New Precedent: Federal Court Upholds Christians' Rights To Refuse. Kim Davis Has Case.

[mdk]

So your stance obviously is "fuck a national referendum on gay marriage; we already got what we wanted and won't let it be reversed no matter what the majority says".

Your projecting your anti-gay bias and pretending that a majority oppose gay marriage based off a straw poll that doesn't mention gay marriage.

You and your yellow-avatar buddy are sure tag-teaming me a lot on this thread. Wonder why? Your two posting styles and level of vehemence on these particular topics suggests you are either sitting next to each other in one of Soros' blogging dens, or you are the same poster. Which is it?

Cute conspiracy theory. I give you my full blessing to ask the moderators to investigate your charges. I hope they look into the affair, but I doubt they'll have any time with that national referendum on gay marriage keeping everyone so busy. lol

 

[kaz]

Court: Birth control mandate violates religious rights

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A federal judge has ruled in favor of a Missouri lawmaker who cited religious objections while challenging the inclusion of birth control coverage in his government-provided health insurance....The lawsuit by Wieland and his wife, Teresa, who are Roman Catholics, asserted that it violates their religious beliefs to include contraception coverage in the state health insurance plan that he participates in as a lawmaker....In a ruling Thursday siding with the Wielands, U.S. District Judge Jean Hamilton cited the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says government shall not "substantially burden" a person's exercise of religion..."the only way plaintiffs can comply with their religious conscience is by dropping their insurance altogether, which would result in them foregoing a valuable job benefit

Kim Davis, you listening? The only way Kim Davis could keep her job would be to violate her religious conscience. Remember, Kim Davis took her job BEFORE Obergefell's illegal Ruling (two justices were mandated to have recused themselves from Obergefell, for performing gay marriages as representatives of the fed while deciding "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage?").

I found this part utterly hilarious...as if a precedent only applies on a case by case basis...as if all Americans don't enjoy interpretation of law equally... What a jokester that Senator was saying this:

State Sen. Paul Wieland said Friday that the ruling , while applying only to his family, could serve as a guide for others seeking to challenge the application of a section of President Barack Obama's health care law that requires insurers to include coverage of contraceptives

As if laws protecting religious freedoms ONLY apply to one person and ONLY in certain specific violations of religious conscience...you know...but not others... !

Jonathan Turley needs to get a hold of Kim Davis. They have a case to file..

Kim Davis decided to be a public official which includes following the law whether she agreed with it or not. No one pursued her as a private citizen and made her issue marriage licenses to gays. It's a non-sequitur to say her Constitutional rights were violated. She needed to follow the law or resign

 

[Silhouette]

She took the job before Obergefell. And, Obergefel was an illegal ruling for at least several reasons. Most potent being that two justices were not fit to sit on it: re: Caperton v Massey Coal USSC (2009)

 

[mdk]

She took the job before Obergefell. And, Obergefel was an illegal ruling for at least several reasons. Most potent being that two justices were not fit to sit on it: re: Caperton v Massey Coal USSC (2009)

And by illegal you mean you disagree with the findings of the court. I love that you think elected officials don't have to follow the law if it changes during their term. lol

 

[Silhouette]

She took the job before Obergefell. And, Obergefel was an illegal ruling for at least several reasons. Most potent being that two justices were not fit to sit on it: re: Caperton v Massey Coal USSC (2009)

And by illegal you mean you disagree with the findings of the court. I love that you think elected officials don't have to follow the law if it changes during their term. lol

No, by "illegal" I mean that two Justices as embodiments of the fed, were openly performing gay weddings in different states as the question "should the fed dominate states on the question of gay marriage" was pending in their Court's docket. Regardless of whether or not those states had enacted "gay marriage" on their own, the performance of a gay wedding as a federal entity while hundreds of millions of Americans disagreed with a federal mandate on their state to such, was a public display of bias. Caperton v Massey Coal (USSC (2009) says that no jurist or judge may display bias towards a case, and then preside over it.

As US Supreme Court Justices, Caperton v Massey Coal is amplified, not diminished. That that is because the US Supreme Court is THE LAST STOP OF JUSTICE in the country. If the public perceives that its last shot at an unbiased hearing is a joke, a laughingstock (Obergefell with Ginsburg and Kagan presiding), then the public no longer has faith in its system and anarchy can ensue. If you don't believe me, research the French Revolution. When a Justice displays bias against a litigant and then does not recuse herself, she has stopped being a judicial officer and instead has become a monarch. Queen Ginsburg and Queen Kagan were required BY THEIR OWN LAW to not sit on Obergefell.

