Ted Cruz: Once Obama resigns, we can talk about clerk Kim Davis.

[Danke]

lower courts havent been in compliance with SCOTUS over the income tax for probably 100 years... so id like to see that corrected before i worry about new shit

True

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Everyone always has a right to refuse an unlawful order.

True, but the order was determined to be lawful.

She did not take an oath to issue GM licenses, when she took the job that was not part of it, suddenly 5 judges change a definition that has existed for countless years and she is in the wrong?

She is as wrong as a hypothetical school superintendent in 1955 who claims he can still run racially segregated schools, since he could when he took his oath.

Resignation - so basically in a country founded by Christians, a country which has in it's very first amendment the right to religious belief which cannot be infringed by the govt, Christians just need not apply anymore for govt jobs because suddenly after over 200 centuries 5 clowns turn the country on it's head?

Her right to religious belief hasn't been infringed. She can believe whatever she wants. But there have always been limits on what people can do in acting on their religious beliefs, and she has no right to act in such a way that it interferes with her job. Incidentally, her being Christian isn't the point -- had she been a Muslim, Jew, or something else and refused to issue the licenses on religious grounds, the result would have been the same.

What if she were to refuse to issue a license to an interracial couple because she claims it's against her faith?
What if she were to refuse to issue a license to a couple of different religions because she claims it's against her faith?
What if she were to refuse to issue a license to an octogenarian couple because her faith tells her that marriage is only for those who can procreate?

 

[samforpaul]

Go HankRichter! You are on fire. Keep it up.

 

[H. E. Panqui]

I am in America, the supposed "Land of the Free" and a woman has just been thrown in jail for refusing to issue a govt license that violates her religious beliefs.



(...i just wish these gd fool republican 'christians' would get half as worked up about the massive monetary fraud, murderous wars, etc. ad nauseam, facilitated by their stinking piece of crap politicians!!..

 

[goldwater's ghost]

kagan and ginsberg should have recused themselves from the vote on obergfell. They had participated in gay marriage ceremonies prior to the court hearing the case and gave speeches promoting it and thus were not unbiased. The decision should be overturned. How is the question. had they recused themselves the vote would have fallen 4-3 in favor of traditional marriage. the state law of kentucky still has on the books that marriage is between a man and a woman. davis is actually following the law. its the federal judiciary that isnt

it seems the best way to overturn this is to seek reargument and on the case and ask for recusal for kagan and ginsburg for pre trial bias

 

[HankRicther12]

True, but the order was determined to be lawful.

By who? 5 judges? Since it was 5-4 is was really only decided by 1 person, so 1 person gets to make such a decision, trample religious rights and states rights? That's quite a stretch there. Many things were determined to be lawful, the draft, slave laws, etc, etc, do you denounce those who disobeyed them?

She is as wrong as a hypothetical school superintendent in 1955 who claims he can still run racially segregated schools, since he could when he took his oath.

What if? There is no Constitutional right to a public school anymore than there is to a marriage license or food stamps, so anytime anyone is refused a govt benefit they don't deserve I'm all for it, but further that is not a religious issue, and you are not talking about re-defining something that had been defined a certain way since it's inception. A more relevant example would be that the govt hires a Muslim to work in a school cafeteria and then years later a fed law is put down that every cafeteria worker must eat pork, she refuses, and you throw her in jail.

Her right to religious belief hasn't been infringed. She can believe whatever she wants. But there have always been limits on what people can do in acting on their religious beliefs, and she has no right to act in such a way that it interferes with her job.

She was put in jail and you're going to tell me her right to religious belief wasn't infringed? So in your notion of freedom any political dissent is met with prison? I could see reassigning her, or the citizens having a recall election, but prison?

her being Christian isn't the point --had she been a Muslim, Jew, or something else and refused to issue the licenses on religious grounds, the result would have been the same.

Tell me your kidding? You honestly don't see this is all just about attacking Christians? Remember all that fuss about wedding cakes? Well, watch the video below, and I work in Dearborn, I drive down that road 5 days a week, I never saw 1 protest, 1 news van, the Gov never gave a speech, WalMart never threatened to move out of MI, you are either purposely lying or just not paying attention.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4

How about public schools allowing Muslim prayer rooms and special recess:

http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/Muslim-Prayer-in-Schools-Religion-Students/2015/03/25/id/634403/

What if she were to refuse to issue a license to an interracial couple because she claims it's against her faith?
What if she were to refuse to issue a license to a couple of different religions because she claims it's against her faith?
What if she were to refuse to issue a license to an octogenarian couple because her faith tells her that marriage is only for those who can procreate?

Same as what I said when you asked about public schools.

Basically, what I'm seeing you say here, is that Christians should not ever be allowed to apply for any govt job because after over 2 centuries in America their religion has suddenly become the enemy and because a few judges decided that after all of human history defining marriage as man/woman, we have to change it, and Christians must comply or face jail.

