Fox’s Shepard Smith: Kim Davis supporters “same crowd that says, ‘We don’t want Sharia law’”

384

How does one support sharia (which calls for the death penalty of Gays) and oppose Kim Davis? Seriously, I know Shepard Smith is a pompous blowhard, but those two positions are irreconcilable, literally intellectually impossible. Symptomatic of leftist thinking.

Fox’s Shepard Smith: Kim Davis supporters “same crowd that says, ‘We don’t want Sharia law’” (thanks to Jihad Watch), September 9, 2015:

So apparently in Shepard Smith’s ideal world, we have both gay marriage and Sharia. What will Shep says when supporters of Sharia start throwing gays off of tall buildings, as they do in the Islamic State, and in accord with Sharia? Will he continue to deny reality and find some new way to blame “right-wing extremists”?

Story continues below advertisement

shep_smith

“Fox’s Shepard Smith rips Christian ‘haters’ who support Kim Davis,” by Cheryl Chumley, WND, September 9, 2015:

Shepard Smith, Fox News host, cut into his own press conference coverage of the release of Kentucky clerk Kim Davis from jail to rail against her, as well as those who supported her denial of wedding certificates to same-sex couples, saying such is simply a “religious play” that has no business in government service.

He also compared Kim Davis supporters to those who oppose Sharia law, characterizing them as one and the same when it comes to ideology.

“They set this up as a religious play again,” Smith said, Mediaite reported. “This is the same crowd that says, ‘We don’t want Sharia law,’ don’t let them tell us what to do, keep their religion out of our lives and out of our government.’ Well, here we go again.”

“Outlasting the Gay Revolution” spells out eight principles to help Americans with conservative moral values counter attacks on our freedoms of religion, speech and conscience by homosexual activists

An obviously frustrated Smith then described the progression of Davis’s case as a mish-mash of confusing legal pursuits.

“When this started, this lawyer said he needed an accommodation for a woman who wanted one,” Smith said. “She said she didn’t want her name on a license for “gay” people. Now they’ve come up with one, they’ve let her out of jail … But it’s not what they want.”

Rather, he said, “they” now want to pursue new claims against gay marriage.

“This is what they want, what you’re hearing now, and this [is] what they’re going to get: stirred up argument and a couple of days in the news cycle, and they’re going to be able to make these claims.”…

The Truth Must be Told

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute here.

or

Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.

Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding. Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s essential NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America's survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.

Follow Pamela Geller on Gettr. I am there. click here.

Follow Pamela Geller on
Trump's social media platform, Truth Social. It's open and free.

Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spammy or unhelpful, click the - symbol under the comment to let us know. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

If you would like to join the conversation, but don't have an account, you can sign up for one right here.

If you are having problems leaving a comment, it's likely because you are using an ad blocker, something that break ads, of course, but also breaks the comments section of our site. If you are using an ad blocker, and would like to share your thoughts, please disable your ad blocker. We look forward to seeing your comments below.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
384 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
CWS
CWS
8 years ago

Shepard Smith gives ignorant, brain-dead media tools a bad name.

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago
Reply to  CWS

Fox is going progressive. I lost respect for Fox after the meygan kelly ambush of Trump.

But Trump handled meygan properly.

AnneM040359
AnneM040359
8 years ago

Sad but true. Got to remember that FoxNews is being run by the son of the founder, a liberal.

Joe Smith
Joe Smith
8 years ago
Reply to  AnneM040359

Ah, you’re starting to eat your own, I see

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago
Reply to  AnneM040359

Rupert Murdocks son is a flaming regressive progressive AND I think some OPEC potentate owns a significant part of Fox.

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago
Reply to  AnneM040359

Great point that I forgot but now use. Thanks!

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago

Good for him. Kim Davis needs to either do her job (issue marriage licenses to everyone who legally applies – including gay couples), or resign. There is no middle ground, no special treatment.

She doesn’t want to do her job. She would rather impose her beliefs on others. There are plenty of places where she can preach that don’t require taxpayers to fund her Crusade.

Personally I don’t think government should be in the business of licensing relationships, but that’s a tangent to this debate. If you’re going to take a job that’s funded by the people, you have to do the job in accordance with the peoples’ law. Not your personal religious law.

popsi
popsi
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

Well where were you when the courts ruled if your islamic you can wear your head dress in court because of their religious belives ? Where is the differance.?????????

germinfestedmisfit
germinfestedmisfit
8 years ago
Reply to  popsi

because wearing head dress in court doesn’t oppress anyone, or even remotely curtail their civil liberties in the least. the supreme court ruled that under the 14th amendment any barring gay marriage is illegal because it doesn’t grants gays the same civil liberties as straight people. pretty simple. Also the assertion that Shep is promoting sharia law shows this author has no reading comprehension.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  popsi

I don’t think courts should make laws telling me what kind of head scarf I can wear.

If such a law is in place, I don’t think there should be exceptions for anyone. But I would try to change the law.

All people should be treated equally. Government should not be in the business of treating any one group more equally than another. That’s a key Ayn Rand principle. You cannot call yourself a libertarian and support Kim Davis.

Starland sound
Starland sound
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

People like you are why this country is dying.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  Starland sound

And it’s people like you who will ensure that Hillary is our next president. Because reasonable people on the right and libertarians are not going to go to the polls to support candidates who agree with Kim Davis.

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

Hillary can’t be president when she is in prison for mishandling secrets and perjury..

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago

I wish she would be held accountable, but she won’t be.

Regardless, my point was that many people in the middle of the political spectrum are not religious and aren’t so freaked out by the idea of gay couples marrying. Many of us indeed support it.

Want people like me to go to the polls? Focus on real problems that affect us all. Two people of the same gender who love each other and wish to commit don’t affect me. They don’t affect you either.

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

Many people are against perverting marriage to classify two or more people of the same sex as a marriage.

The Prop 8 vote is such an example.

Put Gay Marriage to a vote. Let the people decide – and keep activist judges out of peoples bedrooms.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago

Equal protection was already voted on, and ratified, in 1868.

Agree that activist judges should stay out of bedrooms. I also believe that people’s religious beliefs should stay out of everyone else’s bedrooms.

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

Would you accept putting Gay Marriage to a vote by the citizens of the US?

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago

I would accept putting the government licensing of marriage up to a citizen vote. I would also accept it if Congress wanted to try to repeal the Bill of Rights and that was put to a vote by the states for ratification (or refusal). I mean, I’d be in the “don’t repeal” camp, but I would accept and respect the process because that’s the way our republic works.

But voting on a law to specifically limit the rights of one group of people because another group of people (who enjoy the right) don’t want them to have it? No. Because that’s already prohibited by the 14th Amendment, and I’m a Constitutionalist. Repeal the Amendment first, then we’ll talk.

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

The people CAN vote to define marriage as a union of opposite sex. Gay marriage is a perversion of marriage – like a white woman posing as a black woman is a perversion of what it is to be black.

Glad that you support the 2nd amendment – as a Constitutionalist.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago

Not sure what gun rights have to do with gay marriage. But yes, I support all of our Constitution. Right now my biggest concern is defending the right to privacy, something neither party seems to care about.

You’re right, the people can vote to define marriage as between a man and a woman (and have in some states). But the outcome you desire would not be constitutional and could not be enforced. That’s why you all will have to successfully repeal the 14th amendment first if you want such a vote to result in a real law.

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

Which article of the US Constitution or amendment codifies the Right to Privacy?

Google knows more about us than the NSA.

Clearly Gay marriage is not a simple Constitutional issue because if it was, the vote would have been 9-0 instead of 5-4.

pdxnag
pdxnag
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

The Supreme Court declared Kentucky’s statutes on marriage invalid. It is void, as in dead.

Kim Davis doing her job, without any religious argument at all, is to deny all marriage licenses. She need only reference the court opinion itself.

“State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite sex couples. ” slip opinion page 23.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

The Kentucky legislature has not yet modified their statutes to recognize gay marriage.

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago
Reply to  pdxnag

The Supreme Court,in a 5-4 decision, from a stacked deck of judges?

Surely you jest.

Work on getting Islamists to accept gay marriage or get KGB Putin to accept refugees from the Islamofascist Civil Wars.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  pdxnag

The part of the Kentucky law that was invalidated based on the SCOTUS decision was the part that excluded gay people from getting licenses. SCOTUS didn’t rule that marriage laws are invalidated.

Therefore, Kentucky doesn’t have to modify any statutes for gay marriage to be legal.

I know everyone is looking for loopholes, but really, there are none. Gay couples are now allowed to marry in the USA. Anywhere in the USA. That isn’t ever going to change again, and it really doesn’t hurt you. So may I suggest putting your energy and enthusiasm toward changing things that really matter, like campaign finance reform, the economy, national security etc.?

pdxnag
pdxnag
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

“These cases come from Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee, States that define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.” slip opinion page 2.

The definition remains the same, and does not include recognition of gay marriage. It therefore remains invalid.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  pdxnag

Correct on one point – Kentucky has (had) this statute, http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=36464, and a state Constitutional amendment.

SCOTUS ruled that the statute and amendment are unconstitutional because they violate the equal protection clause (the US Constitution overrides state Constitutions). Meaning that Kentucky can no longer define marriage as between one man and one woman.

Could Kentucky stop licensing marriage altogether? Sure (and indeed I would be in favor of this, because the government should not be licensing relationships). But Kim Davis doesn’t get to make that choice.

pdxnag
pdxnag
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

SCOTUS made it for them all, including Kim Davis.

Acceptance of gay marriage was a poison pill forced on them as a precondition for recognition of any marriages. The legislature has not yet taken it. Imagine the federal judge jailing the entire legislature until they do. This would be preposterous. There are limits. Congress, for example, can invite a state legislature to act by withholding money if they do not.

Jailing Kim Davis is based on the false pretense the legislature has already modified their law when they have not. She is a proxy for a direct federal judicial attack on the state legislature, in my opinion. If the state legislature had indeed modified their statutes, without a veto by the governor, then Kim Davis’ defiance of such state law would and could be fully dealt with in state court.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  pdxnag

When SCOTUS rules that a law is unconstitutional, the law is no longer in effect. The legislature doesn’t have to modify a law for it to be changed to adhere to a ruling, it simply is no longer a valid and enforceable law. If someone – even an individual – tries to enforce an illegal law, they are doing so illegally, and can face consequences such as jail time.

In this case, SCOTUS did not create a new law that has to be enforced (they don’t have that authority). They ruled that an existing law was illegal (they do have that authority).

Therefore, marriage is no longer defined as being between a man and a woman. If Kentucky wants to license marriages, they have to license couples who are gay as well.

If Kim Davis wants to keep her job, she has to do her job. She didn’t want to, despite being so ordered by a judge – who does have the authority to interpret laws. Therefore, she was in contempt of court. The judge also has the authority to jail anyone held in contempt of court.

pdxnag
pdxnag
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

The court can strike through a statute as they have here, but cannot insert new words like gay or same sex. Appending the notion that same sex marriage is both authorized and indeed mandatory is indeed rewriting law. It is a poison pill as noted above.

Again, as a logical reasoning proof, if the legislature clarifies their statutes so as to strip the word marriage entirely from the statutes would they be in violation of the SCOTUS opinion invoking the Equal Protection Clause? Are they prohibited by the SCOTUS from taking this action? No. They don’t need to because the SCOTUS struck the word already (provided they don’t take the poison pill), and it would only be an amendment to conform to the law today, where marriage has been so stricken.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  pdxnag

I don’t know where the disconnect is, but let me try an example.

Let’s say a state has a law saying that to drink a soda, you have to have a permit issued by the government.

The state has another law saying that only purple-haired people are allowed to apply/receive for soda-drinking permits.

But a national law says that you can’t discriminate against people for having another hair color. The state lawmakers know this, but they don’t like orange-haired people, so they ignore the problem and hope it goes away.

Orange-haired people then sue. The case works its way through the legal system, ultimately landing at the highest court. This court is charged with enforcing the Constitution – which contains a set of laws that every state has to agree to uphold to be part of the USA. The same state lawmakers who enacted the law-in-question are sworn to abide by these Constitutional laws. The people who issue the permits are too.

This court doesn’t comment on your law requiring a permit to drink a soda. But the court does say that your law only permitting purple-haired people to apply for permits is not legal based on the Constitutional laws your state previously agreed to, and cannot be enforced.

Therefore, orange-haired people can apply for/receive soda permits, just like purple-haired people.

There doesn’t need to be a new law saying that orange people are now allowed to apply for permits too. As long as the law that requires soda permits is on the books, the court has ruled that the state cannot pick-and-choose what color haired people get to apply.

Now, Kentucky could get out of the soda-permitting business altogether, but as long as they want to regulate sodas, they have to regulate equally for people of all hair colors.

pdxnag
pdxnag
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

Here is an often repeated snippet when dealing with statutory interpretation and the limit on the power of a judge: “not to insert what has been omitted, or to omit what has been inserted.” I have a particular local case and statute in mind but the point can be gleaned from ordinary google results on the snippet. A judge gets to opine on the legality (constitutionality) of a statute, but not save it by modifying it. Here saving it through modification means affirmatively inserting support for gay marriage, just as if it were in the statute.

Generally, legal counsel for government have great freedom to play what if in drafting legal opinions that allow government to do things not spelled out clearly in statutes, other code or in arguably ambiguous court rulings. Much of it goes untested in court. It is an invitation for abuse and self-aggrandizement by such attorneys. The choices they make can reflect their own policy preferences and/or that of their masters, which may not necessarily be the same choice a legislative body would make.

The gay marriage case has exposed such abuse here, in like manner to the way it had been abused in my state many years ago. The abuse is the issuance of marriage licenses before the legislature has taken action on the matter, post-SCOTUS opinion. I see less harm in being clear that no marriages (or civil unions or whatever) will be authorized until replacement statutes directly contain the magic words “same sex” and that it matches whatever is provided for opposite sex couples and thus comply with the SCOTUS opinion. But let that fight over wording and policy take place in the legislature.

Anyone urgently wanting to get married, if all marriage licenses were uniformly denied, would be focused toward the legislature. They could not politically postpone taking some action. The governor would not feel compelled to issue a policy statement of dubious legality. And the Kim Davis religious circus would instead take place in the legislature, where it belongs.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  pdxnag

Except that in Kentucky, the “definition” is a separate statute, not part of the marriage permit requirement law. So the state still requires marriage licenses (that law wasn’t overturned), it’s just not permitted to limit those licenses to straight couples.

