Breaking the law
- Thread starter shagster01
- Start date
ok dokey - your rep is pretty high fella. for a new guy - :first:
Your mind has flown the coup.
He's beyond that.
Ya only been here a few days. You must be really popular Res?
rougueone
New member
Comparing illegal immigrants is a very poor and desperate attempt to usurp this woman's convictions to Jesus.
I stand with her. because she is just in her belief that by signing off a permit for homosexual marriage is a sin. It is.
I dare many to have such faith , so deeply rooted in Jesus they would go to prison. Prisons are extremely dangerous places full of the worse deviants in this Nation. I am not saying these people are are not redeemable. But the large majority of convicted people in prison are living for one thing, to destroy another.
This woman is our sister in Christ and I stand with her very courageous postilion to defend the way of our Christ. Her reputation is tarnished, her family is scorned, and she will forever be known by the world as the " Jesus freak" . Her family who stands with her, will also suffer for many years to come.
She is a Christian who makes Jesus shine.
Acts 5: 29..... "We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man's blood upon us." 29But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men.
Romans 13 does not apply. This is obvious by Acts 5.
[/quote]
As of 1967, 17 Southern states still had anti-miscegenation laws lthat prohibiting marriage between whites and non-whites.
A 1958 Gallup poll showed that 94% of white Americans disapproved of interracial marriage and it was not until the 1960's that these attitudes against interracial marriage began to change in America.
In 1965, Judge Leon Bazile upheld Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia and defended racial segregation and justified it on religious grounds by stating:
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay, and red, and placed them on separate continents, and but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend the races to mix."
The U.S. Supreme Court decision on Loving v. Virginia in 1967
ruled that all anti-miscegenation laws in the 17 states were unconstitutional although it took South Carolina until 1998 and Alabama until 2000 to officially amend their states' constitution.
The Supreme Court decision stated that:
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
Given that the Supreme Court has already established that marriage is "one of the 'basic civil rights of man '" and a " fundamental freedom" that "cannot be infringed by the State," the argument favoring same-awx marriage appears to be on strong constitutional grounds.
If this was back in 1967, Kim Davis could be making the same argument for withholding marriage licences for mixed racial couples based on her religious convictions as she is currently using for same-sex couples.
As of 1967, 17 Southern states still had anti-miscegenation laws lthat prohibiting marriage between whites and non-whites.
A 1958 Gallup poll showed that 94% of white Americans disapproved of interracial marriage and it was not until the 1960's that these attitudes against interracial marriage began to change in America.
In 1965, Judge Leon Bazile upheld Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia and defended racial segregation and justified it on religious grounds by stating:
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay, and red, and placed them on separate continents, and but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend the races to mix."
The U.S. Supreme Court decision on Loving v. Virginia in 1967
ruled that all anti-miscegenation laws in the 17 states were unconstitutional although it took South Carolina until 1998 and Alabama until 2000 to officially amend their states' constitution.
The Supreme Court decision stated that:
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
Given that the Supreme Court has already established that marriage is "one of the 'basic civil rights of man '" and a " fundamental freedom" that "cannot be infringed by the State," the argument favoring same-awx marriage appears to be on strong constitutional grounds.
If this was back in 1967, Kim Davis could be making the same argument for withholding marriage licences for mixed racial couples based on her religious convictions as she is currently using for same-sex couples.
As of 1967, 17 Southern states still had anti-miscegenation laws lthat prohibiting marriage between whites and non-whites.
A 1958 Gallup poll showed that 94% of white Americans disapproved of interracial marriage and even by 1986 only one third of Americans approved. In 1994 the public approval rate for of such marriages had grown to just over a half and it was not until 2011 that the vast majority of Americans were not longer opposed to the marriages between different races.
Approval/disapproval rates varied greatly among different demographic groups (race, gender, age, socioeconomic groups, marital status).
In 1965, Judge Leon Bazile upheld Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia and defended racial segregation and justified it on religious grounds by stating:
"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay, and red, and placed them on separate continents, and but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend the races to mix."
Despite having a majority of American public opinion that opposed interracial marriage, the U.S. Supreme Court decision on Loving v. Virginia in 1967 ruled that all anti-miscegenation laws in the 17 states were unconstitutional although it took South Carolina until 1998 and Alabama until 2000 to officially amend their states' constitution.
The Supreme Court decision stated that:
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
Given that the Supreme Court had already established that marriage was "one of the 'basic civil rights of man '" and a " fundamental freedom" that "cannot be infringed by the State," the argument favoring same-sex marriage appears to be on strong constitutional grounds.
If this was back in 1967, Kim Davis could be making the same argument for withholding marriage licences for mixed racial couples based on her religious convictions as she is currently using for same-sex couples.
As late as 2009, a justice of the peace in Robert, Louisiana refused to officiate a civil wedding for an interracial couple, was subsequently sued and forced to resign - by a Republican governor!
Last edited:
Letsargue
New member
You (((( "L-I-E" )))) Just Like All of the REAST of these Marxists!!! -- He says Himself, He is "MORE" "L-E-F-T" Than RIGHT!!!, That is Marxism You Blind; Lying; "POINT STEALING"; Spiritual Fatherless Child OF SATAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NOW Take "A-L-L" of MY Points (( "AGAIN" )) like You DID Yesterday, Braking the RULES HERE!!! - AND I'll Joy seeing you open your cursed EYE IN Hell!!!!
SO Now (( I'LL Probably Get BANNED For "T-H-I-S"; )) But N-E-V-E-R "Y-O-U" For ANYTHING!!!!! ( Even calling "Knight a Moron", Remember?? )!!!!!! -- But at Least I won't have to EVER FOOL WITH The Likes OF "Y-O-U" Again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(((((((( WATCH ""Y-O-U-R"" -- N-E-W-S ))))))))!!!!!!!!!!!
NO BODY, 091015!!!
shagster01
New member
You know this great follower of Jesus, this pillar of faith, this protector of the sanctity of marriage is on her 4th marriage herself?
The underground railroad used to free slaves was breaking the law. Get a life you worthless pot smoking toad.
Muslim women can wear a headscarf concealing their face in their ID photos because of religious freedom. Only Christians don't get religious freedom.
shagster01
New member
Please expand on this. What freedom are you lacking?
why call it breaking the law?
call it
contempt for the law
contempt for the court
contempt for the president
kim didn't go to jail for breaking the law
what law?
kim went to jail for contempt for the judge (david l bunning)
and
many here share that contempt
maybe not at tol
but
in the real world many do
call it
contempt for the law
contempt for the court
contempt for the president
kim didn't go to jail for breaking the law
what law?
kim went to jail for contempt for the judge (david l bunning)
and
many here share that contempt
maybe not at tol
but
in the real world many do
shagster01
New member
The law says the job she held must issue licenses to gays and straights alike. She broke that law.
the law says she must approve all marriage licenses
"authorization statement of the county clerk issuing the license"
shagster01
New member
Did she?
shagster01
New member
But she broke that law. You said she's not a law breaker, but she is.
Again, if she doesn't approve of same sex marriage that's fine. She should go get a job that isn't required to.
While I agree with the differing motives of those involved, illegal immigration should not be condone.
I don't agree with jail time either ... though she should definitely be held to the standard of all other employees who refuse to perform ALL the required duties of their position. The only thing that stands out about Kim ... is that she is a special kind of hypocrite.
Absolutely ... her religious freedom ends when it interferes with her job performance and violates the rights of others.