If Justice Kennedy Had Known A Christian Would Be Jailed Less Than 3 Months Later...

[JakeStarkey]

We are talking abour civil rights, not race or sexual behavior, to marry whom we wish, Sil.

 

[Silhouette]

We are talking abour civil rights, not race or sexual behavior, to marry whom we wish, Sil.

What civil rights? There's nothing about marriage in the Constitution. And the only classes mentioned are race, gender, country of origin or religion.

Which one of those do "just some deviant sex behaviors but not others" fall under to gain special access to dismantle the marriage contract to the detriment of children without that party being present at the Hearing?

Do you believe that children have civil rights also? Like the right to have had representation at the Hearing and a guardian ad litem or ten there also, to hash out the terms of the contract that was just radically revised without their permission...in fact in spite of their avid protest? You're aware of the amicus briefs filed by kids raised in gay homes saying "no, don't do this, it's not the right thing for kids!". Was there even a mention of those amicus briefs in the Opinion?

 

[Silhouette]

Kennedy's opinion in June in no way gives a logical mind any hope for the overturning of marriage equality.

Do you suppose that a logical mind would include one that is capable of reading the 1st & 9th Amendments to the Constitution? Or one that has read the federal CAPTA regulations? Or one that knows that in contract law when a contract is proposed to be revised as to its fundamental terms, all parties of the contract must be present or represented in order to make that revision valid?

Who were the attorneys for children's welfare present at last Spring's Hearing? Do you recall their names? At what point in the transcripts will we find them assenting to surrendering children's having both a mother and father present in a married home? Can you direct me to the page that's on? Thanks!

 

[JakeStarkey]

A logical mind that understands the Constitution will not come to your conclustions.

 

[Silhouette]

A logical mind that understands the Constitution will not come to your conclustions.

Describe your points in more detail.

 

[Coyote]

Here's a question that came up on another thread which made me reflect a bit.

If Justice Kennedy had known in June of this year that before the leaves fell off the trees in the same year, that the LGBT cult would pressure a judge to jail a Christian for passively refusing to enable a "gay marriage"....would that have affected his vote?

Ostensibly, we can predict how that would've affected Ginsburg and Kagan's votes, since as the question was pending up to their Court of "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage", the two of them were openly presiding over states as The Supreme Federal Last Word by peforming gay weddings on public display. We can then extrapolate that if they are willing to violate the Constitution so flagrantly at that level that they would also "look away" as threats of jailing Christians for not playing along were bounced around in their presence.

But Kennedy, he's a different bloke. And also maybe Sotomayer and Breyer. But for the more senior and sensible one who at least has not displayed arrogant public bias while the case was pending (in violation of Massey Coal 2009), this topic is about Kennedy mainly. You can weigh in also on Sotomayor and Breyer too. But I think we're all 100% in agreement on Ginsburg and Kagan not changing their votes if they knew...


So, if Kennedy had a crystal ball and saw Kim Davis sitting in jail less than 3 months after he released the June Opinion, would he have voted differently?

Discuss.

When most people break the law - there are consequences. Why is she exempt from consequences and why do you think Kennedy would vote to deny the right of marriage to homosexuals because a woman decided to break the law?

I believe it's against my religion to have to pay for anything. Why should I have to serve jail time for shoplifting?

 

[Silhouette]

When most people break the law - there are consequences. Why is she exempt from consequences and why do you think Kennedy would vote to deny the right of marriage to homosexuals because a woman decided to break the law?

I believe it's against my religion to have to pay for anything. Why should I have to serve jail time for shoplifting?

1. She is exempt because of the 1st and 9th Amendments. How many times will this have to be repeated? and

2. Does your religion say that if you fail to not pay for things you go to hell for eternity (a mortal sin)? If so, what is your religion's name and is it federally registered?

Promoting homosexuality for a Christian (the vehicle of marriage the paramount example of that) is one of the deadliest sins they can commit. How many times will this have to be repeated?

 

[Silhouette]

See, whenever I bring up how normalizing homosexuality is a deadly sin, not just a run of the mill one, then the topic grows silent from the payroll church of LGBT bloggers.

 

[Coyote]

When most people break the law - there are consequences. Why is she exempt from consequences and why do you think Kennedy would vote to deny the right of marriage to homosexuals because a woman decided to break the law?

I believe it's against my religion to have to pay for anything. Why should I have to serve jail time for shoplifting?

1. She is exempt because of the 1st and 9th Amendments. How many times will this have to be repeated? and

My religion requires human sacrifices, therefore I should be exempt from the consequences of adhering to my faith.

2. Does your religion say that if you fail to not pay for things you go to hell for eternity (a mortal sin)? If so, what is your religion's name and is it federally registered?

Where does any religion specifically ban same sex marriages as part of their doctrine?

