There is absolutely nothing that cannot be justified in the name of a dearly held religious belief. Who gets to make the determination as to just how sincere those beliefs are? Ecclesiastical courts? In my view, if an elected official can refuse to perform a duty on the basis of religious belief, then that person is unfit for that office by definition.
Following the speed limit is against my religion! I had to kill them! They (insert offense) and that is against my religion! Just wait....it will happen! Unreal. This country is no longer serious, nor a country of law and order.
Luckily there is the Sherman-Williams test to determine if a deeply held religious conviction is a real deeply held religious conviction.. I believe anything darker than bone white doesn't count.
Just because civil authorities will hold a person accountable for not paying their taxes, does not mean religious extremists cannot justify it in their own minds.
Also, doctors or anyone else in healthcare who refuse to perform life-saving abortions due to conscience clauses. Do your job or get out of the medical field. While they’re at it, stop posing as medical staff at phony Crisis Pregnancy Centers without a license, doing ultrasounds and STI testing under the guise of “free speech”.
It's different with public servants. In the private sector, you can take your business elsewhere. In the public sphere, you pay the taxes that pay these people to perform these duties, they they don't do it! That is theft! The real answer is if these people can't/won't do their duties, they need to find another line of work.
"In the private sector, you can take your business elsewhere."
That is not always true, especially in small towns and rural areas. Especially in an area where the majority are christofascist. My take is, if they can't do the job in a professional manner, they should go into another profession.
And some of those counties out in the trans-Pecos region are huge. Finding a judge who is willing to perform a marriage will likely place a significant burden on LGBTQ couples trying to get married. But, that is the idea. The Christian Nationalists are looking for every excuse possible to deny others their rights. They believe their world view is tho only one suitable for society and they are willing to mess up others' lives to get their Gilead.
Sexual orientation as we know it now may not have been a phenomenon with a formal term applied to it, but the phenomenon itself has likely been extant from the time Homo sapiens started walking this Earth. How well it was accepted in certain quarters, especially considering those two lovely little verses in Leviticus, may be another matter.
Doesn't change the fact that men have partnered with men and women with women just about from the get-go, whether Jesus had an opinion on the topic or not.
At the time the Jewish people made their apparition in history (13th or 12th century BCE from an Egyptian stele), several Middle East countries were tolerant of LGBTQIA+ people.
Definitely a couple for me. Just burying two brothers in the same mastaba makes no sense, unless they were children and buried with their parents. Even then, families wealthy enough made an independent tomb for their children. And both men were definitely wealthy.
You expect Christians to know actual history! This is a group that doesn’t read their own holy book of crap, know anything about the history of their religion. Hell, this is a group that is proud of their ignorance, to a point that the more ignorant you are the more a “true” believer you are!
That is what we (non-magas) have to deal with. Sometimes it feels like we (non-magas) are talking to a wall (wall of ignorance). You have better luck teaching quantum mechanics to your cat, then trying to explain something to a Christian.
This can be read two ways but it literally says the wedding officiants can't discriminate based on religion. What is in contest is not the religion of the people who want to get married, it's the officiant. Therefore, I would interpret that law to say that the judge is discriminating based on religion, her religion.
What’s striking here is how the ruling effectively reframes public office as a space of private moral discretion, rather than a neutral executor of civil law.
Once that door is open, the system stops functioning as “equal protection” and starts operating as a patchwork of individual belief fiefdoms. That’s how theocratic governance begins: not with one sweeping law, but with a slow normalization of selective exemption.
citizens have to navigate a justice system where outcomes depend on the private theology of whoever is on the bench that day.
That’s not religious freedom its the erosion of institutional legitimacy itself.
Theoretically possible. Would be entertaining as hell, to be sure. Not very likely, as it is Texas. A county clerk isn't likely to win an election without being a member in good standing at the local fundamentalist church.
I'm not sure. I would think that it would have been challenged if they had a blatantly unconstitutional rule like that.
BTW, the Equal Protection clause in the 14th Amendment doesn't just apply to race. Discrimination by a public official is not okay just because it's not racial.
Texas's unchecked radicalism is the result of extreme gerrymandering, which has placed the state under single-party rule by ensuring that Republicans have a permanent supermajority in the state legislature, despite the fact that all the state's chief metro areas (notably Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston) are all substantially Democratic-majority. This is the opposite of what our Founders intended. Elections need to be free and fair for a democracy to function, and there is no way that elections rigged by gerrymandering could be described as "fair."
