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

[peach174]

It was not her Christianity that landed her in jail.

It was her 1st amendment right to exercise her Christianity that landed her in jail.

Actually, its the 1st amendment that forbid her from doing what she did. As a government official weilding state power she attempted to use that power to force people to obey her religion.

That's the State establishment of religion. And forbidden by the 1st amendment. Which is one of the myriad of reasons Kim Davis lost. And same sex couples can get marriage licenses in Rowan county with relative ease.

It was Government that made law against the right for her to practice her Christianity.

 

[bendog]

He had to know because Roberts' dissent "prophesied" unhappiness amongst the unwashed and unreasoned.

 

[g5000]

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?

A legal decision is not dependent on emotional logical fallacies.

Try again.

The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution and the 9th that supports it aren't "emotional logical fallacies". And it is my avid belief that had Kennedy known that less than 3 months later the 1st and 9th Amendments were sitting in jail because of his decision, he would walk that back right now in a heartbeat if given the chance..

The First and Ninth were not in jail. In fact, the First was defended. A bigot attempted to use her government office to force some people to live by her religion in total violation of the First Amendment.

She lost, and the Constitution won.

 

[BlindBoo]

It was not her Christianity that landed her in jail.

It was her 1st amendment right to exercise her Christianity that landed her in jail.

No it was her refusal to do her job that did that. There is nothing in the 1st that gives her the right to defy a Court order to do the job she was elected to do. Your right to practice your religion stops when it starts to infringe on other citizens rights

 

[Claudette]

It was not her Christianity that landed her in jail.

She just used her religious beliefs to justify hatred of gays.

Again using those beliefs she decided she wouldn't do the job the voters elected her to do.

Her own actions got her charged with contempt of court and got her thrown in jail.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It was Government that made law against the right for her to practice her Christianity.

Please cite this law.

A law against practicing Christianity, which is not the same as a law that says a government employee is required to perform the duties for which they were hired.


>>>>

 

[Skylar]

It was not her Christianity that landed her in jail.

It was her 1st amendment right to exercise her Christianity that landed her in jail.

Actually, its the 1st amendment that forbid her from doing what she did. As a government official weilding state power she attempted to use that power to force people to obey her religion.

That's the State establishment of religion. And forbidden by the 1st amendment. Which is one of the myriad of reasons Kim Davis lost. And same sex couples can get marriage licenses in Rowan county with relative ease.

It was Government that made law against the right for her to practice her Christianity.

The law against using the government to force people to obey a particular religion has been around since the Bill of Rights was passed. And it applied to the States since the 14th amendment was passed.

Many generations before Davis was born.

 

[g5000]

It was Government that made law against the right for her to practice her Christianity.

No. She was using her government power to force others to practice her religion. That is totally against the First Amendment.

 

[peach174]

It was not her Christianity that landed her in jail.

It was her 1st amendment right to exercise her Christianity that landed her in jail.

No it was her refusal to do her job that did that. There is nothing in the 1st that gives her the right to defy a Court order to do the job she was elected to do. Your right to practice your religion stops when it starts to infringe on other citizens rights

Where in the Constitution does it say government has the right to make marriage licenses?

 

[Skylar]

It was not her Christianity that landed her in jail.

It was her 1st amendment right to exercise her Christianity that landed her in jail.

No it was her refusal to do her job that did that. There is nothing in the 1st that gives her the right to defy a Court order to do the job she was elected to do. Your right to practice your religion stops when it starts to infringe on other citizens rights

Where in the Constitution does it say government has the right to make marriage licenses?

Read the 10th amendment. As its the States issuing such licenses.

 

[peach174]

It was not her Christianity that landed her in jail.

It was her 1st amendment right to exercise her Christianity that landed her in jail.

No it was her refusal to do her job that did that. There is nothing in the 1st that gives her the right to defy a Court order to do the job she was elected to do. Your right to practice your religion stops when it starts to infringe on other citizens rights

Where in the Constitution does it say government has the right to make marriage licenses?

Read the 10th amendment. As its the States issuing such licenses.

States yes Feds no.
Supreme Court ruling just over ruled the States rights.

 

[mdk]

We didn't buy this wild and silly interpretation of the Massey decesion that last five threads you had on the subject. Did you think that was going to change now that a couple months have gone by?

