Alabama Counties Stop Issuing Marriage Licenses

Go for it my little morons. No one fucking cares...


It's too bad PMH hasn't been issued a Government License to Poop. Being eternally constipated makes him So Ill-Tempered.
 
DUMBASS: Someone who confuses thoughts with physical acts of breaking the law.

In the entire history of humanity: NO LAW HAS EVER BEEN BROKEN BY A THOUGHT.

Who claimed otherwise?
You did... and ya did so through implication. It's right in the record above.

Let's review:

Not baking a cake, is by definition: INACTION; OKA: THE REFUSAL TO ACT.

You claimed that the principled stand, wherein an individual REFUSES TO TAKE ACTION, CONSTITUTES ACTION.

A law which requires one to ACT outside of what they know to be truthful, viable and sustainable actions, is INVALID LAW and does NOT OBLIGATE A VIABLE INDIVIDUAL and by extension is not relevant to, thus is counter productive to a viable culture.

Thus you are claiming that THOSE THOUGHTS ARE CRIMINAL... in that they provide for one to NOT TAKE ACTION, where the would-be law, requires they must.

There's nothing complex about any of this, yet there you are... completely incapable of discussing it without wholly humiliating yourself.

Would you please stop talking like a fuckin' retard with a mouth full of marbles reciting stereo instructions. Can you just be fucking human for a change?

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Again Reader:

Rules for Defeating a Leftist In Debate:

1- Find a Leftist

2- Get them to speak.

That doesn't even mean anything.
 
Go for it my little morons. No one fucking cares...


It's too bad PMH hasn't been issued a Government License to Poop. Being eternally constipated makes him So Ill-Tempered.
Americans make me ill-tempered. Fucking dumb as dog shit.


Poor PMH. Get thee an enema, stat.
No need. I've had a very good week. You and your ilk, not so much...

Me and my ilk?

LOL.

The people most hurt by the "Intentional" (vs. Literal) interpretation of the Law are the poorest and most unfortunate in society. They can't afford the lawyers to play word games. It's sad that they are prey to corrupt government cronies such as you and your "ilk".
 
1) A baker can believe that gay marriage is bad and all homosexuals will burn in hell. Fine by me, that's his beliefs. The baker however is not allowed to refuse service based on those beliefs.

Then what purpose does the Baker's belief serve?



I'll finish the sentence for you.

Then what purpose does the Baker's belief serve, if you can't hide your bigotry behind your religion?

Ok... So you're saying that beliefs are bigotry?

Fascinating...

Now let's look at the word "bigotry" and see if such in any way applies to you.

Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself

INCREDIBLE! There you are RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF "BIGOTRY"!

Reader, it turns out that the use of the word Bigotry, IS a demonstration OF: BIGOTRY!

Now... I ask ya, WHO COULD HAVE SEEN THAT COMIN'?

I wonder, if she recognizes that "The Law" and all forms of standardization are, by definition: Bigotry? LOL! I bet she doesn't.

But in fairness to here... she an imbecile, so there is NO WAY she could come to understand that.

The Left is working from te Relativist playbook which holds that all standards are prejudice... thus all standards are wrong. When in point of fact, all standards are designed to promote the integrity of whatever institution they represent. By removing standards, and by implementing law which rejects the objectivity essential to law... the institution employing such axiomatically strips itself of definition, thus of meaning.

Thus the Ideological Left serves the exclusive purpose of destruction... which in a striking irony, is the exact same purpose that evil serves.

Anyone else see THAT coming?
 
In the entire history of humanity: NO LAW HAS EVER BEEN BROKEN BY A THOUGHT.

Who claimed otherwise?
You did... and ya did so through implication. It's right in the record above.

Let's review:

Not baking a cake, is by definition: INACTION; OKA: THE REFUSAL TO ACT.

You claimed that the principled stand, wherein an individual REFUSES TO TAKE ACTION, CONSTITUTES ACTION.

A law which requires one to ACT outside of what they know to be truthful, viable and sustainable actions, is INVALID LAW and does NOT OBLIGATE A VIABLE INDIVIDUAL and by extension is not relevant to, thus is counter productive to a viable culture.

Thus you are claiming that THOSE THOUGHTS ARE CRIMINAL... in that they provide for one to NOT TAKE ACTION, where the would-be law, requires they must.

There's nothing complex about any of this, yet there you are... completely incapable of discussing it without wholly humiliating yourself.

Would you please stop talking like a fuckin' retard with a mouth full of marbles reciting stereo instructions. Can you just be fucking human for a change?

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Again Reader:

Rules for Defeating a Leftist In Debate:

1- Find a Leftist

2- Get them to speak.

That doesn't even mean anything.

That is the case for almost every post by Keys...he's batshit crazy and really stupid.
 
Go for it my little morons. No one fucking cares...


It's too bad PMH hasn't been issued a Government License to Poop. Being eternally constipated makes him So Ill-Tempered.
Americans make me ill-tempered. Fucking dumb as dog shit.


Poor PMH. Get thee an enema, stat.
No need. I've had a very good week. You and your ilk, not so much...

Me and my ilk?

LOL.

The people most hurt by the "Intentional" (vs. Literal) interpretation of the Law are the poorest and most unfortunate in society. They can't afford the lawyers to play word games. It's sad that they are prey to corrupt government cronies such as you and your "ilk".

Well said...