Now, again, I don't think there should be state involvement in marriage, but even in very open societies like Rome, no one ever was complaining they couldn't have a gay marriage, they all understood that in the context of a state function marriage was about alliances, reproduction, family, and "keeping society strong", so even if someone was gay, they would still marry someone of the opposite sex, then go about their sexual exploits.

This is just people trying to use an issue to once again attack their political opponents, notice how polygamists, incestuous couples, etc are still excluded, and I'll ask again, as a single person, where are my benefits? I'm to be discriminated against just because I didn't go through some ceremony? Why will no on answer that question?

 

[HankRicther12]

I am in America, the supposed "Land of the Free" and a woman has just been thrown in jail for refusing to issue a govt license that violates her religious beliefs.



(...i just wish these gd fool republican 'christians' would get half as worked up about the massive monetary fraud, murderous wars, etc. ad nauseam, facilitated by their stinking piece of crap politicians!!..

I see you're another one who buys into the media nonsense, I've said this plenty of times now, I am not Christian and most definitely not a Republican, and I am very upset about the wars, fraud, etc, doesn't mean I'm not just as upset about this, I think you and far too many others are blinding yourself to the bigger implications of all this likely because you have some affinity for gays and dislike of Christians - something likely also formed by the media.

kagan and ginsberg should have recused themselves from the vote on obergfell. They had participated in gay marriage ceremonies prior to the court hearing the case and gave speeches promoting it and thus were not unbiased. The decision should be overturned. How is the question. had they recused themselves the vote would have fallen 4-3 in favor of traditional marriage. the state law of kentucky still has on the books that marriage is between a man and a woman. davis is actually following the law. its the federal judiciary that isnt

it seems the best way to overturn this is to seek reargument and on the case and ask for recusal for kagan and ginsburg for pre trial bias

Agreed.

 

[H. E. Panqui]

hank richter becks and limbaughs: I think you and far too many others are blinding yourself to the bigger implications of all this likely because you have some affinity for gays and dislike of Christians - something likely also formed by the media.



...it is my understanding 'christ' was and true christians are pacifists...(hint: 'turn the other cheek')

...these f@cking, twisted 'christian' monsters you apparently defend have taken dozens of eyes for one eye...do the math!!

...apparently you have blind eyes when it comes to these murderous 'christians..'

 

[HankRicther12]

hank richter becks and limbaughs: I think you and far too many others are blinding yourself to the bigger implications of all this likely because you have some affinity for gays and dislike of Christians - something likely also formed by the media.



...it is my understanding 'christ' was and true christians are pacifists...(hint: 'turn the other cheek')

...these f@cking, twisted 'christian' monsters you apparently defend have taken dozens of eyes for one eye...do the math!!

...apparently you have blind eyes when it comes to these murderous 'christians..'

Well, first I'd say you are wrong that Christians are required to be pacifist, the Christian god fully supported many military actions so not sure what Bible you have read, but that aside, name me any group that doesn't have both good and bad people in it, you show your prejudice when you try to pin such things on all Christians in the world, the overwhelmingly majority of whom have never killed anyone and never will. For those few that have, I certainly do not defend them and I'd like for you to show me one shred of evidence that I ever did. Becks and Limbaughs? That really the best you got?

 

[Sonny Tufts]

By who? 5 judges? Since it was 5-4 is was really only decided by 1 person, so 1 person gets to make such a decision, trample religious rights and states rights?

I'm not referring to the Obergefell decision, but to the decisions of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court that refused to stay Judge Bunning's order that she must issue licenses to all applicants. I erred in thinking that the 6th Circuit had affirmed the order on the merits -- that appeal is pending.

So in your notion of freedom any political dissent is met with prison? I could see reassigning her, or the citizens having a recall election, but prison?

The judge determined that fining her wouldn't be enough to persuade her to obey his order.

Basically, what I'm seeing you say here, is that Christians should not ever be allowed to apply for any govt job because after over 2 centuries in America their religion has suddenly become the enemy and because a few judges decided that after all of human history defining marriage as man/woman, we have to change it, and Christians must comply or face jail.

Bilge. The issue is whether a government employee can disobey a court order demanding that she so her job.

 

[erowe1]

The judge determined that fining her wouldn't be enough to persuade her to obey his order.

So what if she didn't obey his order?

That's the problem. This arrogant judge thinks obeying his orders, even on ridiculously minor things like this, is so important that it's worth jailing people over.

This judge and the US Marshals who obeyed his unlawful order should be arrested and tried for false imprisonment.

 

[H. E. Panqui]

hank richter hannity's and orielly's : Well, first I'd say you are wrong that Christians are required to be pacifist,



(certainly! if they want to be 'christ-like'!!...blow the dust off your bible and i believe you'll find that the only time christ used 'violence' is when he overturned the moneychangers' tables, etc.....(today's 'christians' eagerly suck the barbed peepees of the banksters)

...ffsakes these/?your stinking republican 'christians' today use violence against people who merely smoke pot!!!...to say nothing of the 100's of thousands their/?your stinking republicrat military machine has murdered and maimed..