Promoting homosexuality for a Christian (the vehicle of marriage the paramount example of that) is one of the deadliest sins they can commit. How many times will this have to be repeated?

And, all she has to do is allow someone else to do the job she was hired to do.

Jehovah's Witness' consider blood transfusions to be sinful. If a doctor refused to allow a blood transfusion to be given to a patient - or to allow any other doctor to do so - should he or she be protected from the consequences of his or her actions? (ie being fired or, if it was an elected position, fined or jailed)?

 

[Coyote]

See, whenever I bring up how normalizing homosexuality is a deadly sin, not just a run of the mill one, then the topic grows silent from the payroll church of LGBT bloggers.

No. Not everyone is on line at 1:30am.

 

[Silhouette]

My religion requires human sacrifices, therefore I should be exempt from the consequences of adhering to my faith.

Then your religion would physically harm other citizens which isn't allowed. Hurting their feelings doesn't count. And I know of no federally recognized religion that does human sacrifice. Kennedy was referring to the ones recognized when he said they could be exempt from playing along with June 2105's Decision.

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons." http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

It seems odd here, not only does Kennedy say a person's right to exercise of their faith is protected, because that doesn't need saying, it's said verbatum in the 1st Amendment, he also seems to be protecting their right to evangelize and instruct others to believe that way too.

It's almost as if he senses that what he did was opening a door to the death of the last vestiges of mores in human society and therefore, the death of Christianity and decency in all faiths as well. You'd think he would've considered that before they wrote the opinion and left a larger shield by allowing states to make the determination on which "just some deviant sex behaviors but not others" may marry in their borders?

Kennedy was afraid. I think that's why he cast the way he did. They got to him. You can sense his fear in that statement he made and his struggles to not go to hell for eternity in so doing. Won't work though. God is a bit more sophisticated than that. Opening a crack in the door for normalizing homosexuality, especially by barring others (states' majorities) from being able at all to seal that crack shut, is one and the same as kicking God in the nutsack.

 

[Silhouette]

There is nothing to "walk-back"....

Then how come Kennedy pre-emptively "walked back" the power of that Decision by saying "oh by the way, Christians and others of sublime faith don't have to play along with this decision."? And even worse of a drain on that decision's power, he said that they can preach and teach to others that to follow that Decision isn't the right thing to do.

Seems odd to adjudicate from the bench "I declare so-and-so!"...then in the same document say "but if you don't agree with me, feel free to opt out".
Your thoughts?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It's a secular nation, why can you not accept the rulings of the highest court of the land?

 

[Silhouette]

It's a secular nation, why can you not accept the rulings of the highest court of the land?

It's a secular nation with rights for religious people. Oops. There's that little snag again.

Let me repeat what I just said on another thread here, and to the point:

...religion is given its own special Amendment in the Constitution. And the 9th says it can't be watered down by other Amendments. Sorry. The founding fathers saw the persecution by various secular entities of people of faith and took special pains to see that secular tyranny didn't hurt religion in this country. You will remember the pilgrims and why they settled here? Expedient ceaseless tyranny from King George and his fancies of the day forced them to flee here. The "one size religion fits all" from old England caused the 1st Amendment to be written as it was. Now instead of the Church of England using secular laws to force itself upon the People, it's the church of LGBT doing the same thing. Only the 1st won't let them...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It's a secular nation, why can you not accept the rulings of the highest court of the land?

It's a secular nation with rights for religious people. Oops. There's that little snag again.

Let me repeat what I just said on another thread here, and to the point:

...religion is given its own special Amendment in the Constitution. And the 9th says it can't be watered down by other Amendments. Sorry. The founding fathers saw the persecution by various secular entities of people of faith and took special pains to see that secular tyranny didn't hurt religion in this country. You will remember the pilgrims and why they settled here? Expedient ceaseless tyranny from King George and his fancies of the day forced them to flee here. The "one size religion fits all" from old England caused the 1st Amendment to be written as it was. Now instead of the Church of England using secular laws to force itself upon the People, it's the church of LGBT doing the same thing. Only the 1st won't let them...

Why we have the First - America's True History of Religious Tolerance | History | Smithsonian

And it doesn't mean you are allowed to disobey our Secular Laws.

 

[Skylar]

It's a secular nation, why can you not accept the rulings of the highest court of the land?

It's a secular nation with rights for religious people. Oops. There's that little snag again.

Let me repeat what I just said on another thread here, and to the point:

...religion is given its own special Amendment in the Constitution. And the 9th says it can't be watered down by other Amendments. Sorry. The founding fathers saw the persecution by various secular entities of people of faith and took special pains to see that secular tyranny didn't hurt religion in this country. You will remember the pilgrims and why they settled here? Expedient ceaseless tyranny from King George and his fancies of the day forced them to flee here. The "one size religion fits all" from old England caused the 1st Amendment to be written as it was. Now instead of the Church of England using secular laws to force itself upon the People, it's the church of LGBT doing the same thing. Only the 1st won't let them...

