Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On 9/4/2015 4:33 PM, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 16:04:26 -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.


The only humor I find in this is the clerk's marriage and pregnancy
history. It's quite colorful and demonstrates her hypocrisy about her
alleged religious beliefs.

That was before she was "saved" ;-)


That's one of the funniest things about christianity...marry four times,
have babies by a guy you are not married to at the time, but you marry
later, maybe, while you are still married to a different guy
and...voila, find Jesus and you are "saved." Heck, different
circumstances, but I'll bet Dick Cheney can be saved, too. :)

She'd have been much better off as a beheaded Muslim, no?
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Aint no sunshine where KKKrause's head is.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On 9/4/2015 1:03 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 12:19:28 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:



Actually, it was an attempt by a christian ayatollah wannabe to exert
the "authority" of her religious beliefs over civil law. That's really
*not* the way it is supposed to be done in this country, yet. If you
want religious law imposed over civil matters, there's always Iran and
Afghanistan.

You are right in a way
It would have been just as easy for her to say she was simply hog tied
by the court when they threw out the law that regulates licenses and
she is waiting for guidance from the legislature before she can start
issuing licenses again.
Both sides were simply trying to advance an agenda.

It does bring up an interesting point. What is the federal standard
for what actually constitutes marriage? It is totally a state issue
and the states could have totally different standards.
This is even more confusing since they have thrown DOMA (1 U.S. Code §
7) out.
Basically if a state says you are "married", all of the other states
(and the feds) must recognize that and what that actually means is up
to the state. If the state statute is invalid, is anyone in that state
still married? Can anyone get married? Maybe not.

It is an interesting legal conundrum.

Life would be much simpler if we just pretended to be married like Harry
does. You can bet that Krause and Karen don't pay the marriage tax.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On 9/4/15 5:17 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/4/2015 4:49 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article qtljuadp2f0gp99jikqfe58pa3iprpngbo@
4ax.com, says...


It is as complex as any ambulance chasing lawyer wants to make it. The
fact is, the SCOTUS has invalidated the only federal law defining
marriage and now this court has invalidated the Kentucky statute,
along with those in many other states. (man/wonan is so entwined in
the language that it is hard to separate without legislation)
The only reason this has become a religious mater is because Ms Davis
wanted it to be. She did stop issuing ANY marriage licenses and she
was legally on sound footing if she chose to go that way

Legally sound? She's in jail.
The only "political" part is coming from her.



My wife and I lived in a rented apartment in Zion, Ill. for almost two
years in the early 70's. Zion was founded around 1905 by a very
religious guy who wanted to create a "Christian Utopia". No drinking,
smoking ... the original city council didn't even allow a doctor to set
up shop in the town because they believed in "divine healing".

Even when we lived there the town was still dry. No booze or beer could
be sold anywhere within the city limits.

I suppose if then were now, a federal judge could come along and order
the grocery stores to start carrying/selling beer and ordering the city
council to approve permits to open liquor stores.



How interesting. What part of the Constitution, Amendments, or civil
rights legislation would that fall under?

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

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?

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 16:04:26 -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.


The only humor I find in this is the clerk's marriage and pregnancy
history. It's quite colorful and demonstrates her hypocrisy about her
alleged religious beliefs.

That was before she was "saved" ;-)


That's one of the funniest things about christianity...marry four times,
have babies by a guy you are not married to at the time, but you marry
later, maybe, while you are still married to a different guy
and...voila, find Jesus and you are "saved." Heck, different
circumstances, but I'll bet Dick Cheney can be saved, too. :)

That is why the religion is attractive,. You can ask for forgiveness
on your death bed and be saved.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On 9/4/15 8:46 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 16:04:26 -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.


The only humor I find in this is the clerk's marriage and pregnancy
history. It's quite colorful and demonstrates her hypocrisy about her
alleged religious beliefs.

