Ted Cruz backs county clerks denying marriage licenses to gay couples

7 black robed judges, 4 of which are hard left should not decide on gay marriage when the vast majority are against it.

First: There are nine (9) Supreme Court Justices.
Second: The vast majority are not against equal protection under the law for homosexual persons. The vast majority are not against homosexual persons having the same right that heterosexual persons have to marry the person of their choice.
The decision was 5-4. How is that a vast majority?
You are clearly a dunce.
I would not have said vast but the majority opinion, which doesn't matter a damn either way, is at 60% who approve of marriage equality. That's not why you lost in the courts but it's a nice thing.

The US lost. Not me, but, humans. We are losing each and every day as we think we know better than God.

You have no idea what "God" knows.

If there is a God, He would not approve of your animus against homosexual persons.

On your day of judgment, you will have to explain why you used God's name to justify your hatred of one of His creations.
 
I have news for you all...

Being gay is UNNATURAL, WRONG and DEVIANT!
No law will change that.

That's your hateful opinion. It does nothing but display your animus against homosexual persons, which is evidence of the need to protect the persons you hate from your harmful conduct.

Nope. I love all people.
I just hate to see them hurt themselves by giving in to their deviant lust.

You "love" people by branding them "deviant". We don't need "love" like yours in this world.
 
I have news for you all...

Being gay is UNNATURAL, WRONG and DEVIANT!
No law will change that.

That's your hateful opinion. It does nothing but display your animus against homosexual persons, which is evidence of the need to protect the persons you hate from your harmful conduct.

Nope. I love all people.
I just hate to see them hurt themselves by giving in to their deviant lust.

You "love" people by branding them "deviant". We don't need "love" like yours in this world.

We are all "deviant" in our own ways. Most people hide their deviancies.
 
What are you talking about. I simply said that gay people should form a religion and then kooks like you couldn't discriminate against them.

They could, but, ultimately, it would be a false religion.
It may hold weight in this world but this is Satan' world (for now) - I pray you will see truth one day.....
The arrogance it takes to tell everyone in the world whose faith is different than yours that their religion is false is astounding. Your omniscience is a product of a defective brain.

If TRUTH is arrogant, so be it.

That's the same thing that ISIS members say when they chop off the heads of people who don't believe and practice what they believe and practice.

Why are religious people so narrow-minded and violent? Check this out:

A large proportion of the early settlers of this country came here from Europe to escape the bondage of laws which compelled them to support and attend government-favored churches. The centuries immediately before and contemporaneous with the colonization of America had been filled with turmoil, civil strife and persecutions, generated in large part by established sects determined to maintain their absolute political and religious supremacy. With the power of government supporting them, at various times and places, Catholics had persecuted Protestants, Protestants had persecuted Catholics, Protestant sects had persecuted other Protestant sects, Catholics of one shade of belief had persecuted Catholics of another shade of belief, and all of these had from time to time persecuted Jews. In efforts to force loyalty to whatever religious group happened to be on top and in league with the government of a particular time and place, men and women had been fined, cast in jail, cruelly tortured, and killed. Among the offenses for which these punishments had been inflicted were such things as speaking disrespectfully of the views of ministers of government-established churches, non-attendance at those churches, expressions of nonbelief in their doctrines, and failure to pay taxes and tithes to support them.

These practices of the old world were transplanted to, and began to thrive in, the soil of the new America. The very charters granted by the English Crown to the individuals and companies designated to make the laws which would control the destinies of the colonials authorized these individuals and companies to erect religious establishments which all, whether believers or nonbelievers, would be required to support and attend. An exercise of this authority was accompanied by a repetition of many of the old-world practices and persecutions. Catholics found themselves hounded and proscribed because of their faith; Quakers who followed their conscience went to jail; Baptists were peculiarly obnoxious to certain dominant Protestant sects; men and women of varied faiths who happened to be in a minority in a particular locality were persecuted because they steadfastly persisted in worshipping God only as their own consciences dictated. And all of these dissenters were compelled to pay tithes and taxes to support government-sponsored churches whose ministers preached inflammatory sermons designed to strengthen and consolidate the established faith by generating a burning hatred against dissenters.

These practices became so commonplace as to shock the freedom-loving colonials into a feeling of abhorrence. . . .

