On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 6:01:40 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 20:35:58 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:

On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 7:58:41 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 17:27:35 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:

On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 5:49:35 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 13:32:08 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 12:50:39 -0500, Muggles wrote:

I'm starting to wonder. Ashton appears to be
completely convinced that he has a complete
and correct understanding of Jesus. And that
he has a complete understanding of what
others believe. That's pretty bold.


I think he's just trolling.

In fairness to Ashton, he is not a troll. Been around for a long
time. He is dug in and stands by his opinion. Now, tossing the word
"bigot" around is just plain silly.

A bigot doesn't like anybody. If they are gay, queer, carpet muncher's
or what. A bigot doesn't like them.

Any public business has a right to refuse service. No shoes, No shirt,
Three heads, No Service. Period.

I support the bakers right to refuse service. Just like I do not have
to frequent a gun free victim killing zone business. There is an App
for that.

Spit.

You are in the ball park. Perhaps you can answer this, it seems no
one has been able to so far. Many on here say their desire to refuse
service to gays is because of their religious beliefs. Because of
their religious believes they say the first amendment gives them the
right to refuse to obey the LAW that prohibits discrimination against
gays. So the question that has been put to those people, and which
not a single one of the is willing to answer is this... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

Um, what religion out there prohibits the paying of taxes? If it was normal, I know that politicians would do what all politicians do and redefine it by giving it a different name. Perhaps a citizenship fee for shipping and handling? ?\_(?)_/?

[8~{} Uncle Tax Monster

Who cares which religion it is. Are you planning to join it?

Why are you afraid to answer the question put to you?... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

I could have used a religion that prohibits paying taxes some years ago but I don't care about taxes now. ( ?? ?? ?? )

[8~{} Uncle Religion Monster

We all know why you and the others won't answer the question. The
answer would show the poverty of your position.

We're being polite by not pointing out a ridiculous non sequitur on your part. Besides it's fun to frak with you when you're in hysteria mode. As far as poverty goes, that's where I am now, receiving a tiny disability check every month. I can't make the payments on my Rolls anymore. \_(à²*_à²*)_/

[8~{} Uncle Po Monster

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 6:03:02 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 21:38:53 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Ashton Crusher wrote:

On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 22:58:17 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Ashton Crusher wrote:



You are in the ball park. Perhaps you can answer this, it seems no
one has been able to so far. Many on here say their desire to refuse
service to gays is because of their religious beliefs. Because of
their religious believes they say the first amendment gives them the
right to refuse to obey the LAW that prohibits discrimination against
gays. So the question that has been put to those people, and which
not a single one of the is willing to answer is this... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

Not sure why this is such a perplexing question. So far, anyway, many
court cases have said no. For example United States v. Lee, 455 U.S.
252, 260 (1982) held that the broad public interest in maintaining a
sound tax system is of such importance that religious beliefs in
conflict with the payment of taxes provide no basis for refusing to pay,
and stating that "[t]he tax system could not function if denominations
were allowed to challenge the tax system because tax payments were spent
in a manner that violates their religious belief."
More on point, Jenkins v. Commissioner, 483 F.3d 90, 92 (2d Cir.
2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 821 (2007) said that the collection of tax
revenues for expenditures that offended the religious beliefs of
individual taxpayers did not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the
First Amendment, ***the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993***, or
the Ninth Amendment (emphasis mine). This is my favorite because the
Circuit Court notes "The claim is not new,although it is presented in
somewhat unusual garb", a VERY cool turn of judicial phrase.
Basically, it is well established that there are limits to pretty
much all Constitutional freedoms and this says you can't yell "No taxes
because of religion" in a crowded IRS office.


Nice avoiding of the question that WAS asked. WHo cares what the
legal issues are. That's not the question.

That is the only real question since this revolves around RFRA when you
talk about Hobby Lobby.



Your inability to answer a simple question noted. Here's your chance
to redeem yourself OR you can continue to be a weasel.

The question put to you is... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

It's funny how the religious folks had NO trouble saying how their
religious beliefs ought to exempt them from following the law when it
came to gay discrimination. So when the question isn't "gay
discrimination" but is "paying taxes" why are they so afraid to answer
it?

So I put the question to you again... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

It's against my religion to pay Gay taxes and I refuse to do so. I imagine that Gay government shock troops will drag me away to be crucified. ヽ(´ー｀)ノ

[8~{} Uncle Martyr Monster

On 8/5/2015 5:57 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jul 2015 23:03:30 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/9/2015 10:04 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

Yeah, not being allowed to exercise your bigotry is really really
scary. God forbid you have to serve a black person.


Everyone practices bigotry. Some people just end up being on the wrong
side of politically correct.

You leave out the significant point... some bigotry is illegal. The
bigotry that was pertinent to the discussion was illegal.


Why should some bigotry be illegal and other bigotry not be illegal?

--
Maggie

On Thu, 6 Aug 2015 10:34:40 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 8/5/2015 5:57 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jul 2015 23:03:30 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/9/2015 10:04 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

Yeah, not being allowed to exercise your bigotry is really really
scary. God forbid you have to serve a black person.


Everyone practices bigotry. Some people just end up being on the wrong
side of politically correct.

You leave out the significant point... some bigotry is illegal. The
bigotry that was pertinent to the discussion was illegal.


Why should some bigotry be illegal and other bigotry not be illegal?

Cuz that's how gvt works. No one said it HAS to make sense. Sometimes
it does, sometimes it doesn't.

Having said that, if you think the first amendment means people who's
religious beliefs require them to refuse service to gays, do you also
believe that if their religious beliefs include that paying taxes to
gvt is a sin it should excuse them from paying taxes?

