Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 99

Thread: Ted Cruz: Once Obama resigns, we can talk about clerk Kim Davis.

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Do you really believe that? Or are you just saying that to show how absurd it is?
    If Kim Davis is in jail, then let's just apply that standard all the way around. The President, Hillary, Lois Lerner, the mayor of San Francisco, the governor of Colorado, and all the rest--they go to jail.

    The point I'm making is that if a woman who is the Clerk of Courts is in jail because she stopped handing out marriage licenses (supposedly in violation of federal law), then all of the above need to go to jail, too.

    Kim Davis has not committed a crime. She turned one couple away and stopped the process for anyone else moving forward. That is an equal standard, and does not discriminate against anyone. She never told the people they couldn't get married. She told them she would not allow a license to be issued with her name on it, as the Clerk of Courts in Rowan County. She is fully authorized to do that. It is an equal standard for all. I can't believe that people here think she is doing something wrong. There were people who gave licenses and performed ceremonies to same sex couples in violation of state and federal law. Why aren't they in jail.

    It seems some people who call themselves libertarians are really LINOs, because they are only for liberty when it favors one point of view.
    #NashvilleStrong

    “I’m a doctor. That’s a baby.”~~~Dr. Manny Sethi



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    The ...... vote.
    You just keep going around in circles don't you? Let's look at what you said:

    The 14th Amendment applies to gay marriage.

    No it doesn't, and if you're going to use that excuse then I want my own Nation with govt funding, food stamps, section 8 housing, Medicaid, Medicare, SS, preferences in college admissions, preferences in hiring, federal funding for any club I may choose to start, and the list goes on, because people are out there getting those things and I am not, and must I remind you AGAIN, single people do not get any marriage benefits so stop this nonsense that it is not being denied to people because it is being denied to millions of people.

    I think polygamists should be able to get married. I don't think you can exclude them. Pedophiles should not be able to because there is issue with minors and their ability to give consent. For the same reason you can't marry animals. Animals can't give consent.

    Yeah, exactly - you think - so "religious people", who by the way, are not the only one's who oppose GM despite the rhetoric you hear, are not allowed to "terrorize" the minority, but you are.

    I knew you would give that lazy answer on pedophiles, why don't you define for me what a pedophile is. Ages of consent vary around the world from 12-22, so who has it right? Who determines this - you again, well of course, because even tho those religious people can't push their standards of right and wrong, you can, and if someone thinks your age it too high or too low, tough, because, well, you're the judge of morality.

    Animals can consent, we've all had pets, I'm pretty sure we all knew things they liked and did not. If you're going to say something like that then when did animals consent to being pets in the first place? Being put in kennels, tied up in the yard, hunted, killed, eaten?

    What about incest? What about me marrying myself, no seriously, who says I must have a partner to be fulfilled in life? Maybe I am perfectly content with myself in every way and I want these benefits - who are you to judge what love has to mean to me?

    Just because a majority wants to extend rights to some groups and not others doesn't mean they should be able to.

    Unless of course they do it the way that you agree with.

    Basic rights are not subject to vote.

    Once again marriage benefits given by the state at the expense of those who are not married is not a basic right, I have a basic right to not be treated differently just because I didn't get some silly license, but again, as long as the gays are happy that's all that matters, who cares about all the millions of single people in America right?



    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    I am certainly not hypocritical on denying rights to people based on sexual orientation. As long as you do not harm others, then your lifestyle should not be discriminated against. Pedophilia or beastiality are doing harm to minors. The problem with incest is the whole having retarded kids things, which means it probably should be illegal.

    I am totally okay with polygamous marriage.
    Oh boy, just noticed this, what a bunch of nonsense. How does necrophilia harm others? How does beastiality harm others? I can't even believe what you said on incest.

    -Do you even know how many genetic diseases there are? Do we forbid those people from marrying?

    -What if they are sterile either by birth, or age, or surgery?

    -What if it is an all men marriage or all women?

    -Finally, if your true reason for being against incest is defects (which is bull$#@!), you are aware you can reproduce just fine without a marriage license right?
    Last edited by HankRicther12; 09-04-2015 at 05:40 PM.

