POLL: Kim Davis arrest predictions

[AvgGuyIA]

It doesn't matter what her religious convictions are - that is completely her choice.

We, The People, are allowed certain expectations of the people We hire to enforce laws and manage the bureaucracy.

Would We hire a soldier who had issues with killing and employ her on the front line?

If a law changes and suddenly you have issues with what your government job is, you either suck it up and do your job anyway, ask for reassignment to a more palatable position, or quit.

We, The People do not have time for your bullshit.

We will install our judges and overturn this travesty against the will of We The People. Then YOU can suck it up.

 

[Stephanie]

And so will the Oath Keepers...ya know those folks that actually SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION.

What the **** part of the US Constitution says that The Peoples bureaucracy can define marriage based on a religious dogma?

The Republicans prosecuted a civil war to establish the duty of the federal government to protect the rights of the individual described in The Constitution over those of the state. The Constitution requires that the government either extend marriage benefits to ALL two-person partnerships with proper documentation, or to none of them. Anything else is the definition of discrimination.

Did you know that under certain circumstances you can get a higher Social Security benefit in retirement because you were married?

The question has never been about redefining marriage or religion, the problem has been the bureaucracy discriminating against some tax-payers at the profit of others.

`​

They are defending her first amendment rights and the right not to be tossed in jail because some butt ****** approving judge thinks he has the right to persecute her for her beliefs.

She has no first amendment rights when it comes to doing her government job. She can do the work as described in the law that she swore to uphold or she can move it on down the road in favor of someone more competent and/or willing.

Those are the choices.

And I for one am one offended citizen at the way she is using her government position of power to grand-stand her faith.

This is total bullshit and a waste of The People's time and resources.

so in other words when a person goes to work for the Guberment they give up all their rights and become YOUR all's slaves. just wow. How did we get back to slavery?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

3/4 of her constituents want her to issue marriage licenses to those who qualify.

Which don't include two gay dudes.

 

[playtime]

And so will the Oath Keepers...ya know those folks that actually SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION.

What the **** part of the US Constitution says that The Peoples bureaucracy can define marriage based on a religious dogma?

The Republicans prosecuted a civil war to establish the duty of the federal government to protect the rights of the individual described in The Constitution over those of the state. The Constitution requires that the government either extend marriage benefits to ALL two-person partnerships with proper documentation, or to none of them. Anything else is the definition of discrimination.

Did you know that under certain circumstances you can get a higher Social Security benefit in retirement because you were married?

The question has never been about redefining marriage or religion, the problem has been the bureaucracy discriminating against some tax-payers at the profit of others.

`​

They are defending her first amendment rights and the right not to be tossed in jail because some butt ****** approving judge thinks he has the right to persecute her for her beliefs.

She has no first amendment rights when it comes to doing her government job. She can do the work as described in the law that she swore to uphold or she can move it on down the road in favor of someone more competent and/or willing.

Those are the choices.

And I for one am one offended citizen at the way she is using her government position of power to grand-stand her faith.

This is total bullshit and a waste of The People's time and resources.

so in other words when a person goes to work for the Guberment they give up all their rights and become YOUR all's slaves. just wow. How did we get back to slavery?

Do you really believe half the crap you post?

 

[Wyatt earp]

then there is this from the same linked article

The idea that recent mass shooters are mostly registered Democrats is a myth

Interestingly, Hedgecock and those on the far right have conveniently overlooked a number of cases where ideology is clearly right-wing. The acts below are instances of right-wing violence that are unequivocally committed by people who are openly hostile to liberalism. While this does not mean these killers are Republicans, it is quite clear that they are RIGHT-WINGERS and that they have far more in common with Mr. Hedgecock, Alex Jones and the other gun-toting conspiracy nuts on the right than with any evils associated with the Democratic Party or liberalism. In addition, to the list below is the obvious case of Timothy McVeigh, who I have not included because his crime was not committed with firearms. It was however, committed by a right-winger and the carnage was on a massive scale.

