Kentucky Clerks Refuse to Issue Gay Marriage Licenses

[martybegan]

See previous message Skylar C_Clayton_Jones Agit8r about understanding the First Amendment
and not abusing Govt to establish nationalized beliefs, religious or faith-based issues for the rest of the population, much less requiring this by law, much less penalizing people of other beliefs.

The First Amendment had nothing to do with the Obergefell ruling, it concerned solely the 14th Amendment.

Hi C_Clayton_Jones
As per your comment that you don't even believe my views apply to the real world
(while many conservatives live in the world where natural rights come from God/Nature
and not from Govt, and believe it is the Liberals who don't understand human nature and the real world)
EVERY political decision involves the First Amendment because people, like you and me, are Projecting our BELIEFS which BIAS our opinions and perceptions.

The Judges and legislators are also either Limited or Biased by their BELIEFS.

Examples:

A. As above, if people BELIEVE rights are already inherent and come from human nature/God
and don't depend on Govt to establish them by imposing ON the people, but rather people affirm
and agree on rights and freedoms and use the Democratic system to establish that AGREEMENT
like drawing up contracts that reflect what people ALREADY AGREE on and BELIEVE in.

This is a REFLECTION of public consent.
NOT an imposition of policy ON the people with or without consent.

This BELIEF affects people's relationship with govt and the useage of the political, legal and legislative process.

Whereas people who believe in depending on Govt to establish political rights, freedoms and laws
will fight to legislate more on the collective level using Govt
while the other group fights to liberate and to do more by individual free choice and to minimalize Govt.

So people's BELIEFS bias everything they think, say, do, propose, endorse, oppose, execute, fund, vote for or veto, write up or implement politically.

B. Another Example C_Clayton_Jones
if people believe consensus is possible
or people do not,
this affects the standard of consent one will seek in making decisions.

the Greens seek a consensus based inclusive process where objections are taken and resolved
BEFORE the final decision is made cooperatively as a group.

If you don't believe this is possible, if you believe the only way to defend your rights
against the opposition is to beat them politically, this AFFECTS what laws you will seek to pass,
what you will fund, which candidates you will endorse for office.

Political Beliefs affect that also.

C. If you believe in Due Process before punishing or rejecting someone or something.

For example, many people assume
1. spiritual healing is the same as false faith healing
healing homosexuality is the same as fraudulent abusive conversion therapy

so people seek to negate, attack, and deny knowledge and access to helpful therapy
WITHOUT going through the proper DUE PROCESS of distinguishing WHICH parties/practices
are guilty of the fraud or abuses. Instead, ALL groups and methods are ASSUMED to be guilty
of fraud/abuse by ASSOCIATION.

2. similar to assuming all gays are unnatural, sick and enabling pedophiles to abuse others.

Where is the due process to prove which people are spreading sickness and which are
natural and not imposing some agenda, denial, or abusive relations on others?

3. or gun rights. if the violent crimes of one person causes someone
to pass laws depriving even LAW ABIDING citizens of rights, where is the due process
to prove those people were going to abuse their rights and freedoms and needed the same
restrictions as a criminal does?

4. or health care mandates
If someone chooses not to buy insurance yet, where is the due process to prove they
were going to push the costs on the public instead of paying another way?
If the freedom to buy and consume drugs is being pushed for legalization and not declared a crime
to be punished, why punish the free choice of paying for health care other ways besides insurance?

Where is the due process to prove someone did criminal actions or had criminal intent
BEFORE depriving law-abiding citizens of freedom to pay and provide health care OTHER WAYS
BESIDES INSURANCE.

C_Clayton_Jones I am guess you understand "due process" in terms of not punishing and depriving ALL Muslims of equal rights and religious freedoms just because of the Jihadists who need more policing.
You understand that before Muslims are deprived of liberty, there must be due process to prove
THOSE MUSLIMS committed a crime and lost their privileges of freedom when duly convicted of breaking laws.

And you understand "due process" in terms of not accusing and punishing/persecuting
ALL gays, transgender, or others as "sick and spreading social perversion" when many
people are naturally that orientation, and do not deserve to be treated as sick criminals if that doesn't apply.
You understand that guilt by association is not justification to deprive/deny equal rights and protections to people.

What you don't seem to grasp is the same way YOU have beliefs about govt,
and whether courts/congress can makes laws involving religious bias or faith based beliefs,
other people do, too.

This is not "outside the real world" C_Clayton_Jones
this is the REALITY for those people the same way your beliefs ARE your reality, it defines
how you relate to and live day to day. Same with people of Constitutional views that Govt
is limited and cannot just pass any law as long as there is majority rule, or court ruling,
that follows the letter of the law procedure. None of that can supercede the Bill of Rights
and religious freedom from establishment by Govt.

If you don't believe that is reality, you are leaving out people whose reality this is!

So if you are leaving out half the nation, how is that reality?
C_Clayton_Jones
To define reality only based on your beliefs and experiences?
While leaving out people you disagree with so much you don't even think it is real or applies?

How is that reality if it doesn't include all people's views.

Can you have a real number system if you only count the even numbers you use,
and leave out the odd numbers? Or only count the positive numbers and leave out the negative?

Wouldn't the real and complete set include ALL numbers in their proper context.

Can you see how you mimic the fundamentalist who says only the Bible counts
and no views that aren't in there, that's not reality to them. Fine but what about
people who define their reality using Buddhism or natural science. You don't have
to agree with any of that, to recognize that is necessary to communicate their reality.

I challenge you to look deeper into this.
And understand why Conservatives don't believe Liberals are looking at the same reality either!
If both groups cover different realms of experience, don't you think we need BOTH sets to cover
the collective reality and broader range spectrum of all views from left to right?

Can you really define what is reality, and cut out certain knowledge views or perceptions as not counting?
Wouldn't you be missing that part of reality?

Gay Americans are marrying in Kentucky and across America, in accordance with the Constitution and its case law, where the right of same-sex couples to enter into marriage contracts is recognized and safeguarded from attack by the 14th Amendment, having nothing whatsoever to do with the First Amendment, and in no way 'violating' the First Amendment rights of those hostile to the due process and equal protection rights of gay Americans.

No, the attacks on first amendment rights come next.

The courts have never found that State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. Not the USSC, not any federal court, not any state court.

You do. And you're not nearly enough.

The courts found segregation to be OK, and until just recently never found a right to SSM, so your appeal to precedent means jack squat.

 

[Skylar]

Personally, I think we're missing an opportunity. The LGBT friends that I've talked to are concerned that if they give ground on marriage services that other services unrelated to marriage will follow. And this is a legitimate concern. As the 'religious objections' can be....anything. And we've already seen numerous examples of folks denying services to gays that have nothing to do with marriage.

If we carved out a specific exemption for religious objections related to wedding services while protecting gays on everything else, I think we could come up with something that would work for most folks. As gays can get the protection they're actually looking for. And the religious return to the scenario they had before gay marriage.

Seems like a win-win to me.

 

[Syriusly]

The First Amendment had nothing to do with the Obergefell ruling, it concerned solely the 14th Amendment.

Hi C_Clayton_Jones
As per your comment that you don't even believe my views apply to the real world
(while many conservatives live in the world where natural rights come from God/Nature
and not from Govt, and believe it is the Liberals who don't understand human nature and the real world)
EVERY political decision involves the First Amendment because people, like you and me, are Projecting our BELIEFS which BIAS our opinions and perceptions.

The Judges and legislators are also either Limited or Biased by their BELIEFS.

Examples:

A. As above, if people BELIEVE rights are already inherent and come from human nature/God
and don't depend on Govt to establish them by imposing ON the people, but rather people affirm
and agree on rights and freedoms and use the Democratic system to establish that AGREEMENT
like drawing up contracts that reflect what people ALREADY AGREE on and BELIEVE in.

This is a REFLECTION of public consent.
NOT an imposition of policy ON the people with or without consent.

This BELIEF affects people's relationship with govt and the useage of the political, legal and legislative process.

Whereas people who believe in depending on Govt to establish political rights, freedoms and laws
will fight to legislate more on the collective level using Govt
while the other group fights to liberate and to do more by individual free choice and to minimalize Govt.

So people's BELIEFS bias everything they think, say, do, propose, endorse, oppose, execute, fund, vote for or veto, write up or implement politically.

B. Another Example C_Clayton_Jones
if people believe consensus is possible
or people do not,
this affects the standard of consent one will seek in making decisions.

the Greens seek a consensus based inclusive process where objections are taken and resolved
BEFORE the final decision is made cooperatively as a group.

If you don't believe this is possible, if you believe the only way to defend your rights
against the opposition is to beat them politically, this AFFECTS what laws you will seek to pass,
what you will fund, which candidates you will endorse for office.

Political Beliefs affect that also.

C. If you believe in Due Process before punishing or rejecting someone or something.

For example, many people assume
1. spiritual healing is the same as false faith healing
healing homosexuality is the same as fraudulent abusive conversion therapy

so people seek to negate, attack, and deny knowledge and access to helpful therapy
WITHOUT going through the proper DUE PROCESS of distinguishing WHICH parties/practices
are guilty of the fraud or abuses. Instead, ALL groups and methods are ASSUMED to be guilty
of fraud/abuse by ASSOCIATION.

2. similar to assuming all gays are unnatural, sick and enabling pedophiles to abuse others.

