Alabama Counties Stop Issuing Marriage Licenses

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I'm certain you believe you responded with logic and intelligence.
In truth, you didn't reply to my post at all. You simply wrote to attack me because I do not agree with you.

No. You proved my point. You give lip service to people holding beliefs but when it comes to acting on them, when it really matters, you deny people their religious beliefs.
The 1A says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Forcing someone to do something contrary to his religiosu beliefs is prohibiting the free exercise of his religion. Which is forbidden by the Constitution.

You are a joke.
What religiously mandated practices would you deny others?
Anything?[]

I basically wouldn't. I am sure you could reach up your ass and invent some cult that believed in drinking blood or something but we're talking about the real world, not what you can pull out of your ass.

Such eloquence! Such scholarly and educated language!
Your use of the title "Rabbi," is offensive and inaccurate to your proven station.
Done with you.
Shalom Chaver!

Thank you for proving you cannot engage the subject for any length of time. You're done. Stick a fork in you.

BEEN DONE! It's effectively rubber...

 

[The Rabbi]

LOL! You are a hypocrite.

Nothing hypocritical about it.

oF course it is.
You think your beliefs are worthy, someone who disagrees with you isnt entitled to any meaningful expression of those beliefs.

I said nothing of the sort.

Let's go back to the beginning Einstein.

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.

2) I could believe that all Right wing Christian fuckwads deserve to starve to death. That does not mean I have the right to refuse service to them in my restaurant.

Where is the hypocrisy, genius?

Yes people can have beliefs. They just can't act on them. A prohibition of free exercise of religion.
Your hatred of Christians is not my problem.

First off, I don't hate Christians, I hate Christians that think their rights trump others.

Secondly, if your actions break the law, they break the law, end of story. Actions do not equal beliefs. I can wish you dead (I don't) but to kill you is a crime. Beliefs and actions = not the same thing. Get it? Fuckin' A, what is the matter with you people?

The Nazis would agree with you: break the law and we send you to laager. You are free to believe and espouse whatever you want. As long as you dont mind dying for it.
The resort to "well that's the law" is infantile.
And believing that gay marriage is wrong is not the same as believing you should kill people.
Really, the quality of your arguments suck.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

ROFLMNAO!

I SO adore the sweet ironies.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

OH! Now look at that. Imitation is the truest form of flattery.

Apparently the would-be contributor is incapable of understanding what irony MEANS.

For instance, she comes to assert "BIGOTRY", and takes the stand that she's not a bigot, because she doesn't have to TOLERATE INTOLERANCE.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

ROFLMNAO...

You can NOT make this crap up.

This idiot thinks the definition of "bigot" is not putting up with discrimination. LOL!

Oh my.... a straw argument right in the midst of her EPIC FAIL!

Let's review:

Bigot: a person who is bigoted

Bigoted: having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others; bigotry.

Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself; usage; "Asshole, you are FREE to be as big of a BIGOT as you like. Get that through you tiny pea brain. You are not allowed to discriminate at the work place. Now you need to go look up the definition for straw man."

Thus, the use of the word "bigot" is, BY DEFINITION: a demonstration of "BIGOTRY".

It's not even a debatable point. It's a paradox... thus it requires some higher function of reason to comprehend.

Thus such is beyond the intellectual scope of the lowly: Leftist... which is to say the pitiful: DUMBASS!

Again Reader the key to defeating Leftists in debate is twofold:

1- Find a Leftist

2- Get them to speak.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

OH! Now look at that. Imitation is the truest form of flattery.

Apparently the would-be contributor is incapable of understanding what irony MEANS.

For instance, she comes to assert "BIGOTRY", and takes the stand that she's not a bigot, because she doesn't have to TOLERATE INTOLERANCE.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

ROFLMNAO...

You can NOT make this crap up.

This idiot thinks the definition of "bigot" is not putting up with discrimination. LOL!

Oh my.... a straw argument right in the midst of her EPIC FAIL!

Let's review:

Bigot: a person who is bigoted

Bigoted: having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others; bigotry.

Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself; usage; "Asshole, you are FREE to be as big of a BIGOT as you like. Get that through you tiny pea brain. You are not allowed to discriminate at the work place. Now you need to go look up the definition for straw man."

Thus, the use of the word "bigot" is, BY DEFINITION: a demonstration of "BIGOTRY".

