Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So should we just get rid of marriage. Nullify the millions in the country, make everyone single and rewrite the tax code?
Better to ask So should we just get rid of the tax code.
Sure why not? Most of it anyway.
What do you think would happen if we did make everyone single? Wasn't the idea behind marriage and the tax back in the day to make it "easier, money wise" to be married while ONE person worked and the other stayed home and raised kids? Since both are working nowadays isn't it better to file separately in most cases? dunno
Aren't the tax breaks much bigger because of having kids? dunno
No it's not. You're being dishonest if you ignore the fact that same sex marriages were not allowed in Kentucky and she knew it.
Read very slowly.
Her job description is to apply the law as it is. Not as it only is on the day she took her oath, but as it is on any given day she serves. She's been a clerk for 27 freakin' years - are you really expecting us to believe the inane notion that an elected official gets to ignore all changes in the law beyond the day they took office? Think about that. That about what a mess that would be.
Do you think police officers get to decline to enforce laws that were passed after they joined the force? Do you think they get to enforce laws that were on the books when they joined, but have since been repealed? Because that's where your completely nonsensical and absurd idea takes things.
Do you think whites-only restaurants got to continue to be whites-only after the Civil Rights Act was passed? If you do then think again.
Quote:
Also in 1964, Bessinger — who at that time owned four Piggie Park restaurants — stood in the door of one of his stores to prevent a black minister from entering. Bessinger would allow blacks to buy food to take out, but not to eat in his restaurant. African-Americans, represented by then-civil rights lawyer Matthew Perry, took him to court.
In 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Bessinger 8-0.
You see, once again we've got a member anti-gay crowd trying to cloak their anti-gay animus in one 'principle' or another. But every time you folks try to explain your 'principles' they just lead to all sorts of completely dumb and profoundly unworkable ideas, like I've pointed out here. And that's because you have no principles beyond just wanting to discriminate against gays, no matter how much lipstick you try and put on that pig.
You've lost. Stop being like the regressive BBQ guy in the article above. Stop embarrassing yourself.
It make me wonder about the quality of the air and water in Erehwon.
lol Miranda rights have nothing to do with granting rights. Like I said it's a warning, or advice. And What are pumping into your lungs that does things to your thought process?
some people cant handle POWER... nor do they get it when GOD said to love people -- if they mess up their problem... not yours.. political xtians only see 3 sins.
fornication- homosexuality and abortion-- you can beat the wife and mess with a child and cheat on taxes, but cant do the carnal 3
lol Miranda rights have nothing to do with granting rights. Like I said it's a warning, or advice. And What are pumping into your lungs that does things to your thought process?
Lesson from this is not to vote for anyone religious. They will try to claim their rights trump your rights. I'm tired of these religious pious people who think God is speaking to them and this gives them the right to not do their JOB. This bit*h makes 80,000 a year.
Her job description is to apply the law as it is. Not as it only is on the day she took her oath, but as it is on any given day she serves. She's been a clerk for 27 freakin' years - are you really expecting us to believe the inane notion that an elected official gets to ignore all changes in the law beyond the day they took office? Think about that. That about what a mess that would be.
It is about religious beliefs and the use of force to make people do it. THAT is what the entire issue is about. Doesn't surprise me you missed it though. Guess the words were to "quick" for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
Do you think police officers get to decline to enforce laws that were passed after they joined the force?
Because police always enforce that law right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
Do you think they get to enforce laws that were on the books when they joined, but have since been repealed? Because that's where your completely nonsensical and absurd idea takes things.
Waiting for you to describe a law having to do with religious beliefs and the use of force to make people do it. THAT is what the entire issue is about. Doesn't surprise me you missed it though. What did the founders have to say about that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
Do you think whites-only restaurants got to continue to be whites-only after the Civil Rights Act was passed? If you do then think again.
Do you think all whites wanted Jim Crow and none wanted to serve blacks through the front door?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
You see, once again we've got a member anti-gay crowd trying to cloak their anti-gay animus in one 'principle' or another. But every time you folks try to explain your 'principles' they just lead to all sorts of completely dumb and profoundly unworkable ideas, like I've pointed out here. And that's because you have no principles beyond just wanting to discriminate against gays, no matter how much lipstick you try and put on that pig.
You see, once again we've got a member of the falsely testifying crowd trying to cloak their own repulsive Jim Crow on others because they want government to run others lives.
I don't care if gays marry. I do care when government uses force to make people accept that belief even when it's against their religious beliefs and no ones rights have been violated. Why yes government is so moral, lets let them use force and coercion even though no ones rights have been violated. Keep trying Jimmy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
You've lost. Stop being like the regressive BBQ guy in the article above. Stop embarrassing yourself.
Have someone read to you slowly what the founders thought about religious persecution.
1. She got her job before the law changed.
2. Kentucky wasn't going to change that law.
3. Her religious beliefs prohibit it.
You have no thought process and your posts are dishonest. You're lost because you have to lie about what I believe while YOU miss the point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
