Do absentee ballot voters have to show picture ID?

[jillian]

An ID card wont suppress a voter.
It will however suppress illegal votes to a great degree.

Provide every voter with a free ID first

Then you can require one to vote

actually that has already been suggested and the democrats rejected it.
So there must be some other reason.
Even if they had to pay for their ID, the ID is used for so much more than just voting, and I know in maryland you can get the state ID (not the drivers license) for 10 bucks. !0 bucks is less than that bowl of crack they will be buying later,

no one suggested free ID's nationally.

It was suggested on here, and you all seem to think it is still a bad idea.
face it, you really do not want the election process to be secure.
Can you explain why?

There are no statistics that show significant voter fraud that a photo ID would prevent. Why do you want to disenfranchise millions of voters to try to correct a problem your solution doesn't prevent?

The truth, and you know this is true, that demanding a photo ID erects a hurdle for millions of voters that are disproportionately Democrat. Republicans know not everyone will get one & thereby increase their chances in the election.

Here in PA, your pathetic party tried it & got it thrown out of court. They have also gerrymandered the US Congressional districts to the point that Democrats will have more votes state wide by win only about 1/3rd the seats.

CHEATING - The only way Republicans can win.

keep spreading breaitbart/infowars/drudge lunacy.... just like your unhinged candidate.

 

[jillian]

So separation clause means nothing to you?
These people are not being allowed to worship and conduct themselves as their religion dictates. That protection is in the constitution.
Marriage is a privilege, not a right.
Looks like you think a privilege holds more weight than a right? Is this what you are telling me?

They are not a church. Baking a cake is not worship. Their free exercise of religion is not being infringed upon.

Marriage is a fundamental right according to the SCOTUS. They've said so on numerous occasions.

FInd that right in the constitution, its something that is left to the states. Not the federal government. Besides, the Government cant grant you rights, they are only not allowed to take them from you.

You weren't granted the right to bear arms?

its a right that cant be taken. Not sure (other than I think you might be 15 at the oldest) you cant understand these things

If it's a right that CAN"T BE TAKEN, why are hysterical gun nuts constantly claiming that Hillary Clinton is going to do just that?

because they're liars and they're deluded and they're doing the bidding of their masters.

 

[Seawytch]

They DID ask for a standard wedding cake....it was the business husband who had a fit, preached to them, turned them down, then when they complained to the Business Bureau, put their personal info on social media.

Im sorry, I had no idea you were there.
I choose to believe the bakers, they are the ones with the higher standards of morals.
the gays could have gone anywhere, I can only assume they got the response they were looking for.,
but you sit on whatever side makes you feel better,.

Except that's not the official story of record...as in sworn testimony.

https://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf

So separation clause means nothing to you?
These people are not being allowed to worship and conduct themselves as their religion dictates. That protection is in the constitution.
Marriage is a privilege, not a right.
Looks like you think a privilege holds more weight than a right? Is this what you are telling me?

They are not a church. Baking a cake is not worship. Their free exercise of religion is not being infringed upon.

Marriage is a fundamental right according to the SCOTUS. They've said so on numerous occasions.

FInd that right in the constitution, its something that is left to the states. Not the federal government. Besides, the Government cant grant you rights, they are only not allowed to take them from you.

It's called the 14th Amendment. The cases were: Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Wisconsin, Turner v Safely and Obergefell v Hodges.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

So separation clause means nothing to you?
These people are not being allowed to worship and conduct themselves as their religion dictates. That protection is in the constitution.
Marriage is a privilege, not a right.
Looks like you think a privilege holds more weight than a right? Is this what you are telling me?

They are not a church. Baking a cake is not worship. Their free exercise of religion is not being infringed upon.

Marriage is a fundamental right according to the SCOTUS. They've said so on numerous occasions.

FInd that right in the constitution, its something that is left to the states. Not the federal government. Besides, the Government cant grant you rights, they are only not allowed to take them from you.

