View Full Version : SCOTUS rules clerk must issue license to homosexual couple, despite religious beliefs
The nine in black robes turn down the Kentucky county clerk's plea for protection, claiming it violates her religious beliefs. Right decision?
A Kentucky county clerk must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected contentions that she is being forced to violate her religious convictions.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-31/clerk-must-issue-gay-marriage-licenses-after-high-court-rebuff
Why should people be discriminated against because of the clerks personal belifs? Are they hurting anyone? Are they denying rights of other people because they are gay? Are they pushing thier belifs on anyone else?
I don't think that clerk's life will change because they pushed some papers...
The nine in black robes turn down the Kentucky county clerk's plea for protection, claiming it violates her religious beliefs. Right decision?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-31/clerk-must-issue-gay-marriage-licenses-after-high-court-rebuff
I think so.
“Her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County clerk,” the judge wrote.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
08-31-15, 20:33
Muslim county clerk refuses to issue marriage license to Christian couples. How would people feel about it then?
ETA: Don't like serving the public, stop being a public servant.
Digital_Damage
08-31-15, 20:46
If she could not handle it she should have resigned.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-31-15, 21:14
Dumbasses. Just do it like Chicago and DC did after SCOTUS ruled against them on gun rights. Drag your feet, throw in regulatory hurdles, make it a Byzantine process for gays to get a license. Make people show up and sign the forms in person and if a gay couple walks in, the notary is not available or some similar BS. Don't tell the truth. See how the left likes it when their processes are put back on them.
I dunno....you may not agree with the lifestyle but if you have religious convictions, don't work for Caesar.
This queer thing is a fad. A total fad. It's instantaneous membership into a protected species. It's more political than anything.
There are people who are legitimately gay. They keep it to themselves and aren't total rainbows. They don't want to convert or be recognized. They are content to remain closeted.
It's pretty fluid. Some people change their minds. Others live with it quietly.
I don't want anyone legislating my gun rights and if two hays marry, oh well. It'll either be a lifelong partnership or they'll divorce.
I can say that there really are not as many actual gay people out there as they would have you think. I don't like this socialist SCOTUS but I don't mind giving the baby his bottle here.
Because what if those two people are switched on, pro gun, pro everything decent, and have to get red taped.
Double edged sword
BoringGuy45
08-31-15, 22:11
Honestly, I don't see an issue with this. She's not promoting the gay lifestyle by signing off on marriage licenses. And let's turn the tables here: What if gay marriage was not the law of the land and she was a militant lesbian who was refusing to issue marriage licenses to straight people until we had "marriage equality"? And like LowSpeed_HighDrag said, what if it was a Muslim refusing licenses to Christian couples? What if it was a Christian who wrongly believed the Bible prohibited interracial marriage and refused licenses to such couples?
Vacate the position and then there won't be anyone to issue ANY licenses!
ETA: Don't like serving the public, stop being a public servant.
This all day. It's not the job of a clerk to set policy.
Honestly, I don't see an issue with this. She's not promoting the gay lifestyle by signing off on marriage licenses. And let's turn the tables here: What if gay marriage was not the law of the land and she was a militant lesbian who was refusing to issue marriage licenses to straight people until we had "marriage equality"? And like LowSpeed_HighDrag said, what if it was a Muslim refusing licenses to Christian couples? What if it was a Christian who wrongly believed the Bible prohibited interracial marriage and refused licenses to such couples?
And just to take it further, what if some "clerk" decides guns are immoral and refuses to sign off on a carry permit in a "may issue" state.
If a clerk has such powerful religious beliefs then they shouldn't accept employment that may require them to sign marriage certificates, fill prescriptions for birth control pills, or any other objectionable action.
MountainRaven
08-31-15, 23:55
I just have to giggle at a woman who has been married four times protesting that gay marriage violates her Christian beliefs.
Maybe I missed it, but I'm pretty sure that there's nothing good about divorce in the Bible.
Like eating a ham sandwich while claiming that you shouldn't have to work on Saturday because of your Jewish beliefs (or on Friday because of your Muslim beliefs).
I'm sure that if a Muslim cop refused to investigate a murder and arrest the person responsible because of some fatwa or something (or a Christian cop refusing to investigate an abortion clinic bombing or the assassination of an abortion doctor), they wouldn't get a day before the Supreme Court, they'd get fired and then (likely) thrown in prison.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-31-15, 23:58
And just to take it further, what if some "clerk" decides guns are immoral and refuses to sign off on a carry permit in a "may issue" state.
If a clerk has such powerful religious beliefs then they shouldn't accept employment that may require them to sign marriage certificates, fill prescriptions for birth control pills, or any other objectionable action.
That was my point. Lots of locals and states run by leftists don't follow the law, screw'em and their causes in the reverse. How about trying to get a gun permit in Chicago after SCOTUS ruled? Or how New York doesn't really care about FOPA. Full contact politics.
Yes, we will give you a license, but tomorrow.
Don't say no, just say that you'll say yes later. Fair, no. But when have progressives ever played fair.
Moose-Knuckle
09-01-15, 01:29
Muslim county clerk refuses to issue marriage license to Christian couples. How would people feel about it then?
Ah yes but what if the good and noble Muslim refused to sell a gay/lesbian couple a marriage license and quoted the Quran?
Just which special interest group is most special and wins out?
Moose-Knuckle
09-01-15, 01:33
And just to take it further, what if some "clerk" decides guns are immoral and refuses to sign off on a carry permit in a "may issue" state.
Yet how many CLEOs refuse to sign off on NFA forms because of their political convictions?
So if I were a homosexual I could force via SCOTUS and the court of popular opinion a baker to make me a wedding cake and a county clerk to issue me a marriage license but the CLEO in my jurisdiction can still legally refuse to sign off on a suppressor/MG/SBR/etc.?
Yup, 'Merca!
Yet how many CLEOs refuse to sign off on NFA forms because of their political convictions?
So if I were a homosexual I could force via SCOTUS and the court of popular opinion a baker to make me a wedding cake and a county clerk to issue me a marriage license but the CLEO in my jurisdiction can still legally refuse to sign off on a suppressor/MG/SBR/etc.?
Yup, 'Merca!
That is a very good point.
There is a clear and categorical difference between bakers (people in private enterprise) and clerks (people in public service). The former can exercise their own discretion much more freely than the latter.
LEO's fall into the latter category.
Damn good point.
I just have to giggle at a woman who has been married four times protesting that gay marriage violates her Christian beliefs.
Yes. Hypocrite much?
The clerk is an agent of the government, the SCOTUS ruled that it is legal and otherwise would be discrimination. Ergo, what the clerk did was discrimination and is no bueno.
I do not like the whole gay movement-rainbow-marriage thing, but the moment you start making policy as a functionary of the government, you open the door for ANY functionary government to do the same. Don't like it? Quit.
I think so.
“Her religious convictions cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath to perform as Rowan County clerk,” the judge wrote.
Yep. It's the gov't issuing the license, elected position or not, you're just the employee doing the paperwork. Just like anything else, if you don't want to do the job you were hired for, go find another one....
This all day. It's not the job of a clerk to set policy.
This. Also I think she tarnishes Christianity in America by forcing her beliefs on others, I have no respect for that. ISIS forces is religious beliefs on people too. I believe in her right to be Christian, I respect her Christianity. I do not believe in her having a right to limit the freedoms of others for any reason, to include her religion. If her religion is so restrictive she should stay out of a public sphere which may conflict with that.
KalashniKEV
09-01-15, 09:28
Ah yes but what if the good and noble Muslim refused to sell a gay/lesbian couple a marriage license and quoted the Quran?
Just which special interest group is most special and wins out?
See how the left likes it when their processes are put back on them.
I find it very interesting that in order to gain understanding of the issue, people feel the need to craft hypotheticals and force it into their little partisan box.
This is not a left/ right issue. It's just simple dereliction.
Don't want to do your job? NEXT!
It's not even important if that person's reason is an incorrect interpretation of Liberty, or they have their own special law, or they want to secede their cubicle from the union.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-01-15, 09:50
Gay marriage isn't political. That's funny.
Moose-Knuckle
09-01-15, 10:11
I find it very interesting that in order to gain understanding of the issue, people feel the need to craft hypotheticals and force it into their little partisan box.
:lol:
Your the one who has to put me in a "partisan box" with statements like that.
Just answer the question. You are one of the more left leaning members here so who's rights are more important, the Muslim's who abhors homosexuals or the gay/lesbian couple who just want to get a marriage license?
KalashniKEV
09-01-15, 10:22
Gay marriage isn't political. That's funny.
The plain truth is, it's not.
This is an issue of Liberty.
We aren't talking about left and right, but Freedom and Tyranny.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-01-15, 11:29
The plain truth is, it's not.
This is an issue of Liberty.
We aren't talking about left and right, but Freedom and Tyranny.
If you think that by giving into the Progressive agenda under a freedom banner will change their viewpoints on the issues we call freedom, you are sorely mistaken.
If you think gay marriage is anything but a way to make conservatives and religious people bow to the political pressures and nihilist collectivist progressive ideologue, you are missing the point.
This was such a pressing need that once passed, the biggest issue that they can make is that they can't get cake everywhere they want. Marie Antoinette is spinning in her grave, pissed off that she lost her head when she suggested cake as a major issue.
And why do Progressive backed rights always impose an obligation on someone else? It's not that they marry, and it's beyond baking them a cake- its now that you can't even question the gay agenda. In Denver, the city council tried to ban Chick-fila from the airport over one of their leaders views. It wasn't company policy, it was a personal view of one of its executives.
I will be more interested in watching what happens when the local Minister of a Church refuses to perform a Gay Marriage. I know of at least a dozen Churches here in New Mexico who have issued statements on this, vowing to not perform Gay marriage ceremonies. You'll have some gay activists join some church, then after a month or so ask the preacher to perform their marriage. Preacher will refuse on moral grounds and then comes the civil suit. The feds get involved and will press charges against the preacher based on some civil rights violation and everything starts going down hill from there. Church loses tax exempt status and preacher ignores a court order to perform the ceremony, and goes to jail for contempt.
One Church up in Farmington, New Mexico; Pinon Hills Community Church, issued a statement about this. The preacher there said they would not perform gay marriages and would refuse with peaceful means. However, he used the word Revolution in his statement if the government pushed the issue too far. The congregation of that church indicated they would form a human line against any government action and the local sheriff of San Juan County, New Mexico said that he would stand against any Federal Agent action in his County against ministers.
Give it 20 years and I bet many churches will move underground in their normal operations, much like the early church in Rome in the 1st Century AD.
I find it very interesting that in order to gain understanding of the issue, people feel the need to craft hypotheticals and force it into their little partisan box.
This is not a left/ right issue. It's just simple dereliction.
Don't want to do your job? NEXT!
It's not even important if that person's reason is an incorrect interpretation of Liberty, or they have their own special law, or they want to secede their cubicle from the union.
The thing is, given how many people there are out there, and how stupid/evil many of them are, most hypotheticals tend to become real.
Moose-Knuckle has a good and legitimate question: What do you think is going to happen when it's a Muslim who is derelicting their duty?
Do you honestly think that political/ideological/religious (Progressivism is a religion after all) worldviews are not going to play a factor in how judges, the government and the public perceives and judges it?
Most rational people recognize that the reflexive politically correct things will immediately come into play: a sense of minority oppression, Western guilt, appeasing Islam for various reasons, throwing yet another group under the Islamic bus (this time gays).
In your post, you are assuming everyone has the same conception of Liberty, which they clearly do not, and which is clearly influenced by political ("left/right" as you put it) beliefs.
If you think that by giving into the Progressive agenda under a freedom banner will change their viewpoints on the issues we call freedom, you are sorely mistaken.
If you think gay marriage is anything but a way to make conservatives and religious people bow to the political pressures and nihilist collectivist progressive ideologue, you are missing the point.
This was such a pressing need that once passed, the biggest issue that they can make is that they can't get cake everywhere they want. Marie Antoinette is spinning in her grave, pissed off that she lost her head when she suggested cake as a major issue.
And why do Progressive backed rights always impose an obligation on someone else? It's not that they marry, and it's beyond baking them a cake- its now that you can't even question the gay agenda. In Denver, the city council tried to ban Chick-fila from the airport over one of their leaders views. It wasn't company policy, it was a personal view of one of its executives.
100% bang on.
The notion that Progressives remotely care about gays is hilarious. They do not, nor do they care about the various other cabal of groups that they currently claim to represent. Whichever group serves their interest of more power, more control, and more money, is the one they will champion.
Take gays. Progressives didn't care much until it de rigueur for enlightenment in various social circles. However, when another group with more money, votes and potential for violence comes along, in this case Islam, they have and will gladly throw the weaker and less useful group to the wolves.
This is why the only bakers prosecuted were Christian ones. We all damn well know that there is no shortage of Muslim bakeries and businesses that would refuse the same service to a gay couple, yet they are not crushed under the heel of the almighty State. And we all know why.
KalashniKEV
09-01-15, 13:31
If you think that by giving into the Progressive agenda under a freedom banner...
If "giving in" to Liberty in the face of Tyranny is a thing in your head, then you need to slap the shit out of yourself.
This is not a partisan color war.
What this boils down to is... literally... Good vs. Evil.
If you think gay marriage is anything but a way to make conservatives and religious people...
The "Gay Marriage Political Issue," because of the spin applied, is nothing but "a way to make conservatives and religious people" look stupid. It is a weapon of the Democrats, and a very effective one.
In truth this is not a political issue, however.
Moose-Knuckle has a good and legitimate question: What do you think is going to happen when it's a Muslim who is derelicting their duty?
Really?
I thought that was dumb.
Dereliction of Duty is a very simple thing to understand.
It's not even important what Susie Snowflake's special little reason is for not doing her job. Cut the mic. Show her the door.
http://d.christiantoday.com/en/full/35562/rowan-county-clerk-court-kim-davis.jpg?w=380&h=348&l=50&t=40
"And the reason why my personal opinion is effecting your rights today is..."
THROATPUNCH!!!1!
Who cares?
Whichever group serves their interest of more power, more control, and more money, is the one they will champion.
Sadly, the same is true of both parties.
Moose-Knuckle
09-01-15, 14:09
Really?
I thought that was dumb.
But of course you did.
Wholly ironic considering you accuse me of crafting a hypothetical situation . . .
(Post #20 page 1 of this thread)
I find it very interesting that in order to gain understanding of the issue, people feel the need to craft hypotheticals and force it into their little partisan box.
. . . when I simply got the "Muslim hypothetical" from one of your fellow pro gay rights advocates.
(Post #4 on page 1 of this thread)
Muslim county clerk refuses to issue marriage license to Christian couples. How would people feel about it then?
You can't have it both ways. George Orwell called it in 1945 when he wrote in is novella concerning the Bolshevik revolution; (The Seven Commandments are abridged to a single phrase) "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".
Truth be told I agree with those of you in this thread that assert the clerk needs to perform her job as per the law. I respect her religious convictions but if her job offends them then she should seek other employment. However, this needs to be implemented across the board and not selectively enforced only upon conservative evangelical Christians. We all know damn good and well we live in a nation where a retail giant like Target have signs for their Muslim cashiers to inform customers who are purchasing pork products and or alcoholic beverages to move to a different check out line because they offend the pious Muslim's religious beliefs.
I want to find a gay/lesbian owned bakery, go in with a film crew and an attorney, identify myself as a member of the Westboro Baptist Church, and tell them we have an upcoming church picnic and place an order for a sheet cake that has the words "Fags burn in hell" on it. Then post the video and outcome on YouTube.
Target has such signs? That's great. I know what I'm doing next time I shopping there.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-01-15, 14:37
Kev,
It's is two separate things that you are confusing. It is a legal vs illegal and good versus evil. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's good. That is a misconstruction that the bible thumpers you hate so much had so much issue with.
It's legal, it's legal. When you start to make me say it's good, that's where I draw a line.
Slap myself? Hug yourself dude. You've got some serious hatred in your heart.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-01-15, 14:50
ACLU tying to go with a contempt charge for the clerk for not issuing licenses. So if you don't enforce a law you can be complelled to- to bad that doesn't work against BHO on immigration law enforcement...
Love to see them get slapped down for 'standing' like happens in conservative court cases.
I love when people think that two people of the same sex getting married is some big conspiracy against conservatives. Don't know too many gay people do you?
As for this woman. The majority here have put it best., She is an elected official. She is failing to do her duty. She is also ignoring legal court orders and claiming that her own opinion is more important than the law. She needs to be held in contempt and removed from office.
I also find it interesting that she is a Democrat. Funny that the media has downplayed that if you ask me.
Why should people be discriminated against because of the clerks personal belifs?
So you agree with the gun-grabbers on the court that the Constitution forces the individual states to perform same-sex "marriage"?
Do you also believe that two brothers have the "right" to "marry", or because of your personal beliefs your support discriminating against them?
What about 3 people? What about 3 members of the same family? Do you believe because of your personal beliefs they should be "discriminated" against as well?
I love when people think that two people of the same sex getting married is some big conspiracy against conservatives. Don't know too many gay people do you?
As for this woman. The majority here have put it best., She is an elected official. She is failing to do her duty. She is also ignoring legal court orders and claiming that her own opinion is more important than the law. She needs to be held in contempt and removed from office.
Meaning that if the court ruled that owning ARs and like semi-auto rifles was not a right protected by the Constitution you would be first in line to hand in your rifles?
Moose-Knuckle
09-01-15, 15:37
I love when people think that two people of the same sex getting married is some big conspiracy against conservatives. Don't know too many gay people do you?
