‘Pope Francis Thanked Me for My Courage’

a reply to: Reallyfolks

You may be right:

In English the word "bigot" refers to a person whose habitual state of mind includes an obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerance of the people who hold them.

en.wikipedia.org...

But one could ask, "Is it bigotry to be a bigot against bigotry"?

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Reallyfolks

You may be right:

In English the word "bigot" refers to a person whose habitual state of mind includes an obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerance of the people who hold them.

en.wikipedia.org...

But one could ask, "Is it bigotry to be a bigot against bigotry"?

The people like Anne would say no. I say if you are intolerant of views different from yours does the definition fit? The end result is known this is a bunch of people with bad wedgies complaining and demozing the other side to get a few last shots in before the inevitable happens.

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Reallyfolks

You may be right:

In English the word "bigot" refers to a person whose habitual state of mind includes an obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerance of the people who hold them.

en.wikipedia.org...

But one could ask, "Is it bigotry to be a bigot against bigotry"?

I say if you are intolerant of views different from yours does the definition fit?

But if that view is one of intolerance towards others doesn't that negate the "bigotry" angle to be intolerant towards it? And is it irrational to want an inclusive society?

originally posted by: harvestdog
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
I think that is debatable, at least I think that her lawyer would debate you on that. According to Matt Staver, all Davis wanted was accommodation.

What is debatable? Her office turned away ALL couples wanting licenses from the Monday after the SC ruling, until the day after she went into jail, then her deputies started issuing them. What are you debating?

Yes, she wanted an accommodation, but the governor said no.

July 7, 2015
"It's time for everyone to take a deep breath," Beshear said. "There is no need to spend $60,000 a day of taxpayers' dollars calling a special session of the General Assembly, and therefore I will not be calling a special session on this topic.

"If there are any minor changes needed to clarify the language of statutes, any such changes can be made in the 2016 legislative session in January," he said.

$60,000 per day

I do not believe Kentucky allows recall, so what is the process?

The legislature meets and impeaches her. That may be what happens in January. Much more likely, IMO, they will resolve an accommodation at that time, for this and any other religious objections that may occur in the state's government positions. I predict the legislature will also take action to make the altered licenses that have been issued, legal.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Reallyfolks

You may be right:

In English the word "bigot" refers to a person whose habitual state of mind includes an obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerance of the people who hold them.

en.wikipedia.org...

But one could ask, "Is it bigotry to be a bigot against bigotry"?

I say if you are intolerant of views different from yours does the definition fit?

But if that view is one of intolerance towards others doesn't that negate the "bigotry" angle to be intolerant towards it? And is it irrational to want an inclusive society?

How ever you need to justify it to wrap your head around the hypocrisy so be it. No we shouldn't be inclusive society, murderers, rapist, pedophiles, cannibals. There is a list of people that not only have no business being included in society, should even live on the outskirts of it

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Reallyfolks

You may be right:

In English the word "bigot" refers to a person whose habitual state of mind includes an obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerance of the people who hold them.

en.wikipedia.org...

But one could ask, "Is it bigotry to be a bigot against bigotry"?

I say if you are intolerant of views different from yours does the definition fit?

But if that view is one of intolerance towards others doesn't that negate the "bigotry" angle to be intolerant towards it? And is it irrational to want an inclusive society?

How ever you need to justify it to wrap your head around the hypocrisy so be it.

The only hypocrisy I see is that some doesn't want inclusion and call "bigot" when it's actually their own bigotry that is at issue.

No we shouldn't be inclusive society, murderers, rapist, pedophiles, cannibals. There is a list of people that not only have no business being included in society, should even live on the outskirts of it

You're equating gays with those deviants? Bwahahahaha.......

originally posted by: harvestdog
This relies so heavily on Federal Involvement. Kentucky voted against homosexual marriage. The Federal Supreme Court said otherwise.

