IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.ObamaCare.gov
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.california, or.politics
XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.politics.obama, alt.revisionism
XPost: alt.atheism, alt.conspiracy, alt.politics.immigration
XPost: alt.true-crime, alt.politics.guns, misc.survivalism
XPost: soc.culture.usa, alt.survival
From: I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-THE-ObamaRegime-SPY-NETWORK@IRS.
BI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.ObamaCare.gov
On 4/29/2015 11:35 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 4/29/2015 7:30 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 4/29/2015 9:30 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>> On 4/29/2015 11:13 AM, deep wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 08:00:31 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/28/2015 7:07 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/28/2015 09:04 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>> David Hartung wrote in
>>>>>>> news:Eo-dnbAGev5WV6LInZ2dnUU7-d2dnZ2d@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 04/28/2015 09:06 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> David Hartung wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:vqWdndN6pNvxxqPInZ2dnUU7-T2dnZ2d@giganews.com:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 04/27/2015 09:06 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't like gay marriage then don't
>>>>>>>>>>> get gay married. Why is that so difficult for
>>>>>>>>>>> Hartung and company?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not the issue.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The problem of same sex marriage has been discussed ad-nauseum in
>>>>>>>>>> this forum, and it is very apparent that we will never agree. The
>>>>>>>>>> subject now is whether or not same sex marriage is a
>>>>>>>>>> constitutional
>>>>>>>>>> right, and whether or not those of us who have religious
>>>>>>>>>> objections
>>>>>>>>>> to same sex marriage will be allowed our constitutional right to
>>>>>>>>>> exercise our faith.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You have the religious right not get gay
>>>>>>>>> married. What is your religious right to prevent
>>>>>>>>> OTHERS from getting gay married?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is your right to use the courts to change the law?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You mean like Loving v Virginia?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you still defending the "state's right"
>>>>>>> to ban interracial marriage?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The last time I checked, this is not about interracial marriage.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is perfectly analogous.
>>>>
>>>> It is, now huh? So then you support a States' right to make
>>>> interracial "marriages" illegal. And if mixed races want to marry
>>>> they must call it a "civil union".
>>>
>>> I would say NO, but a Religion can refuse gay or inter racial marriages
>>> and yes they would have to be State or Federal "civil unions" that fit
>>> under the 14th amendment which says the government has to treat all
>>> people equal.
>>>
>>> Nothing says the religious definition of MARRIAGE has to fit the
>>> Governments need for equality... being equal is all the problem for the
>>> government to solve not for the private sector and religion.....
>>>
>>> There is NO amendment that says *the People* can't discriminate.
>
> Statutory laws says they may not. I happen to think those laws are
> wrong, but I'm wondering what constitutional provision they violate.
>
Here is one
"or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,"
Apparently the government can't dictate who you peaceably assemble
with.... in other words you have a right to assemble with whom ever you
choose to associate with.
That means that you can NOT invite people to associate with... and the
government can tell you that if you associate with a Latino then you
have to also associate with a Asian.
The same holds true for all people in the private sector including
people who's property happens to be a store front.
If they can tell a gun owner to keep off their property then they can
tell anyone else exercising any other of their constitutional rights to
also stay out.
--
That's Karma
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