Where is the due process to prove which people are spreading sickness and which are
natural and not imposing some agenda, denial, or abusive relations on others?

3. or gun rights. if the violent crimes of one person causes someone
to pass laws depriving even LAW ABIDING citizens of rights, where is the due process
to prove those people were going to abuse their rights and freedoms and needed the same
restrictions as a criminal does?

4. or health care mandates
If someone chooses not to buy insurance yet, where is the due process to prove they
were going to push the costs on the public instead of paying another way?
If the freedom to buy and consume drugs is being pushed for legalization and not declared a crime
to be punished, why punish the free choice of paying for health care other ways besides insurance?

Where is the due process to prove someone did criminal actions or had criminal intent
BEFORE depriving law-abiding citizens of freedom to pay and provide health care OTHER WAYS
BESIDES INSURANCE.

C_Clayton_Jones I am guess you understand "due process" in terms of not punishing and depriving ALL Muslims of equal rights and religious freedoms just because of the Jihadists who need more policing.
You understand that before Muslims are deprived of liberty, there must be due process to prove
THOSE MUSLIMS committed a crime and lost their privileges of freedom when duly convicted of breaking laws.

And you understand "due process" in terms of not accusing and punishing/persecuting
ALL gays, transgender, or others as "sick and spreading social perversion" when many
people are naturally that orientation, and do not deserve to be treated as sick criminals if that doesn't apply.
You understand that guilt by association is not justification to deprive/deny equal rights and protections to people.

What you don't seem to grasp is the same way YOU have beliefs about govt,
and whether courts/congress can makes laws involving religious bias or faith based beliefs,
other people do, too.

This is not "outside the real world" C_Clayton_Jones
this is the REALITY for those people the same way your beliefs ARE your reality, it defines
how you relate to and live day to day. Same with people of Constitutional views that Govt
is limited and cannot just pass any law as long as there is majority rule, or court ruling,
that follows the letter of the law procedure. None of that can supercede the Bill of Rights
and religious freedom from establishment by Govt.

If you don't believe that is reality, you are leaving out people whose reality this is!

So if you are leaving out half the nation, how is that reality?
C_Clayton_Jones
To define reality only based on your beliefs and experiences?
While leaving out people you disagree with so much you don't even think it is real or applies?

How is that reality if it doesn't include all people's views.

Can you have a real number system if you only count the even numbers you use,
and leave out the odd numbers? Or only count the positive numbers and leave out the negative?

Wouldn't the real and complete set include ALL numbers in their proper context.

Can you see how you mimic the fundamentalist who says only the Bible counts
and no views that aren't in there, that's not reality to them. Fine but what about
people who define their reality using Buddhism or natural science. You don't have
to agree with any of that, to recognize that is necessary to communicate their reality.

I challenge you to look deeper into this.
And understand why Conservatives don't believe Liberals are looking at the same reality either!
If both groups cover different realms of experience, don't you think we need BOTH sets to cover
the collective reality and broader range spectrum of all views from left to right?

Can you really define what is reality, and cut out certain knowledge views or perceptions as not counting?
Wouldn't you be missing that part of reality?

Gay Americans are marrying in Kentucky and across America, in accordance with the Constitution and its case law, where the right of same-sex couples to enter into marriage contracts is recognized and safeguarded from attack by the 14th Amendment, having nothing whatsoever to do with the First Amendment, and in no way 'violating' the First Amendment rights of those hostile to the due process and equal protection rights of gay Americans.

No, the attacks on first amendment rights come next.

The courts have never found that State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. Not the USSC, not any federal court, not any state court.

You do. And you're not nearly enough.

The courts found segregation to be OK, and until just recently never found a right to SSM, so your appeal to precedent means jack squat.

The courts subsequently found segregation to be wrong- and their decision is legal.

The Supreme Court has ruled overturned State marriage bans 4 times now- from Loving v. Virginia bans on inter-racial marriage to Obergefall and bans on same sex marriage- all legal decisions- all still enforced- all protecting the rights of Americans.

What we can expect to see if more of the same fear mongering by the same people who opposed Americans getting married if they happen to be gay.

 

[Skylar]

The First Amendment had nothing to do with the Obergefell ruling, it concerned solely the 14th Amendment.

Hi C_Clayton_Jones
As per your comment that you don't even believe my views apply to the real world
(while many conservatives live in the world where natural rights come from God/Nature
and not from Govt, and believe it is the Liberals who don't understand human nature and the real world)
EVERY political decision involves the First Amendment because people, like you and me, are Projecting our BELIEFS which BIAS our opinions and perceptions.

The Judges and legislators are also either Limited or Biased by their BELIEFS.

Examples:

A. As above, if people BELIEVE rights are already inherent and come from human nature/God
and don't depend on Govt to establish them by imposing ON the people, but rather people affirm
and agree on rights and freedoms and use the Democratic system to establish that AGREEMENT
like drawing up contracts that reflect what people ALREADY AGREE on and BELIEVE in.

This is a REFLECTION of public consent.
NOT an imposition of policy ON the people with or without consent.

This BELIEF affects people's relationship with govt and the useage of the political, legal and legislative process.

Whereas people who believe in depending on Govt to establish political rights, freedoms and laws
will fight to legislate more on the collective level using Govt
while the other group fights to liberate and to do more by individual free choice and to minimalize Govt.

So people's BELIEFS bias everything they think, say, do, propose, endorse, oppose, execute, fund, vote for or veto, write up or implement politically.

B. Another Example C_Clayton_Jones
if people believe consensus is possible
or people do not,
this affects the standard of consent one will seek in making decisions.

the Greens seek a consensus based inclusive process where objections are taken and resolved
BEFORE the final decision is made cooperatively as a group.

If you don't believe this is possible, if you believe the only way to defend your rights
against the opposition is to beat them politically, this AFFECTS what laws you will seek to pass,
what you will fund, which candidates you will endorse for office.

Political Beliefs affect that also.

C. If you believe in Due Process before punishing or rejecting someone or something.

For example, many people assume
1. spiritual healing is the same as false faith healing
healing homosexuality is the same as fraudulent abusive conversion therapy

so people seek to negate, attack, and deny knowledge and access to helpful therapy
WITHOUT going through the proper DUE PROCESS of distinguishing WHICH parties/practices
are guilty of the fraud or abuses. Instead, ALL groups and methods are ASSUMED to be guilty
of fraud/abuse by ASSOCIATION.

2. similar to assuming all gays are unnatural, sick and enabling pedophiles to abuse others.

Where is the due process to prove which people are spreading sickness and which are
natural and not imposing some agenda, denial, or abusive relations on others?

3. or gun rights. if the violent crimes of one person causes someone
to pass laws depriving even LAW ABIDING citizens of rights, where is the due process
to prove those people were going to abuse their rights and freedoms and needed the same
restrictions as a criminal does?

4. or health care mandates
If someone chooses not to buy insurance yet, where is the due process to prove they
were going to push the costs on the public instead of paying another way?
If the freedom to buy and consume drugs is being pushed for legalization and not declared a crime
to be punished, why punish the free choice of paying for health care other ways besides insurance?

Where is the due process to prove someone did criminal actions or had criminal intent
BEFORE depriving law-abiding citizens of freedom to pay and provide health care OTHER WAYS
BESIDES INSURANCE.

C_Clayton_Jones I am guess you understand "due process" in terms of not punishing and depriving ALL Muslims of equal rights and religious freedoms just because of the Jihadists who need more policing.
You understand that before Muslims are deprived of liberty, there must be due process to prove
THOSE MUSLIMS committed a crime and lost their privileges of freedom when duly convicted of breaking laws.

And you understand "due process" in terms of not accusing and punishing/persecuting
ALL gays, transgender, or others as "sick and spreading social perversion" when many
people are naturally that orientation, and do not deserve to be treated as sick criminals if that doesn't apply.
You understand that guilt by association is not justification to deprive/deny equal rights and protections to people.

What you don't seem to grasp is the same way YOU have beliefs about govt,
and whether courts/congress can makes laws involving religious bias or faith based beliefs,
other people do, too.

This is not "outside the real world" C_Clayton_Jones
this is the REALITY for those people the same way your beliefs ARE your reality, it defines
how you relate to and live day to day. Same with people of Constitutional views that Govt
is limited and cannot just pass any law as long as there is majority rule, or court ruling,
that follows the letter of the law procedure. None of that can supercede the Bill of Rights
and religious freedom from establishment by Govt.

If you don't believe that is reality, you are leaving out people whose reality this is!

So if you are leaving out half the nation, how is that reality?
C_Clayton_Jones
To define reality only based on your beliefs and experiences?
While leaving out people you disagree with so much you don't even think it is real or applies?

How is that reality if it doesn't include all people's views.

Can you have a real number system if you only count the even numbers you use,
and leave out the odd numbers? Or only count the positive numbers and leave out the negative?

Wouldn't the real and complete set include ALL numbers in their proper context.

Can you see how you mimic the fundamentalist who says only the Bible counts
and no views that aren't in there, that's not reality to them. Fine but what about
people who define their reality using Buddhism or natural science. You don't have
to agree with any of that, to recognize that is necessary to communicate their reality.

I challenge you to look deeper into this.
And understand why Conservatives don't believe Liberals are looking at the same reality either!
If both groups cover different realms of experience, don't you think we need BOTH sets to cover
the collective reality and broader range spectrum of all views from left to right?