Actually, the 14th amendment said otherwise. It has said, since 1868, that a state can't make a law that doesn't apply equally to all citizens. When Kentucky made the "gay marriage" ban, they were violating the Constitution. It's only recently that people sued to have the Supreme Court interpret the constitutionality of that "gay marriage" bans.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Reallyfolks

You may be right:

In English the word "bigot" refers to a person whose habitual state of mind includes an obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerance of the people who hold them.

en.wikipedia.org...

But one could ask, "Is it bigotry to be a bigot against bigotry"?

I say if you are intolerant of views different from yours does the definition fit?

But if that view is one of intolerance towards others doesn't that negate the "bigotry" angle to be intolerant towards it? And is it irrational to want an inclusive society?

How ever you need to justify it to wrap your head around the hypocrisy so be it.

The only hypocrisy I see is that some doesn't want inclusion and call "bigot" when it's actually their own bigotry that is at issue.

No we shouldn't be inclusive society, murderers, rapist, pedophiles, cannibals. There is a list of people that not only have no business being included in society, should even live on the outskirts of it

You're equating gays with those deviants? Bwahahahaha.......

It's hypocritical no matter how you slice it. I equated nothing with anyone. You asked an open ended question. The answer to that is no we shouldn't include everyone in society. Be more specific next time.

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Reallyfolks

You may be right:

In English the word "bigot" refers to a person whose habitual state of mind includes an obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerance of the people who hold them.

en.wikipedia.org...

But one could ask, "Is it bigotry to be a bigot against bigotry"?

I say if you are intolerant of views different from yours does the definition fit?

But if that view is one of intolerance towards others doesn't that negate the "bigotry" angle to be intolerant towards it? And is it irrational to want an inclusive society?

How ever you need to justify it to wrap your head around the hypocrisy so be it.

The only hypocrisy I see is that some doesn't want inclusion and call "bigot" when it's actually their own bigotry that is at issue.

No we shouldn't be inclusive society, murderers, rapist, pedophiles, cannibals. There is a list of people that not only have no business being included in society, should even live on the outskirts of it

You're equating gays with those deviants? Bwahahahaha.......

It's hypocritical no matter how you slice it. I equated nothing with anyone. You asked an open ended question. The answer to that is no we shouldn't include everyone in society. Be more specific next time.

This is about Davis and marriage licenses. Who did you think we were talking about? The Muppets? If obfuscation is all you've got, you've got..... NOT.

As for all the talk of kim wasting your tax dollars it isn't happening unless you are in her county.

Those that elected her seem to be ok with her choices cause we do not see a recall vote happening.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Those that elected her seem to be ok with her choices cause we do not see a recall vote happening.

It doesn't matter if 100% of the people in the county support her breaking the law. She was still breaking the law. And obviously, those who sued her don't support her choices.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: Reallyfolks

You may be right:

In English the word "bigot" refers to a person whose habitual state of mind includes an obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerance of the people who hold them.

en.wikipedia.org...

But one could ask, "Is it bigotry to be a bigot against bigotry"?

I say if you are intolerant of views different from yours does the definition fit?

But if that view is one of intolerance towards others doesn't that negate the "bigotry" angle to be intolerant towards it? And is it irrational to want an inclusive society?

How ever you need to justify it to wrap your head around the hypocrisy so be it.

The only hypocrisy I see is that some doesn't want inclusion and call "bigot" when it's actually their own bigotry that is at issue.

No we shouldn't be inclusive society, murderers, rapist, pedophiles, cannibals. There is a list of people that not only have no business being included in society, should even live on the outskirts of it

You're equating gays with those deviants? Bwahahahaha.......

It's hypocritical no matter how you slice it. I equated nothing with anyone. You asked an open ended question. The answer to that is no we shouldn't include everyone in society. Be more specific next time.

This is about Davis and marriage licenses. Who did you think we were talking about? The Muppets? If obfuscation is all you've got, you've got..... NOT.

we were discussing hypocrisy as it pertains to the two sides in the debate. When you ask shouldn't society be inclusive the answer is no. For stated reasons. But if you want to get specific we are talking about Kim Davis so when you say shouldn't society be inclusive, you could mean her views. We can play word games all day if you want.

But as far as the op, didn't think the pope was that big of a deal myself. Didn't care when he throws his two cents in on other topics, why bother now. Sides have been chosen. The game is on with or without the white pope (as opposed to the black, nothing to do with race) . Both sides are hypocrites and talking points are recycled on the issue. Different sides saying very similar things to what the other side use to say, only the legal ball is in the other court. Bigots to the left of me hypocrites to the right. We all know the ending of this issue, comes down to time, but game over. the entertainment must be made for the news though.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Those that elected her seem to be ok with her choices cause we do not see a recall vote happening.

It doesn't matter if 100% of the people in the county support her breaking the law. She was still breaking the law. And obviously, those who sued her don't support her choices.

BS
I matters much because they hold the power to remove and as far as the rest I am sure you are aware that it is just an interpretation of the amendment and is subject to future interpretation.

DAMAGE CONTROL

The Pope and Kim Davis: 7 points to keep in mind.

1. Pope Francis met with many individuals during his visits in Washington, New York, and Philadelphia, at various locations and events.

papalvisit.americamedia.org...

We have had people join the service and in the past drafted in to the service who disagreed with war and killing on a religious basis .



A conscientious objectors to killing have been worked with in the armed service but in civil service they cant? That is hypocrisy .

Conscientious objection only works when you agree with the objection.

a reply to: Klassified

Actually he said you must be a 'good' person in the light of your own eyes.
I don't see controversy in this. He did not say you were necessarily right. He did not say to impose on others your beliefs. He did not say the expression of your faith should be without consequence.

Think of Mormons or Adventists dressed out like SWAT teams. Knock-knock-boom!!! You WILL read this!
Scary, huh?

If you believe (which is stupid except within your own skull) then you MUST act according to those beliefs unless you are a coward.

I will still consider those folks stupid. I might respect them more but usually they are morons who have no depth of understanding or have psychological crippling in there somewhere. Yes, a belief system may be OK morally but it does not mean it's based on sane appraisals by the individual.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Kim Davis was given accommodation, that is why she is no longer in jail. According to her lawyer, she only wanted her name removed from the licenses. Thank you for the link, I appreciate your input.

originally posted by: harvestdog
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Kim Davis was given accommodation, that is why she is no longer in jail. According to her lawyer, she only wanted her name removed from the licenses. Thank you for the link, I appreciate your input.

The reason she was released from jail was that the couples who sued her got their licenses while she was in jail, from the deputies. The lawsuit was satisfied. Here's the judge's statement:

“On September 8, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Status Report at the Court’s behest. According to the Report, Plaintiffs have obtained marriage licenses from the Rowan County Clerk’s Office. The Court is therefore satisfied that the Rowan County Clerk’s Office is fulfilling its obligation to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples, consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Obergefell and this Court’s August 12, 2015 Order. For these reasons, the Court’s prior contempt sanction against Defendant Davis is hereby lifted.”

Source

She left jail with the orders not to interfere with her deputies issuing licenses. She has interfered somewhat, as she altered the forms and changed responsibilities of her deputies, but licenses as being issued. She was never given an official accommodation by the court. She has made one for herself and the court isn't objecting at this time.

You're welcome.

originally posted by: harvestdog
a reply to: eluryh22

I'm not sure if it's your avatar or you substance I am agreeing with.

1) The Pope is a joke. Nobody I know, except Mexicans, even care for the Pope.

You have a small circle of people you know then. There are roughly 1.25 billion people who do (hint, that's more than Mexico) so maybe you need to get out more?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: eluryh22
But the Pope (of which I am not a fan, to be candid) meets with this Davis character, and people are getting all worked. So strange.

I personally don't think she deserved a personal meeting with the Pope.

I want to know who set it up.

She's not Cathloic. She took an oath, for her job, to uphold the Constitution. She's preventing other people from doing the job. She's denying rights of others.

The Pope needs to stay out of American politics.

So, why should the Pope stay silent on the politics of any country? How do you deny him that right and why should you? Religion shouldn't recognise borders IMHO. By the very same standard shouldn't every American stay out of the politics of Israel, Syria, Russia.... anywhere in fact? Would make ATS a lot quieter.