Gay marriage is happening and all the fist shaking isn't going to change a damn thing. Sil throws another Hail Mary pass despite the fact that the team as left the field in June.

 

[g5000]

Where in the Constitution does it say government has the right to make marriage licenses?

Why do you need a government marriage license?

 

[Skylar]

It was not her Christianity that landed her in jail.

It was her 1st amendment right to exercise her Christianity that landed her in jail.

No it was her refusal to do her job that did that. There is nothing in the 1st that gives her the right to defy a Court order to do the job she was elected to do. Your right to practice your religion stops when it starts to infringe on other citizens rights

Where in the Constitution does it say government has the right to make marriage licenses?

Read the 10th amendment. As its the States issuing such licenses.

States yes Feds no.
Supreme Court ruling just over ruled the States rights.

Now read the 14th amendment. Specifically the part about due process and equal protection.

 

[g5000]

Where in the Constitution does it say government has the right to make marriage licenses?

Marriage licenses are a state matter, not federal. The only time the federal government intervenes is if a state law violates the Constitution. Or if the federal government decides to piggyback on state laws. An example of the latter form of federal intervention is the showering of federal cash and prizes on marriages that are sanctioned by the states.

To demonstrate the former means of federal intervention, imagine a state law that grants everyone but blacks a free lollipop. It is well within the state's rights to write a law giving everyone a free lollipop. But by denying free lollipops to blacks, the state just violated the "equal protection of the laws" part of the Constitution, and so the state would have to either take away everyone's lollipops or give them to blacks, too.

Then some dumbshit would come along and ask, "Where in the Constitution does it say the government has the right to give away lollipops?"

Now, I ask you again. Why do you need a government marriage license?

 

[g5000]

The reason people seek a government marriage license is so they can qualify for all the government cash and prizes bestowed BY LAW on government-approved marriages. All those cash and prizes are protected by secular law.

God does not require a government marriage license. You can get married in your church, and your church can ban homos from getting married. You're good to go with God.

If you then go to the government, you are not doing so to get God's approval of your marriage. You are going to get Caesar's approval of your marriage. It has absolutely nothing to do with God. You are going for the cash and prizes Caesar gives to you for being married.

Nothing to do with religion. At all.

So if Caesar says he is going to give those same cash and prizes to homos, that has nothing to do with religion.

It seems an awful lot of people have confused Caesar with God. And they don't want Caesar to give gays the exact same cash and prizes they have been getting from Caesar. That has nothing to do with religion, either. Far from it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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?

Even for you this one damn takes the gay cake you got sued for not baking. A thread so dumb even these few words are a waste of time. Do your jobs people, and obey the damn laws or face the consequences.

 

[Hossfly]

I have nothing against same sex marriage. But I do have concern that proponents of SSM believe it legalizes sodomy and homosexual acts. As far as I know, those are still criminal offenses. Can any one cite the law that legalizes that behavior?
On a sidenote, does anyone know what you get when you cross a rooster with a telephone pole?

 

[jillian]

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.

you mean if justice kennedy knew that some wacko would refuse to obey a lawful court order?

yeah, the decision was still the right one. same as when the same excuses were made after brown v bd of ed.

bigots always try to hide behind Jesus.... back then it was that if G-d meant blacks and whites to interact, he wouldn't have made them different.

and last time they needed federal troops to enforce the court's order.... this time it was only one loud-mouthed bigot and the pols who want to use her.

she needs to quit her job.

 

[peach174]

It was her 1st amendment right to exercise her Christianity that landed her in jail.

No it was her refusal to do her job that did that. There is nothing in the 1st that gives her the right to defy a Court order to do the job she was elected to do. Your right to practice your religion stops when it starts to infringe on other citizens rights

Where in the Constitution does it say government has the right to make marriage licenses?

Read the 10th amendment. As its the States issuing such licenses.

States yes Feds no.
Supreme Court ruling just over ruled the States rights.

Now read the 14th amendment. Specifically the part about due process and equal protection.

Under laws yes.
Not marriage.
They were not equal under the laws.
The laws should have changed to help them become equal under the laws, not the Supreme Court that forced States to marry them.
An example would be the inheritance laws where same sex couples would have the same rights under those laws.