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 08:20:30 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 at 9:33:20 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:


You need to stick to the facts. This had nothing to do with them
refusing to go to their reception. It was pure bigotry based on
religion. They refused to sell a cake to a lesbian couple. Just as in
the south in the 50's businesses refused to do business with Blacks.
They violated the law. It's that simple.

http://m.snopes.com/2015/07/03/sweet...lissa-damages/

From your own source, the judge said they refused to provide
"wedding cake services". Typically, wedding cake services include
delivering the cake, setting it up at the reception. I took it
to mean it was more than just picking up a cake, so you might be
right on that point. But to me it doesn't matter. And where is your
lib outrage at the illegal, unconstitutional gag order the court
put on the bakers?

There was none. They were prohibited from engaging in illegal acts.
Yeah, it's that simple.

On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 19:01:14 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 6:01:40 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 20:35:58 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:

On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 7:58:41 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 17:27:35 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:

On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 5:49:35 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 13:32:08 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 12:50:39 -0500, Muggles wrote:

I'm starting to wonder. Ashton appears to be
completely convinced that he has a complete
and correct understanding of Jesus. And that
he has a complete understanding of what
others believe. That's pretty bold.


I think he's just trolling.

In fairness to Ashton, he is not a troll. Been around for a long
time. He is dug in and stands by his opinion. Now, tossing the word
"bigot" around is just plain silly.

A bigot doesn't like anybody. If they are gay, queer, carpet muncher's
or what. A bigot doesn't like them.

Any public business has a right to refuse service. No shoes, No shirt,
Three heads, No Service. Period.

I support the bakers right to refuse service. Just like I do not have
to frequent a gun free victim killing zone business. There is an App
for that.

Spit.

You are in the ball park. Perhaps you can answer this, it seems no
one has been able to so far. Many on here say their desire to refuse
service to gays is because of their religious beliefs. Because of
their religious believes they say the first amendment gives them the
right to refuse to obey the LAW that prohibits discrimination against
gays. So the question that has been put to those people, and which
not a single one of the is willing to answer is this... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

Um, what religion out there prohibits the paying of taxes? If it was normal, I know that politicians would do what all politicians do and redefine it by giving it a different name. Perhaps a citizenship fee for shipping and handling? ?\_(?)_/?

[8~{} Uncle Tax Monster

Who cares which religion it is. Are you planning to join it?

Why are you afraid to answer the question put to you?... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

I could have used a religion that prohibits paying taxes some years ago but I don't care about taxes now. ( ?? ?? ?? )

[8~{} Uncle Religion Monster

We all know why you and the others won't answer the question. The
answer would show the poverty of your position.

We're being polite by not pointing out a ridiculous non sequitur on your part. Besides it's fun to frak with you when you're in hysteria mode. As far as poverty goes, that's where I am now, receiving a tiny disability check every month. I can't make the payments on my Rolls anymore. \_(?_?)_/

[8~{} Uncle Po Monster

Don't be polite, just answer that simple yes or no question with a yes
or no. Show some intellectual honesty. A simple 32 word question.

If my (or someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes
to the gvt would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay
taxes to the gvt?

On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 19:08:10 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 6:03:02 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 21:38:53 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Ashton Crusher wrote:

On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 22:58:17 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Ashton Crusher wrote:



You are in the ball park. Perhaps you can answer this, it seems no
one has been able to so far. Many on here say their desire to refuse
service to gays is because of their religious beliefs. Because of
their religious believes they say the first amendment gives them the
right to refuse to obey the LAW that prohibits discrimination against
gays. So the question that has been put to those people, and which
not a single one of the is willing to answer is this... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

Not sure why this is such a perplexing question. So far, anyway, many
court cases have said no. For example United States v. Lee, 455 U.S.
252, 260 (1982) held that the broad public interest in maintaining a
sound tax system is of such importance that religious beliefs in
conflict with the payment of taxes provide no basis for refusing to pay,
and stating that "[t]he tax system could not function if denominations
were allowed to challenge the tax system because tax payments were spent
in a manner that violates their religious belief."
More on point, Jenkins v. Commissioner, 483 F.3d 90, 92 (2d Cir.
2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 821 (2007) said that the collection of tax
revenues for expenditures that offended the religious beliefs of
individual taxpayers did not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the
First Amendment, ***the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993***, or
the Ninth Amendment (emphasis mine). This is my favorite because the
Circuit Court notes "The claim is not new,although it is presented in
somewhat unusual garb", a VERY cool turn of judicial phrase.
Basically, it is well established that there are limits to pretty
much all Constitutional freedoms and this says you can't yell "No taxes
because of religion" in a crowded IRS office.


Nice avoiding of the question that WAS asked. WHo cares what the
legal issues are. That's not the question.

That is the only real question since this revolves around RFRA when you
talk about Hobby Lobby.



Your inability to answer a simple question noted. Here's your chance
to redeem yourself OR you can continue to be a weasel.

The question put to you is... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

It's funny how the religious folks had NO trouble saying how their
religious beliefs ought to exempt them from following the law when it
came to gay discrimination. So when the question isn't "gay
discrimination" but is "paying taxes" why are they so afraid to answer
it?

So I put the question to you again... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

It's against my religion to pay Gay taxes and I refuse to do so. I imagine that Gay government shock troops will drag me away to be crucified. ?(´??)?

[8~{} Uncle Martyr Monster

Where have you refused to pay "gay taxes"?

On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 20:27:23 -0500, "ChairMan"
wrote:

Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 21:39:42 -0400, Kurt Ullman

wrote:

In article ,
Ashton Crusher wrote:


And I cut and paste.....for your protection
Thanks, sport.


