BREAKING: FBI Arrests 87-Year-Old Concentration Camp Survivor for Singing Hymns Outside Abortion Clinic Door

[lantern2814]

I don't think she was accused of violence. She was accused of the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person who is obtaining an abortion,

So you people are afraid an 87 year old woman is going to physically harm you? Or prevent you from killing your unborn child? I knew your kind were all pussies and cowards, but damn, that takes the cake....

 

[longly]

The left doesn't support killing babies. They support aborting fetuses.

Isn't the term fetus just a social construct? We call a person at that stage of development a fetus, but how does that make him any less of a human? Aren't all humans the same, or are you saying that a preborn baby is not a human being? How can you say that? A preborn baby has all the DNA of a human being.

 

[BULLDOG]

Singing hymns at an abortion center in Tennessee is none of the FBI's business. There was no lawbreaking and if there was, it is a LOCAL matter. I'm starting to be ashamed of being a part of the same country as the Biden government. Whatever they are, they are not Americans.

Federal law says you can't block access to an abotion clinic. I know you want it to be a local law, but congress enacted it, so it's federal.

 

[iceberg]

You are not allowed to stand in front of the doors. She can sing all day just not in front of the doors.

Can't block traffic in protest either but tons of peoe did.

 

[BULLDOG]

Can't block traffic in protest either but tons of peoe did.

Blocking traffc would be a local issue. I'm not aware of any federal laws concerning blocking traffic.

 

[pknopp]

Can't block traffic in protest either but tons of peoe did.

And as I've pointed out many times in this thread alone, many were arrested.

 

[Next Time]

What'll the FBI do next:

A. Arresting the homeless for being homeless
B. Arresting people legally carrying firearms
C. Arresting people for not taking the FBI seriously
D. All of the above

 

[pknopp]

What'll the FBI do next:

A. Arresting the homeless for being homeless

That's been done before. I don't see many complaining about it.

 

[candycorn]

Of course the OP is lying:

Blocking access is the charge; not singing.

 

[Lisa558]

Federal law says you can't block access to an abotion clinic. I know you want it to be a local law, but congress enacted it, so it's federal.

And the law also forbids thousands of violent savages to burn, loot, and murder in cities across America, but the FBI didn’t cart any of THOSE animals away. Instead, they focus on a peaceful, elderly Holocaust survivor.

The FBI has been weaponized against those who extol traditional conservative values.

 

[Marener]

They are bad SC rulings based on bullshit.

What Obergfell should have done is say States can decide to not ISSUE SSM licenses, but they have to recognize SSM licenses from other States under full faith and credit.

I have no issue with SSM as long as it's voted into being by a State Legislature.

That's called procedural constructionism.

Except that the fourteenth amendment says that states must provide equal protection under the law. You can’t let straight couples get married and not gay couples anymore than you could have a state decide that railroad cars have to be segregated.

The reason that Plessy is bullshit is the reason Obergfell is correct.

You don’t have a legal philosophy. This is just cultural.

 

[martybegan]

Except that the fourteenth amendment says that states must provide equal protection under the law. You can’t let straight couples get married and not gay couples anymore than you could have a state decide that railroad cars have to be segregated.

The reason that Plessy is bullshit is the reason Obergfell is correct.

You don’t have a legal philosophy. This is just cultural.

The concept of two people of the same sex marrying is very recent, and thus SSM and heterosexual marriage aren't really equal. Marriage was always between either a man and a woman, or one man and many women. That is historical fact.

As I said, if the legislatures want to change that, they can, at the State level. The 14th amendment applies to equal protection when things are equal, and SSM is not equal by precedent to regular marriage. It's a new concept, not something with any backup or history whatsoever.

Again, what Obergfell should have done is require all States to recognize valid marriages from other States under full faith and credit like they were already required to.

 

[Marener]

The concept of two people of the same sex marrying is very recent, and thus SSM and heterosexual marriage aren't really equal. Marriage was always between either a man and a woman, or one man and many women. That is historical fact.

As I said, if the legislatures want to change that, they can, at the State level. The 14th amendment applies to equal protection when things are equal, and SSM is not equal by precedent to regular marriage. It's a new concept, not something with any backup or history whatsoever.

Again, what Obergfell should have done is require all States to recognize valid marriages from other States under full faith and credit like they were already required to.

What a load of bullshit. Where in the fourteenth amendment does it say that you only need to provide equal protection for “recent” concepts?