You weren't granted the right to bear arms?

its a right that cant be taken. Not sure (other than I think you might be 15 at the oldest) you cant understand these things

If it's a right that CAN"T BE TAKEN, why are hysterical gun nuts constantly claiming that Hillary Clinton is going to do just that?

working on the basis or theory that no one right is greater than another, How can we claim that something as simple as showing ID to vote is a violation of a right, and at the same time claim that it is not a violation of a right for someone to go through what they have to go through to purchase or own a handgun.
Nobody is asking for anyone to pay a tax, get a medical evaluation or submit pages of forms, even take a test to vote, simply, show an ID that will match up to the voter roles.
Now tell me, how is it a violation and how is it disenfranchising anyone to have to show ID. These things have never been proven

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Im sorry, I had no idea you were there.
I choose to believe the bakers, they are the ones with the higher standards of morals.
the gays could have gone anywhere, I can only assume they got the response they were looking for.,
but you sit on whatever side makes you feel better,.

Except that's not the official story of record...as in sworn testimony.

https://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf

So separation clause means nothing to you?
These people are not being allowed to worship and conduct themselves as their religion dictates. That protection is in the constitution.
Marriage is a privilege, not a right.
Looks like you think a privilege holds more weight than a right? Is this what you are telling me?

They are not a church. Baking a cake is not worship. Their free exercise of religion is not being infringed upon.

Marriage is a fundamental right according to the SCOTUS. They've said so on numerous occasions.

FInd that right in the constitution, its something that is left to the states. Not the federal government. Besides, the Government cant grant you rights, they are only not allowed to take them from you.

It's called the 14th Amendment. The cases were: Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Wisconsin, Turner v Safely and Obergefell v Hodges.

wait a minute, these were cases that involved race, not sexual orientation.
If you want to cite a ruling that would be closer then we have to go back to Reynolds VS the U.S. In that case the argument was in reference to the Mormons and more than one wife. The supreme court came out and decided that it was not a violation of any kind to prohibit these multiple partner marriages because they were not considered within the norms of society at the time.
This is also why there was speculation that multiple wives would be allowed shortly after gay marriage was passed. If the condition of norms of society were no longer an effective argument, as in the case for gay marriage, then it could no longer be held valid as defined in Reynolds VS the U.S

 

[Seawytch]

Except that's not the official story of record...as in sworn testimony.

https://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet Cakes FO.pdf

So separation clause means nothing to you?
These people are not being allowed to worship and conduct themselves as their religion dictates. That protection is in the constitution.
Marriage is a privilege, not a right.
Looks like you think a privilege holds more weight than a right? Is this what you are telling me?

They are not a church. Baking a cake is not worship. Their free exercise of religion is not being infringed upon.

Marriage is a fundamental right according to the SCOTUS. They've said so on numerous occasions.

FInd that right in the constitution, its something that is left to the states. Not the federal government. Besides, the Government cant grant you rights, they are only not allowed to take them from you.

It's called the 14th Amendment. The cases were: Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Wisconsin, Turner v Safely and Obergefell v Hodges.

wait a minute, these were cases that involved race, not sexual orientation.
If you want to cite a ruling that would be closer then we have to go back to Reynolds VS the U.S. In that case the argument was in reference to the Mormons and more than one wife. The supreme court came out and decided that it was not a violation of any kind to prohibit these multiple partner marriages because they were not considered within the norms of society at the time.
This is also why there was speculation that multiple wives would be allowed shortly after gay marriage was passed. If the condition of norms of society were no longer an effective argument, as in the case for gay marriage, then it could no longer be held valid as defined in Reynolds VS the U.S

No, only one had to do with race. Try again.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

So separation clause means nothing to you?
These people are not being allowed to worship and conduct themselves as their religion dictates. That protection is in the constitution.
Marriage is a privilege, not a right.
Looks like you think a privilege holds more weight than a right? Is this what you are telling me?

They are not a church. Baking a cake is not worship. Their free exercise of religion is not being infringed upon.

Marriage is a fundamental right according to the SCOTUS. They've said so on numerous occasions.

FInd that right in the constitution, its something that is left to the states. Not the federal government. Besides, the Government cant grant you rights, they are only not allowed to take them from you.