...remember, it was jesus the pacifist, jesus the forgiving, jesus the wise and compassionate....not jesus the goddamned fool republicrat, not jesus the bomber pilot, the spy, the prison industrialist, the bankster..

(as one talented wag sang it, 'if jesus saves, he'd better save himself...from the gory glory-seekers who use his name in death...)

 

[Sonny Tufts]

This arrogant judge thinks obeying his orders, even on ridiculously minor things like this, is so important that it's worth jailing people over.

This judge and the US Marshals who obeyed his unlawful order should be arrested and tried for false imprisonment.

It's not minor if a government employee is ordered to do her job and she refuses to do so and refuses to resign because she'd rather be a martyr than obey the law.

The judge's order hasn't been determined to be unlawful; that's what the current appeal is all about. But the fact that the 6th Circuit and the Supreme Court declined to stay the order doesn't bode well for her appeal.

 

[HankRicther12]

I'm not referring to the Obergefell decision, but to the decisions of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court that refused to stay Judge Bunning's order that she must issue licenses to all applicants. I erred in thinking that the 6th Circuit had affirmed the order on the merits -- that appeal is pending.

The judge determined that fining her wouldn't be enough to persuade her to obey his order.

Bilge. The issue is whether a government employee can disobey a court order demanding that she so her job.

You keep dodging the question, OK, so the fine wouldn't work, I ask again, when someone refuses to do something you tell them based on personal convictions - your solution is to imprison them?

Were people wrong to disobey the draft? Many of them went to jail, you support that?

hank richter hannity's and orielly's

: Well, first I'd say you are wrong that Christians are required to be pacifist,

(certainly! if they want to be 'christ-like'!!...blow the dust off your bible and i believe you'll find that the only time christ used 'violence' is when he overturned the moneychangers' tables, etc.....(today's 'christians' eagerly suck the barbed peepees of the banksters)

...ffsakes these/?your stinking republican 'christians'

today use violence against people who merely smoke pot!!!...to say nothing of the 100's of thousands their/?your stinking republicrat military machine has murdered and maimed..

...remember, it was jesus the pacifist, jesus the forgiving, jesus the wise and compassionate....not jesus the goddamned fool republicrat, not jesus the bomber pilot, the spy, the prison industrialist, the bankster..

(as one talented wag sang it, 'if jesus saves, he'd better save himself...from the gory glory-seekers who use his name in death...)

You got some anger issues, kinda for someone who's attacking others for being hostile. It's obvious you're not even reading what was written, really no point in trying again.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

You keep dodging the question, OK, so the fine wouldn't work, I ask again, when someone refuses to do something you tell them based on personal convictions - your solution is to imprison them?

Sometimes incarceration is necessary in order to get a government official to do his duty and obey the law. She can adhere to her religious convictions by resigning.

 

[HankRicther12]

Sometimes incarceration is necessary in order to get a government official to do his duty and obey the law. She can adhere to her religious convictions by resigning.

Scary you think that way, I would never put someone in prison for not issuing some stupid license, I really can't believe you actually say this is justified. Prison should be for people who have done things like, murder, physical assault, property damage, etc. Not giving someone a govt goodie that they don't deserve in the first place is hardly a reason to deprive someone of their freedom, not to mention it is downright tyrannical to jail people for having an opposing political view. I'm not sure what your definition of liberty is but you may want to rethink it.

 

[H. E. Panqui]

hank richter asserts: "I'm not sure what your definition of liberty is but you may want to rethink it."



(..'liberty' is essentially 'the absence of government'...and although many loud, foggy republicrats spend a lot of time invoking 'liberty' into their teevee-republicrat-level utterances/observations :o you can't find a stinking one of them who comes anywhere near 'practicing what they preach'.)

(...listening to republicrats preach about 'liberty' is like listening to crisco christie preach about self-control and healthy eating habits.... )

 

[Sam I am]

Is gay marriage in your copy of the U.S. Constitution, because it sure isn't in mine.

This is the first section of the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

The SCOTUS has determined that When Heterosexuals can get marriage benefits when married to someone they're attracted to, but Homosexuals can't do the same, then that section of the 14th amendment is violated.

Now, you might not agree with that interpretation, but the reason we have a SCOTUS, is to officially resolve such disagreements.

 

[HankRicther12]

This is the first section of the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution:



The SCOTUS has determined that When Heterosexuals can get marriage benefits when married to someone they're attracted to, but Homosexuals can't do the same, then that section of the 14th amendment is violated.

Now, you might not agree with that interpretation, but the reason we have a SCOTUS, is to officially resolve such disagreements.

Love how you come along and snip out one little thing and post it out of context, we've all discussed the 14th in depth and why that's a BS argument, so go back and read the discussion and try to provide something we haven't debunked a 100 times.