The legislature could eliminate the license requirement, absolutely. That would be my hope. But until that happens, the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment (a law already on the books) denies the state the right to discriminate.

Betty4440
Betty4440
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

ok all dems go straight to jail.

Betty4440
Betty4440
8 years ago
Reply to  pdxnag

ANY THING AGAINST THE TEACHINGS OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST AND GOD. IT IS WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT. EVERY WHERE THE SO CALLED GAYS GO. THEY DO IT KNOWING THEY WILL BE TARGETING CHRISTIANS. AND THAT IS WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT. LET THEM GO TO AN IMAM AND TELL HIM THEY WANT TO GET MARRIED. AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS. JUST LIKE MAKING A WEDDING CAKE FOR SO CALLED GAYS. THEY WANT DO THAT BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT CHRISTIANS. THEY ARE MUSLIMS. AND IT IS AGAINST THEIR RELIGION SO THE GET TO GO BY WHAT THEIR RELIGION CALL FOR. BUT IT IS AGAINST THE LAW FOR AN AMERICAN TO DO THE SAME THING IN AMERICA. THEY SHOULD MAKE IT A LAW THEY MUSLIMS HAVE TO FOLLOW THE SAME LAWS AS AMERICANS. IN AMERICA ALL SHOULD HAVE TO LIVE BY AMERICAN LAWS OR GET OUT OF AMERICA.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  Betty4440

“IN AMERICA ALL SHOULD HAVE TO LIVE BY AMERICAN LAWS OR GET OUT OF AMERICA.”

Including Kim Davis.

Betty4440
Betty4440
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

if muslims can get by not doing it because of their religion. why cant Kim get by with it because of her religion?

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  Betty4440

I haven’t heard of any Muslims who are breaking federal law (14th Amendment) by not doing their taxpayer-funded job, but if they do, they should face the same consequences for sure.

Betty4440
Betty4440
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

but they don’t. have you seen the video where this man was passing himself off as being gay and went to a few muslim bakeries and they flat refused to make the cake? they told him to go to Publix’s that they would do it. but the Christian people that refused to make a cake for gays were sued for big bucks and almost destroyed this family. remember them? and they are still fighting for their Christian rights. and the gays want go to a muslim bakery and they want sue the muslims.WHY?

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  Betty4440

Private businesses and discrimination are a separate issue. Government services/laws and discrimination are relevant to the Kim Davis case.

DowntotheBone
DowntotheBone
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

“…in accordance with the peoples’ law.”

That’s the problem and the object of the outrage.

It is not “the people’s” law.

It’s the “law” (opinion) of five unelected clowns on the supreme court (will not capitalize it).

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  DowntotheBone

Our government was architected with a series of checks-and-balances designed to uphold the Constitution. The responsibility of the Supreme Court is to make sure no one makes laws that are contrary to the Constitution.

The ruling of the Supreme Court is valid and therefore the people’s law has been decided.

I understand you may not like the people currently serving on the court. That doesn’t change the law, nor does it give you (or Kim Davis) the right to subvert the law without consequences.

As an American, you must accept that sometimes our system may not come to the same conclusion as you. You are free to work to change the laws (though in this case a Constitutional Amendment just isn’t going to happen), you are free to vocally disagree, but you aren’t free to break the law.

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

It was 5-4. Not 9-0. Clearly there was a difference of opinion.

The decision can be overturned. Not settled.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago

Sure, it’s possible the law could change again. A new federal Constitutional Amendment could be proposed (though I think is is very unlikely enough states would ratify it). However SCOTUS won’t take up this issue again for many years, and then only once the makeup of the court changes.

In the meantime, it is legal for gay couples to marry – in Kentucky, Arkansas and anywhere else in the USA.

And Kim Davis doesn’t get to decide she’s above the law. She is however free to resign. Plus, if her dedication to God’s law is so important to her conscience, perhaps she should seek a few annulments for her own past marriages (God’s law doesn’t allow one to remarry unless any other marriages have been annulled. Divorce isn’t sufficient).

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

A new Supreme Court that hasn’t been stacked with ideologues and activists and can overturn this decision.

Prohibition was repealed.

Let the people vote – as in Prop 8 in California. A vote that was nullified by an activist judge.

Using your metrics, Muslims who don’t want to handle pork products or alcohol should not work in places where their values are sullied.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago

They should not work in places that *by law* require them to handle pork products or alcohol. Nor should they be able to choose who gets to eat pork or drink alcohol on taxpayer money.

To your first point, if the law is overturned, then the Kim Davis’s of the world can refuse to give marriage licenses to gay couples. But until the law is overturned, she cannot as long as she keeps her cushy government job. However, she is free to resign. No one is forcing her to stay.

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

People should not be able to work the system to cry “islamophobia” and opportunistically sue for discrimination when they work at a company where they will come in contact with products that are “not kosher”.

TraceySavonell
TraceySavonell
8 years ago

You should take a civics class, because your understanding of how the government works, laws are created and the rights of it’s citizens is juvenile at best.

1. the supreme court exists to make sure that the laws created by the legislative branch are equal, just and do not violate the rights of US citizens. Their decisions do not have to be 9-0. merely a simple majority.

2. the constitution protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority. in other words, the majority cannot make laws that violate the constitutional rights of a minority. by your logic if the public supported slavery we could all vote to bring it back.

3. your comparison to muslims working where they would have to violate their faiths by handling pork or alcohol makes no sense at all. Kim Davis was an elected official sworn to uphold the law.

'Change' you will get...
'Change' you will get...
8 years ago
Reply to  TraceySavonell

1). The Supreme Court exists to serve as the court of final appeal. It has been allowed to arrogate (like so much of the Federal Government) powers not assigned to it by the Constitution (the law from which it derives its justification for existing at all).

2). The Constitution protects the citizen from Government by defining the lawful activities of the Federal Government and strictly limiting the powers of each branch.*

3). Please cite the specific Kentucky state statute defining her legal obligation to issue marriage licenses to any other than heterosexual couples.

*As to slavery here is the text of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U,S, Constitution:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

So, if we went by the literal text of the Constitution, if Kim Davis were to be convicted of the crime of ‘Anti-Progressive Hate Speech’ she could be sentenced to slavery per a prior act of Congress authorizing it. Something for Code Pink to get to work on then…

TraceySavonell
TraceySavonell
8 years ago

kentucky state law is irrelevant, the federal constitution supersedes it. the 14th amendment specifically guarantees equality. and this is what the supreme court just ruled. sorry. but you lost, suck it up and take it like a grown-up.

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago
Reply to  TraceySavonell

Idiot, minorities don’t have constitutional rights.

Like “All Lives Matter”, American citizens have constitutionally guaranteed rights.

TraceySavonell
TraceySavonell
8 years ago

minorities don’t have constitutional rights? so only white people have rights?

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago
Reply to  TraceySavonell

What race is “minority”??? Where is the racial group of “minoity” mentioned in the Constitution?

TraceySavonell
TraceySavonell
8 years ago

are you serious with this nonsensical statement?

Larenzo1
Larenzo1
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

They can call it what they want but it will never be a marriage and the majority of people will hold it in contempt till it is reversed. This elected woman is not alone many other clerks are doing the same thing. Kennedy when he signed on to this silly deviancy said that Christian rights would be protected. It is now obvious he is a lying bastard.

Eryq Ouithaqueue
Eryq Ouithaqueue
8 years ago
Reply to  Larenzo1

If a gay marriage is not a real marriage, then why did Kim Davis object to doing it? Clearly she must believe that it *is* a real marriage.

'Change' you will get...
'Change' you will get...
8 years ago

In our (rational) world issuing a document attesting to facts contrary to reality is objectionable. If you believe that demanding that a county clerk help you pretend to the existence of a statutory relationship defined by no Kentucky state law demonstrates the legal character of that relationship clearly you are from a planet where argument from arbitrary judicial fiat is not just an objectionable phenomenon but sound logical principle,

Eryq Ouithaqueue
Eryq Ouithaqueue
8 years ago

Except that the statutory relationship does exist, thanks to the 14th amendment. The Christian recognition of the marriage does not, in the eyes of some (but not all) Christians, including Kim Davis. This is why the state should not be in the marriage business. They should call the legal relationship not “marriage” but “civil union”. Then there is no cause for objection…. the Bible says nothing about “civil union” or “incorporation”.

tryingtopickaname
tryingtopickaname
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

So…now you feel it imperative that Davis repent of her religious sins before she be allowed a civic position? By the same token, perhaps you should confess your sins before making a comment?

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago

No, but I do feel it is imperative that Ms. Davis repent her religious sins before becoming a valid martyr for Christian rights oppression.

She claims her religion forbids her from fulfilling her job responsibility. Yet that same religion also forbids her marital lifestyle. So I don’t believe religion is at the heart of her objection (also, her husband has been freely taking the Lord’s name in vain, telling me he’s not so pious either).

If religion is a smokescreen, then what’s this really about? A hateful, spiteful little woman who loves attention. She’s reflecting very poorly on Christians and all people of faith.

Larenzo1
Larenzo1
8 years ago

You are correct and it was as bad as Dred Scott not based on the constitution.

Larenzo1
Larenzo1
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

No it is not a law it is an opinion and it should be reverted to the legislature for remedy. Those rights enumerated in the constitution will remain with the state! This woman broke no law.

Patrick
Patrick
8 years ago
Reply to  Larenzo1

She broke no law? She took a paycheck for sitting on her fat a$$ and refusing to do her job. That’s called: “stealing”. Your “God” was pretty specific about that. “He” wrote the Ten Commandments in stone and Theft is right up there. They don’t say a thing about gays though…

Larenzo1
Larenzo1
8 years ago
Reply to  Patrick

No she did not break any law issuing marriage license is something that take about five minutes her job as an elected official running the clerks office is a lot more complicated than that. She has been elected over and over again over twenty years. You are so stupid you do not know that.

trapperrick
trapperrick
8 years ago
Reply to  Larenzo1

1) She violated her oath by not carrying out part of the DUTIES of her office by not issuing marriage licenses. She did it to be obstructive.
2) She has not been elected over and over – she only took office this last January. Before that, she worked in the office for her mother.
3) You should dial back who you call stupid, stupid.

'Change' you will get...
'Change' you will get...
8 years ago
Reply to  trapperrick

She never swore to violate her conscience or issue marriage licenses not provided for by State or county law. She acted heroically in the best tradition of civil disobedience.

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago

> She acted heroically in the best tradition of civil disobedience.

Like Rosa Parks.

Patrick
Patrick
8 years ago
Reply to  Larenzo1

This conversation would be a lot more interesting if you had just the slightest idea what the fuk you’re talking about. You don’t. Go bother someone else with your BS

'Change' you will get...
'Change' you will get...
8 years ago
Reply to  Patrick

She did her job. She issued licenses in accordance with the laws of her State and county.

Patrick
Patrick
8 years ago

Oh, for Christ’s sake! If you’re going to comment, know what the hell you’re talking about.

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago
Reply to  Patrick

> She took a paycheck for sitting on her fat a$$ and refusing to do her job

Then a good portion of the Civil Service is guilty – and union workers, teachers, politicians…

Patrick
Patrick
8 years ago

.and you too, no doubt. But that’s not what the topic is.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  Larenzo1

She was jailed in contempt of court. That is a legal prerogative of the judge.

The law she broke was the 14th Amendment. As a government official, she is sworn to uphold state and federal laws. Her state has a law requiring her to issue marriage licenses. The 14th Amendment (federal law, in case you didn’t know) requires she issues them equally to all citizens. She refused – breaking her oath and the law.

She is welcome to disagree with the law. She is welcome to try to overturn the law. She is welcome to resign. She is not welcome to stay in office breaking the law on taxpayer dollars after all of her legal avenues were exhausted.

Larenzo1
Larenzo1
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

That is simply not true. You are ignorant of the legal system and the what is law and what is opinion. Your ignorance is stunning.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  Larenzo1

Instead of personal attacks, why not point out what I’ve gotten wrong?

1. Contempt of court was the cause of her incarceration: true
2. Judges have the ability to jail people for contempt of court: true
3. SCOTUS ruled that laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman were in violation of the 14th Amendment, equal protection clause: true
4. States still can require couples to get a government-issued license to marry: true
5. One responsibility of county clerks on Kentucky is to issue marriage licenses: true
6. Kim Davis refused to issue marriage licenses to one group of citizens, in breach of the equal protection clause: true
7. Kim Davis was ordered by the courts to issue the licenses: true
8. Even after exhausting her appeals all the way to the Supreme Court, she still refused to issue the licenses: true
9. The judge who she appealed (and lost) offered her a compromise (for her clerks to issue the licenses) and she refused: true.
10. The judge held her in contempt of court and jailed her: true.

I love facts.

'Change' you will get...
'Change' you will get...
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

Most of your facts are dubious but:

6).Kim Davis does not have the statutory authority to act in ‘breach of the equal protection clause’. She has no legal authority under any applicable law to issue a license for a purpose for which the law makes no provision.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago

Does Kentucky’s marriage law explicitly say that she can issue a license to Asian people? Does it say she can issue licenses to straight people? Does it say she can issue licenses to people over 50?

No, the current, legal Kentucky marriage license law doesn’t make provisions for specifics.

Granted, Kentucky *did* have a law specifying that marriage was defined as one man and one woman, but that law was ruled illegal and therefore no longer exists.

Every elected government employee is responsible to uphold the US Constitution. Since SCOTUS ruled that the equal protection clause means that states can’t discriminate against same-sex couples when issuing licenses, yes she was in breach of the US Constitution.

I realize a lot of people don’t like the facts because they disagree with the result. But that doesn’t change the facts. You know what would change them? Repeal the state laws that require all couples to license a relationship. Make marriage is a private legal contract between two people.

Or repeal the 14th Amendment. I would respect any attempt to try because that’s the process upon which our Republic was founded, though I would not support it myself.

'Change' you will get...
'Change' you will get...
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

According to you the Supreme Court struck down Kentucky’s marriage law. So there is no law. Which is the point.

The argument from non-essentials is a nice touch though. Since there is no law, there is by your logic nothing to prevent a pair of elderly female Asian felines who are in love from obtaining a marriage license in the absence of any law specifically requiring residents of the county seeking to marry to be human.

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!” Venkman was a prophet.