It's called the 14th Amendment. The cases were: Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Wisconsin, Turner v Safely and Obergefell v Hodges.

wait a minute, these were cases that involved race, not sexual orientation.
If you want to cite a ruling that would be closer then we have to go back to Reynolds VS the U.S. In that case the argument was in reference to the Mormons and more than one wife. The supreme court came out and decided that it was not a violation of any kind to prohibit these multiple partner marriages because they were not considered within the norms of society at the time.
This is also why there was speculation that multiple wives would be allowed shortly after gay marriage was passed. If the condition of norms of society were no longer an effective argument, as in the case for gay marriage, then it could no longer be held valid as defined in Reynolds VS the U.S

No, only one had to do with race. Try again.

Ill give you that, Im only familiar with the loving case, not the others and I didnt look them up before responding, but even if they were same sex marriage cases, the same argument would apply
and for the record, I personally have no issue with gay marriage but at the same time I have no issue with the bakers not wanting to take part in the wedding.
The best thing to do would have been for the gay couple to go find another baker that better fit their needs.

 

[initforme]

People in this country have to drink to take the edge off of the ungodly SAD ratrace it is to make a living slaving away to make some lazy CEO all his money. And emphasize lazy and inept. Typical.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They are not a church. Baking a cake is not worship. Their free exercise of religion is not being infringed upon.

Marriage is a fundamental right according to the SCOTUS. They've said so on numerous occasions.

FInd that right in the constitution, its something that is left to the states. Not the federal government. Besides, the Government cant grant you rights, they are only not allowed to take them from you.

You weren't granted the right to bear arms?

its a right that cant be taken. Not sure (other than I think you might be 15 at the oldest) you cant understand these things

If it's a right that CAN"T BE TAKEN, why are hysterical gun nuts constantly claiming that Hillary Clinton is going to do just that?

working on the basis or theory that no one right is greater than another, How can we claim that something as simple as showing ID to vote is a violation of a right, and at the same time claim that it is not a violation of a right for someone to go through what they have to go through to purchase or own a handgun.
Nobody is asking for anyone to pay a tax, get a medical evaluation or submit pages of forms, even take a test to vote, simply, show an ID that will match up to the voter roles.
Now tell me, how is it a violation and how is it disenfranchising anyone to have to show ID. These things have never been proven

Wisconsin passed a law to require an ID and then proceeded to make it extremely difficult to get one.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

FInd that right in the constitution, its something that is left to the states. Not the federal government. Besides, the Government cant grant you rights, they are only not allowed to take them from you.

You weren't granted the right to bear arms?

its a right that cant be taken. Not sure (other than I think you might be 15 at the oldest) you cant understand these things

If it's a right that CAN"T BE TAKEN, why are hysterical gun nuts constantly claiming that Hillary Clinton is going to do just that?

working on the basis or theory that no one right is greater than another, How can we claim that something as simple as showing ID to vote is a violation of a right, and at the same time claim that it is not a violation of a right for someone to go through what they have to go through to purchase or own a handgun.
Nobody is asking for anyone to pay a tax, get a medical evaluation or submit pages of forms, even take a test to vote, simply, show an ID that will match up to the voter roles.
Now tell me, how is it a violation and how is it disenfranchising anyone to have to show ID. These things have never been proven

Wisconsin passed a law to require an ID and then proceeded to make it extremely difficult to get one.

what did they do to make it difficult, and even so, the problem was not with the ID for voting, the problem was with what they supposedly according to you did to make it hard to get. But did they make it equally hard to get for everyone?

 

[Seawytch]

They are not a church. Baking a cake is not worship. Their free exercise of religion is not being infringed upon.

Marriage is a fundamental right according to the SCOTUS. They've said so on numerous occasions.

FInd that right in the constitution, its something that is left to the states. Not the federal government. Besides, the Government cant grant you rights, they are only not allowed to take them from you.

