Is Kim Davis wrong? Or is the Supreme Ct wrong about requiring acceptance of same-sex "marriage"?

[Syriusly]

That easy, Studley! SCOTUS - Loving v. Virginia (1967). 16 States had anti-miscegenation statutes on the books and when the Loving's contested the Virginia statute, it was found violative of Amendment XIV's due process clause, and thereby allowing persons of different races to marry without obstruction and closing the books on all the other anti-miscegenation statutes in other States!

So....what's your point?

16 states out of 50 sounds like a minority. I'd be willing to bet my left nut most of those 16 states were controlled by......wait for it.........Democrats.

The point is your claim in post #130 was in error, not correct, FALSE! Here are the false claims in that post;

"Interracial marriage was popular to a majority. Southern Democrats (your party BTW) were pretty much last to sign on to it in the 60s

Nobody could prove any harm, so it became legal." [Emphasis Added]

Then in another post following to another down the line you challenged another. Obviously you figured that no one would recall Loving! But I'm an old guy with a not so bad memory.

1. You claimed that miscegenation was popular. There is no evidence of that at all, and your claim was false!

2. You claimed that Southern Democrats were the last to "sign on" to miscegenation. You failed to note that they were made moot by the Supremes on June 12, 1967, and your claim was false!

3.You claimed no harm came from miscegenation. You neglected to note the people serving time in many states back in the day because it was a crime in numerous States, and your claim was false!

4. You claimed miscegenation mystically and magically became legal without stating how because it would put the lie to your other assertions. The anti-miscegenation statutes across the nation were made moot by SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia, June 12, 1967 and you claim was false!

Don't try to quibble about the number of States with anti-miscegenation laws and that "only" 1/3 of the States were violating the Constitutional rights of citizens because of their bigotry! That is totally irrelevant. You were wrong all the way around! Your claims were either irrelevant or in gross error!

Next time, don't try to baffle others with bullshit.

Which is what you're trying to do.....baffle me with bullshit.
You put a lot of words in my mouth.
Taking your obvious sarcasm aside, there was no mystical or magical reason it happened....and I never said it did.

Doesn't matter if you can find a Gallop poll that was "magically" provided to you by someone....about what everyone thought about mixed marriages back in 67', it was an average, not the same in every state. Obviously some states didn't believe in it(16), and the rest (34) didn't seem to give a shit, not enough to make a law banning it. So to me, that means most of America pretty much went along with it, no complaints. At least that was the way it was where I lived. You see.....every state is a little bit different. Move as much as I do and you discover this.

You're as intellectually bankrupt as they come. It's nothing to do with polls its about the anti-miscegenation laws in 1/3 of the States which were found unconstitutional, dipstick. You're just trying to change the narrative to avoid addressing you painfully obvious errors.

You find a single phrase you think you can twist to avoid admitting your blatant error. The point was and still is those anti-miscegenation statutes were unconstitutional AND you were WRONG, in ERROR and now one can easily attribute intellectual dishonesty to your character traits.

1/3 of the states....gotcha. 2/3 to me means a majority.

Sell it to someone who will buy it, prick.

Munches popcorn as once again Muddy is caught up in his claims and does his Fred Astaire routine trying to distract people from what he actually said.

 

[koshergrl]

So....what's your point?

16 states out of 50 sounds like a minority. I'd be willing to bet my left nut most of those 16 states were controlled by......wait for it.........Democrats.

The point is your claim in post #130 was in error, not correct, FALSE! Here are the false claims in that post;

"Interracial marriage was popular to a majority. Southern Democrats (your party BTW) were pretty much last to sign on to it in the 60s

Nobody could prove any harm, so it became legal." [Emphasis Added]

Then in another post following to another down the line you challenged another. Obviously you figured that no one would recall Loving! But I'm an old guy with a not so bad memory.

1. You claimed that miscegenation was popular. There is no evidence of that at all, and your claim was false!

2. You claimed that Southern Democrats were the last to "sign on" to miscegenation. You failed to note that they were made moot by the Supremes on June 12, 1967, and your claim was false!

3.You claimed no harm came from miscegenation. You neglected to note the people serving time in many states back in the day because it was a crime in numerous States, and your claim was false!