It's not even a debatable point. It's a paradox... thus it requires some higher function of reason to comprehend.

Thus such is beyond the intellectual scope of the lowly: Leftist... which is to say the pitiful: DUMBASS!

Asshole, you are FREE to be as big of a BIGOT as you like. Get that through you tiny pea brain. You are not allowed to discriminate at the work place.

Now you need to go look up the definition for straw man.

I think this is called Spamming. You should probably cease this sort of abusive behavior before its reported and you're subjected to sanctions by the powers that be.

And if it at all helps, you should know... you've been reported for spamming.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[The Rabbi]

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 belief serve?

In your case, it seems to serve as a reason to publish your disdain and validate your bigotry.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Whose next?

.

.

.

Anyone?

.

.

.

Anyone at all?

I most certainly concede nothing to you.
Oh, and learn to use correct English.
The word is 'who's,' not "whose."

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

OH! Now look at that. Imitation is the truest form of flattery.

Apparently the would-be contributor is incapable of understanding what irony MEANS.

For instance, she comes to assert "BIGOTRY", and takes the stand that she's not a bigot, because she doesn't have to TOLERATE INTOLERANCE.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

ROFLMNAO...

You can NOT make this crap up.

This idiot thinks the definition of "bigot" is not putting up with discrimination. LOL!

Oh my.... a straw argument right in the midst of her EPIC FAIL!

Let's review:

Bigot: a person who is bigoted

Bigoted: having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others; bigotry.

Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself; usage; "Asshole, you are FREE to be as big of a BIGOT as you like. Get that through you tiny pea brain. You are not allowed to discriminate at the work place. Now you need to go look up the definition for straw man."

Thus, the use of the word "bigot" is, BY DEFINITION: a demonstration of "BIGOTRY".

It's not even a debatable point. It's a paradox... thus it requires some higher function of reason to comprehend.

Thus such is beyond the intellectual scope of the lowly: Leftist... which is to say the pitiful: DUMBASS!

Asshole, you are FREE to be as big of a BIGOT as you like. Get that through you tiny pea brain. You are not allowed to discriminate at the work place.

Now you need to go look up the definition for straw man.

I think this is called Spamming. You should probably cease this sort of abusive behavior before its reported and you're subjected to sanctions by the powers that be.

And if it at all helps, you should know... you've been reported for spamming.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

OH! Thank you, that's very flattering.

And of course, your concession IS duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[The Rabbi]

Then what purpose does the belief serve?

In your case, it seems to serve as a reason to publish your disdain and validate your bigotry.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

Whose next?

.

.

.

Anyone?

.

.

.

Anyone at all?

I most certainly concede nothing to you.

Yet... you conceded the standing points, as the record above clearly and irrefutably indicates.

Nothing above indicates any such thing.
To be clear, I refute all you endorse here.
You are exactly the kind of weak willed, weak minded, so-called "Christian" child that took satisfaction in ganging up on and assaulting me as a child because my family are not Christian.
You mercilessly attack those you consider non-believers and then have the temerity to claim that it was you who were attacked.
You have no honor and no true belief in anything.
If you truly believed, you'd not feel so threatened by those with alternate beliefs.
You hang by a thread, and any whose shoulders you cannot stand upon in common fear, threaten your weak faith.
You are revealed.
Now, my cat requires my attention, and she is infinitely more deserving than you.
Done with you.

Your hatred of Christians is duly noted. Your "arguments" are not based on logic, reason, or any other accepted currency of debate. They are based on hatred, baseless hatred. Surely you know what that is, right?

 

[rightwinger]

I love it

Republicans biting off their nose to spite their face

Withhold licenses for 98% of the population just to get back at 2%

 

[Carla_Danger]

ROFLMNAO!

I SO adore the sweet ironies.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

OH! Now look at that. Imitation is the truest form of flattery.

Apparently the would-be contributor is incapable of understanding what irony MEANS.

For instance, she comes to assert "BIGOTRY", and takes the stand that she's not a bigot, because she doesn't have to TOLERATE INTOLERANCE.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

ROFLMNAO...

You can NOT make this crap up.

This idiot thinks the definition of "bigot" is not putting up with discrimination. LOL!

Oh my.... a straw argument right in the midst of her EPIC FAIL!

Let's review:

Bigot: a person who is bigoted

Bigoted: having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others; bigotry.

Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself; usage; "Asshole, you are FREE to be as big of a BIGOT as you like. Get that through you tiny pea brain. You are not allowed to discriminate at the work place. Now you need to go look up the definition for straw man."

Thus, the use of the word "bigot" is, BY DEFINITION: a demonstration of "BIGOTRY".

It's not even a debatable point. It's a paradox... thus it requires some higher function of reason to comprehend.

Thus such is beyond the intellectual scope of the lowly: Leftist... which is to say the pitiful: DUMBASS!

Again Reader the key to defeating Leftists in debate is twofold:

1- Find a Leftist

2- Get them to speak.

Is this not spam you idiot?


Moron, you are FREE to be as big of a BIGOT as you like. Get that through you tiny pea brain. You are not allowed to discriminate at the work place.

Now you need to go look up the definition for straw man.

 

[guno]

I love it

Republicans biting off their nose to spite their face

Withhold licenses for 98% of the population just to get back at 2%

 

[The Rabbi]

This should be interesting. In Alabama a common law marriage (which is just as binding as one done with a marriage license) exists when both people intend to be married to each other and they hold themselves out to friends family and community as being married to each other. In some states you have to live together for a certain number of years or have children together. Not so in Alabama. In Alabama you could move in together on Monday and by Tuesday have a valid marriage. In fact it isn't even necessary to live together.

Thanks.
Bingo. Alabama does not need to issue marriage licenses anymore.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

How about if I owned a bakery and refused to make a cake for an interracial couple because of my deeply held Christian belief that race mixing is a sin?

You'd need to show that interracial marriage is a demonstrable tenet of Christian faith.

Which at best would be an uphill climb and given you demonstrated intellectual means... it's unlikely that you'd prevail, in academic terms... .

In real terms, such happens all the time and the interracial couple just comes to realize that they do not want a product of such insanity to be party to their nuptials and go find a decent human being to bake their cake. Odds are it doesn't take much more than walking out the door and going to the baker across the street, who long ago learned that the location across the street is a frickin' GOLD MINE!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

This should be interesting. In Alabama a common law marriage (which is just as binding as one done with a marriage license) exists when both people intend to be married to each other and they hold themselves out to friends family and community as being married to each other. In some states you have to live together for a certain number of years or have children together. Not so in Alabama. In Alabama you could move in together on Monday and by Tuesday have a valid marriage. In fact it isn't even necessary to live together.

Thanks.
Bingo. Alabama does not need to issue marriage licenses anymore.

So, don't. It changes nothing, but defending marriage by making it harder to achieve is something only morons would do, hence, Alabama.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I demand that a bakery make this cake for me.......or else.

Nice cake!

I've always wondered why it is you need a license to get married in the first place?

You don't. Gays were marrying for decades without one. However, the marriage license comes with rights, benefits and privileges.

Still confusing rights with privileges, I see.

And once again, it's all about the money.

She intentionally refused to mention the only thing that matters to her... that the Marriage License bring "LEGITIMACY".

IF homosexuals had been marrying for decades without the license... and all was fine otherwise, then what would be the point of marrying?

ANYONE of those people could have formed an LLC and received EVERY BENEFIT of Marriage worth noting, from hospital visitation rights to retirement....

Yet they did not do so...

That tells us that they were not truly interested in the financial 'privileges'... . What they wanted was the LEGITIMACY of marriage.

Which they're all finding out now, that legitimacy comes ONLY through LEGITIMACY... the pretense of marriage by those not suited for such, is today what it was Thursday: ILLEGITIMATE.

And it will always be such... as that is the nature of it.

 

[AugmentedDog]

I'm certain you believe you responded with logic and intelligence.
In truth, you didn't reply to my post at all. You simply wrote to attack me because I do not agree with you.

No. You proved my point. You give lip service to people holding beliefs but when it comes to acting on them, when it really matters, you deny people their religious beliefs.
The 1A says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Forcing someone to do something contrary to his religiosu beliefs is prohibiting the free exercise of his religion. Which is forbidden by the Constitution.

You are a joke.
What religiously mandated practices would you deny others?
Anything?[]

I basically wouldn't. I am sure you could reach up your ass and invent some cult that believed in drinking blood or something but we're talking about the real world, not what you can pull out of your ass.