It's called the 14th Amendment. The cases were: Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Wisconsin, Turner v Safely and Obergefell v Hodges.

wait a minute, these were cases that involved race, not sexual orientation.
If you want to cite a ruling that would be closer then we have to go back to Reynolds VS the U.S. In that case the argument was in reference to the Mormons and more than one wife. The supreme court came out and decided that it was not a violation of any kind to prohibit these multiple partner marriages because they were not considered within the norms of society at the time.
This is also why there was speculation that multiple wives would be allowed shortly after gay marriage was passed. If the condition of norms of society were no longer an effective argument, as in the case for gay marriage, then it could no longer be held valid as defined in Reynolds VS the U.S

No, only one had to do with race. Try again.

Ill give you that, Im only familiar with the loving case, not the others and I didnt look them up before responding, but even if they were same sex marriage cases, the same argument would apply
and for the record, I personally have no issue with gay marriage but at the same time I have no issue with the bakers not wanting to take part in the wedding.
The best thing to do would have been for the gay couple to go find another baker that better fit their needs.

They weren't that either. Maybe you should do some research.

Public Accommodation has been written into Federal law since 1965. It means the gay baker has to bake a cake for the bigoted Christian in all 50 states...the bigoted Christian only has to bake a cake for the gays in about half (they are local laws, states rights advocate)

 

[Grizz]

FInd that right in the constitution, its something that is left to the states. Not the federal government. Besides, the Government cant grant you rights, they are only not allowed to take them from you.

It's called the 14th Amendment. The cases were: Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Wisconsin, Turner v Safely and Obergefell v Hodges.

wait a minute, these were cases that involved race, not sexual orientation.
If you want to cite a ruling that would be closer then we have to go back to Reynolds VS the U.S. In that case the argument was in reference to the Mormons and more than one wife. The supreme court came out and decided that it was not a violation of any kind to prohibit these multiple partner marriages because they were not considered within the norms of society at the time.
This is also why there was speculation that multiple wives would be allowed shortly after gay marriage was passed. If the condition of norms of society were no longer an effective argument, as in the case for gay marriage, then it could no longer be held valid as defined in Reynolds VS the U.S

No, only one had to do with race. Try again.

Ill give you that, Im only familiar with the loving case, not the others and I didnt look them up before responding, but even if they were same sex marriage cases, the same argument would apply
and for the record, I personally have no issue with gay marriage but at the same time I have no issue with the bakers not wanting to take part in the wedding.
The best thing to do would have been for the gay couple to go find another baker that better fit their needs.

They weren't that either. Maybe you should do some research.

Public Accommodation has been written into Federal law since 1965. It means the gay baker has to bake a cake for the bigoted Christian in all 50 states...the bigoted Christian only has to bake a cake for the gays in about half (they are local laws, states rights advocate)

LOL, go eat some carpet honey.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

FInd that right in the constitution, its something that is left to the states. Not the federal government. Besides, the Government cant grant you rights, they are only not allowed to take them from you.

It's called the 14th Amendment. The cases were: Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Wisconsin, Turner v Safely and Obergefell v Hodges.

wait a minute, these were cases that involved race, not sexual orientation.
If you want to cite a ruling that would be closer then we have to go back to Reynolds VS the U.S. In that case the argument was in reference to the Mormons and more than one wife. The supreme court came out and decided that it was not a violation of any kind to prohibit these multiple partner marriages because they were not considered within the norms of society at the time.
This is also why there was speculation that multiple wives would be allowed shortly after gay marriage was passed. If the condition of norms of society were no longer an effective argument, as in the case for gay marriage, then it could no longer be held valid as defined in Reynolds VS the U.S

No, only one had to do with race. Try again.

Ill give you that, Im only familiar with the loving case, not the others and I didnt look them up before responding, but even if they were same sex marriage cases, the same argument would apply
and for the record, I personally have no issue with gay marriage but at the same time I have no issue with the bakers not wanting to take part in the wedding.
The best thing to do would have been for the gay couple to go find another baker that better fit their needs.

They weren't that either. Maybe you should do some research.