Ergo, Obergefell was a mistrial.

 

[mdk]

No, by "illegal" I mean that two Justices as embodiments of the fed, were openly performing gay weddings in different states as the question "should the fed dominate states on the question of gay marriage" was pending in their Court's docket. Regardless of whether or not those states had enacted "gay marriage" on their own, the performance of a gay wedding as a federal entity while hundreds of millions of Americans disagreed with a federal mandate on their state to such, was a public display of bias. Caperton v Massey Coal (USSC (2009) says that no jurist or judge may display bias towards a case, and then preside over it.

As US Supreme Court Justices, Caperton v Massey Coal is amplified, not diminished. That that is because the US Supreme Court is THE LAST STOP OF JUSTICE in the country. If the public perceives that its last shot at an unbiased hearing is a joke, a laughingstock (Obergefell with Ginsburg and Kagan presiding), then the public no longer has faith in its system and anarchy can ensue. If you don't believe me, research the French Revolution. When a Justice displays bias against a litigant and then does not recuse herself, she has stopped being a judicial officer and instead has become a monarch. Queen Ginsburg and Queen Kagan were required BY THEIR OWN LAW to not sit on Obergefell.

Ergo, Obergefell was a mistrial.

You do get that repeating the same lies over and over again doesn't make it true, right?

Here were the actual questions before the court:

(1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?

(2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex that was legally licensed and performed in another state?


Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co dealt with elected judges hearing cases from campaign contributors. Neither Kagan nor Ginsberg are elected or accept campaign contributions. Besides, the actual questions before the court, not the ones you pull out your ass, would not have had any impact on gay marriage in D.C. and Maryland which destroys your bullshit claims about bias. Also, Obergefell wasn't a trial so it can't end in a mistrial.

You, and a small handful of deluded dumb fucks, still think you have a shot at overturning gay marriage. I am going you give the inside scoop: You don't, but your wind pissing is comical is to behold. Carry on.

 

[Silhouette]

So now elected judges are the only ones who have to abide by law? The only ones who have to appear unbiased? You are REALLY reaching now..lol..

I GUARANTEE YOU that if Caperton v Massey Coal (2009) is tested, it will absolutely apply to ALL jurists/judges, but apply most of all to US Supreme Court Justices; upon whom the public absolutely relies upon, but also demands uncompromising delivery of blind justice from. Laws aren't made just for some. They are made for all. The appearance & delivery of an unbiased last-stop Judicial Branch of government is the only glue still holding this country together. The restless Public has all but given up on the Executive, and especially the Legislative Branches.

Kagan and Ginsburg fucked up. Obergefell was a mistrial. Your cult of LGBT may come out victorious upon a re-hearing, but the case has to be re-heard. Due process demands it.

While Ginsburg was presiding over gay weddings in months prior to Obergefell, she also said this prior to Obergefell in a public interview!

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the country is moving and growing more accepting of gay couples marrying. “I think that as more and more people came out and said that ‘this is who I am,’ the rest of us recognized that they are one of us,” Ginsburg told Bloomberg News in an interview published Thursday.. Ginsburg added that it “would not take a large adjustment” for Americans to support same-sex marriages if the court were to rule in favor of it, saying, “The change in people’s attitudes on that issue has been enormous.” Ginsburg: America more accepting of gay marriage

Let's see..Caperton requires that if a reasonable person would suspect any bias on a given case, that judge must step down. Ginsburg (and Kagan) were performing gay weddings as the case was pending, and there can be no doubt whatsoever about Ginsburg's intent for Obergefell with her February 2015 interview with Bloomberg News.

Any reasonable, even sub-moron, person could deduce "Ginsburg is for the party FOR federally-mandated gay marriage across the whole country." BEFORE she heard the facts at the Hearing. That is a clear violation of Caperton v Massey Coal (2009)....for which *drum roll* Ginsburg herself voted in favor of!

In short, granting herself an exception to law and order, she is acting the tyrant saying "I know what's good for the country and they'll come along and adjust once I make my decision (I'm declaring right now that I've already made).... formal in June this year." ie: the Obergefell Hearing was a mere formality as far as Ginsburg is/was concerned. And she let the country know that several months in advance of it.