4. You claimed miscegenation mystically and magically became legal without stating how because it would put the lie to your other assertions. The anti-miscegenation statutes across the nation were made moot by SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia, June 12, 1967 and you claim was false!

Don't try to quibble about the number of States with anti-miscegenation laws and that "only" 1/3 of the States were violating the Constitutional rights of citizens because of their bigotry! That is totally irrelevant. You were wrong all the way around! Your claims were either irrelevant or in gross error!

Next time, don't try to baffle others with bullshit.

Which is what you're trying to do.....baffle me with bullshit.
You put a lot of words in my mouth.
Taking your obvious sarcasm aside, there was no mystical or magical reason it happened....and I never said it did.

Doesn't matter if you can find a Gallop poll that was "magically" provided to you by someone....about what everyone thought about mixed marriages back in 67', it was an average, not the same in every state. Obviously some states didn't believe in it(16), and the rest (34) didn't seem to give a shit, not enough to make a law banning it. So to me, that means most of America pretty much went along with it, no complaints. At least that was the way it was where I lived. You see.....every state is a little bit different. Move as much as I do and you discover this.

You're as intellectually bankrupt as they come. It's nothing to do with polls its about the anti-miscegenation laws in 1/3 of the States which were found unconstitutional, dipstick. You're just trying to change the narrative to avoid addressing you painfully obvious errors.

You find a single phrase you think you can twist to avoid admitting your blatant error. The point was and still is those anti-miscegenation statutes were unconstitutional AND you were WRONG, in ERROR and now one can easily attribute intellectual dishonesty to your character traits.

1/3 of the states....gotcha. 2/3 to me means a majority.

Sell it to someone who will buy it, prick.

Munches popcorn as once again Muddy is caught up in his claims and does his Fred Astaire routine trying to distract people from what he actually said.

You are a serious idiot.

 

[mudwhistle]

Christian Taliban

Except they don't blow people up over it like muslims do which is why the homofascists hypocritically steer clear of muslims.

It's a funny thing. Those on the far-wrong are filled with utter hatred and contempt for basic standards of sexual morality. They hate Christians, because Christians are generally perceived as the ones who stand for these standards that wrong-wingers so hate. Yet wrong-wingers tend to be very favorably disposed toward Muslims, with it mostly being those of us on the right (but not including myself) who hate Muslims.

Islam tends to stand for pretty much the same sexual moral standards that Christianity does, often much more strictly so. It liberals were consistent, they would hate Muslims at least as much as they hate Christians, for exactly the same reason that they hate Christians. But then consistency isn't exactly one of the defining features of wrong-wing ideology.

I've been making this point for years. They go after Christianity because it represents a greater threat to their segregationist view and divisive agendas and that is that most Christians are white people. The Christian thing is an excuse and opportunity to attack white majorities.
Lefties are totally hypocritical on these religion issues but they're never challenged because the media are lefties.

They're really trying to erase morals and values......that way the masses will accept any crapola they decide to dump on us. Lower our standards across the board.

 

[Syriusly]

Religious liberty does stop at the door of your workplace. Muslim truck drivers do not have to haul alcohol based on their religious beliefs. Public schools must adjust the school menu to accommodate Islamic students, so why should Davis alter her beliefs? Because she's Christian?

Not actually exactly true.

Employers must make reasonable religious accommodations to employees- but if a Muslim or Christian who doesn't believe in drinking alcohol is hired for a job that requires the delivery of alcohol- there is no accomodation for that.

Public Schools sometimes adjust their menus based upon the students religious beliefs. When I grew up we had fish sticks every Friday to accommodate the Catholics in school. But its not a requirement.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Christian Taliban

Except they don't blow people up over it like muslims do which is why the homofascists hypocritically steer clear of muslims.

It's a funny thing. Those on the far-wrong are filled with utter hatred and contempt for basic standards of sexual morality. They hate Christians, because Christians are generally perceived as the ones who stand for these standards that wrong-wingers so hate. Yet wrong-wingers tend to be very favorably disposed toward Muslims, with it mostly being those of us on the right (but not including myself) who hate Muslims.

