Mike Huckabee Says God's Laws Are Above Supreme Court Rulings

[martybegan]

Huckabee has the support of those who think we should be more like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

No, Huckabee has the support of some who want a return to a more God-fearing and Christian -like social and cultural and legal framework in this country - such as we had for the first couple of centuries of our national existence...

Without all the politically correct horseshit, without abortion, without the welfare state, and with deviants and perverts (homosexuals) stuffed back into the closet.

My guess is, that's pretty much the extent of it.

All this likening to Iran, Saudi Arabia, et al, is merely hyperbole.

So Huckabee wants to build a bridge to the 19th century. Has he warned black Americans about this plan?

Nobody said anything about the 19th Century... merely a return to some of its values... the better ones, worth saving.

The less-worthy ones, like racial discrimination, can be safely left in the past.

Any pretense that so-called 'fundamentalists' are pursuing or advocating a return to the slave-era is just that - pretense - partisan pretense.

There are plenty of conservatives on this board who believe that a business should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason,

so racism is alive and well on the right.

It's less about people being able to refuse and more about government being able to ruin someone over a non -essential service that is easily obtainable from someone else with minimal effort.

 

[NYcarbineer]

...lol, how many states had anti-miscegenation laws when the Supreme Court struck them down?

Oh, but you characters DO love to pretend an equivalency between Racial Discrimination and Abhorrence of Sexual Perversity.

Racial admixture is not an Evil, and is not banned by various religious dogma nor backed by thousands of years of active teaching that it is wrong.

Sexual deviants and perverts (homosexuals) do not enjoy that same advantage.

Rightly so.

You need to read a history book sometime.

When Religious Liberty Was Used To Justify Racism Instead Of Homophobia ThinkProgress

 

[NYcarbineer]

Huckabee has the support of those who think we should be more like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

No, Huckabee has the support of some who want a return to a more God-fearing and Christian -like social and cultural and legal framework in this country - such as we had for the first couple of centuries of our national existence...

Without all the politically correct horseshit, without abortion, without the welfare state, and with deviants and perverts (homosexuals) stuffed back into the closet.

My guess is, that's pretty much the extent of it.

All this likening to Iran, Saudi Arabia, et al, is merely hyperbole.

So Huckabee wants to build a bridge to the 19th century. Has he warned black Americans about this plan?

Nobody said anything about the 19th Century... merely a return to some of its values... the better ones, worth saving.

The less-worthy ones, like racial discrimination, can be safely left in the past.

Any pretense that so-called 'fundamentalists' are pursuing or advocating a return to the slave-era is just that - pretense - partisan pretense.

There are plenty of conservatives on this board who believe that a business should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason,

so racism is alive and well on the right.

It's less about people being able to refuse and more about government being able to ruin someone over a non -essential service that is easily obtainable from someone else with minimal effort.

No it's not. Dozens of righties on this board have stated unequivocally that businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone.

 

[Seawytch]

Huckabee has the support of those who think we should be more like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

No, Huckabee has the support of some who want a return to a more God-fearing and Christian -like social and cultural and legal framework in this country - such as we had for the first couple of centuries of our national existence...

Without all the politically correct horseshit, without abortion, without the welfare state, and with deviants and perverts (homosexuals) stuffed back into the closet.

My guess is, that's pretty much the extent of it.

All this likening to Iran, Saudi Arabia, et al, is merely hyperbole.

So Huckabee wants to build a bridge to the 19th century. Has he warned black Americans about this plan?

Nobody said anything about the 19th Century... merely a return to some of its values... the better ones, worth saving.

The less-worthy ones, like racial discrimination, can be safely left in the past.

Any pretense that so-called 'fundamentalists' are pursuing or advocating a return to the slave-era is just that - pretense - partisan pretense.

Sorry old timer, but we've decided to leave anti gay discrimination safely in the past too.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Christians do not want Keys or anyone else as head of a Christian dominion in America.

 

[Kondor3]

...Sorry old timer, but we've decided to leave anti gay discrimination safely in the past too...

Feel free to continue to believe that, young pup... all it will take is a single more traditional-conservative ruling by SCOTUS, and the floodgates open again.

Perhaps, sometime shortly after January 20, 2017.

