Kim Davis Is Rosa Parks

[Cecilie1200]

democrat/liberal/progressive is same damn thing. They have just changed who they hate now.

That's factually incorrect. Strom Thurmond was a conservative and a Democrat. The Democrats were in control in the South during the civil war but it's Republicans who keep that vial dream alive.

Now, pull the stick out and name a prominent liberal who persecuted Rosa Parks.

Oh, good God.

The Democrats have always been to the political left of the Republicans in this country. Always. They are the exact same people and party, ideologically speaking, that they always have been, although their need to constantly push the envelope and blur boundary lines has taken them to previously unimagined extremes lately.

No amount of playing with and redefining terms is ever going to change the fact that you own every nasty thing the Democrat Party has ever done, and always will. It's yours. Suck it up, and if you're really that ashamed of the past,maybe you should reflect on what that means about being associated with that party now.

anybody with a functioning cerebral cortex would want to left of this : There is also general consensus that the Right includes: capitalists, conservatives, fascists, monarchists, nationalists, neoconservatives, neoliberals, reactionaries, right-libertarians, social-authoritarians, theocrats and traditionalists.[8]

Like you would know about functioning cerebral cortexes. I flush more intelligent matter than you carry between your ears.

Maybe you flushed a little too much.

Apparently not. You're still here.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I disagree with the SCOTUS decision only to the extent that I think they did it via deception.

There is nothing in the 14th Amendment or the reason it was proposed or ratified that makes it applicable to the topic of gay marriage.

On the other hand, frankly, as bad as it is conceptually and legally, I happen to (shhh) like the result. I wish America would do what SCOTUS did -- but do it legitimately via a proper Amendment. MAKE it an explicit Constitutionally recognized right. As a matter of Constitutional law, I am biased against judicial legislation and I certainly am no fan of SCOTUS becoming the author of de facto Constitutional amendments. Here we have an outcome I kind of like but a method of getting us there that transgresses all kinds of proper bounds. It is a dangerous way for this land to conduct the business of the nation's laws.

Nevertheless, that was a SCOTUS ruling and I am not remotely convinced by any argument that says a county clerk can take official actions (and in-actions) contrary to what is now the law.

Clerk Davis does not HAVE to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. She is free to quit her job.

1) America has a long history of civil disobedience against overreaching government, and it scares me that poltroons in this nation now want to claim the moral high ground for saying, "Oh, well, it's the law, so we just have to shut up and go along with it." The fuck we do.

2) Someone should have told you that the ends don't justify the means. You want homosexual "marriage"? Convince the voters to give it to you. The fact that you didn't and couldn't tells me that Ms. Davis has a valid point in refusing to comply with this pretending-to-be-a-law ruling.

Civil disobedience to injustice often comes at great personal expense. Dr. King went to jail. So did Rosa Parks. And I am perfectly content with the idea of disobeying an immoral law. While I strongly disagree with what the SCOTUS DID to achieve their end, I happen to agree with the outcome.

I never even suggested that the ends justify the means. I just finished SAYING, in fact, that I do not approve of how they went about it and I further suggested that it is dangerous to behave as the SCOTUS just did. That doesn't change the fact that they DID rule and it is currently the law of the land. I just wish it had been accomplished in a legitmate manner.

Ms. Davis is absolutely wrong. She remains free NOT to issue marriage licenses to gay couples in KY. She remains free to quit her job. But YOU are wrong. She, as a government official, is NOT actually free to refuse to comply with the law.

 

[HappyJoy]

That's factually incorrect. Strom Thurmond was a conservative and a Democrat. The Democrats were in control in the South during the civil war but it's Republicans who keep that vial dream alive.

Now, pull the stick out and name a prominent liberal who persecuted Rosa Parks.

Oh, good God.

The Democrats have always been to the political left of the Republicans in this country. Always. They are the exact same people and party, ideologically speaking, that they always have been, although their need to constantly push the envelope and blur boundary lines has taken them to previously unimagined extremes lately.