Can you really define what is reality, and cut out certain knowledge views or perceptions as not counting?
Wouldn't you be missing that part of reality?

Gay Americans are marrying in Kentucky and across America, in accordance with the Constitution and its case law, where the right of same-sex couples to enter into marriage contracts is recognized and safeguarded from attack by the 14th Amendment, having nothing whatsoever to do with the First Amendment, and in no way 'violating' the First Amendment rights of those hostile to the due process and equal protection rights of gay Americans.

No, the attacks on first amendment rights come next.

The courts have never found that State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. Not the USSC, not any federal court, not any state court.

You do. And you're not nearly enough.

The courts found segregation to be OK, and until just recently never found a right to SSM, so your appeal to precedent means jack squat.

Given that the dichotomy you're offering is the State, Federal and Supreme Court versus you...

......you're really not bringing much to the table.

While I'm sure you consider any opinion you hold to be legally binding, the rest of us really don't give a shit. And our law certainly doesn't use your personal you as our basis of constitutionality.

 

[martybegan]

Hi C_Clayton_Jones
As per your comment that you don't even believe my views apply to the real world
(while many conservatives live in the world where natural rights come from God/Nature
and not from Govt, and believe it is the Liberals who don't understand human nature and the real world)
EVERY political decision involves the First Amendment because people, like you and me, are Projecting our BELIEFS which BIAS our opinions and perceptions.

The Judges and legislators are also either Limited or Biased by their BELIEFS.

Examples:

A. As above, if people BELIEVE rights are already inherent and come from human nature/God
and don't depend on Govt to establish them by imposing ON the people, but rather people affirm
and agree on rights and freedoms and use the Democratic system to establish that AGREEMENT
like drawing up contracts that reflect what people ALREADY AGREE on and BELIEVE in.

This is a REFLECTION of public consent.
NOT an imposition of policy ON the people with or without consent.

This BELIEF affects people's relationship with govt and the useage of the political, legal and legislative process.

Whereas people who believe in depending on Govt to establish political rights, freedoms and laws
will fight to legislate more on the collective level using Govt
while the other group fights to liberate and to do more by individual free choice and to minimalize Govt.

So people's BELIEFS bias everything they think, say, do, propose, endorse, oppose, execute, fund, vote for or veto, write up or implement politically.

B. Another Example C_Clayton_Jones
if people believe consensus is possible
or people do not,
this affects the standard of consent one will seek in making decisions.

the Greens seek a consensus based inclusive process where objections are taken and resolved
BEFORE the final decision is made cooperatively as a group.

If you don't believe this is possible, if you believe the only way to defend your rights
against the opposition is to beat them politically, this AFFECTS what laws you will seek to pass,
what you will fund, which candidates you will endorse for office.

Political Beliefs affect that also.

C. If you believe in Due Process before punishing or rejecting someone or something.

For example, many people assume
1. spiritual healing is the same as false faith healing
healing homosexuality is the same as fraudulent abusive conversion therapy

so people seek to negate, attack, and deny knowledge and access to helpful therapy
WITHOUT going through the proper DUE PROCESS of distinguishing WHICH parties/practices
are guilty of the fraud or abuses. Instead, ALL groups and methods are ASSUMED to be guilty
of fraud/abuse by ASSOCIATION.

2. similar to assuming all gays are unnatural, sick and enabling pedophiles to abuse others.

Where is the due process to prove which people are spreading sickness and which are
natural and not imposing some agenda, denial, or abusive relations on others?

3. or gun rights. if the violent crimes of one person causes someone
to pass laws depriving even LAW ABIDING citizens of rights, where is the due process
to prove those people were going to abuse their rights and freedoms and needed the same
restrictions as a criminal does?

4. or health care mandates
If someone chooses not to buy insurance yet, where is the due process to prove they
were going to push the costs on the public instead of paying another way?
If the freedom to buy and consume drugs is being pushed for legalization and not declared a crime
to be punished, why punish the free choice of paying for health care other ways besides insurance?

Where is the due process to prove someone did criminal actions or had criminal intent
BEFORE depriving law-abiding citizens of freedom to pay and provide health care OTHER WAYS
BESIDES INSURANCE.

C_Clayton_Jones I am guess you understand "due process" in terms of not punishing and depriving ALL Muslims of equal rights and religious freedoms just because of the Jihadists who need more policing.
You understand that before Muslims are deprived of liberty, there must be due process to prove
THOSE MUSLIMS committed a crime and lost their privileges of freedom when duly convicted of breaking laws.

And you understand "due process" in terms of not accusing and punishing/persecuting
ALL gays, transgender, or others as "sick and spreading social perversion" when many
people are naturally that orientation, and do not deserve to be treated as sick criminals if that doesn't apply.
You understand that guilt by association is not justification to deprive/deny equal rights and protections to people.

What you don't seem to grasp is the same way YOU have beliefs about govt,
and whether courts/congress can makes laws involving religious bias or faith based beliefs,
other people do, too.

This is not "outside the real world" C_Clayton_Jones
this is the REALITY for those people the same way your beliefs ARE your reality, it defines
how you relate to and live day to day. Same with people of Constitutional views that Govt
is limited and cannot just pass any law as long as there is majority rule, or court ruling,
that follows the letter of the law procedure. None of that can supercede the Bill of Rights
and religious freedom from establishment by Govt.

If you don't believe that is reality, you are leaving out people whose reality this is!

So if you are leaving out half the nation, how is that reality?
C_Clayton_Jones
To define reality only based on your beliefs and experiences?
While leaving out people you disagree with so much you don't even think it is real or applies?

How is that reality if it doesn't include all people's views.

Can you have a real number system if you only count the even numbers you use,
and leave out the odd numbers? Or only count the positive numbers and leave out the negative?

Wouldn't the real and complete set include ALL numbers in their proper context.

Can you see how you mimic the fundamentalist who says only the Bible counts
and no views that aren't in there, that's not reality to them. Fine but what about
people who define their reality using Buddhism or natural science. You don't have
to agree with any of that, to recognize that is necessary to communicate their reality.

I challenge you to look deeper into this.
And understand why Conservatives don't believe Liberals are looking at the same reality either!
If both groups cover different realms of experience, don't you think we need BOTH sets to cover
the collective reality and broader range spectrum of all views from left to right?

Can you really define what is reality, and cut out certain knowledge views or perceptions as not counting?
Wouldn't you be missing that part of reality?

Gay Americans are marrying in Kentucky and across America, in accordance with the Constitution and its case law, where the right of same-sex couples to enter into marriage contracts is recognized and safeguarded from attack by the 14th Amendment, having nothing whatsoever to do with the First Amendment, and in no way 'violating' the First Amendment rights of those hostile to the due process and equal protection rights of gay Americans.

No, the attacks on first amendment rights come next.

The courts have never found that State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. Not the USSC, not any federal court, not any state court.

You do. And you're not nearly enough.

The courts found segregation to be OK, and until just recently never found a right to SSM, so your appeal to precedent means jack squat.

Given that the dichotomy you're offering is the State, Federal and Supreme Court versus you...

......you're really not bringing much to the table.

While I'm sure you consider any opinion you hold to be legally binding, the rest of us really don't give a shit. And our law certainly doesn't use your personal you as our basis of constitutionality.

I consider my opinions to be right. Laws can be protective or oppressive, or both at the same time. In this case the laws in question protect people you like, and oppress people you don't like, so you are OK with them. If the opposite was happening you would probably scream from the rafters.

THAT's how you tell the difference between people who support freedom, and those who give lip service to it.

 

[Skylar]

Gay Americans are marrying in Kentucky and across America, in accordance with the Constitution and its case law, where the right of same-sex couples to enter into marriage contracts is recognized and safeguarded from attack by the 14th Amendment, having nothing whatsoever to do with the First Amendment, and in no way 'violating' the First Amendment rights of those hostile to the due process and equal protection rights of gay Americans.

No, the attacks on first amendment rights come next.

The courts have never found that State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. Not the USSC, not any federal court, not any state court.

You do. And you're not nearly enough.

The courts found segregation to be OK, and until just recently never found a right to SSM, so your appeal to precedent means jack squat.

Given that the dichotomy you're offering is the State, Federal and Supreme Court versus you...

......you're really not bringing much to the table.

While I'm sure you consider any opinion you hold to be legally binding, the rest of us really don't give a shit. And our law certainly doesn't use your personal you as our basis of constitutionality.

I consider my opinions to be right.

I get that. But our constitution, law, precedent and courts don't. There simply is no legal conflict between State PA laws and the 1st amendment. So far its legally baseless grumbling.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Actually it is just you who do not understand the role of the judiciary.

Luckily the Supreme Court does.

See previous message Skylar C_Clayton_Jones Agit8r about understanding the First Amendment
and not abusing Govt to establish nationalized beliefs, religious or faith-based issues for the rest of the population, much less requiring this by law, much less penalizing people of other beliefs.

The First Amendment had nothing to do with the Obergefell ruling, it concerned solely the 14th Amendment.

Hi C_Clayton_Jones
As per your comment that you don't even believe my views apply to the real world
(while many conservatives live in the world where natural rights come from God/Nature
and not from Govt, and believe it is the Liberals who don't understand human nature and the real world)
EVERY political decision involves the First Amendment because people, like you and me, are Projecting our BELIEFS which BIAS our opinions and perceptions.

