Tennessee passes bill gutting marriage rights

[MDC 7,428]

16 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

We discussed that that article was crappily written.  It does however contain a link to the actual statute though:

So it does not appear to define "clerk" as any shmo who hands out licenses in the courthouse, but rather an official (likely elected) position of "county clerk."  I'm not necessarily saying that it is any better, although you can argue that they can be voted out.

It also isn't clear to me if the non-religious folks need to be ordained; it appears not from their exclusion in paragraph 2.  So... once you have been a clerk, or speaker of the house, you can marry people for the rest of your life?  Seems poorly written.

Anyway, I'm not comfortable with any of the government officials in that list being able to turn down the solemnization.

I assumed it was county clerks. Not just whoever happened to be manning the desk at municipal hall. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,546]

1 minute ago, MDC said:

Your comments just keep getting dumber and dumberer. You can have the last word, dealing with you is like explaining something to a small dim child.  

 

Gotchya, so no answer as to why no one is complaining about more important elected or appointed officials?  It's the paper pushers that are the real concern?  The irony of your last sentence is why I virtually never respond to your posts.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,433]

14 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I've never noticed.  What exemptions do they get?

In the NYPD Sikhs get to wear their turbans in uniform and at one time they could have a beard, now everyone can. If you claim you’re a sabbath observer you get Friday and Saturday off as your scheduled days off. Also, promotional exams are given on Saturday. So Jewish MOS get to take the promotional exams after everyone else. They tend to score very high. 

[Horseman 2,458]

I swear to god none of you morons can read.

Everyone is saying "clerks" or "county clerks" because they are the ones that issue marriage licenses.  They're attempting to twist the story, JUST LIKE THE TWEET IN THE OP,  that clerks wouldn't have to issue marriage licenses to faggots.  That's just not true if you bother to read the legislation, it only applies to solemnizing marriages.  Performing the actual ceremony.

[Horseman 2,458]

Just now, Horseman said:

I swear to god none of you morons can read.

Everyone is saying "clerks" or "county clerks" because they are the ones that issue marriage licenses.  They're attempting to twist the story, JUST LIKE THE TWEET IN THE OP,  that clerks wouldn't have to issue marriage licenses to faggots.  That's just not true if you bother to read the legislation, it only applies to solemnizing marriages.  Performing the actual ceremony.

15 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Gotchya, so no answer as to why no one is complaining about more important elected or appointed officials?  It's the paper pushers that are the real concern?  The irony of your last sentence is why I virtually never respond to your posts.

 

[TBayXXXVII 2,546]

 

8 minutes ago, Horseman said:

 

Yup, the law only refers to solemnization, not the granting and processing of the license.  I agree, I have no idea why they keep harping on it.

[Horseman 2,458]

2 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

 

The law only refers to solemnization, not the granting and processing of the license.

I know.  Did you read the tweet that started this thread? Or my post that you just quoted where I said it only applies to solemnizing marriages?

[TBayXXXVII 2,546]

1 minute ago, Horseman said:

I know.  Did you read the tweet that started this thread? Or my post that you just quoted where I said it only applies to solemnizing marriages?

I hit submit too fast (hit enter key).  I edited my post.

[TBayXXXVII 2,546]

18 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

In the NYPD Sikhs get to wear their turbans in uniform and at one time they could have a beard, now everyone can. If you claim you’re a sabbath observer you get Friday and Saturday off as your scheduled days off. Also, promotional exams are given on Saturday. So Jewish MOS get to take the promotional exams after everyone else. They tend to score very high. 

Interesting.  In general, I don't have a problem with those exemptions for the Sikhs.  But this country really needs to make a decision... separation of church and state... or not.  I'm fine with the Friday / Saturday thing, but if there are tests on Saturdays, then show up and take the test... or move the test to Thursday or Monday.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,433]

5 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Interesting.  In general, I don't have a problem with those exemptions for the Sikhs.  But this country really needs to make a decision... separation of church and state... or not.  I'm fine with the Friday / Saturday thing, but if there are tests on Saturdays, then show up and take the test... or move the test to Thursday or Monday.

Can’t move it.  The tests are given in the schools. Lots of people take them and you have to keep them in smaller groups to prevent cheating, so the proctors can watch. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,546]

2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Can’t move it.  The tests are given in the schools. Lots of people take them and you have to keep them in smaller groups to prevent cheating, so the proctors can watch. 

So when do the Jewish people take the exams?