That was before she was "saved" ;-)


That's one of the funniest things about christianity...marry four times,
have babies by a guy you are not married to at the time, but you marry
later, maybe, while you are still married to a different guy
and...voila, find Jesus and you are "saved." Heck, different
circumstances, but I'll bet Dick Cheney can be saved, too. :)

That is why the religion is attractive,. You can ask for forgiveness
on your death bed and be saved.


You mean, of course, delude yourself into thinking you are "saved."

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

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.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 9/4/15 5:17 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/4/2015 4:49 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article qtljuadp2f0gp99jikqfe58pa3iprpngbo@
4ax.com, says...


It is as complex as any ambulance chasing lawyer wants to make it. The
fact is, the SCOTUS has invalidated the only federal law defining
marriage and now this court has invalidated the Kentucky statute,
along with those in many other states. (man/wonan is so entwined in
the language that it is hard to separate without legislation)
The only reason this has become a religious mater is because Ms Davis
wanted it to be. She did stop issuing ANY marriage licenses and she
was legally on sound footing if she chose to go that way

Legally sound? She's in jail.
The only "political" part is coming from her.



My wife and I lived in a rented apartment in Zion, Ill. for almost two
years in the early 70's. Zion was founded around 1905 by a very
religious guy who wanted to create a "Christian Utopia". No drinking,
smoking ... the original city council didn't even allow a doctor to set
up shop in the town because they believed in "divine healing".

Even when we lived there the town was still dry. No booze or beer could
be sold anywhere within the city limits.

I suppose if then were now, a federal judge could come along and order
the grocery stores to start carrying/selling beer and ordering the city
council to approve permits to open liquor stores.



How interesting. What part of the Constitution, Amendments, or civil
rights legislation would that fall under?

Equal rights.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 15:49:19 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article qtljuadp2f0gp99jikqfe58pa3iprpngbo@
4ax.com, says...


It is as complex as any ambulance chasing lawyer wants to make it. The
fact is, the SCOTUS has invalidated the only federal law defining
marriage and now this court has invalidated the Kentucky statute,
along with those in many other states. (man/wonan is so entwined in
the language that it is hard to separate without legislation)
The only reason this has become a religious mater is because Ms Davis
wanted it to be. She did stop issuing ANY marriage licenses and she
was legally on sound footing if she chose to go that way

Legally sound? She's in jail.
The only "political" part is coming from her.

Rosa Parks was in jail too, so what.

Her actions are religious, not political.
Unfortunately that makes it political.

I have heard from Dan Savage and Rachel but we haven't heard much
from lawyers. I still contend, the Ky marriage statute was over turned
and the legislature has not replaced it, so there is no law.
Same with DOMA.
The court does not write law, they just over turn law.

I wonder how long it will be before someone who wants to dump their
spouse, says the marriage in one of these states never legally existed
because the law was flawed at the time.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 17:17:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 9/4/2015 4:49 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article qtljuadp2f0gp99jikqfe58pa3iprpngbo@
4ax.com, says...


It is as complex as any ambulance chasing lawyer wants to make it. The
fact is, the SCOTUS has invalidated the only federal law defining
marriage and now this court has invalidated the Kentucky statute,
along with those in many other states. (man/wonan is so entwined in
the language that it is hard to separate without legislation)
The only reason this has become a religious mater is because Ms Davis
wanted it to be. She did stop issuing ANY marriage licenses and she
was legally on sound footing if she chose to go that way

Legally sound? She's in jail.
The only "political" part is coming from her.



My wife and I lived in a rented apartment in Zion, Ill. for almost two
years in the early 70's. Zion was founded around 1905 by a very
religious guy who wanted to create a "Christian Utopia". No drinking,
smoking ... the original city council didn't even allow a doctor to set
up shop in the town because they believed in "divine healing".

Even when we lived there the town was still dry. No booze or beer could
be sold anywhere within the city limits.