IMHO every segment of the populace has a fringe element. I'm of the opinion that the average LGBT person just wants to be left the hell alone and live their life the way they see fit. Concerning the "gay agenda" it's not even the fridge element in the LGBT community, it's progressive leftist who use them as "useful idiots" to further their own cause. In this case bring about fundamental changes to traditional values via social engineering. The progressive leftist love to play the champions for the cause of the victims of society.
I also find it interesting that she is a Democrat. Funny that the media has downplayed that if you ask me.
Hah! I didn't catch that before . . . that's awesome!
IMHO every segment of the populace has a fringe element. I'm of the opinion that the average LGBT person just wants to be left the hell alone and live their life the way they see fit. Concerning the "gay agenda" it's not even the fridge element in the LGBT community, it's progressive leftist who use them as "useful idiots" to further their own cause. In this case bring about fundamental changes to traditional values via social engineering. The progressive leftist love to play the champions for the cause of the victims of society.
Hah! I didn't catch that before . . . that's awesome!
They want the same rights you and I have. End of story. If someone things there is some Gay Agenda beyond that then they have only a fleeting relationship with reality and need to stop with the victim complex.
As for her political affiliation. Yep. She is indeed an Elected Democrat official who has been married multiple times.
She is being called before the judge on Thursday apparently.
They want the same rights you and I have. End of story. If someone things there is some Gay Agenda beyond that then they have only a fleeting relationship with reality and need to stop with the victim complex.
So how exactly does engaging in homosexual acts, or simply wanting to do so, make a person into a "people"?
How did the laws and rules governing marriage already not apply equally to everyone regardless of whether or not they engaged in homosexual conduct?
If the courts ruled that you have no constitutional right to an AR or any other like semi-auto loading rifle, would you then immediately turn them since you believe that your personal opinion is not "more important than the law"?
Digital_Damage
09-01-15, 16:29
So how exactly does engaging in homosexual acts, or simply wanting to do so, make a person into a "people"?
How did the laws and rules governing marriage already not apply equally to everyone regardless of whether or not they engaged in homosexual conduct?
If the courts ruled that you have no constitutional right to an AR or any other like semi-auto loading rifle, would you then immediately turn them since you believe that your personal opinion is not "more important than the law"?
sigh... not this stupid as shit analogy again... time to lock this.
So how exactly does engaging in homosexual acts, or simply wanting to do so, make a person into a "people"?
How did the laws and rules governing marriage already not apply equally to everyone regardless of whether or not they engaged in homosexual conduct?
If the courts ruled that you have no constitutional right to an AR or any other like semi-auto loading rifle, would you then immediately turn them since you believe that your personal opinion is not "more important than the law"?
If the courts said you had to stop being tedious and myopic, would you stop? :rolleyes:
If the courts said you had to stop being tedious and myopic, would you stop?
Now you're just projecting again, which however does nothing to change the fact that "kwelz" was irate that the woman was not blindly following orders, something he himself would almost certainly not do concerning his firearms. So how is that not him being intellectually dishonest?
sigh... not this stupid as shit analogy again... time to lock this.
You actually believe a thread should be locked because you can't even begin to answer a few honest simple questions in defence of your ideological positions, even though no posting rules have been violated? :rolleyes:
Digital_Damage
09-01-15, 16:44
You actually believe a thread should be locked because you can't even begin to answer a few honest simple questions in defence of your ideological positions, even though no posting rules have been violated? :rolleyes:
It is your go to nonsense argument for EVERYTHING that you don't agree with, just take one of the responses in the other threads and apply here.
It is your go to nonsense argument for EVERYTHING that you don't agree with, just take one of the responses in the other threads and apply here.
That is simply your go to nonsense reply for EVERY TIME you are completely unable to actually address the questions raised in those other threads and applied here.
Moose-Knuckle
09-01-15, 16:56
sigh... not this stupid as shit analogy again... time to lock this.
Irony . . .
Well you surrendered quickly....
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?173181-Obama-renames-Mount-McKinley-(this-is-not-a-joke)/page3
Digital_Damage
09-01-15, 17:01
Irony . . .
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?173181-Obama-renames-Mount-McKinley-(this-is-not-a-joke)/page3
Not a surrender... pointing out the obvious. He will never relent and neither will the other side on this subject. Better to lock it.
The regurgitating of "what would you do if they told you to give up your guns" is a weak defense and makes no sense what so ever in the context of 90% of the threads he uses it in. It is desperate and obtuse.
If I went to get a CCW license signed off on and dude refused because of whatever, I'd be teetotaling pissed.
Why do people care if homos get 'married'? They'll either grow old and die together or they'll get gay divorced.
After you reach an adult age sex is sex, but love. Well...who am I to deprive people of such things? I don't care.
This is actually the first legally correct ruling they've made in a while.
Moose-Knuckle
09-01-15, 17:08
If I went to get a CCW license signed off on and dude refused because of whatever, I'd be teetotaling pissed.
. . . .
Yet how many CLEOs refuse to sign off on NFA forms because of their political convictions?
So if I were a homosexual I could force via SCOTUS and the court of popular opinion a baker to make me a wedding cake and a county clerk to issue me a marriage license but the CLEO in my jurisdiction can still legally refuse to sign off on a suppressor/MG/SBR/etc.?
Yup, 'Merca!
Now you're just projecting again, which however does nothing to change the fact that "kwelz" was irate that the woman was not blindly following orders, something he himself would almost certainly not do concerning his firearms. So how is that not him being intellectually dishonest?
I'll take that as a "no"... :rolleyes:
Not a surrender... pointing out the obvious. He will never relent and neither will the other side on this subject. Better to lock it.
The regurgitating of "what would you do if they told you to give up your guns" is a weak defense and makes no sense what so ever in the context of 90% of the threads he uses it in. It is desperate and obtuse.
You're simply flinging adjectives because once again you can't actually answer any of the questions, so you once again lament at how much you dislike the questions, which is as predicable of you as it is repetitious and vapid.
Keep it about the topic, not the posters. Only warning for this thread.
I will be more interested in watching what happens when the local Minister of a Church refuses to perform a Gay Marriage.
Here is what I would do - "Sure I will marry you, but understand that my Bible tells me that homosexuality is a sin. I believe you are sincere in your belief it is not, and I wish you all the best in the world, but that simply isn't my belief. Therefore any ceremony that I perform for you will include a prayer asking Jesus to forgive your for this sin. If that is okay, let's get the schedule set up."
I went to my sister's commitment ceremony, did not go to the wedding, she understood and was very loving toward me.
Isn't the bigger and more important question here whether SCOTUS actually has the ability to force states to do things like this. If I'm not mistaken the laws on marriage are supposed to be set by the individual states and SCOTUS actually has no constitutional authority to do what they just did.
MountainRaven
09-01-15, 21:05
If you live in a Shall Issue state and your CLEO refuses to sign off on your concealed weapons permit, lets say because they're Buddhist - or because the secretary responsible for passing the forms up to higher is Buddhist and ensures that the form never gets passed along - and firmly believe in non-violence, do you think the courts would side with you or with the CLEO for not following the law? Who is in the wrong, you or the CLEO?
Any other gays/guns comparison is pretty much apples and oranges.
Isn't the bigger and more important question here whether SCOTUS actually has the ability to force states to do things like this. If I'm not mistaken the laws on marriage are supposed to be set by the individual states and SCOTUS actually has no constitutional authority to do what they just did.
Yes it does. This has been long established.
Back to the clerk. She is a real peice of work.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/09/01/kentucky-clerk-fighting-gay-marriage-has-wed-four-times
My personal favorite part.
She gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband. They were fathered by her third husband but adopted by her second. Davis worked at the clerk's office at the time of each divorce and has since remarried.
So she is non traditional? Yikes, she might have a few other things to be concerned with other than who gets a license.
Personally I could care less about Gay Rights issues. But it does seem that in our present society, when one group gains a right, another group loses one. The key to this whole mess is language and the definition of marriage. I personally think that marriage is between a man and a woman. However, I think that if two gays want to enter into some kind of legal social contract like a civil union, give them the same tax and insurance benefits as married people. Let the County Clerk issue a fancy certificate with gay themed images. Have special certificates for gay men and for gay women. Just don't call it marriage.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-01-15, 21:48
Yes it does. This has been long established.
Back to the clerk. She is a real peice of work.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/09/01/kentucky-clerk-fighting-gay-marriage-has-wed-four-times
My personal favorite part.
Well, she is an expert on marriage....
Here is what I would do - "Sure I will marry you, but understand that my Bible tells me that homosexuality is a sin. I believe you are sincere in your belief it is not, and I wish you all the best in the world, but that simply isn't my belief. Therefore any ceremony that I perform for you will include a prayer asking Jesus to forgive your for this sin. If that is okay, let's get the schedule set up."
There is an idea. Make them get married in a Church and have to sit thru a sermon.... I do have to say, being raised Catholic, Catholic grade school and some high school- I never remember any anti-gay stuff at all. I don't remember a single homily on abortion. I remember way more about money for the school and a roof for the church.
I'm not saying that we were some crazy sect, but the focus way more on love and charitable acts The other stuff just didn't come up. Maybe because it didn't need to.
That's my point with the gay marriage stuff. It isn't that I think that gays marrying is the end of civilization, it's just the latest attack on the traditional family.
Progressives are using gays (and gays are using Progressives to be the new blacks on the unquestionable list) as a wedge issue to tear down the normal order. Proof? Progressives will say that gay marriage is about strengthening the family and promoting individual rights- name another issue that they stand by families and individual rights? Every other Progressive idea is in general about collectivism and pitting husbands against wives and children from their parents- up and down the generational ladder- and replacing those ties with govt programs and assistance. It's almost like they got a STATI manual and ran with it.
Not political? Kev is right in that they took this out of the political arena when they were losing at the state level and then put in the courts hands, all the be decided by one SCOTUS judge. Now that public opinion has shifted (more on that) they want to use the popularity to finish the job. The interesting thing in the public opinion thing is that the question is always "should gays be allowed to marry?" Even here a fair number of people support that. I'm not truly against it. But what they don't ask is should people be allowed to think it is immoral and should that view be outlawed. Look at all that western civilization achieved without gay marriage. It doesn't seem to be a prerequisite for a modern state. It just jumped out the progressive judicial quantum foam- pulled by a string of a theory that every generation before it was wrong.
Straight people have ruined marriage far more than gays will ever directly- it's the indirect revealed attack against organized religion and traditional marriage that comes with the gay marriage SCOTUS coup. Say I'm a liar; an idiot and crazy. That is what they said about Santorum when he said the Texas sodomy law would eventually lead to gay marriage.
Being gay went from the sin that dare not say its name to the lifestyle that won't STFU- and it wants CAKE NOW!!!
So now, in order to not discriminate, she has officially decided to not sign ANY marriage licenses.
So nobody can get one, doesn't matter if they are straight or gay, Christian, Muslim or Buddhist. So in order to deny one group, yet try and protect herself from charges of discrimination, nobody can get married.
She also cannot be fired, because she is in an elected position.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/us/same-sex-marriage-kentucky-kim-davis.html?_r=0
One couple, David Ermold and David Moore, tried to engage the county clerk, Kim Davis, in a debate before the cameras, but as she had before, she turned them away, saying repeatedly that she would not issue licenses to any couples, gay or straight.
Ms. Davis stopped issuing all marriage licenses after the Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 ruling in June, in the case Obergefell v. Hodges.
Citing the latest Supreme Court action, Mr. Moore said he would remain in the office until he and Mr. Ermold had a license.
“Then you’re going to have a long day,” Ms. Davis replied. She said she had refused to issue any licenses in order not to discriminate against a particular group.
Amazing work she is doing, glad she isn't screwing up my wedding plans.
Moose-Knuckle
09-02-15, 01:56
All aboard the love train . . .
NAMBLA and polygamist Mormons and Muslims step up to the plate!
Who is anyone to violate someone else's rights?! In the land that brought you Caitlyn Jenner and Rachel Dolezal, I want to be the first man to marry an inanimate object. I wish to marry a fully automatic machine gun, that way I can rock-n-roll with her in all fifty states. Oh I know it won't be easy as all the machine-gun-phobes will discriminate against us and attempt to prohibit us from entering certain states. Haters go'n hate!
Man wants to marry his porn-filled laptop
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/06/newser-man-wants-to-marry-porn-filled-laptop/8761997/
Florida Man Fired After Facebook Post Saying He Wants To Marry His Dog
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/02/ryan-uhler-_n_7717160.html
The Internet finally reaches its apex as man marrying My Little Pony character writes angry email to erotic pony artist
http://www.avclub.com/article/the-internet-finally-reaches-its-apex-as-man-marry-94206
All aboard the love train . . .
NAMBLA and polygamist Mormons and Muslims step up to the plate!
Who is anyone to violate someone else's rights?! In the land that brought you Caitlyn Jenner and Rachel Dolezal, I want to be the first man to marry an inanimate object. I wish to marry a fully automatic machine gun, that way I can rock-n-roll with her in all fifty states. Oh I know it won't be easy as all the machine-gun-phobes will discriminate against us and attempt to prohibit us from entering certain states. Haters go'n hate!
Man wants to marry his porn-filled laptop
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/06/newser-man-wants-to-marry-porn-filled-laptop/8761997/
Florida Man Fired After Facebook Post Saying He Wants To Marry His Dog
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/02/ryan-uhler-_n_7717160.html
The Internet finally reaches its apex as man marrying My Little Pony character writes angry email to erotic pony artist
http://www.avclub.com/article/the-internet-finally-reaches-its-apex-as-man-marry-94206
None of this is terribly new. Back in the 80s I remember a local news story about a FL man who married his motorcycle and how they exchanged piston rings and crap like that. Not sure how official it was, but there have been weird freaking retards for a long time.
Isn't the bigger and more important question here whether SCOTUS actually has the ability to force states to do things like this. If I'm not mistaken the laws on marriage are supposed to be set by the individual states and SCOTUS actually has no constitutional authority to do what they just did.
There are two answers to this important question. No, it does not. It is nowhere empowered by the Constitution with the power or authority to redefine any words it wishes to mean anything it wants for any reason it likes. But since the number of those who know and care about this fact are in the minority, and we are living in times of basically lunatic leftist mob rule and government overreach, the de facto answer is yes.
To put it both bluntly and simply, the only way back to greater freedom and liberty for this republic to to completely tear down and smash into dust every single brick and stone in the lunatic leftist ideological wall of these gun-grabbing marxist socialists.
http://i1328.photobucket.com/albums/w522/mtjh45/5a884389007feaa07dbc860ddb1cd884_zps23d38c9a.jpeg
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-02-15, 07:48
Interstate Commerce- it catches everything.
All aboard the love train . . .
NAMBLA and polygamist Mormons and Muslims step up to the plate!
Who is anyone to violate someone else's rights?! In the land that brought you Caitlyn Jenner and Rachel Dolezal, I want to be the first man to marry an inanimate object. I wish to marry a fully automatic machine gun, that way I can rock-n-roll with her in all fifty states. Oh I know it won't be easy as all the machine-gun-phobes will discriminate against us and attempt to prohibit us from entering certain states. Haters go'n hate!
Man wants to marry his porn-filled laptop
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/06/newser-man-wants-to-marry-porn-filled-laptop/8761997/
Florida Man Fired After Facebook Post Saying He Wants To Marry His Dog
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/02/ryan-uhler-_n_7717160.html
The Internet finally reaches its apex as man marrying My Little Pony character writes angry email to erotic pony artist
http://www.avclub.com/article/the-internet-finally-reaches-its-apex-as-man-marry-94206
I've been involved with Animal Husbandry for years. Why not expand the definition and now allow marriage with beasts of the field? Who am I to judge who you can marry? This is a new and open society where "anything goes", and you're wrong to deny anyone their freedom to do what they want, as long as it doesn't hurt others.....right? The door is now open where marriage is whatever you want it to be. I'd like to see someone show up at the San Miguel County, New Mexico Clerk of Court office with a Mule and demand the Justice of the Peace perform the marriage ceremony. Fun times and rather interesting to watch.
I've been involved with Animal Husbandry for years. Why not expand the definition and now allow marriage with beasts of the field? Who am I to judge who you can marry? This is a new and open society where "anything goes", and you're wrong to deny anyone their freedom to do what they want, as long as it doesn't hurt others.....right? The door is now open where marriage is whatever you want it to be. I'd like to see someone show up at the San Miguel County, New Mexico Clerk of Court office with a Mule and demand the Justice of the Peace perform the marriage ceremony. Fun times and rather interesting to watch.
I just love these completely irrational arguments in an attempt to make things look worse than they are.
Consent is the overriding factor in all of this. Two adults can consent. A child can not consent. An animal can not consent. An inanimate object can not consent.
Consent is the overriding factor in all of this. Two adults can consent. A child can not consent. An animal can not consent. An inanimate object can not consent.
You are wrong. A child can consent under the law. If a 13 year old girl is pregnant no one but her can consent on the nature or disposition of her child. That law was changed so when will the other change? It is a sad future.
BoringGuy45
09-02-15, 08:52
Interstate Commerce- it catches everything.
Except carrying firearms apparently.
Honestly, instead of pissing and moaning about all this gay marriage stuff, the Right should be finding a way to make these rulings work for us. We have precedent set that rights don't end at any given state's borders. There's so many unconstitutional laws, firearms related and otherwise, that could potentially be struck down based on this ruling.
I just love these completely irrational arguments in an attempt to make things look worse than they are.
Consent is the overriding factor in all of this. Two adults can consent. A child can not consent. An animal can not consent. An inanimate object can not consent.
