Skip to main content

Two conservative Supreme Court justices just launched a chilling attack on the historic equal marria (208)

Oct 6, 2020 6:10 AM CST Two conservative Supreme Court justices just launched a chilling attack on the historic equal marria
Embedded image from another site


Supreme Court justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have launched an extraordinary attack on the ruling that led to equal marriage, claiming that people who discriminate against gay couples are “victims” of the law.

On Monday (October 5), the two justices penned a statement as the court declined to consider a case brought by Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused to carry out her job processing marriage licenses when gay couples were permitted to wed in 2015.

Davis, who has been married four times to three husbands, became a cause celebre among anti-LGBT+ evangelicals when she claimed she was unable to marry same-sex couples because of her Christian values.

Although Thomas and Alito affirmed the court’s decision not to hear the Davis case on procedural grounds, in the statement they launched an extraordinary broadside on the 2015 Obergefell ruling that legalised same-sex marriage across all 50 states.
Supreme Court justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito say Kim Davis was ‘a victim’ of equal marriage

The pair lauded Davis as “a devout Christian” with “sincerely held religious beliefs,” lamenting that “as a result of this court’s alteration of the constitution, Davis found herself faced with a choice between her religious beliefs and her job”.

Thomas and Alito, who were among the dissenters against marriage equality when the court split five to four on the issue in 2015, continued: “Davis may have been one of the first victims of this court’s cavalier treatment of religion in its Obergefell decision, but she will not be the last.

“Due to Obergefell, those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other anti-discrimination laws.

“It would be one thing if recognition for same-sex marriage had been debated and adopted through the democratic process, with the people deciding not to provide statutory protections for religious liberty under state law.

“But it is quite another when the court forces that choice upon society through its creation of atextual constitutional rights and its ungenerous interpretation of the free exercise clause, leaving those with religious objections in the lurch.


Why do they want to get married anyway??????
Oct 6, 2020 6:14 AM CST Two conservative Supreme Court justices just launched a chilling attack on the historic equal marria
tomcatty: Supreme Court justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have launched an extraordinary attack on the ruling that led to equal marriage, claiming that people who discriminate against gay couples are “victims” of the law.

On Monday (October 5), the two justices penned a statement as the court declined to consider a case brought by Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused to carry out her job processing marriage licenses when gay couples were permitted to wed in 2015.

Davis, who has been married four times to three husbands, became a cause celebre among anti-LGBT+ evangelicals when she claimed she was unable to marry same-sex couples because of her Christian values.

Although Thomas and Alito affirmed the court’s decision not to hear the Davis case on procedural grounds, in the statement they launched an extraordinary broadside on the 2015 Obergefell ruling that legalised same-sex marriage across all 50 states.
Supreme Court justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito say Kim Davis was ‘a victim’ of equal marriage

The pair lauded Davis as “a devout Christian” with “sincerely held religious beliefs,” lamenting that “as a result of this court’s alteration of the constitution, Davis found herself faced with a choice between her religious beliefs and her job”.

Thomas and Alito, who were among the dissenters against marriage equality when the court split five to four on the issue in 2015, continued: “Davis may have been one of the first victims of this court’s cavalier treatment of religion in its Obergefell decision, but she will not be the last.

“Due to Obergefell, those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other anti-discrimination laws.

“It would be one thing if recognition for same-sex marriage had been debated and adopted through the democratic process, with the people deciding not to provide statutory protections for religious liberty under state law.

“But it is quite another when the court forces that choice upon society through its creation of atextual constitutional rights and its ungenerous interpretation of the free exercise clause, leaving those with religious objections in the lurch.


Why do they want to get married anyway??????
"They" only want equality.. If your gay follow the ray, and if your straight refuse to hate..bouquet
Oct 6, 2020 6:21 AM CST Two conservative Supreme Court justices just launched a chilling attack on the historic equal marria
TheDino1: "They" only want equality.. If your gay follow the ray, and if your straight refuse to hate..
They want equality????who? the gay men or women??
Oct 6, 2020 6:26 AM CST Two conservative Supreme Court justices just launched a chilling attack on the historic equal marria
tomcatty: They want equality????who? the gay men or women??
Is that who the "They" were in your question? Yes Gay lesbian trans or whatever, love is not illegal, so why should it not be legal to marry, in some parts of America it's legal to marry your horse apparently..roll eyes
Oct 6, 2020 6:32 AM CST Two conservative Supreme Court justices just launched a chilling attack on the historic equal marria
Taralyn
TaralynTaralynFunk Island, Newfoundland Canada4 Threads 1,219 Posts
You have got to be kidding me! Where was the religious beliefs of Ms. Davis when she divorced 3 times and she went against the churchs' commandment of "What God has brought together. let no man put assunder"? Or are we now separating men and women in this case because it will work in favor of Davis???