This is absolute nonsense. It’s not equal by “precedent”? What the hell does that even mean?

Logic like this would have prevented the Loving decision. After all, interracial marriage was a “new concept”.

 

[Lisa558]

Except that the fourteenth amendment says that states must provide equal protection under the law. You can’t let straight couples get married and not gay couples anymore than you could have a state decide that railroad cars have to be segregated.

The reason that Plessy is bullshit is the reason Obergfell is correct.

You don’t have a legal philosophy. This is just cultural.

And colleges also can’t apply different standards to admitting students based on race. It is also a violation of equal protection. So any problem abolishing that and treating applicants the same regardless of skin color?

 

[martybegan]

What a load of bullshit. Where in the fourteenth amendment does it say that you only need to provide equal protection for “recent” concepts?

This is absolute nonsense. It’s not equal by “precedent”? What the hell does that even mean?

Logic like this would have prevented the Loving decision. After all, interracial marriage was a “new concept”.

You use the word equal. Something like SSM isn't truly equal to heterosexual marriage. Inter-racial marriage on the other hand is equal to same race marriage. That makes it a 14th amendment issue. Race and sexuality aren't the same thing.

Inter-racial and inter-tribal marriage has been around for millennia, even if frowned upon by local conventions.

 

[itfitzme]

The FBI is completely out of control.

BREAKING: FBI Arrests 87-Year-Old Concentration Camp Survivor for Singing Hymns Outside Abortion Clinic Door - Could Face Year in Federal Prison | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

11 pro-life activists were arrested this month for holding a prayer vigil and singing hymns at the door of the abortion clinic in Mount Juliet, Tennessee.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Good. He needs to get a life of his own instead of harassing other people.

 

[itfitzme]

You use the word equal. Something like SSM isn't truly equal to heterosexual marriage. Inter-racial marriage on the other hand is equal to same race marriage. That makes it a 14th amendment issue. Race and sexuality aren't the same thing.

Inter-racial and inter-tribal marriage has been around for millennia, even if frowned upon by local conventions.

Like saying oranges and cucumbers aren't "truly" the same thing. Or apples and carrots. Or tomatoes and lettuce. They are all edible plants, the same thing. On the other hand, some are fruits and some are vegetables. Wait, lettuce and carrots are vegetables but lettuce is a leaf and carrots are a root. "The same thing" depends on the definition of the categorization. Nothing is "truly" the same thing. Everything is unique in being a unique permutation of atoms and molecules making nothing, "truly" the same thing, except by a categorization that is envisioned by people. No marriage is exactly the same thing, or "truly" the same thing. On the other hand, if the category is "marriage" than SSM and HSM are exactly the same thing because they are "marriage".

You are creating your own categories, an artificial definition that you like.

 

[Marener]

You use the word equal. Something like SSM isn't truly equal to heterosexual marriage. Inter-racial marriage on the other hand is equal to same race marriage. That makes it a 14th amendment issue. Race and sexuality aren't the same thing.

Inter-racial and inter-tribal marriage has been around for millennia, even if frowned upon by local conventions.

Why does “history” have any relevance as to whether it deserves equal protection?

By the way same sex unions also go back millennia.

You have nothing.

 

[Marener]

And colleges also can’t apply different standards to admitting students based on race. It is also a violation of equal protection. So any problem abolishing that and treating applicants the same regardless of skin color?

Okay. Just don’t complain to me when even fewer white kids get into college because they accept more Asian kids.

 

[martybegan]

Like saying oranges and cucumbers aren't "truly" the same thing. Or apples and carrots. Or tomatoes and lettuce. They are all edible plants, the same thing. On the other hand, some are fruits and some are vegetables. Wait, lettuce and carrots are vegetables but lettuce is a leaf and carrots are a root. "The same thing" depends on the definition of the categorization. Nothing is "truly" the same thing. Everything is unique in being a unique permutation of atoms and molecules making nothing, "truly" the same thing, except by a categorization that is envisioned by people. No marriage is exactly the same thing, or "truly" the same thing. On the other hand, if the category is "marriage" than SSM and HSM are exactly the same thing because they are "marriage".

You are creating your own categories, an artificial definition that you like.

They are not. you are taking a recent construct and using concepts used for more long standing established constructs to justify it.

Obergfell is just as bad as Roe and Plessey, it made up a right that never existed.