Rubio: "We are called to ignore" SCOTUS rulings that go against God

[Dot Com]

This is just further confirmation of Rubio's ignorance of, and contempt for. the rule of law, the Constitution, and its case law.

Rubio is of course wrong, as is anyone else on the right who agrees with him.

hence my avie

 

[BULLDOG]

Rubio: ‘God’s rules’ trump Supreme Court decisions

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) says religious believers are called to “ignore” laws that violate their faith.

“In essence, if we are ever ordered by a government authority to personally violate and sin — violate God’s law and sin — if we’re ordered to stop preaching the Gospel, if we’re ordered to perform a same-sex marriage as someone presiding over it, we are called to ignore that,” Rubio said in an interview with CBN on Tuesday.

“So when those two come into conflict, God’s rules always win,” he added.

Rubio said Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision creating a constitutional right to abortion, is open to revision.

“It’s current law; it’s not settled law,” he said. “No law is settled. Roe v. Wade is current law, but it doesn’t mean that we don’t continue to aspire to fix it, because we think it’s wrong.”

The Republican presidential candidate, who is rising in the polls, encouraged the faithful to work within the political process to change laws that violate their conscience.

“If you live in a society where the government creates an avenue and a way for you to peacefully change the law, then you’re called to participate in that process to try to change it,” he said.

Where does Jesus call on anyone to be involved in politics?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Actually, didn't Jesus say "render unto Cesar what is Cesar's, and render unto God what is God's?"

That means religion and politics should be kept separate.

 

[DGS49]

(1) There is no "right of privacy" in the Constitution. It is made-up law. It is an example of a small group of Supreme Court justices asserting that the Founding Fathers would have put it in there if they had thought of it, so it must be in there. In short: it is bullshit.

(2) Because the "right of privacy" is made up, it can mean whatever the current majority on the USSC wants it to mean. For example, it has been held to mean that no state may prohibit homosexual intercourse. The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew that today's USSC would read such a bizarre meaning into the document they wrote. Again, it is bullshit.

(3) Because the "right of privacy" is made up, any future majority on the USSC could render it extinct with a single ruling. The framework of abortion's constitutionality - divided up into three trimesters, and so forth - being entirely made-up law, can be overturned by any USSC majority at any time. For example, the USSC could rule that the beginning of human life for constitutional purposes is a matter for Congress to address, since it is not found in the Constitution, and declare a "fall back" position that, until Congress decides otherwise, life begins at conception. Nothing in the Constitution could prevent this outcome.

(4) There is nothing in the Constitution that makes the Judicial Branch superior to the other branches, particularly when it is making up new laws and "constitutional" principles.

(5) If a "constitutional" ruling by the USSC appears to prohibit an Army Chaplain from teaching that homosexual sodomy is morally wrong, then the Chaplain is morally compelled to IGNORE THAT RULING, and preach the truth. If a "constitutional" ruling by the USSC appears to mandate that a Catholic priest perform homosexual marriages, then the priest is obliged to ignore that ruling. If a "constitutional" ruling by the USSC appears to mandate that a Catholic hospital perform elective abortions, then the hospital is obliged to ignore that ruling.

It's not that complicated. Cruz is entirely right.

 

[martybegan]

This is just further confirmation of Rubio's ignorance of, and contempt for. the rule of law, the Constitution, and its case law.

Rubio is of course wrong, as is anyone else on the right who agrees with him.

So MLK had the same contempt for the rule of law, right?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Rubio: ‘God’s rules’ trump Supreme Court decisions

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) says religious believers are called to “ignore” laws that violate their faith.

“In essence, if we are ever ordered by a government authority to personally violate and sin — violate God’s law and sin — if we’re ordered to stop preaching the Gospel, if we’re ordered to perform a same-sex marriage as someone presiding over it, we are called to ignore that,” Rubio said in an interview with CBN on Tuesday.

“So when those two come into conflict, God’s rules always win,” he added.

Rubio said Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision creating a constitutional right to abortion, is open to revision.

“It’s current law; it’s not settled law,” he said. “No law is settled. Roe v. Wade is current law, but it doesn’t mean that we don’t continue to aspire to fix it, because we think it’s wrong.”

The Republican presidential candidate, who is rising in the polls, encouraged the faithful to work within the political process to change laws that violate their conscience.

“If you live in a society where the government creates an avenue and a way for you to peacefully change the law, then you’re called to participate in that process to try to change it,” he said.

So, if a Muslim's religious "beliefs" call for them to kill all Christians, then there is nothing the courts in the US can do about it then?

Jeez, what an idiot.

 

[martybegan]

Rubio should keep his religion out of my government.

But shoving government into someones religion is A-OK.

