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

[JakeStarkey]

Considering that Jude is a warning to members of the church, not to the world, about errors of doctrine by false teachers, the book is not applicable to this OP.

What is applicable for all, though, is the majestic doxology.

24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,

25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, they want the case to be decided at the SCOTUS level after a long and tidiously predictable string of unquestioned victories for the new cult.

You'll see. I guess...sure, why not...I'll ask you this... Do you think Justice Kennedy was pleased to hear the news that Kim Davis was thrown in jail for her passive Christian refusal to accomodate a "gay wedding" (to normalize homosexuality in direct mortal violation of God's commandment to her), or maybe, just maybe...was Kennedy a bit pissed off about that?

Imagine being the first Justice since the start of our nation to be directly responsible for the jailing of a Christian for refusing to promote gay sex?

Nope. It has been turned down. If he files a new case, it will be summarily dismissed.

A Christian jailed for following the warning of a mortal sin for accomodating a "gay marriage" (normalizing homosexuality) and you think it's going to get thrown out?

We'll see... If it does, the election results for democrats will be even worse than I've predicted. Beware the curse of unintended consequences..

Wrong.

An officer of the state was jailed of her own free will – after being found in contempt of court she was given the choice of complying with a lawful court order or going to jail, she elected the latter, having nothing whatsoever to do with her faith, in no way requiring her to 'violate' her faith; it's a lie to maintain otherwise.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Why would Kennedy care?

 

[Syriusly]

why do you think that an arrest for disobeying a court order would change the 14th amendment?

Here's a better question, why do you think non-existent "guarantees to just some deviant sex behaviors for marriage" in the 14th out-trump the 1st Amendment? (Hint: look to the 9th Amendment for who is going to win this little snafu..)

Well now that is the kind of stupid ass question we expect from you.

The Supreme Court, when it rules on marriage- is not ruling on 'deviant sex behaviors' at all.

 

[Syriusly]

She actively violated the law, got spanked, and that is the end of it.

Not according to her constitutional attorney she's retained.

Lawyers are hired to make an argument on behalf of their client- doesn't mean that the argument that they make is a valid argument.

Now the lawyers who argued for the Constitutional rights of gay couples to marry- their lawyers made winning- and valid arguments.

 

[Syriusly]

No, they want the case to be decided at the SCOTUS level after a long and tidiously predictable string of unquestioned victories for the new cult.

You'll see. I guess...sure, why not...I'll ask you this... Do you think Justice Kennedy was pleased to hear the news that Kim Davis was thrown in jail for her passive Christian refusal to accomodate a "gay wedding" (to normalize homosexuality in direct mortal violation of God's commandment to her), or maybe, just maybe...was Kennedy a bit pissed off about that?

Imagine being the first Justice since the start of our nation to be directly responsible for the jailing of a Christian for refusing to promote gay sex?

Nope. It has been turned down. If he files a new case, it will be summarily dismissed.

A Christian jailed for following the warning of a mortal sin for accomodating a "gay marriage" (normalizing homosexuality) and you think it's going to get thrown out?.

Really why do you think you- as a non-Christian- get to decide what is a 'mortal sin'?

Especially since most protestants do not even believe in the concept of a 'mortal sin'? that is a particularly Catholic term- and Ms. Davis is no Catholic- not with 4 marriages.

However- why she won't obey God and follow the law- as Romans tells her to do- that I don't understand.

 

[Syriusly]

No, they want the case to be decided at the SCOTUS level after a long and tidiously predictable string of unquestioned victories for the new cult.

You'll see. I guess...sure, why not...I'll ask you this... Do you think Justice Kennedy was pleased to hear the news that Kim Davis was thrown in jail for her passive Christian refusal to accomodate a "gay wedding" (to normalize homosexuality in direct mortal violation of God's commandment to her), or maybe, just maybe...was Kennedy a bit pissed off about that??

I think that Kennedy was a bit pissed off that a mere county clerk was not following the clear decision of the Supreme Court.

If Kennedy felt otherwise- he could have moved to accept her appeal.

I suspect Kennedy is satisified that justice was being done.

 

[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.

There's no 'misunderstanding' of the Establishment Clause, or the Free Exercise Clause, for that matter – given the fact neither have anything to do with this case.

