Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
[
No it isn't the same or even similar. l.
You don't see the similarities because you are not looking at it rationally. Talk about low information but you haz it. You are biased because you think the government has the right to curtail freedom of religion when it fits into the progressive agenda of the filthy ass Left.
There are three dimensions to this case that shows the stupidity of the Left.
The first is the fact that the Moon Bats wants her arrested because she didn't carry out the requirements of the federal court ruling, which they claim has the effect of law. As been mentioned several times in this thread the Moon Bats are very selective about this because they give Obama a pass on not enforcing the immigration laws of this country. If Kim Davis belongs in jail then so does Obama.
The second is Kim Davis's Constitutional right to exercise freedom of religion and not be oppressed by the government by incarceration. The fact that he Commonwealth of Kentucky says in their constitution that marriage is defined as "being between a man and a woman" puts her on very solid grounds in carrying out the duties of her elected office (reference below) by not issuing license to the queers.
The third problem the Moon Bats have is the authority of the filthy ass Federal government to force states to curtail Constitutional guaranteed rights like freedom of religion. There is a strong argument that the Feds have no right to force states to adhere to the requirements of Federal court approved social activism. The Feds are using the Commerce Clause to assert authority and many legal scholars think that is illegal to do.
The Federal judges have the ability to curtail freedom because they have the thugs working for them that will kill you or throw you in jail if you don't do what they say but that doesn't mean that it is legal or right.
Kim Davis is a flawed person that is standing up for the rights of all Americans to live in a country where the Federal government does not control every aspect of our lives. That is no different than Rosa Parks (also flawed) standing up to the local government trying to curtail her rights.
Kim Davis is hero to all Americans even though you Moon Bats hate her because she opposes your filthy queer agenda. There were many people that also hated Rosa Parks. You Moon bats are no different.
Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1[1] of 2004, is an amendment to the Kentucky Constitution that makes it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions. The referendum was approved by 75% of the voters.[2]
The text of the amendment states:
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.[3]
[
No it isn't the same or even similar. l.
You don't see the similarities because you are not looking at it rationally. Talk about low information but you haz it. You are biased because you think the government has the right to curtail freedom of religion when it fits into the progressive agenda of the filthy ass Left.
There are three dimensions to this case that shows the stupidity of the Left.
The first is the fact that the Moon Bats wants her arrested because she didn't carry out the requirements of the federal court ruling, which they claim has the effect of law. As been mentioned several times in this thread the Moon Bats are very selective about this because they give Obama a pass on not enforcing the immigration laws of this country. If Kim Davis belongs in jail then so does Obama.
The second is Kim Davis's Constitutional right to exercise freedom of religion and not be oppressed by the government by incarceration. The fact that he Commonwealth of Kentucky says in their constitution that marriage is defined as "being between a man and a woman" puts her on very solid grounds in carrying out the duties of her elected office (reference below) by not issuing license to the queers.
The third problem the Moon Bats have is the authority of the filthy ass Federal government to force states to curtail Constitutional guaranteed rights like freedom of religion. There is a strong argument that the Feds have no right to force states to adhere to the requirements of Federal court approved social activism. The Feds are using the Commerce Clause to assert authority and many legal scholars think that is illegal to do.
The Federal judges have the ability to curtail freedom because they have the thugs working for them that will kill you or throw you in jail if you don't do what they say but that doesn't mean that it is legal or right.
Kim Davis is a flawed person that is standing up for the rights of all Americans to live in a country where the Federal government does not control every aspect of our lives. That is no different than Rosa Parks (also flawed) standing up to the local government trying to curtail her rights.
Kim Davis is hero to all Americans even though you Moon Bats hate her because she opposes your filthy queer agenda. There were many people that also hated Rosa Parks. You Moon bats are no different.
Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1[1] of 2004, is an amendment to the Kentucky Constitution that makes it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions. The referendum was approved by 75% of the voters.[2]
The text of the amendment states:
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.[3]
As much as you hate to think about it... with 'state's rights' & all... but FEDERAL LAW, trumps states' rights in the end. This is the UNITED States of America.... not the UNITED STATES until we think it isn't 'cause we just don't like it AMERICA. Can Kentucky discriminate against blacks like they used to? Why not? Because the Constitution is the cornerstone & is the law of the land... all of it.