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by tobismom View Post
    The point I'm making is that if a woman who is the Clerk of Courts is in jail because she stopped handing out marriage licenses (supposedly in violation of federal law), then all of the above need to go to jail, too.
    Davis is in jail for contempt of court -- i.e., refusing to obey a judge's order that was affirmed on appeal. None of the other examples you cited involved similar circumstances.

    She told them she would not allow a license to be issued with her name on it, as the Clerk of Courts in Rowan County. She is fully authorized to do that.
    No, she has no authority to refuse to do her duty. Kentucky law says a marriage license shall be issued by the clerk, and it doesn't give her discretion to refuse to do so if the applicants otherwise qualify. In fact, when she took the oath of office, she swore that she would "faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God.”

    She has an honorable way to avoid breaking her oath of office and maintaining her religious beliefs: resignation.

  5. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Allowing gays to marry doesn't affect the right of those opposed it it to practice their religious faith -- that is, unless you believe the practice of your religion includes the right to have the government incorporate your personal theology into law and apply it to others who don't share your faith.

    While gay marriage may hurt someone's religious sensibilities, there is no right to not be offended.
    What does that have to do with anything? Who was talking about about being "offended", I don't recall anyone listing that as a basis for anything, certainly not me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Davis is in jail for contempt of court -- i.e., refusing to obey a judge's order that was affirmed on appeal. None of the other examples you cited involved similar circumstances.

    No, she has no authority to refuse to do her duty. Kentucky law says a marriage license shall be issued by the clerk, and it doesn't give her discretion to refuse to do so if the applicants otherwise qualify. In fact, when she took the oath of office, she swore that she would "faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God.”

    She has an honorable way to avoid breaking her oath of office and maintaining her religious beliefs: resignation.
    Everyone always has a right to refuse an unlawful order. Did people who refused the draft have that right based on being a con objector? How about people who refused to enforce slave laws? We are all supposed to just follow the law no matter what? She did not take an oath to issue GM licenses, when she took the job that was not part of it, suddenly 5 judges change a definition that has existed for countless years and she is in the wrong?

    BTW, I might be wrong, but I do believe Kentucky law does not recognize GM.

    Resignation - so basically in a country founded by Christians, a country which has in it's very first amendment the right to religious belief which cannot be infringed by the govt, Christians just need not apply anymore for govt jobs because suddenly after over 200 centuries 5 clowns turn the country on it's head?
    Last edited by HankRicther12; 09-04-2015 at 05:42 PM.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by HankRicther12 View Post
    You just keep going around in circles don't you? Let's look at what you said:
    No. My answer was quite good and logical. I am a libertarian. You didn't refute anything I said. I am not going to get you up to speed on what a libertarian is.

    BTW, animals cannot consent. They are property. They have no rights. You can't enter into a contact with a dog. It would not know what it is signing. It is a dog. Dogs do not have the ability to reason.

  8. #66
    If Obama were to resign, and not complete his full term... couldn't he run again for another full four year term? I read years ago, if a President were to be impeached that he or she could run again since not completing second term.

  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    No one is stopping you from drawing one up, either. Go for it.
    Until one of the couples tries to bring that marriage contract not issued by the govt to a hospital where the other is in some sort of coma and tried to make decisions for the other half or inquire about his/her health.

    That's when they will realize that not all marriage contracts are not the same.

  10. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    You can't exclude a group based on sexual orientation.
    There never has been an exclusion of anyone based on sexual orientation. There has only been exclusion of unmarried people on the basis of not being married. And there still is.

  11. #69
    Chester Copperpot
    Member

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Supreme court overrules them. Can they refuse marriage licenses to black couples if they don't want to?
    lower courts havent been in compliance with SCOTUS over the income tax for probably 100 years... so id like to see that corrected before i worry about new $#@!

  12. #70
    Chester Copperpot
    Member

    Quote Originally Posted by Dianne View Post
    If Obama were to resign, and not complete his full term... couldn't he run again for another full four year term? I read years ago, if a President were to be impeached that he or she could run again since not completing second term.
    presidents are allowed to serve for 10 years

  13. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    In fact, when she took the oath of office, she swore that she would "faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God.”
    Then the President should be in jail. Most of Congress should be in jail. How is it fair to say one woman who stopped signing off on marriage licenses should be in jail when the president himself has blatantly said he will not enforce certain laws?