On the more optimistic side, I think that attempts by red states to gerrymander even more may not be as effective as they are hoping. Democrats campaigning in '26 need to remind voters that their Republican opponents are Trumpsuckers who have supported Trump's disastrous policies. People who voted for Trump because they believed he would improve the economy are seeing how wrong they were. In order for gerrymandering to work, you have to be able to predict the voting patterns of particular geographical areas based on their past votes, but they won't be able to rely on such consistency this time. As long as the voters associate the Republicans in Congress with Trump and continue to blame them for the ongoing shutdown, a number of people who have voted for Trump having a bad case of buyer's remorse. While the MAGA base has been important to Congressional Trumpsuckers' success in getting elected, they can't rely solely on the hardcore MAGA nutjobs, but quite a few Trump voters are upset about the extremism of his second term, and Congress's passivity in the face of it. Some of them have even been popping up at No Kings rallies.
Nonetheless, while they may not gain as many seats as they hope, the Republicans probably will get some out of this plot. Other blue states need to join California in "countergerrymandering," or they may not be able to take control of Congress, which we desperately need them to do.
Congressional districts need to be a thing of the past. Proportional representation is not unconstitutional and needs to be the law of the land - likely through yet another constitutional amendment.
The two party system has become part of the problem as well in my book. I may think the Republicans need to face trial for some of their shenanigans, but the Democrats haven't shown me they're my friends, either.
I’m not 100% sure myself. I’m remembering something Hemant wrote. To best of my knowledge, clergy are exempted from a state requirement that they register with the state in order to officiate weddings. Judges and JotP are specifically authorized to marry people. And that might be it. I tried to look at the specifics. The Universal Life Church quoted Texas law as saying that “officers of religious organization, ministers, and Jewish rabbis” were authorized” (or maybe it was exempt from registration). So perhaps a secular officiant could perform weddings but only by registering.
As we all know, Hemant is (rightfully) concerned about unwarranted religious privilege. Exempting clergy from something required of non-clergy is unwarranted privilege.
I still have the credentials from the United Methodist Church to marry anyone I choose. If they find their way to my door, I will sign their license for free.
I’m ordained thru the ULC. I’ve let friends know that I’m available at no cost for their children if that would be useful. Or friends of their children. Whomever. My immediate circle of friends includes 2 families with transfolk and a couple more with gay/lesbian.
Constitutional amendments — especially the ones we really need — are very hard to push through. They have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states (regardless of how many people live in those states).
Congressional districts are numerically
proportional within each state. But the fixed number of seats in Congress means that the people of the largest states are underrepresented. Then the Senate gives additional overrepresentation to small states. The result is that the poorest states, with the least educated populations, that contribute the least economically, have disproportionate political power. (There are a couple blue states that are small in population in part due to simply being geographically tiny (Rhode Island, Delaware), but the vast majority of the small states are geographically large but predominantly rural red states.)
I'm curious about your suggestion that we eliminate Congressional districts. How would you suggest we elect representatives, if not by districts?
Not to speak for anyone else but one way to eliminate CDs would be to apportion by the statewide vote. Parties could put forth a slate of candidates, rank ordered.
Let me use Maryland as an example. We have 8 reps. At the moment, thanks to gerrymandering, 7 are held by Dems. (Kind of the mirror image of NC). For the sake of argument, let’s say 60% of the votes cast for the congressional election go to the Dems, 30% to the Rs, and 10% to the Greens. 60% of 8 seats is 4.8; 30% is 2.4; 10% is 0.8.
Using conventional rounding, the Dems get 5, the Rs get 2, and the Greens get 1.
The first 5 people on the Dem slate go to Congress, etc.
Are there problems with this? I can think of quite a few. But it does address gerrymandering and it can provide an opening for third parties.
Disgusting birds. Remember the penguins in that book, raising an innocent child, a child (!!!), with no wimmin. Think of the horrors that poor innocent witnessed.
Anyone with three functioning brain cells to rub together saw this coming the moment these Nazi shitsmears came for abortion and trans people. It 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 stops with just one encroachment on civil rights. They will do their dead level best to undo every bit of progress since at least the 19th Amendment- or the 13th, if they think they can get away with it. There is no room in their world for anyone but their preferred ruling class. Anyone who isn't a cis/het white man, with a habit of talking to the right brand of imaginary friend on Sundays, had better be paying attention. You may not be in the crosshairs now; you may not be tomorrow... but they'll get around to you, sooner or later.