When a dog jumps on you and humps your leg.....that's a good case for consent. Who's making an argument? I'm just making an observation. I have no dog in this hunt. I could care less anymore. American society is going to do what it wants, whether it means evolving or devolving. And I'll just do what I want to do and live my reasonable, rational and responsible life. A few years back there was a rancher I know who caught some dude attempting sexual relations with one of his horses. It took a lot of restraint on his part to keep from shooting the dude. Perhaps in the future those actions with animals will be protected rights. Ever heard of beastiality? Watch for a marriage with some pervert and Mr. Ed, coming to a court house near you sometime in the future.:blink:
A person under the age of 18 can not consent to a contract. Which is what marriage is.
They also can not consent to a sexual relationship with someone over 18 outside of some extremely narrow circumstances.
You all can try to twist the facts whatever way you want. But it doesn't change those facts. Children and animals can not consent to a relationship. They can not enter into a binding contract or agreement. And sexual activity with them is illegal.
Trying to equate these things with homosexuality or marriage equality is an intentional and frankly quite disgusting attempt to dehumanized the people you disagree with. And of course it is a similar tactic used by people who opposed interracial marriage. They were just a bit more blatant about it.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-02-15, 09:10
Except carrying firearms apparently.
Honestly, instead of pissing and moaning about all this gay marriage stuff, the Right should be finding a way to make these rulings work for us. We have precedent set that rights don't end at any given state's borders. There's so many unconstitutional laws, firearms related and otherwise, that could potentially be struck down based on this ruling.
That being given lemons and thinking that you can make a Margarita. Leftist judges will never see it that way.
While its fun to play reductio ad absurdum, the fact is that at every level of 'liberalisation' Progressive dismiss the domino theory, only to have the dominoes fall later. Polygamy and prostitution are pretty much slam dunks. One is as simple as saying that I love more than one person and who are you to tell me how to live. The other is that if marriage is a contract, why can't it be set for an hour versus a lifetime. Remember, morality doesn't play into any of these decisions.
I see those as far more plausible- and popular- than the other scenarios.
The closest I see something is an AI sex robot. Till core crash do us part.
Well, she is an expert on marriage....
I can see it now: "Gays getting married just isn't right and I refuse to sign their papers! I should know, I've been married 4 times and none of my husbands were gay!" - Kim Davis, marriage SME.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-02-15, 09:33
I can see it now: "Gays getting married just isn't right and I refuse to sign their papers! I should know, I've been married 4 times and none of my husbands were gay!" - Kim Davis, marriage SME.
But they are now.
I've been involved with Animal Husbandry for years. Why not expand the definition and now allow marriage with beasts of the field? Who am I to judge who you can marry? This is a new and open society where "anything goes", and you're wrong to deny anyone their freedom to do what they want, as long as it doesn't hurt others.....right? The door is now open where marriage is whatever you want it to be. I'd like to see someone show up at the San Miguel County, New Mexico Clerk of Court office with a Mule and demand the Justice of the Peace perform the marriage ceremony. Fun times and rather interesting to watch.
Don't even begin to attempt to use logic and reason with the supporters of Obama's lunatic leftist homosexual agenda. You might as well try and explain the tides to rocks on a beach, because although Thomas Jefferson actually authored a bill for Virginia punishing the act of homosexual sodomy with castration, they believe that he also apparently wrote a constitution that absolutely forces the states to perform the incoherent nonsense of "homosexual marriage, well, at least according to the gun-grabbers on the court and the gun-grabbing marxist socialist president who appointed them. :rolleyes:
BoringGuy45
09-02-15, 10:47
That being given lemons and thinking that you can make a Margarita. Leftist judges will never see it that way.
I'm not naive enough to believe that they will. Many have even made rulings admitting that they were ignoring the Constitution because they believed the 2nd Amendment is wrong. Leftist judges didn't become judges to interpret and uphold the Constitution; they became judges to destroy it. But get a case before the right judge, and it could certainly go in our favor. Like I said, there's enough precedent set with all this that it could work.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-02-15, 11:03
I'm not naive enough to believe that they will. Many have even made rulings admitting that they were ignoring the Constitution because they believed the 2nd Amendment is wrong. Leftist judges didn't become judges to interpret and uphold the Constitution; they became judges to destroy it. But get a case before the right judge, and it could certainly go in our favor. Like I said, there's enough precedent set with all this that it could work.
I do think that at some point Kagan is going to upset the Progressives. Just something about her decisions and thinking make me think she will eventually drop a dookie in their shallow gene pool. Maybe just a hope.
A person under the age of 18 can not consent to a contract. Which is what marriage is.
They also can not consent to a sexual relationship with someone over 18 outside of some extremely narrow circumstances.
You all can try to twist the facts whatever way you want. But it doesn't change those facts. Children and animals can not consent to a relationship. They can not enter into a binding contract or agreement. And sexual activity with them is illegal.
Trying to equate these things with homosexuality or marriage equality is an intentional and frankly quite disgusting attempt to dehumanized the people you disagree with. And of course it is a similar tactic used by people who opposed interracial marriage. They were just a bit more blatant about it.
You should know Indiana law. Consenting people under the age of 18 can marry there. Just get a court to sign off. It's done all the time. I know a lady from Indiana who married just shy of her 16th birthday. Regarding sex with critters, I won't link to it but there's a website which covers gay sex and beastiality. Just Google it. I personally don't want to see it. Kwelz, get with the Progressive Program! Just because it's illegal now, doesn't mean it won't be socially acceptable in the future. Get onboard the express elevator to social decay and devolvement.
Singlestack Wonder
09-02-15, 11:35
This clerk should be applauded for standing up to the homosexual agenda. When people cry foul that she is breaking the law well so be it.
No different than laws being bent to accommodate crooked politicians, to protect radical muslims, etc.
I guess it is pretty safe to assume that you see George Wallace as a true American patriot. The tone of your posts would indicate so.
As I have said before. It is sad to see people from a page dedicated to defending the freedom of gun owners, so willing to deny freedoms to another group because they find them "icky".
And all this talk of some gay agenda is laughable. Their "agenda" is to be afforded the same rights that you and I have.
This woman is no hero. She is a closed minded little troll who wants to use her position to force her religious views on others.
This clerk should be applauded for standing up to the homosexual agenda. When people cry foul that she is breaking the law well so be it.
No different than laws being bent to accommodate crooked politicians, to protect radical muslims, etc.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-02-15, 12:16
Just because it's illegal now, doesn't mean it won't be socially acceptable in the future.
That is my issue. Once it becomes legal, for some reason we all have to accept it- and if you don't support it the GayKK will be protesting you. It used to be that if something was immoral it should be illegal. The left made it so that morality was no longer a basis for laws- first negating laws and now putting laws in place to protect what is immoral. Interesting, they now press that if something is legal, we all must sign off on it as being moral. It's just a mirror image of the religion based laws of the past.
brickboy240
09-02-15, 12:33
I tend to think that this whole gay marriage issue was brought up and passed by the left so that this type of thing would happen.
So people WOULD be at each others throats and it would cause further division and turmoil.
It is forcing people to deal with issues they did not want to deal with.
I might not care if the gays marry, but I do not like the ugly turn this has taken and nobody should be forced to marry gays if it goes against their beliefs.
I don't see how the SC can force this woman to do this.
It goes beyond just this one clerk and her religious beliefs. I served 22 years in the US Army and I have serious doubts about Transsexuals in the Armed Forces. At one time, the so-called gender identity issue was a mental illness thing. Now it's a choice. The military is being turned into some kind of social experiment which is not what it's all about. Even in the 90's when I left Somalia and spent some time in Europe, got see some Dutch troops and the long hair and beards. I got the impression that some European countries are not really serious about fighting wars. I feel the same thing is happening to the US Armed Forces. Everything happening in the US right now involves force feeding lifestyles and deviant behavior which doesn't mesh with a majority of society. I don't care what people do in their homes and personal lives. I'm somewhat Libertarian. Just don't get in my face about it.
This clerk should be applauded for standing up to the homosexual agenda. When people cry foul that she is breaking the law well so be it.
No different than laws being bent to accommodate crooked politicians, to protect radical muslims, etc.
I agree. It's once again so very sad that the public attacks on this woman by the militant supporters of Obama's lunatic leftist homosexual agenda that are all over the internet are again so blatantly flowing with hate-filled bigotry, contempt, and hypocrisy, not only for her, but for the principles of freedom and liberty of our Founding Fathers.
And what is just as sad and tragic, is that the leftist freedom and liberty hating bigots actually know full well that the Founding Fathers did not write a constitution that absolutely forces all the individual states to redefine marriage into something not even the pagan Romans and Greeks at the very depth of their depravity ever were so totally and completely depraved and unhinged from reality as to believe could possibly exist, and perform so-called "homosexual marriage".
How Tyranny Came To America http://www.sobran.com/articles/tyranny.shtml
Averageman
09-02-15, 12:58
I got the impression that some European countries are not really serious about fighting wars. I feel the same thing is happening to the US Armed Forces. Everything happening in the US right now involves force feeding lifestyles and deviant behavior which doesn't mesh with a majority of society. I don't care what people do in their homes and personal lives. I'm somewhat Libertarian. Just don't get in my face about it.
The great thing about the US Forces being stationed in Europe was that the Europeans had to provide less money for their own defense. Once the Cold War ended, they cut it even more, yet retained the status of being a NATO member. When their defense budget dipped to the point of near non existence no one heard a peep about it. Now some of these same countries are feeling heat from the Russians again.
Our own Armed Forces seem to be more concerned with Sensitivity Issues and the Progressive Agenda than Operational Readiness and Troop Strength.
We will surely pay for both of these mistakes in our future.
It goes beyond just this one clerk and her religious beliefs. I served 22 years in the US Army and I have serious doubts about Transsexuals in the Armed Forces. At one time, the so-called gender identity issue was a mental illness thing. Now it's a choice. The military is being turned into some kind of social experiment which is not what it's all about. Even in the 90's when I left Somalia and spent some time in Europe, got see some Dutch troops and the long hair and beards. I got the impression that some European countries are not really serious about fighting wars. I feel the same thing is happening to the US Armed Forces. Everything happening in the US right now involves force feeding lifestyles and deviant behavior which doesn't mesh with a majority of society. I don't care what people do in their homes and personal lives. I'm somewhat Libertarian. Just don't get in my face about it.
The Big "Gay Marriage" Lie http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/24/the-big-gay-marriage-lie/
Truth Overruled: Compelling New Book Shreds SCOTUS Marriage Decision http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/compelling-new-book-shreds-scotus-marriage-decision
That is my issue. Once it becomes legal, for some reason we all have to accept it- and if you don't support it the GayKK will be protesting you. It used to be that if something was immoral it should be illegal. The left made it so that morality was no longer a basis for laws- first negating laws and now putting laws in place to protect what is immoral. Interesting, they now press that if something is legal, we all must sign off on it as being moral. It's just a mirror image of the religion based laws of the past.
So whose morality do we accept and codify? If it is Judeo-Christian as laid out in the Bible, then to me that is majority rule = mob rule, which the Constitution specifically guards against. What about enclaves of Muslims that wish to adopt Sharia law? Since the Constitution again forbids the establishment of a "state" religion, who are we to say Muslims cannot refuse XYZ based on their morality? That the commingling of religion and government is a terrible idea has been proven over and over again, often in very bloody fashion. This woman swore an oath to the Constitution and the rule of law. She should just do her damned job or quit.
Exposing the lunatic leftist liberal lie that so-called homosexual "marriage" does not affect everyone in society, especially innocent children.
The Audacity of the State
It’s Bent on Bringing Down the House on the Family & the Church
"..Replaced by a kaleidoscope of transient sexual and psychological configurations, which serve chiefly to make children of adults and adults of children, the declining family is ceding enormous tracts of social and legal territory to the state. At law, parent-child relationships are losing their a priori status and privilege. Crafty fools ask foolish fools, “What harm does same-sex marriage do to your marriage, or to your family?” The truthful answer is: Same-sex marriage makes us all chattels of the state, because the state, in presuming to define the substance rather than the accidents of marriage, has made marriage itself a state artefact."
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-01-028-f
Bait And Switch: How Same Sex Marriage Ends Family Autonomy
“Gay marriage is a lie,” announced gay activist Masha Gessen in a panel discussion last year at the Sydney Writers’ Festival. “Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there. It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.”
http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/09/bait-and-switch-how-same-sex-marriage-ends-marriage-and-family-autonomy/
Why Fight Same-Sex Marriage?
Is There Really That Much at Stake?
Divine & Human Rights
The third-century Roman jurist, Modestinus, captured the common understanding of marriage with the following definition: “Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, a consortium for the whole of life involving the communication of divine and human rights.” This union and these rights exist, not merely for their own sake, but also and especially for the sake of the inter-generational concerns of progeny and property; with a view, that is, to the conditions necessary for the founding and flourishing of the family. The rights involved are divine as well as human because marriage is generative, and hence pre- as well as pro-political; because what is founded through marriage is, in the twentieth-century language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “the natural and fundamental group unit of society.”
The same elements that found expression in Modestinus perdured and prospered in the Augustinian understanding of marriage as an institution entailing, not one, but three interwoven goods: proles, fides, et sacramentum—procreation or fruitfulness, loyalty or faithfulness, and bonding or sacred union. That societies shaped by this understanding took the unusual step of making marriage monogamous testifies to the seriousness with which each of these goods was regarded, precisely in its service to the others. It was by developing them in their mutuality, moreover, that heterosexual monogamy (to use the language of its detractors) created the conditions for the new and deeper respect for women and for children that until recently has characterized the West.
But marriage for some time has been under feminist attack for its putative institutionalization, in the name of divine rights, of oppressive patriarchal tendencies. This attack—coordinated, as it now is, with a Rawlsian assault on religious or comprehensive doctrines in the public sphere—has helped create a very different set of conditions, the conditions necessary for the advent of same-sex marriage. And same-sex marriage, by eliminating the first good (proles), has begun to unravel the whole fabric of marriage, setting up something else in its place: an institution not intrinsically connected to the family, or at all events not connected to the natural family. The divine and human rights belonging to marriage are thus beginning to disappear, as I want now to make clear.
A Tool of the State
Six years ago, when same-sex marriage became law in Canada,...consequential amendments section, Bill C-38 struck out the language of “natural parent,” “blood relationship,” etc., from all Canadian laws. Wherever they were found, these expressions were replaced with “legal parent,” “legal relationship,” and so forth.
That was strictly necessary. “Marriage” was now a legal fiction, a tool of the state, not a natural and pre-political institution recognized and in certain respects (age, consanguinity, consent, exclusivity) regulated by the state. And the state’s goal, as directed by its courts, was to assure absolute equality for same-sex couples. The problem? Same-sex couples could be parents, but not parents of common children. Granting them adoption rights could not fully address the difference. Where natural equality was impossible, however, formal or legal equality was required. To achieve it, “heterosexual marriages” had to be conformed in law to “homosexual marriages.” The latter produced non-reproductive units, constituted not by nature but by law; the former had therefore to be put on the same footing, and were.
The aim of such legislation, as F. C. DeCoste has observed in “Courting Leviathan” (Alberta Law Review, 2005), is to de-naturalize the family by rendering familial relationships, in their entirety, expressions of law. But relationships of that sort—bled as they are of the stuff of social tradition and experience—are no longer family relationships at all. They are rather policy relationships, defined and imposed by the state.
Here we have what is perhaps the most pressing reason why same-sex marriage should be fought, and fought vigorously. It is a reason that neither the proponents nor the opponents of same-sex marriage have properly debated or thought through. In attacking “heterosexual monogamy,” same-sex marriage does away with the very institution—the only institution we have—that exists precisely in order to support the natural family and to affirm its independence from the state. In doing so, it effectively makes every citizen a ward of the state, by turning his or her most fundamental human connections into legal constructs at the state’s gift and disposal.
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=25-01-024-f
This woman swore an oath to the Constitution and the rule of law. She should just do her damned job or quit.
And if the exact same liberal leftist justices who ruled that the Constitution written by Thomas Jefferson forces the all the individual states to perform homosexual "marriage" despite the historical fact that Thomas Jefferson authored a bill for Virginia punishing homosexual sodomy with castration one day rule that that same constitution in no way protects a right to keep and bear semi-auto rifles, would you support all those who swore an oath to the Constitution and the rule of law when they were sent out to confiscate all such firearms?
And also, do you support discrimination against two homosexual brothers who might want to "marry"? What about two heterosexual brothers? What about 3 or 4 or 6 people who want to all "marry" each other? Do you support their "right to marry", or do you support legal discrimination against them? If you favor discrimination, then based on what?
These are not outlandish questions. The supporters of homosexual "marriage" have already begun openly raising these exact questions.
As I said before, it's all about the language. Call the gay union ceremony anything but marriage. That's my stand. The Left in the US will have you believe that my stance also includes an acceptance of hate or violence against the gay community. If I saw someone physically abusing a gay person, I would be the first to defend them. I have a gay male couple who board horses at my ranch, although they live nearly 100 miles away. Nice people and they're actually fiscal Conservatives. I don't hate them, I don't dislike them and I am indifferent to what they do in their private lives. Just don't redefine an ages old union of one man and one woman.
And if the exact same liberal leftist justices who ruled that the Constitution written by Thomas Jefferson forces the all the individual states to perform homosexual "marriage" despite the historical fact that Thomas Jefferson authored a bill for Virginia punishing homosexual sodomy with castration one day rule that that same constitution in no way protects a right to keep and bear semi-auto rifles, would you support all those who swore an oath to the Constitution and the rule of law when they were sent out to confiscate all such firearms?
Thomas Jefferson also owned slaves. Another fact irrelevant to the discussion.
If gay marriage is your hill to die on, then by all means, rise up. As to your example about gun confiscation, my objections sure as hell would not be on religious grounds.
Thomas Jefferson also owned slaves. Another fact irrelevant to the discussion.