    This is how the federal government works. They suppress freedom in the tiniest hamlet and ignore a widespread defiance of the law right in the Oval Office.
    #NashvilleStrong

    “I’m a doctor. That’s a baby.”~~~Dr. Manny Sethi

  14. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    No. My answer was quite good and logical. I am a libertarian. You didn't refute anything I said. I am not going to get you up to speed on what a libertarian is.

    BTW, animals cannot consent. They are property. They have no rights. You can't enter into a contact with a dog. It would not know what it is signing. It is a dog. Dogs do not have the ability to reason.
    Actually, they are not logical. See logic is me pointing out your hypocrisy such as the fact that you are attacking others for trying to force their moral standards, yet you turn around and do that exact thing.

    You make a statement that people have a right to marriage benefits when they do not have a right to them anymore than they have a right to "free healthcare".

    You say you can't deny benefits to one group yet I and others have given you countless examples of that very thing which you keep ignoring.

    Animals are property? According to who? Oh, wait, I forgot who I'm talking to here, I must keep it in mind you are the ultimate judge on all moral matters in the world and your word is law. So I guess all those animal cruelty laws are wrong? People do leave possessions to pets in their wills, you do know that happens right? Which animals signed the contract to be hunted or eaten? I'd say a marriage ceremony would be quite preferable to those.

    Nice too how you dodge the question of age of consent laws and incest.

    You keep on saying things that completely contradict each other. You are not a libertarian and you obviously don't even know what it means, you are what many have started calling a "bandwagon libertarian".

    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    Until one of the couples tries to bring that marriage contract not issued by the govt to a hospital where the other is in some sort of coma and tried to make decisions for the other half or inquire about his/her health.

    That's when they will realize that not all marriage contracts are not the same.
    More lies from the pro-gay crowd, how people can't see what a false statement that is I'll never know. You can give anyone you like power of attorney, not everyone who goes into the hospital is married. Not to mention, where do you get the idea that a person always wants their spouse to be making their medical decisions? Maybe they are on the verge of divorce, maybe the healthy one is cheating and looking to run off with the new lover, some life insurance would be a sweet bonus.

    Quote Originally Posted by tobismom View Post
    Then the President should be in jail. Most of Congress should be in jail. How is it fair to say one woman who stopped signing off on marriage licenses should be in jail when the president himself has blatantly said he will not enforce certain laws?

    This is how the federal government works. They suppress freedom in the tiniest hamlet and ignore a widespread defiance of the law right in the Oval Office.
    You know, I wish all these people would just drop the charade and be honest, they are just biased in favor of homosexuals and against Christians, they try to mask it as some freedom issue and all that, but nowhere else do you see them saying we need to give more people govt benefits or expand govt power, despite all their claims of being "libertarian" they are no different than anyone else, govt's fine when it's agreeing with them.
    Last edited by HankRicther12; 09-05-2015 at 07:38 AM.



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Dianne View Post
    If Obama were to resign, and not complete his full term... couldn't he run again for another full four year term? I read years ago, if a President were to be impeached that he or she could run again since not completing second term.
    no-anything over two years counts as a full term. under two years does not count at all.

  17. #74
    SCOTUS ruled just over a month ago and now we have a woman in jail.

    Kim Davis cannot be removed from office by the federal government. Even though she is in jail, she is still Clerk of Courts. Her order to suspend marriage licenses is still in effect. If I was engaged and due to be married right away, I would go to the next county, be licensed and married in a civil ceremony, then return home for the party wedding. I would not be licensed in Rowan County right now.

    This is the problem with unelected people legislating federal law. If homosexuals wanted to do something about Davis, they could move to Rowan County, register to vote, and petition for a special election to recall her. It wouldn't take much to make that happen. She won the general election by less than 500 votes. They could register that many people at Morehead State University. They might be able to mobilize the evangelicals, but I doubt there are enough to overcome a serious political action. It would be much easier and fully legal to do that, but then there would be no media coverage. We have to have the drama.
    #NashvilleStrong

    “I’m a doctor. That’s a baby.”~~~Dr. Manny Sethi

  18. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    Until one of the couples tries to bring that marriage contract not issued by the govt to a hospital where the other is in some sort of coma and tried to make decisions for the other half or inquire about his/her health.
    You don't have to have a marriage contract to do that. A durable power of attorney covers that, I think, anyway.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  19. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by HankRicther12 View Post
    such as the fact that you are attacking others for trying to force their moral standards, yet you turn around and do that exact thing.

