Topic: GAY MEN WANT KIM DAVIS BACK IN JAIL - page 4. (Read 3603 times)
Gay men wants Kim Davis's back in jail? 
Hehe, I guess it seems progressive for him.
Hehe, I guess it seems progressive for him. 
So does State trump Federal when you want it to (weed) but Federal trumps State when you want that to (Marriage)?
Yes. If the feds were to say same sex marriage is not okay, and states did it anyway, I would support that as well. That's because I support basic civil rights for human beings, marriage is one of them.
Quote
that's some screwed up thinking there. Really there are no principles involved here at are, are there? It's all about I want what I want and it's my right to get it my way and screw you. I am able to change my opinion here if you can present a logical method to show why your approach doesn't just mean no principles, and no rule of law.
Yes, supporting giving people their rights back is horrible of me.
You see something okay in Fed enforcing the marriage thing, but not in them enforcing the weed law?
So who gets to pick and choose when and to whom to apply "law" to?
Leaving aside for the moment that this constitutes the very reverse of law, who?
No hiding behind vague slogans please.
So does State trump Federal when you want it to (weed) but Federal trumps State when you want that to (Marriage)?
Yes. If the feds were to say same sex marriage is not okay, and states did it anyway, I would support that as well. That's because I support basic civil rights for human beings, marriage is one of them.
Quote
that's some screwed up thinking there. Really there are no principles involved here at are, are there? It's all about I want what I want and it's my right to get it my way and screw you. I am able to change my opinion here if you can present a logical method to show why your approach doesn't just mean no principles, and no rule of law.
Yes, supporting giving people their rights back is horrible of me.
Then... The gays has no rights to force her to re-sign a document that is perfectly legal, and already signed and 100% valid. Would you agree with that?
she should not be put in prison she should be sacked for refusing to work..
its law that gays can get married..so she should sign the documents and if not then she should be sacked its as simple as that..
no one has to sign nothing if they don.t want to..but if your job requires you to then you sign and if you refuse then you go..
what i don.t understand is why as she not been sacked..if she was in the UK she be gone SACKED..
and good . AND I HOPE SHE GETS RUN OVER BY A BUS
PLANET BE BETTER OFF IF SHE DIED
ITS HER RELIGION
SHE IS A SLUT SO SHE IS GOING TO HELL ALREADY IF THERE IS A HELL..
MIND YOU WITH A FACE AND A FAMILY LIKE HERS SHE IS ALREADY IN HELL THE UGLY TWAT THE WHOLE LOT OF THEM..THE HILL BILLIE UGLIES
SHE IS A HOMOPHOBIC FAT UGLY TWAT
So does State trump Federal when you want it to (weed) but Federal trumps State when you want that to (Marriage)?
Yes. If the feds were to say same sex marriage is not okay, and states did it anyway, I would support that as well. That's because I support basic civil rights for human beings, marriage is one of them.
Quote
that's some screwed up thinking there. Really there are no principles involved here at are, are there? It's all about I want what I want and it's my right to get it my way and screw you. I am able to change my opinion here if you can present a logical method to show why your approach doesn't just mean no principles, and no rule of law.
Yes, supporting giving people their rights back is horrible of me.
Then... The gays has no rights to force her to re-sign a document that is perfectly legal, and already signed and 100% valid. Would you agree with that?
So does State trump Federal when you want it to (weed) but Federal trumps State when you want that to (Marriage)?
Yes. If the feds were to say same sex marriage is not okay, and states did it anyway, I would support that as well. That's because I support basic civil rights for human beings, marriage is one of them.
Quote
that's some screwed up thinking there. Really there are no principles involved here at are, are there? It's all about I want what I want and it's my right to get it my way and screw you. I am able to change my opinion here if you can present a logical method to show why your approach doesn't just mean no principles, and no rule of law.
Yes, supporting giving people their rights back is horrible of me.
She's an elected official, she refuses to do her job, refuses to resign, she can't be fired, thus ends up in jail. I don't think she deserves to be in jail but she needs to leave her religious bullshit at the door where it belongs. Religion has no place in politics, it's just a convenient smokescreen to excuse bigotry and hatred.
Really? Apply this principled approach universally or not at all.
State officials really need to follow the Federal Drug Laws, don't they, and arrest any and everyone in possession of or selling marihuana.
According to YOUR PRINCIPLES.
That's a dumb argument, smoking weed is totally like a specifically consitutionally protected act like marriage. If you want to make that argument then say something like
"Then those that issued same sex marriage licenses when it was illegal should be arrested as well!" example
And then I would say, I already said I don't think she belongs in jail.
Not going to cry over it either though. Bigots who support laws based on bigotry should expect backlash.
No, smoking weed isn't totally like a specifically constitutionally protected act. Exactly the opposite.
1. Marriage -
State law issue. Until the recent Scotus decision.
2. Weed -
Federal law issue. No Scotus decision. No "Right." A couple states make it legal, but it is still illegal at the federal level.
So does State trump Federal when you want it to (weed) but Federal trumps State when you want that to (Marriage)?
that's some screwed up thinking there. Really there are no principles involved here at are, are there? It's all about I want what I want and it's my right to get it my way and screw you. I am able to change my opinion here if you can present a logical method to show why your approach doesn't just mean no principles, and no rule of law.
