Fair’s fair. Neither does he.
Anyone else notice that after the second letter, all of his user name can be typed with just the left hand?
I’m fairly sure he’s using a random insult generator.
I, for one, don’t see how it’s relevant how many times she was married, or to whom, or what she believed at the time, or what what she believes now has to do with what she did then, or whether or not that makes her a hypocrite.
It is not the purpose of the courts to adjudicate her spiritual integrity; only to determine whether or not she is acting lawfully in denying marriage licenses.
She’s passing moral judgment on people, creating harm for them by so doing, while being demonstrably lacking in morality in her own life. People don’t like that.
Does your second paragraph have anything at all to do with your first? Who has said it’s the court’s purpose to judge her spiritually? That’s our job. And we’re doing it damn well.
[nitpick]
The court could find that a person’s professed belief is not “sincerely held”, tho, and thus reject their argument on that basis. Not sure if the courts have ever done that, but it’s my understanding that they could.
[/nitpick]
According to the fundamentalist way of thinking, that IS loving their gay neighbor. They consider it an act of love to remind us that we’re filthy sinners who need to repent.
Stupidicus
They believe gays, and many other groups, to be sinners. “Filthy” is your contribution.
Yet another false dichotomy…
Charles Spurgeon used the term, so it’s not exactly a new contribution.
I think it’s been established at this point that whatever Davis does or doesn’t sincerely believe is irrelevant to her duty as a public official to comply with the law.
And if you had said “Charles Sturgeon believes gays…” or even something along the lines of, “Some of the more radical, hateful fundamentalists believe gays…” I would not have corrected you.
I never said otherwise, but you were wrong when you said it wasn’t the purpose of the court to adjudicate her spiritual integrity. It is indeed within the purview of the court to determine whether or not her beliefs are sincerely held, since if they are not, different laws and precedents apply than if they are.
As I indicated, it was a nitpick, but a valid one to point out.
The amazing thing, is that in all your stumbling ineptly from one failure to another, you’ve managed to cobble together a belief that you’re winning.
I’m pretty much indifferent to her personal hypocrisy - there’s enough of that to go around - but the legal hypocrisy of her attorneys (and her) is becoming truly infuriating. She’s clearly never going to comply with the orders of any court and if she was really willing to pay the price for that, it would be okay. Even constantly asking the courts for relief would be perhaps a little vexatious, but understandable. But she’s going the extra mile and asking the court to rule that other people have to follow a court order to do what she prefers, when she’s not willing to do the same. Let’s say the Sixth Circuit did rule that Steve Beshear had to rescind his instruction to the clerks to issue marriage licenses to all comers, and Beshear held a press conference that his conscience wouldn’t allow him to obey. You think Liberty Counsel would say that it was well within his rights to follow the dictates of his conscience in the matter? Hell no, they’d be out for the blood of this abusive and lawless governor.
Spurgeon, not Sturgeon. To my knowledge, the Prince of Preachers was not a fish.
I know you aren’t that fat Jewish turdfaced dweeb of a wingnut troll who pretended to be an Australian Muslim terrorist, because he’s in jail, but I’m guessing you two know a lot of the same people.
Fair to say, but it does speak to the fickleness of her commitments.
Presumably, she entered into marriage with high ideals, at least the first couple times, but when she realized how much work that was going to be she quit. Now she wants to impose those high ideals on others (you do it the right way, or you do without). I wouldn’t be surprised if, in a corner of her mind, she thinks that making others do what she couldn’t do will help atone for her own actions.
You may be right that the courts aren’t meant to evaluate that, but we are not so constrained, it is, after all, a pit thread.