The Judges and legislators are also either Limited or Biased by their BELIEFS.

Examples:

A. As above, if people BELIEVE rights are already inherent and come from human nature/God
and don't depend on Govt to establish them by imposing ON the people, but rather people affirm
and agree on rights and freedoms and use the Democratic system to establish that AGREEMENT
like drawing up contracts that reflect what people ALREADY AGREE on and BELIEVE in.

This is a REFLECTION of public consent.
NOT an imposition of policy ON the people with or without consent.

This BELIEF affects people's relationship with govt and the useage of the political, legal and legislative process.

Whereas people who believe in depending on Govt to establish political rights, freedoms and laws
will fight to legislate more on the collective level using Govt
while the other group fights to liberate and to do more by individual free choice and to minimalize Govt.

So people's BELIEFS bias everything they think, say, do, propose, endorse, oppose, execute, fund, vote for or veto, write up or implement politically.

B. Another Example C_Clayton_Jones
if people believe consensus is possible
or people do not,
this affects the standard of consent one will seek in making decisions.

the Greens seek a consensus based inclusive process where objections are taken and resolved
BEFORE the final decision is made cooperatively as a group.

If you don't believe this is possible, if you believe the only way to defend your rights
against the opposition is to beat them politically, this AFFECTS what laws you will seek to pass,
what you will fund, which candidates you will endorse for office.

Political Beliefs affect that also.

C. If you believe in Due Process before punishing or rejecting someone or something.

For example, many people assume
1. spiritual healing is the same as false faith healing
healing homosexuality is the same as fraudulent abusive conversion therapy

so people seek to negate, attack, and deny knowledge and access to helpful therapy
WITHOUT going through the proper DUE PROCESS of distinguishing WHICH parties/practices
are guilty of the fraud or abuses. Instead, ALL groups and methods are ASSUMED to be guilty
of fraud/abuse by ASSOCIATION.

2. similar to assuming all gays are unnatural, sick and enabling pedophiles to abuse others.

Where is the due process to prove which people are spreading sickness and which are
natural and not imposing some agenda, denial, or abusive relations on others?

3. or gun rights. if the violent crimes of one person causes someone
to pass laws depriving even LAW ABIDING citizens of rights, where is the due process
to prove those people were going to abuse their rights and freedoms and needed the same
restrictions as a criminal does?

4. or health care mandates
If someone chooses not to buy insurance yet, where is the due process to prove they
were going to push the costs on the public instead of paying another way?
If the freedom to buy and consume drugs is being pushed for legalization and not declared a crime
to be punished, why punish the free choice of paying for health care other ways besides insurance?

Where is the due process to prove someone did criminal actions or had criminal intent
BEFORE depriving law-abiding citizens of freedom to pay and provide health care OTHER WAYS
BESIDES INSURANCE.

C_Clayton_Jones I am guess you understand "due process" in terms of not punishing and depriving ALL Muslims of equal rights and religious freedoms just because of the Jihadists who need more policing.
You understand that before Muslims are deprived of liberty, there must be due process to prove
THOSE MUSLIMS committed a crime and lost their privileges of freedom when duly convicted of breaking laws.

And you understand "due process" in terms of not accusing and punishing/persecuting
ALL gays, transgender, or others as "sick and spreading social perversion" when many
people are naturally that orientation, and do not deserve to be treated as sick criminals if that doesn't apply.
You understand that guilt by association is not justification to deprive/deny equal rights and protections to people.

What you don't seem to grasp is the same way YOU have beliefs about govt,
and whether courts/congress can makes laws involving religious bias or faith based beliefs,
other people do, too.

This is not "outside the real world" C_Clayton_Jones
this is the REALITY for those people the same way your beliefs ARE your reality, it defines
how you relate to and live day to day. Same with people of Constitutional views that Govt
is limited and cannot just pass any law as long as there is majority rule, or court ruling,
that follows the letter of the law procedure. None of that can supercede the Bill of Rights
and religious freedom from establishment by Govt.

If you don't believe that is reality, you are leaving out people whose reality this is!

So if you are leaving out half the nation, how is that reality?
C_Clayton_Jones
To define reality only based on your beliefs and experiences?
While leaving out people you disagree with so much you don't even think it is real or applies?

How is that reality if it doesn't include all people's views.

Can you have a real number system if you only count the even numbers you use,
and leave out the odd numbers? Or only count the positive numbers and leave out the negative?

Wouldn't the real and complete set include ALL numbers in their proper context.

Can you see how you mimic the fundamentalist who says only the Bible counts
and no views that aren't in there, that's not reality to them. Fine but what about
people who define their reality using Buddhism or natural science. You don't have
to agree with any of that, to recognize that is necessary to communicate their reality.

I challenge you to look deeper into this.
And understand why Conservatives don't believe Liberals are looking at the same reality either!
If both groups cover different realms of experience, don't you think we need BOTH sets to cover
the collective reality and broader range spectrum of all views from left to right?

Can you really define what is reality, and cut out certain knowledge views or perceptions as not counting?
Wouldn't you be missing that part of reality?

Gay Americans are marrying in Kentucky and across America, in accordance with the Constitution and its case law, where the right of same-sex couples to enter into marriage contracts is recognized and safeguarded from attack by the 14th Amendment, having nothing whatsoever to do with the First Amendment, and in no way 'violating' the First Amendment rights of those hostile to the due process and equal protection rights of gay Americans.

No, the attacks on first amendment rights come next.

Nonsense.

Requiring the states to obey the 14th Amendment in no way "violates" the First Amendment.

 

[martybegan]

See previous message Skylar C_Clayton_Jones Agit8r about understanding the First Amendment
and not abusing Govt to establish nationalized beliefs, religious or faith-based issues for the rest of the population, much less requiring this by law, much less penalizing people of other beliefs.

The First Amendment had nothing to do with the Obergefell ruling, it concerned solely the 14th Amendment.

Hi C_Clayton_Jones
As per your comment that you don't even believe my views apply to the real world
(while many conservatives live in the world where natural rights come from God/Nature
and not from Govt, and believe it is the Liberals who don't understand human nature and the real world)
EVERY political decision involves the First Amendment because people, like you and me, are Projecting our BELIEFS which BIAS our opinions and perceptions.

The Judges and legislators are also either Limited or Biased by their BELIEFS.

Examples:

A. As above, if people BELIEVE rights are already inherent and come from human nature/God
and don't depend on Govt to establish them by imposing ON the people, but rather people affirm
and agree on rights and freedoms and use the Democratic system to establish that AGREEMENT
like drawing up contracts that reflect what people ALREADY AGREE on and BELIEVE in.

This is a REFLECTION of public consent.
NOT an imposition of policy ON the people with or without consent.

This BELIEF affects people's relationship with govt and the useage of the political, legal and legislative process.

Whereas people who believe in depending on Govt to establish political rights, freedoms and laws
will fight to legislate more on the collective level using Govt
while the other group fights to liberate and to do more by individual free choice and to minimalize Govt.

So people's BELIEFS bias everything they think, say, do, propose, endorse, oppose, execute, fund, vote for or veto, write up or implement politically.

B. Another Example C_Clayton_Jones
if people believe consensus is possible
or people do not,
this affects the standard of consent one will seek in making decisions.

the Greens seek a consensus based inclusive process where objections are taken and resolved
BEFORE the final decision is made cooperatively as a group.

If you don't believe this is possible, if you believe the only way to defend your rights
against the opposition is to beat them politically, this AFFECTS what laws you will seek to pass,
what you will fund, which candidates you will endorse for office.

Political Beliefs affect that also.

C. If you believe in Due Process before punishing or rejecting someone or something.

For example, many people assume
1. spiritual healing is the same as false faith healing
healing homosexuality is the same as fraudulent abusive conversion therapy

so people seek to negate, attack, and deny knowledge and access to helpful therapy
WITHOUT going through the proper DUE PROCESS of distinguishing WHICH parties/practices
are guilty of the fraud or abuses. Instead, ALL groups and methods are ASSUMED to be guilty
of fraud/abuse by ASSOCIATION.

2. similar to assuming all gays are unnatural, sick and enabling pedophiles to abuse others.

Where is the due process to prove which people are spreading sickness and which are
natural and not imposing some agenda, denial, or abusive relations on others?

3. or gun rights. if the violent crimes of one person causes someone
to pass laws depriving even LAW ABIDING citizens of rights, where is the due process
to prove those people were going to abuse their rights and freedoms and needed the same
restrictions as a criminal does?

4. or health care mandates
If someone chooses not to buy insurance yet, where is the due process to prove they
were going to push the costs on the public instead of paying another way?
If the freedom to buy and consume drugs is being pushed for legalization and not declared a crime
to be punished, why punish the free choice of paying for health care other ways besides insurance?

Where is the due process to prove someone did criminal actions or had criminal intent
BEFORE depriving law-abiding citizens of freedom to pay and provide health care OTHER WAYS
BESIDES INSURANCE.

C_Clayton_Jones I am guess you understand "due process" in terms of not punishing and depriving ALL Muslims of equal rights and religious freedoms just because of the Jihadists who need more policing.
You understand that before Muslims are deprived of liberty, there must be due process to prove
THOSE MUSLIMS committed a crime and lost their privileges of freedom when duly convicted of breaking laws.