For example, on July 18, 1984 James Oliver Huberty, who told his wife he hated “children, Mexicans and the United States” opened fire inside the McDonald’s Restaurant in San Ysidro, CA using a Browning P-35 Hi-Power 9mm pistol, Winchester 1200 pump-action 12-gauge shotgun, and an Israeli Military Industries 9mm Carbine (Uzi) – all legally acquired. He killed 21 and injured 19 before he was shot dead by police.

On Aug. 10, 1999 White supremacist Buford O. Furrow, Jr., fired 70 rounds with an Uzi-type submachine-gun inside the lobby of the Jewish Community Center in Granada Hills, CA wounding three children, a teenage counselor and an office worker. He then carjacked a woman’s Toyota at gunpoint, dumped it behind a motel and murdered US Postal Worker Joseph Santos with a Glock 9mm handgun.

On July 27, 2008 Former U.S. Army private, Jim David Atkinsson, who hated Democrats, liberals, African Americans and homosexuals, using a Remington Model 48 12-gauge shotgun, murdered two people and injured seven others inside the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, TN.

The day after Obama’s inauguration, white supremacist Keith Luke went on a killing spree in Brockton, Massachusetts. His goal was to kill as many Jews, blacks and Hispanics as possible. When questioned by investigators, the deranged gunman who had stockpiled hundreds of rounds of ammunition, proclaimed that he was fighting the extinction of the white race.

A little over a month later, Dannie Baker, a former Republican campaign volunteer shot five Chilean immigrants in Florida. Those who knew him said he was obsessed with the fear that illegal immigrants were taking over the country.

In April of 2009, Richard Popalowski, a white supremacist in Pittsburgh, shot and killed three police officers following a domestic disturbance call. He apparently thought that Obama was part of a government conspiracy to seize all guns, and he feared the government would take his guns away.

Later the same month, a Fort Walton Beach Florida man who thought the Obama administration was conspiring against him, shot and murdered two sheriff’s deputies.

On May 31, 2009 Dr. George Tiller was murdered in his own church by a right-wing “pro- life” gun man who decided to express his belief in the sanctity of human life by executing a medical doctor.

Eleven days later a right-wing white supremacist and Holocaust denier walked into the National Holocaust Museum and killed an African-American security guard. Two weeks later, three Neo-Nazis were arrested for bombing a diversity office in Scottsdale, Arizona.

On April 20, 2010 a member of the Sovereign Citizen movement was arrested after a failed attempt to take over a Tennessee county courthouse.

Exactly one month later, in West Memphis Arkansas, Sovereign citizens Jerry and Joe Kane murdered two police officers before they themselves were shot and killed in the ensuing shoot out with police.

On July 18, 2010 Byron Williams, an angry unemployed man, was arrested by police after they discovered a car full of weapons and ammunition that he had planned to use to kill progressives. He was on his way to the non-profit Tides Foundation Center, a favorite target of vitriol from Glenn Beck’s radio show.

On Jan. 8, 2011 22-year old Jared Lee Loughner killed six people, including a judge and a nine-year old child, and wounded 13 others, including U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), using a 9mm Glock 19 pistol during a public meeting in a supermarket parking lot near Tuscon, AZ.

On Aug. 5, 2012 Wade Michael Page, a 40-year old white supremacist and U.S. Army veteran murdered six people and wounded four others inside a Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, WI with a Springfield XD(M) semi-automatic pistol.

You are linking a blog from the examiner?

You two both are idiots

ummmm, the Republican accusations came from a circulating email, and a right wing radio host, with absolutely NO SUPPORT in their accusations shown....me thinks the examiner and snopes and factcheck.org did their research and is a much more reputable source than a viral email and shock jock.

No sweetheart start at the top of the list..

Booth with out question was a democrat that killed Lincoln and work your way down...

