|
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 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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:08 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com