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: 8
19
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I guess all the Congresspersons that wrote and passed DOMA and President Clinton all broke the law since it was later ruled unconstitutional.

/s
edit on 9/6/2015 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: kellyjay




gay marraige was federally illegal,

Marriage laws are state laws.
DOMA did not make same sex marriage illegal. It "defined" marriage as it fit into federal laws.
www.law.cornell.edu...
It also said that no one could cause a state to respect a legal same sex marriage entered into in any other state.

It too, was found unconstitutional.


doesnt matter if it was ound unconstitutional years later, at the time of him issuing the same sex marraiges he was breaking the law by doing so...hindsight has no role to play

he broke the law based on his opinion
she broke the law based on his opinion
the left thought it was ok he broke the law based on his opinion but vilify kim for not following the law based on her opinion.....



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Phage

I guess all the Congresspersons that wrote and passed DOMA and President Clinton all broke the law since it was later ruled unconstitutional.

/s


what? they broke their own law that they created?



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: kellyjay

They did something that was later determined to be unlawful so by your logic they broke the law.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Who is getting that "knee hits jaw" feeling?

I see a clear double standard with the issues.

In fact I see 2.




posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: kellyjay

issuing the same sex marraiges he was breaking the law by doing so.
Not federal law, which is what you claimed. And again, the court said the law he broke was using unapproved forms.



the left thought it was ok he broke the law based on his opinion but vilify kim for not following the law based on her opinion.....


It is not a double standard on the part of "the left". They defended Newsom for supporting gay rights (not for breaking the law) and they vilify Kim for denying them. That seems pretty consistent. No double standard.

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



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: kellyjay

They did something that was later determined to be unlawful so by your logic they broke the law.


It was already unlawfull, nothing changed between the time of him issuing the liscences and them being nullified, they didnt take a time out to determine if he was breaking the law, he broke it and he was told to stop.

just because a few years later the law was changed doesnt mean he didnt break the law as it stood at the time, so your comparisson is redundant



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 08:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: kellyjay

issuing the same sex marraiges he was breaking the law by doing so.
Not federal law, which is what you claimed. And again, the court said the law he broke was using unapproved forms.



the left thought it was ok he broke the law based on his opinion but vilify kim for not following the law based on her opinion.....


It is not a double standard on the part of "the left". They defended Newsom for supporting gay rights (not for breaking the law) and they vilify Kim for denying them. That seems pretty consistent. No double standard.


the left didnt call him out for breaking the law, the left didnt say "oh wait a minute you are breaking the law here gary and doing so based on your opinion" why? because it fit their agenda, but when kim does the same based on her opinion the left are all"youre breaking the law how dare you think your opinion trumps the law" lol....double standard



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Who is getting that "knee hits jaw" feeling?

I see a clear double standard with the issues.

In fact I see 2.





seems my post is like one of those optical illusions, if you take two steps to the liberal left the double standard dissapears, but if you take two steps to the conservative right its clear as day



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: kellyjay

Of course there are double standards on all sides especially when it comes to law. You support something then the law should be ignored, broken, done away with, changed. You don't like something the law should be followed, more strictly enforced, or add more.

Depending on your view of any given topic you will either defend/justify breaking the law or condemn it. We all do. It's pretty much why the laws in this country are a joke. It is what it is. Don't get me wrong things like murder and rape most people will agree with. The fact we live in a society that laws addressing those issues are needed is the real problem. But back to op yes there are double standards and yes everyone does it, and no one will admit it's a double standard



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: kellyjay


but when kim does the same based on her opinion the left are all"youre breaking the law how dare you think your opinion trumps the law"

"The left" says that? What I see "the left" (and many others, btw) saying is, "do your job or quit."

Newsome was testing a law he (and others) saw as unconstitutional (he was right, btw). When told to stop, he did.
Kim refused to do her job, when told by a judge to do it, she refused.
No equivalence. As yet, it has not been determined that it is illegal for her to not issue marriage licenses. Has it?

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



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: kellyjay




try reading my post...but ill give you the cliff notes, gary newmore decided to break the law based on his opinion of what he felt was right and wrong, kim done the same....