Considering that there is no way whatsoever that he could have written a constitution that forces all the individual states to perform homosexual "marriage", it is actually the most relevant fact to the discussion.
As to your example about gun confiscation, my objections sure as hell would not be on religious grounds.
I did not ask upon what grounds would be your objections, if you indeed had any, only if you would do the exact same thing you are telling this woman to do and support those who have sworn an oath to the constitution after a SCOTUS ruling if they were ordered to confiscate the guns.
If you say you would support the SCOTUS ruling, then that means you would support gun confiscation. Some here might have a problem with that.
If you say that you would not support a SCOTUS ruling in favor of gun confiscation, then that means you are telling this woman to do what you yourself would absolutely refuse to do. And you should have a problem with that.
A person under the age of 18 can not consent to a contract. Which is what marriage is.
They also can not consent to a sexual relationship with someone over 18 outside of some extremely narrow circumstances.
Seems to me I knew a lot of couples from my grandparents era who got married when the girl was 16. I knew one who got married when she was 14, but 16 and 17 were very common.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-02-15, 14:18
So whose morality do we accept and codify? If it is Judeo-Christian as laid out in the Bible, then to me that is majority rule = mob rule, which the Constitution specifically guards against. What about enclaves of Muslims that wish to adopt Sharia law? Since the Constitution again forbids the establishment of a "state" religion, who are we to say Muslims cannot refuse XYZ based on their morality? That the commingling of religion and government is a terrible idea has been proven over and over again, often in very bloody fashion. This woman swore an oath to the Constitution and the rule of law. She should just do her damned job or quit.
Morality is objective, not subjective. Things are not moral or immoral because of one's religion or geography. This is a very important concept that I think a lot of people don't understand because the left has pushed that there is no objective morality and everything is relative. Leftists are very good at conflating religion with objective morality. True religions will reflect objective morality (which is how you can tell a religion from a cult). By labelling all objective reality as religion, the left has been able to push objective morality out and replace it with their situational reality.
If you believe in inalienable rights- in that we have rights because we are rather than we are given them by govts- you then believe in objective reality.
Belloc can explain it better. I always feel like I'm on the ghetto short bus when it come this kind of stuff, relative to him. I objectively understand that.
As I said before, it's all about the language. Call the gay union ceremony anything but marriage. That's my stand. The Left in the US will have you believe that my stance also includes an acceptance of hate or violence against the gay community. If I saw someone physically abusing a gay person, I would be the first to defend them. I have a gay male couple who board horses at my ranch, although they live nearly 100 miles away. Nice people and they're actually fiscal Conservatives. I don't hate them, I don't dislike them and I am indifferent to what they do in their private lives. Just don't redefine an ages old union of one man and one woman.
Marriage has existed in many forms before christianity and the christian one man/one woman thing people are obsessed with nowadays. Just because it's "traditional" in recent history, doesn't mean it always has been or always will be. Calling it anything different doesn't change what it is, the idea of what "traditional" marriage is will continue to change as long as time goes on.
If she doesn't want to do the job, remove her. Gays marrying each other have the exact effect on other people that a straight couple marrying has, none, so who cares about who wants to marry whom whatever the conditions.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-02-15, 14:28
If she doesn't want to do the job, remove her. Gays marrying each other have the exact effect on other people that a straight couple marrying has, none, so who cares about who wants to marry whom whatever the conditions.
The destruction of marriage and the break up of the family has gone hand in hand with the biggest problems that face America. Gays may just be the cherry on the un-family cake, but it just another attack front the left on. "But they are making families" - the issue isn't that gays can marry, it's that they make everyone else stand there and say it's a marriage and that it's a good idea.
Moose-Knuckle
09-02-15, 14:44
Except carrying firearms apparently.
Honestly, instead of pissing and moaning about all this gay marriage stuff, the Right should be finding a way to make these rulings work for us. We have precedent set that rights don't end at any given state's borders. There's so many unconstitutional laws, firearms related and otherwise, that could potentially be struck down based on this ruling.
This is exactly my point on this entire insane issue. I'm using the enemies tactic here, paging Saul Alinsky.
Force this court clerk to sign these marriage license via "rule of law" and the rights violation nonsense. Now lets force the hand of every CLEO in the country to sign off on NFA forms. Utopia ain't it . . .
Marriage has existed in many forms before christianity and the christian one man/one woman thing people are obsessed with nowadays. Just because it's "traditional" in recent history, doesn't mean it always has been or always will be.
That is only a partial truth. The fact is that marriage, even in pagan Rome and Greece, was always between a man and a woman. Sometimes more than one woman, but still. No society, in all of human history, ever became so depraved, deranged, and completely unhinged from reality, so as to believe that such a thing as the incoherent nonsense of homosexual "marriage" could possibly exist.
The very fact that those who support homosexual "marriage" also support even homosexual incestuous "marriage" evidences just how completely unhinged and insane the entire lunatic leftist pro-homosexual ideological agenda truly is.
Marriage has existed in many forms before christianity and the christian one man/one woman thing people are obsessed with nowadays. Just because it's "traditional" in recent history, doesn't mean it always has been or always will be. Calling it anything different doesn't change what it is, the idea of what "traditional" marriage is will continue to change as long as time goes on.
Funny thing, at the time of Christ, the definition of "traditional marriage" included polygamous and/or "open" marriages. How many wives did the Patriarchs, Moses, David and Solomon have between them? 700 or so? And Solomon had 300 concubines on top of his 700 wives. It was common enough among the ruling class that Josephus had to explain for the benefit of his Roman audience what Jewish customs permitted polygamy.... So really, how far back do you wanna go in defining "traditional"
Moose-Knuckle
09-02-15, 15:02
Funny thing, at the time of Christ, the definition of "traditional marriage" included polygamous and/or "open" marriages. How many wives did the Patriarchs, Moses, David and Solomon have between them? 700 or so? And Solomon had 300 concubines on top of his 700 wives. It was common enough among the ruling class that Josephus had to explain for the benefit of his Roman audience what Jewish customs permitted polygamy.... So really, how far back do you wanna go in defining "traditional"
And these leftist bastards who have pushed gay marriage through are now in fact discriminating against polygamist. There are Mormons and Muslims in this country who would be happy to get marriage licenses and state recognition of their marriages to their multiple wives. Who is the US Government and the individual state governments to violate these Mormons and Muslims rights? Not to mention all the polyamorous relationships out there that wish to marry.
And these leftist bastards who have pushed gay marriage through are now in fact discriminating against polygamist. There are Mormons and Muslims in this country who would be happy to get marriage licenses and state recognition of their marriages to their multiple wives. Who is the US Government and the individual state governments to violate these Mormons and Muslims rights? Not to mention all the polyamorous relationships out there that wish to marry.
How true. As I said before. One group gains rights, another group loses rights. Regarding "Plural Marriage", the LDS wording, I've done business with that group in Colorado City, Arizona and Hilldale, Utah. Both towns right on the State Line. Sold cattle to that bunch once. Took two truckloads there and it's a strange place. They have their own municipal governments and law enforcement. It's the Warren Jeffs FLDS group that operates there. All the women wear prairie dresses and the men wear long sleeve plain shirts. Despite State laws, they do their own thing and interact little with the rest of society. So far they haven't let State or Federal laws keep them from doing their own thing.
crusader377
09-02-15, 15:51
That is only a partial truth. The fact is that marriage, even in pagan Rome and Greece, was always between a man and a woman. Sometimes more than one woman, but still. No society, in all of human history, ever became so depraved, deranged, and completely unhinged from reality, so as to believe that such a thing as the incoherent nonsense of homosexual "marriage" could possibly exist.
The very fact that those who support homosexual "marriage" also support even homosexual incestuous "marriage" evidences just how completely unhinged and insane the entire lunatic leftist pro-homosexual ideological agenda truly is.
Agree 100%. Throughout the 6,000-7,000 years of recorded human history there is no evidence in any culture having homosexual marriage. That might just be a clue that it is a bad idea.
JBecker 72
09-02-15, 16:06
They are human beings who deserve to be treated the same as everyone else. Just because something throughout history was accepted or not accepted is irrelevant. History is full of giant **** ups when it comes to how individuals were treated.
It comes down to an individual's God given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness regardless of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.
Moose-Knuckle
09-02-15, 16:11
They are human beings who deserve to be treated the same as everyone else.
It comes down to an individual's God given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness regardless of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.
Just not polygamist Mormons and Muslims. Got it.
Agree 100%. Throughout the 6,000-7,000 years of recorded human history there is no evidence in any culture having homosexual marriage. That might just be a clue that it is a bad idea.
It's a bad idea because it is simply orwellian incoherent nonsensical "newspeak" claiming that 2+2=5 or 6, or whatever anyone says.
As I pointed out before, all the supporters here who when asked if they also supported even homosexual incestuous marriage have either said that they do, or have steadfastly refused to answer. The fact is that for them since marriage is nothing but a legal contract, it can exist between any 2 or more persons. On another forum I asked a supporter of homosexual "marriage" if he believed that everyone in New York could "marry" everyone in Chicago, and he replied "yes, of course, but why would they want too?" So there you have it. The supporters of homosexual marriage believe that even brothers can "marry", and fathers can "marry" their own sons, and whole cities can marry another city, because all marriage is is simply a legal contract and nothing more.
Frankly I'm of the belief that all the associated benefits resulting from marriage shouldn't exist in the first place.. Government should not be involved in the institution of marriage, period. At the very most it should have been left to individual states to decide for themselves.
They are human beings who deserve to be treated the same as everyone else. Just because something throughout history was accepted or not accepted is irrelevant. History is full of giant **** ups when it comes to how individuals were treated.
It comes down to an individual's God given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness regardless of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.
So then you oppose the laws that discriminate against homosexual incestuous marriage, and polygamy marriage, and polyamory marriage as well?
Frankly I'm of the belief that all the associated benefits resulting from marriage shouldn't exist in the first place.. Government should not be involved in the institution of marriage, period. At the very most it should have been left to individual states to decide for themselves.
I agree it should be left to the states, but the state governments have to be involved, because natural marriage produces children, and children also have inalienable rights that must be recognised in law and protected.
JBecker 72
09-02-15, 16:21
So then you oppose the laws that discriminate against homosexual incestuous marriage, and polygamy marriage, and polyamory marriage as well?
What consenting adults do is nobody else's business.
It's pretty simple.
What consenting adults do is nobody else's business.
It's pretty simple.
That is rather my point. I believe that the fact that the supporters of homosexual "marriage" also actually support even incestuous marriage evidences just how completely unhinged from reality the entire pro-homosexual agenda truly is.
JBecker 72
09-02-15, 16:40
That is rather my point. I believe that the fact that the supporters of homosexual "marriage" also actually support even incestuous marriage evidences just how completely unhinged from reality the entire pro-homosexual agenda truly is.
Firstly, you have made no point with that comment that comes anywhere close to what I've wrote. Secondly, the vast majority of the population find incest to be downright gross, so I'm not sure where you are getting your "pro gay marriage = pro incest" remarks. And finally, if consenting siblings want to carry on a relationship and marry, that's their business.
Firstly, you have made no point with that comment that comes anywhere close to what I've wrote. Secondly, the vast majority of the population find incest to be downright gross, so I'm not sure where you are getting your "pro gay marriage = pro incest" remarks. And finally, if consenting siblings want to carry on a relationship and marry, that's their business.
Again, like I have said on more than one occasion, the very fact that the supporters of homosexual "marriage" also actually support even incestuous marriage evidences just how completely unhinged from reality the entire pro-homosexual agenda truly is.
Whiskey_Bravo
09-02-15, 16:52
Firstly, you have made no point with that comment that comes anywhere close to what I've wrote. Secondly, the vast majority of the population find incest to be downright gross, so I'm not sure where you are getting your "pro gay marriage = pro incest" remarks. And finally, if consenting siblings want to carry on a relationship and marry, that's their business.
Call me what you will but I find two gay dudes pretty downright gross and unnatural.
My downright gross and unnatural chart in order:
gay married incestous brothers
gay married men
married incestous brother and sister
JBecker 72
09-02-15, 16:53
Again, like I have said on more than one occasion, the very fact that the supporters of homosexual "marriage" also actually support even incestuous marriage evidences just how completely unhinged from reality the entire pro-homosexual agenda truly is.
Here's an idea, if you don't approve of something, don't participate in it. But don't sit on your high horse and tell others how they can or can't live their lives.
JBecker 72
09-02-15, 16:54
Call me what you will but I find two gay dudes pretty downright gross and unnatural.
My downright gross and unnatural chart in order:
gay married incestous brothers
gay married men
married incestous brother and sister
Here's an idea, if you don't approve of something, don't participate in it. But don't sit on your high horse and tell others how they can or can't live their lives.
See above
Here's an idea, if you don't approve of something, don't participate in it. But don't sit on your high horse and tell others how they can or can't live their lives.
But then why are you sitting on your high horse and telling me how I should live?
To embrace the unnatural is to admit the insane.
Here's an idea, if you don't approve of something, don't participate in it. But don't sit on your high horse and tell others how they can or can't live their lives.
Sure...why not? In addition to Gay marriage, maybe it's time to start subscribing to the Progressive concepts of White Privilege, Social Justice, Income inequality, Gender inequality, Late Term Infanticide....and the list goes on and on. Turn society upside down and inside out to move Forward towards that Utopia resembling something in an Orwell book. Oh yes, I forgot to add that Law Enforcement is also bad as well in that Progressive Utopia.
JBecker 72
09-02-15, 17:12
But then why are you sitting on your high horse and telling me how I should live?
I'm not. I'm saying people should be free to live their lives as they see fit.
But nice try.
And here's no surprise:
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/wayne-county/2015/08/31/group-expressjet-discriminated-muslim-flight-attendant/71490804/
A Muslim-American group plans Tuesday to file a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against ExpressJet Airlines for allegedly failing to accommodate a Metro Detroit-area Muslim flight attendant who objects to serving alcohol based on her religious beliefs.
The Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said the airline had directed employee Charee Stanley , to work out arrangements with the other flight attendant on duty to accommodate passengers’ requests for alcohol. The setup, it said, had worked without incident until Aug. 25, when ExpressJet placed Stanley on administrative leave for 12 months, after which her position may be terminated, according to CAIR.
“We have informed ExpressJet of its obligation under the law to reasonably accommodate Ms. Stanley’s religious accommodation request regarding service of alcohol,” Lena Masri, staff attorney for CAIR-Michigan said in a statement.
wildcard600
09-02-15, 17:19
Sure...why not? In addition to Gay marriage, maybe it's time to start subscribing to the Progressive concepts of White Privilege, Social Justice, Income inequality, Gender inequality, Late Term Infanticide....and the list goes on and on. Turn society upside down and inside out to move Forward towards that Utopia resembling something in an Orwell book. Oh yes, I forgot to add that Law Enforcement is also bad as well in that Progressive Utopia.
Thats a pretty far stretch to go from two people of the same gender getting married to denying peoples rights or killing babies.
some of you people scare me more than the crazy lefties.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-02-15, 17:21
Here's an idea, if you don't approve of something, don't participate in it. But don't sit on your high horse and tell others how they can or can't live their lives.
Uhm, there are some bakers that would disagree with you. And for me that is the crux.
Sure...why not? In addition to Gay marriage, maybe it's time to start subscribing to the Progressive concepts of White Privilege, Social Justice, Income inequality, Gender inequality, Late Term Infanticide....and the list goes on and on. Turn society upside down and inside out to move Forward towards that Utopia resembling something in an Orwell book. Oh yes, I forgot to add that Law Enforcement is also bad as well in that Progressive Utopia.
You don't have to be a SJW to live and let live. Utopia? Hell, everyone has some vision of a world different and better from the one we currently inhabit.
To embrace the unnatural is to admit the insane.
Like Galileo was insane? OK.
I'm not. I'm saying people should be free to live their lives as they see fit.
Not true.
Here's an idea, if you don't approve of something, don't participate in it. But don't sit on your high horse and tell others how they can or can't live their lives.
You climbed on your high horse so as to tell me not to sit on my high horse. Ironic that.
But here's an idea, if you don't approve of my philosophy, don't discuss it with me, but don't sit on your high horse and tell me what I should or should not do.
Moose-Knuckle
09-02-15, 17:26
Thats a pretty far stretch to go from two people of the same gender getting married to denying peoples rights or killing babies.
some of you people scare me more than the crazy lefties.
Well killing babies is perfectly legal in this country under the guise of abortion and in the name of women's "rights" thanks to the crazy lefties.
And we are denying many people the "right" to marry who they want, just ask Mormons and Muslims who practice polygamy. But let's all just legalize marijuana and burn one down already.
I'll see you guys in the bread line at the circus . . .
Damn, I've just skimmed through this thread, but how is it still open? I'll be surprised if it's alive at midnight.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-02-15, 17:28
Well killing babies is perfectly legal in this country under the guise of abortion and in the name of women's "rights" thanks to the crazy lefties.
And we are denying many people the "right" to marry who they want, just ask Mormons and Muslims who practice polygamy. But let's all just legalize marijuana and burn one down already.
I'll see you guys in the bread line at the circus . . .
You, my friend, will not be in the breadline at the circus, we are going to have front row seats on the sand.
Moose-Knuckle
09-02-15, 17:31
Uhm, there are some bakers that would disagree with you. And for me that is the crux.
As it is for me.
You can't have it both ways. George Orwell called it in 1945 when he wrote in is novella concerning the Bolshevik revolution; (The Seven Commandments are abridged to a single phrase) "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".
. . . this needs to be implemented across the board and not selectively enforced only upon conservative evangelical Christians.
Well killing babies is perfectly legal in this country under the guise of abortion and in the name of women's "rights" thanks to the crazy lefties.