Funny how you can't answer a simple question. And we all
know why. I
know you won't answer it but it's funny to watch you
hypocrites avoid
it...

Many on here say their desire to refuse
service to gays is because of their religious beliefs.
Because of
their religious beliefs they say the first amendment gives
them the
right to refuse to obey the LAW that prohibits
discrimination against
gays. So the question that has been put to those people,
and which
not a single one (except Oren) of them is willing to
answer is this...
If my (or someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin
to pay taxes
to the gvt would our first amendment rights mean we don't
have to pay
taxes to the gvt?

So I again put the question to you... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay
taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay
taxes to
the gvt?

Its been answered. Your question is hyperbole because there
is NO religon that forbids it. You can what if all day, but
it doesn't change the facts. And as a business owner, I the
right ot refuse service to anyone.....no shoes, no shirt, no
service. Its my business and I can have you leave anytime i
want and I don't have to give you a reason!



It's only been obliquely answer by Oren. How do you know there is no
religion that forbids it? And how do you know a new religion won't be
started that forbids it. That question is in no way hyperbole, you
apparently don't know that meaning of that word. The question is
hypothetical perhaps. Hypothetical questions are asked and answered
all the time. It's something our military does constantly in
developing war plans for hypothetical wars. Businesses do the same in
regard to competitors possible strategies. As to "your business", Your
statements are simply not true, you can't refuse service for ANY
reason. Try refusing to serve blacks because they are black and see
what the gvt's reaction is.

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 5:41:56 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 19:01:14 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 6:01:40 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 20:35:58 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:

On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 7:58:41 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 17:27:35 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:

On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 5:49:35 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 13:32:08 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 12:50:39 -0500, Muggles wrote:

I'm starting to wonder. Ashton appears to be
completely convinced that he has a complete
and correct understanding of Jesus. And that
he has a complete understanding of what
others believe. That's pretty bold.


I think he's just trolling.

In fairness to Ashton, he is not a troll. Been around for a long
time. He is dug in and stands by his opinion. Now, tossing the word
"bigot" around is just plain silly.

A bigot doesn't like anybody. If they are gay, queer, carpet muncher's
or what. A bigot doesn't like them.

Any public business has a right to refuse service. No shoes, No shirt,
Three heads, No Service. Period.

I support the bakers right to refuse service. Just like I do not have
to frequent a gun free victim killing zone business. There is an App
for that.

Spit.

You are in the ball park. Perhaps you can answer this, it seems no
one has been able to so far. Many on here say their desire to refuse
service to gays is because of their religious beliefs. Because of
their religious believes they say the first amendment gives them the
right to refuse to obey the LAW that prohibits discrimination against
gays. So the question that has been put to those people, and which
not a single one of the is willing to answer is this... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

Um, what religion out there prohibits the paying of taxes? If it was normal, I know that politicians would do what all politicians do and redefine it by giving it a different name. Perhaps a citizenship fee for shipping and handling? ?\_(?)_/?

[8~{} Uncle Tax Monster

Who cares which religion it is. Are you planning to join it?

Why are you afraid to answer the question put to you?... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

I could have used a religion that prohibits paying taxes some years ago but I don't care about taxes now. ( ?? ?? ?? )

[8~{} Uncle Religion Monster

We all know why you and the others won't answer the question. The
answer would show the poverty of your position.

We're being polite by not pointing out a ridiculous non sequitur on your part. Besides it's fun to frak with you when you're in hysteria mode. As far as poverty goes, that's where I am now, receiving a tiny disability check every month. I can't make the payments on my Rolls anymore. \_(?_?)_/

[8~{} Uncle Po Monster

Don't be polite, just answer that simple yes or no question with a yes
or no. Show some intellectual honesty. A simple 32 word question.

If my (or someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes
to the gvt would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay
taxes to the gvt?

We should kill that ******* who murdered the poor defenseless cuddly lion and pass a tax on teeth so he can't make anymore money to keep him from hunting anymore big pussycats. O_o

[8~{} Uncle Hunt Monster

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 5:42:43 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 19:08:10 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 6:03:02 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 21:38:53 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Ashton Crusher wrote:

On Sat, 01 Aug 2015 22:58:17 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Ashton Crusher wrote:



You are in the ball park. Perhaps you can answer this, it seems no
one has been able to so far. Many on here say their desire to refuse
service to gays is because of their religious beliefs. Because of
their religious believes they say the first amendment gives them the
right to refuse to obey the LAW that prohibits discrimination against
gays. So the question that has been put to those people, and which
not a single one of the is willing to answer is this... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

Not sure why this is such a perplexing question. So far, anyway, many
court cases have said no. For example United States v. Lee, 455 U..S.
252, 260 (1982) held that the broad public interest in maintaining a
sound tax system is of such importance that religious beliefs in
conflict with the payment of taxes provide no basis for refusing to pay,
and stating that "[t]he tax system could not function if denominations
were allowed to challenge the tax system because tax payments were spent
in a manner that violates their religious belief."
More on point, Jenkins v. Commissioner, 483 F.3d 90, 92 (2d Cir.
2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 821 (2007) said that the collection of tax
revenues for expenditures that offended the religious beliefs of
individual taxpayers did not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the
First Amendment, ***the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993***, or
the Ninth Amendment (emphasis mine). This is my favorite because the
Circuit Court notes "The claim is not new,although it is presented in
somewhat unusual garb", a VERY cool turn of judicial phrase.
Basically, it is well established that there are limits to pretty
much all Constitutional freedoms and this says you can't yell "No taxes
because of religion" in a crowded IRS office.


