Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
02 18, 19, 12:27:58:AM

Login with username and password

Democrats Responsible for need of Border Wall.
Republicans don't a Wall, Republicans want a Border.
Democrats don't want a Border. So now we need a Wall.

Search:     Advanced search
2132457 Posts in 242134 Topics by 302 Members
Latest Member: test
* Website Home Help Login Register
 |  All Boards  |  Moved Hot Topics  |  Topic: Kim Davis IN Custody for Contempt of Court 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 24 Print
Author Topic: Kim Davis IN Custody for Contempt of Court  (Read 3998 times)
bhsgrad1972
Sr. Member

Posts: 12668

There is a SEVERE lack of common sense these days.


« Reply #12 on: 09 03, 15, 02:15:10:PM » Reply

caserio - SHUT THE H*LL UP.

We have HAD it with your judgmental, know-it-all attitude.  I swear, you would argue with God Himself.  Obviously, you must not have a single teensy-tiny CLUE what a CONSCIENCE is, or what MORALS are.

Every single American ought to be appalled by this.  It appears that we NO LONGER HAVE the God-given RIGHTS our Founding Fathers told the entire WORLD that we have been "endowed with by their Creator".  FIVE UNELECTED LAWYERS OVERRULED THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND THE CONSTITUTION.  FIVE, NOT NINE - the other four justices wanted nothing to do with this horrible and Constitutionally-WRONG decision.  FIVE UNELECTED LAWYERS think they know more than the Almighty Ruler of the universe.  Their political agenda is more important than the First Amendment to the Constitution.

By this logic, those who refused to report for military service, claiming the status of "conscientious objector", can now be jailed.  In fact, I look for this to be done away with at some point - and the precedent was set TODAY.  We can no longer claim a "right of conscience" as a reason not to do something.

We have no representative government any more in this country.  We are all at the mercy of those UNELECTED LAWYERS who think they know more than God.
hoosier_daddy
Don't hate me because I am beautiful
Sr. Member

Posts: I am a geek!!

how cool that chemtrail can change profiles


« Reply #13 on: 09 03, 15, 02:27:18:PM » Reply

you shut up, goofy fake religious clown.  YOU CANNOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST PEOPLE IF IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO DO SO AS PART OF YOUR JOB.  a judge cannot punish a gay person for shoplifting more than a straight person, or a black more than an asian, based on his goofy religion. SHE TOOK AN OATH TO DO HER JOB, TO FOLLOW THE LAW, NOT TO FOLLOW HER OWN DUMBASS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.  she is a liar.  she is not following the law, and she won election as a county clerk and promised to do so.  what she does in her spare time is her business, how she follows the law as an elected official is the court's business, is everybody's business, and you are too goddamn hung up in your fake christianity to see that.  who cares what you idiots think about gay marriage or equal rights?  leave it outside your workplace, idiot. 
bhsgrad1972
Sr. Member

Posts: 12668

There is a SEVERE lack of common sense these days.


« Reply #14 on: 09 03, 15, 02:31:00:PM » Reply

There is no one so blind as the man who REFUSES to see.
sweetwater5s9
Contributor
Sr. Member

Posts: 99144


« Reply #15 on: 09 03, 15, 02:35:14:PM » Reply

 In one aspect, the majority opinion emphasized that this newfangled “right” to “gay marriage” should not be construed to trump religious liberty.

“Finally," the Court wrote, "it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons.”

We’ll have to see what this actually means in coming years, but when filtered through any honest reading of the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause, what it means is that Christians cannot be forced to violate their conscience through compulsory participation in, or recognition of, counterfeit “gay weddings” or “marriages.” Ever.

There is little doubt that these and similar questions will soon be before this Court. Little doubt indeed.

The goal of “LGBT” activists and secular progressives has long been to pit the government directly against the free exercise of religion – Christianity in particular – and to silence all dissent.

And not surprisingly, homosexual activists are not content with the redefining of marriage that has been around for millennia. Immediately following the Supreme Court's decision, activists announced they would now target religious institutions. In other words, overhauling the true meaning of marriage is not enough. Activists are not content to just live their lives and let religious believers live theirs. Instead, homosexual activists want to force believers to give up their deeply held beliefs rooted in God by being active participants in their actions.

As for those who believe the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, and therefore conclude that same-sex "marriage" must be good, remember one thing: The Supreme Court also ruled that slavery was okay. Should we have believed them then as well?

What the five Supreme Court justices did is institutionalize and validate discrimination against people of faith while severely undermining, if not outright tossing out, our Constitution. It also seriously undermined an institution that existed primarily for the benefit of children and turned it into something that is only about adults.

This issue is much, much more complicated than the simple treatment it's getting in the media.

The decision also drew sharp criticism from the Court’s four justices. Chief Justice John Roberts, for example, rightly observed that the activist majority opinion hijacks the democratic process and is not based on the rule of law: The First Amendment ensures protection for religious organizations and individuals as they seek to teach the principles "that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths" and to "their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered." From majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.