County clerks are not responsible for ‘upholding’ the U.S Constitution. The Constitution places specific limitations on the powers of the Federal Government and State laws may be found to be unconstitutional. But KIm Davis is responsible for upholding the law, of which there is none, not ‘upholding’ a Constitution which can provide her no positive guidance regarding the issuing of marriage licenses.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago

I’ve already said this a dozen times on this board, but I’ll repeat it yet again.

Kentucky had two laws.

Law #1: To marry, couples must receive a license from the state.

Law #2: Marriage is defined as between and man and a woman.

SCOTUS ruled that law #2 was illegal – BECAUSE it violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution by enabling clerks like Ms. Davis to discriminate.

But law #1 was still valid. And Kim Davis had to do her job of issuing marriage licenses. She also couldn’t discriminate, because such discrimination had just been ruled ILLEGAL by the Supreme Court based on the Constitution’s 14th Amendment (which applies to everyone as a US Citizen).

There are two avenues for people like you. Either eliminate law #1, that requires the state to license ANY marriage. Make marriage a private contract with two people. Then the Kims of the world don’t have to worry about it. OR, repeal the 14th Amendment. An uphill battle, but that’s the process.

Otherwise, you, Kim Davis, or any other government employee else *cannot* discriminate against gay couples.

It’s really not that complicated.

Larenzo1
Larenzo1
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

SCOTUS is not the law making body of this land and people are going to learn that in a very hard lesson. The more than ten thousand people that showed up not knowing she was going to be released were ready to storm that facility.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  Larenzo1

SCOTUS didn’t make a new law. I don’t know how to make that any more clear. They ruled that the first of Kentucky’s laws cannot be applied unequally.

'Change' you will get...
'Change' you will get...
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

You are still functioning on the premise that the invalidation of the law defining marriage as between a man and a woman creates a positive legal grounds to issue marriage licenses to certain couples who would not have received a license prior to Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1. Since 1973, the Kentucky Supreme Court has applied the standard that the ‘dictionary definition’ of marriage was a relationship between a man and a woman. If that law, so interpreted, is a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment then presumptively it too is unconstitutional, hence void. Kim Davis and every other County Clerk in Kentucky has no legal grounds to issue any marriage licenses.

I don’t know who “people like [me]” are, but I have advocated for returning marriage to the purely private institution it is and ought to be. Government protection of marriage has been as successful as Federal protection of manufacturing and labor. All three are expiring under the tutelage of their ‘protector’.

Larenzo1
Larenzo1
8 years ago

But the court did not strike down the Protection of religion or faith law however it is called.

Larenzo1
Larenzo1
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

It does have a law protecting a persons religious views that are reasonable and from established religious entities. Besides the idea of two men marrying each other is absurd. It will never be a marriage no matter how bad you homosexuals want it to be. It will simply never be excepted by most of the people. It will however be another issue that helps to split this nation into two separate countries and as far as I am concerned the sooner the better.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  Larenzo1

I’m not gay, but thanks for the assumption. And I don’t particularly care about marriage. I’m concerned with the law and how its applied.

Kim Davis doesn’t have a right to discriminate. Neither does the state of Kentucky, or its lawmakers. SCOTUS has ruled. The only people splitting this nation are those who can’t accept our legal processes.

Larenzo1
Larenzo1
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

The SCOTUS also ruled that Dred Scott could be held and returned a slave to an owner in a slave state and numerous other bad rulings. No not all contempt of court requires jailing someone that is living in a state with a freedom of religion law. Also the court rendered an opinion which according to the constitution means that the legislature should now take up the matter. Judges do not make law that is not their job. That is known as an oligarchy. We live in a Republic. Another way to address it is to follow the constitution. ” All powers not given to the federal government shall remain with the state” These people are deviants and suffer from a mental illness. End of story.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  Larenzo1

Religion has nothing to do with this case. If it did, Kim Davis’s own most recent marriage would be invalid. Because unless she’s gotten annulments for her previous three marriages, in the eyes of God she’s an adulteress.

And the basic rights of all people are outlined in our federal Constitution. States can’t make laws that violate the Constitution.

Larenzo1
Larenzo1
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

I am sorry but you are ignorant of the facts again. She is not Catholic she is of an Apostolic denomination and was not converted or knew the Lord till just four years ago when she as they became convicted and was ‘Born Again” her sins according to her faith washed away. All rights I.E. laws not enumerated in the constitution are left with the state. She in no way violated the constitution.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  Larenzo1

The words of her own faith appear to contradict: http://www.logosapostolic.org/bible_study/RP209DivorceRemarriage.htm.

She may be forgiven for her past sins, but it doesn’t absolve her from committing ongoing sins that were started before she was saved.

And with regards to the Constitution: state laws cannot violate it. No exceptions.

Larenzo1
Larenzo1
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

Sarah we all sin everyday. What is cited most in regard to her is previous marriages that occurred before her redemptive experience. When she as saved in her faith she became as a new person cleansed b Christ sacrifice on the cross because she repented a was saved. Now had she been attempting to become Roman Catholic she would have required special dispensation from the church which is not hard to do. But what you are attempting Is like wiping your butt with a Hula Hoop. I give you A for effort and you have presented your case very well and cordially. However it still likes a foundational understanding of her faith it’s Judeo Christian roots and their deeply held convictions. Had she been a Muslim we would not even be having this discussion. I regret some of my earlier comments to you which I really meant for the nut that was involved it just bled over into our conversation.

Eryq Ouithaqueue
Eryq Ouithaqueue
8 years ago
Reply to  Larenzo1

She wasn’t jailed for breaking a law. She was jailed because she was sued by several couples for not issuing marriage licenses, the judge ordered her to fulfill the duties of her elected position, she disobeyed the judge, and the judge found her in contempt of court. That is how she ended up in jail.

'Change' you will get...
'Change' you will get...
8 years ago

So she was jailed for contempt of court for refusing a judge’s order to stop denying marriage licenses in violation of no law?

Larenzo1
Larenzo1
8 years ago

I understand that and you framed it very well. That does not make the judges order correct or the proper course of action. I have seen many people held in contempt but not jailed while another remedy was pursued. This judge took an ax to what required a scalpel. But you did do a great job framing the problem.

Donnie Newell
Donnie Newell
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

I don’t support gay marriage. our government is controlled by small interest groups. it has failed.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  Donnie Newell

Whether or not you support gay marriage is neither here nor there. The fact is it is now legal, and was found so through our system.

There are legal maneuvers still open (repeal the 14th amendment), and I respect everyones right to pursue them. Personally I think you’re fighting a losing battle and we have more important things to worry about than preventing two people who love each other from making a legal commitment, but that’s also your right.

I refuse to support people like Kim Davis who would use a religious smokescreen (and in her case, that’s exactly what it is) to refuse to do her taxpayer-funded job.

tryingtopickaname
tryingtopickaname
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

Your interpretation of checks and balances is nonsense. Each branch is given explicitly limited authority….have you forgotten the basics of our government structure. SCOTUS’ authority extends only so far as to ensure that written law is enacted as intended. What they did is conjure up a new *law* , on their own, with no basis for that interpretation nor any Congressional writ to be interpreted. In short…they made the law up out of thin air, thus BREAKING the law.

TraceySavonell
TraceySavonell
8 years ago

“new law”?!?!
it’s the 14th amendment, dum dum.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago

SCOTUS isn’t only there to make sure written laws are enacted “as intended”, but to ensure that laws are in fact legal and in compliance with the Constitution. That’s not nonsense, it’s the way our system was designed. Did you attend your Civics classes?

The court did not make a new law here, they struck down an illegal law that denied people rights.

There were two laws. One that required people to obtain a marriage license from the state to wed (that is still intact), and another that said only a man + woman could apply – which was ruled illegal.

As a result, the first law has to be applied equally to all citizens.

NotTheMama
NotTheMama
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

So you would ignore the fact that the supreme court can and does get things wrong to the extent that constitutional amendments has been made to correct their screw-ups.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  NotTheMama

I’ve definitely been on the losing side of SCOTUS’s decisions. But I didn’t break the law in defiance. And if I did decide civil disobedience was the only conscionable answer (In Ms. Davis’s case, it was not since she could resign), I would not whine about the consequences.

trapperrick
trapperrick
8 years ago
Reply to  NotTheMama

Its a judgement call as to whether they got it wrong or were just reflecting the mores of the day, which have a habit of changing – probably most often for the better. As those change, the court may change with them. A good example is Loving v Virginia. Interracial marriage had never been an accepted custom, was reviled by much of America far more than same-sex marriage, and was still opposed by a majority of Americans. Marriage to a person of another race was illegal in Virginia – and so the Lovings were arrested. The court upheld their conviction. Had Virginia gotten it wrong? On appeal, the Supreme Court overturned their conviction and Virginia’s anti-miscegenation laws. Had the Supreme Court gotten it wrong? Christians across the Bible-belt were sure they had.

tryingtopickaname
tryingtopickaname
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

What is the exact wording of this *people’s law*, please? The SCOTUS can not write law. Period. There IS no gay marriage law written an authorized by Congress.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago

Read the 14th Amendment. It says all laws must apply to everyone equally.

SCOTUS did not write a new law. Let me break this down for you.

1. Kentucky has a law that states all people who wish to marry must obtain a license from the state. This is still the law today, and is so in all 50 states.

2. Kentucky had a second law that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. So the state would not grant licenses to gay couples – meaning that the first law was not applied equally to all citizens.

3. That second law was ruled unconstitutional because of the 14th Amendment. The court said the state doesn’t get to allow only some citizens to participate in law #1.

4. Therefore, with the second law now gone, the first law has to be applied equally to everyone. That means gay couples also have the right to apply for and receive marriage licenses.

Was that clear enough? There’s no new law. And P.S. Congress already voted on and the states ratified the 14th Amendment over 100 years ago.

Now, Kentucky or any other state can get out of the marriage/relationship licensing business altogether, which would be my preference. Or people can try to repeal the 14th amendment (a losing battle, but go for it). Or you can wait for a new SCOTUS and pray they also put religion over the Constitution (don’t hold your breath whilst praying though, it won’t happen).

Or you can simply let go of the anger, wish happy couples well and live your own life.

trapperrick
trapperrick
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

What’s the sense of feeling all righteous if you just live your own life? NO….must….control….other….people….must….control…other….people……must….control…..

'Change' you will get...
'Change' you will get...
8 years ago
Reply to  trapperrick

Or put them in jail for contempt refusing to validate your particular version of righteousness.

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago

Obamas Socialist Cultural Revolution.

patteel
patteel
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

So does that mean I can marry my Guinea Pig ?

patteel
patteel
8 years ago
Reply to  patteel

How about my brother ? Cousin ? Grandson ? Sister ?

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  patteel

Please be my guest, if that’s what makes you happy. But your guinea pig has to consent, in English, and sign the paperwork.

Though I don’t think guinea pigs are protected by the Constitution/Bill of Rights. Humans are, btw. Dang, sorry that’s inconvenient for you.

'Change' you will get...
'Change' you will get...
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

PETA will not be happy about your obvious failure to fully acknowledge the personhood of animals. Chimpanzees have rights you know,,,

(First paragraph relevant.)

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago

It’s not my failure, it’s the government’s failure.

File a lawsuit?

'Change' you will get...
'Change' you will get...
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

Given your previously stated acceptance of Guinea Pig-human matrimony on what grounds would you file that lawsuit to prevent an animal using sign language or assistive device to obtain and sign a marriage license in Kim Davis’ county? Does the LGBTQI activist community owe Rick Santorum an apology?

trapperrick
trapperrick
8 years ago

There also is no law permitting people with only one leg to get married, nor a law permitting people with curly hair to get married. No law allowing skinny or fat people to get married. No law allowing tall or short people to get married. No laws allowing Jews and Catholics to get married.
Are you getting it? No law required to permit people to get married. Just laws to prohibit some people from getting married – like siblings and children. The government has a compelling interest in prohibiting those marriages. It was ruled by the highest court in the land that the government DID NOT have a compelling interest in prohibiting same-sex couples from getting married….and neither do you.

morriscat
morriscat
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

This article is about Smith stating the people who back Kim Davis are the same as those that don’t want Sharia Law .
That is the point not whether Kim Davis is guilty or not .
If Smith is in favor of Sharia law he should live in an Islamic State or just move into a
Muslim neighborhood in Michigan .
Sarah would you like living under Sharia ?

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  morriscat

Give me a break. Neither myself or Shepard Smith are promoting Islamic law.

His point is that many of the people who are advocating for Kim Davis to get special accommodation for her religious beliefs also freak out when a Muslim or Jewish person asks for religious accommodation. That is hypocrisy.

He’s not saying that any religions SHOULD get special accommodations.

morriscat
morriscat
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

Sarah , please give us a break he never spoke about accommodations for Muslims or Jews . He directly spoke of Sharia laws and if you look at the world now you can easily what horrible atrocities are created by Islamists subjecting whole populations to flee .from that wonderful Sharia .
Look up the rule of Sharia please. ….”

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  morriscat

I am familiar with Muslim political/legal systems.

He still has a different point. He’s not advocating Sharia law, he’s pointing out the hypocrisy of some of Kim Davis supporters.

morriscat
morriscat
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

Gosh Sarah please.read the article . His statement directly and specifically condemned those that oppose Sharia .
By the way even if she was elected before the marriage law was imposed by
SCOTUS she should resign her office in protest instead of the actions she took .
Golly Sarah even if liberal or conservative America can not allow imposition of .
Sharia putting civilization back to the dark ages of the Turk subjection of Europe and Middle East .

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  morriscat

I watched the clip. I think the author of this post misunderstood his point. He opposes those who-oppose-Sharia-accommodations-AND-support-Kim-Davis (the words connected because the point he is making requires both aspects).

Sure, if he just said the first part, he’d be nutso.

Agree that resigning her post would have been an absolutely a valid protest.

morriscat
morriscat
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

Sarah , last post . I am 91 years old a disabled ww2 vet near the end of life cycle and I fear for my country . I fear for my posterity and yours .
I am witness to National Socialism ( Nazi party ). And I recognize the evil now as I have seen then .
So I sit and watch politics on many channels and frequently Smith at three pm .
My 90 year old wife and I did hear his statement .
My wife covered her mouth in shock as I shouted to the TV ” I can not believe I heard this on Fox News as Ihear similar on MSNBC many times .
How can an American news anchor not understand the evil when he is so close to all the reports from Islamic Jihad when he condemns those that oppose gay marriage as the same as those that oppose Sharia Law .. My God .
Anyway good night andif you are determined not to understand what the term
Sharia Law means to me an old Jewish guy who saw first hand the ashes of Europe and the decimation of the Jewish population by an evil equivelant.
I pray Shepard Smith and his family will never live under a Sharia .
I will not be here as all the same witnesses will just be a memory but hopefully people like you will see the light and fight against the evil and not close your eyes before it is to late as it is for me tonight . Yawn .