No amount of playing with and redefining terms is ever going to change the fact that you own every nasty thing the Democrat Party has ever done, and always will. It's yours. Suck it up, and if you're really that ashamed of the past,maybe you should reflect on what that means about being associated with that party now.

anybody with a functioning cerebral cortex would want to left of this : There is also general consensus that the Right includes: capitalists, conservatives, fascists, monarchists, nationalists, neoconservatives, neoliberals, reactionaries, right-libertarians, social-authoritarians, theocrats and traditionalists.[8]

Like you would know about functioning cerebral cortexes. I flush more intelligent matter than you carry between your ears.

Maybe you flushed a little too much.

Apparently not. You're still here.

I don't play in your bowl.

 

[candycorn]

Kim Davis Is Rosa Parks

Weird thing is today's democrats hate this woman for standing for religious freedom,1950-1960's democrats were the members of the klan and the ones that wanted blacks at back of the bus! I see not much has changed.

Does Art Bell know about you?

 

[oreo]

Kim Davis Is Rosa Parks

Weird thing is today's democrats hate this woman for standing for religious freedom,1950-1960's democrats were the members of the klan and the ones that wanted blacks at back of the bus! I see not much has changed.

That's quite a stretch. Rosa Parks wasn't getting a government paycheck--for doing a job. The county taxpayers were not put at risk for class action lawsuits for Rosa demanding equal treatment on the bus.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Democrat son...don't try and split hairs now because I got you dead to rights.

Right, there are/were plenty of racist conservative democrats back then, I'm not contesting that. But you also said liberals and progressives...so, start naming names.

Oh, spare me. I get so tired of you delusional leftists. Just because you call yourselves something doesn't make it true, and the faster you all grow up and stop believing you can just wish the world different, the better for everyone.

Calling yourself liberal doesn't make you liberal. Ditto for "progressive". And don't even freaking get me STARTED on people who think they can change genetics by changing labels. They don't even make medication for the level of "out-of-touch-with-reality" that afflicts the left these days.

What? Huh?

Name a liberal who sided themselves against Rosa Parks and you respond back with "calling yourself a liberal doesn't make you a liberal"?

I have no obligation to respond to your posts as though I'm accepting your premises as fact. I'm responding to your asinine pretense that you can try to claim every historical person you think is admirable as "part of your side", and fob everyone you think is heinous off onto your political opponents by some redefining sleight of hand. I have no intention of playing your game with you.

I was told that liberals opposed Rosa Parks. I simply asked this person to name one. That hasn't happened. Maybe you can jump in and be productive rather than whatever it is you're doing.

Still stuck at "not playing your shell game".

Rosa Parks was opposed by the Democrats of the day. Democrats were and are the liberals to the Republicans' conservatives on the American political spectrum, if those are the terms one wishes to use. Nothing is going to change that.

The politics of you and your ilk are nasty, and always have been. Own it. Case closed.

 

[David_42]

Right, there are/were plenty of racist conservative democrats back then, I'm not contesting that. But you also said liberals and progressives...so, start naming names.

Oh, spare me. I get so tired of you delusional leftists. Just because you call yourselves something doesn't make it true, and the faster you all grow up and stop believing you can just wish the world different, the better for everyone.

Calling yourself liberal doesn't make you liberal. Ditto for "progressive". And don't even freaking get me STARTED on people who think they can change genetics by changing labels. They don't even make medication for the level of "out-of-touch-with-reality" that afflicts the left these days.

What? Huh?

Name a liberal who sided themselves against Rosa Parks and you respond back with "calling yourself a liberal doesn't make you a liberal"?

I have no obligation to respond to your posts as though I'm accepting your premises as fact. I'm responding to your asinine pretense that you can try to claim every historical person you think is admirable as "part of your side", and fob everyone you think is heinous off onto your political opponents by some redefining sleight of hand. I have no intention of playing your game with you.

I was told that liberals opposed Rosa Parks. I simply asked this person to name one. That hasn't happened. Maybe you can jump in and be productive rather than whatever it is you're doing.

Still stuck at "not playing your shell game".

Rosa Parks was opposed by the Democrats of the day. Democrats were and are the liberals to the Republicans' conservatives on the American political spectrum, if those are the terms one wishes to use. Nothing is going to change that.

The politics of you and your ilk are nasty, and always have been. Own it. Case closed.

You do realize both political parties drastically changed over time, right? The republicans aren't like the republicans in the 50's, same goes for democrats.