Source: Everson v. Board of Education 330 U.S. 1 1947 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

Your "burning hatred" against people who don't believe the same as you is disappointing to people who understand the true meaning of "liberty". Rational people abhor the things you say "in God's name". If God truly exists, I don't think He approves of your "burning hatred".

Well I think people need to be told the truth. in love. not violence.

But it's not "truth". It's not "love". It's judgmental hate. You read a few pages in an old book (ignoring the pages that contradict your alleged "truth') and then you sit in judgment of your fellow man and declare him/her to be "deviant". No matter how deluded you are, you should stop your hate-mongering.
 
So when the laws change, and if clerks have a religious conflict,
can they be changed to other positions or allow other people or clerks to do that.

What if I am a clerk, someone speaks Bangladesh and I need someone else to handle that person.
What if someone just got robbed or assaulted, I happen to resemble the attacker,
and they don't want to look at me because I trigger PTSD and anxiety attacks.*

Can't someone else help or assist without it becoming a federal issue?

*I had one Vet tell me I freaked him out wearing black and giving him flashbacks of VietCong.
He was showing me and my bf an apartment, but had to stop because I made him so nervous.
If people have issues, I'd rather be honest, and not force them to do business if they have personal problems.
I had another job application get turned down because I was Asian and the Asian businessman wanted
an American secretary to help him with his English and was too embarrassed and uncomfortable with another Asian.

Why does this have to be a big deal? If people aren't comfortable, can't this be worked around?

If people are going to be this picky about marriage, why not separate it by party and reward
citizens for managing their own benefits under the terms of their choice. Like breaking up a trust
and allowing different companies to provide the same services. Can't the civil contracts be
administered through the state, as neutral business and legal agreements between two parties and not get into the personal details of their social relationship, and leave the other social and financial terms to the parties.

Either agree on terms, or create separate tracks.
Given the environment in Texas, I would think both parties would love to run their own machines
and decide their own policies by their own members democratically. They'd have full control that way.
Would love to see something like that work, and might solve other problems with
disagreement over prison and immigration, amnesty and restitution, education, lots of areas
might benefit by separating by party and rewarding citizens for investing in the programs they believe in.
Instead of having to fight other parties and waste billions of dollars that could be invested directly in solutions.

What is it you didn't understand when I said they could easily find another clerk, just as they could find another baker or photographer? That's not what they want, they want to force acceptance and destroy anyone who disagrees. Is the the America you want to live in?

Except the clerk in whatever the **** backwater we're talking about here...is refusing to allow her entire office to issue the licenses. It's not just her and her personal religious beliefs but she is imposing them on others.

Tell me...if a Muslim County Clerk refused to issue marriage licenses to "infidels", what do you think should happen to that individual?

:link:

To what? Click on the OP.

Nothing in the link says anything close to what you said, hence the request for another link.

What is it you don't think the OP said? That her office is refusing to issue licenses? That's what the whole thread is about!

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis said Monday that her Christian beliefs make it impossible for her to give marriage licenses to gay men or lesbians seeking to marry a member of the same sex. Rather than face claims of discrimination, Davis said, her office in Morehead is refusing marriage licenses to all couples until further notice.

Read more here: Lexington KY local and state news by the Lexington Herald-Leader Kentucky.com
 
So when the laws change, and if clerks have a religious conflict,
can they be changed to other positions or allow other people or clerks to do that.

What if I am a clerk, someone speaks Bangladesh and I need someone else to handle that person.
What if someone just got robbed or assaulted, I happen to resemble the attacker,
and they don't want to look at me because I trigger PTSD and anxiety attacks.*

Can't someone else help or assist without it becoming a federal issue?

*I had one Vet tell me I freaked him out wearing black and giving him flashbacks of VietCong.
He was showing me and my bf an apartment, but had to stop because I made him so nervous.
If people have issues, I'd rather be honest, and not force them to do business if they have personal problems.
I had another job application get turned down because I was Asian and the Asian businessman wanted
an American secretary to help him with his English and was too embarrassed and uncomfortable with another Asian.

Why does this have to be a big deal? If people aren't comfortable, can't this be worked around?

If people are going to be this picky about marriage, why not separate it by party and reward
citizens for managing their own benefits under the terms of their choice. Like breaking up a trust
and allowing different companies to provide the same services. Can't the civil contracts be
administered through the state, as neutral business and legal agreements between two parties and not get into the personal details of their social relationship, and leave the other social and financial terms to the parties.