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  morriscat

Thank you for your service.

patteel
patteel
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

There is a very big difference. Kim just refused to issue a marriage license. Sharia would have pushed them off of building, hung or beheaded them. And liberals and gays act like she did all three.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  patteel

She refused to do her government-paid job. She faced the consequences.

morriscat
morriscat
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

By the way under Sharia same sex couple would be subject to stoning death .
A gay thrown of rooftops with the absence of a cliff as in Koran .
That is happening today not a thousand years ago .
Are we blind?

Rob Logan
Rob Logan
8 years ago

PG, you’re an idiot!! You totally missed the point. He’s saying that these people are hypocrites for saying that the Bible is above the law, but criticize muslims who believe that Sharia law trumps any secular laws. Who are the religious fanatics now?

Starland sound
Starland sound
8 years ago
Reply to  Rob Logan

No, since we are a Judeo-Christian west, islam is regarded as what it is, a CULT. I hate to break it to you, but all our laws are based on the 10 commandments, our very foundation of our country is based on the idea that at our very CORE mans freedoms are granted us by God, that we are born from our creator with certain inalienable rights, to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

A little history lesson might do you well

https://www.box.com/s/6b7ay8eejmdta2ohvlyi

germinfestedmisfit
germinfestedmisfit
8 years ago
Reply to  Starland sound

so separation of church and state was based on the 10 commandments? Eminent domain? Voting rights? Free Speech? I see none of those in the 10 commandments.

also read up more on the religious (or lack of) beliefs of the founding fathers. Jefferson bible is a good place to start. In fact many religious people in the country decried the constitution because it wasn’t more influenced by Christianity.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/09/01/the-founding-fathers-versus-the-christian-right-quotes-in-support-of-the-separation-of-church-and-state/

Montanagirl1
Montanagirl1
8 years ago

We cannot have a constitutional democracy without the majority of people being moral and thoughtful. The Dems have proved that they are neither.The basis of freedom is inalienable and given to us by God. The Constitution protects our pursuit of happiness and the first amendment gives us freedom OF religion. Not freedom FROM it. Without a moral backbone of some kind, democracy cannot exist in it’s current form. We are no longer a unified Christian nation. WE are balkanized into different religion, sects, thoughts. Most Americans today don’t even believe in the freedom and prosperity of the US. So if you don’t believe in your country, and are not willing to stand up for it and defend it, you do not deserve freedom.

germinfestedmisfit
germinfestedmisfit
8 years ago
Reply to  Montanagirl1

every premise of your argument is wrong and it’s not even too hard to find real evidence why. but this is a biased web-site with an obviously biased commenter, so your not really worth and argument. I already at least gave some evidence and not just personal belief on what think is true.

Dave
Dave
8 years ago
Reply to  Montanagirl1

Gee, we are so “balkanized’ that many people don’t follow your particular brand of religion anymore, and since they don’t agree with you, the world’s going to hell (figuratively, as there’s no proof of literal). Sucks to be you, then.

Christian Independence
Christian Independence
8 years ago
Reply to  Montanagirl1

I really love all your comments Montanan. You know what is going on.

Most Americans in the NORTHEAST don’t believe in freedom anymore, you are right. But a majority of us in the Midwest, South, and other places DO still believe in freedom and still love God.

We have to declare independence peacefully and gradually by putting independence up for a peaceful vote in 2016 in 27 different states. That’s our plan at http://www.christianindependence.org. We need donors and volunteers from your state Montana, but also Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Arizona, Nebraska, Missouri, Oklahoma,

Texas is ALREADY LEAVING FOLKS. The Texas Nationalist movement (thetnm.org donate and HELP THEM collect signatures if you’re from Texas!) is already half-way to the 75,000 signature requirement and still gaining steam. They WILL put independence on the ballot on March 2016.

We want to put independence on the ballot in 26 other states (we’re letting them handle Texas!), so that we can JOIN WITH TEXAS when it leaves! Because it WILL leave and we want the other 26 conservative states to JOIN WITH TEXAS in a new “Free States of America”.

AnneM040359
AnneM040359
8 years ago
Reply to  Starland sound

AMEN to that!

trapperrick
trapperrick
8 years ago
Reply to  Starland sound

Please explain how individual freedom in any of its forms can be found in the 10 commandments? And please explain what the centuries and centuries of monarchy were based on….you know, where the royal ruled by divine right, with the bishop at his side. Religion has a name for freedom of speech – its called blasphemy.

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago
Reply to  trapperrick

Which country is atheist majority?

China? Russia? Fascist Iran? Hamasstan?

How’s Human Rights over there?

trapperrick
trapperrick
8 years ago

I didn’t ask for obfuscation. I asked to explain how the 10 commandments are the foundation of individual freedom. I can see why you would avoid the question.

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago
Reply to  trapperrick

Again, which atheist majority nation do you hold as a role model for your position?

trapperrick
trapperrick
8 years ago

Apparently you are not up to the task of explaining how individual freedom is established by the 10 commandments. C’mon – give it a try. I’ll start you off. Commandment 1 – “I am the lord your god – you shall have no other gods before me.” OK – how is that the foundation of religious freedom – of being free to hold whatever thoughts and beliefs you want? How is it that we only achieved religious freedom in this nation by pulling the teeth of the church out?

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago
Reply to  trapperrick

Still can’t burnish your atheism by presenting even ONE atheist majority nation that governs in a way that makes you proud to be an atheist?

All you can do is whine and stamp your feet.

farflung
farflung
8 years ago

Ask Sarah, her mouth is putting her ass on overload.

Nevil Read
Nevil Read
8 years ago

A few countries in which a majority of people do not believe in God… Note they are also all capitalist democracies:
Luxembourg, Austria, Germany, U.K., Belgium, Finland, Denmark, Netherlands, France, Sweden, Switzerland, Iceland, Norway.
Interestingly they, for the most part, have lower rates of violent crimes.

Just Saying
Just Saying
8 years ago

I think the Czech republic has the highest rate of atheists.

The Chinese are mustly Buddhist or traditionalists. The Russians are Russian orthodox. The Iranians are mostly shia muslims. I’ve never heard of hamasstan

Dave
Dave
8 years ago

Sweden, Norway, Holland, Switzerland etc. Human rights are doing much better there than they are here. There is much more acceptance of differences because there’s no need to wade through various religious mythologies to figure out what’s acceptable and not acceptable.

Nevil Read
Nevil Read
8 years ago
Reply to  Starland sound

I don’t understand the relevance of a resolution that died in congress.
If I ask for cake and am refused… I never got cake… pointing out that I asked for cake doesn’t get me cake.

Mmmmm cake.

Dave
Dave
8 years ago
Reply to  Starland sound

Nice try, but fail….

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago
Reply to  Rob Logan

You ask who are the religious fanatics?

– the ayatoola who issued a death fatwa on writer Salman Rusdhie
– fascist iran which executes gay teens by hanging them from construction crames
– the taliban who shot a girl in the head for the crime of wanting an education

Rob Logan, YOU are Progressively Idiotic Socialist.

Jihad in Manhattan
Jihad in Manhattan
8 years ago

Aren’t you forcing your pagan views down Davis’s throat! If she doesn’t want to put her name on a document that she believes is unethical, she should be awarded not jailed. Signing her name is equivalent to approval. Its not like she’s running around chopping off the heads of everybody who disagrees with her!

Dave
Dave
8 years ago

Signing her name to a legal document in NO WAY signals approval of it’s contents. And no, she’s not cutting off heads, she’s just holding herself above the laws she has sworn to uphold. Sounds pretty darned prideful to me. Pride is one of the Big 7 Deadly Sins, right?

wilypagan
wilypagan
8 years ago

If she can’t treat her fellow citizens equally she should resign.

sodacrackers2
sodacrackers2
8 years ago
Reply to  wilypagan

Treating all people with respect is a good thing. Redefining marriage is a bad thing all the way. What is next. How bout you grow a spine.

RegT
RegT
8 years ago
Reply to  wilypagan

Tell that to Tonya Parker, the black lesbian judge in Dallas who refused – for over three years, I read – to perform heterosexual marriages because , at the time, gay marriages were not allowed. She was never even reprimanded, let alone jailed or forced to resign.

wilypagan
wilypagan
8 years ago
Reply to  RegT

That was wrong too. We are a nation of laws. When govt officials start ignoring law whether it is Obama or Kim Davis all that is left is corruption and anarchy.

Rick Caird
Rick Caird
8 years ago
Reply to  wilypagan

Who says Kennedy and the four Liberals are following the law. Aen’t they instead just making it up? Kennedy noted his decision would cause conflict with the 1st amendment, but he just punted on what to do.

wilypagan
wilypagan
8 years ago
Reply to  Rick Caird

It is clear that you don’t think gay and lesbian citizens should have equal civil rights. Why not? We pay taxes. We serve in the military. We meet our obligations. Why should your religious beliefs trump civil rights for all? The First Amendment issues will be sorted out, but the days of you shoving your beliefs down other people’s throats under force of law are over.
By the way, you Christians’ whiney BS about being discriminated against is going nowhere. No one is trying to prevent you from having your traditional marriage or send your kids to private schools to fill their heads full of your religious fantasy. Just leave your fellow citizens alone.

Rick Caird
Rick Caird
8 years ago
Reply to  wilypagan

“the days of you shoving your beliefs down other people’s throats under force of law are over.”

So, you believe that you should shove your beliefs and those of the other 3% of the population who are gay or lesbian down other people’s throats under force of law? So, all you care about is winning, not any actual principle.

wilypagan
wilypagan
8 years ago
Reply to  Rick Caird

How is demanding equal civil rights as a taxpaying citizen shoving something down your throat? If you don’t want a gay marriage, don’t have one. You seem to be obsessed with things being shoved down your throat. What is up with that? Are you some kind of pervert?

Rick Caird
Rick Caird
8 years ago
Reply to  wilypagan

The problem you seem to be missing is that gay marriage is being pushed down the throats of people who neither want nor support gay marriage. You must bake the cake. You must be the photographer. You must issue the license with your name on it even though such a license is easily obtained a few miles away. It is far more about compliance than it is about equal rights.

BTW, you were the one who used the term “shoved down your throat”. By that measure, you are the pervert. Which of course is true.

wilypagan
wilypagan
8 years ago
Reply to  Rick Caird

No, I don’t force people to do things against their will. That is the way of the brute. I do insist that government officials not impose their beliefs on the citizens.

Rick Caird
Rick Caird
8 years ago
Reply to  wilypagan

Kim Davis was not imposing her belief on anyone. If she were she would have tried to find some way to stop gay people or straight couples from going to any other country for a license. Her conflict was with Kentucky law that required her signature on all marriage licenses issued in the country. She felt signing that was a violation of her beliefs since it indicated approval. A simple solution, which would have required state legislation, would have been to allow a deputy to sign licenses for gay couples. Judge Bunning could have referenced that and allowed a delay until the legislature acted. In the meantime, gay couples would have to drive a few miles to another county to get a license. But, the plaintiffs were much more interested in obedience than a marriage license. They, were, in fact, intent on imposing their beliefs on Kim Davis using the force of government. That is what it was all about and not about Kim Davis forcing her beliefs on anyone else.

wilypagan
wilypagan
8 years ago
Reply to  Rick Caird

If she doesn’t want her name on the government documents (marriage licenses) she should not be the County Clerk. It comes with the territory.

Rosen Otter
Rosen Otter
8 years ago
Reply to  Rick Caird

She was an elected official, refusing to do her job. What would you say if she was a pacifist sheriff and refused to issue gun permits?

Rick Caird
Rick Caird
8 years ago
Reply to  Rosen Otter

You missed it, Rosen. Please go back and read what her objection is and why an accommodation would require a simple change to Kentucky law. Second, your analogy is inane. First, there are plenty of oficials who refuse to issue gun permits. See Washington, DC and California for examples. But, in the the case of Kentucky, any clerks office can issue permits, so it is not as if anybody were shut out of getting a marriage license. Pick a better analogy, if you ca.

Jeff Phillips
Jeff Phillips
8 years ago
Reply to  Rick Caird

Get signature doesn’t approve anything. Her signature Judy’s States under current law the people wanting to be married are legally allow ed. She’s not marrying anyone. She’s showing her stupidity

Rick Caird
Rick Caird
8 years ago
Reply to  Jeff Phillips

I suggest you not call someone “stupid” when you cannot write 2 intelligible sentences.

Rosen Otter
Rosen Otter
8 years ago
Reply to  Rick Caird

Isn’t all this shoving of things down throats pretty, well, gay sounding? We need a new metaphor.

Rick Caird
Rick Caird
8 years ago
Reply to  Rosen Otter

It was not my metaphor. Note the quote marks.

Jeff Phillips
Jeff Phillips
8 years ago
Reply to  Rosen Otter

What are you 12?

Jeff Phillips
Jeff Phillips
8 years ago
Reply to  Rick Caird

I don’t know…why don’t we still have slavery…blacks only make up 15% of the population. Rick you’re stupid.

Rick Caird
Rick Caird
8 years ago
Reply to  Jeff Phillips

Non sequitur much. Jeff?

Jeff Phillips
Jeff Phillips
8 years ago
Reply to  Rick Caird

No they aren’t making up anything. They ruled it was unconstitutional to not allow everyone to marry. They didn’t create any new law.

Rick Caird
Rick Caird
8 years ago
Reply to  Jeff Phillips

Of course they did, Jeff. I guess you need a few lessons in civics.

Jeff Phillips
Jeff Phillips
8 years ago
Reply to  Rick Caird

They didn’t, what new law was created?

Rick Caird
Rick Caird
8 years ago
Reply to  Jeff Phillips

That’s the point, Jeff The Supreme Court cannot create legislation. But, they can change laws already in existence and that is what they did.

Rosen Otter
Rosen Otter
8 years ago
Reply to  RegT

So? No judge is required to perform marriages, and the judge did not prevent anyone from being married – unlike Davis.

