Would you support a presidential candidate who held that biblical law superceded the Constitution?

[JakeStarkey]

Nothing in the constitution says anything about sodomy being a legally protected right, nor does it say anything that over rides thousands of years of traditional marriage.

The Bible is not the law guide.

 

[Skylar]

And it goes the heart of argument of the woman who wants to ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court because her 'religious beliefs' are more important and she only follows 'god's law'.

Yes its an uncomfortable question for those who claim to be Christian who seem more than anxious to challenge any other religion on the same subject.

Supreme Court is not suppose to make any laws either. But they have.

No, they've overturned unconstitutional laws. Which is what they're supposed to do.

 

[Skylar]

And I'll ask a question that I can't get an answer for in this thread:

Is the constitution 'man's law' and 'civil law'?

 

[peach174]

And it goes the heart of argument of the woman who wants to ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court because her 'religious beliefs' are more important and she only follows 'god's law'.

Yes its an uncomfortable question for those who claim to be Christian who seem more than anxious to challenge any other religion on the same subject.

Out of control judges can not make law, only legislators can legally create laws- actually legislate. Judges were never given the authority to create legislation- it is a false premise.

Overturning an uncontitutional law isn't 'making law'. Its ruling that a given law is incompatible with the US constitution. Which is exactly what the judiciary is supposed to do.

Nothing in the constitution says anything about sodomy being a legally protected right, nor does it say anything that over rides thousands of years of traditional marriage.

And where in the constitution does it say that all rights that a person possesses are enumerated in the constitution? No where. In fact the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts that entire idea.

Shall I quote it for you? Or will you choose to read it yourself?

You do not have the Right to deny another person their Rights. You do not have the Right to decide unto yourself, based on your version of your god what Rights another can and/or cannot have.

Amendment Nine.

United States Constitution.

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE."

Emphasis added.

"Deny or Disparage Others". Guess what, you cannot deny Rights to Gays/Lesbians solely because they are Gay/Lesbian.

And you can't deny the rights of the religious believes either, which is what is happening.
There needs to be a compromise where both have their rights and that is not happening right now.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And you can't deny the rights of the religious believes either, which is what is happening.
There needs to be a compromise where both have their rights and that is not happening right now.

You are being denied nothing: you don't have to marry those in your church you don't want to marry, you don't have to marry someone of your own sex, and you get to believe whatever you want.

 

[peach174]

And it goes the heart of argument of the woman who wants to ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court because her 'religious beliefs' are more important and she only follows 'god's law'.

Yes its an uncomfortable question for those who claim to be Christian who seem more than anxious to challenge any other religion on the same subject.

Supreme Court is not suppose to make any laws either. But they have.

No, they've overturned unconstitutional laws. Which is what they're supposed to do.

Nope they rewrote the Health Care Act.
They should have ruled that the mandate was unconstitutional, send it back to congress to change it to a tax. Instead we had one Justice rewrite it as a tax.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And it goes the heart of argument of the woman who wants to ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court because her 'religious beliefs' are more important and she only follows 'god's law'.

Yes its an uncomfortable question for those who claim to be Christian who seem more than anxious to challenge any other religion on the same subject.

Supreme Court is not suppose to make any laws either. But they have.

No, they've overturned unconstitutional laws. Which is what they're supposed to do.

Nope they rewrote the Health Care Act.
They should have ruled that the mandate was unconstitutional, send it back to congress to change it to a tax. Instead we had one Justice rewrite it as a tax.

Nope, that is just a silly opinion.

 

[peach174]

And you can't deny the rights of the religious believes either, which is what is happening.
There needs to be a compromise where both have their rights and that is not happening right now.

You are being denied nothing: you don't have to marry those in your church you don't want to marry, you don't have to marry someone of your own sex, and you get to believe whatever you want.

