Breaking: Per SCOTUS, Same-Sex Marriage is now law of the land.

[motlyx1]

well its just wrong. an dont agree.

 

[Expat]

I'm glad the homosexuals will be safe. I'm a little concerned about some court clerk or cake baker though...I hope Indiana never passes a law(s) that criminalizes failure to participate in gay marriage like other states have or creates a protective classification for them. They may well find themselves on the receiving end of you protecting your pension.

Pesky Christians... we'll show them.

 

[cobber]

Pesky Christians... we'll show them.

Just wait for the reality TV show were they throw those bigots to the lions!


History coming full circle Rome, USA.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Just wait for the reality TV show were they throw those bigots to the lions!


History coming full circle Rome, USA.

But that was all real-legal-like wasn't it?

 

[Denny347]

I'm glad the homosexuals will be safe. I'm a little concerned about some court clerk or cake baker though...I hope Indiana never passes a law(s) that criminalizes failure to participate in gay marriage like other states have or creates a protective classification for them. They may well find themselves on the receiving end of you protecting your pension.

Churches have always been given freedom in who they marry. I could not walk into a Catholic Church and expect them to marry me if I was not Catholic and go through classes. Same for other religions. But there are plenty of people who have taken the online test to be ordained to marry couples who have no issue with gay couples. A County Clerk will have to decide if their faith will allow them to carry out their lawful duties, just like I would. If the answer is no, time to find another job, just like I would. We can argue all day about protected classes but they exist and they are never going away.
I have no issue with gays enjoying the same protections as the rest of this list since protected classes will never go away.

• Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
• Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
• Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act
• Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
• Disability status – Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
• Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
• Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

Either protect all or no one and since the latter will never happen, the former will have to do.

 

[cobber]

Churches have always been given freedom in who they marry. I could not walk into a Catholic Church and expect them to marry me if I was not Catholic and go through classes. Same for other religions. But there are plenty of people who have taken the online test to be ordained to marry couples who have no issue with gay couples. A County Clerk will have to decide if their faith will allow them to carry out their lawful duties, just like I would. If the answer is no, time to find another job, just like I would. We can argue all day about protected classes but they exist and they are never going away.
I have no issue with gays enjoying the same protections as the rest of this list since protected classes will never go away.

• Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
• Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
• Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act
• Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
• Disability status – Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
• Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
• Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

Either protect all or no one and since the latter will never happen, the former will have to do.

Those are bills passed by the legislature, to protect us. Let's see what other rights SCOTUS discovers.
We'll be the best-protected folks in the history of the world...

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Churches have always been given freedom in who they marry. I could not walk into a Catholic Church and expect them to marry me if I was not Catholic and go through classes. Same for other religions.

So when you're given the order to arrest some pastor that violates some future law that requires him to marry all people...now stick with me....we're sort of war gaming here...there's no law yet, I recognize that and in Indiana, there may never be--I've got that (but with SCOTUS, as currently configured, who knows)...with the first amendment clearly stating congress shall enact no law establishing a religion...(and here's the kicker)...or preventing the exercise thereof...would you uphold your oath to protect the constitution (assuming that's in the IMPD oath) or would you opt to protect your job?

Either protect all or no one and since the latter will never happen, the former will have to do.

I'd rather do it myself. In protecting certain peoples' rights, the government tends to squash everyone else's.

 

[Denny347]

So when you're given the order to arrest some pastor that violates some future law that requires him to marry all people...now stick with me....we're sort of war gaming here...there's no law yet, I recognize that and in Indiana, there may never be--I've got that (but with SCOTUS, as currently configured, who knows)...with the first amendment clearly stating congress shall enact no law establishing a religion...(and here's the kicker)...or preventing the exercise thereof...would you uphold your oath to protect the constitution (assuming that's in the IMPD oath) or would you opt to protect your job?