Well, we know we won’t have to worry about this soon enough, once the SCROTUS rules on Kim Davis’ case. Our trust in the judicial system is falling, some levels, the highest specifically, is gone completely. This is not surprising. It also is nearly moot. Our entire government is crumbling, falling to fascism, judges will soon only be pawns to the regime.
Further Thought: Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis was famously jailed and sued for refusing to issue a marriage license to a gay couple in Kentucky AS A PART OF HER ASSIGNED DUTIES. Judge Dianne Hensley has similarly refused to implement the next step in that process in duties that are equally a part of her remit as well.
Is a county clerk to be punished for such a refusal but not a judge? Something is SERIOUSLY wrong here.
Oh, you 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 they issued this ruling specifically to create that very conflict- because now the case pretty much 𝘩𝘢𝘴 to go to SCROTUS, and the enterprising little wingnut wieners in Tex𝘢𝘴𝘴 figure this might be their big shot at either killing Obergefell dead or at least rendering it completely moot.
To be fair, Texas judges are ALLOWED but not REQUIRED to officiate. It is not part of their duties. To me the issue is that she is allowed to discriminate. Either she marries all comers or refuses all comers.
I am sure that a judge who refuses to marry a gay couple will treat other gay people exactly the same as straight people when they come before her for other issues. Because as we know bigots only let their bigotry effect very specific and ridgidly defined aspects of their lives.
We've known just about from the get-go that Franklin Graham is an asshat of the first water, who would likely kiss Trump's ass FOR REAL on a daily basis, given the chance.
Were I a Christian, I would be utterly embarrassed by him and his bullshit.
There is absolutely nothing that cannot be justified in the name of a dearly held religious belief. Who gets to make the determination as to just how sincere those beliefs are? Ecclesiastical courts? In my view, if an elected official can refuse to perform a duty on the basis of religious belief, then that person is unfit for that office by definition.
^^^^^^THIS!!!^^^^^
Following the speed limit is against my religion! I had to kill them! They (insert offense) and that is against my religion! Just wait....it will happen! Unreal. This country is no longer serious, nor a country of law and order.
Luckily there is the Sherman-Williams test to determine if a deeply held religious conviction is a real deeply held religious conviction.. I believe anything darker than bone white doesn't count.
https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.ORXcAzZGKvdjrt7miA2bxQHaEK
“ There is absolutely nothing that cannot be justified in the name of a dearly held religious belief.”
Try not paying taxes because of your dearly held religious belief.
Just because civil authorities will hold a person accountable for not paying their taxes, does not mean religious extremists cannot justify it in their own minds.
Also, doctors or anyone else in healthcare who refuse to perform life-saving abortions due to conscience clauses. Do your job or get out of the medical field. While they’re at it, stop posing as medical staff at phony Crisis Pregnancy Centers without a license, doing ultrasounds and STI testing under the guise of “free speech”.
The same should also be applied to pharmacists. If an a medical doctor prescribes it, they should fill it, period.
It's different with public servants. In the private sector, you can take your business elsewhere. In the public sphere, you pay the taxes that pay these people to perform these duties, they they don't do it! That is theft! The real answer is if these people can't/won't do their duties, they need to find another line of work.
"In the private sector, you can take your business elsewhere."
That is not always true, especially in small towns and rural areas. Especially in an area where the majority are christofascist. My take is, if they can't do the job in a professional manner, they should go into another profession.
🙌
Even the bigotry is bigger here in Texas.
And some of those counties out in the trans-Pecos region are huge. Finding a judge who is willing to perform a marriage will likely place a significant burden on LGBTQ couples trying to get married. But, that is the idea. The Christian Nationalists are looking for every excuse possible to deny others their rights. They believe their world view is tho only one suitable for society and they are willing to mess up others' lives to get their Gilead.
Funny, but Jesus had nothing to say about gay people (maybe because sexual orientation was unknown at the time).
He DID have some words about religious hypocrites and those who would judge others.
Sexual orientation as we know it now may not have been a phenomenon with a formal term applied to it, but the phenomenon itself has likely been extant from the time Homo sapiens started walking this Earth. How well it was accepted in certain quarters, especially considering those two lovely little verses in Leviticus, may be another matter.
