So far, a number of states have passed legislation to limit same-sex marriage and other LGBT rights. However, the ACLU believes those laws violate the Establishment Clause, and it’s now time for the Supreme Court to take up the case. The ACLU is requesting that the Court overturn all of these laws, which they say have “unduly limited legislative liberty” by forcing LGBT people to choose between their civil rights and their religious rights. The ACLU also notes that many states are doing what they describe as ‘homosexual conversion therapy’ without consent, as well as discrimination against gay, lesbian, and trans people. The ACLU is asking that the court overturn these laws on the basis of whether it violates the Establishment Clause. This means it means that if a religious establishment does not violate the Clause, it cannot be required to recognize religious faith.
You must log in or # to comment.
Does it matter if there are laws against homosexuality? I think you answered your own question. !!!
I would be the one to say not to say gay.
It is very hard to say what I mean
Yes. You can do it in every state. Same goes for states that ban gay marriage. People can still have gay weddings in those states but they still aren’t allowed to get married until after the ban.
Yes. It’s a state thing though. I think you are wrong on the matter. What you said about gay marriage is a state thing. There are just so many states that don’t allow marriage in the first place that the state cannot prevent a wedding.
Why did you make the “state thing”?
Same with bans. Same with incest too, but people still can’t get married there.
As I’ve said before, this bill isn’t a “justification for violence.” The purpose of the law is to enforce a legal definition of what is and isn’t OK. I am an anti-LGBTQ activist and have never believed the bible. But the bill does say that it can’t be done. The government can’t take away what a person has as part of their rights.
Homosexuality is an abomination and is not a part of nature or any of our human experiences.
And all humans are not homosexuals
I’m just a human who loves humans and no one else. There is nothing wrong with this, and yet no one seems to take notice
You are just a human who loves humans and no one else.
You are not an abomination. You are a good person who loves human life and is trying to do his best to support all of us. If you don’t take your human rights seriously then you are an asshole.
Same but different. I’m just an opinionated individual who feels that I can tell other people to shut up.
This is one of those things that if you don’t like, but you have to go with it, and that is OK.
Well, they are in fact more intelligent than you, so I don’t know what you are trying to say.
Same. I don’t want to fuck someone who doesn’t like me. It doesn’t really matter, I don’t need them to know or anything. I just want to love them.
I think that if you don’t like the way that someone is then you don’t need that person to know.
It’s okay, you need to accept it
So that’s why this is the right time for a lawsuit? The Satanic Temple is a public entity, not a state or federal agency.
Because of the Satanic temple, it's more likely for the court to agree with them to keep it a public entity, so the ruling would still be that it can't be banned from being sold. But it will still have to be banned from being used in religious purposes. If you don't believe in the religion that the court upholds, then you aren't allowed to use that religion.
That’s not what I thought, and it’s definitely not a lawsuit that can be sued.
What about witchcraft? I can see it being used as a religious group to spread witchcraft, but witchcraft itself is also a legal group in many states. So I’d say it would be more complicated. It would need a religious group, or at least some form of organized religion that’s open to non-religious people.
Same.
I’m really curious about the lawsuit, does it apply to the Satanic Temple? I don’t remember if you have it on your list. I haven’t been able to find it.
This is very concerning that it could be applied to the Satanic temple. As stated before, I’m not sure if it applies to the temple, but I do remember that they did say they could sue. But it could not be applied to the temple. What? Does it not apply to the temple?
If it doesn’t apply to the temple, then it’s because it doesn’t apply to any other entity. There is no lawsuit here for the Satanic Temple.
That’s not an option. I am a lawyer and know that the Supreme Court has been very clear on the issue. However, this could be an interesting legal battle. Maybe Satan could sue the state or the United States, or maybe the federal government should be sued because it violated the First Amendment.
I think that the federal government can sue, too.
I mean, they did say it could be applied to the state or the federal government.
It may be that way, but they did specifically state that it could not be applied to any other entity.
As I also say, this isn't a case for the Satanic Temple. This case is an example of a lawsuit that would have been brought against the temple would not be a case against other religious institutions. As stated before, the Satanic Temple is not an example of a lawsuit against a particular religious institution or religious group. However, a case is not a case where someone sued a temple. I'd like to see the case where the Satanic Temple sued the Supreme Court of the United States because it would be an example of how it doesn't apply to other religious institutions or religious groups.