Straw man again. Let's deal with the here and now. I cannot arrest for discrimination now, for anything. I am not aware of ANY US law that allows an officer to arrest ANYONE for the charge of discrimination. I will tell you that during my career TO DATE (18 years as an LEO), the USSC has not made a decision that I felt was so outside of their authority that I would have to resign from my job in order to avoid enforcing it with a clear conscious. Sure, if the USSC decides it is legal for me to round up jews and send them to camps (my gratuitous Goodwin's Law reference) I will have to resist. However, the possibility of this is laughable, same with your example. I have no reason to believe these hypotheticals will EVER happen in my lifetime therefore I exercise ZERO effort in thinking about them. Do I not have enough REAL problems going on around me to worry about? How has it been for all those poor people who didn't want to marry mixed race couples since the Loving v. Virginia USSC decision in 1967? Did that decision lead to mass arrests for those who refused to follow it? STATES RIGHTS STATES RIGHTS!!!!!

I'd rather do it myself. In protecting certain peoples' rights, the government tends to squash everyone else's.

What you'd rather do is irrelevant in this argument since protected classes will never go away. So, we try to work within the framework we are given.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Hmmm....I have no problem thinking about hypotheticals and trying to figure out where my line might be. I've never been in a job where I might have to arrest and/or inprison somebody or decide whether to relieve them of their liberties and therefore would be reluctant to discuss them, so I guess that's why you avoid them by mislabeling them strawmen.

Maybe it's easy for me to be a keyboard commando when I say: I would not execute an order that would cause me to arrest some pastor/rabbi/immam that was refusing to marry homosexuals nor would I, if during their sermons were exhorting people to stand up to tyrannical actions of their governments (which is also against the law, by the way). I my chosen career, I have declined certain assignments because I believed them to be wrong or unethical--I guess that's why I got very few promotions.

Straw man again. Let's deal with the here and now. I cannot arrest for discrimination now, for anything. I am not aware of ANY US law that allows an officer to arrest ANYONE for the charge of discrimination. I will tell you that during my career TO DATE (18 years as an LEO), the USSC has not made a decision that I felt was so outside of their authority that I would have to resign from my job in order to avoid enforcing it with a clear conscious. Sure, if the USSC decides it is legal for me to round up jews and send them to camps (my gratuitous Goodwin's Law reference) I will have to resist. However, the possibility of this is laughable, same with your example. I have no reason to believe these hypotheticals will EVER happen in my lifetime therefore I exercise ZERO effort in thinking about them. Do I not have enough REAL problems going on around me to worry about? How has it been for all those poor people who didn't want to marry mixed race couples since the Loving v. Virginia USSC decision in 1967? Did that decision lead to mass arrests for those who refused to follow it? STATES RIGHTS STATES RIGHTS!!!!!


What you'd rather do is irrelevant in this argument since protected classes will never go away. So, we try to work within the framework we are given.

 

[MisterChester]

Those are bills passed by the legislature, to protect us. Let's see what other rights SCOTUS discovers.
We'll be the best-protected folks in the history of the world...

Forget Brown vs Board of Ed.?

 

[Denny347]

Hmmm....I have no problem thinking about hypotheticals and trying to figure out where my line might be. I've never been in a job where I might have to arrest and/or inprison somebody or decide whether to relieve them of their liberties and therefore would be reluctant to discuss them, so I guess that's why you avoid them by mislabeling them strawmen.

Maybe it's easy for me to be a keyboard commando when I say: I would not execute an order that would cause me to arrest some pastor/rabbi/immam that was refusing to marry homosexuals nor would I, if during their sermons were exhorting people to stand up to tyrannical actions of their governments (which is also against the law, by the way). I my chosen career, I have declined certain assignments because I believed them to be wrong or unethical--I guess that's why I got very few promotions.

You are going WAY OUTSIDE the norm to test your "where's my line" theory. Strawman? Yes, you are posing an absurd situation as proof of your dislike of the current situation. These forums are PACKED full of "what if" questions posed to LEO's. Some are smart questions, many are almost fantasy in their absurdity. Your current scenario is so farcical that it does not deserve a response and the fact that I even have to defend myself from this insinuation is insulting to the years I have spent trying to bridge the gap between LEO and non-LEO. Incredible.