RegT
RegT
8 years ago
Reply to  Rosen Otter

It was part of the job she signed on for. Her refusal was out of spite and unprofessional. Also, liberals like to keep it quiet, but the gal refusing to provide licenses for gay couples is a Democrat with religious principles. I never said Davis was correct in her behavior, but they _both_ prevented people who wanted to get married from doing so.

Jeff Phillips
Jeff Phillips
8 years ago

No it’s not, her signature just states its legal for these people to be married under the law. She’s not actually marrying anyone.

Just Saying
Just Saying
8 years ago

so who are the religious fanatics in America? who is trying to claim their god is above the law in Kentucky?

Steve
Steve
8 years ago
Reply to  Just Saying

Who is threatening to kill you if you don’t believe as they do? Who is saying you CANT believe as you do?

Just Saying
Just Saying
8 years ago
Reply to  Steve

No one in america. At least not anyone I know of.

sodacrackers2
sodacrackers2
8 years ago
Reply to  Just Saying

God is above the law!

Just Saying
Just Saying
8 years ago
Reply to  sodacrackers2

Lol. No, a mythical entity is not above the law.

wilypagan
wilypagan
8 years ago
Reply to  Just Saying

Kim Davis. When asked under whose authority she was refusing to issue the licenses she said “under God’s authority”. Terribly unAmerican. The witch looks mean and needs to be sued into bankruptcy.

Steve
Steve
8 years ago

A religious person may try to convert you and may shun you, socially, if you don’t. A fanatic will FORCE you to convert and KILL you if you don’t. See a slight difference?

Rosen Otter
Rosen Otter
8 years ago
Reply to  Steve

I’ve noticed a number of Christians reminding us that homosexuals are to be killed. One even tried to get it on the ballot in California. Where are the Christians speaking out against this?

Steve
Steve
8 years ago
Reply to  Rosen Otter

I have NEVER seen advocation of execution of homosexuals by any Christian group. Should I see, one, I would advocate THEIR violent overthrow. If you know of one, please tell me.

Dave
Dave
8 years ago

You are being wilfully obtuse. I know you’re not so thick that you don’t get his point, which is that one religion is above secular law, but another religion shouldn’t be? So our government is supposed to put christian religious beliefs on a pedestal, but any other beliefs shouldn’t be allowed to supercede the laws of our secular country? Christianity is no better or more valid than any other religion, period.

Aajaxx
Aajaxx
8 years ago

These are people who may call themselves Muslims, but are they really representative of anything except fundamentalists in a position of power? How would it be any different with Christian fundamentalists in power? I for one do not wish to find out.

Mildred Rosewater
Mildred Rosewater
8 years ago
Reply to  Rob Logan

No point was missed troll boy. WND got it right. Fox needs to flush gay man Shep. He actually thinks he is good looking. He looks freaky to me with those eyes a foot apart.

Butch
Butch
8 years ago

He might be able to pass as a boy’s underwear model. Remember, it was old Shep boy that was taking up for illegal aliens a few years ago as if anyone asked for his opinion. LOL

Brad Elenes
Brad Elenes
8 years ago

Your an idiot.

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago
Reply to  Brad Elenes

“Your”? Pot Kettle.

Brad Elenes
Brad Elenes
8 years ago

I’m sorry I didn’t use you are or you’re. Bitch

Ron Cole
Ron Cole
8 years ago
Reply to  Brad Elenes

To paraphrase that blonde talkster,
“Shut up and dance”.

Brad Elenes
Brad Elenes
8 years ago

People who believe in God’s are crazy.

Ron Cole
Ron Cole
8 years ago
Reply to  Brad Elenes

Some advice. Stay away for lightning and storms.

Rosen Otter
Rosen Otter
8 years ago
Reply to  Ron Cole

Google ‘church struck by lightning’, then google ‘gay bar struck by lightning’. See which gives more results.

Dave
Dave
8 years ago

WND, LOL ! What’s your next solid unbiased source, Mad Magazine?

USMCInfidel
USMCInfidel
8 years ago
Reply to  Rob Logan

Rob, you’re the idiot.

bobcchicago
bobcchicago
8 years ago
Reply to  Rob Logan

I am sorry …. the muslims still win. They are the religious fanatics. Bible thumpers aren’t cutting off heads and hands or raping women and girls …. because it is in the koran.

Steve
Steve
8 years ago
Reply to  Rob Logan

Uh…I define a religious person as one who lives by biblical law…plus or minus a few variations. A FANATIC is one who does not TOLERATE deviation and WILL KILL YOU if you disagree…BIG DIFFERENCE between a frown and a knife!

sodacrackers2
sodacrackers2
8 years ago
Reply to  Rob Logan

So you think this little brave lady is going to go hunting now? Duh!

wilypagan
wilypagan
8 years ago
Reply to  Rob Logan

Pamela is no idiot. She is single minded and likely sees islamofascism as a bigger threat than Kim Davis.

photohounds
photohounds
8 years ago
Reply to  Rob Logan

Fanatics or not, you are your statement is incorrect. Whether you are religious or not, the late JC said “Give unto Caesar that which is due to Caesar…”.

Is it that difficult to understand the this statement means that HIS followers should OBEY the law?
Which “people” are saying you should disobey the law?
Fringe groups?

The quest for a totalitarian caliphate led by some “holy” man is MANDATED in islam. It is even taught that LYING to advance the prospect is perfectly acceptable. This is sedition and that is openly stated as an objective.

Again .. believer or not, learn something.

Rick Caird
Rick Caird
8 years ago
Reply to  Rob Logan

No, Rob, you have missed the point and do not understand the issue. Sharia law says do what I tell you to do or there will be consequences (same as US law btw). What Kim Davis is saying is I refuse to use my name (as required by the State of Kentucky) on marriage licenses because that conflict with my religious beliefs. She is not say that there will be consequences if you go to the next county and get a license.

It is clear that most of the lefties do not understand what is going on, here

Myrna Wright
Myrna Wright
8 years ago

wow, Pamela. i’ve read a lot of willfully ignorant things about this in the last week. put you have taken denial and obfuscation to an incredible new level.

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago
Reply to  Myrna Wright

Pot. Kettle.

Starland sound
Starland sound
8 years ago

Of COURSE we dont want sharia law, this is the judeo Christian west… why do you Shep? they would take your sodomite backside, tie your arms behind your back and throw you off a building… they like doing that with Gays.

Christina Murphy
Christina Murphy
8 years ago
Reply to  Starland sound

So you sound as homophobic as they are!!! I am sick of everyone pandering to the “social conservatives”. And if you don’t think evangelicals can be every bit as dangerous as radical Islamists I site matthew Shephard and David Cato as examples.

RCCA
RCCA
8 years ago

Assumes facts not in evidence. There is no evidence that people on the left have a clue about sharia law, thanks to leftist media, or that they support sharia law. I’d say the opposite was true if they have any knowledge about Islam. I don’t know Shepard Smith at all. Does he support Sharia? From his comments I doubt it.

Supporters of Kim Davis want to distinguish between Christian law and Islamic law and they want to impose their interpretation of Christian law by government. That’s a violation of the 1st Amendment. That’s not going to happen. You either have religious accommodations for Christians and Muslims, or none.

I really had a hard time deciphering this post. Nasty comments over at WND though.

Dave Gerard
Dave Gerard
8 years ago

Man you are a special kind of stupid aren’t you?

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago
Reply to  Dave Gerard

Bathroom mirror moment?

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago

How about Gay Marriage in Sharia Law enclaves?

trapperrick
trapperrick
8 years ago

You have willfully misstated Shep Smith’s commentary. He is spot on in noting the hypocrisy of those condemning theocracy while simultaneously celebrating it. How can a rational person possibly glean from his commentary that he supports Sharia law??

germinfestedmisfit
germinfestedmisfit
8 years ago
Reply to  trapperrick

seriously, reading or listening comprehension of this author must not exist or be minimal at best. this is why logic should be taught in public school. i think it’s more important then calculus for the average person.

Scout
Scout
8 years ago
Reply to  trapperrick

Spot on!

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago
Reply to  trapperrick

Is that like the hypocrisy of the Red/Green – Socialist/Islamofascist Axis of Evil?

What’s “progressive” about siding with people who stone girls to death over “family honor”, hang gay teens, deny the holocaust, call for death to Ameria and Israel?

trapperrick
trapperrick
8 years ago

I hope you are just really drunk….and not just really that stupid. When you sober up, re-read your posts and see if even you can make any sense out of them.

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago
Reply to  trapperrick

Are you on your “medical” marijuana or are you just a run of the mill idiot?

The Red/Green Axis of evil – KGB Putin backing Islamist regime of iran – not cool or progressive.

Larenzo1
Larenzo1
8 years ago
Reply to  trapperrick

He can’t your post is senseless.

Larenzo1
Larenzo1
8 years ago
Reply to  trapperrick

You are full of crap no one was celebrating a theocracy in KY! You are as brain dead as Shemp and no Christian wants a theocracy nor do we want an oligarchy. Pull your head out of that orifice known as a rectum.

Hilikus
Hilikus
8 years ago
Reply to  Larenzo1

No, you want to be exempt from civil law, when it conflicts even indirectly with religion’s laws…kinda like shiara…which is exactly what Shep Smith was saying. It’s fine and dandy if you want that, as long as you understand 2 things…it is exactly like trying to enforce shiara law on people, and that is not the way our country is set up to run. Not being able to impose your beliefs on others is not discrimination, it is the foundation of the American way.

tryingtopickaname
tryingtopickaname
8 years ago
Reply to  Hilikus

It’s exactly like Sharia? Kentucky is forcibly mandating attendance at Christian churches? Kentucky is condemning gays to death? What, exactly, is the civil law that confers the right to gay marriage? Are you referring to SCOTUS’ conjuring of a brand new law with no legislative authority to do so?

Hilikus
Hilikus
8 years ago

It’s exactly like enforcing Sharia, or any other piece of any religion through government. I like what you did there…leaving out words, and changing the meaning of what I said. If you can’t get your point across with honesty, what kind of point do you have?

As far as your feelings on the SCOTUS, and how it works in our system of government…feel as you wish, but history, and the foundations of our country disagree with you. We could go into dishonest wording again though if you really wish. They ruled that denying a set of rights to a specific group of people was against what the constitution said. It created a situation where homosexual marriage was now legal…but they made no law, they only ruled against an unconstitutional one.

1digger
1digger
8 years ago
Reply to  Hilikus

If you cannot understand the difference between Christianity and Sharia, then it’s scary to think you walk the streets with that kind of ignorance leading you. One could spend a lifetime with Christians and not lose your head; one could spend nary a day with those that practice Sharia and either be gender mutilated, raped or lose your head. Go ahead Hilki and join your buddies with ISIS, they’ll put you to the ‘head’ of the class just before they lop it off.

There’s a phrase that you emulate, it’s useful idiot.

Hilikus
Hilikus
8 years ago
Reply to  1digger

This has NOTHING to do with the differences in Christianity and Islam. This has to do with the government pushing or favoring a religion over the laws of the land. It doesn’t matter which religion it is, it is bad for both the government, and the religion it’s favoring. Once it’s legislated what you believe, then it’s not long before those legislated beliefs are no longer yours. It has to remain separate to prevent both from being tainted (which we’re doing poorly). Understand this..this that I am saying right now…stop and read it slowly, so you don’t think I’m promoting Islam, or comparing Christianity to it, or even more ridiculously…, supporting a terrorist organization. It is illegal to preform a government job under religious laws (when they conflict). Saying or acting otherwise when in a government position is no different than giving the pope authority over our laws, or allowing sharia in Muslim majority areas, or giving Hinduism control of beef production. It is not fair to people who do not subscribe to those beliefs, yet fund the governments ability to oppress them through taxes. It is why our system of government is set up in a way to prevent such a thing from happening.

As far as the term “useful idiot” goes…there is no point in me arguing about it with you, but here i go anyway…but your mirrors are need to be cleaned. You are a walking talking political propaganda point, aimed at a group of people who would be called a very unflattering name if I felt like being a little more crude.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago

“What, exactly, is the civil law that confers the right to gay marriage?”

There doesn’t need to be a special law. Here’s the very simple version:

Right now, all 50 states have a law requiring couples to get a license from the government to marry.

The 14th Amendment has an equal protection clause, meaning the government can’t selectively pick and choose who qualifies for protection from or access to benefits of a law.

As a result of this Amendment, laws that prevented states from issuing licenses to same-sex couples are illegal.

Meaning…if a state requires couples to get a license, they have to give them to both straight and gay couples. The law that confers the right is the 14th Amendment.

Patrick
Patrick
8 years ago
Reply to  Larenzo1

“Always nice to hear from a “christian”… lovely attitude! And -BONUS- we finally get to hear from the ONE person who speaks for all of them: “NO Christian wants a theocracy” Thanks for clearing that up, because it sure looks like it from here. But ‘Larenzo1’ says “no”, so “no” it is! Oh, by the way mister ‘christian”… “You are full of crap”, “You are… brain dead” and the witty capper: “Pull your head out of that orifice known as a rectum.” -Clever! -Did you learn that hate in your “church” that we taxpayers foot the bill for?

Larenzo1
Larenzo1
8 years ago
Reply to  Patrick

You cannot read very well either I did not say I was Christian nor would I describe myself as particularly pious. So I was obviously right you do have you’re head up your ass. I do not go to church. But I do know the difference of right and wrong.

Patrick
Patrick
8 years ago
Reply to  Larenzo1

You dickless little fuckstick!!! Yes, YOU referred to Christians as “WE”. So have the testicles to back up what you say.

Larenzo1
Larenzo1
8 years ago
Reply to  Patrick

You are a liar and must be an angry deranged homosexual do not blame me because you have poor comprehension. Of course when you lose the argument you resort to vulgarities. I bet you would fit right in with the homosexual Nazis but I am sure you would be color coordinated.

