Go Back   New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com > Main > Saints

Is the flour De Lis Offensive.

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; Originally Posted by hagan714 That is what the lawyers want you to believe. Gay marriage had nothing to do with a constitutional change. Or any such interpenetration of it. That is just not true. The battle over state rights was ...

Like Tree45Likes

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-18-2015, 04:04 PM   #51
Merces Letifer
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,968
Re: Is the flour De Lis Offensive.

Originally Posted by hagan714 View Post
That is what the lawyers want you to believe.

Gay marriage had nothing to do with a constitutional change. Or any such interpenetration of it. That is just not true.

The battle over state rights was at issue thus constitutional. Not the act of marriage itself.
Sorry, but no. It had nothing to do with states rights. That may have been the argument people against it put forth, but this whole gay marriage thing is definitely about individual rights and equal treatment of individuals under the U.S. Constitution.

As far as I know, states can govern themselves, and create their own laws, but have no right to defy the U.S. Constitution. A state cannot turn around and say, for example "we are repealing the 13th amendment".
hagan714 likes this.
Tobias-Reiper is offline  
Old 07-18-2015, 04:12 PM   #52
Merces Letifer
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,968
Re: Is the flour De Lis Offensive.

Originally Posted by Exxcalibur View Post
Thanks?
Tobias-Reiper is offline  
Old 07-19-2015, 10:19 PM   #53
Site Donor 2016
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 4,769
Re: Is the flour De Lis Offensive.

Do you know what is offensive? Al Sharptons breath. True story. I waited on him and about 10 others at a restaurant where I worked several years back. He had horrible halitosis. We all noticed it. We were not right in his face either. He also tipped like ****. I think I got like 10 bucks on a $1200 bill.
hagan714 likes this.
The Dude is offline  
Old 07-20-2015, 12:40 AM   #54
100th Post
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: London, England
Posts: 379
Re: Is the flour De Lis Offensive.

Originally Posted by burningmetal View Post
Everything I said to you, I stand by 100%. The Constitution was supposed to protect the rights of the church as much as any other party. These judges have usurped the constitution in their rulings. You're basically telling me it's ok for the supreme court top do whatever they want, just because they can. That's a very dangerous thing.

Secondly, I am not contradicting myself in speaking of separation of church and state. My point is very simple. Marriage is (meaning should be) for the church. But I'm not legally forbidding homosexual from entering into some other kind of civil union. It takes no advantages away from them, while allowing the church to practice marriage under it's own laws. Now I'm aware that this will not always include Christian churches, but in cases where people DO try to get married in, say, a protestant church and the pastor says no, the church will be in danger of losing it's tax exempt status, and that isn't to mention the public display it will likely be made into. Just look at how people yourself respond to me taking a stance. And as far as I know you aren't gay. anytime someone on tv is asked for an honest answer about homosexuality and says something as simple as " I don't agree with it", he gets bashed and told to apologize.

What do I mean by essence of marriage? Simple. One man, one woman, united before God. If a man marries a woman, and proceeds to beat her, he is breaking the sanctity of marriage just as much as a homosexual in an obviously much different manner. Sin is Sin. The thing about a same sex marriage is that it's a sin before it even gets started. Now the law doesn't define it that way anymore, yes, I know.

Calling me a bible thumper is the oldest trick in the book. You don't like that I'm not a cowardly PC tool like almost everyone else. I'm not here for a high five.

You don't like that I said there is only one truth? Prove me wrong then. When I said that I made sure to leave the door open for your beliefs, but you're too eager to attack my words and paint me as a hypocrite instead of reading what I say and giving an actual response. I said you can interpret the truth however you want... That means even if you think I'm wrong and you're right (which is the case for both us) there is still only one truth. We can't both be right. In theory, we could both be wrong. But there is a truth, as to how we got here and who is really in charge, or if you are an atheist, that we all just got here from some massive cosmic fart. There aren't multiple answers.

Do I have physical evidence on hand to show you? No, not personally, and neither does an atheist have physical evidence that we weren't created. Why do I believe in God? I'll give you the answer that is easiest to understand. Prophesy. The bible WAS written a long time ago, meaning it couldn't have knowledge of anything going on recently without divine knowledge.

There have been many,many prophecies that have been fulfilled, to perfection. Many of those prophecies were fulfilled within the time frame of the bible, as it was written over a very long period of time. So if you want something more current, look no further than end time prophecy. The signs are everywhere and America is filling out just about the entire list. It would take a lot longer to go through it all, so here is a link with a lot information including where to look in the bible and see it for yourself. Prophecy Being Fulfilled in Current Events

This isn't new to any of us who have followed it, but it is clearly accelerating.
Why don't you guys take this discussion elsewhere? There is nothing wrong with a good healthy debate but find the right place for it please. I thought this was a Saints football site and this debate on here seems to have gone on a bit too long. Have your beliefs and show some respect. Now, who's for some waffles...
SaintGup is offline  
Old 07-20-2015, 03:36 AM   #55
5000 POSTS! +
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,776
Blog Entries: 15
Re: Is the flour De Lis Offensive.

Originally Posted by SaintGup View Post
... Now, who's for some waffles...

I'm in ... open 24/7, baby ... yum, .
hagan714 likes this.
SloMotion is offline  
Old 07-22-2015, 07:47 AM   #56
LB Mentallity
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 14,923
Blog Entries: 62
Re: Is the flour De Lis Offensive.