She wanted the notoriety of being the first to deny a same sex couple their right to marry and used the excuse of religion to do so. If she didn't want to be laughed out of court, she should've practiced her religion more faithfully and stayed married to the first man.

In my humble opinion, a same sex couple should be granted a marriage licence first. Why?? They have been denied that right for so long, they will appreciate that right and do what they can to preserve/maintain the right.

If you have issues with same sex marriage, then show your balls by not expecting them to pay income taxes, sales tax, don't look for them to vote (can't do anything with it), make donations or volunteer at any institution or event. Leave all that stuff to the heterosexual couples. If they have the right to marry, they can bloody well take care of the rest of society as well.

Jeez, pissed off and it's only 9am.....
Oct 6, 2020 6:35 AM CST Two conservative Supreme Court justices just launched a chilling attack on the historic equal marria
TheDino1: Is that who the "They" were in your question? Yes Gay lesbian trans or whatever, love is not illegal, so why should it not be legal to marry, in some parts of America it's legal to marry your horse apparently..
Embedded image from another site
Oct 6, 2020 6:42 AM CST Two conservative Supreme Court justices just launched a chilling attack on the historic equal marria
TheDino1: Is that who the "They" were in your question? Yes Gay lesbian trans or whatever, love is not illegal, so why should it not be legal to marry, in some parts of America it's legal to marry your horse apparently..
i will answer you from the dichotomy of my mind.

The middle class me agrees with you in principle, gayness is generally accepted now, in all it's perverse forms, even marriage. gayness is given the position of political correctnes don't dare go against the notion.


The working class me, says hang on, I'm from close family stock, where grandmothers grandfathers, uncles aunts all have a traditional place, and homosexuality is just accepted, no need for marriage, it's all embraced in the family.


It seems there is no general view or one size fits all???
Oct 6, 2020 6:45 AM CST Two conservative Supreme Court justices just launched a chilling attack on the historic equal marria
Taralyn: You have got to be kidding me! Where was the religious beliefs of Ms. Davis when she divorced 3 times and she went against the churchs' commandment of "What God has brought together. let no man put assunder"? Or are we now separating men and women in this case because it will work in favor of Davis???

She wanted the notoriety of being the first to deny a same sex couple their right to marry and used the excuse of religion to do so. If she didn't want to be laughed out of court, she should've practiced her religion more faithfully and stayed married to the first man.

In my humble opinion, a same sex couple should be granted a marriage licence first. Why?? They have been denied that right for so long, they will appreciate that right and do what they can to preserve/maintain the right.

If you have issues with same sex marriage, then show your balls by not expecting them to pay income taxes, sales tax, don't look for them to vote (can't do anything with it), make donations or volunteer at any institution or event. Leave all that stuff to the heterosexual couples. If they have the right to marry, they can bloody well take care of the rest of society as well.

Jeez, pissed off and it's only 9am.....
Oct 6, 2020 6:48 AM CST Two conservative Supreme Court justices just launched a chilling attack on the historic equal marria
Sorry you're pissed off dear lady, would you deny me my opinion???
Oct 6, 2020 6:51 AM CST Two conservative Supreme Court justices just launched a chilling attack on the historic equal marria
tomcatty: i will answer you from the dichotomy of my mind.

The middle class me agrees with you in principle, gayness is generally accepted now, in all it's perverse forms, even marriage. gayness is given the position of political correctnes don't dare go against the notion.


The working class me, says hang on, I'm from close family stock, where grandmothers grandfathers, uncles aunts all have a traditional place, and homosexuality is just accepted, no need for marriage, it's all embraced in the family.


