Featured Kim Davis not exactly the poster girl for Godly marriage...

No, it doesn't. Not yet. But watch conservatives that loathe the decision on SSM by SCOTUS to use the same arguments to argue for national conceal/carry laws.

It does apply to drivers licenses. A drivers license from out of state is recognized by all other 49 states.

 

Though sympathetic, I still think that if she cannot do her job because of her conscience she needs to resign.

Like it or not, it is the law of the land. Were the roles reversed, and a liberal Agent of the government refused to act in accordance with a policy favored by conservatives, people here would be up in arms.

 

Actually, conservatives are much more likely to stand on principle than liberals or Democrats.

You're the ones who would have told Rosa Parks to sit down and shut up, not us.

 

Says the person flying a confederate flag. :laugh:

 

Yep. Says the person flying the Confederate flag and holding the Constitution in the other hand.

 

Oops, Ms. Davis is a Democrat.

 

"When will these Americans and their slavish devotion to the Constitution stop?" --JohnDeereFan (posted yesterday, here: https://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2254999&postcount=17)

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

And you know that I am one of those how exactly? You do not know what you are talking about.

It is amazing how many people think they know others here so well.

 

Federal Judge turned her over to the Marshall's custody, she'll most likely be incarcerated at the female camp at Lexington.

 

By reading your posts and observing the way you're treating this woman.

...says the guy who insists she's obligated to honor a law Kentucky never passed.

 

Ask your mommy or daddy to explain to you what "facetious" means.

 

Federal Preemption Doctrine. Look it up.

While you are at it, read Article VI, clause II of the U.S. Constitution.

 

Ask yours what the supremacy clause of the US Constitution is and what the first section of the 14th amendment means.

 

Using the same criteria, one could conclude from your posts and treatment of others on this site that you are a cranky person.

Do you see how foolish that is?

 

nt ten characters

 

I could also draw a few conclusions from this post...

 

And you would be wrong.

Because you can't separate things into paragraphs on Facebook, I just typed it there and copied and pasted it to Facebook.

Hit the post button accidentally.

I deleted it because it wouldn't have made sense to anybody, because nobody here has been following the Facebook conversation and wouldn't know the context.

That's all.

It's a philosophy. It isn't legally binding.

Do you mean the Supremacy Clause? What about it? Where does it say the Supreme Court has the right to impose laws on states?

Just as one would have to conclude that you are a fool.

Why? I already know what it is. It says nothing about the Supreme Court having the power to impose laws on the states.

Why? It says nothing about the Supreme Court imposing laws on states.

 

Yes. Like you were wrong to assume what my reaction to Rosa Parks would have been.

You apparently read an insult into my post that was not there. My point was about the ease of drawing mistaken conclusions about people based on only a few comments.

 

No, it doesn't blatantly say that. Too bad for you but that's how SCOTUS has interpreted it. And it's held up to multiple appeals, ergo, it's exactly what it does. Stomping your feet and saying, "it's not true" will not make it not true.

 

“In dissent, Chief Justice Roberts rightly observed that the Court’s marriage opinion has nothing to do with the Constitution. Justice Scalia observed that the Court’s opinion was so contrary to law that state and local officials would choose to defy it."