Public Accommodation has been written into Federal law since 1965. It means the gay baker has to bake a cake for the bigoted Christian in all 50 states...the bigoted Christian only has to bake a cake for the gays in about half (they are local laws, states rights advocate)

The gay should not have to bake a cake for a Christian function either.
For instance, lets say its a Christian gathering to sit around and denounce gays and try to figure out ways to cure them. The gay baker should have the right to decide if he wants his business involved in this.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

It's called the 14th Amendment. The cases were: Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Wisconsin, Turner v Safely and Obergefell v Hodges.

wait a minute, these were cases that involved race, not sexual orientation.
If you want to cite a ruling that would be closer then we have to go back to Reynolds VS the U.S. In that case the argument was in reference to the Mormons and more than one wife. The supreme court came out and decided that it was not a violation of any kind to prohibit these multiple partner marriages because they were not considered within the norms of society at the time.
This is also why there was speculation that multiple wives would be allowed shortly after gay marriage was passed. If the condition of norms of society were no longer an effective argument, as in the case for gay marriage, then it could no longer be held valid as defined in Reynolds VS the U.S

No, only one had to do with race. Try again.

Ill give you that, Im only familiar with the loving case, not the others and I didnt look them up before responding, but even if they were same sex marriage cases, the same argument would apply
and for the record, I personally have no issue with gay marriage but at the same time I have no issue with the bakers not wanting to take part in the wedding.
The best thing to do would have been for the gay couple to go find another baker that better fit their needs.

They weren't that either. Maybe you should do some research.

Public Accommodation has been written into Federal law since 1965. It means the gay baker has to bake a cake for the bigoted Christian in all 50 states...the bigoted Christian only has to bake a cake for the gays in about half (they are local laws, states rights advocate)

LOL, go eat some carpet honey.

Why would you wish good fortune on her?

 

[Seawytch]

It's called the 14th Amendment. The cases were: Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Wisconsin, Turner v Safely and Obergefell v Hodges.

wait a minute, these were cases that involved race, not sexual orientation.
If you want to cite a ruling that would be closer then we have to go back to Reynolds VS the U.S. In that case the argument was in reference to the Mormons and more than one wife. The supreme court came out and decided that it was not a violation of any kind to prohibit these multiple partner marriages because they were not considered within the norms of society at the time.
This is also why there was speculation that multiple wives would be allowed shortly after gay marriage was passed. If the condition of norms of society were no longer an effective argument, as in the case for gay marriage, then it could no longer be held valid as defined in Reynolds VS the U.S

No, only one had to do with race. Try again.

Ill give you that, Im only familiar with the loving case, not the others and I didnt look them up before responding, but even if they were same sex marriage cases, the same argument would apply
and for the record, I personally have no issue with gay marriage but at the same time I have no issue with the bakers not wanting to take part in the wedding.
The best thing to do would have been for the gay couple to go find another baker that better fit their needs.

They weren't that either. Maybe you should do some research.

Public Accommodation has been written into Federal law since 1965. It means the gay baker has to bake a cake for the bigoted Christian in all 50 states...the bigoted Christian only has to bake a cake for the gays in about half (they are local laws, states rights advocate)

The gay should not have to bake a cake for a Christian function either.
For instance, lets say its a Christian gathering to sit around and denounce gays and try to figure out ways to cure them. The gay baker should have the right to decide if he wants his business involved in this.

Are you a states rights person, yes or no? If so, then leave local laws alone and get that pesky civil rights act repealed, m'kay?

 

[Seawytch]

It's called the 14th Amendment. The cases were: Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Wisconsin, Turner v Safely and Obergefell v Hodges.

wait a minute, these were cases that involved race, not sexual orientation.
If you want to cite a ruling that would be closer then we have to go back to Reynolds VS the U.S. In that case the argument was in reference to the Mormons and more than one wife. The supreme court came out and decided that it was not a violation of any kind to prohibit these multiple partner marriages because they were not considered within the norms of society at the time.
This is also why there was speculation that multiple wives would be allowed shortly after gay marriage was passed. If the condition of norms of society were no longer an effective argument, as in the case for gay marriage, then it could no longer be held valid as defined in Reynolds VS the U.S

No, only one had to do with race. Try again.