And we are denying many people the "right" to marry who they want, just ask Mormons and Muslims who practice polygamy. But let's all just legalize marijuana and burn one down already.
I'll see you guys in the bread line at the circus . . .
Yep. From the link I posted a few pages back.
How Tyranny Came To America http://www.sobran.com/articles/tyranny.shtml
"...Take abortion. Set aside your own views and feelings about it. Is it really possible that, as the Supreme Court in effect said, all the abortion laws of all 50 states — no matter how restrictive, no matter how permissive — had always been unconstitutional? Not only that, but no previous Court, no justice on any Court in all our history — not Marshall, not Story, not Taney, not Holmes, not Hughes, not Frankfurter, not even Warren — had ever been recorded as doubting the constitutionality of those laws. Everyone had always taken it for granted that the states had every right to enact them.
Are we supposed to believe, in all seriousness, that the Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade was a response to the text of the Constitution, the discernment of a meaning that had eluded all its predecessors, rather than an enactment of the current liberal agenda? Come now.
Thats a pretty far stretch to go from two people of the same gender getting married to denying peoples rights or killing babies.
some of you people scare me more than the crazy lefties.
Don't be scared. I'm sure you're big enough to figure out what's going on in the USA without being terrified. All of those issues are in the playbook of the Progressive Left. Subscribe to Moveon.org and you'll know what they want, and what their hot button issues are. Things are getting clearer now in the US and it's becoming more black and white (no gray) as to who the enemies are and what they stand for. I'm not on the forefront of all these issues, but I am just a passive observer watching things deteriorate.
I don't know why the concept of liberty is so difficult for some folks
Uhm, there are some bakers that would disagree with you. And for me that is the crux.
My take on the whole gay and baker thing was that both sides were both interested in notoriety and shrill 'MY rights' shouters.
I'm fairly devout, church weekly, mission trips, local works, tithe, have taught Sunday school, etc. I generally eschew stores/businesses that make a deal out of advertising their religious affiliation. I generally get in a brief prayer before lunch at work, no body knows because I don't make a big production out of it. Kind of like most gays, and most bakers, huh?
My thought is that if you want to pick and choose for whom you are going to make cakes, tee-shirts, etc., you probably ought to have a members only club, so you can fully exercise your rights.
Once again, 'sure I'll make your cake, and I'll do the best job possible, but let me explain that as a devout Christian I believe that this is a sin, so I'll be praying for your salvation as I make the cake. So, understanding that, what are we talking, white cake with white icing as the base?'
Most people would say, 'hey thanks, but I'll go somewhere else' on the other hand, some will take the opportunity to make it the hill they are going to die on.
wildcard600
09-02-15, 18:59
I don't know why the concept of liberty is so difficult for some folks
Can't possibly be liberty if its part of the "vast left wing conspiracy/progressive agenda".
So are we just ignoring the fact that this idiot won't issue a marriage license to ANYONE now?
Why is she still being treated like some moral hero? If you are a heterosexual couple, she will NOT issue you a marriage license. That means she is putting her own job security above your right to be married.
The County Clerk in Kentucky is no moral example. Maybe she is a little nutty? I would be more concerned about the husband and wife in Oregon who were fined $130,000 for not baking the gay wedding cake. Businesses are going to have to be a little more open about what their services involve. Remember the signs in some businesses: "We Reserve the Right to Deny Service to Anyone", or: "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service". Now the signs could include: "No Service to Sodomites". An argument could be made that this kind of thing resembles the South when blacks weren't allowed at the lunch counter, or had a separate restroom from the white restroom. Private industry can still cater to whomever they want. A County Official has a more difficult situation. As the County Clerk, her name appears on the stamp for all official documents. Could this be circumvented by creating a stamp for a deputy County Clerk who has no problem with gay marriage? This way, the elected official doesn't have her name on anything. Just a thought.
JBecker 72
09-02-15, 20:21
Not true.
You climbed on your high horse so as to tell me not to sit on my high horse. Ironic that.
But here's an idea, if you don't approve of my philosophy, don't discuss it with me, but don't sit on your high horse and tell me what I should or should not do.
I'm not the one advocating the denial of people's rights.
JBecker 72
09-02-15, 20:23
The County Clerk in Kentucky is no moral example. Maybe she is a little nutty? I would be more concerned about the husband and wife in Oregon who were fined $130,000 for not baking the gay wedding cake. Businesses are going to have to be a little more open about what their services involve. Remember the signs in some businesses: "We Reserve the Right to Deny Service to Anyone", or: "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service". Now the signs could include: "No Service to Sodomites". An argument could be made that this kind of thing resembles the South when blacks weren't allowed at the lunch counter, or had a separate restroom from the white restroom. Private industry can still cater to whomever they want. A County Official has a more difficult situation. As the County Clerk, her name appears on the stamp for all official documents. Could this be circumvented by creating a stamp for a deputy County Clerk who has no problem with gay marriage? This way, the elected official doesn't have her name on anything. Just a thought.
For the record I think that was a bad ruling against the couple.
For the record I think that was a bad ruling against the couple.
Agreed. Private individuals and businesses have to have some protection against this sort of thing. I think the same protection should be given to churches as well.
Whiskey_Bravo
09-02-15, 20:53
Call me what you will but I find two gay dudes pretty downright gross and unnatural.
My downright gross and unnatural chart in order:
gay married incestous brothers
gay married men
married incestous brother and sister
See above
I can have my opinion all I want and it doesn't involve me being on a high horse, you know being my opinion and all. I just like anyone else can have an opinion as I refuse to live on my knees as an apologist and I don't mind all that much if I offend you with said opinion.
My take on the whole gay and baker thing was that both sides were both interested in notoriety and shrill 'MY rights' shouters.
I'm fairly devout, church weekly, mission trips, local works, tithe, have taught Sunday school, etc. I generally eschew stores/businesses that make a deal out of advertising their religious affiliation. I generally get in a brief prayer before lunch at work, no body knows because I don't make a big production out of it. Kind of like most gays, and most bakers, huh?
My thought is that if you want to pick and choose for whom you are going to make cakes, tee-shirts, etc., you probably ought to have a members only club, so you can fully exercise your rights.
Once again, 'sure I'll make your cake, and I'll do the best job possible, but let me explain that as a devout Christian I believe that this is a sin, so I'll be praying for your salvation as I make the cake. So, understanding that, what are we talking, white cake with white icing as the base?'
Most people would say, 'hey thanks, but I'll go somewhere else' on the other hand, some will take the opportunity to make it the hill they are going to die on.
I am pretty sure any of these bakers would have made a normal or non wedding cake for these gay couples(I know at least one or two of the high profile cases have said this). The rub was with being forced to make a wedding cake celebrating a gay marriage. At some point you have to choose the hill to make your stand on if you have values.
Only Christians are prosecuted for refusing to accept mental illness as reality. Muslims get a free pass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4
Only Christians are prosecuted for refusing to accept mental illness as reality. Muslims get a free pass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4
Privately owned businesses are a little different and elected pubic service position. If Kim Davis was a bakery owner and refused to make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple, I'd support her right to do so 100%.
If a Muslim county clerk refused to issue a marriage license to a homosexual couple, I'd have exactly the same problem I have with Kim Davis. If a Muslim county clerk then went on to refuse marriage licenses to anyone, in order to shield themselves from discrimination, I think that might make national news.
Privately owned businesses are a little different and elected pubic service position. If Kim Davis was a bakery owner and refused to make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple, I'd support her right to do so 100%.
If a Muslim county clerk refused to issue a marriage license to a homosexual couple, I'd have exactly the same problem I have with Kim Davis. If a Muslim county clerk then went on to refuse marriage licenses to anyone, in order to shield themselves from discrimination, I think that might make national news.
The bakery owners in Oregon didn't get a free pass.
JBecker 72 posted: For the record I think that was a bad ruling against the couple.
OH58D posted: Agreed. Private individuals and businesses have to have some protection against this sort of thing. I think the same protection should be given to churches as well.
I am pretty sure any of these bakers would have made a normal or non wedding cake for these gay couples(I know at least one or two of the high profile cases have said this). The rub was with being forced to make a wedding cake celebrating a gay marriage. At some point you have to choose the hill to make your stand on if you have values.
I agree that the monetary damages were outlandish.
I pretty much lean towards if you are open to the public, you ought to be open to the public. If you are running a cake decorating shop you ought to understand that at some point folks are going to ask for something that offends you, or you don't think is right, if you don't want to deal with that maybe you should think about something else.
There are over 7,000,000,000 people in the world, no two are exactly alike, and, in my case I probably don't really like 6,999,999,001 of them. Guess what I have to deal with it. I'd be willing to bet that most of us on this forum with diametrically opposing views would get along in face-to-face contact because we give and take.
If you are gay and someone nicely tells you they don't feel comfortable making a cake for you, be gracious and move on. If you are a baker and someone asks you to make a cake you don't think is right, have a good alternative suggestion ready, don't let your disdain show - face to face isn't the internet :)
Individuals do have protection, you can associate with who you want, go into a place, don't like who or what you see or hear, turn around and leave. Your neighbor is an asshole? Ignore him.
Regarding protection for Churches, do they really need it? All a Pastor has to do is tell folks, 'I don't marry folks who aren't members of our Church, these are folks who do....'
JBecker 72
09-02-15, 22:25
I can have my opinion all I want and it doesn't involve me being on a high horse, you know being my opinion and all. I just like anyone else can have an opinion as I refuse to live on my knees as an apologist and I don't mind all that much if I offend you with said opinion.
Of course you can have your opinion. But your opinion doesn't trump someone else's rights. Gay marriage is legal and this lady is refusing to perform her duties by denying gay (and straight) couples their legal right to marry each other. Plenty of people feel we shouldn't have the right to own firearms, but we are legally within our rights to do so.
Whiskey_Bravo
09-02-15, 22:34
I pretty much lean towards if you are open to the public, you ought to be open to the public. If you are running a cake decorating shop you ought to understand that at some point folks are going to ask for something that offends you, or you don't think is right, if you don't want to deal with that maybe you should think about something else. ...'
So if you run a photography studio and someone comes in and wants nude pictures that photographer should be forced to do it because they are open to th public?
If you are a tattoo artist and someone wants a tattoo on their junk you should have to do it since it's open to the public?
If you run a printing service and someone comes in and request you to print 1000 copies of "F The Police, pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon" that printer should be forced to do it since they are open to the public? Anti-Semitic or racist flyers?
These are all legal request, should the business owners be forced by law to do it? They offer a service that is open to the public.
Whiskey_Bravo
09-02-15, 22:35
Of course you can have your opinion. But your opinion doesn't trump someone else's rights. Gay marriage is legal and this lady is refusing to perform her duties by denying gay (and straight) couples their legal right to marry each other. Plenty of people feel we shouldn't have the right to own firearms, but we are legally within our rights to do so.
I never commented on the clerk, other than to say people have to chose which hill to die on. If you work for the government you have to follow those rules or leave your job.
The bakery owners in Oregon didn't get a free pass.
And IMO that is wrong. Private businesses are NOT public services. Private businesses are NOT supported by tax payer dollars so they should not be obligated to any individual. If a Muslim bakery decides they don't want to make a cake for me given my general views on Islam, that should be their RIGHT.
When you own a business you decide.
If you work for someone else, the business owner decides.
If you are a public servant, you have no say in the matter.
If I walk into BLM chicken and ribs, and the owner decides he doesn't want to serve me, that should be his right as a business owner. And honestly, I'll gladly take my money elsewhere. I can't imagine feeling so entitled that I should be able to "force" the owner of BLM chicken and ribs to serve me.
Moose-Knuckle
09-03-15, 00:23
I don't know why the concept of liberty is so difficult for some folks
It's difficult for me because no one who supports all these feel good laws can explain to me why it's not only legal but cool to let gays/lesbians marry yet we as a nation deny the same "right" to polygamist Mormons and Muslims. I mean their all consenting adults so why won't the SCOTUS recognize their rights?
Everyone is all upset at this county clerk in KY for not signing marriage licenses but again, how many CLEOs have refused to sign off on NFA forms? Who is gong to make them sign off on them? The 2nd is in the Constitution, nothing in their about marrying same sex partners.
If's its all about liberty then by God let's make things equal across the board.
Moose-Knuckle
09-03-15, 00:39
The County Clerk in Kentucky is no moral example. Maybe she is a little nutty?
Agreed. Honestly, I'm glad she's been divorced as many times has she has and the fact that she is an elected Democrat is a cherry on top of the icing. She is pinching a loaf right in their punch bowl thus causing a "national discussion". If nothing else she is using civil disobedience to draw a spot light on the hypocrisy of the progressive left. Oh, I'm sure she doesn't see it that way, in her mind she is just a pious evangelical standing up for her beliefs. Hence the degree of controversy.
I would be more concerned about the husband and wife in Oregon who were fined $130,000 for not baking the gay wedding cake. Businesses are going to have to be a little more open about what their services involve.
As would I, this is the rub for me. Make things equal across the board in this progressive utopia. The straight baker's rights are just as important as the gay groom's.
Remember the signs in some businesses: "We Reserve the Right to Deny Service to Anyone", or: "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service". Now the signs could include: "No Service to Sodomites". An argument could be made that this kind of thing resembles the South when blacks weren't allowed at the lunch counter, or had a separate restroom from the white restroom. Private industry can still cater to whomever they want.
Every time I have brought up these signs during such discussions, the LGBT rights advocates smell blood in the water and start in with "You can't deny someone service, that's discrimination, it's Jim Crow 2.0, blah, blah, blah, so on and so forth". Yet ANY privately owned business can DENY my rights afforded to me by the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution and prohibit me from entering their business with a sign.
Moose-Knuckle
09-03-15, 00:57
Only Christians are prosecuted for refusing to accept mental illness as reality. Muslims get a free pass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4
That was great. I've been wanting start a political activist sketch comedy troupe in the style of Sacha Baron Cohen for some time.
My first sketch would be to present myself as a member of the Westboro Baptist church to gay/lesbian owned bakeries in the greater Denver area. Then place orders with them for a sheet cake that will be for the new Westboro Denver congregation's inaugural church picnic.
My second sketch would be to pose with an African-American actor as a interracial gay married couple wearing #BlackLivesMatter shirts and signs outside of inner city abortion clinics.
I'm not the one advocating the denial of people's rights.
1. That does not change the fact that you decided to climb on your high horse and tell me what I should and should not do, while at the same time accusing me of climbing on my high horse and telling me I should not tell others what they should and should not do.
2. Nor am I. The rules and rights of marriage already covered everyone equally regardless of whether or not they desired to habitually commit homosexual acts.
3. You are unable to actually demonstrate in any way how a person engaging in homosexual acts makes that person into a "people".
4. That you and all the supporters of homosexual "marriage" also support incestuous marriage evidences just how unhinged from reality the entire nonsensical militant lunatic leftist homosexual agenda truly is.
Agreed. Private individuals and businesses have to have some protection against this sort of thing. I think the same protection should be given to churches as well.
But they won't, and as we see, this is already what is happening.
http://i1328.photobucket.com/albums/w522/mtjh45/Gay%20Rights%20Demands1_zpsfxb2m7f4.jpg
I pretty much lean towards if you are open to the public, you ought to be open to the public. If you are running a cake decorating shop you ought to understand that at some point folks are going to ask for something that offends you, or you don't think is right, if you don't want to deal with that maybe you should think about something else.
So if neo-nazis walk into a Jewish owned bakery and demand a birthday cake commemorating Adolf Hitler's birthday, with "Arbeit Macht Frei" written along the side, the law should force them to bake it? Or if members of the KKK walk into a black owned bakery and demand a cake celebrating the election of a new grand wizard, complete with a depiction of a lynching in the frosting, the black owned bakery should be forced to make it for them?
Of course you can have your opinion. But your opinion doesn't trump someone else's rights. Gay marriage is legal and this lady is refusing to perform her duties by denying gay (and straight) couples their legal right to marry each other. Plenty of people feel we shouldn't have the right to own firearms, but we are legally within our rights to do so.
Meaning that if SCOTUS ruled that owning semi-auto rifles was not constitutionally protected, and the government outlawed their possession, you would criticise those government agents who on principle refused to do their duty and obey a lawful order to go around and confiscate firearms?
What is not debatable, however, is the fact that homosexuals, transgenders, etc. suffer from sexual disorders, and rather than accept and facilitate their mental illness, they should be referred for proper treatment (e.g., conversion therapy, psychotherapy, etc.). The fact that we're normalizing mental illness is strongly indicative of the insanity present in the "progressive" movement.
JBecker 72
09-03-15, 06:53
1. That does not change the fact that you decided to climb on your high horse and tell me what I should and should not do, while at the same time accusing me of climbing on my high horse and telling me I should not tell others what they should and should not do.
2. Nor am I. The rules and rights of marriage already covered everyone equally regardless of whether or not they desired to habitually commit homosexual acts.
3. You are unable to actually demonstrate in any way how a person engaging in homosexual acts makes that person into a "people".
4. That you and all the supporters of homosexual "marriage" also support incestuous marriage evidences just how unhinged from reality the entire nonsensical militant lunatic leftist homosexual agenda truly is.
Why do you care so much what other people do? And yes, you have voiced your opinion numerous times that they are not deserving of equal rights as heterosexuals. It's the same argument you're rambling off on why they are beneath you.
Meaning that if SCOTUS ruled that owning semi-auto rifles was not constitutionally protected, and the government outlawed their possession, you would criticise those government agents who on principle refused to do their duty and obey a lawful order to go around and confiscate firearms?
See Heller.
What is not debatable, however, is the fact that homosexuals, transgenders, etc. suffer from sexual disorders, and rather than accept and facilitate their mental illness, they should be referred for proper treatment (e.g., conversion therapy, psychotherapy, etc.). The fact that we're normalizing mental illness is strongly indicative of the insanity present in the "progressive" movement.