Nice avoiding of the question that WAS asked. WHo cares what the
legal issues are. That's not the question.

That is the only real question since this revolves around RFRA when you
talk about Hobby Lobby.



Your inability to answer a simple question noted. Here's your chance
to redeem yourself OR you can continue to be a weasel.

The question put to you is... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

It's funny how the religious folks had NO trouble saying how their
religious beliefs ought to exempt them from following the law when it
came to gay discrimination. So when the question isn't "gay
discrimination" but is "paying taxes" why are they so afraid to answer
it?

So I put the question to you again... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

It's against my religion to pay Gay taxes and I refuse to do so. I imagine that Gay government shock troops will drag me away to be crucified. ?(´??)?

[8~{} Uncle Martyr Monster

Where have you refused to pay "gay taxes"?

I refuse to pay taxes to anyone who calls me gay, I'm Gumby dammit! á•™(‡€€¸†¼€¶)á•—

[8~{} Uncle Happy Monster

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 5:48:26 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 20:27:23 -0500, "ChairMan"
wrote:

Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 21:39:42 -0400, Kurt Ullman

wrote:

In article ,
Ashton Crusher wrote:


And I cut and paste.....for your protection
Thanks, sport.


Funny how you can't answer a simple question. And we all
know why. I
know you won't answer it but it's funny to watch you
hypocrites avoid
it...

Many on here say their desire to refuse
service to gays is because of their religious beliefs.
Because of
their religious beliefs they say the first amendment gives
them the
right to refuse to obey the LAW that prohibits
discrimination against
gays. So the question that has been put to those people,
and which
not a single one (except Oren) of them is willing to
answer is this...
If my (or someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin
to pay taxes
to the gvt would our first amendment rights mean we don't
have to pay
taxes to the gvt?

So I again put the question to you... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay
taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay
taxes to
the gvt?

Its been answered. Your question is hyperbole because there
is NO religon that forbids it. You can what if all day, but
it doesn't change the facts. And as a business owner, I the
right ot refuse service to anyone.....no shoes, no shirt, no
service. Its my business and I can have you leave anytime i
want and I don't have to give you a reason!



It's only been obliquely answer by Oren. How do you know there is no
religion that forbids it? And how do you know a new religion won't be
started that forbids it. That question is in no way hyperbole, you
apparently don't know that meaning of that word. The question is
hypothetical perhaps. Hypothetical questions are asked and answered
all the time. It's something our military does constantly in
developing war plans for hypothetical wars. Businesses do the same in
regard to competitors possible strategies. As to "your business", Your
statements are simply not true, you can't refuse service for ANY
reason. Try refusing to serve blacks because they are black and see
what the gvt's reaction is.

Hey! You just gave me an idea for a new religion called "Notaxum"! The worshipers will be called "Notaxians" and the members can carve out a region of desert in the Southwest and call it "Notaxium" an independent country. Gee, that could be a lot of fun! ( ° ͜ʖ͡°)•*ˆ©•®

[8~{} Uncle Pope Monster

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 2:31:21 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:

stuff snipped

If you go private, discriminate your "Christian" heart out. But when
you
open your business to the public, you agree to abide by the law, plain
and
simple. Don't like the law? Go private or work to get it changed.
Break it
before it's changed and pay the fines. Problem solved. But apparently
you
want to have your cake and to be able to eat it, too.

Sorry. This is a simple "do the crime, do the time" case despite what
people are trying to twist it into. Most of that financial penalty was
increased by the bakers' willful disregard of court orders. How is this
not
simply using the cloak of religion to justify bigotry?

Because they aren't bigots, by all indications they just have deeply
held religious beliefs.

What method/meter/means do you (or any one) have that is able to measure the
depth of religious conviction. I recall a lot of draft-age men suddenly
found religion when they were about to be drafted for the Vietnam War. The
problem with so-called "deeply" or "closely" held religious views is that
they don't lend themselves to qualitative measurement. In fact, a
psychiatrist could make a very good case that the more religious a person
is, the more deluded and out of touch with the real world they are. If your
neighbor saw you climb a mountain and you were about to stab your son
because God said to, would you think he was deeply religious or deeply
disturbed?

If a Christian comes to a gay baker and wants
to have a cake made that says "Celebrating Traditional Man/woman Marriage"
and the gay baker refuses, should they be fined $130K and gag ordered
for being bigots?

Yes, that's what the law dictates. Break it and pay the consequences.
Surely the Bible tells us this. What if this Christian has deeply held
religious beliefs springing from Leviticus and wants to stone someone to
death for wearing linen and cotton at the same time? For beard trimming?
(guess who still follows that one - the Muslims!) The simple truth is that
there is a lot of stuff in the bible that's irrelevant at best in modern
times and damn dangerous at others. Especially when kookazoids get to being
terribly literal about what's in there like the Branch Davidians and other
Christian fringe groups.

How is this not grandstanding in the fine old tradition of Al Sharpton?

Bizarre you'd even try to draw that comparison.

Maybe bizarre to you but there were plenty of people on both sides (baker
and gay couple) that were not intrinsic to the original issue and became
"hangers on" and instigators in the grand old tradition of Sharpton. He
often tries to get people to ignore the crimes his "homies" have committed
to try to refocus them on some larger issue. Sounds pretty much the same as
the bakers and the numerous groups that are supporting them. Ignore the
discrimination but love the religious fervor. No thanks.