It's easy to spot a Moral Relativist... if (1) they see nothing wrong with such waffling and (2) you've got to spell it out for them... invertebrates, mostly....Or could be he was deceiving the public as to who he was and his actual beliefs in order to get elected.
You need to demand the money back from the law school you attended. They ripped you off. While you are at it, you should think about a suite against your high school civics teacher.[
No it isn't the same or even similar. l.
You don't see the similarities because you are not looking at it rationally. Talk about low information but you haz it. You are biased because you think the government has the right to curtail freedom of religion when it fits into the progressive agenda of the filthy ass Left.
There are three dimensions to this case that shows the stupidity of the Left.
The first is the fact that the Moon Bats wants her arrested because she didn't carry out the requirements of the federal court ruling, which they claim has the effect of law. As been mentioned several times in this thread the Moon Bats are very selective about this because they give Obama a pass on not enforcing the immigration laws of this country. If Kim Davis belongs in jail then so does Obama.
The second is Kim Davis's Constitutional right to exercise freedom of religion and not be oppressed by the government by incarceration. The fact that he Commonwealth of Kentucky says in their constitution that marriage is defined as "being between a man and a woman" puts her on very solid grounds in carrying out the duties of her elected office (reference below) by not issuing license to the queers.
The third problem the Moon Bats have is the authority of the filthy ass Federal government to force states to curtail Constitutional guaranteed rights like freedom of religion. There is a strong argument that the Feds have no right to force states to adhere to the requirements of Federal court approved social activism. The Feds are using the Commerce Clause to assert authority and many legal scholars think that is illegal to do.
The Federal judges have the ability to curtail freedom because they have the thugs working for them that will kill you or throw you in jail if you don't do what they say but that doesn't mean that it is legal or right.
Kim Davis is a flawed person that is standing up for the rights of all Americans to live in a country where the Federal government does not control every aspect of our lives. That is no different than Rosa Parks (also flawed) standing up to the local government trying to curtail her rights.
Kim Davis is hero to all Americans even though you Moon Bats hate her because she opposes your filthy queer agenda. There were many people that also hated Rosa Parks. You Moon bats are no different.
Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1[1] of 2004, is an amendment to the Kentucky Constitution that makes it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions. The referendum was approved by 75% of the voters.[2]
The text of the amendment states:
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.[3]
The first amendments forbids the government from establishing a religion. The county clerk represents the government. By making her demands she is establishing a specific religion that citizens are required to follow. But that is not the issue. The issue is that everyone is required to follow laws and work within the system to make changes. No one is allowed to defend their actions by claiming God or the devil made them do something and a state constitutional amendment does not strike down or override a SCOTUS ruling.
He was against it, before he was for it.Including this guy?
Must've visited the Waffle House somewhere along the way.
That, or was lying his ass off, to get into office in the first place, which, come to think of it...
the problem arises when bigots use their offices to deny rights to others.The problem arises when you call it "marriage certificate" which is based on the traditional religious based definition of marriage.
The religious based definition of marriage is and has always been between a man and a woman. It's a total mockery of religion when you have a rabbi or priest conducting a marriage between two men or two women. It's so ridiculous its funny and I find myself laughing when I see footage of it on the news.
Perhaps if you called the certificate for gays by a different name like a "union certificate", even though the legal rights it carries are equivalent to marriage? You simply cannot redefine the religious definition of marriage, which is what gays and the radical left want to do.
She isn't a bigot. She's a religious person who believes her religion does not allow her to marry two men, which is true. This isn't what she signed up for. Call it something other than marriage and let her out of jail.
She signed up to be an agent of the State, ie the government... a government that abides by the Constitution... which is a living document & has always allowed amendments to be added.... such as the 14th which includes equal protection under the law. And as an agent working on behalf of a secular government, she is duty bound to carry out what is required of her in such a capacity without imposing personal ideologies. She clearly violated that oath & was in direct dereliction of said duties.