Indeed, there are no Free Exercise Clause issues in play, no religious liberty rights at stake, and no one is seeking to “silence the majority of Americans who are still of faith,” the notion is ridiculous, unfounded nonsense.

As already correctly noted: all persons of faith are free to worship as they see fit, absent any unwarranted interference by government.

And should a person of faith refuse to abide by a just, proper, and Constitutional court order – as did Kim Davis – then they can expect to be found in contempt of court, having nothing whatsoever to do with their faith.

Yes, we all should comply to the edicts from 5 old men and women. After all we elected them, didn't we?

You did miss my point. The person I responded to cited establishment of religion, not me. As you have well stated they are incorrect in doing so just because the woman has formed her ideas differently then the poster.

 

[ogibillm]

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.

There's no 'misunderstanding' of the Establishment Clause, or the Free Exercise Clause, for that matter – given the fact neither have anything to do with this case.

Indeed, there are no Free Exercise Clause issues in play, no religious liberty rights at stake, and no one is seeking to “silence the majority of Americans who are still of faith,” the notion is ridiculous, unfounded nonsense.

As already correctly noted: all persons of faith are free to worship as they see fit, absent any unwarranted interference by government.

And should a person of faith refuse to abide by a just, proper, and Constitutional court order – as did Kim Davis – then they can expect to be found in contempt of court, having nothing whatsoever to do with their faith.

Yes, we all should comply to the edicts from 5 old men and women. After all we elected them, didn't we?
You did miss my point. The person I responded to cited establishment of religion, not me. As you have well stated they are incorrect in doing so just because the woman has formed her ideas differently then the poster.

why do you hate the constitiution?

 

[bodecea]

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.

There's no 'misunderstanding' of the Establishment Clause, or the Free Exercise Clause, for that matter – given the fact neither have anything to do with this case.

Indeed, there are no Free Exercise Clause issues in play, no religious liberty rights at stake, and no one is seeking to “silence the majority of Americans who are still of faith,” the notion is ridiculous, unfounded nonsense.

As already correctly noted: all persons of faith are free to worship as they see fit, absent any unwarranted interference by government.

And should a person of faith refuse to abide by a just, proper, and Constitutional court order – as did Kim Davis – then they can expect to be found in contempt of court, having nothing whatsoever to do with their faith.

Yes, we all should comply to the edicts from 5 old men and women. After all we elected them, didn't we?

You did miss my point. The person I responded to cited establishment of religion, not me. As you have well stated they are incorrect in doing so just because the woman has formed her ideas differently then the poster.

I see you have't read the Constitution, particularly Article III.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS has original jurisdiction on all matters of the Constitution.

 

[bendog]

No, they want the case to be decided at the SCOTUS level after a long and tidiously predictable string of unquestioned victories for the new cult.

You'll see. I guess...sure, why not...I'll ask you this... Do you think Justice Kennedy was pleased to hear the news that Kim Davis was thrown in jail for her passive Christian refusal to accomodate a "gay wedding" (to normalize homosexuality in direct mortal violation of God's commandment to her), or maybe, just maybe...was Kennedy a bit pissed off about that?

Imagine being the first Justice since the start of our nation to be directly responsible for the jailing of a Christian for refusing to promote gay sex?

Nope. It has been turned down. If he files a new case, it will be summarily dismissed.

A Christian jailed for following the warning of a mortal sin for accomodating a "gay marriage" (normalizing homosexuality) and you think it's going to get thrown out?

We'll see... If it does, the election results for democrats will be even worse than I've predicted. Beware the curse of unintended consequences..

Wrong.

An officer of the state was jailed of her own free will – after being found in contempt of court she was given the choice of complying with a lawful court order or going to jail, she elected the latter, having nothing whatsoever to do with her faith, in no way requiring her to 'violate' her faith; it's a lie to maintain otherwise.

Dred Scott, erghhhhh

 

[Syriusly]

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.

There's no 'misunderstanding' of the Establishment Clause, or the Free Exercise Clause, for that matter – given the fact neither have anything to do with this case.

