Christianity and Freedom to worship in general.. safe for a bit longer

[JacksBratt]

Looks like the POTUS is going to go against the threats of the left.. the threats to burn it all down. The threats to blow it all up.. The threats of "many arrows in Pelosi's quiver.. and he is going to carry out his constitutional duty under law... and nominate a new judge for election into SCOTUS....

Thank God that he is not cow towing to Obama and the others that are trying to bully and threaten him from doing what is constitutionally demanded.

 

[Quartermaine]

the president can only nominate someone for the supreme court

 

[JacksBratt]

the president can only nominate someone for the supreme court

Yes.. thanks for that correction.. I will edit...

 

[pdudgeon]

That's ok. Get the nomination out there and in the works. He's still President, he's got a duty to get the nomination out there so that the Court can be a stable force in upholding the Constitution of this Country.

In this year of instability, good on Him for continually working to stabilize an unstable situation.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

So who worships the Supreme Court? I don't get the title.

 

[JacksBratt]

So who worships the Supreme Court? I don't get the title.

If you watch the video and look into it for a bit.. The SCOTUS has been strong left.. and with the nominee that Trump will specify it will be a republican.

The left is freaking out because they have used the SCOTUS as a deomcrat tool and they are worried that even "Rowe vs Wade" will be overturned.. However I doubt that.

A republican in the SCOTUS.. will ensure that freedom of religion.. will continue in the US..
A democrat nominee would continue down a road to loss of freedom's such as this.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

If you watch the video and look into it for a bit.. The SCOTUS has been strong left.. and with the nominee that Trump will specify it will be a republican.

The left is freaking out because they have used the SCOTUS as a deomcrat tool and they are worried that even "Rowe vs Wade" will be overturned.. However I doubt that.

A republican in the SCOTUS.. will ensure that freedom of religion.. will continue in the US..
A democrat nominee would continue down a road to loss of freedom's such as this.

So non-partisan court is a complete myth?

So much for rule of law.

 

[jgarden]

Looks like the POTUS is going to go against the threats of the left.. the threats to burn it all down. The threats to blow it all up.. The threats of "many arrows in Pelosi's quiver.. and he is going to carry out his constitutional duty under law... and nominate a new judge for election into SCOTUS....

Thank God that he is not cow towing to Obama and the others that are trying to bully and threaten him from doing what is constitutionally demanded.]

Apparently Trump supporters think they can ignore how the Senate Republicans refused to even conduct !hearings in 2016, when President Obama was attempting "to carry out his constitutional duty under law" in 2016 by nominating Merrick Garland!

Having played by their own set of rules in 2016, its now more advantageous for the Republican Senate to revert back and ignore all those arguments that it had previously employ - citing its adherence to the same Constitution that its members were only too willing to ignore 4 years earlier!

There are enough Senate Republicans running in toss up elections in 2020 that this issue could be the deciding factor in favor of the Democrats - conservatives might be content with another justice, but the sheer hypocrisy and total lack of respect will only galvanize the opposition as never before!

 

[Bobber]

Apparently Trump supporters think they can ignore how the Senate Republicans refused to even conduct !hearings in 2016, when President Obama was attempting "to carry out his constitutional duty under law" in 2016 by nominating Merrick Garland!

Nobody was claiming Obama wasn't carrying out his Constitutional duty. That doesn't mean the Senate have to give a vote on the one he nominated.

Having played by their own set of rules in 2016,

But they didn't have a different rule in 16. You really should listen to
Mitch McConnell's speech and hear how he explains how historically there's no contradiction.

....but the sheer hypocrisy and total lack of respect will only galvanize the opposition as never before!

Not if people will allow themselves to be properly educated with the facts of history.

 

[jgarden]

Revisionist history is a hard sell when there is ample video evidence to prove just the opposite - apparently the Democrats may be in a position to outspend the Republicans in the 2020 Election and you can be assured that every American voter will have a chance to view the excuses by Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham as to why they refused to follow the Constitution and schedule hearings for Merrick Garland in 2016!

 

[Quartermaine]

If you watch the video and look into it for a bit.. The SCOTUS has been strong left.. and with the nominee that Trump will specify it will be a republican.

The left is freaking out because they have used the SCOTUS as a deomcrat tool and they are worried that even "Rowe vs Wade" will be overturned.. However I doubt that.

A republican in the SCOTUS.. will ensure that freedom of religion.. will continue in the US..
A democrat nominee would continue down a road to loss of freedom's such as this.

what freedoms are you imagining are endangered?

 

[JacksBratt]

So non-partisan court is a complete myth?

So much for rule of law.

Pretty much

 

[JacksBratt]

Apparently Trump supporters think they can ignore how the Senate Republicans refused to even conduct !hearings in 2016, when President Obama was attempting "to carry out his constitutional duty under law" in 2016 by nominating Merrick Garland!

Having played by their own set of rules in 2016, its now more advantageous for the Republican Senate to revert back and ignore all those arguments that it had previously employ - citing its adherence to the same Constitution that its members were only too willing to ignore 4 years earlier!