 

[Skylar]

She took the job before Obergefell. And, Obergefel was an illegal ruling for at least several reasons. Most potent being that two justices were not fit to sit on it: re: Caperton v Massey Coal USSC (2009)

When she took the job is irrelevant. She has to abide the law at all times.

As for Obergefell being an 'illegal ruling', that's just more pseudo-legal thumbsucking. The same nonsensical lies you tell yourself to self soothe when reality doesn't match your wishes. Its classic cognitive dissonance:

You make a legal prediction. You're predictably and comically wrong. You make up some elaborate conspiracy excusing why you were wrong to soothe the discomfort of reality being incompatible with your desires.

Its the same process over and over. You've never once made a legal prediction that was accurate. You have always, with a perfect record of failure, been wrong. With your pseudo-legal conspiracy getting more ludicrously elaborate, more fantastically complicated, involving more and more people as your list of predictive failure grows longer.

The reality is far simpler: its not our entire legal system that doesn't know how the law works.

Its just you.

 

[Skylar]

So now elected judges are the only ones who have to abide by law? The only ones who have to appear unbiased? You are REALLY reaching now..lol..

I GUARANTEE YOU that if Caperton v Massey Coal (2009) is tested, it will absolutely apply to ALL jurists/judges, but apply most of all to US Supreme Court Justices; upon whom the public absolutely relies upon, but also demands uncompromising delivery of blind justice from.

Your 'guarantees' are meaningless.

You made similar assurances about Obergefell. You made elaborate predictions about what the Windsor ruling 'really meant'. You've babbled endlessly about children are 'parties to the marriage contract of their parents'......with no law, no court ruling backing your pseudo-legal gibberish. You 'guaranteed' us that the House and Senate were going to impeach and remove Kagan and Ginsberg when the republicans took each legal body.

You were perfectly wrong. Every legal prediction you've made has been a comic failure. You've literally never once been right. Your record of failure....is perfect.

But this time its different, huh?

Kagan and Ginsburg fucked up.

Yawning....nope. Its just you that has no idea what she's talking about.

Obergefell was a mistrial.

Nope. You don't even know what a mistrial is. You're offering us your wishes and desires as the law. And that's not how the law works. As demonstrated by your perfect record of failure in making any legal prediction.

Your cult of LGBT may come out victorious upon a re-hearing, but the case has to be re-heard. Due process demands it.

Nope. Your cognitive dissonance requires that it be re-heard. Which is gloriously irrelevant to the law.

Your feelings do not create a legal controversy anymore than your feelings create sound legal predictions. Get used to the idea.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the country is moving and growing more accepting of gay couples marrying. “I think that as more and more people came out and said that ‘this is who I am,’ the rest of us recognized that they are one of us,” Ginsburg told Bloomberg News in an interview published Thursday.. Ginsburg added that it “would not take a large adjustment” for Americans to support same-sex marriages if the court were to rule in favor of it, saying, “The change in people’s attitudes on that issue has been enormous.” Ginsburg: America more accepting of gay marriage

Let's see..Caperton requires that if a reasonable person would suspect any bias on a given case, that judge must step down. Ginsburg (and Kagan) were performing gay weddings as the case was pending, and there can be no doubt whatsoever about Ginsburg's intent for Obergefell with her February 2015 interview with Bloomberg News.

Any reasonable, even sub-moron, person could deduce "Ginsburg is for the party FOR federally-mandated gay marriage across the whole country." BEFORE she heard the facts at the Hearing. That is a clear violation of Caperton v Massey Coal (2009)....for which *drum roll* Ginsburg herself voted in favor of!

In short, granting herself an exception to law and order, she is acting the tyrant saying "I know what's good for the country and they'll come along and adjust once I make my decision (I'm declaring right now that I've already made).... formal in June this year." ie: the Obergefell Hearing was a mere formality as far as Ginsburg is/was concerned. And she let the country know that several months in advance of it.

Caperton was a case about an elected judge who received campaign contributions from a party to a case the judge adjudicated.

Ginsburg wasn't elected. She received no campaign contribution from anyone. She certainly received no campaign contribution from anyone in the Obergefell case. She didn't receive any personal benefit from her ruling.

Simply destroying your entire argument yet again. Remember Sil......you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Katzndogz]

Same sex marriage is the law of the land, at least until a major upheaval. Instead of the nonsense on how it isn't, mitigating the damage is more appropriate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So your stance obviously is "fuck a national referendum on gay marriage; we already got what we wanted and won't let it be reversed no matter what the majority says".