Either agree on terms, or create separate tracks.
Given the environment in Texas, I would think both parties would love to run their own machines
and decide their own policies by their own members democratically. They'd have full control that way.
Would love to see something like that work, and might solve other problems with
disagreement over prison and immigration, amnesty and restitution, education, lots of areas
might benefit by separating by party and rewarding citizens for investing in the programs they believe in.
Instead of having to fight other parties and waste billions of dollars that could be invested directly in solutions.

What is it you didn't understand when I said they could easily find another clerk, just as they could find another baker or photographer? That's not what they want, they want to force acceptance and destroy anyone who disagrees. Is the the America you want to live in?

Except the clerk in whatever the **** backwater we're talking about here...is refusing to allow her entire office to issue the licenses. It's not just her and her personal religious beliefs but she is imposing them on others.

Tell me...if a Muslim County Clerk refused to issue marriage licenses to "infidels", what do you think should happen to that individual?
We're not talking about Muslims.
I guess the staff could quit if they really had a problem. BUt I'd bet they dont.
Good for the clerk. Resistence to state tyranny is the civil rights movement of the 21st century. I applaud the clerk.

No we aren't. If we were, you'd want them fired.
OK good then your point stands refuted.
What else you got?

You wouldn't want a Muslim public servant that refused to do their job fired? Really?
 
What is it you didn't understand when I said they could easily find another clerk, just as they could find another baker or photographer? That's not what they want, they want to force acceptance and destroy anyone who disagrees. Is the the America you want to live in?

Except the clerk in whatever the **** backwater we're talking about here...is refusing to allow her entire office to issue the licenses. It's not just her and her personal religious beliefs but she is imposing them on others.

Tell me...if a Muslim County Clerk refused to issue marriage licenses to "infidels", what do you think should happen to that individual?
We're not talking about Muslims.
I guess the staff could quit if they really had a problem. BUt I'd bet they dont.
Good for the clerk. Resistence to state tyranny is the civil rights movement of the 21st century. I applaud the clerk.

No we aren't. If we were, you'd want them fired.
OK good then your point stands refuted.
What else you got?

You wouldn't want a Muslim public servant that refused to do their job fired? Really?
You already agreed we arent discussing Muslims.
On point, refusing to bow to a tyrannical unjust regime is patriotism. The clerk deserves a medal.
 
Except the clerk in whatever the **** backwater we're talking about here...is refusing to allow her entire office to issue the licenses. It's not just her and her personal religious beliefs but she is imposing them on others.

Tell me...if a Muslim County Clerk refused to issue marriage licenses to "infidels", what do you think should happen to that individual?
We're not talking about Muslims.
I guess the staff could quit if they really had a problem. BUt I'd bet they dont.
Good for the clerk. Resistence to state tyranny is the civil rights movement of the 21st century. I applaud the clerk.

No we aren't. If we were, you'd want them fired.
OK good then your point stands refuted.
What else you got?

You wouldn't want a Muslim public servant that refused to do their job fired? Really?
You already agreed we arent discussing Muslims.
On point, refusing to bow to a tyrannical unjust regime is patriotism. The clerk deserves a medal.

So you would oppose a Muslim that refused to do their job, but support a Christian not doing theirs. I knew that. You're an anti gay bigot.
 
We're not talking about Muslims.
I guess the staff could quit if they really had a problem. BUt I'd bet they dont.
Good for the clerk. Resistence to state tyranny is the civil rights movement of the 21st century. I applaud the clerk.

No we aren't. If we were, you'd want them fired.
OK good then your point stands refuted.
What else you got?

You wouldn't want a Muslim public servant that refused to do their job fired? Really?
You already agreed we arent discussing Muslims.
On point, refusing to bow to a tyrannical unjust regime is patriotism. The clerk deserves a medal.

So you would oppose a Muslim that refused to do their job, but support a Christian not doing theirs. I knew that. You're an anti gay bigot.
We arent discusssing Muslims. WHy do you insist on bringing it up if we've already disposed of that issue?
I support people opposing unconstitiutional infrignements on their liberty, whatever they may be. You are a totalitarian statist. We get that.
 
I have news for you all...

Being gay is UNNATURAL, WRONG and DEVIANT!
No law will change that.

That's your hateful opinion. It does nothing but display your animus against homosexual persons, which is evidence of the need to protect the persons you hate from your harmful conduct.