Patrick
Patrick
8 years ago
Reply to  Larenzo1

**yawn**

tryingtopickaname
tryingtopickaname
8 years ago
Reply to  trapperrick

Can you, as a self-proclaimed rational person, really not discern the difference between theocracy and the right to accommodation of religious conscience? You can’t discern that Davis was hired prior to the SCOTUS’ magical *interpretation* of a law that does not exist, for starters? Are you willing to similarly condemn the hypocrisy of supporting a *law* that was divined through SCOTUS’ abrogation of Congress’ legislative authority? I ask because you are so rational and logical and all that…

trapperrick
trapperrick
8 years ago

Your post seems as much a non sequitur to mine as Pam Geller’s was to Shep Smith’s comments. He was not advocating for Sharia law. Where did she get something like that from?
What he was complaining about:
Smith: “This is the same crowd that says “We don’t want Sharia law.””
me: but they want their god’s law to be superior to and overrule civil law – not just for them, but for all of us.
Smith: [they say] “Keep your religion out of our lives and out of our government”
me: but they want their religion to dictate things in other’s lives, and they insist it not be separated from our government.
Smith: [they say] “Don’t let them come in here and tell us what to do”
me: but they insist they have the authority under their god to deny others their rights and refuse to do their duty.
And Shep Smith’s other comment on this was to point out his opinion that accommodation was not what they really wanted as it had been offered and refused, then accomplished and insisted it was void, over the assurances of the governor and attorney general that they were valid. What they really wanted was more of what they wanted all along – to be obstructive, and to whip up religious fervor so that they can milk it for all they can.
A responsible legal team would have avoided this from the start. Kim would have been advised of how things would surely happen and of what to do. This bunch of grandstanders are out to keep this going.

trapperrick
trapperrick
8 years ago
Reply to  trapperrick

Is that Jesus speaking through you?

trapperrick
trapperrick
8 years ago
Reply to  trapperrick

Bible – been there, done that, grew up.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  trapperrick

Based on your mean-spirited comments and insults, I’m baffled how you can claim to know much of anything about God.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago

The law has existed since 1868. It was written by members of Congress and ratified by the states.

It’s called the 14th Amendment. It’s not open to interpretation. It’s also not open to exceptions for Kim Davis’s conscience.

ElPolacko
ElPolacko
8 years ago
Reply to  trapperrick

Sheppard Smith’s statement might have some validity if Christians were throwing homosexuals off multi-story buildings like Islamic radicals but that isn’t happening. Equating a woman that refused to issue marriage licenses to ISIS murderers is over the top, an insult to all Christians and totally inappropriate for ANY news anchor. (Especially Fox News) Don’t even try to defend Shep on this one, Trapperrick… he was OUT OF LINE!!!!

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago
Reply to  ElPolacko

Fox is losing it.

Is Ruperts socialist son mucking up the works?

Just Saying
Just Saying
8 years ago
Reply to  ElPolacko

he didn’t equate her to ISIS. he equated one religious law with another. he is talking about separation of religion and governance. you can’t be an agent of the government and refuse to implement the government’s laws based on your religion.

Just Saying
Just Saying
8 years ago
Reply to  Just Saying

I would image homosexuals are against those who are against them. So that would make sense.

Nonetheless, what he said didn’t equate her to isis.

Just Saying
Just Saying
8 years ago
Reply to  Just Saying

Why do you oppose homosexuals?

Just Saying
Just Saying
8 years ago
Reply to  Just Saying

Nothing special about marriage.

Just Saying
Just Saying
8 years ago
Reply to  Just Saying

Then why bother the government with it. Just keep it between you and your god. Let the government issue their godless marriages and you can keep your sacred marriages out of the public realm.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  Just Saying

Exactly. Gay couples aren’t looking for “special” rights from the government. They’re looking for the same rights. Which they are entitled to under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.

As long as marriage is a government-ordained institution, it has to be legal for everyone.

Just Saying
Just Saying
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

yeah, nobody is saying the gays have to be allowed to marry in a ‘god ordained’ church or ceremony. she is a clerk of the court, not a clerk of god.

trapperrick
trapperrick
8 years ago
Reply to  ElPolacko

One sure sign of somebody NOT having a valid argument is when they have to make stuff up. Please show where Shep Smith equated Kim Davis with ISIS. Unless you can do that, (your entire post rests on it) you are just full of hot air.

trapperrick
trapperrick
8 years ago
Reply to  trapperrick

Well, Dorrie, Don’t just say he was entirely truthful. Please paste Shep’s exact words here where he compared Kim Davis to ISIS. You know the saying – put up or ……..

trapperrick
trapperrick
8 years ago
Reply to  trapperrick

No, you see the way civilized discussion works is when a person asserts something, it is up to that person to back it up. You are just another dishonest person who claims something that isn’t true, and then when challenged on it, thinks they can get off by throwing an insult. Very childish. My wife’s 1st graders are in your class, only they are more polite.

trapperrick
trapperrick
8 years ago
Reply to  trapperrick

If you can’t run with the big dogs, get back up on the porch. So long.

christianblood
christianblood
8 years ago

99.99 percent of the people in the West and their leaders are profoundly ignorant about islam and jihad and they all think like this Fox News anchor thinks. Christian people like my self who lived under the severe islamic persecution and jihad are truly DISGUSTED to learn the profoundly naive and ignorant way that Americans and other Westerners think about islam and jihad which, I believe, is just as destructive and as criminal as the islamic jihad itself!

Mildred Rosewater
Mildred Rosewater
8 years ago

It makes perfect sense when you realize that Shep is gay himself. CNN has Lemon and Fox has Shep.

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago

CNN also has Anderson Cooper.

Scout
Scout
8 years ago

And who cares.

Mildred Rosewater
Mildred Rosewater
8 years ago

F*ck you Sheppy, you POS! This good woman could kick you sorry a$$.
.

Scout
Scout
8 years ago

Ok so we should take you seriously since you can’t post a comment without * and $$ and acronyms (POS)…

Tim Brown
Tim Brown
8 years ago

Shepard Smith doesn’t even understand Biblical law. Pam, what are you promoting here? Doesn’t your Old Testament teach that at the mouth of two or three witnesses they confirm the matter? Do Islamists do this before pitching alleged sodomites from roofs? No. They do not. They do not follow Yahweh’s commands. they are devils. Our forefathers followed the Law in their state laws concerning sodomites and it worked: http://thewashingtonstandard.com/how-the-founding-fathers-dealt-with-those-who-engaged-in-sodomy/

All governments are theocracies. Their laws are borne of the god they worship. If it is allah, then sharia…. the God of the bible, then God’s law…. humanism become evolutionary in its view of God. Are you really wanting to go down the road of the last one? That is what you are promoting in this area.

judy e
judy e
8 years ago

It’s true, many do support davis, while in the next sentence say “fire the moslem stewardess who wont serve beer”, and I have been busy pointing out that you cannot fight sharia, to replace it with biblical law
it is soooo annoying…

Roger
Roger
8 years ago

This country is hopeless! Every blog I look at is the same, bitching about Religion, Muslims, Gays, Straights, Lesbians’, Blacks, Whites, Cops, Refugees. No one talks or gives any ideas of how to safe our country. Sooner or later each one of us is going to have to choose a side. Usually in war the meanest SOB’s win. I’m staying with Pamela, at least she’s trying to save our asses from our selves.
If we don’t get together the Islamist will do it for us.
The same Hell Raising went on during the Nam war. When I left for Nam people were rioting and when I came back they were still rioting. No one won by the way!
Don’t come to my house raising hell; I’ll knock you on your ass.
Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way!
Semper Fidelis

bunsinspace
bunsinspace
8 years ago

Silly Pam Geller. No liberal EVER supported Sharia Law or government by ANY religious tyranny. If one does, one is either a religious idiot, or just a regular idiot. Sadly idiocy is not the sole province of either the political Left or Right. Broad-brushing is also idiocy, almost as bad as libel.

reagan girl
reagan girl
8 years ago

I don’t know if Shep is “out” but I know his boyfriend. He really needs to head back to Mississippi for a little dose of humility before he actually assists the people who would throw him off the 40th floor without a shred of remorse.

ApolloSpeaks
ApolloSpeaks
8 years ago

FROM RIYADH TO TEHRAN,

and running through the Islamic State, we hear loud and clear the violent Moslem war cry against homosexuals: KILL A GAY FOR ALLAH AND ISLAM-or brutally punish them. But where are the mainstream Christians wanting to kill gays for Christ, or punish them for their sins? Or do idiots like Shepard Smith equate moral objections to homosexuality based on reason, nature and faith to anti-gay violence and murder?

http://www.apollospeaks.com

ac
ac
8 years ago

” Fox’s Shepard Smith: Kim Davis supporters “same crowd that says, ‘We don’t want Sharia law’”….So apparently in Shepard Smith’s ideal world, we have both gay marriage and Sharia-Law” –> yeah, you need a special type of idiocy to make that connection…

Armaros
Armaros
8 years ago

The issue is what precedent this could set?

In states where the govt owns many liquor stores. Could a Muslim clerk refuse to sell you brandy ?

Could you be refused birth control by a Catholic pharmacist ?

Could a Liberal county/ state clerk refuse to issue a gun permit because he / she doesn’t believe in the 2nd?

Could another official censor you because according to him/her the 1st protects “hate speech”? Liberals would love to carry these precedents into the courts. They re salivating at the chance to make scenes and protest/hinder guns, protest Israel, protest/hinder free speech !

We have to be careful here. Because for every inch Christians shave off the secular state, Muslims come and carve down a feet !

Comparing refusing to sign a marriage license to stoning is indeed obscene.

The problem is the Obama Cult running the justice system which runs to the rescue of every and any Hijabi or fuzzy faced freak refusing to serve drinks/pork, wanting extra time off to pray and pay for month long Hajj outside of vacation time but “We Must Uphold the Law” when Christian idiot tries to score .

This lady may be sincere, she is not evil and should not be in jail.
But she is nuts and she is wrong . She should resign if her duties as an elected official violate her conscience. That would be the high road and that too would garner her support and she could speak freely about her opposition to gay marriage. Instead she chose to make a scene …..

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago
Reply to  Armaros

Instead she chose to make a scene ….. like Rosa Parks.

CadaveraVeroInnumero
CadaveraVeroInnumero
8 years ago

Shep is gay? Didn’t know.

If not not, the Left always misses the point of Religious Liberty. The best they can do is to “privilege” one over the other. Since Islam has the “looks” of being the “other” (brown skinned & exotic & victimized) it has become the religious fashion of the hour.

Still, the Counter-Jihad (or whatever moniker is used) must think through (have a ready answer) to the natural (and, yes, that is what it is) affinity between battle against Islam and the upholding of Judaeo-Christian morality. I know there are some stalwart warriors in the fight against Islam who have little care for traditional, orthodox Judaism and Christianity.

Suppose the touchstone that highlights this is our current debate over same-sex marriage: secularist who understand too well the existential threat of Islam in (supposed) opposition to orthodox Jews & Christians who feel no conflict in laying Islam down low and securing (founding) the institution of marriage (and family) upon its (since the origin of mankind and civilization) Natural Law foundation.

So how should these two warrior phalanxes cohabit the same field of battle?

Part of the solution is the acknowledgment that secularist (as distinct from “the Left”) are bottom-line still orthodox Jews and Christians – however much that bristles their sensitivities. The other part is the acknowledgement that Islam constructs its ethics and social ordering upon a basis totally at odds (utterly alien) from that of Jews, Christians, and even secularists.

All appearances of similarities – let’s say between the Jewish/Christian refusal to admit homosexuality as an organizing principle of a culture and Islam’s wont to toss “gays” off of high walls – is only that, an appearance shimmering on the surface of little thought.

Islam simply does not incorporate notions and ways of thinking about ethics and social behavior that we do – all its brandishing of I-Phones and blog magazines not withstanding. Access and use of technology does not an ethic make. Islam’s ethics, social organization (let alone theology) is pivoted around the character of Allah – a “god” who is capricious, arbitrary, with true interiority that reflects consistency and logic. (What Allah fears the most is the Law of Non-Contradiction and the Law of the Excluded Middle.) Allah’s character demands that it wars against all that is Allah, that the exhibition and reach of its Totalitarian Oneness is all that remains.

All of this informs Islam’s take on all (islamic) ethics and moral. To understand Islam’s (quite contradictory) behavior towards homosexuality one must begin here. For Islam *is* hypocritical regarding all things “gay”. In Islam homosexuality is utterly abhorred and utterly accepted. Anyone who has spent the least bit of time in the Middle East (or Dearborn, Mi?) grasps the point. In view of its dismissal of rational thought (due to its illogical submission to Allah) Islam does not see that as a contradiction.

Islam does both with a clear conscience: it tosses gays off of high buildings and it gladly jumps in between the gay sheets. Maybe this is how Islam snared and co-opted the Left to join its jihad (as cannon fodder) – with the Left dismissing the received” foundations of both reason and heart.

Of course,one cannot go one day into another without some lodestone of “proper” conduct – It would make life utterly unmanageable. Islam’s day-to-day guiding star is quite reasonable – in view of Allah’s character – and not surprising if one pays close attention to the awful news pouring from the sewer that is Islamic Societies.

That guiding star – the lodestar of Islam – is the Muslim male, always the Muslim male . . . [You take it from there.}

bobcchicago
bobcchicago
8 years ago

Shepard Smith I support gay rights and gay marriage. But Kim Davis should not have been put in jail over this. If she is unwilling to support Federal Laws then she should be replaced-not jail. So I take it that you want Kim Davis to be in jail and you support sharia law in America. As a gay man I would think that things could get tough on you and for LGBT people in general if that ever took hold. There is no room in America for sharia law– any immigrant who wants sharia law here should go back to where they came from….. So, does that mean I am one of those people you were talking about?

trapperrick
trapperrick
8 years ago
Reply to  bobcchicago

Bob, when a person defies a court order and is charged with civil contempt of court, he is either fined or jailed to coerce compliance with the order. As soon as the order is fulfilled, whether by the person in contempt or by others, the contempt charge is lifted. Its like this for all of us. The judge explained that fining her would be ineffective because others would pay her fines, so it was option #2 – jail.

The judge had no authority to “replace her” or as Chris Christie suggested, move her to another position (I have to wonder about these people). If he had attempted that, THEN we would all have something to complain about.

Kim Davis got the very same treatment that you or I would have received had we defied a court order, but you or I would have had better legal advice if we let our dogs represent us. She was led to jail by her self-serving legal team.

bobcchicago
bobcchicago
8 years ago
Reply to  trapperrick

Good comment.

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago
Reply to  bobcchicago

Queer Union?

Delta Rain
Delta Rain
8 years ago

Sharia and gay please the same god (satan). Same as the atheist who claim no belief. But in the end it will be revealed only two choices were really available… One path is true and narrow and the other is wide with confusion. One belongs to the world and the other belongs to God. The world joins together to hate Christ who is also God because the devil knows his real enemy.