I suppose if then were now, a federal judge could come along and order
the grocery stores to start carrying/selling beer and ordering the city
council to approve permits to open liquor stores.



.... or an abortion clinic. ;-)

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 18:44:36 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article o_KdnYh8h68cl3fInZ2dnUU7-
, says...


I suppose if then were now, a federal judge could come along and order
the grocery stores to start carrying/selling beer and ordering the city
council to approve permits to open liquor stores.

By the same token, the Feds may make sales of bologna
permissible only on Tuesdays.
But they won't, because neither beer or bologna sales
falls within the ambit of "civil rights."
You are free to make a case for them, however.

It certainly makes as much sense as using the 14th amendment as a
reason to give you the "right" to be thrown in federal prison for
possessing small amounts of pot (fact, that is the justification for
federal drug laws)

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:16:29 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

I suppose if then were now, a federal judge could come along and order
the grocery stores to start carrying/selling beer and ordering the city
council to approve permits to open liquor stores.



How interesting. What part of the Constitution, Amendments, or civil
rights legislation would that fall under?

Equal protection under the law from state to state and the full faith
and credit right. I am legally allowed to drink in Florida so I should
be able to drink in a dry county in some other fumbuck state.
Drinking is certainly as protected as homosexuality. (neither of which
are mentioned in the constitution and both are discouraged by some
religions)

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

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.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:50:45 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

The only humor I find in this is the clerk's marriage and pregnancy
history. It's quite colorful and demonstrates her hypocrisy about her
alleged religious beliefs.

That was before she was "saved" ;-)


That's one of the funniest things about christianity...marry four times,
have babies by a guy you are not married to at the time, but you marry
later, maybe, while you are still married to a different guy
and...voila, find Jesus and you are "saved." Heck, different
circumstances, but I'll bet Dick Cheney can be saved, too. :)

That is why the religion is attractive,. You can ask for forgiveness
on your death bed and be saved.


You mean, of course, delude yourself into thinking you are "saved."

You can't question this woman's faith if you ignore it's main tenet.
At that point you are just mocking all religion ... which you do.

In that regard, I have no faith in the government.
It is another thing you have to simply believe without actually seeing
any proof..

Today the DoD shut down operations at all military bio labs because
Anthrax got loose again. This is after the incident in May when they
were shipping it around the country improperly.

You really gotta have faith to trust these bureaucrats ;-)

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 00:03:24 -0400, wrote:

You really gotta have faith to trust these bureaucrats ;-)

===

Most government workers that I've met have advanced degrees in
complacency and regard themselves as fireproof as long as they stick
to the letter of the rule book.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 21:21:23 -0400, 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.

Looks like you put him to bed with that answer.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On 9/5/15 12:03 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:50:45 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

The only humor I find in this is the clerk's marriage and pregnancy
history. It's quite colorful and demonstrates her hypocrisy about her
alleged religious beliefs.

That was before she was "saved" ;-)


That's one of the funniest things about christianity...marry four times,
have babies by a guy you are not married to at the time, but you marry
later, maybe, while you are still married to a different guy
and...voila, find Jesus and you are "saved." Heck, different
circumstances, but I'll bet Dick Cheney can be saved, too. :)

That is why the religion is attractive,. You can ask for forgiveness
on your death bed and be saved.


You mean, of course, delude yourself into thinking you are "saved."

You can't question this woman's faith if you ignore it's main tenet.
At that point you are just mocking all religion ... which you do.



Of course I can question her motivations *and* her faith. The tenet that
you can ask for forgiveness on your deathbed after a lifetime of
possibly horrific sins against your fellow man and have your religion
tell you you'll get it is way way up there on the chart of religious
absurdity. I wonder if Hitler "found Jesus" just before he put the
bullet in his head and was therefore "saved" and found his way into
heaven. Was he welcomed by Henry VIII?