Why we have the First - America's True History of Religious Tolerance | History | Smithsonian

And it doesn't mean you are allowed to disobey our Secular Laws.

And that's the rub. What Davis advocates are often arguing for....is religious based Sovereign Citizen arguments. Where their religion trumps and supercedes any law, including the constitution. Thus, only the laws that they agree with apply to them.

Worse, they can use the power of the state to FORCE others to abide their religious beliefs.

This is part of the Christian Utopia that evangelicals want to create. Specifically the 'dominion Christian' leaning evangelicals. Of which Ted Cruz's father is a minister. And Ted was raised in.

 

[Silhouette]

And that's the rub. What Davis advocates are often arguing for....is religious based Sovereign Citizen arguments. Where their religion trumps and supercedes any law, including the constitution. Thus, only the laws that they agree with apply to them.

Worse, they can use the power of the state to FORCE others to abide their religious beliefs.

This is part of the Christian Utopia that evangelicals want to create. Specifically the 'dominion Christian' leaning evangelicals. Of which Ted Cruz's father is a minister. And Ted was raised in.

So that being said oh observant Skylar, what do you think about Kennedy's words not only avering that Christians can opt out of playing along with gay marriage but also that they can continue to teach others to do so as well? Pretty weird and a terrible omen for the church of LGBT prevailing over Kim Davis when this arrives before King Kennedy, wouldn't you say?

Your LGBT religion is using the power of the state to force your dogma upon others, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander eh?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And that's the rub. What Davis advocates are often arguing for....is religious based Sovereign Citizen arguments. Where their religion trumps and supercedes any law, including the constitution. Thus, only the laws that they agree with apply to them.

Worse, they can use the power of the state to FORCE others to abide their religious beliefs.

This is part of the Christian Utopia that evangelicals want to create. Specifically the 'dominion Christian' leaning evangelicals. Of which Ted Cruz's father is a minister. And Ted was raised in.

So that being said oh observant Skylar, what do you think about Kennedy's words not only avering that Christians can opt out of playing along with gay marriage but also that they can continue to teach others to do so as well? Pretty weird and a terrible omen for the church of LGBT prevailing over Kim Davis when this arrives before King Kennedy, wouldn't you say?

Your LGBT religion is using the power of the state to force your dogma upon others, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander eh?

Equality before the law in a secular state is not dogma, it's the ideal, the shared morality. Dogma is religion and tradition, as well as fear and intolerance, both of which you support the state listening to instead of protecting the rights of the homosexual minority...

 

[Coyote]

My religion requires human sacrifices, therefore I should be exempt from the consequences of adhering to my faith.

Then your religion would physically harm other citizens which isn't allowed. Hurting their feelings doesn't count. And I know of no federally recognized religion that does human sacrifice. Kennedy was referring to the ones recognized when he said they could be exempt from playing along with June 2105's Decision.

Who said anything about "hurting their feelings"? Denying someone a fundamental and legal right in the name of religious bigotry is not about feelings. I'm sorry you're confused about the issue involved.

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons." http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

It seems odd here, not only does Kennedy say a person's right to exercise of their faith is protected, because that doesn't need saying, it's said verbatum in the 1st Amendment, he also seems to be protecting their right to evangelize and instruct others to believe that way too.

No. It doesn't. Not in the way you are thinking. It does not give someone the right to impose their belief's on others or force others to do so. At that point - someone else's rights are infringed on.

It's almost as if he senses that what he did was opening a door to the death of the last vestiges of mores in human society and therefore, the death of Christianity and decency in all faiths as well. You'd think he would've considered that before they wrote the opinion and left a larger shield by allowing states to make the determination on which "just some deviant sex behaviors but not others" may marry in their borders?

Contrary to your argument, I don't think Kennedy had this woman in mind when he made his ruling. His ruling would allow her to advocate, and even, as a "consciencous objector" defer to someone else to do the job and prevent someone else from excercising his/her legal right.

Kennedy was afraid. I think that's why he cast the way he did. They got to him. You can sense his fear in that statement he made and his struggles to not go to hell for eternity in so doing. Won't work though. God is a bit more sophisticated than that. Opening a crack in the door for normalizing homosexuality, especially by barring others (states' majorities) from being able at all to seal that crack shut, is one and the same as kicking God in the nutsack.

Afraid of what? His ruling is perfect. It protects real religious liberties as is appropriate.

 

[Coyote]

Equating gay rights to Hitler's Nazi Germany is the definition of insanity.