Nope. I love all people.
I just hate to see them hurt themselves by giving in to their deviant lust.

How many of them have you watched give into their deviant lust?

I normally don't indulge in my deviant lusts in front of anyone other than my wife- what about you?
 
And if a clerk refused to issue building permits to a gun shop- because believed gun shops promote violence, and that is against her religious beliefs?
 
What is it you didn't understand when I said they could easily find another clerk, just as they could find another baker or photographer? That's not what they want, they want to force acceptance and destroy anyone who disagrees. Is the the America you want to live in?

Except the clerk in whatever the **** backwater we're talking about here...is refusing to allow her entire office to issue the licenses. It's not just her and her personal religious beliefs but she is imposing them on others.

Tell me...if a Muslim County Clerk refused to issue marriage licenses to "infidels", what do you think should happen to that individual?

:link:

To what? Click on the OP.

Nothing in the link says anything close to what you said, hence the request for another link.

What is it you don't think the OP said? That her office is refusing to issue licenses? That's what the whole thread is about!

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis said Monday that her Christian beliefs make it impossible for her to give marriage licenses to gay men or lesbians seeking to marry a member of the same sex. Rather than face claims of discrimination, Davis said, her office in Morehead is refusing marriage licenses to all couples until further notice.

Read more here: Lexington KY local and state news by the Lexington Herald-Leader Kentucky.com

So Cruz was talking about TX County Clerks and you're talking about KY County Clerks, the following is what the op said.

From the link in the op: (my bold) On Saturday, the 2016 Republican presidential candidate said he “absolutely” believes that his state’s country clerks should deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples if they have a religious objection, in an interview with The Texas Tribune.
 
No we aren't. If we were, you'd want them fired.
OK good then your point stands refuted.
What else you got?

You wouldn't want a Muslim public servant that refused to do their job fired? Really?
You already agreed we arent discussing Muslims.
On point, refusing to bow to a tyrannical unjust regime is patriotism. The clerk deserves a medal.

So you would oppose a Muslim that refused to do their job, but support a Christian not doing theirs. I knew that. You're an anti gay bigot.
We arent discusssing Muslims. WHy do you insist on bringing it up if we've already disposed of that issue?
I support people opposing unconstitiutional infrignements on their liberty, whatever they may be. You are a totalitarian statist. We get that.

Except that's not what she's doing. She's intentionally not doing the job she swore an oath to do. She should be fired...just like the Muslim that doesn't issue marriage licenses to infidels.
 
No we aren't. If we were, you'd want them fired.
OK good then your point stands refuted.
What else you got?

You wouldn't want a Muslim public servant that refused to do their job fired? Really?
You already agreed we arent discussing Muslims.
On point, refusing to bow to a tyrannical unjust regime is patriotism. The clerk deserves a medal.

So you would oppose a Muslim that refused to do their job, but support a Christian not doing theirs. I knew that. You're an anti gay bigot.
We arent discusssing Muslims. WHy do you insist on bringing it up if we've already disposed of that issue?
I support people opposing unconstitiutional infrignements on their liberty, whatever they may be. You are a totalitarian statist. We get that.
And you are a ******* idiot. These clerks do not have the right to refuse to do their jobs because of a personal religious belief. You refuse to respond to the questions about those of other faiths who hold such positions refusing to do their jobs based their faiths because you cannot logically explain your position. It is very simple; so simple you may even understand: A government official may not condition their provision of services they are required to provide in their position on the recipient of those services adhering to the religious belief of that official. A Court clerk can no more refuse to issue a marriage license because their faith tells them that persons marrying should not be permitted to do so any more than a court clerk can refuse to process a divorce because their faith teaches that divorce is wrong; or to refuse to process an adopt because the parents are not married or only one person is adopting and the clerk thinks a child should be raised by two parents. It is odd that you are the one who claims that this government official has the right to decide, for herself, who is allowed to marry. That is totalitarian. You want to give the government more power here.
 
Except the clerk in whatever the **** backwater we're talking about here...is refusing to allow her entire office to issue the licenses. It's not just her and her personal religious beliefs but she is imposing them on others.

Tell me...if a Muslim County Clerk refused to issue marriage licenses to "infidels", what do you think should happen to that individual?

:link:

To what? Click on the OP.

Nothing in the link says anything close to what you said, hence the request for another link.

What is it you don't think the OP said? That her office is refusing to issue licenses? That's what the whole thread is about!

