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.
I understood what you posted the first time.You said it could be challenged as a 1st amendment violation, when no such violation can exist, as state employees have no 1st amendment rights in the course of their employment.
Poor baby.Again, I don't know and I don't care.
I'm sure they will figure something out.
But, whatever it is it will have to be within the parameters of the Constitutional
And, Obergefell is NOT !!!!
You said it could be challenged as a 1st amendment violation, when no such violation can exist, as state employees have no 1st amendment rights in the course of their employment.
This is also what prevents Obergefell from being overturned, because there can't be someone with standing to make that challenge.You have to forgive him....he's working off a double digit IQ.
The point that flew over your head is animals don't have rights and do not need to give consent to anything. We have laws that prohibit mistreating and hurting animals, but it's not because they have rights, it's because we as a society find it deplorable.
No one is being forced to marry someone of the same sex. Try and be best.You backwards bobbies are always so damn emotional.
The state cannot force anyone to act against their religious belief without Amending the Constitution.
Forcing the states to recognize gay marriage is unConstitutional for that very reason.
I could give a shit less what you people do.
But, you can't violate the Bill of Rights.
I suspect you are not smart to understand why.
What a dumbass comment.No one is being forced to marry someone of the same sex. Try and be best.
You said it could be challenged as a 1st amendment violation, when no such violation can exist, as state employees have no 1st amendment rights in the course of their employment.
Actually it was 7-2, and stare decisis dictates they have to let it stand unless it is abhorrent to the law. Which it clearly is not.I understood what you posted the first time.
Posting it again doesn't make it any more factual.
The SCOTUS Justices are Constitutionally correct when they say that Obergefell is highly flawed and marginalizes those who do not believe in same-sex marriage.
It is unConstitutional and will be overturned now that RBG is no longer on the Court.
sorry commie whore,, but their/your rights end at my front door,, dont like move along,,,
thats proven by me being forced to put up with your shit,,
in fact since youre not even american I dont give a fuck what you think so fuck off,,
No .... it was 5-4 and being unConstitutional damn sure fits the definition of abhorrent to the law.Actually it was 7-2, and stare decisis dictates they have to let it stand unless it is abhorrent to the law. Which it clearly is not.
The same way that making certain speech illegal, such as inciting a riot, clearly interferes with freedom of speech, it doesn't rise to the level of being abhorrent to the constitution.
So...my being legally married FORCES my "immorality" on you? How does that even work? And how is marriage immoral?We went from “Don't force your morality on me!” to allowing them to force their immorality on us.
We went to it being about “consenting adults” to them trying to drag those of us into their filth who want nothing to do with it (so much for ”consenting”) and even going after children (so much for “adults”).
Not civil marriage, which is what we are discussing here.its a religious ceremony not a government event,,
Oh really? So tell us what you are ACTIVELY doing to eliminate civil marriage.there shouldnt be any legal aspect since the government has no business in marriage,,
but being a progressive/serf you dont understand that
Oh really? We are all REQUIRED to get married?WTF??
marriage is your everyday life,,,
its a religious ceremony not a government event,,
What you missed is that Roberts was dissenting in the case. And like the Georgia election case, Roberts switched his vote in the name of stare decisis. So it brought before the court it would remain 5-4.No .... it was 5-4 and being unConstitutional damn sure fits the definition of abhorrent to the law.
Animals and children can't consent. You should have learned that in High School.
Marriage is a contract between consenting adults. That's Law 101. If you marry in church it is also a sacrament.
If you have trouble seeing the DIFFERENCE between marriage between con-senting adults and with animals and children, I would seriously question your ability to distinguish between right and wrong when near animals and children.
Ya, I really don’t get that..somehow being obsessed with the marriages of people you have never met is “forcing it on us”.So...my being legally married FORCES my "immorality" on you? How does that even work? And how is marriage immoral?
