• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
InTheLight

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Salty said:
Does the same apply to firearm licenses / permits?
Click to expand...

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.
 
R

Rolfe

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Tom Bryant said:
Won't make much difference, but in reading what has been written, I think I was wrong previously concerning her need to do it or resign. I think she has to stand by her convictions and make them force her.

We would applaud a doctor who refuses to perform abortions regardless of the law. SSM is just as wrong as abortions. Her stand is courageous.
Click to expand...

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.
 
J

JohnDeereFan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Rolf said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
R

Rolfe

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
JohnDeereFan said:
You're the ones who would have told Rosa Parks to sit down and shut up, not us.
Click to expand...

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.
 
kyredneck

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Federal Judge turned her over to the Marshall's custody, she'll most likely be incarcerated at the female camp at Lexington.
 
R

Rolfe

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
JohnDeereFan said:
...says the guy who insists she's obligated to honor a law Kentucky never passed.
Click to expand...

Federal Preemption Doctrine. Look it up.

While you are at it, read Article VI, clause II of the U.S. Constitution.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
R

Rolfe

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
JohnDeereFan said:
By reading your posts and observing the way you're treating this woman.
Click to expand...

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?
 
J

JohnDeereFan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Rolf said:
I could also draw a few conclusions from this post... ;)
Click to expand...

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.

Rolf said:
Federal Preemption Doctrine. Look it up.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

InTheLight said:
Ask yours what the supremacy clause of the US Constitution is
Click to expand...

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

and what the first section of the 14th amendment means.
Click to expand...

Why? It says nothing about the Supreme Court imposing laws on states.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
InTheLight

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
JohnDeereFan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
R

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
InTheLight said:
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.
Click to expand...

“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."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top