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.
originally posted by: TonyS
That's really quite interesting in that it seems to demonstrate an abuse of power and the violation of Due Process.
originally posted by: yuppa
I got a question. Reading th efirst amendment it says in it congress shall make no law abridging relgious freedom correct?
SO with the marriage law being changed they in effect HAVE abridged it because it interferes with the relgious rights of people who believe diffrently on it.
The Judge who issued the contemp also abridged it apparently then.
Since the spring, GoFundMe policy has specifically stated that “GoFundMe will not allow campaigns that benefit individuals or groups facing formal charges or claims of serious violations of the law.”
As AddictingInfo’s Jameson Parker put it this week, maybe “watching several high-profile conservative faux-victims become millionaires by exploiting their site” just started to not seem like a great strategy.
Following the “Memories” debacle and other people using the service for less-than-admirable means, the founders of the site smartly chose to update their terms of service, which now features a clause that excludes Davis due to her newly-obtained criminal status.
“After watching several high-profile conservative faux-victims become millions from exploiting their site, the creators finally announced that enough was enough,” AddictiveInfo explains. “In April, they announced that they would no longer certain types of disgusting campaigns from thriving on GoFundMe. More specifically – and this is where Davis gets screwed out of the millions surely waiting for her – the site has a specific policy about criminals: ‘‘campaigns in defense of formal charges or claims of heinous crimes, violent, hateful, sexual or discriminatory acts [are forbidden]'”.
originally posted by: Klassified
originally posted by: yuppa
I got a question. Reading th efirst amendment it says in it congress shall make no law abridging relgious freedom correct?
SO with the marriage law being changed they in effect HAVE abridged it because it interferes with the relgious rights of people who believe diffrently on it.
The Judge who issued the contemp also abridged it apparently then.
No new law has been passed. Existing law has been interpreted, and a judgement made that marriage is a right that must be afforded equally to ALL, per the 14th amendment.
originally posted by: EverydayInVA
I wish some of you would get so up in arms when Obama, Bush, and the rest continue to violate their oaths of office, hypocrites.
This is exactly what happens when the SCOTUS oversteps it's authority and tries to make laws from the bench instead of their intended purpose of simply judging constitutionality. You end up with laws that haven't been thought out or implemented correctly. With proper time for states and municipalities to take care of the small details like this, there would have been no problems, but we are a society of instant gratification which apparently extends all the way to the SCOTUS too. We can't even be troubled with going through the processes that the Constitution intended.
The anti Religion people are becoming troubling as well, some of you don't even hear the bigotry in your own words, all while calling out others for bigotry? SAD.
originally posted by: yuppa
I got a question. Reading th efirst amendment it says in it congress shall make no law abridging relgious freedom correct?
SO with the marriage law being changed they in effect HAVE abridged it because it interferes with the relgious rights of people who believe diffrently on it.
originally posted by: yuppa
Still It seems to me to ABDRIGE the first amendment somewhat. Its contradictory to the 14th.
"Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, and teaching" -Article 18(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Klassified
which makes sense. if she would just realize that she's applying the idea that the state has a religious mandate, when it doesn't, when it comes to gay marriage or any marriage for that matter. it's a legal agreement. it's up to god, according to her own religion, whether or not he approves of the consummation of the marriage between people. there are probably some hetero marriages out there that god didn't approve according to her own religious texts. state documents for marriage are just legal documents, not religious documents.
when did people start confusing state documents with religious law?
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
originally posted by: yuppa
I got a question. Reading th efirst amendment it says in it congress shall make no law abridging relgious freedom correct?
SO with the marriage law being changed they in effect HAVE abridged it because it interferes with the relgious rights of people who believe diffrently on it.
Gay people getting married doesn't affect religious freedom AT ALL. (how?) They are two entirely unrelated issues. Now, if the government FORCED religious people to marry someone of their same sex, THEN we'd have a violation of religious freedom (not to mention other violations).
Religious freedom doesn't mean "controlling others to behave according to religious rules". Kim Davis can exercise her religious freedom all she wants. But she has to do her job, too.
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: Klassified
originally posted by: yuppa
I got a question. Reading th efirst amendment it says in it congress shall make no law abridging relgious freedom correct?
SO with the marriage law being changed they in effect HAVE abridged it because it interferes with the relgious rights of people who believe diffrently on it.
The Judge who issued the contemp also abridged it apparently then.
No new law has been passed. Existing law has been interpreted, and a judgement made that marriage is a right that must be afforded equally to ALL, per the 14th amendment.
Scuse me Re interpreted. Still It seems to me to ABDRIGE the first amendment somewhat. Its contradictory to the 14th. the bill of rights is not liek the Quran where newer verses outweigh the older ones.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
originally posted by: yuppa
Still It seems to me to ABDRIGE the first amendment somewhat. Its contradictory to the 14th.
How?
Religious Freedom
"Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, and teaching" -Article 18(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
originally posted by: Klassified
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: Klassified
originally posted by: yuppa
I got a question. Reading th efirst amendment it says in it congress shall make no law abridging relgious freedom correct?
SO with the marriage law being changed they in effect HAVE abridged it because it interferes with the relgious rights of people who believe diffrently on it.
The Judge who issued the contemp also abridged it apparently then.
No new law has been passed. Existing law has been interpreted, and a judgement made that marriage is a right that must be afforded equally to ALL, per the 14th amendment.
Scuse me Re interpreted. Still It seems to me to ABDRIGE the first amendment somewhat. Its contradictory to the 14th. the bill of rights is not liek the Quran where newer verses outweigh the older ones.
There aren't any new verses, either. As Flatfish stated above, the SCOTUS determined the constitutionality of laws forbidding gay marriage, and found them unconstitutional. That's what they do. It's their function. It's why the founders put them there. To keep legislators from enacting laws that are unconstitutional. They may late to the party with their ruling, but at least they did finally get there.
These people intentionally push their religious beliefs onto others, and then claim to be a victim when they're shut down?
Isn't that like some sort of victim-card-false-flag type deal?
So they're intentionally making themselves the victim, falling on swords they intentionally set up for themselves? They're nailing themselves on crosses and bemoaning the apparent persecution they're suffering?
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee painted fellow GOP presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) as an unwelcome guest at a rally for Kentucky clerk Kim Davis Tuesday, admitting that his staffer physically blocked Cruz from getting on stage.
In a Wednesday appearance on NewsMax TV's "Steve Malzberg Show" first reported by BuzzFeed's Andrew Kaczynski, Huckabee said his campaign planned the event, and he made Cruz's visit with Davis possible.
"Well, Steve, this was our event. My team put it together. We’re the ones who recruited the people not only to be on the program, but we’re the ones who coordinated the effort. We’re the ones who secured the permits, the staging," Huckabee told Malzberg. "We had no idea Ted Cruz was going to show up until the day before and he didn’t call us, he called several other people on the program and asked about it.”
While Huckabee said "anybody's welcome" to attend a free rally, Cruz is "not free to come to an event that we’re putting together and invite himself on the program anymore than I could go a few weeks ago to his event in Des Moines and just show up and expect to be a speaker. It’s real simple."