Wow...
"One of the 45 goals of "The Communist Takeover of America:"
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy." - “The Naked Communist” by Cleon Skousen
We're right on track!
Why do you care so much what other people do?
Why do you care so much what other people say?
And yes, you have voiced your opinion numerous times that they are not deserving of equal rights as heterosexuals. It's the same argument you're rambling off on why they are beneath you.
Not remotely true.
The fact is that you have steadfastly refused to even begin to formulate any kind of argument demonstrating how the laws which governed marriage did not already apply equally to everyone, regardless of whether or not they habitually desired to commit homosexual acts, nor how committing homosexual acts makes a person into a "people", and that's because you can't, so you simply and rather predictably resort to endlessly complaining about having to keep facing the questions that you are unable to answer.
Considering that you also support even the lunacy of incestuous homosexual marriage, what else can you really do except desperately try and deflect?
"One of the 45 goals of "The Communist Takeover of America:"
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy." - “The Naked Communist” by Cleon Skousen
We're right on track!
The communists were militantly atheist. The supporters of homosexual "marriage", and even homosexual incestuous "marriage", that one encounters on the forums are almost all likewise militant atheists.
I rather doubt that that is a coincidence.
JBecker 72
09-03-15, 07:50
Why do you care so much what other people say?
Not remotely true.
The fact is that you have steadfastly refused to even begin to formulate any kind of argument demonstrating how the laws which governed marriage did not already apply equally to everyone, regardless of whether or not they habitually desired to commit homosexual acts, nor how committing homosexual acts makes a person into a "people", and that's because you can't, so you simply and rather predictably resort to endlessly complaining about having to keep facing the questions that you are unable to answer.
Considering that you also support even the lunacy of incestuous homosexual marriage, what else can you really do except desperately try and deflect?
They actually didn't apply equally to everyone unless you were a heterosexual couple. So why do you keep saying otherwise? It wasn't long ago a black man couldn't marry a white woman, but that was overturned.
Maybe one day society will be accepting of others lifestyles. But given some of the response I see here, on a pro rights and liberty forum, I'm constantly reminded of the hypocrisy and fear of different lifestyles.
Enjoy your saber rattling gentlemen. I'll see myself out after this post.
They actually didn't apply equally to everyone unless you were a heterosexual couple. So why do you keep saying otherwise? It wasn't long ago a black man couldn't marry a white woman, but that was overturned.
Maybe one day society will be accepting of others lifestyles. But given some of the response I see here, on a pro rights and liberty forum, I'm constantly reminded of the hypocrisy and fear of different lifestyles.
Enjoy your saber rattling gentlemen. I'll see myself out after this post.
Pro-natural rights, not pro-unnatural rights.
To make it simple, the government should stay out of all business'. We are supposed to have a free market economy. If you own a widget business and you want to openly refuse business to anyone for any reason you should be able to. You just don't get their money, end of story. People in this country just want to make trouble for the sake of making trouble. Most rational human beings don't want to be around people that don't want them around. Those that want to be there out of "principal" are not doing it for some altruistic reason. They have a personal agenda that is just as bad.
They actually didn't apply equally to everyone unless you were a heterosexual couple. So why do you keep saying otherwise? It wasn't long ago a black man couldn't marry a white woman, but that was overturned.
Not true, since the rights and rules governing marriage already applied equally to everyone regardless of whether or not they wanted to engage in homosexual acts, and equating being black with wanting to engage in homosexual behaviour is simply lunatic leftist propaganda, and nothing more.
And as we again see, you still steadfastly refuse to even begin to formulate any kind of argument demonstrating how the laws which governed marriage did not in fact already apply equally to everyone, regardless of whether or not they habitually desired to commit homosexual acts, or how committing homosexual acts makes a person into a "people" who then were someone not afforded the same right to marry as those who did not commit homosexual acts.
JBecker 72
09-03-15, 08:23
Not true, since the rights and rules governing marriage already applied equally to everyone regardless of whether or not they wanted to engage in homosexual acts, and equating being black with wanting to engage in homosexual behaviour is simply lunatic leftist propaganda, and nothing more.
And as we again see, you still steadfastly refuse to even begin to formulate any kind of argument demonstrating how the laws which governed marriage did not in fact already apply equally to everyone, regardless of whether or not they habitually desired to commit homosexual acts, or how committing homosexual acts makes a person into a "people" who then were someone not afforded the same right to marry as those who did not commit homosexual acts.
I know I said I would leave this thread however I have to address this post.
No, for years homosexuals were not permitted the same right to marry their same sex partner. They did not have the same rights regarding tax structures and how an estate was handled when their partner died. They also were not permitted to be on the health policy of their partner like a heterosexual couple was. Just like 50 years ago a black man was legally not permitted to marry a white woman. They wouldn't issue a marriage license.
Now that scouts has ruled homosexuals can legally marry, they are just now permitted the same rights as heterosexuals. So everything you've been posting about how they had the same rights all along is complete nonsense.
No, for years homosexuals were not permitted the same right to marry their same sex partner. They did not have the same rights regarding tax structures and how an estate was handled when their partner died. They also were not permitted to be on the health policy of their partner like a heterosexual couple was.
Homosexuality is a chosen behaviour, and not an ontology, i.e. a state of being, which I suspect is why you still steadfastly refuse to even begin to formulate any kind of argument demonstrating how the laws which governed marriage did not in fact already apply equally to everyone, regardless of whether or not they habitually desired to commit homosexual acts, or how committing homosexual acts makes a person into a "people" who then were someone not afforded the same right to marry as those who did not commit homosexual acts.
Just like 50 years ago a black man was legally not permitted to marry a white woman. They wouldn't issue a marriage license.
People have stopped engaging in homosexual behaviour, sometimes because they come to believe that it really is depraved and immoral, and sometimes because they no longer experience the desire to sodomize other males, but no one ever stops being a woman, or stops being black, which is why equating being black with homosexual sodomy is simply lunatic leftist propaganda, and nothing more.
Now that scouts has ruled homosexuals can legally marry, they are just now permitted the same rights as heterosexuals. So everything you've been posting about how they had the same rights all along is complete nonsense.
Except that your statement is simply utter and complete nonsense. The law said that a male could not marry another male, regardless of whether or not he wanted to engage in sexual depravity with him.
Again, since you also support homosexual incestuous "marriage", I really don't expect logic and reason to have much of an impact.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-03-15, 08:41
So if neo-nazis walk into a Jewish owned bakery and demand a birthday cake commemorating Adolf Hitler's birthday, with "Arbeit Macht Frei" written along the side, the law should force them to bake it? Or if members of the KKK walk into a black owned bakery and demand a cake celebrating the election of a new grand wizard, complete with a depiction of a lynching in the frosting, the black owned bakery should be forced to make it for them?
In the Colorado baker case, the court skirted that issue by saying that having someone write something on the cake could violate the bakers 1A rights. Nice dodge there.
Actually, go to gay caterers and bakers and have them participate in a religious conversion party for someone that has given up the gay lifestyle. Watch the hilarity ensue.
Why bakers and not caterers as the focus of this attack?
On SCOTUS outlawing ARs and the legality of that order.
See Heller.
Yes, and if you don't think that a leftist SCOTUS wouldn't interpret "reasonable restrictions" to disallow ARs, you are delusional. That or just reverse Heller. Not saying it would be easy, but one way or another they wouldn't pass up a chance to outlaw ARs.
To make it simple, the government should stay out of all business'. We are supposed to have a free market economy. If you own a widget business and you want to openly refuse business to anyone for any reason you should be able to. You just don't get their money, end of story. People in this country just want to make trouble for the sake of making trouble. Most rational human beings don't want to be around people that don't want them around. Those that want to be there out of "principal" are not doing it for some altruistic reason. They have a personal agenda that is just as bad.
That's always been my question. Why exactly would someone want to give $ to a business owned by someone who doesn't want anything to do with them? I wouldn't and don't. Those businesses that are anti-gun don't get my $. The only answer I could ever come up with is "agenda"....
Ultimately, this controversy, which shouldn't be controversial, occurred because people not only reject God, but believe they are God. Anything that feels good must be good.
JBecker 72
09-03-15, 09:01
Your moral compass shouldn't set the course for other individuals lives.
In the Colorado baker case, the court skirted that issue by saying that having someone write something on the cake could violate the bakers 1A rights. Nice dodge there.
Actually, go to gay caterers and bakers and have them participate in a religious conversion party for someone that has given up the gay lifestyle. Watch the hilarity ensue.
Yep
On SCOTUS outlawing ARs and the legality of that order.
Yes, and if you don't think that a leftist SCOTUS wouldn't interpret "reasonable restrictions" to disallow ARs, you are delusional. That or just reverse Heller. Not saying it would be easy, but one way or another they wouldn't pass up a chance to outlaw ARs.
Heller was a red herring, and he knows it, because Heller said absolutely nothing whatsoever about private citizens owning "military styled" semiautomatic rifles, not to mention that Heller was carried by a majority of only a single vote.
And lest we forget what SCOTUS actually said in Heller about how the Second Amendment should not be understood as conferring a “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
I suspect the reason he went for this red herring was because like others here who are telling this woman what to do, they themselves in fact would not follow their own advice if SCOTUS did in fact rule that owning semi-auto rifles was not a constitutionally protected right, and they full well know it.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-03-15, 09:12
Your moral compass shouldn't set the course for other individuals lives.
Agreed, said a bunch of bakers.
"One of the 45 goals of "The Communist Takeover of America:"
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy." - “The Naked Communist” by Cleon Skousen
We're right on track!
I'm an old fashioned Conservative with some Libertarian leanings. As I said before in this thread, I subscribe to MoveOn.org just to see what the enemy is up to, and what their big push of the day is. This outfit has a pretty good grass roots network, and they seem to do a good job of community organizing, many times in the form of neighborhood parties to watch Marxist internet videos. Gay Marriage is one of their Progressive pushes, but more recently has been the rotten Iran Nuclear Deal. The Progressives are having a giant hard-on for making that deal stick. There is no doubt in my mind that a break down of norms, traditions and morality via moral equivalencies are part of their plans. Christians and the organized Church in America are some of the barriers to achieving their goals.
JBecker 72
09-03-15, 09:18
On SCOTUS outlawing ARs and the legality of that order.
Yes, and if you don't think that a leftist SCOTUS wouldn't interpret "reasonable restrictions" to disallow ARs, you are delusional. That or just reverse Heller. Not saying it would be easy, but one way or another they wouldn't pass up a chance to outlaw ARs.
The tides have been turning in our favor with regard to gun rights for at least the past decade, specifically semiauto rifles, magazine capacity, and shall issue carry permits. We have more freedoms as gun owners than we have in a long time provided you don't live in one of the ban states. All of this despite certain individuals repeated attempts to undermine our rights.
If those on the left who oppose firearm ownership and those on the right who oppose marriage equality would only see the irony in their thinking when it comes to all individuals rights guaranteed to them. Stop picking and choosing civil liberties.
JBecker 72
09-03-15, 09:19
Agreed, said a bunch of bakers.
And again, that was a bad ruling.
The tides have been turning in our favor with regard to gun rights for at least the past decade,
Tell that to those in Cali, or Maryland, or New York, or Connecticut, or Denver, or..
specifically semiauto rifles,
Nope.
magazine capacity,
No again.
and shall issue carry permits.
True.
We have more freedoms as gun owners than we have in a long time provided you don't live in one of the ban states.
Yeah, except for that tiny little fact.
If those on the left who oppose firearm ownership and those on the right who oppose marriage equality would only see the irony in their thinking when it comes to all individuals rights guaranteed to them. Stop picking and choosing civil liberties.
Except that many of us simply flat out reject the untenable claim that any part of the militant leftist lunatic agenda of these gun-grabbing socialist marxists is good for America, or will bring the Republic greater freedom and liberty.
http://i1328.photobucket.com/albums/w522/mtjh45/5a884389007feaa07dbc860ddb1cd884_zps23d38c9a.jpeg
http://i1328.photobucket.com/albums/w522/mtjh45/SupremeCourtJustices_zps1xfgn6xa.jpg
http://i1328.photobucket.com/albums/w522/mtjh45/08_hillarygaypride_lg_zpslo4lcnhd.jpg
http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/06/andrew-cuomo-ny-gay-pride-parade-AFP-640x480.jpg
brickboy240
09-03-15, 09:53
The gay marriage issue is not about civil rights, but another wedge used to keep us distracted, divided and at each others throats.
I am all for gays being able to do what they want BUT the way this is being foisted upon us has nothing to do with basic freedoms - it is about keeping the pot stirred up and dividing everyone.
In the end...I really think the govt should stay out of the marriage business entirely. It is not mandated in the Constitution.
JBecker 72
09-03-15, 09:56
Belloc, see the sunset of the AWB that restricted semiauto rifles and magazine capacity.
In the end...I really think the govt should stay out of the marriage business entirely. It is not mandated in the Constitution.
The federal government should stay out, but the state governments must be involved because natural marriage produces children, and children also have certain inalienable rights that need to be legislatively recognised and protected.
brickboy240
09-03-15, 09:59
That was in 2004.
Since then, we have seen tons of infringements on people's rights to own guns.
Belloc, see the sunset of the AWB that restricted semiauto rifles and magazine capacity.
I am well aware of the restrictions of the AWB, but the fact remains that on the day after the ban expired we had more freedoms concerning firearms, and since that day more and more of us, by the tens of millions, have had less and less.
In any case raising the issue only strengthens my case, as the ban referred to "semiautomatic assault weapons", of which no such thing exists, in the same way no such thing as a "bolt action assault weapon" exists. But the supporters of homosexual "marriage" believe the government has the orwellian power and authority to redefine marriage to mean something that no society or civilisation in all of recorded human history ever believed it could possibly ever mean, and thus also to redefine "assault weapon".
To support the SCOTUS decision is to tell a lie, because only in a lie can one claim that Thomas Jefferson, who actually authored a bill in Virginia punishing homosexual sodomy with castration, also actually wrote a constitution that forces the all the individual states to perform homosexual "marriages", and lies are not principles upon which a republic can secure the blessings of liberty.
That was in 2004.
Since then, we have seen tons of infringements on people's rights to own guns.
Which have all happened at the state level; ironic given that it seems like a bunch of dudes here want to go back in time and kill Alexander Hamilton...
JBecker 72
09-03-15, 10:18
That was in 2004.
Since then, we have seen tons of infringements on people's rights to own guns.
I said decade. For the most part it's gotten better. It has in VA for sure, though it was already good. More people can legally conceal carry, more states allow suppressors and SBR/SBS, etc. Sure you have some ban states that have lost rights, but even in CA there are thousands of AR rifles where they couldn't own them 6-7 years ago.
Either way, the argument Belloc made about banning semiauto rifles comparing to allowing gay marriage is pretty bad. One is restricting the rights of individuals, and the other is granting rights that have long been denied.
Regarding marriage being necessary to procreation and increasing the population, that's also a weak argument. Plenty of married couples never conceive a child, even if there is no fertility issues. And plenty of children are born to unwed couples or single mothers. Marriage is not required to populate the earth.
Which have all happened at the state level; ironic given that it seems like a bunch of dudes here want to go back in time and kill Alexander Hamilton...
And the exact same lunatic leftists miscreants that have been successful at the state level are the ones trying at the federal level, and won't ever stop trying, and SCOTUS is more ideologically left now than when Heller was decided. Add to these facts the fact that it is the exact same lunatic leftists gun-grabbers who are behind the entire pro-homosexual noxious liberty destroying agenda.
Either way, the argument Belloc made about banning semiauto rifles comparing to allowing gay marriage is pretty bad. One is restricting the rights of individuals, and the other is granting rights that have long been denied.
I simply asked that if SCOTUS decided that semiautomatic rifles were not protected by the constitution, and were then outlawed nationwide, would you also likewise criticise law enforcement officers who refused a lawful order to go around and confiscate these firearms.
You have refused to answer the question, and it is not hard to guess why.
Given the convo re: SCOTUS:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-coming-liberal-disaster-at-the-supreme-court
I said decade. For the most part it's gotten better. It has in VA for sure, though it was already good. More people can legally conceal carry, more states allow suppressors and SBR/SBS, etc. Sure you have some ban states that have lost rights, but even in CA there are thousands of AR rifles where they couldn't own them 6-7 years ago.
Either way, the argument Belloc made about banning semiauto rifles comparing to allowing gay marriage is pretty bad. One is restricting the rights of individuals, and the other is granting rights that have long been denied.
Regarding marriage being necessary to procreation and increasing the population, that's also a weak argument. Plenty of married couples never conceive a child, even if there is no fertility issues. And plenty of children are born to unwed couples or single mothers. Marriage is not required to populate the earth.
"AR rifles" in CA are not AR rifles. In the last decade, more citizens have been denied their god-given, unalienable Rights to keep and bear arms.
Homosexuals have always had the right to sodomize each other and spread disease. They have no right to marriage. Anyone claiming otherwise is telling you a lie. From whom do you suppose rights come?
Marriage certainly is necessary to populate the earth with healthy, productive members of society.
JBecker 72
09-03-15, 10:43
I simply asked that if SCOTUS decided that semiautomatic rifles were not protected by the constitution, and were then outlawed nationwide, would you also likewise criticise law enforcement officers who refused a lawful order to go around and confiscate these firearms.
You have refused to answer the question, and it is not hard to guess why.
Since it would be a denial of my rights, no I would not comply and I would fight it. Just as homosexuals who have been denied their rights have fought to overturn bad law.