Doesn't change the fact that men have partnered with men and women with women just about from the get-go, whether Jesus had an opinion on the topic or not.
"Sexual orienation as we know it now may not have been a phenomenon with a formal term applied to it..."
That's what I meant. Pretty obvious that that male + male and female + female predates any and all religions.
At the time the Jewish people made their apparition in history (13th or 12th century BCE from an Egyptian stele), several Middle East countries were tolerant of LGBTQIA+ people.
Interesting datum! Thanks for relating it! 👍
I already posted this but it's worth remembering that things are not black and white
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khnumhotep_and_Niankhkhnum
Definitely a couple for me. Just burying two brothers in the same mastaba makes no sense, unless they were children and buried with their parents. Even then, families wealthy enough made an independent tomb for their children. And both men were definitely wealthy.
The alleged jesus also never married and hung around with men most of the time.
And wasn't surprised when one of them kissed him.
Now we know why Jesus gave same-sex a pass. ;)
Also jeezyboy like to “ride” donkeys!
There has been a fair amount of speculation that the Apostle Paul was gay...
Self-hating?
Xtians forget that, unlike the imaginary Saul/Paul, the very real king with his name on their book loved him some of his fellow men.
You expect Christians to know actual history! This is a group that doesn’t read their own holy book of crap, know anything about the history of their religion. Hell, this is a group that is proud of their ignorance, to a point that the more ignorant you are the more a “true” believer you are!
That is what we (non-magas) have to deal with. Sometimes it feels like we (non-magas) are talking to a wall (wall of ignorance). You have better luck teaching quantum mechanics to your cat, then trying to explain something to a Christian.
If Saul/Paul was real, his self hatred would explain much!
His open hatred of women sure makes that case.
Maybe Jesus himself was gay? Explains alot (even if he wasn't real). The Romans sure knew about that sort of thing.
The Greeks, too. Judea was under the Greeks a lot longer than the Romans.
...𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘩𝘪𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘥𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘦, 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯.
This can be read two ways but it literally says the wedding officiants can't discriminate based on religion. What is in contest is not the religion of the people who want to get married, it's the officiant. Therefore, I would interpret that law to say that the judge is discriminating based on religion, her religion.
Put on your bible glasses. ; )
I read it that way at first.
What’s striking here is how the ruling effectively reframes public office as a space of private moral discretion, rather than a neutral executor of civil law.
Once that door is open, the system stops functioning as “equal protection” and starts operating as a patchwork of individual belief fiefdoms. That’s how theocratic governance begins: not with one sweeping law, but with a slow normalization of selective exemption.
citizens have to navigate a justice system where outcomes depend on the private theology of whoever is on the bench that day.
That’s not religious freedom its the erosion of institutional legitimacy itself.
Imagine the reaction if a county clerk refused to grant a marriage license to a straight couple due to their Christianity.
Theoretically possible. Would be entertaining as hell, to be sure. Not very likely, as it is Texas. A county clerk isn't likely to win an election without being a member in good standing at the local fundamentalist church.
Would stock up on popcorn to watch.
When I mentioned county clerks, I meant anywhere in the country.
Oh, you mean like ... Kentucky? Say, Rowan County, maybe?!? 😁
Anywhere in the 50 US states. :)
Yeah, that, too! 🤪
Are county clerks elected officials in Texas? That's a new one to me.
"County clerks are elected in countywide elections and serve a four-year term."
https://texapedia.info/county-clerks/
They are elected here in Floriduh, too.
🍿 I can’t wait to see a Pagan judge refuse to marry a straight Christian couple.
Sincerely,
held beliefs
Do your job or find another.
https://ibb.co/4n6BBv0T
https://ibb.co/Y4DGqt9D
https://ibb.co/s9XcHWhw
Do your job WITHOUT BIAS ... or find another.
And IIRC, Texas doesn’t allow non-religious celebrants. So it’s either a judge or someone with an internet “religious” certificate (like me).
I'm not sure. I would think that it would have been challenged if they had a blatantly unconstitutional rule like that.
BTW, the Equal Protection clause in the 14th Amendment doesn't just apply to race. Discrimination by a public official is not okay just because it's not racial.
Texas's unchecked radicalism is the result of extreme gerrymandering, which has placed the state under single-party rule by ensuring that Republicans have a permanent supermajority in the state legislature, despite the fact that all the state's chief metro areas (notably Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston) are all substantially Democratic-majority. This is the opposite of what our Founders intended. Elections need to be free and fair for a democracy to function, and there is no way that elections rigged by gerrymandering could be described as "fair."