Otherwise known as "bake that fucking cake, peasant"

 

[frigidweirdo]

(1) There is no "right of privacy" in the Constitution. It is made-up law. It is an example of a small group of Supreme Court justices asserting that the Founding Fathers would have put it in there if they had thought of it, so it must be in there. In short: it is bullshit.

(2) Because the "right of privacy" is made up, it can mean whatever the current majority on the USSC wants it to mean. For example, it has been held to mean that no state may prohibit homosexual intercourse. The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew that today's USSC would read such a bizarre meaning into the document they wrote. Again, it is bullshit.

(3) Because the "right of privacy" is made up, any future majority on the USSC could render it extinct with a single ruling. The framework of abortion's constitutionality - divided up into three trimesters, and so forth - being entirely made-up law, can be overturned by any USSC majority at any time. For example, the USSC could rule that the beginning of human life for constitutional purposes is a matter for Congress to address, since it is not found in the Constitution, and declare a "fall back" position that, until Congress decides otherwise, life begins at conception. Nothing in the Constitution could prevent this outcome.

(4) There is nothing in the Constitution that makes the Judicial Branch superior to the other branches, particularly when it is making up new laws and "constitutional" principles.

(5) If a "constitutional" ruling by the USSC appears to prohibit an Army Chaplain from teaching that homosexual sodomy is morally wrong, then the Chaplain is morally compelled to IGNORE THAT RULING, and preach the truth. If a "constitutional" ruling by the USSC appears to mandate that a Catholic priest perform homosexual marriages, then the priest is obliged to ignore that ruling. If a "constitutional" ruling by the USSC appears to mandate that a Catholic hospital perform elective abortions, then the hospital is obliged to ignore that ruling.

It's not that complicated. Cruz is entirely right.

There's no right to privacy in the Constitution, you're right. Nor is there a right to freedom of speech, a right to guns, a right to anything. The Constitution merely PROTECTS RIGHTS.

ALSO the Constitution was pretty specific that not all rights are protected in the Constitution.

Also, some of the Founding Fathers, clever beings that they were, saw that morons in the future would try and claim that only those mentioned in the Constitution are those that exist, so they didn't want a Bill of Rights for that purpose.

200 years and more later, and people are STILL Freaking MORONS and still don't understand the Constitution.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[BULLDOG]

Rubio should keep his religion out of my government.

But shoving government into someones religion is A-OK.

Otherwise known as "bake that fucking cake, peasant"

You got that name wrong. It's known as "bake that fucking cake, bigot" it only applies to bigots because anybody else would bake the damn cake anyway.

 

[martybegan]

Rubio should keep his religion out of my government.

But shoving government into someones religion is A-OK.

Otherwise known as "bake that fucking cake, peasant"

You got that name wrong. It's known as "bake that fucking cake, bigot" it only applies to bigots because anybody else would bake the damn cake anyway.

Who the fuck are you to decide why a person doesn't want to associate? And why should government care unless there is a quantifiable impact on commerce or society?

It's all about power and force for you fascist twats.

 

[BULLDOG]

Rubio should keep his religion out of my government.

But shoving government into someones religion is A-OK.

Otherwise known as "bake that fucking cake, peasant"

You got that name wrong. It's known as "bake that fucking cake, bigot" it only applies to bigots because anybody else would bake the damn cake anyway.

Who the fuck are you to decide why a person doesn't want to associate? And why should government care unless there is a quantifiable impact on commerce or society?

It's all about power and force for you fascist twats.

A business serving the public who refuses service based solely on their bigoted beliefs does have a quantifiable impact on society. Shut up and bake the fucking cake.

 

[martybegan]

Rubio should keep his religion out of my government.

But shoving government into someones religion is A-OK.

Otherwise known as "bake that fucking cake, peasant"

You got that name wrong. It's known as "bake that fucking cake, bigot" it only applies to bigots because anybody else would bake the damn cake anyway.

Who the fuck are you to decide why a person doesn't want to associate? And why should government care unless there is a quantifiable impact on commerce or society?

It's all about power and force for you fascist twats.

A business serving the public who refuses service based solely on their bigoted beliefs does have a quantifiable impact on society. Shut up and bake the fucking cake.

How about you fucking make them yourself, tough guy.

Oh i forget, pussies like you need someone else to do their dirty work. You go running to government to be the big meanie. What a twat.

And one baker does not have an impact, short of hurt feelings.

 

[BULLDOG]

Rubio should keep his religion out of my government.

But shoving government into someones religion is A-OK.

Otherwise known as "bake that fucking cake, peasant"

You got that name wrong. It's known as "bake that fucking cake, bigot" it only applies to bigots because anybody else would bake the damn cake anyway.