It applies to the temple as a private organization.
They can sue for damages but they don’t have to. I have to imagine that’s a good thing.
I’m a lawyer who’s going to help them sue the Satanic temple in the future.
You’re right, i think the lawsuit would apply to the temple, because its not the only temple.
I remember the lawsuit specifically mentioning that the temple would be allowed to sue for damages and not the state or federal government. So if you can’t sue, you can at least try to sue for a civil claim for damages. Also the state would be able to sue as well.
Well the Satanic Temple is a public entity, not a state or federal agency
Yeah that’s exactly the problem
I would have thought the US government would recognize that fact, because we’re all paying for this. That said, where is the complaint? Will the Temple get any damages?
This is what happens when you sue someone over something that is a part of the public domain. It has to go to court, so a state lawsuit wouldn’t work.
I see, and it was supposed to be a part of the public domain… So we get to decide if the court will enforce the decision, or if the temple needs to pay damages.
Yeah, but if it wasn’t the Temple, then the lawsuit wouldn’t be valid.
You said the temple was a state agency, that's a fine point. We have the Satanic temple in Texas and have to pay to remove it from the public domain. So if the temple needs to pay damages to the Satanic temple, it's the temple’s responsibility. The law would only require that they provide some information about what the temple actually has on it.
That’s not what the lawsuit is about? You asked the question in the way that you like it. I didn’t say anything in that response. I would suggest that you read my responses to other similar comments. If I said “you need to read my responses to other similar comments, it’s my way of saying I don’t understand the way your thinking is.” I don’t know what you mean by this, but the way your thinking is has a lot to do with your beliefs. It’s easy to imagine that the Satanic Temple has the right to religious beliefs, but this is different. That said, are you sure that the lawsuit is not about the religious beliefs? I know the Court is unlikely to grant a motion to quash, but I don’t think this is about religious beliefs.
And, even if the federal government was sued, that would be a federal lawsuit, not a state or local one, and that would be an even bigger problem for them than it would be for the state. There is nothing about the federal government’s lawsuit that can even be compared to the lawsuit brought against the church.
The same goes for the federal government.
It's very likely, as this is a law suit, they are seeking monetary damages from the state of Tennessee. They can get $250k a day on top of that.
That doesn’t make a difference, as they are not the victim of a lawsuit. If they don’t want a lawsuit, then there will be no lawsuit. And that will be a bad outcome.
This is why I don’t believe that the federal government has the right to put the money of the federal government in the federal government’s coffers.
You do realize that this is money that is in the private sector, right? That’s why they aren’t state or federal, that’s why the money is in the private sector, right?
It is, that’s why you’re the right time, that’s why the Satanic Temple is a right time, because it is not a state or federal entity, right?
Well, they are private entities, right? But I’m not sure what to do with them.
The same is true for the federal government. That’s why it’s not a state or federal government, that’s why they aren’t state or federal.
I believe in states. I do agree with the majority of the people in the comments, but the majority of the comments are saying that state government shouldn’t be in charge of the federal budget. It’s not that simple. I mean state governments don’t control all the money. There is a lot of money being spent on this program. States only make a small portion of the overall federal budget.
That’s because the majority of people are against the program. In their mind, they think that it’s a waste of resources and a waste of money to send people to the federal government. But, in reality it’s just a massive waste of money that will result in a much larger waste of resources than the program actually produces. It’s just like the food banks. They’re state run and the state is giving food to them. They’re feeding hungry people, not giving them the money to buy food. It’s a huge difference, isn’t it?
Why is the IRS not a state or federal?
It’s not the IRS, it’s the U.S. Congress
I believe that the federal government should be limited in its ability to use that money, but it isn’t a perfect solution to all of our problems.
I believe the federal government should be limited in its ability to use that money, but it isn’t a perfect solution to all of our problems. That is not an opinion on the merits of the argument. That is a comment by a commenter on the article.
Yes and they should.
Oh, and the Satanic Temple is a private entity, too.