[Hardcore troubadour 15,433]

2 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

So when do the Jewish people take the exams?

During the week, after everyone else if I remember correctly. Always after everyone though.  They had their own study group, and the rumor was they would have their best actually take the test with everyone else and then tell the others what’s on it. I’ve been gone for a while, things may have changed, but I doubt it. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,546]

4 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

During the week, after everyone else if I remember correctly. Always after everyone though.  They had their own study group, and the rumor was they would have their best actually take the test with everyone else and then tell the others what’s on it. I’ve been gone for a while, things may have changed, but I doubt it. 

Gotta love it.

[dogcows 1,030]

5 hours ago, Voltaire said:

• The law does not end gay marriage nor prevent the issuance of marriage licenses. It protects bakers who don't want to be bullied into baking cakes or photographers who can't stomach taking close up pics of gay men kissing to have to do so.
• The bill does not / cannot protect county clerks. We already have clear precedent that county clerks CANNOT refuse issuing a license.   If the county clerk do anything other than rubberstamp the marriage, they go to jail and their state picks up the gay litigant's legal bill.
• The bill is NOT open to interpretation. Tennessee and other states cannot pass state laws that violate federal law. They do not have the authority to do so.
• Tennessee lawmakers realize The Kim Davis ruling in Kentucky was handed down by the 6th Circuit court, the exact same circuit that has jurisdiction over Tennessee
• My opinion of gay marriage is irrelevant. It doesn't change the law.
• Tennessee's legislature's opinion of gay marriage also is irrelevant and doesn't matter since they can't change the law either. This is coming down on them from the federal level.
• The ignorant fool who wrote The New Republic article has the IQ of a tree stump.
•  The writer also decided to throw in interracial marriage without evidence for sensational reaction.
• If someone shows you clear evidence of the MSM lying to you, and that the article writer is a retard with an agenda, maybe it warrants looking into closer. 

There is no lying going on there. The article literally links to the actual text of the bill. You’re the one spinning it.

And states pass laws CONSTANTLY that violate federal laws. Then they take them to court and hope a sympathetic judge will take the case and let them keep their law anyway. How many abortion laws did they pass during the 50 years of Roe v Wade? They knew they would get shut down in court but were hoping for friendly judges to let it through. The most recent example was a Missouri gun law that ordered state employees to ignore federal law.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-judge-strikes-missouri-gun-law-unconstitutional-97689011

The Tennessee marriage law, like many of the virtue signaling laws from red states the past year or two, will probably get nuked in court. But they don’t care, since there’s no penalty for passing unconstitutional laws. They can pander to the far right base all day and all night and the courts will have to waste their time overturning this stuff instead of handling real cases.

[Horseman 2,458]

11 minutes ago, dogcows said:

The article literally links to the actual text of the bill. You’re the one spinning it.

So I assume you've read it then, because it doesn't sound like you have?

[Hardcore troubadour 15,433]

15 minutes ago, Horseman said:

So I assume you've read it then, because it doesn't sound like you have?

They rarely do.  They rely on what their media tells them. 

[dogcows 1,030]

1 hour ago, Horseman said:

So I assume you've read it then, because it doesn't sound like you have?

How would I know the full text was linked if I hadn’t opened it and read it? Logic isn’t your strong point, Mr. Ed.

[Horseman 2,458]

12 minutes ago, dogcows said:

How would I know the full text was linked if I hadn’t opened it and read it? Logic isn’t your strong point, Mr. Ed.

Because if you had you'd understand that it has nothing to do with marriage licenses.   So, when the article says the bill would empower county clerks to refuse to certify marriage licenses, you would know what was a lie.

[jerryskids 6,799]

28 minutes ago, Horseman said:

Because if you had you'd understand that it has nothing to do with marriage licenses.   So, when the article says the bill would empower county clerks to refuse to certify marriage licenses, you would know what was a lie.

The law appears to allow government employees to refuse to solemnize marriages; I posted the list of those positions.  If so, I disagree with this.  I particularly think it is bad for judges who by their very position have a fiduciary duty to maintain impartiality.

[The Real timschochet 6,765]

3 hours ago, jerryskids said:

The law appears to allow government employees to refuse to solemnize marriages; I posted the list of those positions.  If so, I disagree with this.  I particularly think it is bad for judges who by their very position have a fiduciary duty to maintain impartiality.