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper View Post
Sorry, but no. It had nothing to do with states rights. That may have been the argument people against it put forth, but this whole gay marriage thing is definitely about individual rights and equal treatment of individuals under the U.S. Constitution.
See that is my whole point. This in truth had nothing to do with marriage. That was the what the lawyers sold it as. legal con job in my book. That is why marriage itself was dealt with as an issue all by itself in Ireland. Now comes the rest of the issues. which in my opinion should have been done separate from the marriage issue.

The shot gun effect of gay rights laws passed over the years was yet another con job done by lawyers. All these laws scattered all over the place and needed to be rounded up and packaged into one complete court case to deal with equality once and for all. But once again that is not supported by the Lawyers.

By doing it this way lawyers have made a dysfunctional set of laws for one group a mess for an even larger portion of society. Which it never needed to be. Add in the marriage to all the other other laws scattered all over the place would have been a strong court case to simplify the laws about gay rights.

This yet again a case were the Legal profession in this country has gone out of their way to perpetuate their profession.

By going along with the lawyers both side have shot themselves in the foot and made a mess into a total disaster.

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper View Post
As far as I know, states can govern themselves, and create their own laws, but have no right to defy the U.S. Constitution. A state cannot turn around and say, for example "we are repealing the 13th amendment".
The supreme court left it to states for so long because they had a good idea this is what would happen. But once you get judges that see the mess that can made and the money to had it was a done deal.

Sorry ethics and morality no matter what side of this issue your on has little to do with the reason the courts went the way they did. they do not care either way IMO. this was a money grab by them.

Courts send the marriage issue to the voters on a national level and tell both sides to get their act together and clean up the mess on the books once and for all.

So in summary

IMO marriage would pass and it would be the nail in the coffin on this topic

With the coffin nailed gay rights can be addressed and established once and for all.

This is the way they are forcing the issue in Ireland

But the way we are proceeding now it will years upon years till a true law on gay rights ever gets on the books. We all get hurt and the lawyers get rich.

"We may have lost the game, but you'll be hurting tomorrow." Doug Atkins

Last edited by hagan714; 07-22-2015 at 08:11 AM..
hagan714 is offline  
Old 07-22-2015, 04:31 PM   #57
Merces Letifer
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,968
Re: Is the flour De Lis Offensive.

Originally Posted by hagan714 View Post
See that is my whole point. This in truth had nothing to do with marriage. That was the what the lawyers sold it as. legal con job in my book. That is why marriage itself was dealt with as an issue all by itself in Ireland. Now comes the rest of the issues. which in my opinion should have been done separate from the marriage issue.
What other issues? And yes, it had to do with marriage, and individuals of the same sex not being allowed to enter into the civil contract known as marriage. And no, Ireland did not do it right.

The shot gun effect of gay rights laws passed over the years was yet another con job done by lawyers. All these laws scattered all over the place and needed to be rounded up and packaged into one complete court case to deal with equality once and for all. But once again that is not supported by the Lawyers.
Shotgun effect? What shotgun effect? And these are not "gay rights laws". They are the correct interpretation of "all men are created equal" and "the inalienable right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" for everyone.

The supreme court left it to states for so long because they had a good idea this is what would happen.
That is not the case. At all.

With the coffin nailed gay rights can be addressed and established once and for all. But the way we are proceeding now it will years upon years till a true law on gay rights ever gets on the books. We all get hurt and the lawyers get rich.
And again, there is no such thing as gay rights. Unless you get the right to do something specifically because you are gay, and others can't because they are not gay, no such thing as gay rights.

'Cause the simple man pays the thrills, the bills and the pills that kill
Tobias-Reiper is offline  
Old 07-23-2015, 08:36 AM   #58
LB Mentallity
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 14,923
Blog Entries: 62
Re: Is the flour De Lis Offensive.

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper View Post
What other issues? And yes, it had to do with marriage, and individuals of the same sex not being allowed to enter into the civil contract known as marriage. And no, Ireland did not do it right.


Shotgun effect? What shotgun effect? And these are not "gay rights laws". They are the correct interpretation of "all men are created equal" and "the inalienable right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" for everyone.

That is not the case. At all.

And again, there is no such thing as gay rights. Unless you get the right to do something specifically because you are gay, and others can't because they are not gay, no such thing as gay rights.
Ireland did grant civil contracts. they are now working on the other laws so there is no misunderstanding or better yet ambiguous laws to protect a persons rights beyond the marriage laws.

In the US laws that indirectly or directly applied to gay rights are on the books. The issue is almost all of them are not clearly stated. Way to much time is needed in court to establish rights to use a law for ones protection. that is probably a better way of putting it. that is the shotgun effect i was talking about. Lawyers making themselves money.

The marriage laws passed here is truly ambiguous at best. Nothing beyond the marriage was addressed clearly. that's is were i point at the lawyers for being at fault. They knew this going in and they knew this when they ruled on it. The judges that ruled against it did not have issue with the rights of gay marriage as much as the issue of the way it was presented. Ambiguous. Lawyers love ambiguous. It makes them needed and makes them money.

I am glad we are not on opposites sides of the big picture on this.

"We may have lost the game, but you'll be hurting tomorrow." Doug Atkins
hagan714 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

LinkBacks (?)
LinkBack to this Thread: http://blackandgold.com/saints/73137-flour-de-lis-offensive.html
Posted By For Type Date Hits
The Latest New Orleans Saints News | SportSpyder This thread Refback 07-12-2015 10:15 PM 1
The Latest New Orleans Saints News | SportSpyder This thread Refback 07-12-2015 04:38 PM 1
Is the flour De Lis Offensive. This thread Refback 07-12-2015 01:45 PM 5


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:16 AM.


Copyright 1997 - 2014 - BlackandGold.com
no new posts