 

[David_42]

 

[Cecilie1200]

Kim Davis Is Rosa Parks

Weird thing is today's democrats hate this woman for standing for religious freedom,1950-1960's democrats were the members of the klan and the ones that wanted blacks at back of the bus! I see not much has changed.

That's quite a stretch. Rosa Parks wasn't getting a government paycheck--for doing a job. The county taxpayers were not put at risk for class action lawsuits for Rosa demanding equal treatment on the bus.

Oh, yeah, I'm sure you're all kinds of worried about the well-being of the taxpayers in Kentucky, who voted for Kim Davis and did NOT vote for your crap-ass illegal law. And why is that, again? Oh, yeah, because you shitstains decided to just take the power out of the hands of the voters and give it to the courts in order to get your way.

Your faux concern is not impressive.

Have you even bothered to check into whether or not Ms. Davis's constituents feel that she's not representing them the way that they want, or are you too busy shitting your frillies because she's not representing them the way YOU want?

 

[David_42]

Kim Davis Is Rosa Parks

Weird thing is today's democrats hate this woman for standing for religious freedom,1950-1960's democrats were the members of the klan and the ones that wanted blacks at back of the bus! I see not much has changed.

That's quite a stretch. Rosa Parks wasn't getting a government paycheck--for doing a job. The county taxpayers were not put at risk for class action lawsuits for Rosa demanding equal treatment on the bus.

Oh, yeah, I'm sure you're all kinds of worried about the well-being of the taxpayers in Kentucky, who voted for Kim Davis and did NOT vote for your crap-ass illegal law. And why is that, again? Oh, yeah, because you shitstains decided to just take the power out of the hands of the voters and give it to the courts in order to get your way.

Your faux concern is not impressive.

Have you even bothered to check into whether or not Ms. Davis's constituents feel that she's not representing them the way that they want, or are you too busy shitting your frillies because she's not representing them the way YOU want?

I live in Kentucky, maybe I should chime in as a kentucky tax payer. We're referring to one county in Kentucky, a employee refusing to give out marriage licenses, a clear violation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh, spare me. I get so tired of you delusional leftists. Just because you call yourselves something doesn't make it true, and the faster you all grow up and stop believing you can just wish the world different, the better for everyone.

Calling yourself liberal doesn't make you liberal. Ditto for "progressive". And don't even freaking get me STARTED on people who think they can change genetics by changing labels. They don't even make medication for the level of "out-of-touch-with-reality" that afflicts the left these days.

What? Huh?

Name a liberal who sided themselves against Rosa Parks and you respond back with "calling yourself a liberal doesn't make you a liberal"?

I have no obligation to respond to your posts as though I'm accepting your premises as fact. I'm responding to your asinine pretense that you can try to claim every historical person you think is admirable as "part of your side", and fob everyone you think is heinous off onto your political opponents by some redefining sleight of hand. I have no intention of playing your game with you.

I was told that liberals opposed Rosa Parks. I simply asked this person to name one. That hasn't happened. Maybe you can jump in and be productive rather than whatever it is you're doing.

Still stuck at "not playing your shell game".

Rosa Parks was opposed by the Democrats of the day. Democrats were and are the liberals to the Republicans' conservatives on the American political spectrum, if those are the terms one wishes to use. Nothing is going to change that.

The politics of you and your ilk are nasty, and always have been. Own it. Case closed.

You do realize both political parties drastically changed over time, right? The republicans aren't like the republicans in the 50's, same goes for democrats.

Pretty sure I just got done say that that is a horseshit game of lies that I'm not planning to play.

They didn't trade places, and while they've moved farther toward their respective extremes on the spectrum, they still are who they've always been.

 

[David_42]

What? Huh?

Name a liberal who sided themselves against Rosa Parks and you respond back with "calling yourself a liberal doesn't make you a liberal"?

I have no obligation to respond to your posts as though I'm accepting your premises as fact. I'm responding to your asinine pretense that you can try to claim every historical person you think is admirable as "part of your side", and fob everyone you think is heinous off onto your political opponents by some redefining sleight of hand. I have no intention of playing your game with you.

I was told that liberals opposed Rosa Parks. I simply asked this person to name one. That hasn't happened. Maybe you can jump in and be productive rather than whatever it is you're doing.

Still stuck at "not playing your shell game".

