Religion based isn't enough. If your religion forbids it, don't do it. But one religion doesn't get to impose its views on other religions or people without religion.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/10/2012 10:26:00 AM (view original):
Religion based isn't enough. If your religion forbids it, don't do it. But one religion doesn't get to impose its views on other religions or people without religion.

That would be your opinion.   Shared by some, disputed by others.     Now admit that all laws aren't made due to "compelling legal reasons" then run along and claim how FIP is the be all to end all of pitching stats.   Shockingly, you did better at that than this.

I'll provide another example.   A bald eagle flies around my house on occassion.  Beautiful bird.    I can't shoot him down to get a better look at him because it's against the law.

What "compelling legal reason" is behind that law?   

Then apply that to any restrictions on property development, oil drilling, etc, etc.

No, the establishment clause is pretty clear about the whole one religion over another issue. What the bible says is irrelevant.

Hell, gators live 15 feet from my backyard.   They're actually dangerous.   I can't legally shoot them.  

What's the "compelling legal reason" for that?

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/10/2012 10:32:00 AM (view original):
I'll provide another example.   A bald eagle flies around my house on occassion.  Beautiful bird.    I can't shoot him down to get a better look at him because it's against the law.

What "compelling legal reason" is behind that law?   

Then apply that to any restrictions on property development, oil drilling, etc, etc.

Retard.

The compelling legal reason would only be necessary if I was allowed to shoot down the eagle because I'm black but you aren't because you're white.

Just saying "No" isn't an compelling argument.    It appears that you recognize that laws are made without "compelling legal reasons" yet you just can't admit it.    It's OK.  Everything is in writing.   Everyone can read it.   Whether you admit it or not, you've failed to make your point.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/10/2012 10:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/10/2012 10:32:00 AM (view original):
I'll provide another example.   A bald eagle flies around my house on occassion.  Beautiful bird.    I can't shoot him down to get a better look at him because it's against the law.

What "compelling legal reason" is behind that law?   

Then apply that to any restrictions on property development, oil drilling, etc, etc.

Retard.

The compelling legal reason would only be necessary if I was allowed to shoot down the eagle because I'm black but you aren't because you're white.

Then we're back to this if you only believe that "compelling legal reasons" for laws only apply to groups of people:

Felons can't vote.  
Naturalized citizens can't be President.

Why?
Are convicted felons incapable of making rational political decisions?
If you're not born in the US are you incapable of leading the country?

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/10/2012 10:36:00 AM (view original):
Just saying "No" isn't an compelling argument.    It appears that you recognize that laws are made without "compelling legal reasons" yet you just can't admit it.    It's OK.  Everything is in writing.   Everyone can read it.   Whether you admit it or not, you've failed to make your point.

Can you not read? A compelling legal reason is only necessary when the gov allows one group to do something but denies that something to another group.

Women in combat, immigrants elected president, etc.

I've already provided you some examples of laws, affecting specific groups of people, that seem to lack "compelling legal reasons".   You've been unable to explain how that happens in your world. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/10/2012 10:45:00 AM (view original):
I've already provided you some examples of laws, affecting specific groups of people, that seem to lack "compelling legal reasons".   You've been unable to explain how that happens in your world. 

Felons can vote in many states. If you would like to challenge the law, you can.  I wouldn't argue against it and it would be up to the state to prove that there is a compelling reason to deny that group voting rights.  There may or may not be case law on this specific topic already.

People are challenging the same sex marriage ban in court.  For the ban to be upheld, the state will have to show a compelling legal reason to deny marriage to same sex couples. So far, the state has not been able to, so the ban was struck down in federal appeals court.

Give up.  It's not "compelling legal reasons" that run the lawmaking process.   It's the will of the people that allows the lawmakers to actually make laws.  

The ONLY reason Obama was able to come out in favor of same sex marriage is because more people in the US are viewing SSM with acceptance or indifference.  It has nothing to do with "compelling legal reasons". 

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/10/2012 11:40:00 AM (view original):
Give up.  It's not "compelling legal reasons" that run the lawmaking process.   It's the will of the people that allows the lawmakers to actually make laws.  

The ONLY reason Obama was able to come out in favor of same sex marriage is because more people in the US are viewing SSM with acceptance or indifference.  It has nothing to do with "compelling legal reasons". 

Come on dude, this stuff isn't that hard.

http://law.yourdictionary.com/compelling-interest-test

It sure isn't.  Which is why I don't understand why you don't get it.   Women couldn't vote/blacks were slaves/children worked in coal mines when no one cared.  When people cared about those things, the laws changed.  

Enough people care about SSM, or don't care about preventing it, so changes are afoot.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/10/2012 11:53:00 AM (view original):
It sure isn't.  Which is why I don't understand why you don't get it.   Women couldn't vote/blacks were slaves/children worked in coal mines when no one cared.  When people cared about those things, the laws changed.  

Enough people care about SSM, or don't care about preventing it, so changes are afoot.

Rights aren't up to a majority vote.  Federalist #10.