the strength of nothing more than suppositions about intentions or guesswork about expectations. In Title VII, Congress adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee’s sex when deciding to fire that employee," said the court's opinion, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch....


Justice Samuel Alito said the majority went too far, calling the decision "legislation," in a dissent joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.

"There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation. The document that the Court releases is in the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a statute, but that is deceptive," Alito wrote.

Alito noted that the majority opinion "no doubt arises from humane and generous impulses," acknowledging the desire to treat gay, lesbian, and transgender people "with the dignity, consideration, and fairness that everyone deserves," but said the court's role "is limited to saying what the law is," not adding to it.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh made a similar argument in a dissent of his own.


"Under the Constitution’s separation of powers, the responsibility to amend Title VII belongs to Congress and the President in the legislative process, not to this Court," he wrote.

At the same time, Kavanaugh recognized the significance of the court's ruling for LGBT rights.

"Notwithstanding my concern about the Court’s transgression of the Constitution’s separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans," Kavanaugh wrote. "Millions of gay and lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit—battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today’s result.""

Hunh.

Take pride or not, what does the LAW say? Leave it to the legislative branch, not what you or he or she hopes it says, what does the law of the people’s congress say?

I’m good with this either way, but enough of wishing Congress had said this or that when they, perhaps, haven’t.

What’s the law? What does it actually say? Not what you wish it said.

Of course, 17 minutes from now I won’t care one iota about this. Just close the bedroom door. Common decency and all.

What happens when Liberty University says it has the religious right not to employ a gay?

(06-15-2020 04:11 PM)Claw Wrote:  What happens when Liberty University says it has the religious right not to employ a gay?

The other side attempts to litigate them into bankruptcy, have all academic accreditations revoked, and shut it (LU) down forever.

Whether that attempt is successful depends on who the judges are.

So I guess no ghey camps. Lol

I disagree with the ruling because it is clear that "sex" meant biological sex in the Title VII. It does not mean sexual orientation or gender identity. Took some mental gymnastics to overlook the obvious. Especially given the clear intent of the legislature at the time. That said, glad gays won't get fired for being gay. Just wish the court would leave legislation to Congress instead of making up new rules with activism.

I don't see how this is considered 'landmark.'

(06-15-2020 04:11 PM)Claw Wrote:  What happens when Liberty University says it has the religious right not to employ a gay?

Yes...What happens?

(06-16-2020 04:25 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  I don't see how this is considered 'landmark.'

It says gays and trans are now protected groups. Its a landmark windfall for tort lawyers.

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusiv...-sophistry
"The Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County offers a striking display of sophistry in service of the spirit of the age. The Court had to rule on whether Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act bars employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The 6-3 decision held that the Act does indeed forbid such discrimination. The effect will be dramatic. This decision hands LGBT activists the coercive machinery of civil rights law....

Put simply, Bostock gives the LGBT movement a powerful bulldozer with which to demolish all public expressions of dissent from its agenda. This is a great irony. In the Civil Rights Act of the mid-1960s, Congress passed unprecedented legislation in order to counter a powerful social consensus against full equality for African Americans. It used the power of the law to protect an unpopular, poor, and disempowered minority. Now the Supreme Court is doing the opposite. It is giving powerful legal tools to a well-funded LGBT movement that enjoys near-universal support in elite institutions, major corporations, and universities. ...

Historians may look back and judge Bostock the twenty-first-century analogue to Dred Scott, the Supreme Court decision that imposed the Southern slave regime on the entire country and contributed to the intolerable contradictions that led to the Civil War. Gorsuch’s majority opinion leaves no wiggle room. It ties affirmations of homosexuality and transgenderism to our most basic conceptions of equality. And it does so by denying that there are any moral, legal, or even metaphysical differences between men and women.

Our legal regime has repudiated the Book of Genesis and the scriptural account of God as Creator. This puts our law on a collision course with human nature. If we continue on this course, the word used to describe the legal and social reality of this collision will be totalitarianism."