 

[Vandalshandle]

then there is this from the same linked article

The idea that recent mass shooters are mostly registered Democrats is a myth

Interestingly, Hedgecock and those on the far right have conveniently overlooked a number of cases where ideology is clearly right-wing. The acts below are instances of right-wing violence that are unequivocally committed by people who are openly hostile to liberalism. While this does not mean these killers are Republicans, it is quite clear that they are RIGHT-WINGERS and that they have far more in common with Mr. Hedgecock, Alex Jones and the other gun-toting conspiracy nuts on the right than with any evils associated with the Democratic Party or liberalism. In addition, to the list below is the obvious case of Timothy McVeigh, who I have not included because his crime was not committed with firearms. It was however, committed by a right-winger and the carnage was on a massive scale.

For example, on July 18, 1984 James Oliver Huberty, who told his wife he hated “children, Mexicans and the United States” opened fire inside the McDonald’s Restaurant in San Ysidro, CA using a Browning P-35 Hi-Power 9mm pistol, Winchester 1200 pump-action 12-gauge shotgun, and an Israeli Military Industries 9mm Carbine (Uzi) – all legally acquired. He killed 21 and injured 19 before he was shot dead by police.

On Aug. 10, 1999 White supremacist Buford O. Furrow, Jr., fired 70 rounds with an Uzi-type submachine-gun inside the lobby of the Jewish Community Center in Granada Hills, CA wounding three children, a teenage counselor and an office worker. He then carjacked a woman’s Toyota at gunpoint, dumped it behind a motel and murdered US Postal Worker Joseph Santos with a Glock 9mm handgun.

On July 27, 2008 Former U.S. Army private, Jim David Atkinsson, who hated Democrats, liberals, African Americans and homosexuals, using a Remington Model 48 12-gauge shotgun, murdered two people and injured seven others inside the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, TN.

The day after Obama’s inauguration, white supremacist Keith Luke went on a killing spree in Brockton, Massachusetts. His goal was to kill as many Jews, blacks and Hispanics as possible. When questioned by investigators, the deranged gunman who had stockpiled hundreds of rounds of ammunition, proclaimed that he was fighting the extinction of the white race.

A little over a month later, Dannie Baker, a former Republican campaign volunteer shot five Chilean immigrants in Florida. Those who knew him said he was obsessed with the fear that illegal immigrants were taking over the country.

In April of 2009, Richard Popalowski, a white supremacist in Pittsburgh, shot and killed three police officers following a domestic disturbance call. He apparently thought that Obama was part of a government conspiracy to seize all guns, and he feared the government would take his guns away.

Later the same month, a Fort Walton Beach Florida man who thought the Obama administration was conspiring against him, shot and murdered two sheriff’s deputies.

On May 31, 2009 Dr. George Tiller was murdered in his own church by a right-wing “pro- life” gun man who decided to express his belief in the sanctity of human life by executing a medical doctor.

Eleven days later a right-wing white supremacist and Holocaust denier walked into the National Holocaust Museum and killed an African-American security guard. Two weeks later, three Neo-Nazis were arrested for bombing a diversity office in Scottsdale, Arizona.

On April 20, 2010 a member of the Sovereign Citizen movement was arrested after a failed attempt to take over a Tennessee county courthouse.

Exactly one month later, in West Memphis Arkansas, Sovereign citizens Jerry and Joe Kane murdered two police officers before they themselves were shot and killed in the ensuing shoot out with police.

On July 18, 2010 Byron Williams, an angry unemployed man, was arrested by police after they discovered a car full of weapons and ammunition that he had planned to use to kill progressives. He was on his way to the non-profit Tides Foundation Center, a favorite target of vitriol from Glenn Beck’s radio show.

On Jan. 8, 2011 22-year old Jared Lee Loughner killed six people, including a judge and a nine-year old child, and wounded 13 others, including U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), using a 9mm Glock 19 pistol during a public meeting in a supermarket parking lot near Tuscon, AZ.