Rosa Parks was opposed by the Democrats of the day. Democrats were and are the liberals to the Republicans' conservatives on the American political spectrum, if those are the terms one wishes to use. Nothing is going to change that.

The politics of you and your ilk are nasty, and always have been. Own it. Case closed.

You do realize both political parties drastically changed over time, right? The republicans aren't like the republicans in the 50's, same goes for democrats.

Pretty sure I just got done say that that is a horseshit game of lies that I'm not planning to play.

They didn't trade places, and while they've moved farther toward their respective extremes on the spectrum, they still are who they've always been.

Err, no, they traded places, that's a fact.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Kim Davis Is Rosa Parks

Weird thing is today's democrats hate this woman for standing for religious freedom,1950-1960's democrats were the members of the klan and the ones that wanted blacks at back of the bus! I see not much has changed.

That's quite a stretch. Rosa Parks wasn't getting a government paycheck--for doing a job. The county taxpayers were not put at risk for class action lawsuits for Rosa demanding equal treatment on the bus.

Oh, yeah, I'm sure you're all kinds of worried about the well-being of the taxpayers in Kentucky, who voted for Kim Davis and did NOT vote for your crap-ass illegal law. And why is that, again? Oh, yeah, because you shitstains decided to just take the power out of the hands of the voters and give it to the courts in order to get your way.

Your faux concern is not impressive.

Have you even bothered to check into whether or not Ms. Davis's constituents feel that she's not representing them the way that they want, or are you too busy shitting your frillies because she's not representing them the way YOU want?

I live in Kentucky, maybe I should chime in as a kentucky tax payer. We're referring to one county in Kentucky, a employee refusing to give out marriage licenses, a clear violation.

Do you live in her county? Are you the only one who lives in her county? Have you actually bothered to find out what the people of that county think?

Stop wasting my time dodging around, trying to put a sheen of legitimacy on your tantrum.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I have no obligation to respond to your posts as though I'm accepting your premises as fact. I'm responding to your asinine pretense that you can try to claim every historical person you think is admirable as "part of your side", and fob everyone you think is heinous off onto your political opponents by some redefining sleight of hand. I have no intention of playing your game with you.

I was told that liberals opposed Rosa Parks. I simply asked this person to name one. That hasn't happened. Maybe you can jump in and be productive rather than whatever it is you're doing.

Still stuck at "not playing your shell game".

Rosa Parks was opposed by the Democrats of the day. Democrats were and are the liberals to the Republicans' conservatives on the American political spectrum, if those are the terms one wishes to use. Nothing is going to change that.

The politics of you and your ilk are nasty, and always have been. Own it. Case closed.

You do realize both political parties drastically changed over time, right? The republicans aren't like the republicans in the 50's, same goes for democrats.

Pretty sure I just got done say that that is a horseshit game of lies that I'm not planning to play.

They didn't trade places, and while they've moved farther toward their respective extremes on the spectrum, they still are who they've always been.

Err, no, they traded places, that's a fact.

Oh, well, since you said so, I'll just get right on . . . continuing to think it's a pile of horseshit, because your word for it wouldn't mean anything to me if you told me the sky was blue.

 

[David_42]

Kim Davis Is Rosa Parks

Weird thing is today's democrats hate this woman for standing for religious freedom,1950-1960's democrats were the members of the klan and the ones that wanted blacks at back of the bus! I see not much has changed.

That's quite a stretch. Rosa Parks wasn't getting a government paycheck--for doing a job. The county taxpayers were not put at risk for class action lawsuits for Rosa demanding equal treatment on the bus.

Oh, yeah, I'm sure you're all kinds of worried about the well-being of the taxpayers in Kentucky, who voted for Kim Davis and did NOT vote for your crap-ass illegal law. And why is that, again? Oh, yeah, because you shitstains decided to just take the power out of the hands of the voters and give it to the courts in order to get your way.

Your faux concern is not impressive.

Have you even bothered to check into whether or not Ms. Davis's constituents feel that she's not representing them the way that they want, or are you too busy shitting your frillies because she's not representing them the way YOU want?

I live in Kentucky, maybe I should chime in as a kentucky tax payer. We're referring to one county in Kentucky, a employee refusing to give out marriage licenses, a clear violation.

Do you live in her county? Are you the only one who lives in her county? Have you actually bothered to find out what the people of that county think?

