ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
that's not how you spell squirrels
rep thread
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
that's not how you spell squirrels
are they still arguing around the edges?
ubetcha
like what?
-she is a democrat
-she has been divorced
-she should resign
-she should just sign it
-she should have seen this coming
-she shouldn't be working for the government
-the judge is a republican
-the law must sustain the right absent a secular argument that meets the standard.
what is wrong with them?
they have nothing to do with the issue at hand
what is the issue at hand?
religious freedom and judicial tyranny
ubetcha
like what?
-she is a democrat
-she has been divorced
-she should resign
-she should just sign it
-she should have seen this coming
-she shouldn't be working for the government
-the judge is a republican
-the law must sustain the right absent a secular argument that meets the standard.
what is wrong with them?
they have nothing to do with the issue at hand
what is the issue at hand?
religious freedom and judicial tyranny
So if the Court had ruled to exclude homosexuals you'd have called it a victory for liberty.
lain:No one has a right to use their faith to deny anyone else their rights. Doing that isn't an exercise of religious freedom, it's actual tyranny.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
So if the Court had ruled to exclude homosexuals you'd have called it a victory for liberty.
rather, a victory for Godly Morality, a thing of which you are woefully ignorant
right, because the framers of the constitution intended to give american citizens the right to engage in perversity and immorality
Last edited:
So if the Court had ruled to exclude homosexuals you'd have called it a victory for liberty.
No one has a right to use their faith to deny anyone else their rights. Doing that isn't an exercise of religious freedom, it's actual tyranny.
Assuming they have a right to marriage, only the law decided that...now did the law makers have a right to decide? was there a great enough or urgent enough need? was there a consensus?
were other people's rights trampled on?
Was there adequate consultation?
The fact is bad laws have always produced bad results
Forcing people to act against their conscience has to be bad.
It is the badly framed law at fault.
It is the badly framed law at fault.
I don't agree with your premise, Tot. I don't think the guiding principle of the Constitution does either, really. We're a nation of law predicated upon a fundamental equality in right. We don't create right, only protect it, both from forces external and internal.
Sometimes it takes us a good while to recognize when we aren't living up to that principle and when our discrimination isn't serving a legitimate, definable and defendable state interest. That happened with minorities across the history of our country. Now some of that, most of it caused people real grief. Many people who opposed each change and expansion of that equality voiced sincere religious opposition, against everything from the abolition of slavery and the political liberation of women to the Civil Rights Act and the destruction of anti-miscegenation laws.
A right denied without justification would seem to meet that definition, however comfortable or uncomfortable we are with it.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
good morning
good morning
so what's new?
I am the only one at tol who supports kim
that can't be true
I am getting mocked for it
what about the homosexual haters?
you can't count them
there are too many of them
this is true
good morning
so what's new?
I am the only one at tol who supports kim
that can't be true
I am getting mocked for it
what about the homosexual haters?
you can't count them
there are too many of them
this is true
do you approve of kim's lawyer?
no
why not?
he wants to talk about homosexuality
what's wrong with that?
he is arguing around the edges
what should he be talking about?
judicial tyranny and religious freedom
didn't jefferson warn us about that?
ubetcha
no
why not?
he wants to talk about homosexuality
what's wrong with that?
he is arguing around the edges
what should he be talking about?
judicial tyranny and religious freedom
didn't jefferson warn us about that?
ubetcha
so why did trump attack carly?
she is a woman
so?
women will elect hillary
is that why he attacked mexicans?
now you get the picture
will he get away with this?
no
then why did he do it?
to elect hillary
why would he want that?
it is a business deal
she is a woman
so?
women will elect hillary
is that why he attacked mexicans?
now you get the picture
will he get away with this?
no
then why did he do it?
to elect hillary
why would he want that?
it is a business deal
Biden reminds me of a "Used car salesman."
only an idiot can think trump will be president
If only we had another Ronald Wilson Reagan.
voters are idiots
didn't you know?
surely you knew
20 million idiots voted for perot in 92
we have even more today