Your projecting your anti-gay bias and pretending that a majority oppose gay marriage based off a straw poll that doesn't mention gay marriage.

You and your yellow-avatar buddy are sure tag-teaming me a lot on this thread. Wonder why? Your two posting styles and level of vehemence on these particular topics suggests you are either sitting next to each other in one of Soros' blogging dens, or you are the same poster. Which is it?

Cute conspiracy theory. I give you my full blessing to ask the moderators to investigate your charges. I hope they look into the affair, but I doubt they'll have any time with that national referendum on gay marriage keeping everyone so busy. lol

Quit whining. I got a three day vacation because you lied about such things a year or so ago, now you are crying that you are having to play hard ball. Sil, woman up. There is no such thing as a national referendum, there is no such thing as a majority vote on abortion. The closest you can get is an Amendment process to outlaw abortion, so get cracking girl. And stop yer whining.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Every legal prediction you've made has been a comic failure.

^^^ That, Sil.

 

[Silhouette]

Quit whining. I got a three day vacation because you lied about such things a year or so ago, now you are crying that you are having to play hard ball. Sil, woman up. There is no such thing as a national referendum, there is no such thing as a majority vote on abortion. The closest you can get is an Amendment process to outlaw abortion, so get cracking girl. And stop yer whining.

That wasn't my point Jakey. My point was that if mdk/Skylar felt so certain there was a majority support for gay marriage, they should jump with glee at the thought of a national referendum on it. And they never should have been in favor of forcing the 50 states to ratify it. Clearly the majority in each state (where it will be found was the only constitutional place to define marriage...because of polygamy and others that will be clamoring next) would easily pass gay marriage.

But gay marriage failed in the most liberal state in the Union as recently as 2008. California voted it down twice. And yet we're still being told "a majority of Americans now support gay marriage"...from dubious polls. We were also told pre-2008 that California's majority supported gay marriage. Then the election happened.

See what I mean?

 

[mdk]

Quit whining. I got a three day vacation because you lied about such things a year or so ago, now you are crying that you are having to play hard ball. Sil, woman up. There is no such thing as a national referendum, there is no such thing as a majority vote on abortion. The closest you can get is an Amendment process to outlaw abortion, so get cracking girl. And stop yer whining.

That wasn't my point Jakey. My point was that if mdk/Skylar felt so certain there was a majority support for gay marriage, they should jump with glee at the thought of a national referendum on it. And they never should have been in favor of forcing the 50 states to ratify it. Clearly the majority in each state (where it will be found was the only constitutional place to define marriage...because of polygamy and others that will be clamoring next) would easily pass gay marriage.

But gay marriage failed in the most liberal state in the Union as recently as 2008. California voted it down twice. And yet we're still being told "a majority of Americans now support gay marriage"...from dubious polls. We were also told pre-2008 that California's majority supported gay marriage. Then the election happened.

See what I mean?

I think it's adorable you have to look back to 2008 to pretend that a majority of people don't support gay marriage. lol.

Dubious polls?! You mean like claiming message board straw polls that don't mention gay marriage as evidence? How rich!

A national referendum isn't necessary and a waste of time since the Obergefell is settled law. Too bad, so sad!

Have you asked the Mods to look into your conspiracy theory about Skylar and I being the same person yet? Stupid ass.

 

[Skylar]

Quit whining. I got a three day vacation because you lied about such things a year or so ago, now you are crying that you are having to play hard ball. Sil, woman up. There is no such thing as a national referendum, there is no such thing as a majority vote on abortion. The closest you can get is an Amendment process to outlaw abortion, so get cracking girl. And stop yer whining.

That wasn't my point Jakey. My point was that if mdk/Skylar felt so certain there was a majority support for gay marriage, they should jump with glee at the thought of a national referendum on it.

You're *still* angling for a do-over because you didn't like how reality works?

You made a prediction on the outcome of the Obergefell ruling. You were comically wrong, as you are on all legal predictions. Demanding some bizarre 'national referendum' on rights isn't going to change reality anymore than your useless predictions did.

Your only 'point' is that you can't handle reality.

And they never should have been in favor of forcing the 50 states to ratify it. Clearly the majority in each state (where it will be found was the only constitutional place to define marriage...because of polygamy and others that will be clamoring next) would easily pass gay marriage.