 

[Kondor3]

No, Huckabee has the support of some who want a return to a more God-fearing and Christian -like social and cultural and legal framework in this country - such as we had for the first couple of centuries of our national existence...

Without all the politically correct horseshit, without abortion, without the welfare state, and with deviants and perverts (homosexuals) stuffed back into the closet.

My guess is, that's pretty much the extent of it.

All this likening to Iran, Saudi Arabia, et al, is merely hyperbole.

So Huckabee wants to build a bridge to the 19th century. Has he warned black Americans about this plan?

Nobody said anything about the 19th Century... merely a return to some of its values... the better ones, worth saving.

The less-worthy ones, like racial discrimination, can be safely left in the past.

Any pretense that so-called 'fundamentalists' are pursuing or advocating a return to the slave-era is just that - pretense - partisan pretense.

There are plenty of conservatives on this board who believe that a business should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason,

so racism is alive and well on the right.

It's less about people being able to refuse and more about government being able to ruin someone over a non -essential service that is easily obtainable from someone else with minimal effort.

No it's not. Dozens of righties on this board have stated unequivocally that businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone.

Nahhhhhhh... not everyone... just sexual deviants and perverts (homosexuals).

 

[martybegan]

No, Huckabee has the support of some who want a return to a more God-fearing and Christian -like social and cultural and legal framework in this country - such as we had for the first couple of centuries of our national existence...

Without all the politically correct horseshit, without abortion, without the welfare state, and with deviants and perverts (homosexuals) stuffed back into the closet.

My guess is, that's pretty much the extent of it.

All this likening to Iran, Saudi Arabia, et al, is merely hyperbole.

So Huckabee wants to build a bridge to the 19th century. Has he warned black Americans about this plan?

Nobody said anything about the 19th Century... merely a return to some of its values... the better ones, worth saving.

The less-worthy ones, like racial discrimination, can be safely left in the past.

Any pretense that so-called 'fundamentalists' are pursuing or advocating a return to the slave-era is just that - pretense - partisan pretense.

There are plenty of conservatives on this board who believe that a business should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason,

so racism is alive and well on the right.

It's less about people being able to refuse and more about government being able to ruin someone over a non -essential service that is easily obtainable from someone else with minimal effort.

No it's not. Dozens of righties on this board have stated unequivocally that businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone.

I can only talk about my views, but keep trying to lump me in with everyone else if a monolithic opposition point is all you can deal with.

I would require essential services, i.e. REAL public accommodations to perform point of service transactions "blindly", but for things unessential and contracted, people should not be forced to do something they don't want to do without an overriding potential impact.

And of course government, and anyone contracted by government has to be "blind" as well.

 

[Seawytch]

...Sorry old timer, but we've decided to leave anti gay discrimination safely in the past too...

Feel free to continue to believe that, young pup... all it will take is a single more traditional-conservative ruling by SCOTUS, and the floodgates open again.

Perhaps, sometime shortly after January 20, 2017.

Golly...nobody's called me a "young pup" in decades. Thanks!

It has nothing to do with belief and everything to do with facts. The FACT is that public opinion is well past the tipping point. You're NEVER going to get the gay married genie back in the bottle.

 

[Seawytch]

So Huckabee wants to build a bridge to the 19th century. Has he warned black Americans about this plan?

Nobody said anything about the 19th Century... merely a return to some of its values... the better ones, worth saving.

The less-worthy ones, like racial discrimination, can be safely left in the past.

Any pretense that so-called 'fundamentalists' are pursuing or advocating a return to the slave-era is just that - pretense - partisan pretense.

There are plenty of conservatives on this board who believe that a business should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason,

so racism is alive and well on the right.

It's less about people being able to refuse and more about government being able to ruin someone over a non -essential service that is easily obtainable from someone else with minimal effort.

No it's not. Dozens of righties on this board have stated unequivocally that businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone.

I can only talk about my views, but keep trying to lump me in with everyone else if a monolithic opposition point is all you can deal with.

I would require essential services, i.e. REAL public accommodations to perform point of service transactions "blindly", but for things unessential and contracted, people should not be forced to do something they don't want to do without an overriding potential impact.