Ill give you that, Im only familiar with the loving case, not the others and I didnt look them up before responding, but even if they were same sex marriage cases, the same argument would apply
and for the record, I personally have no issue with gay marriage but at the same time I have no issue with the bakers not wanting to take part in the wedding.
The best thing to do would have been for the gay couple to go find another baker that better fit their needs.

They weren't that either. Maybe you should do some research.

Public Accommodation has been written into Federal law since 1965. It means the gay baker has to bake a cake for the bigoted Christian in all 50 states...the bigoted Christian only has to bake a cake for the gays in about half (they are local laws, states rights advocate)

LOL, go eat some carpet honey.

Poor dear...feelings of inadequacy?

 

[Clementine]

How does that work?

It can only be mailed to the official address you have on record. Usually, that means the address on your official ID or driver's license. Sadly, a Dem postal worker was caught destroying some absentee ballots for Trump.

Only when you go in person, when no ID is required, can you get away with voting without any verification.

Oh, and we know now that there is cheating by bussing people to different states and voting illegally. Of course, those relying on the liberal media won't hear anything negative since they imposed a blackout on the leaked emails. One lib 'reporter' is telling people it's illegal for anyone but the press to have the emails and they are trying to deter people from going to the website for fear it's a crime to do so.

 

[Seawytch]

How does that work?

It can only be mailed to the official address you have on record. Usually, that means the address on your official ID or driver's license. Sadly, a Dem postal worker was caught destroying some absentee ballots for Trump.

Laws vary from state to state.

 

[rightwinger]

How does that work?

It can only be mailed to the official address you have on record. Usually, that means the address on your official ID or driver's license. Sadly, a Dem postal worker was caught destroying some absentee ballots for Trump.

Only when you go in person, when no ID is required, can you get away with voting without any verification.

Oh, and we know now that there is cheating by bussing people to different states and voting illegally. Of course, those relying on the liberal media won't hear anything negative since they imposed a blackout on the leaked emails. One lib 'reporter' is telling people it's illegal for anyone but the press to have the emails and they are trying to deter people from going to the website for fear it's a crime to do so.

Damn do you ever buy into the rightwing conspiracy theories
No postal worker was caught destroying absentee ballots for Trump (How do you know what is inside an envelope)
No busloads of people are going state to state

 

[RealDave]

They are not a church. Baking a cake is not worship. Their free exercise of religion is not being infringed upon.

Marriage is a fundamental right according to the SCOTUS. They've said so on numerous occasions.

FInd that right in the constitution, its something that is left to the states. Not the federal government. Besides, the Government cant grant you rights, they are only not allowed to take them from you.

You weren't granted the right to bear arms?

its a right that cant be taken. Not sure (other than I think you might be 15 at the oldest) you cant understand these things

If it's a right that CAN"T BE TAKEN, why are hysterical gun nuts constantly claiming that Hillary Clinton is going to do just that?

working on the basis or theory that no one right is greater than another, How can we claim that something as simple as showing ID to vote is a violation of a right, and at the same time claim that it is not a violation of a right for someone to go through what they have to go through to purchase or own a handgun.
Nobody is asking for anyone to pay a tax, get a medical evaluation or submit pages of forms, even take a test to vote, simply, show an ID that will match up to the voter roles.
Now tell me, how is it a violation and how is it disenfranchising anyone to have to show ID. These things have never been proven

Voters can be asked for ID. You are demanding a particular set of acceptable photo IDs. IDs that people may not have if they do not drive.

You are telling 10-12% of eligible voters that they can not vote unless they obtain this photo ID. This is erecting a hurdle these people must climb where the others do not. Not everyone can/will get one & therefore it is voter suppression.

I have provided a link that proves this & if you weren't so ignorant, you would know it.

You are asking people (that do not drive) to go to a location possibly 10-20 miles away to get this ID. You act as though you can get it at Walmart.

Quit CHEATING to try to win elections.