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis said Monday that her Christian beliefs make it impossible for her to give marriage licenses to gay men or lesbians seeking to marry a member of the same sex. Rather than face claims of discrimination, Davis said, her office in Morehead is refusing marriage licenses to all couples until further notice.

Read more here: Lexington KY local and state news by the Lexington Herald-Leader Kentucky.com

So Cruz was talking about TX County Clerks and you're talking about KY County Clerks, the following is what the op said.

From the link in the op: (my bold) On Saturday, the 2016 Republican presidential candidate said he “absolutely” believes that his state’s country clerks should deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples if they have a religious objection, in an interview with The Texas Tribune.

He lost...TX clerks are doing their jobs despite what the lawless Cruz told them to do.

A few KY clerks are willfully disobeying the law.
 

Nothing in the link says anything close to what you said, hence the request for another link.

What is it you don't think the OP said? That her office is refusing to issue licenses? That's what the whole thread is about!

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis said Monday that her Christian beliefs make it impossible for her to give marriage licenses to gay men or lesbians seeking to marry a member of the same sex. Rather than face claims of discrimination, Davis said, her office in Morehead is refusing marriage licenses to all couples until further notice.

Read more here: Lexington KY local and state news by the Lexington Herald-Leader Kentucky.com

So Cruz was talking about TX County Clerks and you're talking about KY County Clerks, the following is what the op said.

From the link in the op: (my bold) On Saturday, the 2016 Republican presidential candidate said he “absolutely” believes that his state’s country clerks should deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples if they have a religious objection, in an interview with The Texas Tribune.

He lost...TX clerks are doing their jobs despite what the lawless Cruz told them to do.

A few KY clerks are willfully disobeying the law.

You support illegals, you support your dear leaders executive samnesty and have the gall to call Cruz, expressing an opinion, lawless. Isn't that just a tad bit hypocritical?
 
15th post
OK good then your point stands refuted.
What else you got?

You wouldn't want a Muslim public servant that refused to do their job fired? Really?
You already agreed we arent discussing Muslims.
On point, refusing to bow to a tyrannical unjust regime is patriotism. The clerk deserves a medal.

So you would oppose a Muslim that refused to do their job, but support a Christian not doing theirs. I knew that. You're an anti gay bigot.
We arent discusssing Muslims. WHy do you insist on bringing it up if we've already disposed of that issue?
I support people opposing unconstitiutional infrignements on their liberty, whatever they may be. You are a totalitarian statist. We get that.

Except that's not what she's doing. She's intentionally not doing the job she swore an oath to do. She should be fired...just like the Muslim that doesn't issue marriage licenses to infidels.
Wrong. She is issuing marriage licenses. To straight couples. Which is what she was hired to do.
 
And if a clerk refused to issue building permits to a gun shop- because believed gun shops promote violence, and that is against her religious beliefs?
That would also be wrong. Law > religious beliefs, especially if you are working in a government institution
 
You wouldn't want a Muslim public servant that refused to do their job fired? Really?
You already agreed we arent discussing Muslims.
On point, refusing to bow to a tyrannical unjust regime is patriotism. The clerk deserves a medal.

So you would oppose a Muslim that refused to do their job, but support a Christian not doing theirs. I knew that. You're an anti gay bigot.
We arent discusssing Muslims. WHy do you insist on bringing it up if we've already disposed of that issue?
I support people opposing unconstitiutional infrignements on their liberty, whatever they may be. You are a totalitarian statist. We get that.

Except that's not what she's doing. She's intentionally not doing the job she swore an oath to do. She should be fired...just like the Muslim that doesn't issue marriage licenses to infidels.
Wrong. She is issuing marriage licenses. To straight couples. Which is what she was hired to do.
No, she was hired to follow the laws and regulations of that government institution.
 
I have news for you all...

Being gay is UNNATURAL, WRONG and DEVIANT!
No law will change that.

That's your hateful opinion. It does nothing but display your animus against homosexual persons, which is evidence of the need to protect the persons you hate from your harmful conduct.

Nope. I love all people.
I just hate to see them hurt themselves by giving in to their deviant lust.

How many of them have you watched give into their deviant lust?

I normally don't indulge in my deviant lusts in front of anyone other than my wife- what about you?

All of them? You have no deviant lusts you keep to yourself?
 
Back
Top Bottom