And of course government, and anyone contracted by government has to be "blind" as well.

As long as the businesses have to advertise their list of discriminations up front, great! Get 'er done! (Ya gotta start with that pesky Civil Rights Act though...you know, those FEDERAL laws...not the little local and state laws)

 

[martybegan]

...Sorry old timer, but we've decided to leave anti gay discrimination safely in the past too...

Feel free to continue to believe that, young pup... all it will take is a single more traditional-conservative ruling by SCOTUS, and the floodgates open again.

Perhaps, sometime shortly after January 20, 2017.

Golly...nobody's called me a "young pup" in decades. Thanks!

It has nothing to do with belief and everything to do with facts. The FACT is that public opinion is well past the tipping point. You're NEVER going to get the gay married genie back in the bottle.

Then you shouldn't have to use the courts to force it on States that don't want to issue them. Now using the courts to force them to recognize ones issued by other States (after being affected legislatively) is perfectly acceptable.

 

[martybegan]

Nobody said anything about the 19th Century... merely a return to some of its values... the better ones, worth saving.

The less-worthy ones, like racial discrimination, can be safely left in the past.

Any pretense that so-called 'fundamentalists' are pursuing or advocating a return to the slave-era is just that - pretense - partisan pretense.

There are plenty of conservatives on this board who believe that a business should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason,

so racism is alive and well on the right.

It's less about people being able to refuse and more about government being able to ruin someone over a non -essential service that is easily obtainable from someone else with minimal effort.

No it's not. Dozens of righties on this board have stated unequivocally that businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone.

I can only talk about my views, but keep trying to lump me in with everyone else if a monolithic opposition point is all you can deal with.

I would require essential services, i.e. REAL public accommodations to perform point of service transactions "blindly", but for things unessential and contracted, people should not be forced to do something they don't want to do without an overriding potential impact.

And of course government, and anyone contracted by government has to be "blind" as well.

As long as the businesses have to advertise their list of discriminations up front, great! Get 'er done! (Ya gotta start with that pesky Civil Rights Act though...you know, those FEDERAL laws...not the little local and state laws)

No, all you have to do is return the definition of a public accommodation to what it was meant to be, not "all business transactions"

 

[Seawytch]

...Sorry old timer, but we've decided to leave anti gay discrimination safely in the past too...

Feel free to continue to believe that, young pup... all it will take is a single more traditional-conservative ruling by SCOTUS, and the floodgates open again.

Perhaps, sometime shortly after January 20, 2017.

Golly...nobody's called me a "young pup" in decades. Thanks!

It has nothing to do with belief and everything to do with facts. The FACT is that public opinion is well past the tipping point. You're NEVER going to get the gay married genie back in the bottle.

Then you shouldn't have to use the courts to force it on States that don't want to issue them. Now using the courts to force them to recognize ones issued by other States (after being affected legislatively) is perfectly acceptable.

Yeah well the cases were started before the tipping point. We'll take marriage equality the same way it was achieved in Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v WI and Turner v Safely.

 

[martybegan]

...Sorry old timer, but we've decided to leave anti gay discrimination safely in the past too...

Feel free to continue to believe that, young pup... all it will take is a single more traditional-conservative ruling by SCOTUS, and the floodgates open again.

Perhaps, sometime shortly after January 20, 2017.

Golly...nobody's called me a "young pup" in decades. Thanks!

It has nothing to do with belief and everything to do with facts. The FACT is that public opinion is well past the tipping point. You're NEVER going to get the gay married genie back in the bottle.

Then you shouldn't have to use the courts to force it on States that don't want to issue them. Now using the courts to force them to recognize ones issued by other States (after being affected legislatively) is perfectly acceptable.

Yeah well the cases were started before the tipping point. We'll take marriage equality the same way it was achieved in Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v WI and Turner v Safely.

None of which apply to sexual orientation, as usual stretching the constitution because "me want it" and not caring about the repercussions.

Courts that create rights out of thin air can just as easily deny them out of thin air.

 

[Redfish]

Huckabee is not a serious contender, but you libs can have fun making up lies about him,

We understand that all this bullshit is aimed at taking the attention away from your only candidate who is an old, tired, corrupt, lying, angry, bitch. We get it.