Who the fuck are you to decide why a person doesn't want to associate? And why should government care unless there is a quantifiable impact on commerce or society?

It's all about power and force for you fascist twats.

A business serving the public who refuses service based solely on their bigoted beliefs does have a quantifiable impact on society. Shut up and bake the fucking cake.

How about you fucking make them yourself, tough guy.

Oh i forget, pussies like you need someone else to do their dirty work. You go running to government to be the big meanie. What a twat.

And one baker does not have an impact, short of hurt feelings.

If I owned a bakery, I would. Unfortunately, I can't boil water without burning it. I'm not a cook. One baker probably wouldn't have an impact, and if it was the only one in the country who would deny service, there probably wouldn't be a problem. We both know that is not the case.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[martybegan]

But shoving government into someones religion is A-OK.

Otherwise known as "bake that fucking cake, peasant"

You got that name wrong. It's known as "bake that fucking cake, bigot" it only applies to bigots because anybody else would bake the damn cake anyway.

Who the fuck are you to decide why a person doesn't want to associate? And why should government care unless there is a quantifiable impact on commerce or society?

It's all about power and force for you fascist twats.

A business serving the public who refuses service based solely on their bigoted beliefs does have a quantifiable impact on society. Shut up and bake the fucking cake.

How about you fucking make them yourself, tough guy.

Oh i forget, pussies like you need someone else to do their dirty work. You go running to government to be the big meanie. What a twat.

And one baker does not have an impact, short of hurt feelings.

If I owned a bakery, I would. Unfortunately, I can't boil water without burning it. I'm not a cook. One baker probably wouldn't have an impact, and if it was the only one in the country who would deny service, there probably wouldn't be a problem. We both know that is not the case.

Only one in the country isn't the standard one looks for. One looks for systemic discrimination. THAT impacts commerce, and the ability of people to get the products they want. In these cases there is no majority of bakers denying people cakes, and no actual harm, only a few minutes of a person's time, and hurt feelings.

Let the market handle this, not government.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[BULLDOG]

You got that name wrong. It's known as "bake that fucking cake, bigot" it only applies to bigots because anybody else would bake the damn cake anyway.

Who the fuck are you to decide why a person doesn't want to associate? And why should government care unless there is a quantifiable impact on commerce or society?

It's all about power and force for you fascist twats.

A business serving the public who refuses service based solely on their bigoted beliefs does have a quantifiable impact on society. Shut up and bake the fucking cake.

How about you fucking make them yourself, tough guy.

Oh i forget, pussies like you need someone else to do their dirty work. You go running to government to be the big meanie. What a twat.

And one baker does not have an impact, short of hurt feelings.

If I owned a bakery, I would. Unfortunately, I can't boil water without burning it. I'm not a cook. One baker probably wouldn't have an impact, and if it was the only one in the country who would deny service, there probably wouldn't be a problem. We both know that is not the case.

Only one in the country isn't the standard one looks for. One looks for systemic discrimination. THAT impacts commerce, and the ability of people to get the products they want. In these cases there is no majority of bakers denying people cakes, and no actual harm, only a few minutes of a person's time, and hurt feelings.

Let the market handle this, not government.

We both know it wasn't the only one in the country. If the ruling had been different, there would be a lot.

 

[ogibillm]

I don't find the sentiment objectionable, but i do find the pandering to be so

 

[martybegan]

Who the fuck are you to decide why a person doesn't want to associate? And why should government care unless there is a quantifiable impact on commerce or society?

It's all about power and force for you fascist twats.

A business serving the public who refuses service based solely on their bigoted beliefs does have a quantifiable impact on society. Shut up and bake the fucking cake.

How about you fucking make them yourself, tough guy.

Oh i forget, pussies like you need someone else to do their dirty work. You go running to government to be the big meanie. What a twat.

And one baker does not have an impact, short of hurt feelings.

If I owned a bakery, I would. Unfortunately, I can't boil water without burning it. I'm not a cook. One baker probably wouldn't have an impact, and if it was the only one in the country who would deny service, there probably wouldn't be a problem. We both know that is not the case.

Only one in the country isn't the standard one looks for. One looks for systemic discrimination. THAT impacts commerce, and the ability of people to get the products they want. In these cases there is no majority of bakers denying people cakes, and no actual harm, only a few minutes of a person's time, and hurt feelings.

Let the market handle this, not government.

We both know it wasn't the only one in the country. If the ruling had been different, there would be a lot.

So? How does a baker not wanting to make a cake for a gay wedding in one area impact the rights of someone in another?

Systemic discrimination is local in nature, even if endorsed at a higher level. You are not grasping the concept.