On Aug. 5, 2012 Wade Michael Page, a 40-year old white supremacist and U.S. Army veteran murdered six people and wounded four others inside a Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, WI with a Springfield XD(M) semi-automatic pistol.

You are linking a blog from the examiner?

You two both are idiots

ummmm, the Republican accusations came from a circulating email, and a right wing radio host, with absolutely NO SUPPORT in their accusations shown....me thinks the examiner and snopes and factcheck.org did their research and is a much more reputable source than a viral email and shock jock.

No sweetheart start at the top of the list..

Booth with out question was a democrat that killed Lincoln and work your way down...

Damn! And all these years, I thought that Booth's primary motivation was that he was a Confederate sympathizer!

 

[AvgGuyIA]

And so will the Oath Keepers...ya know those folks that actually SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION.

What the **** part of the US Constitution says that The Peoples bureaucracy can define marriage based on a religious dogma?

The Republicans prosecuted a civil war to establish the duty of the federal government to protect the rights of the individual described in The Constitution over those of the state. The Constitution requires that the government either extend marriage benefits to ALL two-person partnerships with proper documentation, or to none of them. Anything else is the definition of discrimination.

Did you know that under certain circumstances you can get a higher Social Security benefit in retirement because you were married?

The question has never been about redefining marriage or religion, the problem has been the bureaucracy discriminating against some tax-payers at the profit of others.

`​

They are defending her first amendment rights and the right not to be tossed in jail because some butt ****** approving judge thinks he has the right to persecute her for her beliefs.

She has no first amendment rights when it comes to doing her government job. She can do the work as described in the law that she swore to uphold or she can move it on down the road in favor of someone more competent and/or willing.

Those are the choices.

And I for one am one offended citizen at the way she is using her government position of power to grand-stand her faith.

This is total bullshit and a waste of The People's time and resources.

You are mistaken. The government must accommodate religious principles held by employees of which Kim Davis is one. You can't force her to quit her job to accommodate your unconstitutional decision that no legislature has approved for law. Homo marriage was never a right otherwise 18th Century faggots in America would have been getting married since 1789.

 

[Stephanie]

snip:
→
US Supreme Court US courts fail in their duty, Same sex couple ruling exceeds bounds of federal government, Marriage is a contract between 2 people and the state defined by the states, Chief Justice John Roberts finally makes legal sense, No basis in the Constitution
Posted on June 26, 2015 | 38 Comments


US Supreme Court US courts fail in their duty, Same sex couple ruling exceeds bounds of federal government, Marriage is a contract between 2 people and the state defined by the states, Chief Justice John Roberts finally makes legal sense, No basis in the Constitution

“The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be pruledassed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction, between a government with limited and unlimited powers, is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.”
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.

So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.”
“The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises? This is too extravagant to be maintained.”
“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?”…Marbury V Madison

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln





Chief Justice John Roberts of the US Supreme Court and courts in general have failed to do their duty.

Roberts has acted irrationally in his opinions regarding Obamacare.

Our courts have failed to do their duty in regard to clarifying what natural born citizen means and the eligibility of Barack Obama to occupy the White House.

I was however pleased to see Justice Roberts step up to the plate with his dissent on the same sex marriage ruling.

When I heard the SCOTUS opinion I thought to myself how absurd.

A marriage contract is between 2 people and the state they get married in and the federal government has no damn business meddling in this.

“CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA and JUSTICE THOMAS join, dissenting. Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the

past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex. But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered). Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition. Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today.

Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.

The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia

from:US Supreme Court US courts fail in their duty, Same sex couple ruling exceeds bounds of federal government, Marriage is a contract between 2 people and the state defined by the states, Chief Justice John Roberts finally makes legal sense, No basis in the Constitution

some victory that is clouded over by this court being our rulers instead of we the people. all I see is more division for the happiness of a few.

