“Certainly the First Amendment says that in institutions of faith that there is absolute power to, you know, to observe deeply held religious beliefs. But I don’t think it extends far beyond that,” she said.
This idiot has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution when she doesn't even have a remedial grasp of what it says.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Just think! People calling themselves Americans elected this ditz.
She’s one clueless bull lesbian.
She should be removed from the Senate
Ignorance of The Constitution is no excuse
Hey, Twit. This 1st amendment you hate applies to THE PEOPLE. The constitution opens with,”We the people”
“she doesn’t even have a remedial grasp of what it says.”
Sadly, leftists really don’t care...its even possible that she knows precisely what it says, and it trying to wordsmith a new meaning. To them, the Bill of Rights is a huge obstacle.
A lesbian fascist. Who knew?!
"...nor the free exercise thereof."
'Splain that one Tammy.
So, essentially I can go to church, but the state has the absolute right to force me to commit a sin outside of church?
Because that’s what I am hearing this dyke say.
Are the people in WI that oblivious to what their elected officials believe or is this what the electorate wants?
KOOLAID diet.
My Chihuahua has more brains than this ditz....................
What freedoms will you bestow upon us, beyotch?
She is a satanic pervert whose mental functions are corrupted.
She’s really not smart. Shevjustvsees the emotional reactions to things seeming to be successful (well they are successful in the short term for now) and she wants to kickstart another emotion-based change.
This is really dumb though. Really dumb.
She didn’t quite think this through...at all.
Is she related to Harf?
A rhetorical question: does this limitation apply to Democrats and Democrat organizations (the other part of the 1st amendment; the press)? Wild guess: it probably only applies to people with whom he disagrees with.
In followups to the uproar, this Baldwin Nazi bitch has not retracted, but doubled-down.
One-eyed logic can and does lead to some startling conclusions. In any syllogism, there is always supposed to be reference back to the starting point, just to keep perspective on the progression of the debate.
Can you say “sophistry”? Apparently, for certain overly clever persons, the concept of “individual” does not exist. Churches are, after all, composed of individuals, and if freedom is denied to any one of them, then by extension, it may be denied to all, and the whole concept of organizations having rights while individuals do not, simply collapses.
If the belief in your faith system is not in your heart and is not being expressed in your daily interactions with your fellow human beings, then you may be said to be of an unenlightened nature, and you do not know the divine power of a supreme deity. If you don’t feel the love, then you are not truly part of the church.
Needs her a$$ kicked up between her shoulder blades.