Stop wasting my time dodging around, trying to put a sheen of legitimacy on your tantrum.

Woah, first you refer to taxpayers in Kentucky and now it's the county. No, I don't, and of course I'm not the only one. However, your going down a really stupid path if you want to argue along this route. Assume a county wants to ban birth control pills because they believe it's murder, would that be ok?

 

[David_42]

I was told that liberals opposed Rosa Parks. I simply asked this person to name one. That hasn't happened. Maybe you can jump in and be productive rather than whatever it is you're doing.

Still stuck at "not playing your shell game".

Rosa Parks was opposed by the Democrats of the day. Democrats were and are the liberals to the Republicans' conservatives on the American political spectrum, if those are the terms one wishes to use. Nothing is going to change that.

The politics of you and your ilk are nasty, and always have been. Own it. Case closed.

You do realize both political parties drastically changed over time, right? The republicans aren't like the republicans in the 50's, same goes for democrats.

Pretty sure I just got done say that that is a horseshit game of lies that I'm not planning to play.

They didn't trade places, and while they've moved farther toward their respective extremes on the spectrum, they still are who they've always been.

Err, no, they traded places, that's a fact.

Oh, well, since you said so, I'll just get right on . . . continuing to think it's a pile of horseshit, because your word for it wouldn't mean anything to me if you told me the sky was blue.

Viral meme says 1956 Republican platform was pretty liberal

 

[Cecilie1200]

Name a liberal who was against Rosa Parks by name.

Democrat son...don't try and split hairs now because I got you dead to rights.

Right, there are/were plenty of racist conservative democrats back then, I'm not contesting that. But you also said liberals and progressives...so, start naming names.

Oh, spare me. I get so tired of you delusional leftists. Just because you call yourselves something doesn't make it true, and the faster you all grow up and stop believing you can just wish the world different, the better for everyone.

Calling yourself liberal doesn't make you liberal. Ditto for "progressive". And don't even freaking get me STARTED on people who think they can change genetics by changing labels. They don't even make medication for the level of "out-of-touch-with-reality" that afflicts the left these days.

He nails it.

They have special buildings, special laws, special protections but still, they whine for more.

To see the truth about these Christians, just read any thread about hungry children and food stamps.

This is a case of the same few nutters trying to force sharia law on the U.S.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can't decide what would be more embarrassing: Agreeing with Daws, or having Luddly agree with me.

Fortunately, barring a severe head trauma, I will always have too many brain cells for either to ever happen.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Kim Davis Is Rosa Parks

Weird thing is today's democrats hate this woman for standing for religious freedom,1950-1960's democrats were the members of the klan and the ones that wanted blacks at back of the bus! I see not much has changed.

That's quite a stretch. Rosa Parks wasn't getting a government paycheck--for doing a job. The county taxpayers were not put at risk for class action lawsuits for Rosa demanding equal treatment on the bus.

Oh, yeah, I'm sure you're all kinds of worried about the well-being of the taxpayers in Kentucky, who voted for Kim Davis and did NOT vote for your crap-ass illegal law. And why is that, again? Oh, yeah, because you shitstains decided to just take the power out of the hands of the voters and give it to the courts in order to get your way.

Your faux concern is not impressive.

Have you even bothered to check into whether or not Ms. Davis's constituents feel that she's not representing them the way that they want, or are you too busy shitting your frillies because she's not representing them the way YOU want?

I live in Kentucky, maybe I should chime in as a kentucky tax payer. We're referring to one county in Kentucky, a employee refusing to give out marriage licenses, a clear violation.

Do you live in her county? Are you the only one who lives in her county? Have you actually bothered to find out what the people of that county think?

Stop wasting my time dodging around, trying to put a sheen of legitimacy on your tantrum.

Woah, first you refer to taxpayers in Kentucky and now it's the county. No, I don't, and of course I'm not the only one. However, your going down a really stupid path if you want to argue along this route. Assume a county wants to ban birth control pills because they believe it's murder, would that be ok?

Wow. Your comprehension of specific detail rivals your comprehension of law, separation of powers, and morality. Which is to say, you're a fucking moron across the board.

At least you're consistent.