That nonsense was written into the religion by men seeking to expand the
"faith," as was the nonsense about a better life after death, written in
to make the poor feel that their miserable lives on earth didn't matter
because, well, to expand the number of believers.

Millions of people believe that sort of bull****, but that doesn't mean
it is for real.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

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.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 08:31:38 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/5/15 12:03 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:50:45 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

The only humor I find in this is the clerk's marriage and pregnancy
history. It's quite colorful and demonstrates her hypocrisy about her
alleged religious beliefs.

That was before she was "saved" ;-)


That's one of the funniest things about christianity...marry four times,
have babies by a guy you are not married to at the time, but you marry
later, maybe, while you are still married to a different guy
and...voila, find Jesus and you are "saved." Heck, different
circumstances, but I'll bet Dick Cheney can be saved, too. :)

That is why the religion is attractive,. You can ask for forgiveness
on your death bed and be saved.


You mean, of course, delude yourself into thinking you are "saved."

You can't question this woman's faith if you ignore it's main tenet.
At that point you are just mocking all religion ... which you do.



Of course I can question her motivations *and* her faith. The tenet that
you can ask for forgiveness on your deathbed after a lifetime of
possibly horrific sins against your fellow man and have your religion
tell you you'll get it is way way up there on the chart of religious
absurdity. I wonder if Hitler "found Jesus" just before he put the
bullet in his head and was therefore "saved" and found his way into
heaven. Was he welcomed by Henry VIII?

That nonsense was written into the religion by men seeking to expand the
"faith," as was the nonsense about a better life after death, written in
to make the poor feel that their miserable lives on earth didn't matter
because, well, to expand the number of believers.

Millions of people believe that sort of bull****, but that doesn't mean
it is for real.

Be sure and take any and every excuse to knock religion, Krause. Being a liar and tax
cheat is a much better way to go, right?
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

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 to simply cite the law in Kentucky
and when that law was struck down she can easily say that without
guidance from the legislature, she has no authority to issue any
marriage licenses.
The SCOTUS nor the federal government can write Kentucky law, they can
only invalidate the existing one.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

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."

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 09:36:42 -0400, John H.
wrote:

That nonsense was written into the religion by men seeking to expand the
"faith," as was the nonsense about a better life after death, written in
to make the poor feel that their miserable lives on earth didn't matter
because, well, to expand the number of believers.

Millions of people believe that sort of bull****, but that doesn't mean
it is for real.

Be sure and take any and every excuse to knock religion, Krause. Being a liar and tax
cheat is a much better way to go, right?

===

Harry's primary belief system is that he is "special", sort of like
Hillary in a way.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On 9/5/2015 10:04 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 09:36:42 -0400, John H.
wrote:

That nonsense was written into the religion by men seeking to expand the
"faith," as was the nonsense about a better life after death, written in
to make the poor feel that their miserable lives on earth didn't matter
because, well, to expand the number of believers.

Millions of people believe that sort of bull****, but that doesn't mean
it is for real.

Be sure and take any and every excuse to knock religion, Krause. Being a liar and tax
cheat is a much better way to go, right?

===

Harry's primary belief system is that he is "special", sort of like
Hillary in a way.

What sort of woman would tolerate her husband sticking his penis in
another woman's mouth, especially while he was supposed to be doing his
sworn duties. Such laissez faire is not characteristic of a true leader.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On 9/5/2015 11:34 AM, wrote:
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.

So the poor woman was in contempt of court for not ceasing to do what
she wasn't doing, which wasn't in violation of any known law.
I wonder if the judge is gay? He certainly is prejudiced and biased
toward giving those sweet little gay people anything they demand. And,
of course, Harry thinks that's just peachy keen.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On 9/5/2015 11:51 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 11:28:04 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 09:36:42 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 08:31:38 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/5/15 12:03 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:50:45 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

The only humor I find in this is the clerk's marriage and pregnancy
history. It's quite colorful and demonstrates her hypocrisy about her
alleged religious beliefs.