At least you’re trying to read it fairly.  Some here, like @Horseman are simply talking out of their a$$

[Patented Phil 1,469]

14 hours ago, BuckSwope said:

You'd have better footing for this pov if Fox wasn't going through their battle.   It's a laughable position to take that only one is misrepresenting facts.  

No. I watch Tucker every single night, and I can tell you with 100% certainty that everything being said about him lying about his January 6 videos is complete and utter bullshitt.  He has shown video clips regarding two specific incidences - the Shaman and Officer Sicknick.  The shaman clips 100% show that he walked through the capital unarmed with two police escorts and then walked right through a group of heavily armed policeman in front of the Senate chamber door. That information was withheld from the shamans defense team.  And Tucker framed it exactly as such.

He’s Sicknick video was also relevant.  It showed him walking in the rotunda hours after the confrontation at the barrier where he was  supposedly murdered.  If anyone has been lying here, it’s the Democrats in the news media, who keep pimping the lie that Sicknick was murdered.  Whatever the poor guy died from it wasn’t due to anything that happened at the barrier. And this video proves that. He was walking around just fine, not wobbling, or anything else.

if you’re telling me that Tucker lied about something, prove it. Nobody has.  Just because the Democrats and the main stream media say so, doesn’t make it the truth.

if I’m wrong, I’ll happily admit it. Show me an instance of exactly where Tucker lied during his shows presenting the new videos.

[jonmx 2,429]

11 hours ago, Horseman said:

I swear to god none of you morons can read.

Everyone is saying "clerks" or "county clerks" because they are the ones that issue marriage licenses.  They're attempting to twist the story, JUST LIKE THE TWEET IN THE OP,  that clerks wouldn't have to issue marriage licenses to faggots.  That's just not true if you bother to read the legislation, it only applies to solemnizing marriages.  Performing the actual ceremony.

Yes of course the legislation does not do what the article says.  The left has become nothing but mindless blowhards who see boogeymen everywhere and have no problems with wanting to round them up and kill them. 

[BuckSwope 654]

7 hours ago, Patented Phil said:

No. I watch Tucker every single night, and I can tell you with 100% certainty that everything being said about him lying about his January 6 videos is complete and utter bullshitt.  He has shown video clips regarding two specific incidences - the Shaman and Officer Sicknick.  The shaman clips 100% show that he walked through the capital unarmed with two police escorts and then walked right through a group of heavily armed policeman in front of the Senate chamber door. That information was withheld from the shamans defense team.  And Tucker framed it exactly as such.

He’s Sicknick video was also relevant.  It showed him walking in the rotunda hours after the confrontation at the barrier where he was  supposedly murdered.  If anyone has been lying here, it’s the Democrats in the news media, who keep pimping the lie that Sicknick was murdered.  Whatever the poor guy died from it wasn’t due to anything that happened at the barrier. And this video proves that. He was walking around just fine, not wobbling, or anything else.

if you’re telling me that Tucker lied about something, prove it. Nobody has.  Just because the Democrats and the main stream media say so, doesn’t make it the truth.

if I’m wrong, I’ll happily admit it. Show me an instance of exactly where Tucker lied during his shows presenting the new videos.

That tracks.  

If you don't look into some of the evidence and communications in the Dominion case and realize they are in it for viewers and $, not much is going convince you.    That's not exclusive to Fox, it's the same everywhere.    Just weird to me that intelligent people and understand that dynamic for the other "team", but think their's is telling them the real truth and news.  

I would hope that Tucker has toned down the rhetoric a tad with the spotlight being shined on Fox so brightly lately.  

[Patented Phil 1,469]

wonder 

[Patented Phil 1,469]

23 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

That tracks.  

If you don't look into some of the evidence and communications in the Dominion case and realize they are in it for viewers and $, not much is going convince you.    That's not exclusive to Fox, it's the same everywhere.    Just weird to me that intelligent people and understand that dynamic for the other "team", but think their's is telling them the real truth and news.  

I would hope that Tucker has toned down the rhetoric a tad with the spotlight being shined on Fox so brightly lately.  

So

[The Real timschochet 6,765]

1 hour ago, BuckSwope said:

 

I would hope that Tucker has toned down the rhetoric a tad with the spotlight being shined on Fox so brightly lately.  

It’s the same garbage. And millions of conservatives are just like @Patented Phil- they watch it every night. They believe his nonsense and they reject the real news. 