Considering how Roberts had voted in the past, I don't see the SC
mustering
the votes to allow shop and innkeepers to refuse service on the basis of
their religious beliefs when the choice those merchants who feel the
need to
discriminate have is to go private?

Well, then you're the only person in the universe who can understand
Roberts, because he just makes it up as he goes.

I am sure his mother understands him as I am sure your mother does/did you .
.. . However my viewpoint is not so much based on Roberts but on dissents
from the other Justices that warned the Hobby Lobby case could not/would not
be expanded to cover discrimination in more general situations.

These bakers made bad business decisions - and then they made even worse
ones.

It wasn't a business decision. It was a religious one.

No, unless those bakers followed Leviticus to a "T" I contend their
religious feelings were of the "pick and choose" type. Thus they were not
eligible for the "sincerely held" exemption some people claim exists. But
they were certainly eligible for prosecution under the "plain as the nose on
your face" Oregon business laws. They had a responsibility of a business
open to the public to follow those laws. The original decision to open a
shop to the public when they knew they could not follow the law was their
bad business decision.

There are plenty of states they could have opened up shop in that wouldn't
have hassled them over refusing service to gays. They chose to pick one
that did. Even gays were smart enough to move to SF in the early days
because so many other jurisdictions were openly hostile to them. The bakers
got stupid and paid the price. Then they got even more stupid and paid an
even greater price because they refused to stop maligning the complainants
and they kept openly boasting how they would continue to disobey the state
law. History is littered with failed martyrs. Another one rides the bus.

--
Bobby G.

On 8/8/2015 12:11 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:

Hey! You just gave me an idea for a new religion
called "Notaxum"! The worshipers will be called
"Notaxians" and the members can carve out a region
of desert in the Southwest and call it "Notaxium"
an independent country. Gee, that could be a lot
of fun! ( ° ͜ʖ͡°)•*ˆ©•®

[8~{} Uncle Pope Monster


And they will be lead by a Bible carrying man
whose title is "Non-Prophet"?

Fitting, for a non prophet organization.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 20:53:28 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:

On Friday, August 7, 2015 at 5:41:56 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Wed, 5 Aug 2015 19:01:14 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 6:01:40 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 20:35:58 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:

On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 7:58:41 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 17:27:35 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:

On Saturday, August 1, 2015 at 5:49:35 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 13:32:08 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 12:50:39 -0500, Muggles wrote:

I'm starting to wonder. Ashton appears to be
completely convinced that he has a complete
and correct understanding of Jesus. And that
he has a complete understanding of what
others believe. That's pretty bold.


I think he's just trolling.

In fairness to Ashton, he is not a troll. Been around for a long
time. He is dug in and stands by his opinion. Now, tossing the word
"bigot" around is just plain silly.

A bigot doesn't like anybody. If they are gay, queer, carpet muncher's
or what. A bigot doesn't like them.

Any public business has a right to refuse service. No shoes, No shirt,
Three heads, No Service. Period.

I support the bakers right to refuse service. Just like I do not have
to frequent a gun free victim killing zone business. There is an App
for that.

Spit.

You are in the ball park. Perhaps you can answer this, it seems no
one has been able to so far. Many on here say their desire to refuse
service to gays is because of their religious beliefs. Because of
their religious believes they say the first amendment gives them the
right to refuse to obey the LAW that prohibits discrimination against
gays. So the question that has been put to those people, and which
not a single one of the is willing to answer is this... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

Um, what religion out there prohibits the paying of taxes? If it was normal, I know that politicians would do what all politicians do and redefine it by giving it a different name. Perhaps a citizenship fee for shipping and handling? ?\_(?)_/?

[8~{} Uncle Tax Monster

Who cares which religion it is. Are you planning to join it?

Why are you afraid to answer the question put to you?... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

I could have used a religion that prohibits paying taxes some years ago but I don't care about taxes now. ( ?? ?? ?? )

[8~{} Uncle Religion Monster

We all know why you and the others won't answer the question. The
answer would show the poverty of your position.

We're being polite by not pointing out a ridiculous non sequitur on your part. Besides it's fun to frak with you when you're in hysteria mode. As far as poverty goes, that's where I am now, receiving a tiny disability check every month. I can't make the payments on my Rolls anymore. \_(?_?)_/

[8~{} Uncle Po Monster

Don't be polite, just answer that simple yes or no question with a yes
or no. Show some intellectual honesty. A simple 32 word question.

If my (or someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes
to the gvt would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay
taxes to the gvt?

We should kill that ******* who murdered the poor defenseless cuddly lion and pass a tax on teeth so he can't make anymore money to keep him from hunting anymore big pussycats. O_o

[8~{} Uncle Hunt Monster

So you are still scared to answer and show your cards.

On 8/1/15 10:43 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
Especially since twin and other studies show that gayness is not an
inherited trait. So even such things as what happened to others in the
family wouldn't be a good indicator.
--

I think the biggest human desire is for intimacy, and that could explain
why twins may go down different roads.

The opening shot of "Andy Griffith," where Sheriff Taylor and Opie are
going fishing, is the picture of intimacy. They are glad to be together
and at ease with each other. The sheriff would never be tempted to abuse
such a relationship unless something in his past had caused him to
equate intimacy with a child, with sex.

The screen relationship between the Skipper and Gilligan was similar.

When Emma Peel hit the TV screen, the British press noted that she was a
phenomenal hit with schoolboys and their fathers. They praised her for
being so wholesome, but some called her racy. MacNee said that for the
spy genre, the refreshing thing was the lack of sexual tension. We saw
intimacy, but it could have been the intimacy between father and
daughter. They portrayed their off-screen relationship.