And you understand "due process" in terms of not accusing and punishing/persecuting
ALL gays, transgender, or others as "sick and spreading social perversion" when many
people are naturally that orientation, and do not deserve to be treated as sick criminals if that doesn't apply.
You understand that guilt by association is not justification to deprive/deny equal rights and protections to people.

What you don't seem to grasp is the same way YOU have beliefs about govt,
and whether courts/congress can makes laws involving religious bias or faith based beliefs,
other people do, too.

This is not "outside the real world" C_Clayton_Jones
this is the REALITY for those people the same way your beliefs ARE your reality, it defines
how you relate to and live day to day. Same with people of Constitutional views that Govt
is limited and cannot just pass any law as long as there is majority rule, or court ruling,
that follows the letter of the law procedure. None of that can supercede the Bill of Rights
and religious freedom from establishment by Govt.

If you don't believe that is reality, you are leaving out people whose reality this is!

So if you are leaving out half the nation, how is that reality?
C_Clayton_Jones
To define reality only based on your beliefs and experiences?
While leaving out people you disagree with so much you don't even think it is real or applies?

How is that reality if it doesn't include all people's views.

Can you have a real number system if you only count the even numbers you use,
and leave out the odd numbers? Or only count the positive numbers and leave out the negative?

Wouldn't the real and complete set include ALL numbers in their proper context.

Can you see how you mimic the fundamentalist who says only the Bible counts
and no views that aren't in there, that's not reality to them. Fine but what about
people who define their reality using Buddhism or natural science. You don't have
to agree with any of that, to recognize that is necessary to communicate their reality.

I challenge you to look deeper into this.
And understand why Conservatives don't believe Liberals are looking at the same reality either!
If both groups cover different realms of experience, don't you think we need BOTH sets to cover
the collective reality and broader range spectrum of all views from left to right?

Can you really define what is reality, and cut out certain knowledge views or perceptions as not counting?
Wouldn't you be missing that part of reality?

Gay Americans are marrying in Kentucky and across America, in accordance with the Constitution and its case law, where the right of same-sex couples to enter into marriage contracts is recognized and safeguarded from attack by the 14th Amendment, having nothing whatsoever to do with the First Amendment, and in no way 'violating' the First Amendment rights of those hostile to the due process and equal protection rights of gay Americans.

No, the attacks on first amendment rights come next.

Nonsense.

Requiring the states to obey the 14th Amendment in no way "violates" the First Amendment.

No, but when they require people to "bake or else", that's when the 1st amendment comes in.

 

[Skylar]

The First Amendment had nothing to do with the Obergefell ruling, it concerned solely the 14th Amendment.

Hi C_Clayton_Jones
As per your comment that you don't even believe my views apply to the real world
(while many conservatives live in the world where natural rights come from God/Nature
and not from Govt, and believe it is the Liberals who don't understand human nature and the real world)
EVERY political decision involves the First Amendment because people, like you and me, are Projecting our BELIEFS which BIAS our opinions and perceptions.

The Judges and legislators are also either Limited or Biased by their BELIEFS.

Examples:

A. As above, if people BELIEVE rights are already inherent and come from human nature/God
and don't depend on Govt to establish them by imposing ON the people, but rather people affirm
and agree on rights and freedoms and use the Democratic system to establish that AGREEMENT
like drawing up contracts that reflect what people ALREADY AGREE on and BELIEVE in.

This is a REFLECTION of public consent.
NOT an imposition of policy ON the people with or without consent.

This BELIEF affects people's relationship with govt and the useage of the political, legal and legislative process.

Whereas people who believe in depending on Govt to establish political rights, freedoms and laws
will fight to legislate more on the collective level using Govt
while the other group fights to liberate and to do more by individual free choice and to minimalize Govt.

So people's BELIEFS bias everything they think, say, do, propose, endorse, oppose, execute, fund, vote for or veto, write up or implement politically.

B. Another Example C_Clayton_Jones
if people believe consensus is possible
or people do not,
this affects the standard of consent one will seek in making decisions.

the Greens seek a consensus based inclusive process where objections are taken and resolved
BEFORE the final decision is made cooperatively as a group.

If you don't believe this is possible, if you believe the only way to defend your rights
against the opposition is to beat them politically, this AFFECTS what laws you will seek to pass,
what you will fund, which candidates you will endorse for office.

Political Beliefs affect that also.

C. If you believe in Due Process before punishing or rejecting someone or something.

For example, many people assume
1. spiritual healing is the same as false faith healing
healing homosexuality is the same as fraudulent abusive conversion therapy

so people seek to negate, attack, and deny knowledge and access to helpful therapy
WITHOUT going through the proper DUE PROCESS of distinguishing WHICH parties/practices
are guilty of the fraud or abuses. Instead, ALL groups and methods are ASSUMED to be guilty
of fraud/abuse by ASSOCIATION.

2. similar to assuming all gays are unnatural, sick and enabling pedophiles to abuse others.

Where is the due process to prove which people are spreading sickness and which are
natural and not imposing some agenda, denial, or abusive relations on others?

3. or gun rights. if the violent crimes of one person causes someone
to pass laws depriving even LAW ABIDING citizens of rights, where is the due process
to prove those people were going to abuse their rights and freedoms and needed the same
restrictions as a criminal does?

4. or health care mandates
If someone chooses not to buy insurance yet, where is the due process to prove they
were going to push the costs on the public instead of paying another way?
If the freedom to buy and consume drugs is being pushed for legalization and not declared a crime
to be punished, why punish the free choice of paying for health care other ways besides insurance?

Where is the due process to prove someone did criminal actions or had criminal intent
BEFORE depriving law-abiding citizens of freedom to pay and provide health care OTHER WAYS
BESIDES INSURANCE.

C_Clayton_Jones I am guess you understand "due process" in terms of not punishing and depriving ALL Muslims of equal rights and religious freedoms just because of the Jihadists who need more policing.
You understand that before Muslims are deprived of liberty, there must be due process to prove
THOSE MUSLIMS committed a crime and lost their privileges of freedom when duly convicted of breaking laws.

And you understand "due process" in terms of not accusing and punishing/persecuting
ALL gays, transgender, or others as "sick and spreading social perversion" when many
people are naturally that orientation, and do not deserve to be treated as sick criminals if that doesn't apply.
You understand that guilt by association is not justification to deprive/deny equal rights and protections to people.

What you don't seem to grasp is the same way YOU have beliefs about govt,
and whether courts/congress can makes laws involving religious bias or faith based beliefs,
other people do, too.

This is not "outside the real world" C_Clayton_Jones
this is the REALITY for those people the same way your beliefs ARE your reality, it defines
how you relate to and live day to day. Same with people of Constitutional views that Govt
is limited and cannot just pass any law as long as there is majority rule, or court ruling,
that follows the letter of the law procedure. None of that can supercede the Bill of Rights
and religious freedom from establishment by Govt.

If you don't believe that is reality, you are leaving out people whose reality this is!

So if you are leaving out half the nation, how is that reality?
C_Clayton_Jones
To define reality only based on your beliefs and experiences?
While leaving out people you disagree with so much you don't even think it is real or applies?

How is that reality if it doesn't include all people's views.

Can you have a real number system if you only count the even numbers you use,
and leave out the odd numbers? Or only count the positive numbers and leave out the negative?

Wouldn't the real and complete set include ALL numbers in their proper context.

Can you see how you mimic the fundamentalist who says only the Bible counts
and no views that aren't in there, that's not reality to them. Fine but what about
people who define their reality using Buddhism or natural science. You don't have
to agree with any of that, to recognize that is necessary to communicate their reality.

I challenge you to look deeper into this.
And understand why Conservatives don't believe Liberals are looking at the same reality either!
If both groups cover different realms of experience, don't you think we need BOTH sets to cover
the collective reality and broader range spectrum of all views from left to right?

Can you really define what is reality, and cut out certain knowledge views or perceptions as not counting?
Wouldn't you be missing that part of reality?

Gay Americans are marrying in Kentucky and across America, in accordance with the Constitution and its case law, where the right of same-sex couples to enter into marriage contracts is recognized and safeguarded from attack by the 14th Amendment, having nothing whatsoever to do with the First Amendment, and in no way 'violating' the First Amendment rights of those hostile to the due process and equal protection rights of gay Americans.

No, the attacks on first amendment rights come next.

Nonsense.

Requiring the states to obey the 14th Amendment in no way "violates" the First Amendment.

No, but when they require people to "bake or else", that's when the 1st amendment comes in.

They have a third option: stop offering services to the public. But if they want to engage in public commerce, they're subject to intrastate commerce regulations of the States they live in.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Gay Americans are marrying in Kentucky and across America, in accordance with the Constitution and its case law, where the right of same-sex couples to enter into marriage contracts is recognized and safeguarded from attack by the 14th Amendment, having nothing whatsoever to do with the First Amendment, and in no way 'violating' the First Amendment rights of those hostile to the due process and equal protection rights of gay Americans.

No, the attacks on first amendment rights come next.

The courts have never found that State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. Not the USSC, not any federal court, not any state court.

You do. And you're not nearly enough.

The courts found segregation to be OK, and until just recently never found a right to SSM, so your appeal to precedent means jack squat.