Courts are ordering bakers to cater weddings.
Gay couples just have to seek out one of the many secular organizations willing to serve them. Instead they are forcing all to give them service.
A clerk must have her name on a marriage licsense against her beliefs.
That is a violation of their 1st amendment rights.

 

[Slyhunter]

And it goes the heart of argument of the woman who wants to ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court because her 'religious beliefs' are more important and she only follows 'god's law'.

Yes its an uncomfortable question for those who claim to be Christian who seem more than anxious to challenge any other religion on the same subject.

Out of control judges can not make law, only legislators can legally create laws- actually legislate. Judges were never given the authority to create legislation- it is a false premise.

Overturning an uncontitutional law isn't 'making law'. Its ruling that a given law is incompatible with the US constitution. Which is exactly what the judiciary is supposed to do.

Nothing in the constitution says anything about sodomy being a legally protected right, nor does it say anything that over rides thousands of years of traditional marriage.

And where in the constitution does it say that all rights that a person possesses are enumerated in the constitution? No where. In fact the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts that entire idea.

Shall I quote it for you? Or will you choose to read it yourself?

You do not have the Right to deny another person their Rights. You do not have the Right to decide unto yourself, based on your version of your god what Rights another can and/or cannot have.

Amendment Nine.

United States Constitution.

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE."

Emphasis added.

"Deny or Disparage Others". Guess what, you cannot deny Rights to Gays/Lesbians solely because they are Gay/Lesbian.

You mean like requiring a permit before you can rent yourself or your property out to someone who wants to use it, like Uber Rideshare?

www.uber.com use code 8CNLW to get $20 off your first ride.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And you can't deny the rights of the religious believes either, which is what is happening.
There needs to be a compromise where both have their rights and that is not happening right now.

You are being denied nothing: you don't have to marry those in your church you don't want to marry, you don't have to marry someone of your own sex, and you get to believe whatever you want.

Courts are ordering bakers to cater weddings.
Gay couples just have to seek out one of the many secular organizations willing to serve them. Instead they are forcing all to give them service.
A clerk must have her name on a marriage licsense against her beliefs.
That is a violation of their 1st amendment rights.

How? Public accomodation laws clearly state that when you conduct public business offering services openly you cannot deny those services to anyone who is qualified to accept them. The customer not the businessman makes that decision.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Out of control judges can not make law, only legislators can legally create laws- actually legislate. Judges were never given the authority to create legislation- it is a false premise.

Overturning an uncontitutional law isn't 'making law'. Its ruling that a given law is incompatible with the US constitution. Which is exactly what the judiciary is supposed to do.

Nothing in the constitution says anything about sodomy being a legally protected right, nor does it say anything that over rides thousands of years of traditional marriage.

And where in the constitution does it say that all rights that a person possesses are enumerated in the constitution? No where. In fact the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts that entire idea.

Shall I quote it for you? Or will you choose to read it yourself?

You do not have the Right to deny another person their Rights. You do not have the Right to decide unto yourself, based on your version of your god what Rights another can and/or cannot have.

Amendment Nine.

United States Constitution.

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE."

Emphasis added.

"Deny or Disparage Others". Guess what, you cannot deny Rights to Gays/Lesbians solely because they are Gay/Lesbian.

You mean like requiring a permit before you can rent yourself or your property out to someone who wants to use it, like Uber Rideshare?

False equivalency

 

[Slyhunter]

And I'll ask a question that I can't get an answer for in this thread:

Is the constitution 'man's law' and 'civil law'?

It's man's law but it's supposed to be Man's supreme law.

 

[Slyhunter]

And you can't deny the rights of the religious believes either, which is what is happening.
There needs to be a compromise where both have their rights and that is not happening right now.

You are being denied nothing: you don't have to marry those in your church you don't want to marry, you don't have to marry someone of your own sex, and you get to believe whatever you want.

Then why are you forcing a christian to permit your ass to do something they don't believe in?

 

[Slyhunter]

Overturning an uncontitutional law isn't 'making law'. Its ruling that a given law is incompatible with the US constitution. Which is exactly what the judiciary is supposed to do.