That was before she was "saved" ;-)


That's one of the funniest things about christianity...marry four times,
have babies by a guy you are not married to at the time, but you marry
later, maybe, while you are still married to a different guy
and...voila, find Jesus and you are "saved." Heck, different
circumstances, but I'll bet Dick Cheney can be saved, too. :)

That is why the religion is attractive,. You can ask for forgiveness
on your death bed and be saved.


You mean, of course, delude yourself into thinking you are "saved."

You can't question this woman's faith if you ignore it's main tenet.
At that point you are just mocking all religion ... which you do.



Of course I can question her motivations *and* her faith. The tenet that
you can ask for forgiveness on your deathbed after a lifetime of
possibly horrific sins against your fellow man and have your religion
tell you you'll get it is way way up there on the chart of religious
absurdity. I wonder if Hitler "found Jesus" just before he put the
bullet in his head and was therefore "saved" and found his way into
heaven. Was he welcomed by Henry VIII?

That nonsense was written into the religion by men seeking to expand the
"faith," as was the nonsense about a better life after death, written in
to make the poor feel that their miserable lives on earth didn't matter
because, well, to expand the number of believers.

Millions of people believe that sort of bull****, but that doesn't mean
it is for real.

Be sure and take any and every excuse to knock religion,

The main difference between an atheist and a devoutly religious person
is a near death experience.

I don't mind atheists, and I don't mind the devoutly religious as long as neither
infringes on the rights of others. I do mind those whose goal in life is to ridicule
folks who believe either way.

Harry knows there are some here who believe in the precepts of their religion. He
takes every opportunity, including political discussions with you, to ridicule those
folks by ridiculing their beliefs.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

And so long as Harry continues to carry on in that manner, we will
continue to highlight the truth about Harry, wont we?

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 09:36:42 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 08:31:38 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/5/15 12:03 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:50:45 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

The only humor I find in this is the clerk's marriage and pregnancy
history. It's quite colorful and demonstrates her hypocrisy about her
alleged religious beliefs.

That was before she was "saved" ;-)


That's one of the funniest things about christianity...marry four times,
have babies by a guy you are not married to at the time, but you marry
later, maybe, while you are still married to a different guy
and...voila, find Jesus and you are "saved." Heck, different
circumstances, but I'll bet Dick Cheney can be saved, too. :)

That is why the religion is attractive,. You can ask for forgiveness
on your death bed and be saved.


You mean, of course, delude yourself into thinking you are "saved."

You can't question this woman's faith if you ignore it's main tenet.
At that point you are just mocking all religion ... which you do.



Of course I can question her motivations *and* her faith. The tenet that
you can ask for forgiveness on your deathbed after a lifetime of
possibly horrific sins against your fellow man and have your religion
tell you you'll get it is way way up there on the chart of religious
absurdity. I wonder if Hitler "found Jesus" just before he put the
bullet in his head and was therefore "saved" and found his way into
heaven. Was he welcomed by Henry VIII?

That nonsense was written into the religion by men seeking to expand the
"faith," as was the nonsense about a better life after death, written in
to make the poor feel that their miserable lives on earth didn't matter
because, well, to expand the number of believers.

Millions of people believe that sort of bull****, but that doesn't mean
it is for real.

Be sure and take any and every excuse to knock religion,

The main difference between an atheist and a devoutly religious person
is a near death experience.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

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.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 11:28:04 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 09:36:42 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 08:31:38 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/5/15 12:03 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:50:45 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

The only humor I find in this is the clerk's marriage and pregnancy
history. It's quite colorful and demonstrates her hypocrisy about her
alleged religious beliefs.

That was before she was "saved" ;-)


That's one of the funniest things about christianity...marry four times,
have babies by a guy you are not married to at the time, but you marry
later, maybe, while you are still married to a different guy
and...voila, find Jesus and you are "saved." Heck, different
circumstances, but I'll bet Dick Cheney can be saved, too. :)

That is why the religion is attractive,. You can ask for forgiveness
on your death bed and be saved.