She signed up to be an agent of of the government, and then the government proceeded change a tenement of her faith. I think the right compromise would be to issue a certificate with a different name which carries equal weight under law. If two gays then want to have a marriage ceremony with a priest and call it a marriage then that's their choice.
So his beliefs are based on what's "popular"?
Kim Davis isn't Rosa Parks, she's these guys:
or one of these...
Indeed....Thinking educated minds will change ideology as facts & new information warrants...
Indeed.So his beliefs are based on what's "popular"?
Not exactly, his professed beliefs are based on what's popular.
He's a politician after all, that's what they do
There is no such thing as Christian Sharia Law... even as a metaphorical analogy, the comparison does not hold up under a closer scrutiny.Obviously you don't like the comparison, but it is a metaphor whether you agree with the comparison or not. LOL All you showed by your post is your ignorance of rhetorical techniques. Pathetic.There is no such thing as Christian Sharia Law....Kim Davis was trying to introduce christian sharia law to her county...
It's a metaphor, stupid. And it is very appropriate, if you can 'get' the metaphor. Which, limited as you are, seems unlikely.
Metaphor isn't defined as "made-up piece of shit". Just FYI.
All it does is to conjure up disingenuous comparisons between the still-extant, primitive, medieval religious legal code under which much of the domains of Islam are still in thrall, with the post-Reformation, well-integrated (with secular life) vague and flexible moral code-set attributable to Christianity, and to piss off Christians, whom find such tactics reprehensible.
But, as I said, you silly bastards of the Loony Left, go right on serving-up verbiage like 'Christian Sharia Law' and 'Christian Taliban' - pigeon-holing your fellow countrymen and those who share your ethnic and cultural roots into the same cubby-holes as the medieval Fundamentalist Muslims, and see where that gets you, in terms of support for the Gay Agenda.
Sooner or later you'll over-do it, shoot yourselves in the foot once too often, and then, stupidly, wonder why nobody supports you any longer, and bemoan the Reaction that's coming, and you won't have a clue as to why you've suffered the setbacks that you are going to suffer.
We can see the first ghostly whispers of this Reaction, in the outpouring of support for Chick-Fil-A, and other victims of legal assault by the Gay Mafia and its fellow travelers.
That's just the tip of the iceberg.
The very tip.
Continued use of phrases like "Christian Sharia Law" and "Christian Taliban" are sure to accelerate and intensify that Reaction.
But, it is the Fate of Men (and LGBT critters) that they do not learn from the past, and arrogantly continue to employ tactics that yield short-term gain, but overpowering long-term loss.
As for my own miniscule part in this, as it pertains to the use of such verbiate, so long as it is challenged or countered every once in a while, that's enough.
He was against it, before he was for it.Including this guy?
Must've visited the Waffle House somewhere along the way.
That, or was lying his ass off, to get into office in the first place, which, come to think of it...
Thinking educated minds will change ideology as facts & new information warrants... not be stuck in stone like those stuck in the stone age. *You* & the Muslim fundies have much in common when it comes to bumping uglies.
BTW, certain religions, including denominations of Christianity & Judaism think anything other than the missionary position between husband & wife is deviant & anything else other than that is sinful & immoral. Silly isn't it?
Or is it to *you*?
There is no such thing as Christian Sharia Law... even as a metaphorical analogy, the comparison does not hold up under a closer scrutiny.Obviously you don't like the comparison, but it is a metaphor whether you agree with the comparison or not. LOL All you showed by your post is your ignorance of rhetorical techniques. Pathetic.There is no such thing as Christian Sharia Law.
It's a metaphor, stupid. And it is very appropriate, if you can 'get' the metaphor. Which, limited as you are, seems unlikely.
Metaphor isn't defined as "made-up piece of shit". Just FYI.
All it does is to conjure up disingenuous comparisons between the still-extant, primitive, medieval religious legal code under which much of the domains of Islam are still in thrall, with the post-Reformation, well-integrated (with secular life) vague and flexible moral code-set attributable to Christianity, and to piss off Christians, whom find such tactics reprehensible.