Such eloquence! Such scholarly and educated language!
Your use of the title "Rabbi," is offensive and inaccurate to your proven station.
Done with you.
Shalom Chaver!

Thank you for proving you cannot engage the subject for any length of time. You're done. Stick a fork in you.

I choose to end discourse with you because your idea of exchange and debate is to offend and insult in lieu of intelligent and reasonable intercourse.
Additionally, and apropos to this thread, what gives you the right to offend an entire people by co-opting and corrupting an earned and revered title and mantle?
You make a painful mockery of the mantle "Rabbi."

For that reason alone, you are worthy of nothing but to be ignored.

 

[rightwinger]

Funny

Republicans can act like such assholes when their feelings get hurt

"If I have to marry gays...I won't marry anyone... So there"

 

[JGalt]

No. You proved my point. You give lip service to people holding beliefs but when it comes to acting on them, when it really matters, you deny people their religious beliefs.
The 1A says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Forcing someone to do something contrary to his religiosu beliefs is prohibiting the free exercise of his religion. Which is forbidden by the Constitution.

You are a joke.
What religiously mandated practices would you deny others?
Anything?[]

I basically wouldn't. I am sure you could reach up your ass and invent some cult that believed in drinking blood or something but we're talking about the real world, not what you can pull out of your ass.

Such eloquence! Such scholarly and educated language!
Your use of the title "Rabbi," is offensive and inaccurate to your proven station.
Done with you.
Shalom Chaver!

Thank you for proving you cannot engage the subject for any length of time. You're done. Stick a fork in you.

I choose to end discourse with you because your idea of exchange and debate is to offend and insult in lieu of intelligent and reasonable intercourse.
Additionally, and apropos to this thread, what gives you the right to offend and entire people by co-opting and corrupting an earned and revered title and mantle?
You make a painful mockery of the mantle "Rabbi."

For that reason alone, you are worthy of nothing but to be ignored.

How about just being a man, accepting responsibility, and admitting you were wrong?

 

[reconmark]

It's the South...how can anyone really be that surprised????

 

[The Rabbi]

No. You proved my point. You give lip service to people holding beliefs but when it comes to acting on them, when it really matters, you deny people their religious beliefs.
The 1A says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Forcing someone to do something contrary to his religiosu beliefs is prohibiting the free exercise of his religion. Which is forbidden by the Constitution.

You are a joke.
What religiously mandated practices would you deny others?
Anything?[]

I basically wouldn't. I am sure you could reach up your ass and invent some cult that believed in drinking blood or something but we're talking about the real world, not what you can pull out of your ass.

Such eloquence! Such scholarly and educated language!
Your use of the title "Rabbi," is offensive and inaccurate to your proven station.
Done with you.
Shalom Chaver!

Thank you for proving you cannot engage the subject for any length of time. You're done. Stick a fork in you.

I choose to end discourse with you because your idea of exchange and debate is to offend and insult in lieu of intelligent and reasonable intercourse.
Additionally, and apropos to this thread, what gives you the right to offend and entire people by co-opting and corrupting an earned and revered title and mantle?
You make a painful mockery of the mantle "Rabbi."

For that reason alone, you are worthy of nothing but to be ignored.

LOL. You chose to end debate because you were getting your ass kicked. That much is clear.
Again, your arguments are not based on reason or logic but animosity and a desire to "stick it" to Christians.

 

[AugmentedDog]

You are a joke.
What religiously mandated practices would you deny others?
Anything?[]

I basically wouldn't. I am sure you could reach up your ass and invent some cult that believed in drinking blood or something but we're talking about the real world, not what you can pull out of your ass.

Such eloquence! Such scholarly and educated language!
Your use of the title "Rabbi," is offensive and inaccurate to your proven station.
Done with you.
Shalom Chaver!

Thank you for proving you cannot engage the subject for any length of time. You're done. Stick a fork in you.

I choose to end discourse with you because your idea of exchange and debate is to offend and insult in lieu of intelligent and reasonable intercourse.
Additionally, and apropos to this thread, what gives you the right to offend and entire people by co-opting and corrupting an earned and revered title and mantle?
You make a painful mockery of the mantle "Rabbi."

For that reason alone, you are worthy of nothing but to be ignored.

How about just being a man, accepting responsibility, and admitting you were wrong?

I am more "man" than you, and I am most certainly Not wrong!