Far from over...



Julie Szydlowski
sweetwater5s9
Contributor
Sr. Member

Posts: 99144


« Reply #16 on: 09 03, 15, 02:37:26:PM » Reply

Hooty wants an armed revolution...  He thinks he will win by hiding under his bed...
takncarabizniz
DEFLECTION IS THE WEAPON OF COWARDICE !
Contributor
Sr. Member

Posts: 53987

~Well-behaved women seldom make history~


« Reply #17 on: 09 03, 15, 02:41:46:PM » Reply

Me thinks this is not over...
sine-qua-non
Sr. Member

Posts: 67318

This Little Piggi Gets Wee Wee'd Up All The Way Hm


« Reply #18 on: 09 03, 15, 02:45:00:PM » Reply

Yep, and more to the point

Ac­cord­ing to Scalia, the five justices in the ma­jor­ity used the 14th Amend­ment in a way that was nev­er in­ten­ded by its writers. “When the Four­teenth Amend­ment was rat­i­fied in 1868, every State lim­ited mar­riage to one man and one wo­man, and no one doubted the con­sti­tu­tion­al­ity of do­ing so,” he wrote

They [the ma­jor­ity] have dis­covered in the Four­teenth Amend­ment a ‘fun­da­ment­al right’ over­looked by every per­son alive at the time of rat­i­fic­a­tion, and al­most every­one else in the time since.”

Scalia called out the ma­jor­ity for act­ing like act­iv­ists, not judges. (He was sim­il­arly crit­ic­al in Thursday’s rul­ing on health care.) “States are free to ad­opt whatever laws they like, even those that of­fend the es­teemed Justices’ ‘reasoned judg­ment,’” he wrote.

Scalia’s scorn went bey­ond pick­ing apart the ma­jor­ity’s leg­al judge­ment. He also made fun of their language.

The ma­jor­ity began its opin­ion with the line: “The Con­sti­tu­tion prom­ises liberty to all with­in its reach, a liberty that in­cludes cer­tain spe­cif­ic rights that al­low per­sons, with­in a law­ful realm, to define and ex­press their iden­tity.”
hoosier_daddy
Don't hate me because I am beautiful
Sr. Member

Posts: I am a geek!!

how cool that chemtrail can change profiles


« Reply #19 on: 09 03, 15, 02:46:36:PM » Reply

Me thinks this is not over...

me thinks?  typical teabagger attempt at a sentence.  what is jerkwater drooling about?  why would i want an armed revolution?  the good guys are WINNING...WINNING....this idiot has been punished for believing she gets to decide who gets marriage licenses based on her dumbass religious beliefs!!  schools can't force kids to pray.  that is great.  you racist pigs can't discriminate openly against blacks in almost every public business without getting fired.  that is great.  society is evolving.  you neanderthals are left high and dry in your caves still drawing stick pictures.  good luck with that, mouth breathers. 
sweetwater5s9
Contributor
Sr. Member

Posts: 99144


« Reply #20 on: 09 03, 15, 02:48:17:PM » Reply

You will always be a simple minded idiot, Hooty, so like Cas I will not explain it to you even if you had enough of an IQ to understand...   
darkflower
Sr. Member

Posts: 17168


« Reply #21 on: 09 03, 15, 02:50:47:PM » Reply

The goal of LGBT has nothing to do with religion, the goal is simply to be treated the same as everyone else.

She was and is free to quit her job and find more suitable employment.

Or she could be reasonable and stop being such a self centered sanctimonious jack ass. Her choice.

And if she honestly thinks god would send her to hell for signing some marriage papers as her job, I suggest she find a different god because that god is an asshole.
darkflower
Sr. Member

Posts: 17168


« Reply #22 on: 09 03, 15, 02:57:09:PM » Reply

By this logic, those who refused to report for military service, claiming the status of "conscientious objector", can now be jailed.

Um, no, by this logic they still can resign/not join up/be discharged. They would only be jailed if they insist on staying in the military but refusing to do their job.
chuck_curtis
Contributor
Sr. Member

Posts: 44881


« Reply #23 on: 09 03, 15, 03:06:24:PM » Reply

Off with her head!
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 24 Print 
 |  All Boards  |  Moved Hot Topics  |  Topic: Kim Davis IN Custody for Contempt of Court
Jump to:  

AesopsRetreat Links


AesopsRetreat
YouTube Channel


Build The Wall
Go FundMe Link



Rules For Radicals.



2nd Amendment Source



5 minute Education




Join Me at KIVA
My Kiva Stats


Truth About
Slaves and Indians




r/K Theory




White Privilege




Conservatives:
What Do We Believe


Part 1:
Small Govt & Free Enterprise

Part 2:

The Problem with Elitism

Part 3:
Wealth Creation

Part 4:
Natural Law



Global Warming Scam



Lend a hand


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP © AesopsRetreat
Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.106 seconds with 37 queries.