Alright, now try reading my posts again.....

I'll give you the Cliff Notes.

Civil disobedience is civil disobedience, is civil disobedience.



one is hailed a hero by the left for breaking the law, kim is villified by the left for doing the same thing....


One is hailed a hero by some, and vilified by others. "Kim" is vilified by some, and lauded as a hero by others.

No double standard. Just personal opinions.


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



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Khaleesi

There isn't an intrinsic double standard in the OP's example. I assume he used that example because he saw a double standard in the LGBT community and how their supporters react and how the religious right and their supporters react.

I don't see it. That doesn't mean that I don't think that double standards don't ever exist. For example, the woman in question, Kim, is operating on a double standard by refusing to licence LGBT couples, but has no test for adultery. Now that's a double standard.



posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 10:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: xuenchen
Who is getting that "knee hits jaw" feeling?

I see a clear double standard with the issues.

In fact I see 2.





seems my post is like one of those optical illusions, if you take two steps to the liberal left the double standard dissapears, but if you take two steps to the conservative right its clear as day


Especially when a Democrat is the perpetrator.

The irony is compelling.

When the "Kim Davis" story first got MSM-amplified, many people somehow automatically assumed she was a religious right Republican.

Enter double standard #2




posted on Sep, 6 2015 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

automatically assumed she was a religious right Republican.
Didn't have to assume anything. She made it quite clear where her sentiments lay.

What's your point again?



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I understand the intent of the OP, and though this thread has been through the grinder on procedural jurisprudence, I found an article that echos his position:
thefederalist.com...

Some of the content echos posts in this thread:

Davis’s arrest was met with cheers by same-sex marriage advocates who for some reason did not demand imprisonment of officials who lawlessly issued gay marriage licenses in clear contravention of state and federal laws. Take, for example, Democrat Gavin Newsom, who is currently the California lieutenant governor. Back in 2004, when gay marriage was banned under California state law, Newsom openly defied the law and used his power as the mayor of San Francisco to force taxpayer-funded government clerks to issue gay marriage licenses:


And:

Just like Kim Davis, who is an elected Democrat, Newsom justified his lawlessness by citing his own conscience and beliefs about right and wrong rather than deferring to the actual laws of his state. If you look for evidence of gay rights advocates chastising Newsom for his blatant lawlessness, you won’t find it. Because it doesn’t exist. You similarly won’t find any evidence of these principled law enforcement purists chastising California state officials for refusing to enforce or defend the Prop 8 ballot initiative in California, which was passed overwhelmingly by California voters.


My personal favorite:

When you really think about it, though, this whole kerfuffle is obviously the fault of Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refuses to issue gay marriage licenses. She should’ve known better. She should’ve thought this whole thing through. If Kim Davis really wanted to avoid the ire and attention of progressives and their media allies, she should’ve just videotaped herself killing babies and then selling their organs. Then she could operate with total impunity.


That's what I love about the threads here. Reasonable discourse without devolving into derogatory name calling.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 12:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Boscowashisnamo

So, the position is, gays have a double standard because they applaud those who use their position to further their equal rights cause and vilify those that use their position to oppress and deny them equal rights?

Sorry, that's not a double standard.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 01:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Boscowashisnamo

So, the position is, gays have a double standard because they applaud those who use their position to further their equal rights cause and vilify those that use their position to oppress and deny them equal rights?

Sorry, that's not a double standard.

No that's not the position I posted nor was it my intent. My post specifically dealt with one aspect of the OP: his interpretation of the left's outrage in one case versus the other. Nothing else, no hidden agenda.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 01:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Boscowashisnamo

I don't see how equal marriage rights are a left or a right issue. There's just "for" and "agin".


edit on 7-9-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 02:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Boscowashisnamo

I don't see how equal marriage rights are a left or a right issue. There's just "for" and "agin".



You're seeking a debate that isn't there. My stance on marriage rights or LGBT issues wasn't the focus of my post, as much as you're trying to make it that. BTW, the "for" and "again" thing--only Siths deal in absolutes. Find someone else to argue with.




top topics



 
19
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join