You mean, of course, delude yourself into thinking you are "saved."

You can't question this woman's faith if you ignore it's main tenet.
At that point you are just mocking all religion ... which you do.



Of course I can question her motivations *and* her faith. The tenet that
you can ask for forgiveness on your deathbed after a lifetime of
possibly horrific sins against your fellow man and have your religion
tell you you'll get it is way way up there on the chart of religious
absurdity. I wonder if Hitler "found Jesus" just before he put the
bullet in his head and was therefore "saved" and found his way into
heaven. Was he welcomed by Henry VIII?

That nonsense was written into the religion by men seeking to expand the
"faith," as was the nonsense about a better life after death, written in
to make the poor feel that their miserable lives on earth didn't matter
because, well, to expand the number of believers.

Millions of people believe that sort of bull****, but that doesn't mean
it is for real.

Be sure and take any and every excuse to knock religion,

The main difference between an atheist and a devoutly religious person
is a near death experience.

I don't mind atheists, and I don't mind the devoutly religious as long as neither
infringes on the rights of others. I do mind those whose goal in life is to ridicule
folks who believe either way.

Harry knows there are some here who believe in the precepts of their religion. He
takes every opportunity, including political discussions with you, to ridicule those
folks by ridiculing their beliefs.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On 9/5/15 11:34 AM, wrote:
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.


Gosh, I had no idea you were also a constitutional scholar. Did the
Supreme Court strike *all* laws a state might have pertaining to
marriage, or just language that in some way prevented gays from
marrying, as Virginia's laws once prevented couples of different races
from marrying?

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On 9/5/15 11:34 AM, wrote:

The only reason why this is a religious issue is because she made it
one.

bingo.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 10:57:58 -0400, Justan Olphart wrote:

On 9/5/2015 10:04 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 09:36:42 -0400, John H.
wrote:

That nonsense was written into the religion by men seeking to expand the
"faith," as was the nonsense about a better life after death, written in
to make the poor feel that their miserable lives on earth didn't matter
because, well, to expand the number of believers.

Millions of people believe that sort of bull****, but that doesn't mean
it is for real.

Be sure and take any and every excuse to knock religion, Krause. Being a liar and tax
cheat is a much better way to go, right?

===

Harry's primary belief system is that he is "special", sort of like
Hillary in a way.

What sort of woman would tolerate her husband sticking his penis in
another woman's mouth, especially while he was supposed to be doing his
sworn duties. Such laissez faire is not characteristic of a true leader.

A woman like Hillary. Easy.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On 9/5/2015 12:49 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 11:55:37 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/5/15 11:34 AM, wrote:
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.


Gosh, I had no idea you were also a constitutional scholar. Did the
Supreme Court strike *all* laws a state might have pertaining to
marriage, or just language that in some way prevented gays from
marrying, as Virginia's laws once prevented couples of different races
from marrying?

If you read the statute in question and draw a line through the parts
the SCOTUS threw out, it is not a statute anymore. The specifics are
gone.
Virtually every sentence has a reference to "one man and one woman".
I am sure it was originally drafted that way on purpose by legislators
who are usually lawyers.


"One man one woman" certainly rules out polygamy and gayism. Is ther
anything that addresses beastiality and incest?

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 11:55:37 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/5/15 11:34 AM, wrote:
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.


Gosh, I had no idea you were also a constitutional scholar. Did the
Supreme Court strike *all* laws a state might have pertaining to
marriage, or just language that in some way prevented gays from
marrying, as Virginia's laws once prevented couples of different races
from marrying?

