congrats! yeah i got in awhile ago. i've beaten the demo with the wizard, demon hunter, and monk and watched amanda/adam/tamar beat it with the witch doctor and the barbarian. it's a super fun game.

do we just exchange battle tags? mine is spazard1#1417.

Joe,
 I am a called and ordained "minister" in that same Lutheran denomination. There are lots of variations of Lutherans, so I thought I'd let you know up front that in this instance, I'm "one and the same" kind.
 This deserves fuller attention than I can give right now.
 I have a funeral I need to attend tomorrow. So I need to get to bed. This conversation would probably best take place over the phone because it's so darn complicated.
 On the surface though, I am thankful for the Supreme Court's decision, because they made the right decision. And sadly, in this instance, the Supreme Court was probably the only players in this entire situation whose actions can be commended.
 You will get a fuller response...because I absolutely have opinions on this. They are, not surprisingly, theologically driven. Hold on tight. I will get back to you on this.

Joe,
 Here is an article written by a Seminary professor about the issue. I agree with everything he said.
 The link I provided is a page that will link you to the actual article. I gave you the link that I did because at the bottom of that page are two "comments" to the article. The first comment is by Dr. Andrew Bartelt, the Vice President of the Seminary I attended in St. Louis. When you follow the link to the actual article, those comments do not transfer.
More thoughts below.
 Show/Hide The LCMS (Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod) is not flawless. We've never claimed to be and it gets under my skin when people (usually Lutherans of a different stripe) claim that we claim we are.
 This is a dark spot or "blind spot" in our Synod right now. My grandpa retired from the LCMS after 42 years of faithful service as a pastor. (How many companies keep their employees for 42 years!) He retired with zero equity. He lived in parsonages his entire life, and his six children had two piece their savings together to buy my grandpa and grandma a house to live in after they retired. My grandparents (and probably your grandparent) lived through the great depression. They didn't waste so much as a penny. So, my grandpa wasn't without equity because he was fiscally irresponsible...
 And now skip a generation and come to me. I spent $120,000 for the best theological education in America (and it is). I left school with $64,000 in student loan debt. I'm currently living in a parsonage, and I now get a "housing equity allowance" to help prevent what happened to my grandpa and other pastors. It's $600/year. So...at most, it's a nice gesture.
 I make $29,400/year. As a minister of religion I need to pay my own Social Security, which is 13.3% of my total income. The government asks that I declare, "Fair Rental Value of my Parsonage" as part of my income (because it is) along with honorariums for weddings and funerals (which are part of my income, but not included in the $29.4k) and the housing equity deal (not much). So...yeah, it scares me that this ruling effectively gives me no legal recourse if I lose my job because of some disability.
 However. I've known many a pastor, and teacher, and even a janitor, who was supported far and above what any government agency could enforce when they were medically unable to do the duties required of their job description...including the pastor who got ousted before I arrived in SD. So...I think this one case is clouding a host of examples where the church appropriately was acting like the church.
 Does that answer any of your question?

This wasn't so theologically driven after all. If you want to hear my thoughts on this from our own theological standpoint, particularly regarding this woman's status as a "minister of religion" I can do that elsewhere.

Youtube is blocked at work.

Well to start there is a false dichotomy in saying that because Obama has opposed SB1070 then he is automatically siding with the Mexican drug cartels as though there is no other position. Also there is the fact that SB1070 is invalid anyway on account of the fact that the federal government is the sole arbiter on immigration laws because of the Supremacy Clause.

Why is your parishioner asking you about political issues anyway? Politics can relate through moral issues or ethical issues. However, why would any parishioner be asking you to refute political arguments anyway?

While I am not responding to the video, I have no problem with states passing their own laws and enforcing those laws. I believe in many states, the only issue is checking ID, and if someone is clearly not in valid immigration status, detaining the individual.

Really, that all should boil down to "burden of proof."

If an individual runs from the cops/ICE/law enforcement, they can be pursued, and that individual has a higher burden of proof to show they were not doing something illegal.

The same thing for an "illegal." If an illegal runs, they can be pursued by law enforcement, and they have a high burden of proof to show they are not illegal. i.e. an oral claim they are a citizen may not cut it unless they have documented proof.

Yet if an illegal is walking around, and no law enforcement asks their status they are golden.

However, if a law enforcement asks their status, and an illegal states they are illegal, the illegal then has a higher burden of proof to show he can be here legally. 

Really, it can shift, as the burden of proof shifts.

Ok, so that is really just a tangent.  Meh.

The more I use it, the more I like it. However, I only have one person in one circle who does much posting. I'm guilty of not posting more, but I still like it.

i like it a lot, but i don't post much to it. i really like using it for following people that i want to know about, such as felicia day, will wheaton, and the white house.

I hardly ever use it. I pretty much forget to sign into it.