User Profile: termyt


Member Since: February 15, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • [1] June 30, 2015 at 11:10pm

    I bet we’ll find out soon.

  • [5] June 30, 2015 at 11:08pm

    “Five to 10 years from now, what will McDonald’s be?”

    A fond memory like other out-dated, discarded things such as our Liberty, Justice, and Self Rule.

  • [48] June 30, 2015 at 8:19am

    Isn’t it funny how they are not afraid to burn this “symbol of oppression?” Just how oppressive is it?

    Responses (1) +
  • [7] June 30, 2015 at 8:08am

    Your statement isn’t contrary to Mr. Rowe’s. You might still disagree with him, but your explanation is not at odds with his. What both of you said is still true.

  • [3] June 29, 2015 at 2:07pm

    I don’t see how it limits speech. I don’t depend on the government to provide a license plate for me to express my opinion on the rear end of my vehicle. I can also give $25 to the cause of my choice without passing it through the BMV first.

  • [3] June 29, 2015 at 1:59pm

    SCOTUS does not have the authority to create legislation. The Federal Government does not have the authority to define marriage.

    There for SCOTUS doing exactly that is not legal.

  • [4] June 29, 2015 at 1:57pm

    My reasoning comes from the United States Constitution. Nowhere within its articles or amendments is the Supreme Court granted authority to write legislation. Nowhere in the Constitution is the United States (Federal) Government granted the authority to define marriage.

    By doing what it is not authorized to do, SCOTUS has broken the law.

    It’s pretty simple, really.

  • [-1] June 29, 2015 at 1:48pm

    “And it will be de facto that holding these beliefs are penalized and punished.”

    I believe that’s the point of this exercise. The end game is to remove the “de facto” provision.

  • [16] June 29, 2015 at 11:49am

    And where has that happened this century? Refusal of service is not denial of rights. Refusing someone their livelihood because they disagree with your exercise of your rights is most certainly a denial of rights.

  • [11] June 29, 2015 at 11:47am

    Mind, ask that question to any baker, florist, photog, or event location that have been forced to choose been their livelihoods and their religion.

  • [23] June 29, 2015 at 11:45am

    The one making gay marriage legal in all 50 states. Or did I miss the individual legislative actions of all 50 states coming into place on Friday?

  • [9] June 29, 2015 at 11:37am

    The SCOTUS decision is illegal, but remains enforced. I believe this is the definitive statement:

    “Personally, same-sex marriage is in contradiction to my faith and belief that marriage is between one man and one woman, however, first and foremost, I took an oath on my family Bible to uphold the law and as an elected public official my personal belief cannot prevent me from issuing the licenses as required.”

    A public official has a public duty. If the state (illegally forced or not) is issuing a license, the public official has a duty to issue the license based on that criteria. If you can’t do that for some reason, transfer to a different position or resign in protest.

    Responses (4) +
  • [55] June 29, 2015 at 11:30am

    Not sure about their criteria for patriotism.

    I couldn’t care less about what percentage votes. I’d love to see the number of voters who could correctly identify even one of the Bill of Rights and properly apply it to a current event.

    Responses (5) +
  • [4] June 29, 2015 at 11:15am

    Bottom line is, Walmart is allowed to discriminate in this case because the speech they are discriminating against is not “protected,” i.e., not given greater rights and standards than speech that is “protected.”

    If we were truly free, Walmart could refuse any cake for any reason, and so could any other baker. “Public Accommodation” is just the most recent buzzword used to strip people of the rights they were endowed with by their creator. Freedom is the rare commodity in human history, not slavery – be it through “public accommodation” or any other excuse. The progs just like to pretend everyone had it until Christians came around when, in fact, it was the Christians who delivered it to the rest of the world.

  • [20] June 29, 2015 at 10:12am

    So what will our 9 lords decide for us this time?

    Responses (1) +
  • [27] June 29, 2015 at 8:20am

    I would like to see a state, like Texas, simply stop issuing marriage licenses. I don’t know why the state is even interested in them to begin with.

    People are free to do as they wish to do in this matter, as they were before the Supreme Court’s lawlessness. A license by the state is meaningless.

    Responses (3) +
  • [76] June 29, 2015 at 8:06am

    Worse than the ruling itself was the way it was done. I’m not in favor of the state licensing gay marriage, but if it was the will of the people, so be it.

    Here, we had the majority of 9 unelected, unimpeachable lawyers determine the law of the land, again. They have no authority to do so and by doing it they undermine the vary basis of our system of self rule.

    We are no longer a Republic. We are an oligarchy that must run every law past a panel of 9 Lords whose word is law.

    Responses (2) +
  • [138] June 28, 2015 at 8:21am

    How can they refuse to make any cake? Are they not a place of public accommodation?

    Responses (6) +
  • [11] June 25, 2015 at 3:31pm

    Wait. He’s running as a Republican? I thought he was challenging Hillary for his party’s nomination.

    Responses (1) +
  • [20] June 25, 2015 at 3:28pm

    The state’s definition of anything has nothing to do with a religion’s. That is the only hint of relevance to your statement.

    If a Wiccan business owner only wants to host handfastings and not Christian weddings, they should be allowed that as well. No one should be forced to violate their conscience in order to make a living – that is if you want to live in a free society.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love