If you read the statute in question and draw a line through the parts
the SCOTUS threw out, it is not a statute anymore. The specifics are
gone.
Virtually every sentence has a reference to "one man and one woman".
I am sure it was originally drafted that way on purpose by legislators
who are usually lawyers.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 11:56:33 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/5/15 11:34 AM, wrote:

The only reason why this is a religious issue is because she made it
one.

bingo.

I agree, if she simply kept her agenda to herself and dealt with it as
a legal matter, she would not be issuing marriage certificates and the
only people who could fix that would be the legislature. They are
"off" until next year.

I still say, there is enough ambiguity in the statute now that any
marriage in Ky could be challenged. They might win or lose but there
is enough there to bring the case. The clerk has the right not to
create that situation.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 11:08:13 -0400, Justan Olphart wrote:

On 9/5/2015 11:34 AM, wrote:
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.

So the poor woman was in contempt of court for not ceasing to do what
she wasn't doing, which wasn't in violation of any known law.
I wonder if the judge is gay? He certainly is prejudiced and biased
toward giving those sweet little gay people anything they demand. And,
of course, Harry thinks that's just peachy keen.

Harry is 'special' you know.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 11:11:38 -0400, Justan Olphart wrote:

On 9/5/2015 11:51 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 11:28:04 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 Sep 2015 09:36:42 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 08:31:38 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/5/15 12:03 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:50:45 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

The only humor I find in this is the clerk's marriage and pregnancy
history. It's quite colorful and demonstrates her hypocrisy about her
alleged religious beliefs.

That was before she was "saved" ;-)


That's one of the funniest things about christianity...marry four times,
have babies by a guy you are not married to at the time, but you marry
later, maybe, while you are still married to a different guy
and...voila, find Jesus and you are "saved." Heck, different
circumstances, but I'll bet Dick Cheney can be saved, too. :)

That is why the religion is attractive,. You can ask for forgiveness
on your death bed and be saved.


You mean, of course, delude yourself into thinking you are "saved."

You can't question this woman's faith if you ignore it's main tenet.
At that point you are just mocking all religion ... which you do.



Of course I can question her motivations *and* her faith. The tenet that
you can ask for forgiveness on your deathbed after a lifetime of
possibly horrific sins against your fellow man and have your religion
tell you you'll get it is way way up there on the chart of religious
absurdity. I wonder if Hitler "found Jesus" just before he put the
bullet in his head and was therefore "saved" and found his way into
heaven. Was he welcomed by Henry VIII?

That nonsense was written into the religion by men seeking to expand the
"faith," as was the nonsense about a better life after death, written in
to make the poor feel that their miserable lives on earth didn't matter
because, well, to expand the number of believers.

Millions of people believe that sort of bull****, but that doesn't mean
it is for real.

Be sure and take any and every excuse to knock religion,

The main difference between an atheist and a devoutly religious person
is a near death experience.

I don't mind atheists, and I don't mind the devoutly religious as long as neither
infringes on the rights of others. I do mind those whose goal in life is to ridicule
folks who believe either way.

Harry knows there are some here who believe in the precepts of their religion. He
takes every opportunity, including political discussions with you, to ridicule those
folks by ridiculing their beliefs.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

And so long as Harry continues to carry on in that manner, we will
continue to highlight the truth about Harry, wont we?

Yup.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On 9/5/15 12:49 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 11:55:37 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/5/15 11:34 AM, wrote:
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.


Gosh, I had no idea you were also a constitutional scholar. Did the
Supreme Court strike *all* laws a state might have pertaining to
marriage, or just language that in some way prevented gays from
marrying, as Virginia's laws once prevented couples of different races
from marrying?

If you read the statute in question and draw a line through the parts
the SCOTUS threw out, it is not a statute anymore. The specifics are
gone.
Virtually every sentence has a reference to "one man and one woman".
I am sure it was originally drafted that way on purpose by legislators
who are usually lawyers.



I'll wait for a scholarly legal ruling on that and of course what is and
what is not a statute.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On 9/5/15 12:55 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 11:56:33 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/5/15 11:34 AM, wrote:

The only reason why this is a religious issue is because she made it
one.

bingo.