But, as I said, you silly bastards of the Loony Left, go right on serving-up verbiage like 'Christian Sharia Law' and 'Christian Taliban' - pigeon-holing your fellow countrymen and those who share your ethnic and cultural roots into the same cubby-holes as the medieval Fundamentalist Muslims, and see where that gets you, in terms of support for the Gay Agenda.
Sooner or later you'll over-do it, shoot yourselves in the foot once too often, and then, stupidly, wonder why nobody supports you any longer, and bemoan the Reaction that's coming, and you won't have a clue as to why you've suffered the setbacks that you are going to suffer.
We can see the first ghostly whispers of this Reaction, in the outpouring of support for Chick-Fil-A, and other victims of legal assault by the Gay Mafia and its fellow travelers.
That's just the tip of the iceberg.
The very tip.
Continued use of phrases like "Christian Sharia Law" and "Christian Taliban" are sure to accelerate and intensify that Reaction.
But, it is the Fate of Men (and LGBT critters) that they do not learn from the past, and arrogantly continue to employ tactics that yield short-term gain, but overpowering long-term loss.
As for my own miniscule part in this, as it pertains to the use of such verbiate, so long as it is challenged or countered every once in a while, that's enough.
Tell a woman she has no right to her own uterus & tell a homogay they cannot marry based on YOUR religious beliefs that it isn't exactly what part of sharia also believes.
Indeed....Thinking educated minds will change ideology as facts & new information warrants...
But there is no new 'fact' and 'information' pertaining to homosexuality and its relationship to interests of The People and the Republic, in 2008, versus 2015.
Not one iota.
Perhaps I'm wrong.
It will be easy to prove me wrong, if that's the case.
Simply tell us: What new "fact" and/or what new "information" did Barack Obama become aware-of, in connection with homosexuality, in 2015, that he did not already know in 2008?
We're all waiting with rapt attention, eager to receive this revelation.
And, of course, if no substantive argument-changing "fact" or "information" can be brought to bear in this context, then, it will be safe to assume that you're just playing the Partisan, and serving-up a smokescreen to cover Obumble's waffling and deceiving of the American People in this regard.
The floor is yours.
[
No it isn't the same or even similar. l.
You don't see the similarities because you are not looking at it rationally. Talk about low information but you haz it. You are biased because you think the government has the right to curtail freedom of religion when it fits into the progressive agenda of the filthy ass Left.
There are three dimensions to this case that shows the stupidity of the Left.
The first is the fact that the Moon Bats wants her arrested because she didn't carry out the requirements of the federal court ruling, which they claim has the effect of law. As been mentioned several times in this thread the Moon Bats are very selective about this because they give Obama a pass on not enforcing the immigration laws of this country. If Kim Davis belongs in jail then so does Obama.
The second is Kim Davis's Constitutional right to exercise freedom of religion and not be oppressed by the government by incarceration. The fact that he Commonwealth of Kentucky says in their constitution that marriage is defined as "being between a man and a woman" puts her on very solid grounds in carrying out the duties of her elected office (reference below) by not issuing license to the queers.
The third problem the Moon Bats have is the authority of the filthy ass Federal government to force states to curtail Constitutional guaranteed rights like freedom of religion. There is a strong argument that the Feds have no right to force states to adhere to the requirements of Federal court approved social activism. The Feds are using the Commerce Clause to assert authority and many legal scholars think that is illegal to do.
The Federal judges have the ability to curtail freedom because they have the thugs working for them that will kill you or throw you in jail if you don't do what they say but that doesn't mean that it is legal or right.
Kim Davis is a flawed person that is standing up for the rights of all Americans to live in a country where the Federal government does not control every aspect of our lives. That is no different than Rosa Parks (also flawed) standing up to the local government trying to curtail her rights.
Kim Davis is hero to all Americans even though you Moon Bats hate her because she opposes your filthy queer agenda. There were many people that also hated Rosa Parks. You Moon bats are no different.
Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1[1] of 2004, is an amendment to the Kentucky Constitution that makes it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions. The referendum was approved by 75% of the voters.[2]
The text of the amendment states:
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.[3]
As much as you hate to think about it... with 'state's rights' & all... but FEDERAL LAW, trumps states' rights in the end. This is the UNITED States of America.... not the UNITED STATES until we think it isn't 'cause we just don't like it AMERICA. Can Kentucky discriminate against blacks like they used to? Why not? Because the Constitution is the cornerstone & is the law of the land... all of it.
Oh how quickly you cool aid drinkers forget:
Indeed.So his beliefs are based on what's "popular"?
Not exactly, his professed beliefs are based on what's popular.
He's a politician after all, that's what they do
A disease that they all share... some simply have more outbreaks than others.
He was against it, before he was for it.Including this guy?
Must've visited the Waffle House somewhere along the way.
That, or was lying his ass off, to get into office in the first place, which, come to think of it...
Thinking educated minds will change ideology as facts & new information warrants... not be stuck in stone like those stuck in the stone age. *You* & the Muslim fundies have much in common when it comes to bumping uglies.
BTW, certain religions, including denominations of Christianity & Judaism think anything other than the missionary position between husband & wife is deviant & anything else other than that is sinful & immoral. Silly isn't it?
Or is it to *you*?
Wait, your dear leader who is supposedly a constitutional law expert thought that the constitution cannot redefine the religious based definition of marriage between man and woman, and it is up to the states. Did the democrats elect a racist homophobic bigot to office or just a professional LIAR?
There is no such thing as Christian Sharia Law... even as a metaphorical analogy, the comparison does not hold up under a closer scrutiny.Obviously you don't like the comparison, but it is a metaphor whether you agree with the comparison or not. LOL All you showed by your post is your ignorance of rhetorical techniques. Pathetic.It's a metaphor, stupid. And it is very appropriate, if you can 'get' the metaphor. Which, limited as you are, seems unlikely.
Metaphor isn't defined as "made-up piece of shit". Just FYI.
All it does is to conjure up disingenuous comparisons between the still-extant, primitive, medieval religious legal code under which much of the domains of Islam are still in thrall, with the post-Reformation, well-integrated (with secular life) vague and flexible moral code-set attributable to Christianity, and to piss off Christians, whom find such tactics reprehensible.
But, as I said, you silly bastards of the Loony Left, go right on serving-up verbiage like 'Christian Sharia Law' and 'Christian Taliban' - pigeon-holing your fellow countrymen and those who share your ethnic and cultural roots into the same cubby-holes as the medieval Fundamentalist Muslims, and see where that gets you, in terms of support for the Gay Agenda.
Sooner or later you'll over-do it, shoot yourselves in the foot once too often, and then, stupidly, wonder why nobody supports you any longer, and bemoan the Reaction that's coming, and you won't have a clue as to why you've suffered the setbacks that you are going to suffer.
We can see the first ghostly whispers of this Reaction, in the outpouring of support for Chick-Fil-A, and other victims of legal assault by the Gay Mafia and its fellow travelers.
That's just the tip of the iceberg.
The very tip.
Continued use of phrases like "Christian Sharia Law" and "Christian Taliban" are sure to accelerate and intensify that Reaction.
But, it is the Fate of Men (and LGBT critters) that they do not learn from the past, and arrogantly continue to employ tactics that yield short-term gain, but overpowering long-term loss.
As for my own miniscule part in this, as it pertains to the use of such verbiate, so long as it is challenged or countered every once in a while, that's enough.
Tell a woman she has no right to her own uterus & tell a homogay they cannot marry based on YOUR religious beliefs that it isn't exactly what part of sharia also believes.
Calling the union between two gays a "marriage" is like calling a dog a cat. Sure you can call it that, but it never will be.
You really do not understand the damage that you do to your own cause through the use of such terms as 'Christian Sharia Law' and 'Christian Taliban'....Tell a woman she has no right to her own uterus & tell a homogay they cannot marry based on YOUR religious beliefs that it isn't exactly what part of sharia also believes.
