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."

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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?

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

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

bingo.