    Nice too how you dodge the question of age of consent laws and incest, it's OK, I know you you're trapped and you know it.

    You keep on saying things that completely contradict each other. You are not a libertarian and you obviously don't even know what it means, you are what many have started calling a "bandwagon libertarian".
    I never once attacked anyone personally. You, however, do seem perturbed about something.

    Obviously you are better read and have a better understanding of libertarianism than I do. I read your outstanding questions and realized I fell right into a trap that I couldn't get out of. I avoided your highly astute questions hoping you wouldn't notice. But you did notice and the questions were just too tough. You win.

  20. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    You don't have to have a marriage contract to do that. A durable power of attorney covers that, I think, anyway.
    I be damned, you and Hankricther12 are actually right. I actually looked into it and power of attorney and marriage license are about the same when it comes to providing bedside access and decision making for partners in the hospital. Yea, marriage comes with way more benefits, less hassle to get etc etc. But for the purpose I mentioned in my post, a medical power of attorney can stand in place of a marriage license.

    Now I know and won't be bringing up this example in the future

  21. #78
    And people who think it is too expensive to make a legal contract should realize the days of $5 marriage licenses went away with the dial phone. Marriage licenses are taxes, and they aren't cheap.

    Government is everywhere.
    #NashvilleStrong

    “I’m a doctor. That’s a baby.”~~~Dr. Manny Sethi

  22. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    I never once attacked anyone personally. You, however, do seem perturbed about something.

    Obviously you are better read and have a better understanding of libertarianism than I do. I read your outstanding questions and realized I fell right into a trap that I couldn't get out of. I avoided your highly astute questions hoping you wouldn't notice. But you did notice and the questions were just too tough. You win.
    I didn't say you attacked anyone personally, you actually did something much worse, you attacked "religious people" which comprise billions of human beings you don't even know. I am perturbed, absolutely, I am in America, the supposed "Land of the Free" and a woman has just been thrown in jail for refusing to issue a govt license that violates her religious beliefs.

    How anyone can claim to be a libertarian and not be more than perturbed by that is beyond me, how anyone can claim to be libertarian and not be perturbed that the govt has just been granted vast new powers and that now there will be even more people hooked on the govt goodies is beyond me.

    Sadly, too many are once again dwelling on the gay v Christian aspect and not seeing the bigger picture. Even if I were to humor the SCOTUS and say they made the right call, still, are you really saying jail is what you do to political dissenters?
    Last edited by HankRicther12; 09-05-2015 at 07:34 AM.

  23. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Chester Copperpot View Post
    lower courts havent been in compliance with SCOTUS over the income tax for probably 100 years
    Rubbish.



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Chester Copperpot View Post
    lower courts havent been in compliance with SCOTUS over the income tax for probably 100 years... so id like to see that corrected before i worry about new $#@!
    True
    Pfizer Macht Frei!

    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.


    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  26. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by HankRicther12 View Post
    Everyone always has a right to refuse an unlawful order.
    True, but the order was determined to be lawful.

    She did not take an oath to issue GM licenses, when she took the job that was not part of it, suddenly 5 judges change a definition that has existed for countless years and she is in the wrong?
    She is as wrong as a hypothetical school superintendent in 1955 who claims he can still run racially segregated schools, since he could when he took his oath.


    Resignation - so basically in a country founded by Christians, a country which has in it's very first amendment the right to religious belief which cannot be infringed by the govt, Christians just need not apply anymore for govt jobs because suddenly after over 200 centuries 5 clowns turn the country on it's head?
    Her right to religious belief hasn't been infringed. She can believe whatever she wants. But there have always been limits on what people can do in acting on their religious beliefs, and she has no right to act in such a way that it interferes with her job. Incidentally, her being Christian isn't the point -- had she been a Muslim, Jew, or something else and refused to issue the licenses on religious grounds, the result would have been the same.

    What if she were to refuse to issue a license to an interracial couple because she claims it's against her faith?
    What if she were to refuse to issue a license to a couple of different religions because she claims it's against her faith?
    What if she were to refuse to issue a license to an octogenarian couple because her faith tells her that marriage is only for those who can procreate?