On the more optimistic side, I think that attempts by red states to gerrymander even more may not be as effective as they are hoping. Democrats campaigning in '26 need to remind voters that their Republican opponents are Trumpsuckers who have supported Trump's disastrous policies. People who voted for Trump because they believed he would improve the economy are seeing how wrong they were. In order for gerrymandering to work, you have to be able to predict the voting patterns of particular geographical areas based on their past votes, but they won't be able to rely on such consistency this time. As long as the voters associate the Republicans in Congress with Trump and continue to blame them for the ongoing shutdown, a number of people who have voted for Trump having a bad case of buyer's remorse. While the MAGA base has been important to Congressional Trumpsuckers' success in getting elected, they can't rely solely on the hardcore MAGA nutjobs, but quite a few Trump voters are upset about the extremism of his second term, and Congress's passivity in the face of it. Some of them have even been popping up at No Kings rallies.
Nonetheless, while they may not gain as many seats as they hope, the Republicans probably will get some out of this plot. Other blue states need to join California in "countergerrymandering," or they may not be able to take control of Congress, which we desperately need them to do.
Congressional districts need to be a thing of the past. Proportional representation is not unconstitutional and needs to be the law of the land - likely through yet another constitutional amendment.
Agreed.
The two party system has become part of the problem as well in my book. I may think the Republicans need to face trial for some of their shenanigans, but the Democrats haven't shown me they're my friends, either.
Certainly not the corporate types.
I’m not 100% sure myself. I’m remembering something Hemant wrote. To best of my knowledge, clergy are exempted from a state requirement that they register with the state in order to officiate weddings. Judges and JotP are specifically authorized to marry people. And that might be it. I tried to look at the specifics. The Universal Life Church quoted Texas law as saying that “officers of religious organization, ministers, and Jewish rabbis” were authorized” (or maybe it was exempt from registration). So perhaps a secular officiant could perform weddings but only by registering.
As we all know, Hemant is (rightfully) concerned about unwarranted religious privilege. Exempting clergy from something required of non-clergy is unwarranted privilege.
I still have the credentials from the United Methodist Church to marry anyone I choose. If they find their way to my door, I will sign their license for free.
I’m ordained thru the ULC. I’ve let friends know that I’m available at no cost for their children if that would be useful. Or friends of their children. Whomever. My immediate circle of friends includes 2 families with transfolk and a couple more with gay/lesbian.
Constitutional amendments — especially the ones we really need — are very hard to push through. They have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states (regardless of how many people live in those states).
Congressional districts are numerically
proportional within each state. But the fixed number of seats in Congress means that the people of the largest states are underrepresented. Then the Senate gives additional overrepresentation to small states. The result is that the poorest states, with the least educated populations, that contribute the least economically, have disproportionate political power. (There are a couple blue states that are small in population in part due to simply being geographically tiny (Rhode Island, Delaware), but the vast majority of the small states are geographically large but predominantly rural red states.)
I'm curious about your suggestion that we eliminate Congressional districts. How would you suggest we elect representatives, if not by districts?
Not to speak for anyone else but one way to eliminate CDs would be to apportion by the statewide vote. Parties could put forth a slate of candidates, rank ordered.
Let me use Maryland as an example. We have 8 reps. At the moment, thanks to gerrymandering, 7 are held by Dems. (Kind of the mirror image of NC). For the sake of argument, let’s say 60% of the votes cast for the congressional election go to the Dems, 30% to the Rs, and 10% to the Greens. 60% of 8 seats is 4.8; 30% is 2.4; 10% is 0.8.
Using conventional rounding, the Dems get 5, the Rs get 2, and the Greens get 1.
The first 5 people on the Dem slate go to Congress, etc.
Are there problems with this? I can think of quite a few. But it does address gerrymandering and it can provide an opening for third parties.
Haven't given this much thought, but at first glance seems somewhat better.
We can have the states ratify an amendment and still not get the amendment. See the ERA.
A parliamentarian system?
Not viable in your country, unless the two major parties blow up.
https://ibb.co/s9PQ6Np0
Some didn't get the memo that natural families are one male working his ass off and one female taking care of the nest
https://mashable.com/article/eagle-throuple-family
Disgusting birds. Remember the penguins in that book, raising an innocent child, a child (!!!), with no wimmin. Think of the horrors that poor innocent witnessed.