 

[playtime]

snip:
→
US Supreme Court US courts fail in their duty, Same sex couple ruling exceeds bounds of federal government, Marriage is a contract between 2 people and the state defined by the states, Chief Justice John Roberts finally makes legal sense, No basis in the Constitution
Posted on June 26, 2015 | 38 Comments


US Supreme Court US courts fail in their duty, Same sex couple ruling exceeds bounds of federal government, Marriage is a contract between 2 people and the state defined by the states, Chief Justice John Roberts finally makes legal sense, No basis in the Constitution

“The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be pruledassed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction, between a government with limited and unlimited powers, is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.”
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.

So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.”
“The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises? This is too extravagant to be maintained.”
“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?”…Marbury V Madison

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln





Chief Justice John Roberts of the US Supreme Court and courts in general have failed to do their duty.

Roberts has acted irrationally in his opinions regarding Obamacare.

Our courts have failed to do their duty in regard to clarifying what natural born citizen means and the eligibility of Barack Obama to occupy the White House.

I was however pleased to see Justice Roberts step up to the plate with his dissent on the same sex marriage ruling.

When I heard the SCOTUS opinion I thought to myself how absurd.

A marriage contract is between 2 people and the state they get married in and the federal government has no damn business meddling in this.

“CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA and JUSTICE THOMAS join, dissenting. Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the

past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex. But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered). Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition. Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today.

Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.

The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia

from:US Supreme Court US courts fail in their duty, Same sex couple ruling exceeds bounds of federal government, Marriage is a contract between 2 people and the state defined by the states, Chief Justice John Roberts finally makes legal sense, No basis in the Constitution

some victory that is clouded over by this court being our rulers instead of we the people. all I see is more division for the happiness of a few.

Being that there are 9 Justices, there are 9 opinions on all matters brought forth before the Court. The decision came down 5-4 in favor of giving equal protection to the homogays in the event of marriage being legal in all 50 states.

It's pretty f'd up that Roberts voted that living, breathing, flesh & blood humans be denied their civil rights & attain equal protection under law, but voted for corporation personhood in the Citizen's United case.

 

[Carla_Danger]

And so will the Oath Keepers...ya know those folks that actually SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION.

What the **** part of the US Constitution says that The Peoples bureaucracy can define marriage based on a religious dogma?

The Republicans prosecuted a civil war to establish the duty of the federal government to protect the rights of the individual described in The Constitution over those of the state. The Constitution requires that the government either extend marriage benefits to ALL two-person partnerships with proper documentation, or to none of them. Anything else is the definition of discrimination.

Did you know that under certain circumstances you can get a higher Social Security benefit in retirement because you were married?

The question has never been about redefining marriage or religion, the problem has been the bureaucracy discriminating against some tax-payers at the profit of others.

`​

They are defending her first amendment rights and the right not to be tossed in jail because some butt ****** approving judge thinks he has the right to persecute her for her beliefs.

She has no first amendment rights when it comes to doing her government job. She can do the work as described in the law that she swore to uphold or she can move it on down the road in favor of someone more competent and/or willing.

Those are the choices.

And I for one am one offended citizen at the way she is using her government position of power to grand-stand her faith.

This is total bullshit and a waste of The People's time and resources.

so in other words when a person goes to work for the Guberment they give up all their rights and become YOUR all's slaves. just wow. How did we get back to slavery?

No, she has the right to resign from her job.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

SCOTUS opinions are legal.

Someone can deny it, but that is the same as saying the sun does not rise in the east.

The Sun does not rise in the East.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Really Mac? This is a persons life you are playing with. I had you being more sensitive to other people struggles.

I'm just looking at the facts and wondering.

She has already declared that she's going to continue down this road; I'd be very surprised if there were not at least one gay couple waiting for the doors to open so that they can apply; no doubt the press will be there, and no doubt the judge will have to back up what he said as well.
.

I know. I just had to give you hard time. You are one of the more sensitive and level headed posters in my book. I just hate that this is happening like this. and I blame the Supremes for bringing all this confusion on us and bringing all this hate on us too

The hatred is coming from the Leftist here. Ask any of them if they love this Christian woman.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Really Mac? This is a persons life you are playing with. I had you being more sensitive to other people struggles.