Islam tends to stand for pretty much the same sexual moral standards that Christianity does, often much more strictly so. It liberals were consistent, they would hate Muslims at least as much as they hate Christians, for exactly the same reason that they hate Christians. But then consistency isn't exactly one of the defining features of wrong-wing ideology.

I've been making this point for years. They go after Christianity because it represents a greater threat to their segregationist view and divisive agendas and that is that most Christians are white people. The Christian thing is an excuse and opportunity to attack white majorities.
Lefties are totally hypocritical on these religion issues but they're never challenged because the media are lefties.

They're really trying to erase morals and values......that way the masses will accept any crapola they decide to dump on us. Lower our standards across the board.

Actually they like morals because they are exclusively designed to use against political opponents who fail to uphold them.

 

[MaryL]

Christian Taliban

Is there a coherent thought or sentence in there somewhere?

Liberal taliban. Nanny nanny neenener. Liberals are getting really intolerant of those they don't agree with, and play theses childish verbal games and apply pseudo intellectual badgering. Gays HAVE had all the same rights as anyone else before this, and they ALWAYS have, period.There just isn't any need for gays to get married, they can't biologically have children from a gay union. All the pro gay arguments are splitting hairs, and for the pro gay agenda. For no clear reason other than pro gay badgering and overly vocal representatives and purchasing lawyers or pr firms to present them as victims. I mean they whine and bitched their way to this. Shameful. Like needy children.

 

[Syriusly]

The point is your claim in post #130 was in error, not correct, FALSE! Here are the false claims in that post;

"Interracial marriage was popular to a majority. Southern Democrats (your party BTW) were pretty much last to sign on to it in the 60s

Nobody could prove any harm, so it became legal." [Emphasis Added]

Then in another post following to another down the line you challenged another. Obviously you figured that no one would recall Loving! But I'm an old guy with a not so bad memory.

1. You claimed that miscegenation was popular. There is no evidence of that at all, and your claim was false!

2. You claimed that Southern Democrats were the last to "sign on" to miscegenation. You failed to note that they were made moot by the Supremes on June 12, 1967, and your claim was false!

3.You claimed no harm came from miscegenation. You neglected to note the people serving time in many states back in the day because it was a crime in numerous States, and your claim was false!

4. You claimed miscegenation mystically and magically became legal without stating how because it would put the lie to your other assertions. The anti-miscegenation statutes across the nation were made moot by SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia, June 12, 1967 and you claim was false!

Don't try to quibble about the number of States with anti-miscegenation laws and that "only" 1/3 of the States were violating the Constitutional rights of citizens because of their bigotry! That is totally irrelevant. You were wrong all the way around! Your claims were either irrelevant or in gross error!

Next time, don't try to baffle others with bullshit.

Which is what you're trying to do.....baffle me with bullshit.
You put a lot of words in my mouth.
Taking your obvious sarcasm aside, there was no mystical or magical reason it happened....and I never said it did.

Doesn't matter if you can find a Gallop poll that was "magically" provided to you by someone....about what everyone thought about mixed marriages back in 67', it was an average, not the same in every state. Obviously some states didn't believe in it(16), and the rest (34) didn't seem to give a shit, not enough to make a law banning it. So to me, that means most of America pretty much went along with it, no complaints. At least that was the way it was where I lived. You see.....every state is a little bit different. Move as much as I do and you discover this.

You're as intellectually bankrupt as they come. It's nothing to do with polls its about the anti-miscegenation laws in 1/3 of the States which were found unconstitutional, dipstick. You're just trying to change the narrative to avoid addressing you painfully obvious errors.

You find a single phrase you think you can twist to avoid admitting your blatant error. The point was and still is those anti-miscegenation statutes were unconstitutional AND you were WRONG, in ERROR and now one can easily attribute intellectual dishonesty to your character traits.

1/3 of the states....gotcha. 2/3 to me means a majority.

Sell it to someone who will buy it, prick.

Munches popcorn as once again Muddy is caught up in his claims and does his Fred Astaire routine trying to distract people from what he actually said.

You are a serious idiot.

You stopped by to make your usual asinine remarks?

No shock there.

 

[mudwhistle]

Christian Taliban

Except they don't blow people up over it like muslims do which is why the homofascists hypocritically steer clear of muslims.