She's an elected official, she refuses to do her job, refuses to resign, she can't be fired, thus ends up in jail. I don't think she deserves to be in jail but she needs to leave her religious bullshit at the door where it belongs. Religion has no place in politics, it's just a convenient smokescreen to excuse bigotry and hatred.
Really? Apply this principled approach universally or not at all.
State officials really need to follow the Federal Drug Laws, don't they, and arrest any and everyone in possession of or selling marihuana.
According to YOUR PRINCIPLES.
That's a dumb argument, smoking weed is totally like a specifically consitutionally protected act like marriage. If you want to make that argument then say something like
"Then those that issued same sex marriage licenses when it was illegal should be arrested as well!" example
And then I would say, I already said I don't think she belongs in jail.
Not going to cry over it either though. Bigots who support laws based on bigotry should expect backlash.
She's an elected official, she refuses to do her job, refuses to resign, she can't be fired, thus ends up in jail. I don't think she deserves to be in jail but she needs to leave her religious bullshit at the door where it belongs. Religion has no place in politics, it's just a convenient smokescreen to excuse bigotry and hatred.
In the past also there were similar incidents in the United States. What makes this incident different from the others, is the quantum of punishment given to the official. These sort of punishments were not given out in the past, as the judges were more lenient. Times have changed. The SCOTUS is now controlled by the extreme-left and the LGBT.
The actions are those of the US Attorney General, who is a puppet of Obama, who is a puppet of ....
... The Pink Mafia Brotherhood...
She's an elected official, she refuses to do her job, refuses to resign, she can't be fired, thus ends up in jail. I don't think she deserves to be in jail but she needs to leave her religious bullshit at the door where it belongs. Religion has no place in politics, it's just a convenient smokescreen to excuse bigotry and hatred.
In the past also there were similar incidents in the United States. What makes this incident different from the others, is the quantum of punishment given to the official. These sort of punishments were not given out in the past, as the judges were more lenient. Times have changed. The SCOTUS is now controlled by the extreme-left and the LGBT.
The actions are those of the US Attorney General, who is a puppet of Obama, who is a puppet of ....
She's an elected official, she refuses to do her job, refuses to resign, she can't be fired, thus ends up in jail. I don't think she deserves to be in jail but she needs to leave her religious bullshit at the door where it belongs. Religion has no place in politics, it's just a convenient smokescreen to excuse bigotry and hatred.
In the past also there were similar incidents in the United States. What makes this incident different from the others, is the quantum of punishment given to the official. These sort of punishments were not given out in the past, as the judges were more lenient. Times have changed. The SCOTUS is now controlled by the extreme-left and the LGBT.
hahahahaha.... let's bring them soup during winter
hahahahaha.... let's bring them soup during winter
First they where fine with their piece of paper without her name on it and now they heared she's out, they standing at her desk again?! these 2 fools are looking for a troffee to put up on their wall, arn't they...
i have nothing against gay, marry a smurf for all i care ,but those 2 ....
that's just provocative and pathetic ...
i have nothing against gay, marry a smurf for all i care ,but those 2 ....
that's just provocative and pathetic ...
The longer they do this, the worse their ROI will be. I want them to camp at her office for the next 2 years...
First they where fine with their piece of paper without her name on it and now they heared she's out, they standing at her desk again?! these 2 fools are looking for a troffee to put up on their wall, arn't they...
i have nothing against gay, marry a smurf for all i care ,but those 2 ....
that's just provocative and pathetic ...
i have nothing against gay, marry a smurf for all i care ,but those 2 ....
that's just provocative and pathetic ...
She's an elected official, she refuses to do her job, refuses to resign, she can't be fired, thus ends up in jail. I don't think she deserves to be in jail but she needs to leave her religious bullshit at the door where it belongs. Religion has no place in politics, it's just a convenient smokescreen to excuse bigotry and hatred.
Really? Apply this principled approach universally or not at all.
State officials really need to follow the Federal Drug Laws, don't they, and arrest any and everyone in possession of or selling marihuana.
According to YOUR PRINCIPLES.
She's an elected official, she refuses to do her job, refuses to resign, she can't be fired, thus ends up in jail. I don't think she deserves to be in jail but she needs to leave her religious bullshit at the door where it belongs. Religion has no place in politics, it's just a convenient smokescreen to excuse bigotry and hatred.
So you agree the gays have no business forcing her to put her name on a piece of paper recognized as already perfectly fine and legal?
Why can't they move along in their life with their love? She is irrelevant to them now anyway.
She's an elected official, she refuses to do her job, refuses to resign, she can't be fired, thus ends up in jail. I don't think she deserves to be in jail but she needs to leave her religious bullshit at the door where it belongs. Religion has no place in politics, it's just a convenient smokescreen to excuse bigotry and hatred.
The gay couple should divorce then re marry. To prove to the world how much they love each other...
Gay "couples" marry only to gain welfare payments. Unlike the heterosexual couples, there is no loyalty to the spouse. "Married" homosexuals will continue to indulge in sex with perfect strangers, and it is very much accepted in the gay community. Already tax payers are bearing the burden of subsidizing HIV medications to these people ($10 billion every year, in the US). Why the taxpayers have to pay even more money out of their pocket?
Jump to: