Do you not see how crazy it is for you to assume that I was saying that you said any of that? I was discussing Kim and some other Christians with their backward thinking. I only responded to your ideas on bigotry and added my feelings towards religious beliefs and religious bigotry but was not taking aim at you personally. If you're taking it personally that's on you and your misunderstanding of what I said.

 

Ease up and chill the hell out and careful not to insert your assumptions to other people's posts while you read them, and that is aimed at you.

 

You would do well to take your own advice, from a backward thinking Christian. Really.

You would do well to take your own advice, from a backward thinking Christian. Really.

 

I don't know that you could call it freaking out to tell someone not to freak out on me. You care to elaborate or did your words just come from a backward thinking Christian? Really.

That appears what you called me? Is that true? And If being a Christian makes me backward thinking then I am very backward thinking.

Originally Posted by B-Ball-fan

Do you not see how crazy it is for you to assume that I was saying that you said any of that? I was discussing Kim and some other Christians with their backward thinking. I only responded to your ideas on bigotry and added my feelings towards religious beliefs and religious bigotry but was not taking aim at you personally. If you're taking it personally that's on you and your misunderstanding of what I said.

 

Ease up and chill the hell out and careful not to insert your assumptions to other people's posts while you read them, and that is aimed at you.

Care to explain that?

That appears what you called me? Is that true? And If being a Christian makes me backward thinking then I am very backward thinking.

 

Read carefully because I don't refer to all Christians as being backward thinking. Not all Christians are backward thinking. Not all backward thinking people are Christians. Some Christians are backward thinking. Which shoe fits you?

Originally Posted by B-Ball-fan

Do you not see how crazy it is for you to assume that I was saying that you said any of that? I was discussing Kim and some other Christians with their backward thinking. I only responded to your ideas on bigotry and added my feelings towards religious beliefs and religious bigotry but was not taking aim at you personally. If you're taking it personally that's on you and your misunderstanding of what I said.

 

Ease up and chill the hell out and careful not to insert your assumptions to other people's posts while you read them, and that is aimed at you.

Care to explain that?

 

If you're not aware of what it means to be a backward thinking Christian and it needs to be explained to you, perhaps you're a bit to close to the forest to see through the trees. Is this the case, you tell me.

If me being against same sex marriage and thinking its immoral then I am backward thinking. I dont hate anyone, but I dont have to conform to what anyone other than myself thinks. I am the one who will stand in judgement just like you and everyone else will, whether you believe that or not.

The Supreme Court did not write a new law. They said marriage laws must provide to same-sex couples what they provide to opposite-sex couples: "...State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples." There's no confusion or mystery here. Marriage is extended to same-sex couples.

 

You say they didn't create a new law.

 

Gay marriage is considered federal law -- who wrote it?

 

Even Justice Roberts stated "The majority's decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court's precedent..." He went on to say his decision was based on judicial restraint.

 

Do you not share Roberts' legal concerns of how we got here?

 

And for the record, I'm fine with the result, just don't agree with the means.

If me being against same sex marriage and thinking its immoral then I am backward thinking. I dont hate anyone, but I dont have to conform to what anyone other than myself thinks. I am the one who will stand in judgement just like you and everyone else will, whether you believe that or not.

 

I didn't ask you to conform to anything. You opened discussion with me to suggest that I take my own advise because of telling someone else that they misunderstood me and that they should chill out. I questioned you what I needed to chill out about because of suggesting that someone else who mistakingly accuded me of saying something that I didn't to chill out. It was not I who needed to chill out yet you stuck your nose in it and mistakingly suggested that there was something that I needed to take my own advise on and instead of admitting that you were off, you just expanded with me because of what you really wanted to talk with me about was the discussion of backward thinking Christians so that you can crap load your Christianity my way because, I don't know, that's where your brainwashed one track mind takes you? If you wanna jump my train I just beg of you to stay logical and do your best to make sense. I swat at illogical nonsense like flies and I've got a pretty good aim.

Let's hope that another state doesn't enact a law legalizing slavery. That darned ol' activist SCOTUS might decide it's unconstitutional.

 

I couldn't take another eleventy billion posts on the finer points of constitutional law.

 

Everything mexitucky mentioned was passed through Congress as legislation or an amendment....not the SCOTUS making up a new found power.

 

Which furthers my point: You can get to where you want policy wise, but you should probably follow the rule of law and our system of checks and balances --like it was intended.

Everything mexitucky mentioned was passed through Congress as legislation or an amendment....not the SCOTUS making up a new found power.

 

Which furthers my point: You can get to where you want policy wise, but you should probably follow the rule of law and our system of checks and balances

 

So was the desegregation of the University of Alabama a law on the books?

 

I don't think so. It was based on Brown v Board and had to take federal troops 9 years later to be implemented even though it had been law since 1954. Those troops and Kennedy acted on the SCOTUS striking down the Segregation laws in the states.

You probably think I am some hick and that's ok but if you think I will back off what I think or believe and take lightly you calling me backward thinking then sir you are wrong. Better not miss me with that swatter.

So was the desegregation of the University of Alabama a law on the books?

 

I don't think so. It was based on Brown v Board and had to take federal troops 9 years later to be implemented even though it had been law since 1954. Those troops and Kennedy acted on the SCOTUS striking down the Segregation laws in the states.

You are correct regarding public schools etc. I was referencing private segregation (businesses) which the Civil Rights Act abolished.

You probably think I am some hick and that's ok but if you think I will back off what I think or believe and take lightly you calling me backward thinking then sir you are wrong. Better not miss me with that swatter.

 

You assume too much and I didn't call you a backward thinking Christian. You're just not too keen on me calling any Christian backward thinking and you took it personally. I asked you which shoe fits... I didn't say if the the shoe fits etc...and I'm don't think that I'm wrong that there are indeed some backward thinking Christians and if you're illogical I won't hesitate to swat and why should I?

You say they didn't create a new law.

 

Gay marriage is considered federal law -- who wrote it?

 

Even Justice Roberts stated "The majority's decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court's precedent..." He went on to say his decision was based on judicial restraint.

 

Do you not share Roberts' legal concerns of how we got here?

 

And for the record, I'm fine with the result, just don't agree with the means.

 

It's not a law. The Court said any law written to exclude same-sex couples from marriage runs afoul of the constitution. Agree with it, don't agree with it, but they didn't draft a law.

 

You could apply Roberts' dissent to Citizens United and Heller too, among others. Judicial interpretations are curiously aligned with politics. But they didn't write a new law.