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

[bodecea]

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.

And rightfully so. Made up religious beliefs are not a ticket to put yourself above the law.

Made up?
The bible is very clear on it.

Which version of which holy book for which interpretation of which sect of which religion at which time and space.

Yep......VERY clear.

 

[bodecea]

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.

The government is giving out a LEGAL marriage license. Why would it not be equal under the law?

That has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

It have everything to do with what you are talking about, and you know it....

 

[bodecea]

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.

And rightfully so. Made up religious beliefs are not a ticket to put yourself above the law.

Made up?
The bible is very clear on it.

About issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples? I'd love to see that verse.

About sodomy.

So you are all about 2000+ year old sexual taboos?

 

[bodecea]

The Bible does not contain one sentence condemning the issuance of same sex civil marriage licenses.

Oh, and btw, everything in the Bible is made up, as in written by ancient people.

Sure, and the Bible does not contain one word about erecting a billboard that says "hey kids, gay is cool because gay marriage is normal now, you should try out the gay!" But I think we can both agree that the implication of Jude 1 and Romans 1 is that ANY activity that puts the stamp of normalizing homosexuality in such a conspicuous way, such as marriage or a billboard, applies.

In fact, if I had to pick one venue in which a person could change society at its core in any direction they saw fit, the one venue I would choose is marriage, since marriage is the epitome of "what society views as normal and accepted"...hence the reason the LGBT cult was so zealous at accomplishing their coup of it..

Where is that billboard? Of is this too part of your imaginary life?

 

[Freewill]

Give it up, the cross groveler in KY broke the law she got off easy with jail time

May I ask what difference it makes her reason? I am not even saying I agree with what she is doing. But your egocentric bigoted response is curious. Do you treat everyone you disagree with with such sanctimonious attitude?

 

[bodecea]

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.

And rightfully so. Made up religious beliefs are not a ticket to put yourself above the law.

Made up?
The bible is very clear on it.

The Bible does not contain one sentence condemning the issuance of same sex civil marriage licenses.

Oh, and btw, everything in the Bible is made up, as in written by ancient people.

Deflecting much?
I answered the question about religious beliefs not marriage licenses.

The bible was written by men's hands but guided by God.
So why is everything coming true right now about end times written thousands of years ago?
Men could not have known about these things happing right now.

IF the discussion is about secular/legal marriage, why do you keep bringing up religious beliefs?

And NO, not everything is coming true right now about "end times". That's totally silly.

 

[Freewill]

It was not her Christianity that landed her in jail.

Nope, it was an edict from 5 old men and women. Next they will be telling us that corporations are people.

 

[Skylar]

Give it up, the cross groveler in KY broke the law she got off easy with jail time

May I ask what difference it makes her reason?

There's a 1st amendment prohibition against Establishing Religion. By using the State's power to force people to abide her religion she violated the 1st amendment.

Which wouldn't be the case if religion wasn't what she was attempting to enforce.

 

[bodecea]

Here is a couple pictures before I leave this stupid thread:

And you can't do shit about it.

Yes yes I know, or I'll wind up in jail, right?

Like I said, what would Kennedy have voted if he knew that folks passively refusing to participate in fatherless or motherless "marriages" (to the demise of the other implied parties to the marriage contract: children) would wind up in their being jailed?

Answer the question when you get a minute mdk.

Why would you end up in jail? Unless you are planning violence against your fellow citizens. I sure hope not. That would be wrong.

 

[Freewill]

Give it up, the cross groveler in KY broke the law she got off easy with jail time

May I ask what difference it makes her reason?

There's a 1st amendment prohibition against Establishing Religion. By using the State's power to force people to abide her religion she violated the 1st amendment.

Which wouldn't be the case if religion wasn't what she was attempting to enforce.

Ok, I see, it is your misunderstanding of the "establishment" clause that is the problem. What you are doing is trying to silence the majority of Americans who are still of faith. Sorry Charlie just because you don't like their reason doesn't mean it is invalid.

No one, including Davis, is establishing a religion.

 

[Skylar]

Give it up, the cross groveler in KY broke the law she got off easy with jail time

May I ask what difference it makes her reason?

There's a 1st amendment prohibition against Establishing Religion. By using the State's power to force people to abide her religion she violated the 1st amendment.

Which wouldn't be the case if religion wasn't what she was attempting to enforce.

Ok, I see, it is your misunderstanding of the "establishment" clause that is the problem. What you are doing is trying to silence the majority of Americans who are still of faith. Sorry Charlie just because you don't like their reason doesn't mean it is invalid.

No one, including Davis, is establishing a religion.

Kim Davis can believe what she wishes and practice as she wishes. But when as a government employee she uses State power to force people to obey her religion, she's violating the Establishment clause.

She lacks the authority to do so. As every court to hear her case has kindly informed her.

 

[peach174]

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

And rightfully so. Made up religious beliefs are not a ticket to put yourself above the law.

Made up?
The bible is very clear on it.

The Bible does not contain one sentence condemning the issuance of same sex civil marriage licenses.

Oh, and btw, everything in the Bible is made up, as in written by ancient people.

Deflecting much?
I answered the question about religious beliefs not marriage licenses.

The bible was written by men's hands but guided by God.
So why is everything coming true right now about end times written thousands of years ago?
Men could not have known about these things happing right now.

IF the discussion is about secular/legal marriage, why do you keep bringing up religious beliefs?

And NO, not everything is coming true right now about "end times". That's totally silly.

You can't put the brief discussion between me and NYcarbineer together?