It's a funny thing. Those on the far-wrong are filled with utter hatred and contempt for basic standards of sexual morality. They hate Christians, because Christians are generally perceived as the ones who stand for these standards that wrong-wingers so hate. Yet wrong-wingers tend to be very favorably disposed toward Muslims, with it mostly being those of us on the right (but not including myself) who hate Muslims.

Islam tends to stand for pretty much the same sexual moral standards that Christianity does, often much more strictly so. It liberals were consistent, they would hate Muslims at least as much as they hate Christians, for exactly the same reason that they hate Christians. But then consistency isn't exactly one of the defining features of wrong-wing ideology.

I've been making this point for years. They go after Christianity because it represents a greater threat to their segregationist view and divisive agendas and that is that most Christians are white people. The Christian thing is an excuse and opportunity to attack white majorities.
Lefties are totally hypocritical on these religion issues but they're never challenged because the media are lefties.

They're really trying to erase morals and values......that way the masses will accept any crapola they decide to dump on us. Lower our standards across the board.

Actually they like morals because they are exclusively designed to use against political opponents who fail to uphold them.

Nope....they don't like morals......they like double-standards.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Except they don't blow people up over it like muslims do which is why the homofascists hypocritically steer clear of muslims.

It's a funny thing. Those on the far-wrong are filled with utter hatred and contempt for basic standards of sexual morality. They hate Christians, because Christians are generally perceived as the ones who stand for these standards that wrong-wingers so hate. Yet wrong-wingers tend to be very favorably disposed toward Muslims, with it mostly being those of us on the right (but not including myself) who hate Muslims.

Islam tends to stand for pretty much the same sexual moral standards that Christianity does, often much more strictly so. It liberals were consistent, they would hate Muslims at least as much as they hate Christians, for exactly the same reason that they hate Christians. But then consistency isn't exactly one of the defining features of wrong-wing ideology.

I've been making this point for years. They go after Christianity because it represents a greater threat to their segregationist view and divisive agendas and that is that most Christians are white people. The Christian thing is an excuse and opportunity to attack white majorities.
Lefties are totally hypocritical on these religion issues but they're never challenged because the media are lefties.

They're really trying to erase morals and values......that way the masses will accept any crapola they decide to dump on us. Lower our standards across the board.

Actually they like morals because they are exclusively designed to use against political opponents who fail to uphold them.

Nope....they don't like morals......they like double-standards.

But they like to have morals to use as political tools, not to be applied to themselves.

 

[mudwhistle]

Christian Taliban

Is there a coherent thought or sentence in there somewhere?

Liberal taliban. Nanny nanny neenener. Liberals are getting really intolerant of those they don't agree with, and play theses childish verbal games and apply pseudo intellectual badgering. Gays HAVE had all the same rights as anyone else before this, and they ALWAYS have, period.There just isn't any need for gays to get married, they can't biologically have children from a gay union. All the pro gay arguments are splitting hairs, and for the pro gay agenda. For no clear reason other than pro gay badgering and overly vocal representatives and purchasing lawyers or pr firms to present them as victims. I mean they whine and bitched their way to this. Shameful. Like needy children.

I think subconsciously, they believe that a marriage will gain them acceptance by everyone......and if it doesn't..

..THROW THE BIBLE-BANGING ***** IN JAIL!!!!

 

[Syriusly]

Christian Taliban

Is there a coherent thought or sentence in there somewhere?

. Gays HAVE had all the same rights as anyone else before this, and they ALWAYS have, period..

You keep making this same idiotic claim and I keep pointing out how idiotic it is. Do you have a memory problem, a comprehension problem or just an honesty problem?

• Until very recently homosexuals could be fired from the U.S. military simply for being known as being gay- how in your mind is that 'the same rights'
  
• Homosexuals could be fired from the State Department once they were suspected of being gay.
• Homosexuals could be arrested for having sex together- and were arrested for talking about having sex together even after the Supreme Court said the anti-gay sodomy laws were unconstitutional.
• Laws were passed to fire homosexuals from public teaching laws.

So tell me- how is that all 'the same rights as anyone else'?

 

[mudwhistle]

It's a funny thing. Those on the far-wrong are filled with utter hatred and contempt for basic standards of sexual morality. They hate Christians, because Christians are generally perceived as the ones who stand for these standards that wrong-wingers so hate. Yet wrong-wingers tend to be very favorably disposed toward Muslims, with it mostly being those of us on the right (but not including myself) who hate Muslims.

Islam tends to stand for pretty much the same sexual moral standards that Christianity does, often much more strictly so. It liberals were consistent, they would hate Muslims at least as much as they hate Christians, for exactly the same reason that they hate Christians. But then consistency isn't exactly one of the defining features of wrong-wing ideology.

I've been making this point for years. They go after Christianity because it represents a greater threat to their segregationist view and divisive agendas and that is that most Christians are white people. The Christian thing is an excuse and opportunity to attack white majorities.
Lefties are totally hypocritical on these religion issues but they're never challenged because the media are lefties.

They're really trying to erase morals and values......that way the masses will accept any crapola they decide to dump on us. Lower our standards across the board.

Actually they like morals because they are exclusively designed to use against political opponents who fail to uphold them.

Nope....they don't like morals......they like double-standards.

But they like to have morals to use as political tools, not to be applied to themselves.

That is the definition of double-standard my friend.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You know, about 30 years ago, our children were supposed to be sheltered from sex. In a gay family, it's kind of tough to do that. How is the kid going to explain his two moms to his classmates?

Well, either the person asking the question needs to be suspended and maybe sued, and/or the whole school must now undergo sensitivity training so they will learn to love homosexuals, and realize all of the wonderful things they bring children, families, and fuzzy little puppies.

Here you go, courtesy of the very same judge who sent Ms. Davis to jail…

Judge Who Jailed Kim Davis Ordered Students Who Opposed Homosexuality to Be Re-Educated

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

That easy, Studley! SCOTUS - Loving v. Virginia (1967). 16 States had anti-miscegenation statutes on the books and when the Loving's contested the Virginia statute, it was found violative of Amendment XIV's due process clause, and thereby allowing persons of different races to marry without obstruction and closing the books on all the other anti-miscegenation statutes in other States!

So....what's your point?

16 states out of 50 sounds like a minority. I'd be willing to bet my left nut most of those 16 states were controlled by......wait for it.........Democrats.

The point is your claim in post #130 was in error, not correct, FALSE! Here are the false claims in that post;

"Interracial marriage was popular to a majority. Southern Democrats (your party BTW) were pretty much last to sign on to it in the 60s

Nobody could prove any harm, so it became legal." [Emphasis Added]

Then in another post following to another down the line you challenged another. Obviously you figured that no one would recall Loving! But I'm an old guy with a not so bad memory.

1. You claimed that miscegenation was popular. There is no evidence of that at all, and your claim was false!

2. You claimed that Southern Democrats were the last to "sign on" to miscegenation. You failed to note that they were made moot by the Supremes on June 12, 1967, and your claim was false!

3.You claimed no harm came from miscegenation. You neglected to note the people serving time in many states back in the day because it was a crime in numerous States, and your claim was false!

4. You claimed miscegenation mystically and magically became legal without stating how because it would put the lie to your other assertions. The anti-miscegenation statutes across the nation were made moot by SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia, June 12, 1967 and you claim was false!

Don't try to quibble about the number of States with anti-miscegenation laws and that "only" 1/3 of the States were violating the Constitutional rights of citizens because of their bigotry! That is totally irrelevant. You were wrong all the way around! Your claims were either irrelevant or in gross error!

Next time, don't try to baffle others with bullshit.

Which is what you're trying to do.....baffle me with bullshit.
You put a lot of words in my mouth.
Taking your obvious sarcasm aside, there was no mystical or magical reason it happened....and I never said it did.

Doesn't matter if you can find a Gallop poll that was "magically" provided to you by someone....about what everyone thought about mixed marriages back in 67', it was an average, not the same in every state. Obviously some states didn't believe in it(16), and the rest (34) didn't seem to give a shit, not enough to make a law banning it. So to me, that means most of America pretty much went along with it, no complaints. At least that was the way it was where I lived. You see.....every state is a little bit different. Move as much as I do and you discover this.