When I read Phil’s posts in this forum he strikes me as a very bright guy. I’m sure his core beliefs are quite honorable and noble. Yet if he and I were to engage in an extensive number of political debates, nearly everyone of them would end up in a disagreement over facts, because he and I are getting our information from different, opposing sources. And this is the main dilemma that ails America in the 21st century and I have no idea how it can be solved. 

[BuckSwope 654]

6 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

It’s the same garbage. And millions of conservatives are just like @Patented Phil- they watch it every night. They believe his nonsense and they reject the real news. 

When I read Phil’s posts in this forum he strikes me as a very bright guy. I’m sure his core beliefs are quite honorable and noble. Yet if he and I were to engage in an extensive number of political debates, nearly everyone of them would end up in a disagreement over facts, because he and I are getting our information from different, opposing sources. And this is the main dilemma that ails America in the 21st century and I have no idea how it can be solved. 

This is where you lose me.  I bet if you ask every one of us, what we read is the 'real news' or the best way to do it.  

I am not there with Phil, so I am not going to assume much about what else he reads, watches, or listens to.   I have 0 clue how anybody can watch those types of shows at all, let alone every night like he posted, but that goes for all the mostly solo, talking head opinion shows on those channels.  Yes, if he gets his info solely from Tucker, that is a problem.  I doubt that's the case though.  

[The Real timschochet 6,765]

2 minutes ago, BuckSwope said:

This is where you lose me.  I bet if you ask every one of us, what we read is the 'real news' or the best way to do it.  

I am not there with Phil, so I am not going to assume much about what else he reads, watches, or listens to.   I have 0 clue how anybody can watch those types of shows at all, let alone every night like he posted, but that goes for all the mostly solo, talking head opinion shows on those channels.  Yes, if he gets his info solely from Tucker, that is a problem.  I doubt that's the case though.  

Based on his posts I believe it’s reasonable to assume that he generally rejects the mainstream media and generally accepts alternative right wing media sources as more accurate. 

[BuckSwope 654]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

Based on his posts I believe it’s reasonable to assume that he generally rejects the mainstream media and generally accepts alternative right wing media sources as more accurate. 

I think that is reasonable.  Along with a healthy dose of dancing around the tons of evidence in the Dominion case of Fox pushing stuff they know was false.  I have 0 doubt the same thing was going on with places like CNN during covid.  It's the nature of the business. 

[The Real timschochet 6,765]

1 minute ago, BuckSwope said:

I think that is reasonable.  Along with a healthy dose of dancing around the tons of evidence in the Dominion case of Fox pushing stuff they know was false.  I have 0 doubt the same thing was going on with places like CNN during covid.  It's the nature of the business. 

I have strong doubt that CNN deliberately pushed false news about Covid (or anything else.) But I get that’s going to be an unpopular viewpoint around here. 

[jonmx 2,429]

I don't know why anyone but braindead idiots believe what they hear from the mainstream media.  It is 100 percent pure government propaganda.  They report what the CIA-FBI tells them to.  If the CIA wants a war, the MSM are uniformly warhawks beating the drumbeat for war.  When the war becomes futile, they become doves.  The MSM paints so many false narratives, I can't even imagine why anyone would trust them. 

The MSM on Jan. 6th was given this narrative of a of an armed and organized deadly insurrection following the orders of Donald Trump.  Despite mountains of evidence which conclusively shows that narrative is a total pantload,  not a single peep from any mainstream media source dares refute the official CIA/FBI written script.  No one in the media dares be skeptical of this or the insuing witch hunt of every person involved (minus of course the fbi operstives).

Now Tucker airs unquestionably accurate videos which blows apart large portions of the official narrative.  The logical thing would be to see how these facts alter the official narrative.  But no,  instead of the MSM vigorously and relentlessly attacks Tucker for exposing exculpatory information which cast innocence on many of the most villianized characters.

We are imprisoning people under false pretense.  This is no different than police planting a gun on a black male, withholding facts which show his innocence and convicting him of murder.  God, I hate leftist with a passion.  There is zero remorse and all they do is double-down on their lies.  They are evil lying bastards who willing supports these fascist tactics. 

[seafoam1 3,025]

15 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I have strong doubt that CNN deliberately pushed false news about Covid (or anything else.) But I get that’s going to be an unpopular viewpoint around here. 

Unpopular? Who cares? Wrong viewpoint by you? Yes.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,433]

Hey libtards, you could have watched the footage and turned the sound down.   But you didn’t. You relied on what your leftist masters told you.  As always. 

