Rule of law....that's a funny one. What does it take to ratify a treaty according to the Constitution? 2/3 of the senate and the signature of the president. What are we getting instead, a 1/3 of the senate and the president. What happened to the rule of law? You want to pick and choose but I thought the Constitution was to protect the opinions of the minority as stated by NBK last week.
Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn
You stupid fucking dickless wonder.
First, you won't answer in the thread about the Malaysian airliner and NOW you make up shit about the rule of law.
The rule of law says that this stupid skank follows the ruling of the Supreme Court that says she must treat gays equally. She does NOT get to impose her Bible thumping beliefs on anyone.
The CONSTITUTION says that gays are entitled to equal protection of the laws. And we follow the Constitution, not the Bible, in this country.
The conservative point of view is that she has a right to her religious beliefs...even if it means she goes to jail. It is up to the state how far it is willing to go to oppress someones beliefs. Don't think we haven't forgot how many lefties have stated that they think people who don't believe in their version of global warming should be punished with violence, firing, or imprisonment. The left is rotten to the core.
Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn
The small government conservative point of view (as opposed to religious conservative point of view) is that government doesn't get to discriminate based on a natural trait such as sexual orientation.
The small government conservative point of view is that NO ONE gets to impose his or her religious opinions on others. If this skank could not do her job because of her imaginary friend in the clouds, she should resign her job.
How would you like it if some sharia law obsessed raghead refused to allow a Muslim man to marry a Christian woman because they weren't going to raise the children as Muslims (the father's religion) in accordance with the Koran?