In "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof," Skipper, an aging football star, killed
himself because he thought he was sexually attracted to Brick, his best
friend since high school. I don't think the play presented evidence that
he was actually gay.

The trouble was that neither he nor Maggie, Brick's wife, understood
intimacy. She thought there must be a sexual undercurrent between the
men. She intended to expose Skipper by attempting to seduce him. She
didn't realize that this betrayal would destroy her intimacy with Brick.

When it came time to hop into bed with Maggie, Skipper couldn't forget
Brick. That meant only that he valued their intimacy. If Brick found
out, he would never again be glad to see Skipper. Even if Brick didn't
find out, Skipper would never again feel comfortable around him.

I've read a synopsis of "Brokeback Mountain." Two teens spend the
summer herding sheep. With no other human contact, they become intimate
friends, glad of each other's company. They're supposed to take turns
sleeping in the tent, but one night they drink too much and share a
sleeping bag because it's very cold. In the next few days, they fall in
love. They then leave to resume normal lives.

They long for each other and in four years begin going to the mountain
for homosexual vacations.

AFAIK, they weren't portrayed as doing anything naughty on the mountain
as teens, but the experience led them to equate intimacy with the
prospect of a homosexual relationship. Either of them might have had a
twin with no homosexual urges.

On 8/1/15 7:04 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
Many on here say their desire to refuse
service to gays is because of their religious beliefs. Because of
their religious believes they say the first amendment gives them the
right to refuse to obey the LAW that prohibits discrimination against
gays. So the question that has been put to those people, and which
not a single one of the is willing to answer is this... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

So I put the question to you... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

The First Amendment seems to be about the practice of organized
religions. It upheld a Seventh Day Adventist who refused to work
Saturdays, but I don't think anyone with a personal belief against
coming in on Mondays ever had a leg to stand on.

When a clergyman pronounces a couple married, it's not valid unless he
has credentials from a recognized religious organization. A council of
recognized religions tells governments what organizations are qualified.
Does that violate the First Amendment?

Is there a recognized religion that prohibits selling cake to homosexuals?

For ten years Joan Baez gave herself a big tax write-off. Maybe she
could claim a personal religious belief. The publicity allowed her to
live high on the hog. The IRS didn't bother to prosecute. They just
reached into her till. I wasn't much of a fan of the government or the
war, but I approved.

A few years ago, my watch band broke. At the corner store, I bought a
little girl's watch for 66 cents. To my surprise, the band fit my
wrist; maybe it was because my watch case was bigger. It was strong and
comfortable.

It looked a little silly to me because it was pale blue with vivid pink,
and yellow flowers. After the first day, I loved it. Wherever I left it,
I could find it instantly. If I needed to take it off while working, I
could just toss it in the grass. With that band, I knew I wouldn't step
on it or lose it.

Neighbors found it disturbing. It seemed to be wives more than
husbands. I was practicing my Secure in my Masculinity Religion, and I
think they didn't want their husbands converted. They bought an old
watch with a black band at a flea market. One of the men presented it
to me and begged me to get rid of the girly one. I caved in.

I was more worried that my watch band might have offended the mayor and
his boyfriend, two doors down. They never again invited me to a pool
party, but they may have had other reasons. There were no gay bakeries
in town, so I don't know if they would have refused me on account of my
watch band. If they had, that would have taken the cake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtlvlNuGlQY

On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 5:23:35 AM UTC-5, J Burns wrote:
On 8/1/15 7:04 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
Many on here say their desire to refuse
service to gays is because of their religious beliefs. Because of
their religious believes they say the first amendment gives them the
right to refuse to obey the LAW that prohibits discrimination against
gays. So the question that has been put to those people, and which
not a single one of the is willing to answer is this... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

So I put the question to you... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

The First Amendment seems to be about the practice of organized
religions. It upheld a Seventh Day Adventist who refused to work
Saturdays, but I don't think anyone with a personal belief against
coming in on Mondays ever had a leg to stand on.

When a clergyman pronounces a couple married, it's not valid unless he
has credentials from a recognized religious organization. A council of
recognized religions tells governments what organizations are qualified.
Does that violate the First Amendment?

Is there a recognized religion that prohibits selling cake to homosexuals?

For ten years Joan Baez gave herself a big tax write-off. Maybe she
could claim a personal religious belief. The publicity allowed her to
live high on the hog. The IRS didn't bother to prosecute. They just
reached into her till. I wasn't much of a fan of the government or the
war, but I approved.

A few years ago, my watch band broke. At the corner store, I bought a
little girl's watch for 66 cents. To my surprise, the band fit my
wrist; maybe it was because my watch case was bigger. It was strong and
comfortable.

It looked a little silly to me because it was pale blue with vivid pink,
and yellow flowers. After the first day, I loved it. Wherever I left it,
I could find it instantly. If I needed to take it off while working, I
could just toss it in the grass. With that band, I knew I wouldn't step
on it or lose it.

Neighbors found it disturbing. It seemed to be wives more than
husbands. I was practicing my Secure in my Masculinity Religion, and I
think they didn't want their husbands converted. They bought an old
watch with a black band at a flea market. One of the men presented it
to me and begged me to get rid of the girly one. I caved in.