JBecker 72
09-03-15, 10:48
"AR rifles" in CA are not AR rifles. In the last decade, more citizens have been denied their god-given, unalienable Rights to keep and bear arms.
Homosexuals have always had the right to sodomize each other and spread disease. They have no right to marriage. Anyone claiming otherwise is telling you a lie. From whom do you suppose rights come?
Marriage certainly is necessary to populate the earth with healthy, productive members of society.
I lived in CA for 2 years. What they have access to has gotten better for the most part with the exception of the handgun roster and single shot exemptions going away. So I'm well aware of the fight they have for 2A rights. I lived it.
Heterosexuals have always had the right to sodomize each other and spread disease. And yes, now homosexuals have a right to marriage just like you. You have rights when you're born as a human being. Individuals and governments need to figure out that restricting others is wrong.
Regarding your last remark about marriage being necessary to populate the earth with "healthy and productive" members of society, millions of years of life thriving on this planet in all of its forms strongly proves otherwise.
Since it would be a denial of my rights, no I would not comply and I would fight it. Just as homosexuals who have been denied their rights have fought to overturn bad law.
Wrong, the rights and regulations government marriage were already covering every person in society equally, regardless of whether or not they wanted to engage in homosexual sodomy.
Or put another way, a male who wanted to habitually sodomize other males had the exact same rights to marry as a person who did not desire to sodomize other males.
And I stand by my claim that anyone who claims that Thomas Jefferson, who wrote a bill punishing homosexual sodomy with castration, also wrote a constitution that empowers the federal government with the power and authority to force all the individual states to perform homosexual "marriage", is intentionally being intellectual dishonest.
Here is a letter sent to members of a large non-denominational Church in Northwestern New Mexico. FYI, this is not my Church or Community, but the language is interesting, especially the reference to Revolution:
Dear Piñon Hills Community Church Family,
The Supreme Court of the United States legalized marriage for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders on June 26, 2015. This decision will have far reaching consequences for our country, for Christianity and for our personal lives. I will be writing a full essay or position paper on this issue, but for now I want you to know our PHCC policies on this matter.
PHCC and Gay Marriage
Pinon Hills Community Church's doctrinal position and policies are based on the belief that the Bible is the Word of God. We believe its truths are timeless and require a higher allegiance than do the shifting opinions of man.
Therefore, in light of the Supreme Court ruling that legalizes lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender marriage across America, these are our policies:
1. We treat all people as valuable persons created in the image of God.
2. We promote faithful biblical marriage between one man and one woman as God's design for personal, family and social blessing.
3. We do not perform any weddings that are not between one man and one woman and we reserve the right to not marry any couple per our discretion.
4. We demand liberty to practice our faith that is rooted in 2,000 years of Christian history and 10,000 years or more of biblical history without discrimination or penalty by society or the government.
5. We obey the law as an instrument of God's peace in the world except when the law requires us to disobey God; then we practice peaceful civil disobedience to a point, then, when necessary, we lead revolutions to recover our God-given right to liberty.
--
John Morgan | Lead Pastor
Piñon Hills Community Church
5101 N. Dustin Avenue | Farmington, NM 87401
PinonHillsChurch.com
Heterosexuals have always had the right to sodomize each other and spread disease. And yes, now homosexuals have a right to marriage just like you. You have rights when you're born as a human being.
You have still steadfastly refused to explain why you believe the lunatic leftist ideological narrative that a male sodomizing another male makes that person into a "people". Even researchers in the field are abandoning the so-called "born gay" theory, and I actually suspect that you full well know this.
You keep inferring that males sodomizing each other is like being black, but can not offer a single piece of evidence, or even argument, to support that notion, a notion that the majority of blacks themselves absolutely utterly reject.
Against Heterosexuality
Alasdair MacIntyre once quipped that “facts, like telescopes and wigs for gentlemen, were a seventeenth-century invention.” Something similar can be said about sexual orientation: Heterosexuals, like typewriters and urinals (also, obviously, for gentlemen), were an invention of the 1860s. Contrary to our cultural preconceptions and the lies of what has come to be called “orientation essentialism,” “straight” and “gay” are not ageless absolutes. Sexual orientation is a conceptual scheme with a history, and a dark one at that. It is a history that began far more recently than most people know, and it is one that will likely end much sooner than most people think.
Over the course of several centuries, the West had progressively abandoned Christianity’s marital architecture for human sexuality. Then, about one hundred and fifty years ago, it began to replace that longstanding teleological tradition with a brand new creation: the absolutist but absurd taxonomy of sexual orientations.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/03/against-heterosexuality
... 5. We obey the law as an instrument of God's peace in the world except when the law requires us to disobey God; then we practice peaceful civil disobedience to a point, then, when necessary, we lead revolutions to recover our God-given right to liberty...
OK. Go live under a theocracy for a while then come back here and talk about revolutions... Even my very liberal, open-minded Dutch Reform pastor in college agreed that the Kingdom of God is NOT a democracy.
Gah.
OK. Go live under a theocracy for a while then come back here and talk about revolutions... Even my very liberal, open-minded Dutch Reform pastor in college agreed that the Kingdom of God is NOT a democracy.
Gah.
Not my Church, but a pretty clear statement that the religious community won't be pushed too far in violating their beliefs.
JBecker 72
09-03-15, 11:13
You have still steadfastly refused to explain why you believe the lunatic leftist ideological narrative that a male sodomizing another male makes that person into a "people". Even researchers in the field are abandoning the so-called "born gay" theory, and I actually suspect that you full well know this.
You keep inferring that males sodomizing each other is like being black, but can not offer a single piece of evidence, or even argument, to support that notion, a notion that the majority of blacks themselves absolutely utterly reject.
That person is a human being who is free to do as they please. End of story. Born gay or choosing to be gay, it's completely irrelevant.
Two males who want to marry each other is the exact same as a black man and a white woman who want to marry. It's their choice and their right. Period. How is that in any way unclear?
So if neo-nazis walk into a Jewish owned bakery and demand a birthday cake commemorating Adolf Hitler's birthday, with "Arbeit Macht Frei" written along the side, the law should force them to bake it? Or if members of the KKK walk into a black owned bakery and demand a cake celebrating the election of a new grand wizard, complete with a depiction of a lynching in the frosting, the black owned bakery should be forced to make it for them?
Not good examples, those two particular groups are comprised of many folks who would actually be dumb enough to eat a cake baked under those circumstances.
OK. Go live under a theocracy for a while then come back here and talk about revolutions... Even my very liberal, open-minded Dutch Reform pastor in college agreed that the Kingdom of God is NOT a democracy.
Thomas Jefferson was the one who wrote the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state". He very assuredly did not want to live under a theocracy. Yet he still wrote a bill punishing males sodomozing each other with castration.
The fact is that the U.S. constitution was made only for a moral and religious people, as attested by those who actually wrote the damn thing.
That person is a human being who is free to do as they please. End of story. Born gay or choosing to be gay, it's completely irrelevant.
Two males who want to marry each other is the exact same as a black man and a white woman who want to marry. It's their choice and their right. Period. How is that in any way unclear?
You have stated that even two brothers can "marry" if they so choose, so excuse me if I consider your notions of what marriage to be as nothing but an invented personal opinion, based on absolutely nothing whatsoever.
And choosing to be homosexual is not an "irrelevant" consideration in this debate, because no one makes a choice to be black, or to be a woman, thus again demonstrating why your comparison of choosing to engage in homosexual behaviour with being black is completely ridiculous, and rejected by the majority of blacks.
In any case you know full well that those who wrote the constitution supported punishing males who engaged in homosexual sodomy. So clearly there is no "right" to homosexual "marriage" in the constitution.
Sacred Scripture very emphatically and repeatedly condemns homosexual sodomy, so there is no God given right to engage in that sexual perversion.
The people repeatedly voted saying that marriage was between a man and a woman, as attested in every civilisation in all of human history.
And homosexual sodomy is condemned by the classic and scholastic philosophers of natural law.
So where are you pretending this "right" to homosexual "marriage" comes from?
My guess is that you are an atheist, which if true means that as a materialist you don't believe the existence of any metaphysical immaterial rights whatsoever to begin with, but perhaps my guess is off the mark.
In any case, from where comes your so-called "right" to homosexual sodomy and homosexual "marriage"?
Not good examples, those two particular groups are comprised of many folks who would actually be dumb enough to eat a cake baked under those circumstances.
Irrelevant. You may not like the examples, but they are legitimate, if far fetched, examples just the same. So yet again.
If neo-nazis walked into a Jewish owned bakery and demanded a birthday cake commemorating Adolf Hitler's birthday, with "Arbeit Macht Frei" written along the side, should the law should force them to bake it?
If members of the KKK walked into a black owned bakery and demanded a cake celebrating the election of a new grand wizard, complete with a depiction of a lynching in the frosting, should the black owned bakery be forced to make it for them?
JBecker 72
09-03-15, 13:02
You have stated that even two brothers can "marry" if they so choose, so excuse me if I consider your notions of what marriage to be as nothing but your invented personal opinion, based on absolutely nothing whatsoever.
You know full well that those who wrote the constitution supported punishing males who engaged in homosexual sodomy. So clearly there is no "right" to homosexual "marriage" in the constitution.
Sacred Scripture very emphatically and repeatedly condemns homosexual sodomy, so there is no God given right to engage in that sexual perversion.
The people repeatedly voted saying that marriage was between a man and a woman, as attested in every civilisation in all of human history.
And homosexual sodomy is condemned by the classic and scholastic philosophers of natural law.
So where are you pretending this "right" to homosexual "marriage" comes from?
My guess is that you are an atheist, which if true means that as a materialist you don't believe the existence of any metaphysical immaterial rights whatsoever to begin with, but perhaps my guess is off the mark.
In any case, from where comes your so-called "right" to homosexual sodomy and homosexual "marriage"?
My religious beliefs are completely irrelevant to this discussion, as are yours.
If consenting adults want to live their lives as they see fit, that is their business. Denying them rights because they differ from your personal beliefs is exactly why this world is so screwed up. Their behavior will not lead to the downfall of society.
It is currently the law of the land that homosexuals can marry. This thread was created discussing an elected official who is refusing to perform her duties and in doing so is denying individuals their rights.
This shouldn't be such a hard concept to grasp.
A Kentucky county clerk was found in contempt of court Thursday for her refusal to issue marriage licenses in wake of the Supreme Court decision to allow gays to wed.
U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning placed Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis in the custody of U.S. marshals until she complies, saying fines were not enough to force her to comply with his previous order to provide the paperwork to all couples. Allowing her to defy the order would create a "ripple effect."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/09/03/rowan-county-ky-court-clerk-marriage-licenses-gays/71635794/
Moose-Knuckle
09-03-15, 13:13
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/09/03/rowan-county-ky-court-clerk-marriage-licenses-gays/71635794/
USMS huh, seems once again the DOJ is at the epicenter of county and state matters. Why is the clerk not in the custody of the county SO?
Next she'll be charged with a federal hate crime and violating civil rights.
If consenting adults want to live their lives as they see fit, that is their business. Denying them rights because they differ from your personal beliefs is exactly why this world is so screwed up.
Those who habitually desire to engage in homosexual sodomy have always had the exact same right to marry as those who don't want to sodomize other males as neither could "marry" another male.
And I am beginning to believe that the sole reason you refuse to state where this so-called "right" to homosexual sodomy comes from is because you yourself don't really believe it actually metaphysically exists.
And I rather believe that it is the widespread blind acceptance of the freedom and liberty destroying lunatic leftist ideological agenda that has this world so screwed up. For I agree with professor of philosophy Dr. Peter Kreeft.
"The issue of moral relativism is merely the single most important issue of our age, for no society in all of human history has ever survived without rejecting the philosophy that I am about to refute. There has never been a society of relativists. Therefore, our society will do one of three things: either disprove one of the most universally established laws of all history; or repent of its relativism and survive; or persist in its relativism and perish."
From: A Refutation of Moral Relativism
http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/05_relativism/relativism_transcription.htm
Their behavior will not lead to the downfall of society.
Except that every society that has openly accepted and promoted homosexual sodomy has in fact fallen. The very fact that homosexual sodomy has directly resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people, many of them innocent, should by itself give us pause.
My religious beliefs are completely irrelevant to this discussion, as are yours.
If consenting adults want to live their lives as they see fit, that is their business. Denying them rights because they differ from your personal beliefs is exactly why this world is so screwed up. Their behavior will not lead to the downfall of society.
It is currently the law of the land that homosexuals can marry. This thread was created discussing an elected official who is refusing to perform her duties and in doing so is denying individuals their rights.
This shouldn't be such a hard concept to grasp.
People already had the rights you describe. What they have now is the spurious "right" to demand that others acknowledge their status.
Of course, they can only realistically demand the most insincere and coerced assent to that status, but whether they will insist on more, and where people like this clerk will resist, is where the rubber meets the road.
Personally, I don't think two men are "married" no matter what the government might say. For the same reason I cannot understand why some atheists are offended by expressions of religious faith: if it is believed to be nonsense, why care about it at all?
That said, eventually the demands will be made on churches, and then they will have to choose whether to give Caesar his. And Caesar will have to choose what price he will exact for one's conscience.
Saw this brought up. Since the issue is federal, county officials have no authority to arrest her.
USMS huh, seems once again the DOJ is at the epicenter of county and state matters. Why is the clerk not in the custody of the county SO?
Next she'll be charged with a federal hate crime and violating civil rights.
JBecker 72
09-03-15, 13:31
Would you look at that. This lady is in violation of the law, in contempt of court, and in jail.
My religious beliefs are completely irrelevant to this discussion, as are yours.
But if you are an atheist, that means that you are a philosophical materialist, which means you don't believe in such things exist as immaterial metaphysical rights.
So if there is no God given right to homosexual "marriage", clearly no constitutional right, since those who wrote the constitution supported and even wrote laws punishing males who engaged in homosexual sodomy, and no immaterial metaphysical natural law right, then for heavens sake, from WHERE does this so-called "right" come from?
That's all I'm asking.
Would you look at that. This lady is in violation of the law, in contempt of court, and in jail.
The thing is, you also support homosexual incestuous "marriage", so if this woman was ok with so-called homosexual "marriage", but was opposed to court forced incestuous homosexual "marriage", you would still be cheering her incarceration for refusing to follow government orders in regards to incestuous marriage.
How screwed up is that?
JBecker 72
09-03-15, 14:06
I'm actually not an atheist. I also don't care if cousins want to marry each other. If they are legally permitted to marry and a county clerk is refusing them that right, and gets locked up for it, then yes I would approve of the decision.
I don't care what other people do with their lives. I do care however when someone is denied their rights. We all should, even if you don't agree with their lifestyle.
I'm actually not an atheist. I also don't care if cousins want to marry each other. If they are legally permitted to marry and a county clerk is refusing them that right, and gets locked up for it, then yes I would approve of the decision.
I don't care what other people do with their lives. I do care however when someone is denied their rights. We all should, even if you don't agree with their lifestyle.
Cousins are one thing, and bad enough, but you also claim that brothers marrying each other is a "right", and fathers marrying sons is a "right", or even both sons and daughters.
God quite strongly condemns both incest and all homosexual acts.
The Founding Fathers condemned homosexual behaviour as well.
So for anyone to claim that SCOTUS was right to say that the constitution written by the same men who wrote laws punishing homosexual behaviour with castration also intended that their constitution force all the individual states in the union to perform homosexual marriage is simply not true, in fact it is a lie.
Which is why I keep asking as to where this so-called "right" to homosexual sodomy and "marriage" comes from. And no supporters of Obama's lunatic leftist pro-homosexual agenda have even once been able to provide any answer.
JBecker 72
09-03-15, 14:41
You are born with the right to live your life as you see fit. The government, or other people, have no business getting involved in the matters of adults who chose to live a certain way.
It's this crazy concept where people are actually free, rather than having some groups who are "more free" than others.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-03-15, 14:52
So, when are we going to round up the sanctuary city mayors and police chiefs? When are go going to go after governor of Colorado for the federal pot law violations?
Funny how they never went after Chicago and DC public servants for all the obstructions that they did which was no different than what this lady did.
Piss off the GayKK and you get your ass thrown in jail. Everyone else rides for free.
You are born with the right to live your life as you see fit. The government, or other people, have no business getting involved in the matters of adults who chose to live a certain way.
"Born with the right"? How does that work exactly? The "right" to homosexual sodomy and homosexual "marriage" just magically pops into existence from nothing?
So you are now claiming that in fact there actually is no source at all for the so-called "right" to homosexual "marriage"?
Well, guess what, from nothing, nothing ever comes.
And so then you must agree that SCOTUS was in fact wrong, and in fact the constitution written by the same men who wrote laws punishing homosexual behaviour with castration in absolutely no way intended that their constitution empower the federal government with the orwellain power and authority to redefine marriage to mean something that not even the most depraved and corrupt societies and civilisations in all of human history were ever so depraved and corrupt and unhinged from reality as to believe could exist, and then also actually force all the individual states in the union to perform homosexual "marriage".
It's this crazy concept where people are actually free, rather than having some groups who are "more free" than others.
Again, males who habitually desire to engage in the sexual perversion of homosexual behaviour, or even incestuous homosexual behaviour since you have openly supported that as well, were always equally guaranteed the exact same marriage rights as those who were not inclined to engage in that perversion.
In fact there is not a single sexual perversion you can name where the person who was inclined to commit that perversion did not still have the exact same freedom to marry as someone not inclined to that perversion.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-03-15, 15:05
Less than fifteen years ago you could have been thrown in prison for sodomy, today this lady is in jail. Imagine what we'll be thrown in jail for opposing in another 15 years.
Less than fifteen years ago you could have been thrown in prison for sodomy, today this lady is in jail. Imagine what we'll be thrown in jail for opposing in another 15 years.