There are enough Senate Republicans running in toss up elections in 2020 that this issue could be the deciding factor in favor of the Democrats - conservatives might be content with another justice, but the sheer hypocrisy and total lack of respect will only galvanize the opposition as never before!

Well, we'll just have to wait and see.

If what you are saying is true.. why all the leftist melt downs and heads exploding? Why does Pelosi hint at another impeachment and or one of the other "arrows in her quiver" to hit Trump with if he "DARES" to do his constitutional duty.

I do like how you bring up "ya-but" back when.......

 

[JacksBratt]

what freedoms are you imagining are endangered?

It is very obvious to those who keep their finger on the pulse.. of the constant loss of religious freedoms and liberties for Christians and the constant attack on the church and biblical values by the left.

If they don't see the promoting of "full term abortions" as a brilliant glaring red flag as to what the left is capable of.. then they need to really take a good look at where the country would go if Trump and the republican don't get elected or add another republican based judge to SCOTUS...

 

[Quartermaine]

It is very obvious to those who keep their finger on the pulse.. of the constant loss of religious freedoms and liberties for Christians

what losses of religious freedom have you experienced?

 

[Redwingfan9]

Looks like the POTUS is going to go against the threats of the left.. the threats to burn it all down. The threats to blow it all up.. The threats of "many arrows in Pelosi's quiver.. and he is going to carry out his constitutional duty under law... and nominate a new judge for election into SCOTUS....

Thank God that he is not cow towing to Obama and the others that are trying to bully and threaten him from doing what is constitutionally demanded.

So far as I can tell there has never been a vacancy on the Supreme Court which has not received a nomination from the President. He's doing his Constitutional duty by offering a nominee. What the Senate does with it is their business.

 

[JacksBratt]

what losses of religious freedom have you experienced?

If you go and publicly state that you are against abortion, transgender labels and gay marriages.. All Christian solids.. you can be charged with abuse or harassment.

I can be fired from my job for not calling a person by their "accepted pronoun" Yet they can ridicule me for being a Christian. If I told them I will not work on Sunday.. they could fire me.

As a White, male, Christian... I am pretty much an open target and have no leg to stand on.. In fact.. I am the enemy...

Why?

Because I am male..... men are bad and terrible and the world can do without them
Because I am white... white people have done nothing but bad things and white supremacy needs to go.
Because I am Christian... well, that goes without saying.. I am against abortion, gay marriages, transgender, lgbtqudk.. and all the other 500 sexes and believe that there is only two actual sexes.. and I don't believe in evolution.....

Oh... and I'm bald... ever notice that you can make fun of bald guys all day long... yep... but ridicule a chubby person and.... well... you're an a rude person...they can't help it... yadda.. yadda yadda.. Like a bald guy can help it..... Sheesh...

Not that I care that I'm bald... I got over that a long time ago... Just pointing out the hypocrisies of this world.

 

[Quartermaine]

If you go and publicly state that you are against abortion, transgender labels and gay marriages.. All Christian solids.. you can be charged with abuse or harassment.

can you reference when this has actually happened here in the united states?

I can be fired from my job for not calling a person by their "accepted pronoun"

evidence?

Yet they can ridicule me for being a Christian.

If I told them I will not work on Sunday.. they could fire me.

nope. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on religion. This includes refusing to accommodate an employee's sincerely held religious beliefs or practices unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship (more than a minimal burden on operation of the business).

As a White, male, Christian... I am pretty much an open target and have no leg to stand on.. In fact.. I am the enemy...

Why?

do you have anything that doesn't involve fantasy victimization?

Because I am male..... men are bad and terrible and the world can do without them
Because I am white... white people have done nothing but bad things and white supremacy needs to go.
Because I am Christian... well, that goes without saying.. I am against abortion, gay marriages, transgender, lgbtqudk.. and all the other 500 sexes and believe that there is only two actual sexes.. and I don't believe in evolution.....

so the answer to my question is no.


So no one has lost any religious liberties and your OP claims are just propaganda.

 

[JacksBratt]

can you reference when this has actually happened here in the united states?



evidence?



nope. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on religion. This includes refusing to accommodate an employee's sincerely held religious beliefs or practices unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship (more than a minimal burden on operation of the business).


do you have anything that doesn't involve fantasy victimization?


so the answer to my question is no.


So no one has lost any religious liberties and your OP claims are just propaganda.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...d-not-using-transgender-pronouns-sues-school/

 

[JacksBratt]

can you reference when this has actually happened here in the united states?



evidence?



nope. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on religion. This includes refusing to accommodate an employee's sincerely held religious beliefs or practices unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship (more than a minimal burden on operation of the business).


do you have anything that doesn't involve fantasy victimization?


so the answer to my question is no.


So no one has lost any religious liberties and your OP claims are just propaganda.

No Matter Where You Are, Religious Freedom Is Getting Worse