but the Nuremberg Laws were, ah, the law!
― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 10 September 2015 21:57 (eight years ago) link
are we really gonna get into an argument about whether the Nazi regime was "legal" cuz um
― Οὖτις, Thursday, 10 September 2015 21:59 (eight years ago) link
since the fucks at the supreme court gave these morons an inch with the hobby lobby decision
When did it become a sacred right never to be required by one's employer to do anything that conflicts with one's conscience? Because, if that's true, then -whoopee- the gravy train has pulled into the station and there's room on board for everyone!― Aimless, Thursday, September 10, 2015 9:11 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
― Aimless, Thursday, September 10, 2015 9:11 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
― panettone for the painfully alone (mayor jingleberries), Thursday, 10 September 2015 23:22 (eight years ago) link
― Οὖτις, Thursday, September 10, 2015 5:59 PM
No, because Chris Ciccone can explain it better.
― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 11 September 2015 00:33 (eight years ago) link
lol good luck with this guys:
http://freakoutnation.com/2015/09/more-derp-oathkeepers-on-their-way-to-protect-kim-davis-from-further-arrests/
― Hammer Smashed Bagels, Friday, 11 September 2015 02:02 (eight years ago) link
Kim Davis basically now attempting to vanish in a puff of smoke after realizing a week later she didn't actually win. lol
― Hammer Smashed Bagels, Monday, 14 September 2015 22:31 (eight years ago) link
She staunchly asserted that marriage licenses not signed off by her personally are invalid, but if someone wanted to test that assertion in court, who would have standing to challenge the validity of the licenses?
― Aimless, Monday, 14 September 2015 23:33 (eight years ago) link
Jesus
― Οὖτις, Monday, 14 September 2015 23:37 (eight years ago) link
her and her lawyers assert that. the judge in question and attorney general have politely said that claim is horseshit.
but essentially what it boils down is, her deputies are now issuing marriage certificates and they don't have her name on it. Isn't that what she wanted? Naw, she wanted no licenses going out at all, and just used the whole "oh my dear personal freedoms" as the excuse.
― Hammer Smashed Bagels, Monday, 14 September 2015 23:37 (eight years ago) link
lol
is someone going to explain the separation of church and state to them
― Οὖτις, Tuesday, September 1, 2015 7:01 PM (3 weeks ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Hey, if you ignore decades of Supreme Court case law, or the secondary intent of the Establishment clause, you can say things like "omg the separation of church and state doesn't even appear in the Constitution" and fool yourself for most of your lifetime.
― Hammer Smashed Bagels, Monday, 21 September 2015 23:27 (eight years ago) link
Harris Wofford, eh?
― we can be heroes just for about 3.6 seconds (Dr Morbius), Monday, 25 April 2016 12:00 (seven years ago) link
http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/first-amendment-defense-act-would-be-devastating-lgbtq-americans-n698416?cid=sm_fb
FADA would prohibit the federal government from taking "discriminatory action" against any business or person that discriminates against LGBTQ people. The act distinctly aims to protect the right of all entities to refuse service to LGBTQ people based on two sets of beliefs: "(1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage."Ironically, the language of the bill positions the right to discriminate against one class of Americans as a "first amendment" right, and bans the government from taking any form of action to curb such discrimination—including withholding federal funds from institutions that discriminate. FADA allows individuals and businesses to sue the federal government for interfering in their right to discriminate against LGBTQ people and would mandate the Attorney General defend the businesses.
Ironically, the language of the bill positions the right to discriminate against one class of Americans as a "first amendment" right, and bans the government from taking any form of action to curb such discrimination—including withholding federal funds from institutions that discriminate. FADA allows individuals and businesses to sue the federal government for interfering in their right to discriminate against LGBTQ people and would mandate the Attorney General defend the businesses.
― j., Friday, 23 December 2016 02:51 (seven years ago) link
still taking applications btw
― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 23 December 2016 03:43 (seven years ago) link
tough call, i don't get screeners anymore...
― Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Friday, 23 December 2016 03:46 (seven years ago) link
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has declined to step into a case over a Texas high court ruling that says gay spouses may not be entitled to government-subsidized workplace benefits.
― Fred Klinkenberg (Eric H.), Monday, 4 December 2017 21:33 (six years ago) link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GsyAoWXScA
― mookieproof, Saturday, 27 June 2020 00:23 (three years ago) link
Four months without dick -- well.
― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 27 June 2020 00:38 (three years ago) link
i'd need to see a financial portfolio
― brooklyn suicide cult (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 27 June 2020 13:46 (three years ago) link
dark times
― all cats are beautiful (silby), Saturday, 27 June 2020 15:21 (three years ago) link