 

[gstanley102]

Straw man again. Let's deal with the here and now. I cannot arrest for discrimination now, for anything. I am not aware of ANY US law that allows an officer to arrest ANYONE for the charge of discrimination. I will tell you that during my career TO DATE (18 years as an LEO), the USSC has not made a decision that I felt was so outside of their authority that I would have to resign from my job in order to avoid enforcing it with a clear conscious. Sure, if the USSC decides it is legal for me to round up jews and send them to camps (my gratuitous Goodwin's Law reference) I will have to resist. However, the possibility of this is laughable, same with your example. I have no reason to believe these hypotheticals will EVER happen in my lifetime therefore I exercise ZERO effort in thinking about them. Do I not have enough REAL problems going on around me to worry about? How has it been for all those poor people who didn't want to marry mixed race couples since the Loving v. Virginia USSC decision in 1967? Did that decision lead to mass arrests for those who refused to follow it? STATES RIGHTS STATES RIGHTS!!!!!


What you'd rather do is irrelevant in this argument since protected classes will never go away. So, we try to work within the framework we are given.

Straw man???

The recent actions by the USSC would have been laughable just a few years ago.

The left is never satisfied. They will continue to harass us into their vision of Nirvana.

What is next?

 

[jamil]

You are going WAY OUTSIDE the norm to test your "where's my line" theory. Strawman? Yes, you are posing an absurd situation as proof of your dislike of the current situation. These forums are PACKED full of "what if" questions posed to LEO's. Some are smart questions, many are almost fantasy in their absurdity. Your current scenario is so farcical that it does not deserve a response and the fact that I even have to defend myself from this insinuation is insulting to the years I have spent trying to bridge the gap between LEO and non-LEO. Incredible.

I'm not using this as a point of argument, just as an observation. Today, yes, it's absurd. 20 years ago we would have thought today's reality is absurd even though there were people at the time that wanted that reality. There are people today who want what we think is absurd today, just not enough to make it happen. I've learned not to underestimate what is possible. Never say never.

 

[Denny347]

I'm not using this as a point of argument, just as an observation. Today, yes, it's absurd. 20 years ago we would have thought today's reality is absurd even though there were people at the time that wanted that reality. There are people today who want what we think is absurd today, just not enough to make it happen. I've learned not to underestimate what is possible. Never say never.

So what you are saying is that "things change". Every generation can say, "20 years ago life sure was different than today." and it will continue to happen until the end of time itself. OK, anything is possible but not everything is probable. Arresting those not marrying gays is very improbable and I have not seen supporting evidence that this is anything more than an unwarranted fear.

 

[MisterChester]

So what you are saying is that "things change". Every generation can say, "20 years ago life sure was different than today." and it will continue to happen until the end of time itself. OK, anything is possible but not everything is probable. Arresting those not marrying gays is very improbable and I have not seen supporting evidence that this is anything more than an unwarranted fear.

I have to agree with this. The judges pointed out in the majority opinion that religious places absolutely have the right to refuse any potential wedding. It's the state that can't deny.

 

[Expat]

I have to agree with this. The judges pointed out in the majority opinion that religious places absolutely have the right to refuse any potential wedding. It's the state that can't deny.

Yeah, nothing to worry about...
City threatens to arrest ministers for refusing to marry gays

 

[Denny347]

Yeah, nothing to worry about...
City threatens to arrest ministers for refusing to marry gays

Not everything is quite as it seems.

snopes.com: Idaho Ministers Forced to Officiate Gay Weddings

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ss-must-provide-same-sex-marriage-ceremonies/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/25/gay-marriage-jail_n_6044214.html

 

[Punkinhead]

Yeah, nothing to worry about...
City threatens to arrest ministers for refusing to marry gays

"Ministers" needs to be in quotes here. They're a for-profit business. Next thing you know Las Vegas is going to force Elvis impersonators to perform gay marriages. Oh, the humanity.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Thank you for attempting to bridge this gap. I feel kind of warm and fuzzy all over.

You are going WAY OUTSIDE the norm to test your "where's my line" theory. Strawman? Yes, you are posing an absurd situation as proof of your dislike of the current situation. These forums are PACKED full of "what if" questions posed to LEO's. Some are smart questions, many are almost fantasy in their absurdity. Your current scenario is so farcical that it does not deserve a response and the fact that I even have to defend myself from this insinuation is insulting to the years I have spent trying to bridge the gap between LEO and non-LEO. Incredible.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Related: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ous-freedom-bill-picks-up-momentum-house.html