It seems there is no general view or one size fits all???
Well at least you agreed with me on principle.. It's not illegal to be homosexual anymore, it's been that way from you were young, a long time ago, so what's the problem if you love someone and you want to make that commitment? I don't see a problem, if it's Phil or Jill so be it, people, especially so called Christians, should just get over it and let people make their own choices..
Oct 6, 2020 6:55 AM CST Two conservative Supreme Court justices just launched a chilling attack on the historic equal marria
TheDino1: Well at least you agreed with me on principle.. It's not illegal to be homosexual anymore, it's been that way from you were young, a long time ago, so what's the problem if you love someone and you want to make that commitment? I don't see a problem, if it's Phil or Jill so be it, people, especially so called Christians, should just get over it and let people make their own choices..
But I must take issue about marrying my horse, it would take ALL tha bedclothes.
Oct 6, 2020 6:59 AM CST Two conservative Supreme Court justices just launched a chilling attack on the historic equal marria
tomcatty: But I must take issue about marrying my horse, it would take ALL tha bedclothes.
Neigh..wink
Embedded image from another site
Oct 6, 2020 7:02 AM CST Two conservative Supreme Court justices just launched a chilling attack on the historic equal marria
I wasn’t quite sure who to address this to, so will leave it open. Having to perform duties (employment) one personally disagrees with is neither new or unique. As I continue, I’m going to tread lightly, mainly because of HIPA and other privacy-protective ordinances..... on our first day of practical nursing/ medical technician course, the M.D. teaching the ethics syllabus told us about two registered nursing students in their last quarter on Chicago’s El. Not even mentioning a name, they were overheard discussing a case they were interning on. Enough was said to identify the case, as a family member was on that same El. They were expelled from the program and never allowed to finish or work even as aides. A bit o, that’s why I’m being careful. Here’s the point: I had several patients who were being poly-pharmacied like their was no tomorrow..I strongly disagreed with the superfluous MAR. ( that’s medical jingo...you likely understand..)but I could not refuse to do my job simply because I disagreed. I also worked for a religious order hospital that was strongly opposed to physician-assisted life-termination. However, when cases came to the front, they were REQUIRED to access the patient to a hospital or system that would perform this. (Assisted suicide is legal in Oregon). So, even though the HMO was opposed on ethical grounds, they still had to be a part of accommodation. It’s a tough world—you can’t teach if you hate kids, you can’t nurse if you hate icky shit. Know what I mean, jelly-bean?
Oct 6, 2020 7:02 AM CST Two conservative Supreme Court justices just launched a chilling attack on the historic equal marria
TheDino1: Neigh..
Obviously Horseosexualsinnocent
Oct 6, 2020 7:04 AM CST Two conservative Supreme Court justices just launched a chilling attack on the historic equal marria
tomcatty: Obviously Horseosexuals
Well played that man, they should actually make those judges carry the horses..tip hat
Oct 6, 2020 7:06 AM CST Two conservative Supreme Court justices just launched a chilling attack on the historic equal marria
TheDino1: Well played that man, they should actually make those judges carry the horses..
A course is a course...( of horse, of horse...

grin
Oct 6, 2020 7:08 AM CST Two conservative Supreme Court justices just launched a chilling attack on the historic equal marria
rohaan: A course is a course...( of horse, of horse...
Of course..grin
Embedded image from another site


I'm having a ball with these GIF's today.. Yehaaaa cowboy
Oct 6, 2020 7:11 AM CST Two conservative Supreme Court justices just launched a chilling attack on the historic equal marria
TheDino1: Of course..

I'm having a ball with these GIF's today.. Yehaaaa
what is gif?
Oct 6, 2020 7:15 AM CST Two conservative Supreme Court justices just launched a chilling attack on the historic equal marria
rohaan: what is gif?
Those motion pictures.. The horse skipping is an example, Rohaan you gotta get up to speed bro..yay hug
Embedded image from another site
Oct 6, 2020 7:15 AM CST Two conservative Supreme Court justices just launched a chilling attack on the historic equal marria
rohaan: I wasn’t quite sure who to address this to, so will leave it open. Having to perform duties (employment) one personally disagrees with is neither new or unique. As I continue, I’m going to tread lightly, mainly because of HIPA and other privacy-protective ordinances..... on our first day of practical nursing/ medical technician course, the M.D. teaching the ethics syllabus told us about two registered nursing students in their last quarter on Chicago’s El. Not even mentioning a name, they were overheard discussing a case they were interning on. Enough was said to identify the case, as a family member was on that same El. They were expelled from the program and never allowed to finish or work even as aides. A bit o, that’s why I’m being careful. Here’s the point: I had several patients who were being poly-pharmacied like their was no tomorrow..I strongly disagreed with the superfluous MAR. ( that’s medical jingo...you likely understand..)but I could not refuse to do my job simply because I disagreed. I also worked for a religious order hospital that was strongly opposed to physician-assisted life-termination. However, when cases came to the front, they were REQUIRED to access the patient to a hospital or system that would perform this. (Assisted suicide is legal in Oregon). So, even though the HMO was opposed on ethical grounds, they still had to be a part of accommodation. It’s a tough world—you can’t teach if you hate kids, you can’t nurse if you hate icky shit. Know what I mean, jelly-bean?
you were so careful and cicumspect, i missed the point/?????conversing
Post Comment - Post a comment on this Forum Thread

Stats for this Thread

2,408 Views
207 Comments
Created: Oct 6
Last Viewed: 21 hrs ago
Last Commented: Oct 10

Share this Thread

Post Comment back to top
We use cookies to ensure that you have the best experience possible on our website. Read Our Privacy Policy Here