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:
 
Back to the topic:

Both judges cited Alabama Code Section 30-1-9: “Marriage licenses may be issued by the judges of probate of the several counties.”..The law says “may” instead of “shall”, Hamic said, which makes a big difference. He said the law permits probate judges to opt of of isuing marriage licenses...“This decision is not based on me being a homophobic, people can do whatever they want in private,” Hamic said. “It is based strictly on my Christian beliefs.” Alabama Counties Stop Issuing Marriage Licenses Indefinitely - Breitbart

I see what these guys are up to. They're tempting a lawsuit and thereby fast-tracking the issue to SCOTUS again. This is going to be a real rat's nest for them to sort out too. Bully for their courage and convictions! Legal Quagmire Hobby Lobby v Gay Marriage Showdown at the SCOTUS Corral US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
 
That is the case for almost every post by Keys...he's batshit crazy and really stupid.


ROFLMNAO!

The always exciting PRE-CONCESSION!

... noted and accepted. (Good for you, you at least know your place.)

Yes...my place is, like everyone else, pointing and laughing at you! You';re the crazy fuck running around with a pair of Depends on your head squeaking "the end is coming!"
 
Go for it my little morons. No one fucking cares...


It's too bad PMH hasn't been issued a Government License to Poop. Being eternally constipated makes him So Ill-Tempered.
Americans make me ill-tempered. Fucking dumb as dog shit.


Poor PMH. Get thee an enema, stat.
No need. I've had a very good week. You and your ilk, not so much...

Me and my ilk?

LOL.

The people most hurt by the "Intentional" (vs. Literal) interpretation of the Law are the poorest and most unfortunate in society. They can't afford the lawyers to play word games. It's sad that they are prey to corrupt government cronies such as you and your "ilk".
The only ones suffering are homophobic mental infants, such as youself...
 
It's too bad PMH hasn't been issued a Government License to Poop. Being eternally constipated makes him So Ill-Tempered.
Americans make me ill-tempered. Fucking dumb as dog shit.


Poor PMH. Get thee an enema, stat.
No need. I've had a very good week. You and your ilk, not so much...

Me and my ilk?

LOL.

The people most hurt by the "Intentional" (vs. Literal) interpretation of the Law are the poorest and most unfortunate in society. They can't afford the lawyers to play word games. It's sad that they are prey to corrupt government cronies such as you and your "ilk".

Well said...

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:


Thanks. I read something earlier today to the effect that:

How would the Progs feel if Congress passed a special tax on people making $100,000 per year. Assume in this scenario that the Progs make $50,000 per year, and do not pay this tax. Some years down the road, after years of not paying the tax, the Supreme Court decides that the real INTENT of Congress was to tax people making $10,000 per year. The extra $0 was a drafting error. So, the $50K per year Progs now owe a boatload of back taxes.

This is why the SC abandoning literal interpretation of the Law and the Constitution are destructive to Liberty and Individual Rights. The ACA ruling was more of an abomination that the Gay Marriage one; but the latter is dangerous by divining rights not specifically mentioned in the Constiution.

As someone who supports Gay Marriage, I believe the better route was through state legislatures and Congress. Every LAW is not worth being read as a secret mystery Constitutional Right. If Congress wishes to promote an Amendment to make it so, that's fine. But the SC should not be inventing laws.
 
In the entire history of humanity: NO LAW HAS EVER BEEN BROKEN BY A THOUGHT.

Who claimed otherwise?
You did... and ya did so through implication. It's right in the record above.

Let's review:

Not baking a cake, is by definition: INACTION; OKA: THE REFUSAL TO ACT.

You claimed that the principled stand, wherein an individual REFUSES TO TAKE ACTION, CONSTITUTES ACTION.

A law which requires one to ACT outside of what they know to be truthful, viable and sustainable actions, is INVALID LAW and does NOT OBLIGATE A VIABLE INDIVIDUAL and by extension is not relevant to, thus is counter productive to a viable culture.

Thus you are claiming that THOSE THOUGHTS ARE CRIMINAL... in that they provide for one to NOT TAKE ACTION, where the would-be law, requires they must.

There's nothing complex about any of this, yet there you are... completely incapable of discussing it without wholly humiliating yourself.

Would you please stop talking like a fuckin' retard with a mouth full of marbles reciting stereo instructions. Can you just be fucking human for a change?

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Again Reader:

Rules for Defeating a Leftist In Debate:

1- Find a Leftist

2- Get them to speak.

That doesn't even mean anything.

So you're in the habit of contesting what you profess to be meaningless?

ROFLMNAO!

You people are HELPLESS.
 
It's too bad PMH hasn't been issued a Government License to Poop. Being eternally constipated makes him So Ill-Tempered.
Americans make me ill-tempered. Fucking dumb as dog shit.


Poor PMH. Get thee an enema, stat.
No need. I've had a very good week. You and your ilk, not so much...

Me and my ilk?

LOL.

The people most hurt by the "Intentional" (vs. Literal) interpretation of the Law are the poorest and most unfortunate in society. They can't afford the lawyers to play word games. It's sad that they are prey to corrupt government cronies such as you and your "ilk".
The only ones suffering are homophobic mental infants, such as youself...


You are a loon.
 
My beliefs are whatever they are and they don't require your approval. Actions however are a different matter.
LOL! You are a hypocrite.

Nothing hypocritical about it.

Nothing hypocritical about it.

Hypocrisy: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

You claimed to 'believe' that beliefs are worthy and valuable, then you state that beliefs have no value in action.

Which DEFINES YOU AS A HYPOCRITE!

DUMBASS: Someone who confuses thoughts with physical acts of breaking the law.

In the entire history of humanity: NO LAW HAS EVER BEEN BROKEN BY A THOUGHT.

Let's review:

Hypocrisy: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

You claimed to 'believe' that beliefs are worthy and valuable, then you state that beliefs have no value in action.

Which, once again: DEFINES YOU AS A HYPOCRITE!
Or it means you have no clue what the definition of hypocrite is.
 

Forum List

Back
Top