I'm just looking at the facts and wondering.

She has already declared that she's going to continue down this road; I'd be very surprised if there were not at least one gay couple waiting for the doors to open so that they can apply; no doubt the press will be there, and no doubt the judge will have to back up what he said as well.
.

I know. I just had to give you hard time. You are one of the more sensitive and level headed posters in my book. I just hate that this is happening like this. and I blame the Supremes for bringing all this confusion on us and bringing all this hate on us too

The hatred is coming from the Leftist here. Ask any of them if they love this Christian woman.

1. Not woman, ****.
2, Not Christian, Jesus would hate her hypocritical fat ass.

 

[koshergrl]

What if all the Christian soldiers in America decided that killing people and blowing up their stuff ran counter to what their faith teaches?

If you can't or won't do the job you were hired to do, quit so that someone more competent and/or willing can be employed.

Christian soldiers are blowing up people's stuff in America? Wow you actually are getting more wacky. I didn't think it possible.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Nothing objective about certain far right reactionaries who are on ignore.

Run, hide and close your ears.

 

[Stephanie]

Really Mac? This is a persons life you are playing with. I had you being more sensitive to other people struggles.

I'm just looking at the facts and wondering.

She has already declared that she's going to continue down this road; I'd be very surprised if there were not at least one gay couple waiting for the doors to open so that they can apply; no doubt the press will be there, and no doubt the judge will have to back up what he said as well.
.

I know. I just had to give you hard time. You are one of the more sensitive and level headed posters in my book. I just hate that this is happening like this. and I blame the Supremes for bringing all this confusion on us and bringing all this hate on us too

The hatred is coming from the Leftist here. Ask any of them if they love this Christian woman.

of course they don't. and they can't stand anyone who disagrees with them on this RULING over us by this supreme court. so they better not ***** when something they want or think should be their right is SLAPPED down by some black robed judge. As they made them the Judge and jury. so they will need to go ask their new masters

 

[JakeStarkey]

Really Mac? This is a persons life you are playing with. I had you being more sensitive to other people struggles.

I'm just looking at the facts and wondering.

She has already declared that she's going to continue down this road; I'd be very surprised if there were not at least one gay couple waiting for the doors to open so that they can apply; no doubt the press will be there, and no doubt the judge will have to back up what he said as well.
.

And so will the Oath Keepers...ya know those folks that actually SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION.

Davis and The Liberty Counsel have declined Oath Keepers offer of protection. They do not want to share the spotlight with another group of self-serving attention whores. They want it all to themselves.

Doesn't mean they won't be there. No need for a spotlight had the faggots and the thug in the robe not violated the constitutional rights of this woman then tried making her out to be the bad person by throwing her in jail

Feigned religious persecution ... no one believes it no matter how many times you repeat it ... you don't even believe it yourself

Wrong. Millions of the social cons absolutely believe it. They love donning the martyr mantle:"we'll be called to die for our faith!" Morons.
Cue the lions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It doesn't matter what her religious convictions are - that is completely her choice.

We, The People, are allowed certain expectations of the people We hire to enforce laws and manage the bureaucracy.

Would We hire a soldier who had issues with killing and employ her on the front line?

If a law changes and suddenly you have issues with what your government job is, you either suck it up and do your job anyway, ask for reassignment to a more palatable position, or quit.

We, The People do not have time for your bullshit.

We will install our judges and overturn this travesty against the will of We The People. Then YOU can suck it up.

No, you won't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"The government must accommodate religious principles held by employees of which Kim Davis is one."

She had the power to do that from day one and failed to have her deputies issue those certificates.

We don't live in 1789, and that is unimportant. We live in 2015, and that is important.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nothing objective about certain far right reactionaries who are on ignore.

Run, hide and close your ears.

You are not on ignore. You are too funny for me to ignore you.