I was more worried that my watch band might have offended the mayor and
his boyfriend, two doors down. They never again invited me to a pool
party, but they may have had other reasons. There were no gay bakeries
in town, so I don't know if they would have refused me on account of my
watch band. If they had, that would have taken the cake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtlvlNuGlQY

Hey, if I dress in drag, do you think someone would by me some new manly clothing. The heels would be useless because I cant walk right now but I think I'd be quite a sight in my wheelchair all dolled up. ( ¬€¿Â¬)

[8~{} Uncle Pretty Monster

On 8/9/2015 7:09 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Sunday, August 9, 2015 at 5:23:35 AM UTC-5, J Burns wrote:

I was more worried that my watch band might have offended the mayor and
his boyfriend, two doors down. They never again invited me to a pool
party, but they may have had other reasons. There were no gay bakeries
in town, so I don't know if they would have refused me on account of my
watch band. If they had, that would have taken the cake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtlvlNuGlQY

Hey, if I dress in drag, do you think someone would by me some new manly clothing. The heels would be useless because I cant walk right now but I think I'd be quite a sight in my wheelchair all dolled up. ( ¬€¿Â¬)

[8~{} Uncle Pretty Monster


Would you feel OH so Pretty?

--
Maggie

On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 06:23:29 -0400, J Burns wrote:

On 8/1/15 7:04 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
Many on here say their desire to refuse
service to gays is because of their religious beliefs. Because of
their religious believes they say the first amendment gives them the
right to refuse to obey the LAW that prohibits discrimination against
gays. So the question that has been put to those people, and which
not a single one of the is willing to answer is this... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

So I put the question to you... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

The First Amendment seems to be about the practice of organized
religions. It upheld a Seventh Day Adventist who refused to work
Saturdays, but I don't think anyone with a personal belief against
coming in on Mondays ever had a leg to stand on.


Great. So what's the answer to the question.... if the prophets of
some current church have a revelation that it's a sin to pay taxes to
gvt and if they teach that for a couple decades can the members of the
church, lets say in two decades, stop paying their taxes because the
SIN of paying them has become too much for them to bear any longer?
This would, after 20 years, have become a deeply held religious belief
for those folks, it would pass the test teh SC has outlined. So
should they be excused from taxes as the current "good" Christians
wish to be excused from the laws prohibiting discrimination against
gays by businesses because their hate for gays is based on a deeply
held religious belief.

When a clergyman pronounces a couple married, it's not valid unless he
has credentials from a recognized religious organization. A council of
recognized religions tells governments what organizations are qualified.
Does that violate the First Amendment?


I don't know where you get that from. I know of no such thing. I can
tell you that in AZ it's completely wrong. The AZ law is short and
simple. And it even allows that a Marriage IS valid even if the
"clergy" isn't clergy but whoever it is mistakenly thinks they are
allowed to perform marriages. So a skipper of a canoe can perform a
marriage in the middle of the fishing pond if they mistakenly think
being the "skipper" confers on them the authority to do so. Note the
full thrust of 2. below.


AZ revised statue 25-111
A. A marriage shall not be contracted by agreement without a marriage
ceremony.
B. A marriage contracted within this state is not valid unless all of
the following occur:
1. A license is issued as provided in this title.
2. The marriage is solemnized by a person authorized by law to
solemnize marriages or by a person purporting to act in such capacity
and believed in good faith by at least one of the parties to be so
authorized.
3. The marriage is solemnized before the expiration of the marriage
license.

On 8/9/15 8:31 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 06:23:29 -0400, J Burns wrote:

On 8/1/15 7:04 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
Many on here say their desire to refuse
service to gays is because of their religious beliefs. Because of
their religious believes they say the first amendment gives them the
right to refuse to obey the LAW that prohibits discrimination against
gays. So the question that has been put to those people, and which
not a single one of the is willing to answer is this... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

So I put the question to you... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

The First Amendment seems to be about the practice of organized
religions. It upheld a Seventh Day Adventist who refused to work
Saturdays, but I don't think anyone with a personal belief against
coming in on Mondays ever had a leg to stand on.


Great. So what's the answer to the question.... if the prophets of
some current church have a revelation that it's a sin to pay taxes to
gvt and if they teach that for a couple decades can the members of the
church, lets say in two decades, stop paying their taxes because the
SIN of paying them has become too much for them to bear any longer?
This would, after 20 years, have become a deeply held religious belief
for those folks, it would pass the test teh SC has outlined. So
should they be excused from taxes as the current "good" Christians
wish to be excused from the laws prohibiting discrimination against
gays by businesses because their hate for gays is based on a deeply
held religious belief.

You've changed the question.

When a clergyman pronounces a couple married, it's not valid unless he
has credentials from a recognized religious organization. A council of
recognized religions tells governments what organizations are qualified.
Does that violate the First Amendment?


I don't know where you get that from. I know of no such thing. I can
tell you that in AZ it's completely wrong. The AZ law is short and
simple. And it even allows that a Marriage IS valid even if the
"clergy" isn't clergy but whoever it is mistakenly thinks they are
allowed to perform marriages. So a skipper of a canoe can perform a
marriage in the middle of the fishing pond if they mistakenly think
being the "skipper" confers on them the authority to do so. Note the
full thrust of 2. below.


AZ revised statue 25-111
A. A marriage shall not be contracted by agreement without a marriage
ceremony.
B. A marriage contracted within this state is not valid unless all of
the following occur:
1. A license is issued as provided in this title.
2. The marriage is solemnized by a person authorized by law to
solemnize marriages or by a person purporting to act in such capacity
and believed in good faith by at least one of the parties to be so
authorized.
3. The marriage is solemnized before the expiration of the marriage
license.

You cite a 2005 loophole.

In the 1940s, a dead man's family sought to take his widow's property
and pension benefits because they'd learned that he'd eloped with her
shortly before his divorce was final.

The RI Supreme Court looked at lots of evidence showing they never
realized this had made their wedding invalid. Therefore, they had been
legally married under common law.