Rights aren't up for a vote, Sil. The constitution trumps any state law. It doesn't matter if the majority wants to strip rights from a minority. The constitution prevents it.

 

[Skylar]

Quit whining. I got a three day vacation because you lied about such things a year or so ago, now you are crying that you are having to play hard ball. Sil, woman up. There is no such thing as a national referendum, there is no such thing as a majority vote on abortion. The closest you can get is an Amendment process to outlaw abortion, so get cracking girl. And stop yer whining.

That wasn't my point Jakey. My point was that if mdk/Skylar felt so certain there was a majority support for gay marriage, they should jump with glee at the thought of a national referendum on it. And they never should have been in favor of forcing the 50 states to ratify it. Clearly the majority in each state (where it will be found was the only constitutional place to define marriage...because of polygamy and others that will be clamoring next) would easily pass gay marriage.

But gay marriage failed in the most liberal state in the Union as recently as 2008. California voted it down twice. And yet we're still being told "a majority of Americans now support gay marriage"...from dubious polls. We were also told pre-2008 that California's majority supported gay marriage. Then the election happened.

See what I mean?

I think it's adorable you have to look back to 2008 to pretend that a majority of people don't support gay marriage. lol.

Dubious polls?! You mean like claiming message board straw polls that don't mention gay marriage as evidence? How rich!

Laughing....is Sil still fronting the old 'Gallup polling was infiltrated by homosexuals' batshit?

 

[mdk]

Quit whining. I got a three day vacation because you lied about such things a year or so ago, now you are crying that you are having to play hard ball. Sil, woman up. There is no such thing as a national referendum, there is no such thing as a majority vote on abortion. The closest you can get is an Amendment process to outlaw abortion, so get cracking girl. And stop yer whining.

That wasn't my point Jakey. My point was that if mdk/Skylar felt so certain there was a majority support for gay marriage, they should jump with glee at the thought of a national referendum on it. And they never should have been in favor of forcing the 50 states to ratify it. Clearly the majority in each state (where it will be found was the only constitutional place to define marriage...because of polygamy and others that will be clamoring next) would easily pass gay marriage.

But gay marriage failed in the most liberal state in the Union as recently as 2008. California voted it down twice. And yet we're still being told "a majority of Americans now support gay marriage"...from dubious polls. We were also told pre-2008 that California's majority supported gay marriage. Then the election happened.

See what I mean?

I think it's adorable you have to look back to 2008 to pretend that a majority of people don't support gay marriage. lol.

Dubious polls?! You mean like claiming message board straw polls that don't mention gay marriage as evidence? How rich!

Laughing....is Sil still fronting the old 'Gallup polling was infiltrated by homosexuals' batshit?

Does the sun rise in the East? lol

 

[JakeStarkey]

Quit whining. I got a three day vacation because you lied about such things a year or so ago, now you are crying that you are having to play hard ball. Sil, woman up. There is no such thing as a national referendum, there is no such thing as a majority vote on abortion. The closest you can get is an Amendment process to outlaw abortion, so get cracking girl. And stop yer whining.

That wasn't my point Jakey. My point was that if mdk/Skylar felt so certain there was a majority support for gay marriage, they should jump with glee at the thought of a national referendum on it. And they never should have been in favor of forcing the 50 states to ratify it. Clearly the majority in each state (where it will be found was the only constitutional place to define marriage...because of polygamy and others that will be clamoring next) would easily pass gay marriage.

But gay marriage failed in the most liberal state in the Union as recently as 2008. California voted it down twice. And yet we're still being told "a majority of Americans now support gay marriage"...from dubious polls. We were also told pre-2008 that California's majority supported gay marriage. Then the election happened.

See what I mean?

Why should Skylar etc, when the have the game in hand, introduce a new rule book?

Quit whinging and stop lying.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Is this the girl who produces those polls that "prove" everybody opposes Gay marriage ?

She will go to her grave in torment I think.

 

[Skylar]

Is this the girl who produces those polls that "prove" everybody opposes Gay marriage ?

She will go to her grave in torment I think.

That's the girl that produces straw polls that don't even mention gay marriage......who insists that they 'prove' that everyone opposes gay marriage. All while making up insane conspiracies that Gallup has been 'inflitrated by homosexuals' and can't be trusted.

She's essentially the avatar of Cognitive Dissonance.