[BuckSwope 654]

31 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I have strong doubt that CNN deliberately pushed false news about Covid (or anything else.) But I get that’s going to be an unpopular viewpoint around here. 

I know you don't.  I view you two as different sides of the same coin, and I'd guess you two would say you are completely different coins. 

[Voltaire 5,316]

46 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Based on his posts I believe it’s reasonable to assume that he generally rejects the mainstream media and generally accepts alternative right wing media sources as more accurate. 

The silver lining of any news outlet is that the reported facts are seldom false. The problems comes via which facts are presented, how they spin it, and which stories get coverage and which get buried.

There are a few journalists that have a proven track record of staying true to old time journalism standards that I will accept at face value most anything they say because they have a track record of excellence: Bari Weiss, Matt Taibi, and Glenn Greenwald come to mind.

[Horseman 2,458]

12 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

At least you’re trying to read it fairly.  Some here, like @Horseman are simply talking out of their a$$

Link to one thing I said that is incorrect.  One single thing. You cant, you're just running your fagggot mouth.  

 

[dogcows 1,030]

19 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

The silver lining of any news outlet is that the reported facts are seldom false. The problems comes via which facts are presented, how they spin it, and which stories get coverage and which get buried.

There are a few journalists that have a proven track record of staying true to old time journalism standards that I will accept at face value most anything they say because they have a track record of excellence: Bari Weiss, Matt Taibi, and Glenn Greenwald come to mind.

Bari Weiss is/was an opinion columnist, not a reporter.

Taibbi flushed his credibility down the toilet when he took the job of being Elon Musk’s mouthpiece. I can say that because he claimed to be putting all the facts out there. But he knew of a Trump request for takedown of a tweet. And he didn’t get that info from Musk… but he still agreed to do the story. Not long thereafter, a former Twitter employee exposed that Trump wanted a tweet from Chrissy Teigen taken down. Musk definitely had this info. Taibbi knew he had info on Trump takedown requests. But he published without it. So, what else is Taibbi hiding, or is being hidden from him? He, as a journalist, should know that if the CEO of a company is Cherry-picking the info he’s given, it’s going to be a very 1-sided story. He sold out.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,433]

7 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Bari Weiss is/was an opinion columnist, not a reporter.

Taibbi flushed his credibility down the toilet when he took the job of being Elon Musk’s mouthpiece. I can say that because he claimed to be putting all the facts out there. But he knew of a Trump request for takedown of a tweet. And he didn’t get that info from Musk… but he still agreed to do the story. Not long thereafter, a former Twitter employee exposed that Trump wanted a tweet from Chrissy Teigen taken down. Musk definitely had this info. Taibbi knew he had info on Trump takedown requests. But he published without it. So, what else is Taibbi hiding, or is being hidden from him? He, as a journalist, should know that if the CEO of a company is Cherry-picking the info he’s given, it’s going to be a very 1-sided story. He sold out.

His focus was on the intelligence agencies, not if Trump was mad because fat ass Chrissy Teigen called him a name. You think delving into that would have been the bigger story? What a joke. Nah, you don’t have TDS, not at all. And you’re also not easily distracted from the greater issue here. You are a wise and even handed observer. 

[dogcows 1,030]

3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

His focus was on the intelligence agencies, not if Trump was mad because fat ass Chrissy Teigen called him a name. You think delving into that would have been the bigger story. What a joke. Nah, you don’t have TDS, not at all. And you’re also not easily distracted from the greater issue here. You are a wise and even handed observer. 

At the time, Trump was the sitting president. So a request from him is literally a government request for a takedown of tweets. Which is exactly what Taibbi claimed to be investigating. Leaving it out is inexcusable for a journalist. Which is why his credibility is in the toilet now. He “exposed” some government takedown requests, but not others. It’s cherry-picking, pure and simple.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,433]

5 minutes ago, dogcows said:

At the time, Trump was the sitting president. So a request from him is literally a government request for a takedown of tweets. Which is exactly what Taibbi claimed to be investigating. Leaving it out is inexcusable for a journalist. Which is why his credibility is in the toilet now. He “exposed” some government takedown requests, but not others. It’s cherry-picking, pure and simple.

No, it’s nothing. And Twitter had a policy where a request could be made. Equating that with intel agencies getting involved in what gets published, on behalf of a political party? You have gone nuts. You continually look to go after the source and not the information. The meaningless distraction is working great for you. And on you.