Nothing in the constitution says anything about sodomy being a legally protected right, nor does it say anything that over rides thousands of years of traditional marriage.

And where in the constitution does it say that all rights that a person possesses are enumerated in the constitution? No where. In fact the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts that entire idea.

Shall I quote it for you? Or will you choose to read it yourself?

You do not have the Right to deny another person their Rights. You do not have the Right to decide unto yourself, based on your version of your god what Rights another can and/or cannot have.

Amendment Nine.

United States Constitution.

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE."

Emphasis added.

"Deny or Disparage Others". Guess what, you cannot deny Rights to Gays/Lesbians solely because they are Gay/Lesbian.

You mean like requiring a permit before you can rent yourself or your property out to someone who wants to use it, like Uber Rideshare?

False equivalency

no it isn't. Denying me rights simply because you want to permit the activity I wish to do. ok, lets make permits for sex, if you don't have a permit your not allowed to have sex.

 

[peach174]

And it goes the heart of argument of the woman who wants to ignore the ruling of the Supreme Court because her 'religious beliefs' are more important and she only follows 'god's law'.

Yes its an uncomfortable question for those who claim to be Christian who seem more than anxious to challenge any other religion on the same subject.

Supreme Court is not suppose to make any laws either. But they have.

No, they've overturned unconstitutional laws. Which is what they're supposed to do.

Nope they rewrote the Health Care Act.
They should have ruled that the mandate was unconstitutional, send it back to congress to change it to a tax. Instead we had one Justice rewrite it as a tax.

Nope, that is just a silly opinion.

That is the Constitution.
The Role of the Supreme Court | Scholastic.com
It can tell Congress that a law it passed violated the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a law.
NOT make a new law.

Even the law forums say so, it is not a silly opinion.
Can The Supreme Court Make Laws? : Family Law
Congress is the only branch of the federal government allowed to make or "write laws". The Supreme Court is constitutionally empowered to interpret and determine the constitutionality of those laws.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And you can't deny the rights of the religious believes either, which is what is happening.
There needs to be a compromise where both have their rights and that is not happening right now.

You are being denied nothing: you don't have to marry those in your church you don't want to marry, you don't have to marry someone of your own sex, and you get to believe whatever you want.

Then why are you forcing a christian to permit your ass to do something they don't believe in?

Your belief does not prevent others from being married.

 

[Skylar]

And I'll ask a question that I can't get an answer for in this thread:

Is the constitution 'man's law' and 'civil law'?

It's man's law but it's supposed to be Man's supreme law.

So...among our religious folks, if God's law is supreme to man's law.....does that mean that God's law should supercede the Constitution?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nothing in the constitution says anything about sodomy being a legally protected right, nor does it say anything that over rides thousands of years of traditional marriage.

And where in the constitution does it say that all rights that a person possesses are enumerated in the constitution? No where. In fact the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts that entire idea.

Shall I quote it for you? Or will you choose to read it yourself?

You do not have the Right to deny another person their Rights. You do not have the Right to decide unto yourself, based on your version of your god what Rights another can and/or cannot have.

Amendment Nine.

United States Constitution.

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE."

Emphasis added.

"Deny or Disparage Others". Guess what, you cannot deny Rights to Gays/Lesbians solely because they are Gay/Lesbian.

You mean like requiring a permit before you can rent yourself or your property out to someone who wants to use it, like Uber Rideshare?

False equivalency

no it isn't. Denying me rights simply because you want to permit the activity I wish to do. ok, lets make permits for sex, if you don't have a permit your not allowed to have sex.

Look it up. False equivalency.

 

[Bonzi]

Re another thread here regarding a presidential candidate that held a particular religion superceded the Constitution. My own view is there is no religion that supercedes the Constitution.

Absolutely I would. God knows better than man

 

[JakeStarkey]

No such person should ever become president of the USA.