Legal/scotus thread
- Thread starter cajunrevenge
- Start date
striker42
Well-known member
Alito and Thomas came out today criticizing the same sex marriage case on the basis that it has the potential to infringe upon religious liberty and that the question should have been left up to the political arena.
I think the problem at the root of this issue that no one wants to acknowledge is government recognition of marriage. By licensing and regulating marriage, the government has created a scheme that will necessarily result in excessive entanglement with religion.
The idea that you can have a religious ceremony and have your legal status change is found nowhere else in the law.
There's also the definition problem. Marriage has definitions rooted in religion as well as out. Kennedy in writing the gay marriage case said it could be between two people. But why just two? Polygamy has long been a practice in human society and there are religious groups that consider it a tenet. The very process of defining marriage is tangled up with religion.
I think the correct result would be the SCOTUS saying the government lacks the power to regulate marriage all together. It's the only result to me that makes legal sense.
I think the problem at the root of this issue that no one wants to acknowledge is government recognition of marriage. By licensing and regulating marriage, the government has created a scheme that will necessarily result in excessive entanglement with religion.
The idea that you can have a religious ceremony and have your legal status change is found nowhere else in the law.
There's also the definition problem. Marriage has definitions rooted in religion as well as out. Kennedy in writing the gay marriage case said it could be between two people. But why just two? Polygamy has long been a practice in human society and there are religious groups that consider it a tenet. The very process of defining marriage is tangled up with religion.
I think the correct result would be the SCOTUS saying the government lacks the power to regulate marriage all together. It's the only result to me that makes legal sense.
striker42
Well-known member
I'm with you on this. The fact that I had to go to the local probate court to get permission to get married is absolutely ridiculous.
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/health/2020/10/26/restaurants-sue-california-over-liquor-health-fees-during-pandemic-induced-shutdown/6047323002/
California's financially battered restaurants filed government claims Monday to recover more than $100 million in fees for liquor and health permits and tourism charges that they say were assessed even though their businesses were shuttered or only partially operating under long-running coronavirus orders.
Owners say one thing has remained constant amid the turmoil. State and county governments have continued to charge fees for liquor licenses, health permits and tourism assessments — even though the restaurants were closed down by government orders or permitted to operate with limited capacity and dining.
The owners contend they have been being unjustly punished for following the law and are being charged for permits they can't use.
“The irony is, they did what they were told and the very entity that told them to close is keeping these fees,” said attorney Brian Kabateck, who is representing restaurants that filed claims against the state and against Los Angeles, Orange, Sacramento, San Diego and Monterey counties.
—————
I hope these restaurants win...
California's financially battered restaurants filed government claims Monday to recover more than $100 million in fees for liquor and health permits and tourism charges that they say were assessed even though their businesses were shuttered or only partially operating under long-running coronavirus orders.
Owners say one thing has remained constant amid the turmoil. State and county governments have continued to charge fees for liquor licenses, health permits and tourism assessments — even though the restaurants were closed down by government orders or permitted to operate with limited capacity and dining.
The owners contend they have been being unjustly punished for following the law and are being charged for permits they can't use.
“The irony is, they did what they were told and the very entity that told them to close is keeping these fees,” said attorney Brian Kabateck, who is representing restaurants that filed claims against the state and against Los Angeles, Orange, Sacramento, San Diego and Monterey counties.
—————
I hope these restaurants win...
I Hope the workers and the patrons learn a valuable lesson and change thier voting habits
Runnin
Well-known member
Do you think just anyone can perform a marriage ceremony?
Considering the financial rights and legal responsibilities spouses take on, it seems like a useful hoop to me.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
You dont need the government to be married. You do however need the government if you want them to recognize your marriage. I know several people who just dont even bother.
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
lol
acesfull86
Well-known member
It’s really quite ridiculous...
“Give us the check for your fees”
*hands over check*
“Ok now lock your doors because we’re not letting you operate”
sturg33
I
California is the new ****hole
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://reason.com/2020/10/27/californias-rent-control-ballot-initiative-getting-crushed-in-new-poll/
Here’s (hopefully) a ray of sanity from California
zbhargrove
Well-known member
You got major problems if you're calling anything involving Alex Jones good...
striker42
Well-known member
I think anyone should be able to perform a marriage ceremony because I don't think the change in your legal status should be based on marriage
zbhargrove
Well-known member
Glad you choose gimmicks for your information sources
chop2chip
Well-known member
sturg33
I
Don't you worry. Since Alex Jones is so scary enough libs like you demanded he be censored and Spotify obliged.
Always.
Defend.
Censorship!
[Tw]1321636175770210304[/tw]