Ace: aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
Buck: buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
CBD: cbd at cutjibnewsletter.com
joe mannix: mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum: petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton: sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
Bandersnatch 2024
GnuBreed 2024
Captain Hate 2023
moon_over_vermont 2023
westminsterdogshow 2023
Ann Wilson(Empire1) 2022 Dave In Texas 2022
Jesse in D.C. 2022 OregonMuse 2022
redc1c4 2021
Tami 2021
Chavez the Hugo 2020
Ibguy 2020
Rickl 2019
Joffen 2014
AoSHQ Writers Group
A site for members of the Horde to post their stories seeking beta readers, editing help, brainstorming, and story ideas. Also to share links to potential publishing outlets, writing help sites, and videos posting tips to get published.
Contact OrangeEnt for info: maildrop62 at proton dot me
I mean, just ten years ago they swore Lawrence would not lead to gay marriage, and then two years ago swore that gay marriage would not lead to you being forced to bake them a cake.
So if a top Hillary advisor dodges the question of tax exempt status for churches who refuse to perform gay marriages -- you can take her non-answer to the bank, Bigots.
Karen Finney, a top advisor for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, declined to answer if she believes churches that refuse to perform same sex marriages should lose their tax exempt status. Responding to a question from Breitbart News, Finney dodged with, "honestly today just thinking about what this means for my LGBT friends."
AllahPundit has a substantive post on what Kennedy says about this issue -- he spends a whole paragraph on it! It's also dicta -- statements which are not compelled by the decision at hand, but are speculations about future cases which are not yet before the court -- so none of his very weak reassurances are even binding, or precedent.
The dissenting justices notice this.
Clarence Thomas:
Aside from undermining the political processes that protect our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect. …
In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well. Id., at 7. Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.
The majority appears unmoved by that inevitability. It makes only a weak gesture toward religious liberty in a single paragraph, ante, at 27. And even that gesture indicates a misunderstanding of religious liberty in our Nation’s tradition. Religious liberty is about more than just the protection for "religious organizations and persons . . . as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths." Ibid. Religious liberty is about freedom of action in matters of religion generally, and the scope of that liberty is directly correlated to the civil restraints placed upon religious practice.7
That is -- religious conscience is more than just what we do in the two hours a week we spend in church. Though Kennedy reassures you that for those two hours, you are free to "advocate" for your bigoted, unsupportable, and evil views.