On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 09:55:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/5/15 9:47 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 08:51:56 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/4/15 9:21 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:51:26 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/4/15 8:45 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 16:02:10 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/4/15 3:56 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 15:28:24 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:


You might want to read the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th
Amendment, among other documents.


It is interesting that the left is not willing to extend the full
faith and credit of concealed carry rights across state lines.


Oh? Is there a federal regulation that allows concealed carry rights
across state lines?

Is there a federal regulation on marriage?

Not since DOMA was tossed.

Next?


Specious.

Until you cite the federal law that even acknowledges gay marriage,
you have no ground to stand on.
The 14th amendment and the full faith and credit clause are saying any
state law should be honored in all states.
All the SCOTUS has done is say a law banning gay marriage is invalid,
they have not written the new law.


By striking down laws against gay marriage, the Supreme Court has
expanded the interpretation of existing law. That's what the high court
does...it interprets, it affirms, it strikes down.

In Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the high court overturned
Plessy v. Ferguson and struck down the concept of "separate but equal."
It didn't write a new law.

You righties seem to overlook the indisputable fact that the Kentucky
clerk was using her governmental office and thus the government to push
her religious beliefs.

Only because that is how she framed it.

It would have been a lot smarter...


The incident did not revolve around hypotheticals...and she ain't smart.
She used her religious beliefs and her political office to deny civil
rights to citizens. That's the issue. The court, in its wisdom, said,
"No, you don't."



It is not hypothetical that the SCOTUS has ruled the Kentucky law
unconstitutional and it will be unclear whether any license issued
after that ruling is legal.
Ms Davis just did not take that path when she stopped issuing
licenses. Since nobody could get a license, it was not discriminating
against any particular group.

The only reason why this is a religious issue is because she made it
one. She had firm legal ground to stop issuing any license, at least
as firm as any legal issue.