Nessie
Nessie
8 years ago

Fox’s anchor is right on this one.
The Supreme Court interprets the constitution and establishes the law of the land. No one’s religious influence trumps that. If Davis were a Muslim who refused to issue a marriage license due to a couple being gay, the same conservatives supporting her now as a Christian would not being doing so if her decision were influenced by Sharia. One must apply the same litmus test in all situations. Davis broke US law and rightfully landed in jail for refusing to abide by the law.

Kook of the East
Kook of the East
8 years ago

Government and religion, all religion, must remain separate.
I don’t want the imams making law, I don’t want preachers making law and I don’t want the Pope making law.

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago

Lets start with a BDS of Islamic regimes.

Kook of the East
Kook of the East
8 years ago

? What is BDS?

Nessie
Nessie
8 years ago

It stands for Boycott Divest and Sanction – three generic words strung together, initially by Islamists who have harvested well meaning yet uninformed people into exclusively boycotting, divesting and sanctioning against Israel – to destroy the only democracy in the Middle East. BDSers (many who are evil and not just duped) were recently in the news when an offshoot of the vile organization forced a boycott of Matisyahu – not an Israeli, but a Jewish singer. There was a lot of global backlash against being so obviously antisemetic (antisemitism is taboo while anti Zionism is sooo en vogue) that Matisyahu (Raggae singer) was invited back and did sing though was taunted and harassed by BDSers. BDSers fill campuses with bullying and such and have been violent to Jewish students who support Israel. There is a great site called Canary Mission that lists some people and organizations who work to demonize and destroy Israel while they give a pass to real human rights violators. There is a video called “Crossing the Line 2: the New Face of Anti Semitism on Campus” that does a good job at introducing a bit about BDS.

Kook of the East
Kook of the East
8 years ago
Reply to  Nessie

Thank you Nessie. I shall visit site. I am vaguely familiar with BDS, Natalie Portman maybe? Roger Waters? other Hollywood idiots.
To Screw Socialism: I automatically assume that all islamic regimes are anti Jewish/anti Israel/anti Christian. I already boycott them.

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago

AND anti Bahai, Buddhist, Hindu, Zoroastrian and the wrong kind of Musim (sunni/shiite)

Nessie
Nessie
8 years ago

Hi Kook of the East (fun name;-).

There are other sites out there. The Canary one is new and just came to my attention. There are lots of organizations, like SJP (Students for Justice of Palestine) that are bullies, distort truth and aim to destroy Israel. Some members know this and some think they are helping Palestinians without even glancing at the Pals having no rights to land ownership, careers, etc, in the countries that caused them to flee in 1948 – like Syria and Lebanon.

Actresses like Portman, I suspect, are not aware that before the Irgun ever even conducted a preemptive attack, first Ottomans deported thousands of Jews from Tel Aviv in 1917 before British gained control, and then the British, limiting immigration of Jews fleeing Europe, allowed for many Arab on Jewish attack (most famous was Hebron Massacre which made Hebron Jew free for the first time in thousands of year) and the British stopping the Struma from docking, prohibiting Turkey from sending the 900 Jewish passengers in a ship to safety – the British were accomplices as Turkey tugged the disabled ship with almost 1000 people and no food. Russians sank it and there is one survivor. So – the Irgun realized that their homeland in what was and would be Israel was as volatile as the places in the Diaspora. Then Jews like Portman welcome talk about the way Israel was created – though from starting points that eliminate context and demonize Jews. I hope with the new movie -I am wrong – but I doubt it based on the sentiments she has been emitting (though I haven’t been following super closely). Bad guys try so hard, and with success, to control perception. Islamists have perfected this psychopathic skill. Scary.

One that happy note;-D…

Take care;-)

Drew the Infidel
Drew the Infidel
8 years ago

The Bible was written about Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago

Shakespeare wrote about Romeo and Juliette.

NOT Romeo and Julio.

Larenzo1
Larenzo1
8 years ago

I believe Shemps brain is rotting from some form of self hate. It has been stated before that he is a homosexual and he is so simple minded he cannot understand this woman an elected official broke no law! She is actually protected by a Religious Freedom Law in Kentucky. I stopped watching Shemp years ago because I firmly believe he is a deviant and hiding it.

Dick Adams
Dick Adams
8 years ago

Shepard Smith is a offensive, Liberal biased little Creep on any topic. Why he is on FOX News and not MSNBC is surely a mystery.

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago
Reply to  Dick Adams

Whenever I would look at Shepard Smiths face, I thought he looked like he just got a facial or a makeover at Sephora.

Owen_Morgan
Owen_Morgan
8 years ago

Am I the only reader here who actually bothered to read what Smith said and Pamela quoted? Kim Davis is protesting about a judgement which suddenly rendered her conduct of her job illegal. There is not one person on the planet, including the Supreme Court invertebrate who swung the decision, who could come up with a justification for changing the law, so that Kim Davis was observing the law one day and breaking it on the next, on the say-so of the Supreme Court. Now, I’m British, so may be ignorant of these matters, but I thought it was the job of Congress in the United States to make the laws.

The difference between the Davis position and opposing sharia is profound. Davis has always obeyed the laws of the land, until the laws suddenly took the ground from under her feet. Accepting sharia law, in any form, is disastrous to any legal system, because sharia is, supposedly, the will of allah. No other laws count. By definition, sharia is utterly incompatible with any advanced law code.

When some windbag Supreme Court Justice miraculously discovers that the Constitution allows for sharia, will you all be braying then that “the law is the law”?

Sadly, I expect that some of you will.

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago
Reply to  Owen_Morgan

The former archbishop of canterbury, rowan williams, said that sharia law is compatible with English law.

AofC is part of the reason the UK is dying.

How many Brits have to be beheaded, bombed, shot, raped by the 30%+ sharia law thumping islamists until the UK gets off its knees?

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago

rowan willaims is the Archbishop of Quislingbury.

Ryan Muhammad
Ryan Muhammad
8 years ago

Kim asked the perfect question: ‘Under what law am I authorized to issue homosexual couples a marriage license?’ The Supreme Court cannot and did not make a law. They only made a ruling on a law. Congress makes the laws. Because Congress has made no law allowing for same sex marriage, Kim does not have the constitutional authority to issue a marriage license to homosexual couples.

I see many on this forum, who call for Kim to issue “gay marriage” licenses, would call for Kim Davis to issue “marriage” licenses to Muslim men and 6 year-old girls. After all, you can’t both be opposed to pedophile “marriage” and for “gay marriage”. That would be “racist and bigoted” according to many on this forum, “discriminating against some”. Would your conscience prevent you from issuing a child “marriage” license? If you would refuse to do so, and you condemn Kim for refusing “gay marriage” licenses, then you are an absolute hypocrite. And don’t give me any nonsense about child “marriage” not being legal because gay “marriage” was not legal before it was. The door to destruction of marriage was opened by “gay marriage” because now that marriage has been redefined, and words like “hate” and “bigotry” are used against anyone opposing the redefining of marriage, then polygamous “marriage” and child “marriage” and “marriage” to animals and every other form of possible perversion is fair game.

Hilikus
Hilikus
8 years ago

I can’t believe this was posted publicly. The author of this article must have an extremely low opinion of her readers’ intelligence.

Hilikus
Hilikus
8 years ago
Reply to  Hilikus

I believe the author of this article is smart enough to understand what Shep Smith was saying (The same people saying they won’t have others’ religious beliefs imposed on them, are trying to impose their beliefs on others), yet her article twists the words so badly, it doesn’t even resemble the intent. Instead she uses inflammatory words, that appeals to emotion instead of fact, shooting for outrage instead of honesty.

Zorb
Zorb
8 years ago
Reply to  Hilikus

Judging by many of the responses, that low opinion would seem to be justified. I wish I could give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that they’re just pretending to not understand what Shep actually meant, but I think most of them really are just that stupid.

Tom McBride
Tom McBride
8 years ago

Shut up Sheppard we aren’t listening anymore.

honeybee
honeybee
8 years ago

he uses his head only to grow hair.

Just Saying
Just Saying
8 years ago

“So apparently in Shepard Smith’s ideal world, we have both gay marriage and Sharia.” that is not what he is saying at all. he is saying no religious law means no religious law. no sharia and no Leviticus or Deuteronomy or whatever ‘Christian law’ this woman is trying to impose.

rambler
rambler
8 years ago

One should take the religion out of the argument here and look at the law.
Davis is an elected official who works for the STATE and not for the FEDS. She has to follow her state law and constitution. The feds have not passed any law which she has violated. She would have been in violation of her own state law and constitution if she had capitulated to the supreme court RULING. A Ruling is not the same as a LAW! Marriage is a STATE concern. If the feds want to have gay marriage legal then the feds should pass a law and then have the feds give out the wedding certificates.
Further, the feds currently fail to enforce laws all the time. That is their job and it isn’t to enforce things which are not current law. Why even have state governments or laws if the feds will just impose tyranny.

NotTheMama
NotTheMama
8 years ago

As usual, the Shep is clueless.

rex epps
rex epps
8 years ago

do you not know the difference christian values and sharia law. Come on shepard you are smarter than that.

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago
Reply to  rex epps

The Fox News brand has been damaged, thanks to Rupert Murdochs regressive progressive son.

Louise Mitchell
Louise Mitchell
8 years ago

If sharia law is allowed here all gays will die is that what you want

kktex12
kktex12
8 years ago

smith is a blowhard pos. he needs to go. Look at his hand. He is giving a recognized sign on the one world government. He is a loser!!!!!

David Ratliff
David Ratliff
8 years ago

First of all, you bleeding heart liberals who claim Shari’a law belongs in this country are nut. jobs……you are obviously of the mentality “”””it can’t happen here””””, when you see the immense problems facing the easten world….
Second of all, Congress never voted on same sex marriage…… only Congress can actually make law…..
Third, Mrs. Davis was actually upholding Kentucky law……kuckabe, Cruz, even Trey gowdy have explained this….
The supreme court has no jurisdiction over fundamental, or religious law…..
You can argue that all you want….
The supreme court’s job is to enforce constitutional law…..
That’s where this gets tricky……the infringement of rights of both Christian and religion are being ridiculed…….
There is absolutely nothing wrong with protests on both sides of this……
What I find most interesting about this article is the fact that he is stating that the same people are against Shari’a law…..
This see is a joke, right????
If the gay community out there think as this is a religion of peace, then I challenge a gay couple to walk into a mosque full of Muslims and demand to be married…..
Does that not seem suicidal to you????
So, go ahead…..prove to us all that Shari’a law accepts homosexuality……
I really wouldn’t recommend it, but hey, if Christian rights are being attacked by homosexuality, then shouldn’t all faiths be expected to accept it now????.
After all, as all gays say…….it’s the law of the land now

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  David Ratliff

But the US Constitution is the higher law. States can’t make laws that are in conflict with it. And since the 14th Amendment conveys equal protection on all citizens and invalidated the very law that Kim Davis cited, Kim Davis is wrong.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

You seem to fail to grasp one simple truth: states cannot pass laws that are in conflict with the US Constitution. It doesn’t matter how many people in that state vote for it. It

And you also fail to grasp that SCOTUS did not make a new law. They invalidated an illegal law, a law that prevented gay couples from applying for marriage licenses. As soon as the law was proven to be illegal, Kim Davis was no longer permitted – as a public servant – to enforce an illegal law.

In all seriousness, please learn basic Civics (and the core facts of this case) before using all caps and exclamation points. And before you tell people to read the Constitution, perhaps read it yourself. The 14th Amendment is pretty damn clear, and doesn’t allow for exceptions by states or individual government employees.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

OMFG.

The law that Kentucky passed was ruled ILLEGAL. Because it violated the Constitution.

And again, you turn to personal attacks when you don’t have the facts to back up your fantasy.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

See, hypocrisy. You are all over this board writhing with anger, mean-spiritedness and faux righteousness. But someone bites back and you can’t take the heat.

Your facts are still wrong.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

And you are judging me to be a liberal simply because I believe in upholding the US Constitution and the legal processes our founders instilled.

If you and your quasi-religious ilk want to win the presidential election, you need to stop hating people like me, stop hating anyone, stop obsessing about who grown consenting adults love and want to commit to, and start being a good caring human being.

Patti York
Patti York
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

The opponents understand us, they just dont want to hear it. This is a done deal,,just the Hobby Lobby ruling was FINAL. Didnt hear them bitching then did you?

Patti York
Patti York
8 years ago
Reply to  Patti York

Not subscribing to your fascist nonsense doesnt make me a progressive, but it does make you a fascist. Whats the politically correct term for American fascism now?,,,oh yeah,,,”social conservative”,,sounds so much nicer and cuddly,,,,,(gag)

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

Proposition 8 in California won, but was nullified by an activist judge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago

AND the judge who nullified Prop 8 vote is an LGBT activist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughn_Walker

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago

I didn’t know until a few hours ago that the judge who nullified the Prop 8 vote was gay too.

He should have disqualified himself due to conflict of interest because he had the most to gain from a decision that he could steer.

Patti York
Patti York
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

Do you know what the 14th amendment is? It is the basis for the ruling. They made the correct legal decision, no matter how much you stamp your feet. The state same sex marriage bans are unconstitutional,,,and guess what,,that always have been.

Patti York
Patti York
8 years ago
Reply to  Patti York

What part of ‘equal protection under the law” are you not grasping? the founding fathers never stated that only certain pet groups of people were entitled to equal protection.

C2
C2
8 years ago

You are Dammed right Sheppard Smith and you Dammed sure better not forget it, cause we ain’t backing down no more.

Atikva
Atikva
8 years ago

What’s so contradictory about refusing sharia law in America and supporting Mrs. Kim Davis?

Sharia laws concerning homosexuality, polygamy, slavery, the status of women, religious conversion, punishment for theft and other offenses, intolerance, etc..are in total contradiction with our own secular laws and cannot possibly be tolerated in the West. (I am looking forward to hearing Mr. Shepard Smith about the reaction of muslim clerks when they will be asked to issue marriage licenses to muslim same sex applicants in any Western country.)

On the other hand, the Supreme Court Decree decree concerning homosexuals violates our own liberties. “This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine .. robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: THE FREEDOM TO GOVERN THEMSELVES.” (Supreme Court Justice Member Antonin Scalia).