Indeed.
For the patriots at the time of the Founding Fathers, abortion was the taking of an innocent human life, and thus a crime, now the lunatic left has the masses believing it is a constitutional "right".
The Founders believed that males sodomizing each other was a grave depravity, an act beneath the very dignity of a man to commit, and revealed that man to be utterly shameless and without a shred of honor or decency, and now the lunatic left has the masses believing that the Founders wrote a constitution establishing homosexual sodomy and "marriage" as a right.
And on and on it goes.
You are born with the right to live your life as you see fit. The government, or other people, have no business getting involved in the matters of adults who chose to live a certain way.
It's this crazy concept where people are actually free, rather than having some groups who are "more free" than others.
Before SCOTUS ruled on homosexual marriage, no state had any laws which prevented consenting adults from living in whatever domestic arrangement they desired. They were even free to have a willing Priestess/Shaman/Grand Poobah/whatever sanctify their union in the name of whatever God they wish. What rights were being denied?
JBecker 72
09-03-15, 15:30
Well have fun with your ideas that some individuals deserve to be treated less fairly than others in our society because you don't approve their behavior. So ironic this viewpoint is so widely shared on a pro 2A forum.
Indeed.
For the patriots at the time of the Founding Fathers, abortion was the taking of an innocent human life, and thus a crime, now the lunatic left has the masses believing it is a constitutional "right".
The Founders believed that males sodomizing each other was a grave depravity, an act beneath the very dignity of a man to commit, and revealed that man to be utterly shameless and without a shred of honor or decency, and now the lunatic left has the masses believing that the Founders wrote a constitution establishing homosexual sodomy and "marriage" as a right.
And on and on it goes.
Seems like you're cherry-picking situations that were condemned but are now acceptable and saying we're all going to hell. Lots of things that were unacceptable in 1789 are considered commonplace and mainstream now. Hell, 18th century men used to wear tights, high heels, perfume, makeup, and powdered wigs. Is that relevant now?
JBecker 72
09-03-15, 15:32
Before SCOTUS ruled on homosexual marriage, no state had any laws which prevented consenting adults from living in whatever domestic arrangement they desired. They were even free to have a willing Priestess/Shaman/Grand Poobah/whatever sanctify their union in the name of whatever God they wish. What rights were being denied?
Tax law, specifically how an estate was handled in the event one of the partners in the union died. Also how your yearly tax filing and credits are broken down. Having that person on your health insurance. The recognition of that union if they relocated to another part of the country, etc.
Moose-Knuckle
09-03-15, 15:36
Hell, 18th century men used to wear tights, high heels, perfume, makeup, and powdered wigs. Is that relevant now?
Ask Bruce Jenner.
Tax law, specifically how an estate was handled in the event one of the partners in the union died. Also how your yearly tax filing and credits are broken down. Having that person on your health insurance. The recognition of that union if they relocated to another part of the country, etc.
So it was less aboutbthe right to live as one wishes and more about forcing its "recognition" upon others.
At least you're honest enough to admit that.
Seems like you're cherry-picking situations that were condemned but are now acceptable
No, not just "acceptable", but now ruled as constitutional "rights".
So then you agree with the lunatic leftists gun-grabbers on the court when they state that those same Founding Fathers who wrote laws punishing the killing unborn children and committing homosexual acts also wrote a constitution establishing killing unborn children and committing homosexual acts as constitutional rights?
Because I fail to see how you don't recognise that as intellectually dishonest, full-on crazy, and completing idiotic.
wildcard600
09-03-15, 15:48
So it was less aboutbthe right to live as one wishes and more about forcing its "recognition" upon others.
At least you're honest enough to admit that.
To being treated unfairly under the law is not the right to live as one chooses.
This thread reaffirms my belief that "conservatives" are just as bat shit crazy as "liberals".
JBecker 72
09-03-15, 15:55
To being treated unfairly under the law is not the right to live as one chooses.
This thread reaffirms my belief that "conservatives" are just as bat shit crazy as "liberals".
This ^
So then you agree with the lunatic leftists gun-grabbers on the court when they state that those same Founding Fathers who wrote laws punishing the killing unborn children and committing homosexual acts also wrote a constitution establishing killing unborn children and committing homosexual acts as constitutional rights?
Because I fail to see how you don't recognise that as intellectually dishonest, full-on crazy, and completing idiotic.
Are you also of the position then that birth control is a form of abortion?
And what about two men who are deeply in love but celibate? If we're all floating full-on "what-if" scenarios, does that absolve them of the "sin" of homosexual acts? Are they then exempt from the glaring judgment of your Founding Fathers?
What seems intellectually dishonest to me is taking a few written or recorded instances of what Jefferson or whomever espoused at some point in their lives, then building an entire worldview around those. Jefferson, Hamilton, and all the rest were much more complicated and were clearly wrong about some things and right about others - and I'm not referring to the Constitution here. Just the human beings themselves.
So again.
Do you agree with the lunatic leftists gun-grabbers on the court that those same Founding Fathers who wrote laws punishing the killing unborn children and committing homosexual acts also wrote a constitution establishing killing unborn children and committing homosexual acts as constitutional rights?
Yes or no?
Well everyone, it seems that while the woman in question was divorced, that divorce happened BEFORE her conversion to Christianity.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/02/kentucky-clerk-didnt-follow-christianity-before-converting-to-it/
JBecker 72
09-03-15, 16:13
So again.
Do you agree with the lunatic leftists gun-grabbers on the court that those same Founding Fathers who wrote laws punishing the killing unborn children and committing homosexual acts also wrote a constitution establishing killing unborn children and committing homosexual acts as constitutional rights?
Yes or no?
I don't have a vagina. I don't try and tell women what they can or can't do with their bodies. I'm also not a homosexual. I don't try and tell homosexuals who they can and can't marry. Live your life how you see fit.
Many of our founding fathers supported slavery and even owned slaves. They didn't allow women to vote or involve themselves with politics. Many had numerous mistresses and infidelities. Stop using every decision they made or wrote as gospel.
In case anyone missed it.
The Big "Gay Marriage" Lie
Gay marriage, we've been told, will not affect you. What a crock.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/24/the-big-gay-marriage-lie/
"It has become devastatingly clear that virtually the entirety of the gay-marriage activist effort was built on a lie. That lie, repeated ad nauseam, was this: gay marriage will affect nobody outside of the gays who wish to partake in it. This will become abundantly false as the Supreme Court-instituted gay marriage regime takes effect.
We did not actually need to nationalize gay marriage to realize this. We have had examples for years from the states that already legalized the practice. Combined with the growing public hostility towards supporters of traditional marriage, it is impossible at this point to deny that gay marriage is a growing and serious threat to the liberty of those who disagree with it."
I don't have a vagina.
Thanks for that really interesting news flash, but back to my questions.
Do you agree with the lunatic leftists gun-grabbers on the court that those same Founding Fathers who wrote laws punishing the killing unborn children and committing homosexual acts also wrote a constitution establishing killing unborn children and committing homosexual acts as constitutional rights?
Yes or no?
The fact is they didn't, and more to this, I believe that you in fact actually know that they didn't, which means you in fact recognise that the SCOTUS decision is simply a liberal leftist lie, which then raises a rather interesting question. Why do you then support it when you know it to be all simply a lie?
To being treated unfairly under the law is not the right to live as one chooses.
This thread reaffirms my belief that "conservatives" are just as bat shit crazy as "liberals".
Redefining a word/concept that has a multi-millenial foundation in history, faith, philosophy, and biology to include its perverted inverse, and then imposing that lunatic definition by force of law...that's batshit crazy. That's emperor has no clothes crazy.
Guess what? They still ain't married.
JBecker 72
09-03-15, 16:39
Belloc, you know my opinion on this matter as I've said it numerous times. I appreciate the conversation between us was civil and didn't degrade to personal attacks. I'm just gonna agree to disagree, pour a glass of whiskey, smoke a cigar, and step away from the discussion.
Less than fifteen years ago you could have been thrown in prison for sodomy, today this lady is in jail. Imagine what we'll be thrown in jail for opposing in another 15 years.
Aren't there still some States where Sodomy is a crime? There were 10 or 12 of them just a year or so ago. I was thinking Louisiana was one of them. If this is the case, what would a County (or Parish in La.) Clerk do? Follow the Federal law or the State law? Issuing a marriage license to two males in Louisiana or a State with similar laws could make the clerk an accessory to an act of Sodomy if the marriage were to be consummated.
FromMyColdDeadHand
09-03-15, 16:43
Aren't there still some States where Sodomy is a crime? There were 10 or 12 of them just a year or so ago. I was thinking Louisiana was one of them. If this is the case, what would a County (or Parish in La.) Clerk do? Follow the Federal law or the State law? Issuing a marriage license to two males in Louisiana or a State with similar laws could make the clerk an accessory to an act of Sodomy if the marriage were to be consummated.
I think the Texas case invalidated all those laws.
Belloc, you know my opinion on this matter as I've said it numerous times. I appreciate the conversation between us was civil and didn't degrade to personal attacks. I'm just gonna agree to disagree, pour a glass of whiskey, smoke a cigar, and step away from the discussion.
Ok, thanks, enjoy!
http://i1328.photobucket.com/albums/w522/mtjh45/scotch-whisky-on-the-rocks-wallpapers_36102_1920x1080_zps6a6b1f6d.jpg
Irrelevant. You may not like the examples, but they are legitimate, if far fetched, examples just the same. So yet again.
If neo-nazis walked into a Jewish owned bakery and demanded a birthday cake commemorating Adolf Hitler's birthday, with "Arbeit Macht Frei" written along the side, should the law should force them to bake it?
If members of the KKK walked into a black owned bakery and demanded a cake celebrating the election of a new grand wizard, complete with a depiction of a lynching in the frosting, should the black owned bakery be forced to make it for them?
Not german - the Oregon cake bakers did not refuse to bake a cake because the wanted to barbies on top with one eating the other's muff, they refused when they learned there were two brides. No other reason.
So yeah, you bake cakes, and are open to the public, you better be willing to sell them to any member of the public who walks in with cash to pay for them.
Not making light of your beliefs, but you get kind of shrill, that post an an attempt at levity.
The cake bakers got screwed with the judgement.
In terms of the Jewish baker and the black baker, I think both could refuse based on the possibility that what the customers want could be construed as inflammatory speech not protected by the First Amendment.
Not german - the Oregon cake bakers did not refuse to bake a cake because the wanted to barbies on top with one eating the other's muff, they refused when they learned there were two brides. No other reason.
So yeah, you bake cakes, and are open to the public, you better be willing to sell them to any member of the public who walks in with cash to pay for them.
In terms of the Jewish baker and the black baker, I think both could refuse based on the possibility that what the customers want could be construed as inflammatory speech not protected by the First Amendment.
Then take away the writing and examine similar situations in another context. Should a Jewish caterer be forced by the government to cater to a neo-nazi event celebrating the birth of Adolf Hitler, or a black owned caterer forced to cater a klan rally? Do you believe a christian owned catering service should be forced by the government to cater a NAMBLA gathering?
Before SCOTUS ruled on homosexual marriage, no state had any laws which prevented consenting adults from living in whatever domestic arrangement they desired. They were even free to have a willing Priestess/Shaman/Grand Poobah/whatever sanctify their union in the name of whatever God they wish. What rights were being denied?
The real issue in all this is the judicial activism that lead to the situation we have now IMO. If I recall SCOTUS judge Kennedy championed such things a few years back.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
09-03-15, 20:02
I'm glad she was held in contempt today. Shows that the rule of law still applies.
I'm glad she was held in contempt today. Shows that the rule of law still applies.
I'm not saying she shouldn't have been, but let's not kid ourselves....it doesn't apply all the time; it's plenty political, subjective, and arbitrary.
SeriousStudent
09-03-15, 21:28
Ok, thanks, enjoy!
http://i1328.photobucket.com/albums/w522/mtjh45/scotch-whisky-on-the-rocks-wallpapers_36102_1920x1080_zps6a6b1f6d.jpg
Interesting. That's the wallpaper on my work laptop.
Carry on.
For a website full of people constantly claiming that the constitution has been stomped on in recent years.... y'all need to re-read it.
Separation of church and state would be a good starting point.
anyway, today's decision was another victory against bigotry and hate... two things Jesus was NOT keen on.
4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made[a] them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’[b] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?[c] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
-
Matthew 19:4-6New King James Version (NKJV)
I honestly don't understand why "some of you" are so worked up over this, media fabricated, "issue." Almost feels like some of you are falling for the fake.
There are far more important things going wrong in this country, regardless of your beliefs or lack thereof.
4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made[a] them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’[b] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?[c] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
-
Matthew 19:4-6New King James Version (NKJV)
Contextually, it is important to understand that Jesus is talking to the Pharisees, who are trying to trick him by asking him a question about divorce (verse 3).
Here Jesus tells the Disciples what is the greatest Commandment:
Matthew 22:36-40 NIV
36) “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37) Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'
38) This is the first and greatest commandment.
39) And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
40) All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
This is what Paul told the Churches of Galatia:
Galatians 3:28 (NIV)
28) There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
The Bible is a Love Story, God Inspired and God Breathed Words, telling about God's love for sinful man, and his desire for us to be with him. It is not about hate, it is about love. We shouldn't use it to put folks down.
JMO
I'm glad she was held in contempt today. Shows that the rule of law still applies.
Rule of law by 9, or 5, or...
Moose-Knuckle
09-04-15, 02:04
I'm glad she was held in contempt today. Shows that the rule of law still applies.
For a website full of people constantly claiming that the constitution has been stomped on in recent years.... y'all need to re-read it.
Separation of church and state would be a good starting point.
anyway, today's decision was another victory against bigotry and hate... two things Jesus was NOT keen on.
Well I don't know about that Heyzeus fella, but I can't find anywhere in the founding documents where the Fore Fathers afforded Constitutional rights to anyone wanting to play hide the Nazi with someone of the same sex.
Thirteen pages later and several of you freedom loving Americans are rejoicing in the fact that their is a US citizen locked up in Federal custody tonight after taking a stand for her rights. That speaks volumes . . .
So when may I expect to see all those CLEOs that have refused to sign off on NFA paperwork carted off to a Federal lock-up for violating countless American's 2nd Amendment rights???
coastwatcher42
09-04-15, 02:09
I read somewhere that a Muslim flight attendant refused to serve alcohol because of her religious beliefs and that was OK.
I honestly don't understand why "some of you" are so worked up over this, media fabricated, "issue." Almost feels like some of you are falling for the fake.
There are far more important things going wrong in this country, regardless of your beliefs or lack thereof.
Not to mention this is the same silly shit that Bush 43 focused on rather than accomplishing anything meaningful when the Republicans were running the entire shop. This issue is also being forced so that COP candidates can be forced on the record to help insure they won't win the election.
I read somewhere that a Muslim flight attendant refused to serve alcohol because of her religious beliefs and that was OK.
Government job vs private sector job.
So when may I expect to see all those CLEOs that have refused to sign off on NFA paperwork carted off to a Federal lock-up for violating countless American's 2nd Amendment rights???
When SCOTUS rules NFA firearms are constitutionality protected Which isn't in the foreseeable future.
coastwatcher42
09-04-15, 08:14
Government job vs private sector job.
What I meant by this is that, in the eyes of the media, the Muslim flight attendant has every right to refuse, even though serving alcohol is part of her job description. On the other hand, the media portrays Christian clerks who refuse to issue licenses as the devil incarnate. I wonder how the media would portray a Muslim clerk refusing to issue a license?
Well I don't know about that Heyzeus fella, but I can't find anywhere in the founding documents where the Fore Fathers afforded Constitutional rights to anyone wanting to play hide the Nazi with someone of the same sex.
Thirteen pages later and several of you freedom loving Americans are rejoicing in the fact that their is a US citizen locked up in Federal custody tonight after taking a stand for her rights. That speaks volumes . . .
So when may I expect to see all those CLEOs that have refused to sign off on NFA paperwork carted off to a Federal lock-up for violating countless American's 2nd Amendment rights???
Correct.
The real issue here is whether another human being has the right to force you to do something against your will.
According to the philosophy of God Given/Natural Rights - hell no. But if you are the .gov's representative you get that "special privilege" of forcing others to bend to your will.
At worse, a response such as "your fired" for not performing your duties. It is totally inappropriate to put the boot to her neck and lock her up.
What I meant by this is that, in the eyes of the media, the Muslim flight attendant has every right to refuse, even though serving alcohol is part of her job description. On the other hand, the media portrays Christian clerks who refuse to issue licenses as the devil incarnate. I wonder how the media would portray a Muslim clerk refusing to issue a license?
The same.
"Davis could have avoided jail time if she allowed the deputy clerks to issue licenses to same-sex couples, but she told the federal judge she would not grant her authority to her employees to do so."
It's not that she was just exercising her rights. She was using her power to circumvent the separation of church and state. She was imposing her beliefs on her deputies and failing in the duties she was elected and paid to do. She's also a Democrat, apparently.
Correct.
The real issue here is whether another human being has the right to force you to do something against your will.
According to the philosophy of God Given/Natural Rights - hell no. But if you are the .gov's representative you get that "special privilege" of forcing others to bend to your will.
At worse, a response such as "your fired" for not performing your duties. It is totally inappropriate to put the boot to her neck and lock her up.
The whole point of laws and rules are to get people to do things they might not want to do and to not do things they might want to do, for the good of everyone. And if you stray from what society has decided are its rules, you are punished. If there is no punishment, rules are worthless.
Our society gave courts the right to decide many different things. This case is one of them. Just because you disagree with the ruling doesn't mean we should turn to anarchy.
And remember, she is ALSO a .gov representative. In this case it's the government policing itself.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.