It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pointing out the double standard

page: 5
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace




Call it a grey area if you must, but when a court has to tell you to stop what you're doing, it kind of makes it illegal to continue doing so.


Actually, it's more like the court needs to decide whether or not something is illegal and tells you to stop while they figure it out.

CMP

edit on 9/6/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: kellyjay

Did you miss the point that this was from 11 years ago? Google can be your friend if you know how to use it.




doesnt matter when it was from, he still broke the law like kim did based on his personal opinion thus is a double standard, nice try at trying to shift the goal posts though...no really, bravo


I didn't move them. The First World has been here for decades. It's some in the US that can't get with even the 20th century. No matter how much one wants to spin it or try to justify it, this bigotry is on it's way out. Accept that humanity is actually moving on or be dragged kicking and screaming. It's going to happen. Most don't allow theology to dominate their ethics anymore. Thank Christ. Pun intended.


you guys were making the claim that he didnt break any law, you even dismissed me to wait on phages "facts" and he was wrong, and then when i showed you that he had broken the law, which was the basis of my entire argument, and that i had been using the entire debate...then you want to say "but this was 11 years ago" like a time factor is relevant to my argument (which it isnt) so no it doesnt matter when he broke the law....the fact he broke it was my point.

now im off to bed...good evening



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Mayors, Governors, Presidents wield executive authority. They can make executive orders as this mayor did by telling clerks they were to issue marriage licenses to gay people. To challenge an executive order it must be brought to the courts. If the court says the order is perfectly fine, it stays in place... if the court says the order is not fine and the executive has overstepped, then the order is removed.

It cannot be against the law for someone with executive power to make an executive order.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: EternalSolace




Call it a grey area if you must, but when a court has to tell you to stop what you're doing, it kind of makes it illegal to continue doing so.


Actually, it's more like the court needs to decide whether or not something is illegal and tells you to stop while they figure it out.

CMP


i think its quite clear




The court said the mayor, Gavin Newsom, and city officials violated the law when they issued the certificates, since legislation and a state voter-approved measure defined marriage as a union between a man and woman.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: kellyjay

I'm still saying you're wrong...



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: kellyjay
now im off to bed...good evening


That's actually a good idea. Maybe a reasonable idea may come to you. THIS just isn't coming to fruition. It's inane.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: kellyjay

I'm still saying you're wrong...


well when ive proved myself to be right, your opinion matters not....so carry on



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: kellyjay




i think its quite clear

Yes. It's quite clear that the court decided the practice was illegal, after the fact. After they ordered it to be stopped, and that order was complied with.


edit on 9/6/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: kellyjay
now im off to bed...good evening


That's actually a good idea. Maybe a reasonable idea may come to you. THIS just isn't coming to fruition. It's inane.


so inane you have been here what?...2 hrs now? lol






posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: kellyjay

What proved you right? A quote from a news source that wasn't a direct quote from the court but the authors words?



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: kellyjay
now im off to bed...good evening


That's actually a good idea. Maybe a reasonable idea may come to you. THIS just isn't coming to fruition. It's inane.


so inane you have been here what?...2 hrs now? lol





So what? I'm here everyday. That's all you've got? You can't deny the facts so you attempt a personal attack? Bwahahahaha.....



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: kellyjay




i think its quite clear

Yes. It's quite clear that the court decided the practice was illegal. After they ordered it to be stopped, and it was.


was that after they nullified all the liscences or before? do you have that time schedule available or? looks to me they ordered him to stop because he was violating the law, then nullified the liscences....either way HE BROKE THE LAW right?

good chat



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 06:14 PM
link   

The decision was narrow legally, applying only to the issue of executive authority and not to the constitutionality of state law limiting marriage to unions between a man and a woman.


nyt



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: kellyjay
now im off to bed...good evening


That's actually a good idea. Maybe a reasonable idea may come to you. THIS just isn't coming to fruition. It's inane.


so inane you have been here what?...2 hrs now? lol





So what? I'm here everyday. That's all you've got? You can't deny the facts so you attempt a personal attack? Bwahahahaha.....


i dont need to "attack" anyone...i made my point


edit on 02/08/2015 by kellyjay because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: kellyjay
now im off to bed...good evening


That's actually a good idea. Maybe a reasonable idea may come to you. THIS just isn't coming to fruition. It's inane.


so inane you have been here what?...2 hrs now? lol





So what? I'm here everyday. That's all you've got? You can't deny the facts so you attempt a personal attack? Bwahahahaha.....


i dont need to "attack" anyone...i made my point



What point? You certainly haven't shown any kind of double standard.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Since the subject of the OP is double standards maybe it would be better to use different examples. I see the point you are trying to make but, it seems to have gotten derailed into arguing with legalese which I am loath to do. I hate arguing over what the definition of is is.

Since the title of the thread is referencing double standards let's try a different example. The rhetoric surrounding the videos of Planned Parenthood is causing violence according to some here on ATS. The rhetoric of some involved in the Black Lives Matter movement is not causing violence against police officers according to some here on ATS. Is this a double standard? Does rhetoric cause others to commit violence or is the individual committing the violence the sole responsible party?

I am sure there are many examples of double standards from both sides of the conservative/liberal divide. I believe both sides use double standards. It is basic cognitive dissonance.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Khaleesi



Since the subject of the OP is double standards maybe it would be better to use different examples.


The OP isn't interested in discussing double standards, in general. He wasn't to show that gays have double standards when it comes to judging Christians for thinking that they're above the law.

He failed.



edit on 6-9-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: kellyjay
now im off to bed...good evening


That's actually a good idea. Maybe a reasonable idea may come to you. THIS just isn't coming to fruition. It's inane.


so inane you have been here what?...2 hrs now? lol





So what? I'm here everyday. That's all you've got? You can't deny the facts so you attempt a personal attack? Bwahahahaha.....


i dont need to "attack" anyone...i made my point



Really? Reality disagrees with you. You attempted to show "something". It turned out to be wrong. If you think that you made the point? I am God... worship me. That's the amount of faith one needs to believe that stuff, and that's the correct word, something like this.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: kellyjay
The order to cease and desist was issued in March. The licenses were not voided until August.


Interesting though, the cease and desist decision was based on the forms being used. They were "altered" from the approved forms.

That this Court maintain administrative uniformity and certainty by immediately issuing an order directing respondents to cease and desist from issuing or registering License and Certificate of Marriage forms, other than those approved by the State of California, while this original writ proceeding is pending.

www.courts.ca.gov...

edit on 9/6/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: kellyjay
now im off to bed...good evening


That's actually a good idea. Maybe a reasonable idea may come to you. THIS just isn't coming to fruition. It's inane.


so inane you have been here what?...2 hrs now? lol





So what? I'm here everyday. That's all you've got? You can't deny the facts so you attempt a personal attack? Bwahahahaha.....


i dont need to "attack" anyone...i made my point



What point? You certainly haven't shown any kind of double standard.



I did actually, you just dont want to accept it....



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join