BREAKING: Supreme Court rejects Kentucky gay marriage case

Twitter ^ | 08/31/2015 | AP

[GIdget2004]

The Associated Press @AP BREAKING: Supreme Court rejects Kentucky gay marriage case, clerk must issue licenses despite religion

[PapaBear3625]

It would be fun to see Obama send people to do it. And have the Clerk refuse to tell them where she put the official seal and forms.

[ELS]

When the law doesn't mean what it has always meant, no man is safe.

Case in point: the 2015 SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare subsidies. When the law written by Congress clearly stated that only in states that had established exchanges would subsidies be available and the SCOTUS defied rational interpretation of the law.

Here's another video ...

I love the beginning that takes place at the original World Trade Center and includes footage of the twin towers.

[Jim Noble]

Please show me in Article III or elsewhere that the phrase “all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States” can be construed to permit the USSC to write laws.

[DiogenesLamp]

Not all-- same-sex marriage was approved by voters in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington State, and by elected legislatures in Washington, D.C., Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode island and Vermont.

Was this before or after the massive media propaganda onslaught normalizing homosexuality?

I see that in the case of Maine, the legislature passed a "gay marriage" statute, the statute was overturned by a vote of the people, and the Gaystapo forces then pushed for a new referendum, which then passed, or so they tell us anyway.

So what changed? Well the Bastard in Chief had a conversion. You see, before he was against it, but in 2012 he became in favor of it. Liberal Maine could not stomach the idea that they might have a position different from their Holy Affirmative Action Boy-Friend, and so the rank and file "Good Democrats" sallied forth and changed their minds to get back in compliance with his new epiphany.

The Black vote makes up 13% of the electorate, and that is more than enough to swing the issue in the opposite direction. They simply march in lock step with whatever that bastard says. So do many white Liberals.

I guarantee that if Obama came out against it again, they would dutifully repeal it.

[DiogenesLamp]

I love the beginning that takes place at the original World Trade Center and includes footage of the twin towers.

That is really a good video, and it spends time giving a very serious answer, and providing very serious thought to the question touched upon by "Morphing Libertarian".

The Trouble with many of these discussions is that you have to convey so much back ground information for people to be able to grasp the point you are attempting to make, that by the time you have informed them, they have lost interest in understanding the point you were making in the first place.

This picture sums up my thinking on this and other issues.

[ELS]

The UUSC voted unanimously.

Which SCOTUS decision are you referring to? In the Obergefell case, it was 5-4.

[morphing libertarian]

Please show me where in the constitution that case law is not law.

[morphing libertarian]

please see 212. I think it was cleared up a while back.

[morphing libertarian]

I sympathize that you need to educate so many other wrong posters. However, that seems to apply to you in this case, not me.

best wishes digging out video clips.

[morphing libertarian]

Obama has his own graphic artist. See Birth Certificate forgery.

[Jim Noble]

ALL LEGISLATIVE POWERS HEREIN GRANTED

“ALL” is exclusive. It does not say “All legislative powers EXCEPT laws created by courts”.

[morphing libertarian]

you are limiting power to “legislation” Case law decided by courts is law. It is not legislation. You don’t have a basic understanding of the sources of laws.

I think you should ignore all court decisions. Then you will be consistent.

This is very tiring. I have been doing civic s101 on this thread since last night. Good-bye.

[usconservative]

This is a very thorny issue, but if there is anything that I am certain of it is that none (not one) of our founding fathers believed that public officials and public employees are empowered by the First Amendment to write their own job descriptions. They believed that public officials/employees are public servants and are obliged to perform the functions that they are retained to perform.

Show me where the founding fathers made such statements in writing. You can search the Constitution, Federalist Papers, or any writings of the founding fathers to make your case.

I will remind you though, that this country was founded on FREEDOM OF RELIGION, and the practice thereof. That is absolutely clear, an irrefutable. They place no limits anywhere on the practice of one's religion.

The limit is on the GOVERNMENT to prevent it from infringing on, interfering with, or endorsing one religion over another.

[usconservative]

See #233.

[Lurking Libertarian]

I will remind you though, that this country was founded on FREEDOM OF RELIGION, and the practice thereof. That is absolutely clear, an irrefutable. They place no limits anywhere on the practice of one's religion.

Can a Quaker County Clerk refuse to issue gun licenses?

Can a Mormon County Clerk refuse to issue a business license to Starbucks?

Can a Catholic County Clerk refuse to issue a marriage license to someone who is divorced?

[usconservative]

Again, show me where it is in the Constitution, bill of rights, amendments to the Constitution, Federalist Papers, etc.. that the founding fathers placed the limits on the "free exercise" of religion to hold a job, much less one working for the government.

The ball's in your court, not mine. You're the one stating that freedom ends at the workplace or in government service, the burden of proof is on you.

[Tau Food]

Our founding fathers believed in the rule of law. None of them thought that you could do whatever you wanted to and then blame it on your religion. None of them!

BTW, when you get a little deeper into all this, you're going to learn that the 1st Amendment was not part of our original Constitution. In fact, you're going to learn that that's why the call it an "amendment." ;-)

[usconservative]

Our founding fathers believed in the rule of law. None of them thought that you could do whatever you wanted to and then blame it on your religion. None of them!

Interesting choice of words ... "blame it on your religion."

You have a reference for your claim? Where exactly did the Founding Fathers say that an individual is only permitted to practice and live out their faith only in their homes and churches?

Freedom of Religion is the reason our Founding Fathers left England. The MAIN reason.

[usconservative]

BTW, when you get a little deeper into all this, you're going to learn that the 1st Amendment was not part of our original Constitution. In fact, you're going to learn that that's why the call it an "amendment." ;-)

Gee, I don't think I learned that in high school civics class 40 years ago ... ROFL!!

Tell me where your point is valid, here's the First Amendment:

First Amendment:Religion and Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You do realize that it is in fact the US Supreme Court which acted with wanton disregard for the First Amendment while at the same time making it so there is no redress for grievances, correct?

[usconservative]

Further, you do understand the difference between the Hobby Lobby case, where the US Supreme Court RECOGNIZED Hobby Lobby's right to refuse to carry certain abortifacents because it violated Hobby Lobby's owners religious beliefs, correct?

The same USSC and Federal Court System which is now saying that INDIVIDUALS do not have the right to refuse to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples.

You do see the hypocrisy between the two, and the inconsistency in both rulings don't you? If not, we're done.