That ruling doesn't mean it's valid for a married man to take a second
wife. The AZ revision doesn't mean an unauthorized person can perform a
valid wedding. The innocent injured party can have it declared valid.

What are you, an anarchist? Do you think the law doesn't require a
public bakery to sell cake to the public? I greatly resent gays, those
fashion police who tell women that straight men must not be allowed to
dress like little girls, but if a gay guy offers me $50 for a piece of
cake, I won't refuse.

On Sat, 11 Jul 2015 07:03:04 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"rbowman" wrote in message

Perhaps I'm wrong but I thought the purpose of The Supreme Court was to
rule on the constitutionality of a law, not to legislate. I thought to
legislate was the job of Congress.

So Roberts says when he isn't busy legislating.

Yes, "don't watch what I say, watch what I do" is the operative principle
here. I recall at his confirmation hearings him saying how much he
respected "stare decisis" (not to re-litigate something that's already been
decided). I guess that went out the window along with an implied promise
not to legislate from the bench.

In his defense (and it hurts to say it) he's also well aware that the normal
process of the SC invalidating a law - and then Congress reworking that law
to be within the Constitution's framework - has broken down. If the SC
strikes down a law for a particular, although small technicality, the
results now are that we won't have ANY law to replace it because Congress
has basically abdicated their role in that process.

So Roberts is faced time and time again knowing "if I vote Nay then the
small technicality will end up controlling the issue in its entirety." That
is a little bit backwards from what the Frowning Fathers intended. I
suspect he feels forced to legislate because Congress often won't. )-:

Yeah, that's what he basically implied. But I suspect it would not be
hard to find cases where he had no trouble throwing out a law he
DIDN"T like because of a technicality even knowing that congress would
be too grid locked to fix and repass it.

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 11 Jul 2015 07:03:04 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"rbowman" wrote in message

Perhaps I'm wrong but I thought the purpose of The Supreme Court was
to
rule on the constitutionality of a law, not to legislate. I thought to
legislate was the job of Congress.

So Roberts says when he isn't busy legislating.

stuff snipped

In his defense (and it hurts to say it) he's also well aware that the
normal
process of the SC invalidating a law - and then Congress reworking that
law
to be within the Constitution's framework - has broken down. If the SC
strikes down a law for a particular, although small technicality, the
results now are that we won't have ANY law to replace it because Congress
has basically abdicated their role in that process.

So Roberts is faced time and time again knowing "if I vote Nay then the
small technicality will end up controlling the issue in its entirety."
That
is a little bit backwards from what the Frowning Fathers intended. I
suspect he feels forced to legislate because Congress often won't. )-:

Yeah, that's what he basically implied. But I suspect it would not be
hard to find cases where he had no trouble throwing out a law he
DIDN"T like because of a technicality even knowing that congress would
be too grid locked to fix and repass it.

I suspect you're correct. I have to admit I haven't read all his
rulings/decisions but I've seen enough to conclude that a lot of these 5-4
decisions will be revisited under a new Chief Justice, especially if the
composition of the court changes from retirements. If the R's can't regain
the Whitehouse, that's four more years worth of opportunities to change the
balance of the Court to the left.

Speaking of the Supremes, I've been reading that Mike Huckabee has been
saying we should just ignore the court's recent gay marriage decisions and
follow the dictates of God. He also came up with quite a novel
Constitutional reading of abortion.

This is a quote from a recent Rolling Stone article about the Republican
primary race:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...n-car-20150812
Just what I [Huckabee] said," he quipped. "It is the job of the federal
government to protect the citizens under the Constitution."

He went on to explain that even the unborn were entitled to rights of "due
process and equal protection." The attendant reporters all glanced sideways
at one another. The idea of using the 14th Amendment, designed to protect
the rights of ex-slaves, as a tool to outlaw abortion in the 21st century
clearly would have its own dark appeal to the Fox crowd. But it occurred to
me that Huckabee might have had more in mind.

"Are we talking about sending the FBI or the National Guard to close
abortion clinics?" I asked.

"We'll see when I get to be president," he answered.

Huckabee smiled. Perhaps alone among all the non-Trump candidates, Huckabee
knows what kind of fight he's in. This GOP race is not about policy or
electability or even raising money. Instead, it's about Nielsen ratings or
trending.

That's a pretty astute observation seeing as Trump's antics on national TV
have boosted his ratings into the stratosphere. Worse, still, is that
others have caught on to Trump's tactics. Huckabee's "marching Jews to the
ovens" comments boosted his ratings enough in the polls to get to the "grown
up" debate table.

Clearly the Republican Party has no idea how to handle Trump. Let's hope
they figure it out before he does a Perot pirouette and pivots the party out
of any chance of winning the 2016 election. This current "Hunger Games"
primary pretty much says, point blank, "We don't have anyone who's really
electable or palatable to the extremists in the party." I think, for that
reason, the race will devolve into a Trump v. Bush fight with Trump turning
independent if the thinks he's been dissed. He ALWAYS thinks he's been
dissed so I see it as a forgone conclusion. Oh well.

My biggest fear is that if (or when) the superheated Chinese economy
collapses that they'll find some excuse to begin military actions in the
South China Sea and beyond as a "stimulus means." After all, WWII is what
it took to finally rekindle the US economy after the 1929 crash. It's a
time-honored method of turning around a bad economy. Hitler was able to
take the badly defeated and economically ruined country like Germany to near
world-domination because he built such a powerful military machine. I
afraid that the Chinese will emulate his policies and use its out of work
citizens to build up their military might. Their stock market woes may be a
sign that their economy is in deeper trouble then even they realize.

--

Bobby G.