Given that the dichotomy you're offering is the State, Federal and Supreme Court versus you...

......you're really not bringing much to the table.

While I'm sure you consider any opinion you hold to be legally binding, the rest of us really don't give a shit. And our law certainly doesn't use your personal you as our basis of constitutionality.

I consider my opinions to be right. Laws can be protective or oppressive, or both at the same time. In this case the laws in question protect people you like, and oppress people you don't like, so you are OK with them. If the opposite was happening you would probably scream from the rafters.

THAT's how you tell the difference between people who support freedom, and those who give lip service to it.

You may consider your opinions however you want, provided you understand your options are wrong as a fact of constitutional law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The First Amendment had nothing to do with the Obergefell ruling, it concerned solely the 14th Amendment.

Hi C_Clayton_Jones
As per your comment that you don't even believe my views apply to the real world
(while many conservatives live in the world where natural rights come from God/Nature
and not from Govt, and believe it is the Liberals who don't understand human nature and the real world)
EVERY political decision involves the First Amendment because people, like you and me, are Projecting our BELIEFS which BIAS our opinions and perceptions.

The Judges and legislators are also either Limited or Biased by their BELIEFS.

Examples:

A. As above, if people BELIEVE rights are already inherent and come from human nature/God
and don't depend on Govt to establish them by imposing ON the people, but rather people affirm
and agree on rights and freedoms and use the Democratic system to establish that AGREEMENT
like drawing up contracts that reflect what people ALREADY AGREE on and BELIEVE in.

This is a REFLECTION of public consent.
NOT an imposition of policy ON the people with or without consent.

This BELIEF affects people's relationship with govt and the useage of the political, legal and legislative process.

Whereas people who believe in depending on Govt to establish political rights, freedoms and laws
will fight to legislate more on the collective level using Govt
while the other group fights to liberate and to do more by individual free choice and to minimalize Govt.

So people's BELIEFS bias everything they think, say, do, propose, endorse, oppose, execute, fund, vote for or veto, write up or implement politically.

B. Another Example C_Clayton_Jones
if people believe consensus is possible
or people do not,
this affects the standard of consent one will seek in making decisions.

the Greens seek a consensus based inclusive process where objections are taken and resolved
BEFORE the final decision is made cooperatively as a group.

If you don't believe this is possible, if you believe the only way to defend your rights
against the opposition is to beat them politically, this AFFECTS what laws you will seek to pass,
what you will fund, which candidates you will endorse for office.

Political Beliefs affect that also.

C. If you believe in Due Process before punishing or rejecting someone or something.

For example, many people assume
1. spiritual healing is the same as false faith healing
healing homosexuality is the same as fraudulent abusive conversion therapy

so people seek to negate, attack, and deny knowledge and access to helpful therapy
WITHOUT going through the proper DUE PROCESS of distinguishing WHICH parties/practices
are guilty of the fraud or abuses. Instead, ALL groups and methods are ASSUMED to be guilty
of fraud/abuse by ASSOCIATION.

2. similar to assuming all gays are unnatural, sick and enabling pedophiles to abuse others.

Where is the due process to prove which people are spreading sickness and which are
natural and not imposing some agenda, denial, or abusive relations on others?

3. or gun rights. if the violent crimes of one person causes someone
to pass laws depriving even LAW ABIDING citizens of rights, where is the due process
to prove those people were going to abuse their rights and freedoms and needed the same
restrictions as a criminal does?

4. or health care mandates
If someone chooses not to buy insurance yet, where is the due process to prove they
were going to push the costs on the public instead of paying another way?
If the freedom to buy and consume drugs is being pushed for legalization and not declared a crime
to be punished, why punish the free choice of paying for health care other ways besides insurance?

Where is the due process to prove someone did criminal actions or had criminal intent
BEFORE depriving law-abiding citizens of freedom to pay and provide health care OTHER WAYS
BESIDES INSURANCE.

C_Clayton_Jones I am guess you understand "due process" in terms of not punishing and depriving ALL Muslims of equal rights and religious freedoms just because of the Jihadists who need more policing.
You understand that before Muslims are deprived of liberty, there must be due process to prove
THOSE MUSLIMS committed a crime and lost their privileges of freedom when duly convicted of breaking laws.

And you understand "due process" in terms of not accusing and punishing/persecuting
ALL gays, transgender, or others as "sick and spreading social perversion" when many
people are naturally that orientation, and do not deserve to be treated as sick criminals if that doesn't apply.
You understand that guilt by association is not justification to deprive/deny equal rights and protections to people.

What you don't seem to grasp is the same way YOU have beliefs about govt,
and whether courts/congress can makes laws involving religious bias or faith based beliefs,
other people do, too.

This is not "outside the real world" C_Clayton_Jones
this is the REALITY for those people the same way your beliefs ARE your reality, it defines
how you relate to and live day to day. Same with people of Constitutional views that Govt
is limited and cannot just pass any law as long as there is majority rule, or court ruling,
that follows the letter of the law procedure. None of that can supercede the Bill of Rights
and religious freedom from establishment by Govt.

If you don't believe that is reality, you are leaving out people whose reality this is!

So if you are leaving out half the nation, how is that reality?
C_Clayton_Jones
To define reality only based on your beliefs and experiences?
While leaving out people you disagree with so much you don't even think it is real or applies?

How is that reality if it doesn't include all people's views.

Can you have a real number system if you only count the even numbers you use,
and leave out the odd numbers? Or only count the positive numbers and leave out the negative?

Wouldn't the real and complete set include ALL numbers in their proper context.

Can you see how you mimic the fundamentalist who says only the Bible counts
and no views that aren't in there, that's not reality to them. Fine but what about
people who define their reality using Buddhism or natural science. You don't have
to agree with any of that, to recognize that is necessary to communicate their reality.

I challenge you to look deeper into this.
And understand why Conservatives don't believe Liberals are looking at the same reality either!
If both groups cover different realms of experience, don't you think we need BOTH sets to cover
the collective reality and broader range spectrum of all views from left to right?

Can you really define what is reality, and cut out certain knowledge views or perceptions as not counting?
Wouldn't you be missing that part of reality?

Gay Americans are marrying in Kentucky and across America, in accordance with the Constitution and its case law, where the right of same-sex couples to enter into marriage contracts is recognized and safeguarded from attack by the 14th Amendment, having nothing whatsoever to do with the First Amendment, and in no way 'violating' the First Amendment rights of those hostile to the due process and equal protection rights of gay Americans.

No, the attacks on first amendment rights come next.

Nonsense.

Requiring the states to obey the 14th Amendment in no way "violates" the First Amendment.

No, but when they require people to "bake or else", that's when the 1st amendment comes in.

Wrong.

The Employment Division Court held that just and proper laws, such as state PA laws, do not violate the Free Exercise Clause.

 

[martybegan]

Hi C_Clayton_Jones
As per your comment that you don't even believe my views apply to the real world
(while many conservatives live in the world where natural rights come from God/Nature
and not from Govt, and believe it is the Liberals who don't understand human nature and the real world)
EVERY political decision involves the First Amendment because people, like you and me, are Projecting our BELIEFS which BIAS our opinions and perceptions.

The Judges and legislators are also either Limited or Biased by their BELIEFS.

Examples:

A. As above, if people BELIEVE rights are already inherent and come from human nature/God
and don't depend on Govt to establish them by imposing ON the people, but rather people affirm
and agree on rights and freedoms and use the Democratic system to establish that AGREEMENT
like drawing up contracts that reflect what people ALREADY AGREE on and BELIEVE in.

This is a REFLECTION of public consent.
NOT an imposition of policy ON the people with or without consent.

This BELIEF affects people's relationship with govt and the useage of the political, legal and legislative process.

Whereas people who believe in depending on Govt to establish political rights, freedoms and laws
will fight to legislate more on the collective level using Govt
while the other group fights to liberate and to do more by individual free choice and to minimalize Govt.

So people's BELIEFS bias everything they think, say, do, propose, endorse, oppose, execute, fund, vote for or veto, write up or implement politically.

B. Another Example C_Clayton_Jones
if people believe consensus is possible
or people do not,
this affects the standard of consent one will seek in making decisions.

the Greens seek a consensus based inclusive process where objections are taken and resolved
BEFORE the final decision is made cooperatively as a group.

If you don't believe this is possible, if you believe the only way to defend your rights
against the opposition is to beat them politically, this AFFECTS what laws you will seek to pass,
what you will fund, which candidates you will endorse for office.

Political Beliefs affect that also.

C. If you believe in Due Process before punishing or rejecting someone or something.

For example, many people assume
1. spiritual healing is the same as false faith healing
healing homosexuality is the same as fraudulent abusive conversion therapy

so people seek to negate, attack, and deny knowledge and access to helpful therapy
WITHOUT going through the proper DUE PROCESS of distinguishing WHICH parties/practices
are guilty of the fraud or abuses. Instead, ALL groups and methods are ASSUMED to be guilty
of fraud/abuse by ASSOCIATION.

2. similar to assuming all gays are unnatural, sick and enabling pedophiles to abuse others.

Where is the due process to prove which people are spreading sickness and which are
natural and not imposing some agenda, denial, or abusive relations on others?

3. or gun rights. if the violent crimes of one person causes someone
to pass laws depriving even LAW ABIDING citizens of rights, where is the due process
to prove those people were going to abuse their rights and freedoms and needed the same
restrictions as a criminal does?