Yes everything is starting to become true about end times discussed in the Bible.
Many have already happened and many are starting to become true. It is all lining up perfectly and happening in the order that it was written.

 

[HenryBHough]

To answer the question, no.

There is no feedback mechanism from puppets to those pulling the strings.

 

[Debra K]

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.

If the Justices of the Supreme Court had only known that bigots would refuse to enable segregation and cause disorder, would that have affected their vote in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)?

Answer: No.

Cooper v. Aaron 358 U.S. 1 (1958)

Syllabus . . .

1. This Court cannot countenance a claim by the Governor and Legislature of a State that there is no duty on state officials to obey federal court orders resting on this Court's considered interpretation of the United States Constitution in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483. P. 358 U. S. 4.

2. This Court rejects the contention that it should uphold a suspension of the Little Rock School Board's plan to do away with segregated public schools in Little Rock until state laws and efforts to upset and nullify its holding in the Brown case have been further challenged and tested in the courts. P. 358 U. S. 4.

3. In many locations, obedience to the duty of desegregation will require the immediate general admission of Negro children, otherwise qualified as students for their appropriate classes at particular schools. P. 358 U. S. 7.

4. If, after analysis of the relevant factors (which, of course, excludes hostility to racial desegregation), a District Court concludes that justification exists for not requiring the present nonsegregated admission of all qualified Negro children to public schools, it should scrutinize the program of the school authorities to make sure that they have developed arrangements pointed toward the earliest practicable completion of desegregation, and have taken appropriate steps to put their program into effective operation. P. 358 U. S. 7.

5. The petitioners stand in this litigation as the agents of the State, and they cannot assert their good faith as an excuse for delay in implementing the respondents' constitutional rights when vindication of those rights has been rendered difficult or impossible by the actions of other state officials. Pp. 358 U. S. 15-16.

6. The constitutional rights of respondents are not to be sacrificed or yielded to the violence and disorder which have followed
upon the actions of the Governor and Legislature, and law and order are not here to be preserved by depriving the Negro children of their constitutional rights. P. 358 U. S. 16.

7. The constitutional rights of children not to be discriminated against in school admission on grounds of race or color declared by this Court in the Brown case can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executives or judicial officers, nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes for segregation whether attempted "ingeniously or ingenuously." Pp. 358 U. S. 16-17.

8. The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." P. 358 U. S. 18.

9. No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it. P. 358 U. S. 18.

10. State support of segregated schools through any arrangement, management, funds or property cannot be squared with the command of the Fourteenth Amendment that no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. P. 358 U. S. 19.

Similar to the Supreme Court's ruling in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958), the Supreme Court would not tolerate a state official's refusal to obey a federal court order to issue marriage licenses, which order rested upon the Court's considered interpretation of the United States Constitution in Obergefell. In Kim Davis's case, the Supreme Court--the full panel of Justices--denied her request for a stay of the preliminary injunction (order). They would have no sympathy for her sitting in jail based on her choice thereafter to disobey the order.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And rightfully so. Made up religious beliefs are not a ticket to put yourself above the law.

Made up?
The bible is very clear on it.

The Bible does not contain one sentence condemning the issuance of same sex civil marriage licenses.

Oh, and btw, everything in the Bible is made up, as in written by ancient people.

Deflecting much?
I answered the question about religious beliefs not marriage licenses.

The bible was written by men's hands but guided by God.
So why is everything coming true right now about end times written thousands of years ago?
Men could not have known about these things happing right now.

IF the discussion is about secular/legal marriage, why do you keep bringing up religious beliefs?

And NO, not everything is coming true right now about "end times". That's totally silly.

You can't put the brief discussion between me and NYcarbineer together?

Yes everything is starting to become true about end times discussed in the Bible.
Many have already happened and many are starting to become true. It is all lining up perfectly and happening in the order that it was written.

You'd be better off if it isn't happening from what we've seen of you.

 

[ogibillm]

Here is a couple pictures before I leave this stupid thread:

And you can't do shit about it.

Yes yes I know, or I'll wind up in jail, right?

Like I said, what would Kennedy have voted if he knew that folks passively refusing to participate in fatherless or motherless "marriages" (to the demise of the other implied parties to the marriage contract: children) would wind up in their being jailed?

Answer the question when you get a minute mdk.

there's nothing passive about denying someone their rights.

 

[peach174]

Made up?
The bible is very clear on it.

The Bible does not contain one sentence condemning the issuance of same sex civil marriage licenses.

Oh, and btw, everything in the Bible is made up, as in written by ancient people.

Deflecting much?
I answered the question about religious beliefs not marriage licenses.

The bible was written by men's hands but guided by God.
So why is everything coming true right now about end times written thousands of years ago?
Men could not have known about these things happing right now.

IF the discussion is about secular/legal marriage, why do you keep bringing up religious beliefs?

And NO, not everything is coming true right now about "end times". That's totally silly.

You can't put the brief discussion between me and NYcarbineer together?

Yes everything is starting to become true about end times discussed in the Bible.
Many have already happened and many are starting to become true. It is all lining up perfectly and happening in the order that it was written.

You'd be better off if it isn't happening from what we've seen of you.

Like what?
I know I am saved, you have also been told how to be saved, you are the one who is refusing the advise.

 

[rightwinger]

Christians are not exempt from contempt of court

 

[peach174]

Christians are not exempt from contempt of court

No they aren't and that is why she went to jail.

 

[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?

Lawrence v. Texas
A 30-foot cock that helps you reach out and touch someone.

You win a seegar! Remember the old ATT commercials about "Reach out and touch someone!"