You're as intellectually bankrupt as they come. It's nothing to do with polls its about the anti-miscegenation laws in 1/3 of the States which were found unconstitutional, dipstick. You're just trying to change the narrative to avoid addressing you painfully obvious errors.

You find a single phrase you think you can twist to avoid admitting your blatant error. The point was and still is those anti-miscegenation statutes were unconstitutional AND you were WRONG, in ERROR and now one can easily attribute intellectual dishonesty to your character traits.

1/3 of the states....gotcha. 2/3 to me means a majority.

Sell it to someone who will buy it, prick.

Damn, you're just as bad as PC for dancing, dodging and deflecting. So I'm a prick because I embarrassed you for committing multiple errors in judgment, knowledge limitations and being a general asshole? There's no need to respond to only embarrass yourself further!

 

[Syriusly]

[
Because prayer is not allowed in schools...but there are schools in NYC that have built special rooms, rugs included, specifically designed for Muslim Prayer... just one example.

Which schools?

Schools are completely permitted to allow students to use school faciilties for religious purposes- so long as the religious groups- Christian/Muslim/Jewish etc- have no more access than any other student group.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I've been making this point for years. They go after Christianity because it represents a greater threat to their segregationist view and divisive agendas and that is that most Christians are white people. The Christian thing is an excuse and opportunity to attack white majorities.
Lefties are totally hypocritical on these religion issues but they're never challenged because the media are lefties.

They're really trying to erase morals and values......that way the masses will accept any crapola they decide to dump on us. Lower our standards across the board.

Actually they like morals because they are exclusively designed to use against political opponents who fail to uphold them.

Nope....they don't like morals......they like double-standards.

But they like to have morals to use as political tools, not to be applied to themselves.

That is the definition of double-standard my friend.

I understand that. The point is that with lefties there was no standard to be concerned with in the first place. All morals exist to be used against those who have morals. So the morals themselves just become tools of political opportunism. That's what lefties like about morals. They have no intention of applying any to themselves.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This is why I hate religion. It's evil bad and wrong.

Interesting... I'm one of those Christians who thinks she should have obeyed the law. Wow. You're just looking for any reason to trash religion, aren't you?

 

[mudwhistle]

They're really trying to erase morals and values......that way the masses will accept any crapola they decide to dump on us. Lower our standards across the board.

Actually they like morals because they are exclusively designed to use against political opponents who fail to uphold them.

Nope....they don't like morals......they like double-standards.

But they like to have morals to use as political tools, not to be applied to themselves.

That is the definition of double-standard my friend.

I understand that. The point is that with lefties there was no standard to be concerned with in the first place. All morals exist to be used against those who have morals. So the morals themselves just become tools of political opportunism. That's what lefties like about morals. They have no intention of applying any to themselves.

Morals are indeed, simply a tool to be used against Republicans.

 

[Syriusly]

Christian Taliban

Is there a coherent thought or sentence in there somewhere?

Liberal taliban. Nanny nanny neenener. Liberals are getting really intolerant of those they don't agree with, and play theses childish verbal games and apply pseudo intellectual badgering. Gays HAVE had all the same rights as anyone else before this, and they ALWAYS have, period.There just isn't any need for gays to get married, they can't biologically have children from a gay union. All the pro gay arguments are splitting hairs, and for the pro gay agenda. For no clear reason other than pro gay badgering and overly vocal representatives and purchasing lawyers or pr firms to present them as victims. I mean they whine and bitched their way to this. Shameful. Like needy children.

I think subconsciously, they believe that a marriage will gain them acceptance by everyone......and if it doesn't..

..THROW THE BIBLE-BANGING ***** IN JAIL!!!!

I think subconsciously that all of the people supporting Kim Davis are hoping that magically equal marriage rights for homosexuals will go away.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Actually they like morals because they are exclusively designed to use against political opponents who fail to uphold them.

Nope....they don't like morals......they like double-standards.

But they like to have morals to use as political tools, not to be applied to themselves.

That is the definition of double-standard my friend.

I understand that. The point is that with lefties there was no standard to be concerned with in the first place. All morals exist to be used against those who have morals. So the morals themselves just become tools of political opportunism. That's what lefties like about morals. They have no intention of applying any to themselves.

Morals are indeed, simply a tool to be used against Republicans.

That's my point.