4. or health care mandates
If someone chooses not to buy insurance yet, where is the due process to prove they
were going to push the costs on the public instead of paying another way?
If the freedom to buy and consume drugs is being pushed for legalization and not declared a crime
to be punished, why punish the free choice of paying for health care other ways besides insurance?

Where is the due process to prove someone did criminal actions or had criminal intent
BEFORE depriving law-abiding citizens of freedom to pay and provide health care OTHER WAYS
BESIDES INSURANCE.

C_Clayton_Jones I am guess you understand "due process" in terms of not punishing and depriving ALL Muslims of equal rights and religious freedoms just because of the Jihadists who need more policing.
You understand that before Muslims are deprived of liberty, there must be due process to prove
THOSE MUSLIMS committed a crime and lost their privileges of freedom when duly convicted of breaking laws.

And you understand "due process" in terms of not accusing and punishing/persecuting
ALL gays, transgender, or others as "sick and spreading social perversion" when many
people are naturally that orientation, and do not deserve to be treated as sick criminals if that doesn't apply.
You understand that guilt by association is not justification to deprive/deny equal rights and protections to people.

What you don't seem to grasp is the same way YOU have beliefs about govt,
and whether courts/congress can makes laws involving religious bias or faith based beliefs,
other people do, too.

This is not "outside the real world" C_Clayton_Jones
this is the REALITY for those people the same way your beliefs ARE your reality, it defines
how you relate to and live day to day. Same with people of Constitutional views that Govt
is limited and cannot just pass any law as long as there is majority rule, or court ruling,
that follows the letter of the law procedure. None of that can supercede the Bill of Rights
and religious freedom from establishment by Govt.

If you don't believe that is reality, you are leaving out people whose reality this is!

So if you are leaving out half the nation, how is that reality?
C_Clayton_Jones
To define reality only based on your beliefs and experiences?
While leaving out people you disagree with so much you don't even think it is real or applies?

How is that reality if it doesn't include all people's views.

Can you have a real number system if you only count the even numbers you use,
and leave out the odd numbers? Or only count the positive numbers and leave out the negative?

Wouldn't the real and complete set include ALL numbers in their proper context.

Can you see how you mimic the fundamentalist who says only the Bible counts
and no views that aren't in there, that's not reality to them. Fine but what about
people who define their reality using Buddhism or natural science. You don't have
to agree with any of that, to recognize that is necessary to communicate their reality.

I challenge you to look deeper into this.
And understand why Conservatives don't believe Liberals are looking at the same reality either!
If both groups cover different realms of experience, don't you think we need BOTH sets to cover
the collective reality and broader range spectrum of all views from left to right?

Can you really define what is reality, and cut out certain knowledge views or perceptions as not counting?
Wouldn't you be missing that part of reality?

Gay Americans are marrying in Kentucky and across America, in accordance with the Constitution and its case law, where the right of same-sex couples to enter into marriage contracts is recognized and safeguarded from attack by the 14th Amendment, having nothing whatsoever to do with the First Amendment, and in no way 'violating' the First Amendment rights of those hostile to the due process and equal protection rights of gay Americans.

No, the attacks on first amendment rights come next.

Nonsense.

Requiring the states to obey the 14th Amendment in no way "violates" the First Amendment.

No, but when they require people to "bake or else", that's when the 1st amendment comes in.

They have a third option: stop offering services to the public. But if they want to engage in public commerce, they're subject to intrastate commerce regulations of the States they live in.

So they are denied their right to pursue happiness because you disagree with their moral code. They can't do ANY commerce because of a desire not to participate in gay weddings.

And you call my position extreme???

 

[martybegan]

Hi C_Clayton_Jones
As per your comment that you don't even believe my views apply to the real world
(while many conservatives live in the world where natural rights come from God/Nature
and not from Govt, and believe it is the Liberals who don't understand human nature and the real world)
EVERY political decision involves the First Amendment because people, like you and me, are Projecting our BELIEFS which BIAS our opinions and perceptions.

The Judges and legislators are also either Limited or Biased by their BELIEFS.

Examples:

A. As above, if people BELIEVE rights are already inherent and come from human nature/God
and don't depend on Govt to establish them by imposing ON the people, but rather people affirm
and agree on rights and freedoms and use the Democratic system to establish that AGREEMENT
like drawing up contracts that reflect what people ALREADY AGREE on and BELIEVE in.

This is a REFLECTION of public consent.
NOT an imposition of policy ON the people with or without consent.

This BELIEF affects people's relationship with govt and the useage of the political, legal and legislative process.

Whereas people who believe in depending on Govt to establish political rights, freedoms and laws
will fight to legislate more on the collective level using Govt
while the other group fights to liberate and to do more by individual free choice and to minimalize Govt.

So people's BELIEFS bias everything they think, say, do, propose, endorse, oppose, execute, fund, vote for or veto, write up or implement politically.

B. Another Example C_Clayton_Jones
if people believe consensus is possible
or people do not,
this affects the standard of consent one will seek in making decisions.

the Greens seek a consensus based inclusive process where objections are taken and resolved
BEFORE the final decision is made cooperatively as a group.

If you don't believe this is possible, if you believe the only way to defend your rights
against the opposition is to beat them politically, this AFFECTS what laws you will seek to pass,
what you will fund, which candidates you will endorse for office.

Political Beliefs affect that also.

C. If you believe in Due Process before punishing or rejecting someone or something.

For example, many people assume
1. spiritual healing is the same as false faith healing
healing homosexuality is the same as fraudulent abusive conversion therapy

so people seek to negate, attack, and deny knowledge and access to helpful therapy
WITHOUT going through the proper DUE PROCESS of distinguishing WHICH parties/practices
are guilty of the fraud or abuses. Instead, ALL groups and methods are ASSUMED to be guilty
of fraud/abuse by ASSOCIATION.

2. similar to assuming all gays are unnatural, sick and enabling pedophiles to abuse others.

Where is the due process to prove which people are spreading sickness and which are
natural and not imposing some agenda, denial, or abusive relations on others?

3. or gun rights. if the violent crimes of one person causes someone
to pass laws depriving even LAW ABIDING citizens of rights, where is the due process
to prove those people were going to abuse their rights and freedoms and needed the same
restrictions as a criminal does?

4. or health care mandates
If someone chooses not to buy insurance yet, where is the due process to prove they
were going to push the costs on the public instead of paying another way?
If the freedom to buy and consume drugs is being pushed for legalization and not declared a crime
to be punished, why punish the free choice of paying for health care other ways besides insurance?

Where is the due process to prove someone did criminal actions or had criminal intent
BEFORE depriving law-abiding citizens of freedom to pay and provide health care OTHER WAYS
BESIDES INSURANCE.

C_Clayton_Jones I am guess you understand "due process" in terms of not punishing and depriving ALL Muslims of equal rights and religious freedoms just because of the Jihadists who need more policing.
You understand that before Muslims are deprived of liberty, there must be due process to prove
THOSE MUSLIMS committed a crime and lost their privileges of freedom when duly convicted of breaking laws.

And you understand "due process" in terms of not accusing and punishing/persecuting
ALL gays, transgender, or others as "sick and spreading social perversion" when many
people are naturally that orientation, and do not deserve to be treated as sick criminals if that doesn't apply.
You understand that guilt by association is not justification to deprive/deny equal rights and protections to people.

What you don't seem to grasp is the same way YOU have beliefs about govt,
and whether courts/congress can makes laws involving religious bias or faith based beliefs,
other people do, too.

This is not "outside the real world" C_Clayton_Jones
this is the REALITY for those people the same way your beliefs ARE your reality, it defines
how you relate to and live day to day. Same with people of Constitutional views that Govt
is limited and cannot just pass any law as long as there is majority rule, or court ruling,
that follows the letter of the law procedure. None of that can supercede the Bill of Rights
and religious freedom from establishment by Govt.

If you don't believe that is reality, you are leaving out people whose reality this is!

So if you are leaving out half the nation, how is that reality?
C_Clayton_Jones
To define reality only based on your beliefs and experiences?
While leaving out people you disagree with so much you don't even think it is real or applies?

How is that reality if it doesn't include all people's views.

Can you have a real number system if you only count the even numbers you use,
and leave out the odd numbers? Or only count the positive numbers and leave out the negative?

Wouldn't the real and complete set include ALL numbers in their proper context.

Can you see how you mimic the fundamentalist who says only the Bible counts
and no views that aren't in there, that's not reality to them. Fine but what about
people who define their reality using Buddhism or natural science. You don't have
to agree with any of that, to recognize that is necessary to communicate their reality.

I challenge you to look deeper into this.
And understand why Conservatives don't believe Liberals are looking at the same reality either!
If both groups cover different realms of experience, don't you think we need BOTH sets to cover
the collective reality and broader range spectrum of all views from left to right?

Can you really define what is reality, and cut out certain knowledge views or perceptions as not counting?
Wouldn't you be missing that part of reality?

Gay Americans are marrying in Kentucky and across America, in accordance with the Constitution and its case law, where the right of same-sex couples to enter into marriage contracts is recognized and safeguarded from attack by the 14th Amendment, having nothing whatsoever to do with the First Amendment, and in no way 'violating' the First Amendment rights of those hostile to the due process and equal protection rights of gay Americans.