Indeed, there are no Free Exercise Clause issues in play, no religious liberty rights at stake, and no one is seeking to “silence the majority of Americans who are still of faith,” the notion is ridiculous, unfounded nonsense.

As already correctly noted: all persons of faith are free to worship as they see fit, absent any unwarranted interference by government.

And should a person of faith refuse to abide by a just, proper, and Constitutional court order – as did Kim Davis – then they can expect to be found in contempt of court, having nothing whatsoever to do with their faith.

Yes, we all should comply to the edicts from 5 old men and women. After all we elected them, didn't we?
.

I think that a person should comply with the law- and if not- should be willing to accept the punishment set out by the law.
Kim Davis chose to ignore the instructions of the court- and was ruled in contempt of court.

As far as 'complying with 5 old men and women' I presume you mean the majority vote of the Supreme Court- a court that was nominated by an elected President- and confirmed by an elected Senate- all as per the U.S. Consitution- and then that court determines whether State laws are constitutional.

If you do not agree with that process, I suppose you are fine with a State passing a law making gun ownership illegal and gun owners having no recourse to challenge that unconstitutional law.

 

[Silhouette]

SCOTUS has original jurisdiction on all matters of the Constitution.

Great, so point me to the place in the Constitution where it says "just some repugnant deviant sexual behaviors but not others have the right to marry".

And if you cannot do this, then polygamy and incest are already legal across all 50 states.

 

[Skylar]

SCOTUS has original jurisdiction on all matters of the Constitution.

Great, so point me to the place in the Constitution where it says "just some repugnant deviant sexual behaviors but not others have the right to marry".

And if you cannot do this, then polygamy and incest are already legal across all 50 states.

Or.....your pseudo-legal gibberish has nothing to do with the law or the constitution. And there's no requirement to quote your imagination in the constitution for a ruling to be valid.

There's a reason why your every prediction on legal outcomes has been perfectly wrong: you really have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

Whenever you can't answer my points, you resort to the same post. "your pseudo-legal gibberish.." etc. etc. etc. What you're really saying is "gee I hope nobody notices that I don't have an answer for what Sil just brought up."

Answer the question asshole.

Great, so point me to the place in the Constitution where it says "just some repugnant deviant sexual behaviors but not others have the right to marry".
And if you cannot do this, then polygamy and incest are already legal across all 50 states.

 

[Silhouette]

Dred Scott, erghhhhh

You mean race, right? Not behaviors?

 

[Skylar]

Whenever you can't answer my points, you resort to the same post. "your pseudo-legal gibberish.." etc. etc. etc. What you're really saying is "gee I hope nobody notices that I don't have an answer for what Sil just brought up."

Your demand isn't a requirement of anyone, as it has nothing to do with any law. Its just a plain old logical fallacy based on pure imagination:

'Find whatever I imagine in the constitution or whatever else I imagine must be true'.

Um, no. Your imagination neither defines the requirements of the constitution nor the outcome of any law. Your babble about 'cults' and 'sexual deviants' and the like have nothing to do with our laws. They're merely your opinion.

And your opinion creates no legal obligation, definition, requirement or principle. As you have no idea what you're talking about.

Answer the question asshole.

Great, so point me to the place in the Constitution where it says "just some repugnant deviant sexual behaviors but not others have the right to marry".
And if you cannot do this, then polygamy and incest are already legal across all 50 states.

Um, dipshit....that's not a question. You can tell by the lack of a question mark. That's a demand and baseless conclusion based on your imagination. As demonstrated by the fact that your entire basis of argument is you citing yourself.

Which, as we established above...means jack shit. Nor has the slightest relevance to the law.

 

[Silhouette]

Lots of nasty comments = Skylar doesn't have a convincing rebuttal to my points. Thanks for the compliment Skylar.

 

[Syriusly]

SCOTUS has original jurisdiction on all matters of the Constitution.

Great, so point me to the place in the Constitution where it says "just some repugnant deviant sexual behaviors but not others have the right to marry".

And if you cannot do this, then polygamy and incest are already legal across all 50 states.

Your ignorance and confusion about the law is frankly not our problem.

We have explained it over and over- and even better than us- the Justices themselves have explained.

If you still think polygamy and incestuouos marriage is illegal- well then try to get married to your sibling and tell us how that turns out.