 

[Seawytch]

There are plenty of conservatives on this board who believe that a business should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason,

so racism is alive and well on the right.

It's less about people being able to refuse and more about government being able to ruin someone over a non -essential service that is easily obtainable from someone else with minimal effort.

No it's not. Dozens of righties on this board have stated unequivocally that businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone.

I can only talk about my views, but keep trying to lump me in with everyone else if a monolithic opposition point is all you can deal with.

I would require essential services, i.e. REAL public accommodations to perform point of service transactions "blindly", but for things unessential and contracted, people should not be forced to do something they don't want to do without an overriding potential impact.

And of course government, and anyone contracted by government has to be "blind" as well.

As long as the businesses have to advertise their list of discriminations up front, great! Get 'er done! (Ya gotta start with that pesky Civil Rights Act though...you know, those FEDERAL laws...not the little local and state laws)

No, all you have to do is return the definition of a public accommodation to what it was meant to be, not "all business transactions"

That just sounds like "some people get to be bigots, others don't".

 

[Redfish]

Huckabee effectively said that the Supreme Court shouldn't have the power to overturn unconstitutional laws,

which means that Huckabee does not want constitutionality enforced.

He might as well of said we should get rid of the Constitution.

thats not what he said. he effectively said that the SC should not be making laws to suit the current politically correct mantra.

 

[RKMBrown]

Huckabee wants a theocracy.

Then why didn't he do that as the Governor of Arkansas?
Our Courts would strike it down as unconstitutional so don't worry about anyone trying to run the country as a theocracy.

Pfffttt..... they live in a world far removed from reality.

The man says he wants God's law to be supreme over the Constitution and we're the ones removed from reality?

lol, good one.

Yeah only that's not what Huck said. But please continue in your circle jerk.

 

[RKMBrown]

Huckabee has the support of those who think we should be more like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

No, Huckabee has the support of some who want a return to a more God-fearing and Christian -like social and cultural and legal framework in this country - such as we had for the first couple of centuries of our national existence...

Without all the politically correct horseshit, without abortion, without the welfare state, and with deviants and perverts (homosexuals) stuffed back into the closet.

My guess is, that's pretty much the extent of it.

All this likening to Iran, Saudi Arabia, et al, is merely hyperbole.

So Huckabee wants to build a bridge to the 19th century. Has he warned black Americans about this plan?

Nobody said anything about the 19th Century... merely a return to some of its values... the better ones, worth saving.

The less-worthy ones, like racial discrimination, can be safely left in the past.

Any pretense that so-called 'fundamentalists' are pursuing or advocating a return to the slave-era is just that - pretense - partisan pretense.

There are plenty of conservatives on this board who believe that a business should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason,

so racism is alive and well on the right.

Racism is alive and well on both sides of the political aisle.

 

[martybegan]

It's less about people being able to refuse and more about government being able to ruin someone over a non -essential service that is easily obtainable from someone else with minimal effort.

No it's not. Dozens of righties on this board have stated unequivocally that businesses should have the right to refuse service to anyone.

I can only talk about my views, but keep trying to lump me in with everyone else if a monolithic opposition point is all you can deal with.

I would require essential services, i.e. REAL public accommodations to perform point of service transactions "blindly", but for things unessential and contracted, people should not be forced to do something they don't want to do without an overriding potential impact.

And of course government, and anyone contracted by government has to be "blind" as well.

As long as the businesses have to advertise their list of discriminations up front, great! Get 'er done! (Ya gotta start with that pesky Civil Rights Act though...you know, those FEDERAL laws...not the little local and state laws)

No, all you have to do is return the definition of a public accommodation to what it was meant to be, not "all business transactions"

That just sounds like "some people get to be bigots, others don't".

Yes. The intent of all the civil rights legislation was to enforce the concept of the Reconstruction amendments, and those amendments were set up to level the economic and social playing field for the freedmen after the Civil War. Jim Crow as a government mandated program of economic separation and political isolation denied blacks equal economic and social footing. The pervasiveness of the discrimination was what required government to act.

The key judge is the impact of the denial of service, which determines if the government has a need to mandate the conditions of denial, or ban it all together.