No, the attacks on first amendment rights come next.

Nonsense.

Requiring the states to obey the 14th Amendment in no way "violates" the First Amendment.

No, but when they require people to "bake or else", that's when the 1st amendment comes in.

Wrong.

The Employment Division Court held that just and proper laws, such as state PA laws, do not violate the Free Exercise Clause.

Appeal to authority, nothing about the situation being right or wrong.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Some Kentucky county clerks refuse to issue marriage licenses following same-sex marriage ruling

Defying the instructions of Gov. Steve Beshear, several county clerks around Kentucky said they won't issue marriage licenses anymore because of the U.S. Supreme Court's 5-to-4 ruling Friday in favor of a nationwide right to same-sex marriage....Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis said Monday that her Christian beliefs won't allow her to give marriage licenses to gay men or lesbians seeking to marry a member of the same sex. Rather than face claims of discrimination, her office in Morehead is refusing marriage licenses to all couples until further notice, Davis said. Some Kentucky county clerks refuse to issue marriage licenses following same-sex marriage ruling Politics and Government Kentucky.com

more..

"It's hard; I will tell you that," Davis said. "What has happened is that five lawyers have imposed their personal view of what the definition of marriage should be on the rest of us. And I, as a Christian, have strong views, too. And I know I don't stand alone."...Chris Jobe, president of the Kentucky County Clerks Association, said he has heard from several clerks who have religious objections to same-sex marriage, so they won't issue marriage licenses anymore. Some Kentucky county clerks refuse to issue marriage licenses following same-sex marriage ruling Politics and Government Kentucky.com

This will be coming up soon. This Hearing pending at SCOTUS is actually more pivotal and may wind up reversing Friday's Ruling. The choice the Court will face? Dictate to the Vatican and other church leaders which dire warnings in the New Testament Christians "have to ignore" or Uphold the 1st Amendment. The 9th Amendment means that last Friday's fundamental change to the Constitution cannot overshadow any other Constitutional right people enjoy...including the 1st.

So a Court that thought this was "all done and over with" will be chagrined to find this has just begun..

Fun fact: Did you know the Supreme Court cannot make fundamental or ill-conceived changes to the Constitution? Only the Congress and states can make those changes jointly. Friday's Ruling is unconstitutional by its very mechanics. And therefore states like Kentucky, Alabama, Texas and any other are not bound to abide by Friday's illegal Ruling.

Sounds like grounds for termination to me.

 

[martybegan]

No, the attacks on first amendment rights come next.

The courts have never found that State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. Not the USSC, not any federal court, not any state court.

You do. And you're not nearly enough.

The courts found segregation to be OK, and until just recently never found a right to SSM, so your appeal to precedent means jack squat.

Given that the dichotomy you're offering is the State, Federal and Supreme Court versus you...

......you're really not bringing much to the table.

While I'm sure you consider any opinion you hold to be legally binding, the rest of us really don't give a shit. And our law certainly doesn't use your personal you as our basis of constitutionality.

I consider my opinions to be right. Laws can be protective or oppressive, or both at the same time. In this case the laws in question protect people you like, and oppress people you don't like, so you are OK with them. If the opposite was happening you would probably scream from the rafters.

THAT's how you tell the difference between people who support freedom, and those who give lip service to it.

You may consider your opinions however you want, provided you understand your options are wrong as a fact of constitutional law.

Considering the Supreme Court has been getting constitutional law wrong since the 70's, it puts me in good company.

And your continued appeal to authority gets tired after a while.

 

[Skylar]

The courts have never found that State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. Not the USSC, not any federal court, not any state court.

You do. And you're not nearly enough.

The courts found segregation to be OK, and until just recently never found a right to SSM, so your appeal to precedent means jack squat.

Given that the dichotomy you're offering is the State, Federal and Supreme Court versus you...

......you're really not bringing much to the table.

While I'm sure you consider any opinion you hold to be legally binding, the rest of us really don't give a shit. And our law certainly doesn't use your personal you as our basis of constitutionality.

I consider my opinions to be right. Laws can be protective or oppressive, or both at the same time. In this case the laws in question protect people you like, and oppress people you don't like, so you are OK with them. If the opposite was happening you would probably scream from the rafters.

THAT's how you tell the difference between people who support freedom, and those who give lip service to it.

You may consider your opinions however you want, provided you understand your options are wrong as a fact of constitutional law.

Considering the Supreme Court has been getting constitutional law wrong since the 70's, it puts me in good company.

They've been getting it wrong according to you. And neither I nor the law put much weight on your personal opinions on the matter.

No federal or state court has found any conflict between State PA laws and the 1st amendment. That you do has no legal relevance.

And your continued appeal to authority gets tired after a while.

On issues of the law, there is an authority.

Its just not you.

 

[martybegan]

The courts found segregation to be OK, and until just recently never found a right to SSM, so your appeal to precedent means jack squat.

Given that the dichotomy you're offering is the State, Federal and Supreme Court versus you...

......you're really not bringing much to the table.

While I'm sure you consider any opinion you hold to be legally binding, the rest of us really don't give a shit. And our law certainly doesn't use your personal you as our basis of constitutionality.

I consider my opinions to be right. Laws can be protective or oppressive, or both at the same time. In this case the laws in question protect people you like, and oppress people you don't like, so you are OK with them. If the opposite was happening you would probably scream from the rafters.

THAT's how you tell the difference between people who support freedom, and those who give lip service to it.

You may consider your opinions however you want, provided you understand your options are wrong as a fact of constitutional law.

Considering the Supreme Court has been getting constitutional law wrong since the 70's, it puts me in good company.

They've been getting it wrong according to you. And neither I nor the law put much weight on your personal opinions on the matter.

No federal or state court has found any conflict between State PA laws and the 1st amendment. That you do has no legal relevance.

And your continued appeal to authority gets tired after a while.

On issues of the law, there is an authority.

Its just not you.

They have found plenty of thing OK for a while and then overturned it.

The law is authority, however just saying its right and proper "because it's the law" is ducking the debate, and poor logic.

 

[Skylar]

Given that the dichotomy you're offering is the State, Federal and Supreme Court versus you...

......you're really not bringing much to the table.

While I'm sure you consider any opinion you hold to be legally binding, the rest of us really don't give a shit. And our law certainly doesn't use your personal you as our basis of constitutionality.

I consider my opinions to be right. Laws can be protective or oppressive, or both at the same time. In this case the laws in question protect people you like, and oppress people you don't like, so you are OK with them. If the opposite was happening you would probably scream from the rafters.

THAT's how you tell the difference between people who support freedom, and those who give lip service to it.

You may consider your opinions however you want, provided you understand your options are wrong as a fact of constitutional law.

Considering the Supreme Court has been getting constitutional law wrong since the 70's, it puts me in good company.

They've been getting it wrong according to you. And neither I nor the law put much weight on your personal opinions on the matter.

No federal or state court has found any conflict between State PA laws and the 1st amendment. That you do has no legal relevance.

And your continued appeal to authority gets tired after a while.

On issues of the law, there is an authority.

Its just not you.

They have found plenty of thing OK for a while and then overturned it.

And they've found plenty of things okay....and didn't overturn it. In almost every instance, in fact. Its the basis of Stare Decisis.

The USSC has never found the State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. No federal court has. No state court has. There's no legal conflict on the issue.

You do. And your personal opinion isn't enough. Not to me, and certainly not to the law.

The law is authority, however just saying its right and proper "because it's the law" is ducking the debate, and poor logic.

Given that your entire argument is based on nothing more than your personal opinion, what 'debate' is there to duck? You believe that State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. I don't.

The weight of legal precedent backs my perspective. And contradicts yours. And given that this is an issue of law and constitutionality, precedent matters.

Your opinion? Not so much.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Homosexual "marriage" ?

What a comical contrivance

 

[martybegan]

I consider my opinions to be right. Laws can be protective or oppressive, or both at the same time. In this case the laws in question protect people you like, and oppress people you don't like, so you are OK with them. If the opposite was happening you would probably scream from the rafters.

THAT's how you tell the difference between people who support freedom, and those who give lip service to it.

You may consider your opinions however you want, provided you understand your options are wrong as a fact of constitutional law.

Considering the Supreme Court has been getting constitutional law wrong since the 70's, it puts me in good company.

They've been getting it wrong according to you. And neither I nor the law put much weight on your personal opinions on the matter.

No federal or state court has found any conflict between State PA laws and the 1st amendment. That you do has no legal relevance.

And your continued appeal to authority gets tired after a while.

On issues of the law, there is an authority.

Its just not you.

They have found plenty of thing OK for a while and then overturned it.

And they've found plenty of things okay....and didn't overturn it. In almost every instance, in fact. Its the basis of Stare Decisis.

The USSC has never found the State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. No federal court has. No state court has. There's no legal conflict on the issue.

You do. And your personal opinion isn't enough. Not to me, and certainly not to the law.

The law is authority, however just saying its right and proper "because it's the law" is ducking the debate, and poor logic.

Given that your entire argument is based on nothing more than your personal opinion, what 'debate' is there to duck? You believe that State PA laws violate the 1st amendment. I don't.

The weight of legal precedent backs my perspective. And contradicts yours. And given that this is an issue of law and constitutionality, precedent matters.

Your opinion? Not so much.

Appeal to authority again.