I agree, if she simply kept her agenda to herself and dealt with it as
a legal matter, she would not be issuing marriage certificates and the
only people who could fix that would be the legislature. They are
"off" until next year.

I still say, there is enough ambiguity in the statute now that any
marriage in Ky could be challenged. They might win or lose but there
is enough there to bring the case. The clerk has the right not to
create that situation.




Part of her job by statute is to issue marriage licenses in her county.
I'm surprised a litigant didn't have her subjected to a show-cause
hearing, or maybe she was. It's more than a little disingenuous of you
to present "options" for her nonfeasance. She was elected to perform the
duties of her office, *not* to decide on religious grounds which duties
to perform and which not to perform.

Suppose the head clerk in your motor vehicle department was a Muslim and
determined that her religion required her to not issue driver's licenses
to women. I wonder if the righties supporting Kim Davis for her
religious beliefs would speak up for the Muslim who decided to not issue
licenses to women.

Yeah, far-fetched, but, after all, one person's religion is another
person's curse.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 13:38:53 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/5/15 12:55 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 11:56:33 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/5/15 11:34 AM, wrote:

The only reason why this is a religious issue is because she made it
one.

bingo.

I agree, if she simply kept her agenda to herself and dealt with it as
a legal matter, she would not be issuing marriage certificates and the
only people who could fix that would be the legislature. They are
"off" until next year.

I still say, there is enough ambiguity in the statute now that any
marriage in Ky could be challenged. They might win or lose but there
is enough there to bring the case. The clerk has the right not to
create that situation.




Part of her job by statute is to issue marriage licenses in her county.
I'm surprised a litigant didn't have her subjected to a show-cause
hearing, or maybe she was. It's more than a little disingenuous of you
to present "options" for her nonfeasance. She was elected to perform the
duties of her office, *not* to decide on religious grounds which duties
to perform and which not to perform.

Suppose the head clerk in your motor vehicle department was a Muslim and
determined that her religion required her to not issue driver's licenses
to women. I wonder if the righties supporting Kim Davis for her
religious beliefs would speak up for the Muslim who decided to not issue
licenses to women.

Yeah, far-fetched, but, after all, one person's religion is another
person's curse.

Being dense must be a hardship, no?

WHAT DOES THE STATUTE SAY, DUMMY? If it says 'one man and one woman' then it's no
longer in play.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On 9/5/2015 1:51 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 13:38:53 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/5/15 12:55 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 11:56:33 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/5/15 11:34 AM, wrote:

The only reason why this is a religious issue is because she made it
one.

bingo.

I agree, if she simply kept her agenda to herself and dealt with it as
a legal matter, she would not be issuing marriage certificates and the
only people who could fix that would be the legislature. They are
"off" until next year.

I still say, there is enough ambiguity in the statute now that any
marriage in Ky could be challenged. They might win or lose but there
is enough there to bring the case. The clerk has the right not to
create that situation.




Part of her job by statute is to issue marriage licenses in her county.
I'm surprised a litigant didn't have her subjected to a show-cause
hearing, or maybe she was. It's more than a little disingenuous of you
to present "options" for her nonfeasance. She was elected to perform the
duties of her office, *not* to decide on religious grounds which duties
to perform and which not to perform.

Suppose the head clerk in your motor vehicle department was a Muslim and
determined that her religion required her to not issue driver's licenses
to women. I wonder if the righties supporting Kim Davis for her
religious beliefs would speak up for the Muslim who decided to not issue
licenses to women.

Yeah, far-fetched, but, after all, one person's religion is another
person's curse.

Being dense must be a hardship, no?

WHAT DOES THE STATUTE SAY, DUMMY? If it says 'one man and one woman' then it's no
longer in play.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

You don't have a big enough 2x4 to knock sense into KKKrause.