Let me walk you through the phrases "taxpayers WHO VOTED FOR KIM DAVIS" and "Ms. Davis's constituents". Gosh, it's almost like I was ALWAYS talking about the specific group of people living in that county, rather than the whole fucking state. Try to keep up. I don't have time or interest in carrying you piggyback through this conversation.

No, you don't live in her county? Then you have nothing to "chime in about" on that score. Furthermore, it says it all that you consider the will of the voters to be "going down a really stupid path". I guess that answers the point you danced right past, ie. you don't give a fat rat's ass crack about what the people want. You just want to impose YOUR worldview on everyone else, and you're pitching a hissy fit because someone's challenging your "fuck the rule of law" approach to getting your way.

As to your false analogy attempt with birth control pills, are those controlled and regulated by counties, the way marriage always has been, up until you lefties decided those voters were too ignorant to be allowed to pass their own laws?

Let me know if I'm going too fast for you with this whole "proper jurisdiction" thing.

 

[David_42]

That's quite a stretch. Rosa Parks wasn't getting a government paycheck--for doing a job. The county taxpayers were not put at risk for class action lawsuits for Rosa demanding equal treatment on the bus.

Oh, yeah, I'm sure you're all kinds of worried about the well-being of the taxpayers in Kentucky, who voted for Kim Davis and did NOT vote for your crap-ass illegal law. And why is that, again? Oh, yeah, because you shitstains decided to just take the power out of the hands of the voters and give it to the courts in order to get your way.

Your faux concern is not impressive.

Have you even bothered to check into whether or not Ms. Davis's constituents feel that she's not representing them the way that they want, or are you too busy shitting your frillies because she's not representing them the way YOU want?

I live in Kentucky, maybe I should chime in as a kentucky tax payer. We're referring to one county in Kentucky, a employee refusing to give out marriage licenses, a clear violation.

Do you live in her county? Are you the only one who lives in her county? Have you actually bothered to find out what the people of that county think?

Stop wasting my time dodging around, trying to put a sheen of legitimacy on your tantrum.

Woah, first you refer to taxpayers in Kentucky and now it's the county. No, I don't, and of course I'm not the only one. However, your going down a really stupid path if you want to argue along this route. Assume a county wants to ban birth control pills because they believe it's murder, would that be ok?

Wow. Your comprehension of specific detail rivals your comprehension of law, separation of powers, and morality. Which is to say, you're a fucking moron across the board.

At least you're consistent.

Let me walk you through the phrases "taxpayers WHO VOTED FOR KIM DAVIS" and "Ms. Davis's constituents". Gosh, it's almost like I was ALWAYS talking about the specific group of people living in that county, rather than the whole fucking state. Try to keep up. I don't have time or interest in carrying you piggyback through this conversation.

No, you don't live in her county? Then you have nothing to "chime in about" on that score. Furthermore, it says it all that you consider the will of the voters to be "going down a really stupid path". I guess that answers the point you danced right past, ie. you don't give a fat rat's ass crack about what the people want. You just want to impose YOUR worldview on everyone else, and you're pitching a hissy fit because someone's challenging your "fuck the rule of law" approach to getting your way.

As to your false analogy attempt with birth control pills, are those controlled and regulated by counties, the way marriage always has been, up until you lefties decided those voters were too ignorant to be allowed to pass their own laws?

Let me know if I'm going too fast for you with this whole "proper jurisdiction" thing.

I'm a moron on morality and comprehension of law? Gay marriage is legal in all 50 states, people have to give licenses, the bigoted idiot is arrested now, so it's not like it really matters.. Err, no, it's common sense so people in a county within a state can't suddenly decide to impose sharia law or some shit.

 

[EriktheRed]

But it is the very legality of such marriages that Davis disputes.

Wrong she recommended they just go to the next county over to get a marriage license. She recognizes the legality of same-sex Civil Marriage, she just didn't want to do her job to issue them a license.

The going to another county to get a marriage license was something she raised at trial -->> http://www.aclu-ky.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Bunning-Rowan-Ruling-81215.pdf


>>>>

I don't see that as her recognizing the legality of homosexual "marriage" at all. I see it as her recognizing that the next county over will comply with the illegal court ruling. She, however, does NOT wish to comply with it. Which I can understand, since it is illegal.

Unfortunately the court order NOT being illegal is what throws a monkey wrench into your argument.