Let us pray.
Sorry, my deepest religious beliefs forbid me to bray.
Is that a quote from Donkey Hotay?
𝐴𝑛𝑑 𝑇𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑜 𝑀𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑠 𝑇ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑒
Anyone with three functioning brain cells to rub together saw this coming the moment these Nazi shitsmears came for abortion and trans people. It 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 stops with just one encroachment on civil rights. They will do their dead level best to undo every bit of progress since at least the 19th Amendment- or the 13th, if they think they can get away with it. There is no room in their world for anyone but their preferred ruling class. Anyone who isn't a cis/het white man, with a habit of talking to the right brand of imaginary friend on Sundays, had better be paying attention. You may not be in the crosshairs now; you may not be tomorrow... but they'll get around to you, sooner or later.
SWAMPers. Straight White Anglo Male Protestants ONLY allowed
Straight White Anglo Male Poltergeists
I only have two functioning brain cells, and I saw it coming.
🎯 🎯🎯
Well, we know we won’t have to worry about this soon enough, once the SCROTUS rules on Kim Davis’ case. Our trust in the judicial system is falling, some levels, the highest specifically, is gone completely. This is not surprising. It also is nearly moot. Our entire government is crumbling, falling to fascism, judges will soon only be pawns to the regime.
She's a bigot, unqualified to be a judge.
Oh, and would she officiate over a polygamist marriage because that's part of her "sincerely held religious beliefs".
Or re-marry a divorcee?
I thought of that after I hit post. : )
Further Thought: Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis was famously jailed and sued for refusing to issue a marriage license to a gay couple in Kentucky AS A PART OF HER ASSIGNED DUTIES. Judge Dianne Hensley has similarly refused to implement the next step in that process in duties that are equally a part of her remit as well.
Is a county clerk to be punished for such a refusal but not a judge? Something is SERIOUSLY wrong here.
Oh, you 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 they issued this ruling specifically to create that very conflict- because now the case pretty much 𝘩𝘢𝘴 to go to SCROTUS, and the enterprising little wingnut wieners in Tex𝘢𝘴𝘴 figure this might be their big shot at either killing Obergefell dead or at least rendering it completely moot.
To be fair, Texas judges are ALLOWED but not REQUIRED to officiate. It is not part of their duties. To me the issue is that she is allowed to discriminate. Either she marries all comers or refuses all comers.
I am sure that a judge who refuses to marry a gay couple will treat other gay people exactly the same as straight people when they come before her for other issues. Because as we know bigots only let their bigotry effect very specific and ridgidly defined aspects of their lives.
KKKon hypocrisy
https://scontent-ord5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/575174923_122147167760841298_4033143730126890980_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p526x296_tt6&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=127cfc&_nc_ohc=8jnH8XLyMH0Q7kNvwFc1ST3&_nc_oc=AdkV3V6X_QDDGyL2ra94jqrUUT7VfQr6peImJNam1Zxyd8TR6ZPXtL6MfGGee_5WYtQ&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-2.xx&_nc_gid=6KPUBPtczDLrA1WyvYV7rg&oh=00_AffKcbZENWszbSXiJrSxDi2qdst9fntvGsRPMPS0Oqf9TQ&oe=690C1DF4
We've known just about from the get-go that Franklin Graham is an asshat of the first water, who would likely kiss Trump's ass FOR REAL on a daily basis, given the chance.
Were I a Christian, I would be utterly embarrassed by him and his bullshit.
Has he not had any scandals of his own? Sounds like he should have.
If he has, the news has been well hidden!
I just checked, and while there are "scandals" – weak sauce – there is nothing sexual unfortunately. There seems to be a shortage of pool boys.
Must be tough for him to carry two different standards into battle.
I doubt he actually battles.
Spiritual Warfare, man. It's the ultimate battle for souls. You don't understand how tough it is. He puts on that armor for us!
Hemant says "...it would throw the government into chaos."
Die Anyway says, how could we tell the difference?
Had to laugh at the chyron in the TV screen shot... Justice of the Piece. Maybe the writer was home schooled.
"Desr autocorrect: it's never duck."
It's a 4 letter word that begins with F and ends with K.
Ummmm....fork?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPXsYOPex4s
Yeah, like that. 😂
Freedom Unleashed by Charlie Kirk. www.duck.org.