So in opposing sharia law and supporting Mrs. Davis, we are defending the exactly same thing: our freedoms as American citizens.

Mr. Shepard Smith “thinking” is rather superficial. Incidentally, he didn’t bother either to get acquainted with Kentucky’s laws concerning the issuance of marriage licenses before talking about Mrs. Kim Davis..

So far, officers in 15 counties and 4 States are holding the same position as Mrs. Davis and it’s probably just the beginning. The Supreme Court has opened a can of worms, for as Supreme Court Justice Scalia said: “A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”

Atikva
Atikva
8 years ago
Reply to  Atikva

What do you expect from the islamo-socialist clique? They have already eradicated any knowledge of the people’ language and history in the European countries, now it’s our turn.

Atikva
Atikva
8 years ago
Reply to  Atikva

Sadly true.

Atikva
Atikva
8 years ago

Removing all homosexuals from the media would be as ridiculous as removing all Christians from public service. In turn, removing those in the media who are bombarding the public with disinformation because of their politics or personal lifestyle would be a definite improvement.

But then, there wouldn’t be many people left in the media, would there?

Patti York
Patti York
8 years ago

I watched the clip. I didnt see where he said he wanted sharia in America, he said that Davis supporters were the same people that said they didnt want it here. Davis’s supporters want the SC ruling on marriage thrown out because of THEIR religious beliefs. I see no contradiction in his words. Her supporters are theocrats. The sharia is theocratic. If her supporters want to live in a country where they dont have to deal with gay people, they should move to a place like Iran where they can watch them dangling from cranes. or thrown off buildings. It’s a win-win, for all involved, except of course the guys getting killed. I’ll pay for their one way tickets. Davis would look MUCH better covered from head to toe anyway.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  Patti York

You still don’t understand, even though multiple people have corrected your misinformation.

States can’t make laws that violate the US Constitution.
SCOTUS didn’t make a law, they invalidated one.
Kim Davis doesn’t have the right to enforce laws that have been ruled illegal.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

In United States v. Windsor (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court declared Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Facts. Again your downfall.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

I just find it entertaining that every time I cite facts, you respond with insults.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

“In United States v. Windsor (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court declared Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.”

Facts. You can’t escape ’em.

PS – your above insults and unrestrained anger are excellent examples of what Jesus would not do.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

PS …Kentucky’s law defining marriage as between a man and a woman was in fact found in violation of the US Constitution by SCOTUS. The law was instantly invalidated.

Here is the history, with the update at the top.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/same-sex-marriage-laws.aspx

Facts are your friend.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

Sigh. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. It guaranteed equal protection for everyone.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

Sweetie, gay couples just wanted the same right as straight couples. They didn’t ask for anything extra. No special benefits. No “free divorces”. No extra flowers.

As long as the government licenses “marriage,” gay couples have the right to receive the same licenses under the same moniker.

Now, I don’t believe the government should be licensing relationships at all. That is really the best solution. But as a side note, no one owns the word “marriage”.

There is nothing reasonable about this comment thread. You also don’t know my political affiliation. I’m guessing on a great many issues we would be simpatico. But I won’t be quiet when I see people spreading false information and hate, and ruining what it means to be a conservative or libertarian. The younger generation are far more accepting of people’s differences, and are grossed out by the bigotry and hate being spewed by a minority of the Republican party. So I’m going to fight it when I see it.

Patti York
Patti York
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

Keep preaching that nonsense,,,even, “disordered” people are entitled to equal protection under the law.

Patti York
Patti York
8 years ago
Reply to  Patti York

Same sex marriage bans are a violation of the US constitution, What part of that are you not getting?

Poptoy1949D
Poptoy1949
8 years ago

Shep can go Straight to HELL !

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago
Reply to  Poptoy1949

HELL being MSNBC.

CadaveraVeroInnumero
CadaveraVeroInnumero
8 years ago

For some the link may be difficult to read. Stay with it. Towards the end are some pertinent remarks about Islam and homosexuality. Worth considering. See my prior post for background. (My profile is public.)

http://shoebat.com/2015/09/10/homosexual-activists-tell-kim-davis-we-will-kidnap-your-husband-tie-him-up-and-force-him-to-watch-us-raping-you-we-will-burn-you-alive-civil-unrest-is-coming-to-america/

patteel
patteel
8 years ago

Kim was following her own state’s law.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  patteel

Her state’s law was invalidated when the Supreme Court ruled it was illegal.

That means there was no longer a law. No matter how many people in the state wish otherwise. Why? Because states aren’t allowed to enact laws that violate the US Constitution.

'Change' you will get...
'Change' you will get...
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

So under what Kentucky Statute would she be authorized to issue a marriage license to other than heterosexual couples?

There is no such law granting her that authority.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago

It’s the opposite. She isn’t allowed to choose which consenting adults get to qualify for a license.

There’s no need for a law explicitly permitting same-sex couples to get a license, because there is a law that prohibits her from denying a license to them.

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

Polygamy is illegal and I expect Ms. Davis would also refuse to issue a license for a polygamous “marriage”.

pdxnag
pdxnag
8 years ago

I am sure that some smart government lawyer could find divine inspiration from the SCOTUS’ latest ruling for the need to recognize polyamorous marriages because failure to do so would be unequal and thus illegal, and without even the need to ask the legislature whether they would prefer to drop marriage all together rather than embrace such a progressive reading of law.

'Change' you will get...
'Change' you will get...
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

What law, not judicial order, is that?

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago

The law that prohibits her from denying a license to some couples while giving it to other couples is called the 14th Amendment. It has been in effect since 1868. It is a law that was written by Congress, and ratified by the states.

It is a law. Not a judicial order. The judicial ruling said that – because of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause – Kentucky’s statute denying same-sex couples a license was illegal, and invalid.

'Change' you will get...
'Change' you will get...
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

The 14th Amendment may or not be the rational behind the votes of five Supreme Court Justices, but their ruling struck down a law, it didn’t create a new law. Finding a law outlawing marriage, except by heterosexual couples, unconstitutional does not create one providing for marriage by anyone.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

It is up to local, state or Federal legislatures to make laws.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago

Except Kentucky still has a valid marriage law. They’re just no longer able to discriminate against who gets to participate based on the gender of the applicants.

pdxnag
pdxnag
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

Still here?

Can you find support for same sex marriage by reading Kentucky statutes alone without reference to any court opinion?

No. Thus all marriages are no longer authorized under Kentucky’s statutes until the Kentucky legislature replaces marriage law — but only if they chose to — because neither the SCOTUS nor Congress can forcibly insert text into state statutes.

The holding invalidating all marriages, unless a state (including the legislature here) affirmatively agrees to recognize gay marriage, is still on the books.

“State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite sex couples. ” slip opinion page 23.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Maybe this is where you get tripped up in your reasoning:

The phrase “on the same terms and conditions” means that you must look to any and all marriage related sections of the code (and common law too) and strike out (i.e., hold invalid as the SCOTUS says) those where gays don’t get the same favorable treatment or recognition as natural couples.

Sarah M
Sarah M
8 years ago
Reply to  pdxnag

Except that Kentucky had two laws. One requiring state licensing of marriages, the other defining who qualified. Only the second law was invalidated, meaning the first still exists.

pdxnag
pdxnag
8 years ago
Reply to  Sarah M

Read them together. Isn’t it routine for a court to have to cite and interpret three or four pieces of statutory text, including a definitions section, to determine an outcome? Otherwise a single statutory sentence with a bunch of inclusions and exclusions might have to be like a 500 word essay. Look to the substance not the form.

veritas
veritas
8 years ago
Reply to  patteel

Why , did someone ask her to get gay married ? Because , there was a time when getting a divorce was very difficult , and Kim has been married …ahhh..four times. So, I guess marriage isn’t so sanctified for her, is it ?

veritas
veritas
8 years ago
Reply to  veritas

OH YEAH !! I thought of somethjing ELSE TO SAY TO YOU, ….
if she don’t have ta be a Christian before she is one..
then why are you insisting gay people be straight or whatever f*d idea you have about what “they” should be doing instead of being just who they are ?

Are you about to say it’s a choice….PROVE THAT…. prove it by doing it or SHUT UP. What fifteen year old gay girl or guy that has to face YOUR hatred and PEOPLE LIKE YOU…..WANTS TO ??
People are who they are when it comes to love. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO POLITICS …..THAT IS A CHOICE…and YOU are making the choice to SPEW HATRED AT PEOPLE YOU DON”T EVEN KNOW…JUST LIKE A JEWISH HATER.

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago
Reply to  veritas

Pedophiles face hatred.

Socialists hate anyone who is not a socialist.

veritas
veritas
8 years ago

sorry ,not getting ya ?

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago
Reply to  veritas

Is your shift key broken? It looks like it turns on randomly.

veritas
veritas
8 years ago

nope. I think that we all get the fact that the shift key coming on is meant to provide emphasis. E M P H A S I S.
and how about some INTEGRITY ? Because ,. really ..siding with ISIS on the issue of gay rights, and in the case of ISIS it’s the right to live,……
and still have integrity in our own argument against them ?
yeah, done here, I think, and I don’t care to repeat myself , I am too well spoken to have to.

'Change' you will get...
'Change' you will get...
8 years ago
Reply to  veritas

ISIS doesn’t believe in rights and neither do progressives reactionary leftists. ISIS denies freedom of conscience to all and so do the progressives reactionary leftists.

Equating Christians, who suffer, along with homosexuals, daily murder and violation at the hands of the Islamic State, in furtherance of a genocide against people of conscience, with their murderers, simply for refusing to abandon a conscientious principle for which they are willing to face the wrath of Islamic savages or vindictive activists is barbaric.

veritas
veritas
8 years ago

And what kind of consience is it , when it involves the persecution of others for something that brings you no harm…you would like to hate ? Hate those that hate you back, hate those that seek you harm.
That was a run on sentence, and this is a discussion board for people that want freedom for all, not just for the ones you approve of.
Done now, sleep well with your conscience while you cannot prove your claim that it is a choice, and sleep well with your conscience over the crisis rates of suicide among the young people of YOUR OWN community., and your own nation.
I guess you are saying that in any rescue operation, you will only let the straight people be saved, and the gays to die. Well, take that with you to your Maker.

'Change' you will get...
'Change' you will get...
8 years ago
Reply to  veritas

Being refused a marriage license in not ‘persecution’. Being violated and then thrown off a building to your death is ‘persecution’. Throwing some harmless church lady in jail for refusing to sanction that which is anathema to her faith is ‘persecution’. Your philosophy regarding hate is charming though.

Whose freedom of conscience do you support, only those who don’t reject or recoil from your values?

People who can’t punctuate, spell or capitalize properly probably shouldn’t posture as literary critics.

Regarding ‘choice’, that is a strawman you introduced. Obviously you suffer from graphomania, not a choice anyone would make. I am unaware of any elevated levels of suicide ‘in my community’.

Rescuing people from, oh say, the Islamic state is exactly like sanctioning a marriage license. In both cases its Christians and Jews whose rights are being violated, and it’s very likely that it will be a Christian or Jew who will be the last hope of the genuinely persecuted. We are beings of self-made soul, so take that to your maker.

veritas
veritas
8 years ago

To be denied the same rights as everyone else is a soft form of persecution, and it isn’t what this board is about anyway, I am sure you can find a gay hating site to hang out at.

veritas
veritas
8 years ago
Reply to  veritas

They are asking for the same rights as everyone else, what special rights are they asking for ? Christ NEVER spoke of gays, and he certainly did not issue an edict about hatred for them. But , He did say ….not to hang about praying so that others could see you do it.

SCREW SOCIALISM
SCREW SOCIALISM
8 years ago
Reply to  veritas

The bar you have set for what requires EMPHASIS is too low.

veritas
veritas
8 years ago

and your bar on who is deserving of their rights, is too high, set at your mouth.

veritas
veritas
8 years ago
Reply to  veritas

Oh, that’s a false flag.

veritas
veritas
8 years ago
Reply to  veritas

I didn’t say I was leaving. You did. You don’t know me from your own foot. Jews don’t believe in Hell. What are you talking about..and what was it that Jesus the Christ said about judgement ? I am fairly certain that he didn’t leave YOU in charge of it. Aren’t you breaking the Shabbos to be using technology , I thought you were observant . Make up your mind.

veritas
veritas
8 years ago

CHRIST never spoke of gays , not once. But , he did speak of those who desire to be seen praying, to be seen as holy, when they were not.

veritas
veritas
8 years ago
Reply to  veritas

Show us in scripture where Jesus said that gays should be persecuted and denied basic rights ?

veritas
veritas
8 years ago
Reply to  veritas

Oh, interesting way to enjoy Shabbat, spreading lies and hate ., while being rude and uneducated. The verse about abomination had to do with male on male gang rape. THAT was the abomination which was spoken of .

you keep saying that you are DONE HERE, lol, and then come back for more. Hilarious. !! Thanks for the laughter, I’ve enjoyed myself.

veritas
veritas
8 years ago
Reply to  veritas

Why, do I know you that I should know what you are or are not……? A belief in Christ as Messiah, automatically renders one a Christian…you don’t get to self declare that you are Jewish.

veritas
veritas
8 years ago
Reply to  veritas

You don’t get to decide who stays or goes.

veritas
veritas
8 years ago
Reply to  veritas

The name that should not be said ? Nice one.

veritas
veritas
8 years ago
Reply to  veritas

B”H !

Kebert Xela
Kebert Xela
8 years ago

What a thumb-sucking intellectual pissant. Sharia law advocates deny religious freedom to anyone who doesn’t share their ideology, particularly Christians. This they share in common with progressive reactionary leftists. Sharia law demands that Muslims actively kill homosexuals. Kim Davis was jailed because ultimately she refused to give her sanction to a legal document for which no law makes any provision on the grounds of conscience..

When a FOX ‘journalist’ can’t tell the difference between those think homosexuals are going to Hell and those that actively propose to send them to Jahannam (and do, on a daily basis) what hope is there for objectivity much less ‘fairness’ or ‘balance’.

veritas
veritas
8 years ago

I am sure Fox will be heartbroken !

Gordon Miller
Gordon Miller
8 years ago

Sorry Pam, but whatever you may think of Shep, he is correct in saying that the Supreme Court decision is the law of the land. I don’t favor it, but there is no recourse except to vote in another president and hope he’ll appoints justices to our liking.

Sponsored
Geller Report
Thanks for sharing!