  27. #83
    Go HankRichter! You are on fire. Keep it up.

  28. #84
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,125
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    I am in America, the supposed "Land of the Free" and a woman has just been thrown in jail for refusing to issue a govt license that violates her religious beliefs.



    (...i just wish these gd fool republican 'christians' would get half as worked up about the massive monetary fraud, murderous wars, etc. ad nauseam, facilitated by their stinking piece of crap politicians!!..

  29. #85
    kagan and ginsberg should have recused themselves from the vote on obergfell. They had participated in gay marriage ceremonies prior to the court hearing the case and gave speeches promoting it and thus were not unbiased. The decision should be overturned. How is the question. had they recused themselves the vote would have fallen 4-3 in favor of traditional marriage. the state law of kentucky still has on the books that marriage is between a man and a woman. davis is actually following the law. its the federal judiciary that isnt

    it seems the best way to overturn this is to seek reargument and on the case and ask for recusal for kagan and ginsburg for pre trial bias
    Last edited by goldwater's ghost; 09-06-2015 at 01:19 PM.

  30. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    True, but the order was determined to be lawful.
    By who? 5 judges? Since it was 5-4 is was really only decided by 1 person, so 1 person gets to make such a decision, trample religious rights and states rights? That's quite a stretch there. Many things were determined to be lawful, the draft, slave laws, etc, etc, do you denounce those who disobeyed them?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    She is as wrong as a hypothetical school superintendent in 1955 who claims he can still run racially segregated schools, since he could when he took his oath.
    What if? There is no Constitutional right to a public school anymore than there is to a marriage license or food stamps, so anytime anyone is refused a govt benefit they don't deserve I'm all for it, but further that is not a religious issue, and you are not talking about re-defining something that had been defined a certain way since it's inception. A more relevant example would be that the govt hires a Muslim to work in a school cafeteria and then years later a fed law is put down that every cafeteria worker must eat pork, she refuses, and you throw her in jail.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Her right to religious belief hasn't been infringed. She can believe whatever she wants. But there have always been limits on what people can do in acting on their religious beliefs, and she has no right to act in such a way that it interferes with her job.
    She was put in jail and you're going to tell me her right to religious belief wasn't infringed? So in your notion of freedom any political dissent is met with prison? I could see reassigning her, or the citizens having a recall election, but prison?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    her being Christian isn't the point --had she been a Muslim, Jew, or something else and refused to issue the licenses on religious grounds, the result would have been the same.
    Tell me your kidding? You honestly don't see this is all just about attacking Christians? Remember all that fuss about wedding cakes? Well, watch the video below, and I work in Dearborn, I drive down that road 5 days a week, I never saw 1 protest, 1 news van, the Gov never gave a speech, WalMart never threatened to move out of MI, you are either purposely lying or just not paying attention.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4

    How about public schools allowing Muslim prayer rooms and special recess:

    http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/.../25/id/634403/

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    What if she were to refuse to issue a license to an interracial couple because she claims it's against her faith?
    What if she were to refuse to issue a license to a couple of different religions because she claims it's against her faith?
    What if she were to refuse to issue a license to an octogenarian couple because her faith tells her that marriage is only for those who can procreate?
    Same as what I said when you asked about public schools.

    Basically, what I'm seeing you say here, is that Christians should not ever be allowed to apply for any govt job because after over 2 centuries in America their religion has suddenly become the enemy and because a few judges decided that after all of human history defining marriage as man/woman, we have to change it, and Christians must comply or face jail.

    Now, again, I don't think there should be state involvement in marriage, but even in very open societies like Rome, no one ever was complaining they couldn't have a gay marriage, they all understood that in the context of a state function marriage was about alliances, reproduction, family, and "keeping society strong", so even if someone was gay, they would still marry someone of the opposite sex, then go about their sexual exploits.

    This is just people trying to use an issue to once again attack their political opponents, notice how polygamists, incestuous couples, etc are still excluded, and I'll ask again, as a single person, where are my benefits? I'm to be discriminated against just because I didn't go through some ceremony? Why will no on answer that question?
    Last edited by HankRicther12; 09-06-2015 at 04:05 PM.

  31. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by H. E. Panqui View Post
    I am in America, the supposed "Land of the Free" and a woman has just been thrown in jail for refusing to issue a govt license that violates her religious beliefs.



    (...i just wish these gd fool republican 'christians' would get half as worked up about the massive monetary fraud, murderous wars, etc. ad nauseam, facilitated by their stinking piece of crap politicians!!..
    I see you're another one who buys into the media nonsense, I've said this plenty of times now, I am not Christian and most definitely not a Republican, and I am very upset about the wars, fraud, etc, doesn't mean I'm not just as upset about this, I think you and far too many others are blinding yourself to the bigger implications of all this likely because you have some affinity for gays and dislike of Christians - something likely also formed by the media.

    Quote Originally Posted by goldwater's ghost View Post
    kagan and ginsberg should have recused themselves from the vote on obergfell. They had participated in gay marriage ceremonies prior to the court hearing the case and gave speeches promoting it and thus were not unbiased. The decision should be overturned. How is the question. had they recused themselves the vote would have fallen 4-3 in favor of traditional marriage. the state law of kentucky still has on the books that marriage is between a man and a woman. davis is actually following the law. its the federal judiciary that isnt

    it seems the best way to overturn this is to seek reargument and on the case and ask for recusal for kagan and ginsburg for pre trial bias
    Agreed.

  32. #88
    Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing


    Posts
    1,125
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    hank richter becks and limbaughs: I think you and far too many others are blinding yourself to the bigger implications of all this likely because you have some affinity for gays and dislike of Christians - something likely also formed by the media.



    ...it is my understanding 'christ' was and true christians are pacifists...(hint: 'turn the other cheek')

    ...these f@cking, twisted 'christian' monsters you apparently defend have taken dozens of eyes for one eye...do the math!!

    ...apparently you have blind eyes when it comes to these murderous 'christians..'
    Last edited by H. E. Panqui; 09-07-2015 at 05:40 AM.



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by H. E. Panqui View Post
    hank richter becks and limbaughs: I think you and far too many others are blinding yourself to the bigger implications of all this likely because you have some affinity for gays and dislike of Christians - something likely also formed by the media.



    ...it is my understanding 'christ' was and true christians are pacifists...(hint: 'turn the other cheek')

    ...these f@cking, twisted 'christian' monsters you apparently defend have taken dozens of eyes for one eye...do the math!!

    ...apparently you have blind eyes when it comes to these murderous 'christians..'
    Well, first I'd say you are wrong that Christians are required to be pacifist, the Christian god fully supported many military actions so not sure what Bible you have read, but that aside, name me any group that doesn't have both good and bad people in it, you show your prejudice when you try to pin such things on all Christians in the world, the overwhelmingly majority of whom have never killed anyone and never will. For those few that have, I certainly do not defend them and I'd like for you to show me one shred of evidence that I ever did. Becks and Limbaughs? That really the best you got?

  35. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by HankRicther12 View Post
    By who? 5 judges? Since it was 5-4 is was really only decided by 1 person, so 1 person gets to make such a decision, trample religious rights and states rights?
    I'm not referring to the Obergefell decision, but to the decisions of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court that refused to stay Judge Bunning's order that she must issue licenses to all applicants. I erred in thinking that the 6th Circuit had affirmed the order on the merits -- that appeal is pending.

    So in your notion of freedom any political dissent is met with prison? I could see reassigning her, or the citizens having a recall election, but prison?
    The judge determined that fining her wouldn't be enough to persuade her to obey his order.

    Basically, what I'm seeing you say here, is that Christians should not ever be allowed to apply for any govt job because after over 2 centuries in America their religion has suddenly become the enemy and because a few judges decided that after all of human history defining marriage as man/woman, we have to change it, and Christians must comply or face jail.
    Bilge. The issue is whether a government employee can disobey a court order demanding that she so her job.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. VIDEO: Huckabee Campaign Physically Blocks Ted Cruz from Media at Kim Davis Rally
    By twomp in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-09-2015, 04:09 PM
  2. Replies: 91
    Last Post: 07-01-2013, 09:23 PM
  3. Congressman Geoff Davis resigns from Congress
    By DeMintConservative in forum Thomas Massie Forum
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 08-03-2012, 08:45 AM

Select a tag for more discussion on that topic

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •