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

[usconservative]

I support employees who resign or civilly disobey and are willing to go to jail for their beliefs. In fact, I would send money to a legal defense fund.

No, YOU'RE missing the point: Why should they have to quit and go to jail in the first place? Why don't you want them to be able to follow through on their religious and moral convictions in the spirit of the First Amendment which guarantees each and every one of us Religious Freedom.

Not just while we're at home, not just while we're at church, in the workplace too. The founding fathers put NO LIMITS on where one could follow their religious and moral convictions.

The US Supreme Court just gave every Christian living in America the middle finger.

Are you so blind you cannot see?

[usconservative]

Please state what you think the rights of employees are to decide what services their employers can offer, especially in light of a court order.

Since you've run for cover and said good night to the thread why should I bother? You don't listen/read/comprehend a single logical argument that's been presented to you on this thread.

Why should I waste my time with you?

[Democratic-Republican]

"The ill-conceived 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and corrupt senators and activist justices along with it."

Yeah that one sure sucks, but the 16th Amendment is the mother of all mistakes. It is the intravenous food supply for the FedGov beast and the only way it can sustain itself.

They've built layer upon further layer above and beyond it in order to permanentize their power, such as paycheck withholding and deficit spending. Their Achilles Heel is in their cash stream ( ironically the exact same argument that FedGov uses to go after Drug Dealers and Terrorists ).

If I could change one thing right now it would be for the Supreme Court to decide that "withholding" is unConstitutional and that paychecks may not be intercepted between employers and employees. This would force the taxpayers to manage their own resources and have to save enough cash in order to pay the taxman.

I'd give it one or two years max before the next Revolution comes about, one that exceeds the first revolution in size and scope, and for good reason - King George could never dream of taxing at rates from 40% to 90% ( in the late 1950's to early 1960's ). Of course this is exactly why the Supreme Court does not address something as unConstitutional as withholding which is patently contrary to the whole purpose of the Revolution in the first place.

[slouper]

Now now, calm down!

[WTFOVR]

Go tell that to the self-employed bakers, florists, caterers, etc - who are being sued by government for not kowtowing to depraved reprobate sodomite queers.

This is going to end only one way - the same way such things have always been settled - by the barrel of a gun ... And THAT is as it should be.

[DiogenesLamp]

Could you cite the case law or bill that requires that and where do we line up?

Sure. It's the same case law the Supreme court used to make this ruling. They'll probably tuck it in under "hate crimes" or some such, as well.

If you respond "but that's nonsense", i'll say "yes it is. Maybe you are starting to get the point."

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

Don’t you know the liberals have won. They have won on illegal immigration, foreign affairs, universities, large states with all the votes., downsizing the military. The litany is on display here everyday. If you have a game plan to reverse all of the madness, please share it.

There is no reversing this short of massive bloodshed, and that I fear is going to become inevitable at some point.

Here's another video for you not to watch. It's from a guy called "James Burke" and it is germane to the point.

[morphing libertarian]

You have spun the discussion to business owners. I support the rights of business owners. Don’t know why you engaged me and made up a false argument on my behalf.

I don’t support or recognize the right of employees to tell their employers what products or services they will provide. Those employee need to change jobs.

You might consider starting your own thread on the bakers etc. In fact there have been plenty of them here.

[WTFOVR]

“I am no longer a libertarian. I would think Libertarians would support the right of the employer and in this case the responsibility to carry out case law.”

You may claim you are no longer a libertarian - but all the same you think and write as one. So if case law rules that we must kill the elderly and sick, then I see you will be first on the block with your Kevorkian Mercy Kit.

[WTFOVR]

“Will not be watching the clip. Don’t need a primer on religious freedom.”

Yes, as you have aptly demonstrated your disbelief in the principle.

[DiogenesLamp]

You put forth a strawman argument. This is not an issue of employers imposing new rules on employees, this is an issue of 50 states being forced to bow to the will of people who think they have the power of a dictator.

In all states, including yours, ballot efforts to normalize homosexual marriage were defeated. This court is ruling us against established law, and against consent. It only gets away with it because of the rampant apathy and stupidity infecting the country.

We have become the New Rome, and everyone is enjoying their bread and circuses too much to pay attention to doings that will very well affect them in the future.

This is how this sh*t crept up on Germany. We now have a court that functions as an "enabling act" for the dictators of the left.

[fwdude]

There is no “law” to disobey. What law is this woman breaking?

[morphing libertarian]

You make a false assumption because you cannot answer the basic question. An employee does not have the right to determine the services and products of the employer. If you equate homosexuals getting married to murdering the sick and elderly, that’s for you to explain not me.

You question is hyperbolic and a gross one at that. The answer to your ridiculous attempt, us no I would not do so, nor would I work at an abortion clinic, or as a clerk issuing gay marriage licenses. I provide donations to organizations and campaigns which believe as I do. What’s your MO for fighting the war?

[fwdude]

The State law is the Constitution, which affirms marriage between only and man and a woman. It matters not what one lawless state official says.

[morphing libertarian]

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Case+Law

you really are a piece of work

did they have civics or government in your public school

[rikkir]

She’s an elected official.
She feels she is representing the majority that elected her, as well as standing up for her Christian beliefs.
Her constituents are firmly behind her.
I live about 60 miles from her county, and cheer for her daily.
She can try and resign. No guarantee the County Judge Executive has to accept her resignation.
He can the appoint someone to fill the post, but next election the matter could resurface.
Unless one of the leftist morons from Morehead State University runs for the position, and wins.

[DiogenesLamp]

Those judges remain in office because of institutional inertia and little else. Ted Cruz has the right idea bout making them stand for election. We would get rid of the vile snakes relatively easier after that I think.

As for your other point, the court changing the rules in midstream is a breach of contract. Obedience is not compulsory to an illegal act, and no, the law isn't what the judges say it is.

I think we will eventually be decorating lampposts with some of these bastards.

[DiogenesLamp]

What you are really saying is "which of you jews will rush the camp guards?"

I think we may eventually see.

[fwdude]

Again, what law is this woman breaking?

We live under a penal system of laws. If there is no law, legislatively derived, then there is nothing to disobey.

If you have a law degree, I’d return that box of Cracker Jacks that distributed it to you.

[WTFOVR]

Drinking beer, wine or liquor does not violate the natural law ... It is even well considered in the Bible. Christ drank wine, so what’s the problem?

OTOH, sodomy IS a violation of both the Natural Law and of Reason. The ontological principle is that of being - what the thing truly is in reality, and what it’s natural purpose, or end is ... The reason for being. Homosexual acts are intrinsically wrong and unjust because they violate the natural purpose for which the two complementary sexes were created.

Selling alcohol does violence neither to the seller nor to the buyer, excluding the prohibition of prudence where either individual fails to meet statutory requirements for age and neither is impaired or known to be an alcoholic - in that case there is a both a legal and moral imperative to do no harm. IOW, alcohol is not intrinsically evil in its nature, save but for its abuse - but the abuse of a substance is not due to its inherent nature ... Whereas acts of sodomy are in themselves violently disordered, and against the very nature of the creature, contrary to the end for which it was designed and created.

[Mr Apple]

"BREAKING: Supreme Court rejects Kentucky gay marriage case, clerk must issue licenses despite religion

"Supreme Court rejects Kentucky slimy queer marriage case....."

There - fixed that.