Cory Booker to Trump judicial nominee: Do you believe gay relationships are a sin?

[apdst]

Religious tests are forbidden by The Constitution. This is more proof that the Democrats can't be trusted with our civil rights. And these clowns want to transform The United States into a democratic socialist country, where they have even more power? **** that ****.

https://hotair.com/archives/2019/02...dicial-nominee-believe-gay-relationships-sin/

 

[Rexedgar]

Here’s the flip side of that “religious test” coin!

https://www.thedailybeast.com/duck-...because-i-have-immortality-given-to-me-by-god

“Don’t need no stinkin’ health-care!”- apologies to “Treasure of the Sierra Madre”

 

[apdst]

Here’s the flip side of that “religious test” coin!

https://www.thedailybeast.com/duck-...because-i-have-immortality-given-to-me-by-god

“Don’t need no stinkin’ health-care!”- apologies to “Treasure of the Sierra Madre”

That's a pretty stupid response. Is that really the best you can do?

 

[Common Sense 1]

Booker is a clueless fool.......... Spartacus strikes again!

Cory Booker schooled by Kavanaugh replacement pick after question on ‘LGBTQ law clerks’

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cory-booker-schooled-by-kavanaugh-replacement-pick-after-question-on-lgbtq-law-clerks

"Have you ever had any LGBTQ law clerks?" Booker asked.

Rao responded: "Senator, I've yet to be a judge. I don't have law clerks."

Booker didn’t miss a beat, and clarified that he meant “someone working for you.” Rao is currently the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, a position described as the Trump administration’s “deregulatory czar."

“To be honest I don’t know the sexual orientation of my staff,” Rao responded. “I take people as they come, irrespective of their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation. I treat people as individuals.”

 

[Acadia]

Religious tests are forbidden by The Constitution. This is more proof that the Democrats can't be trusted with our civil rights. And these clowns want to transform The United States into a democratic socialist country, where they have even more power? **** that ****.

https://hotair.com/archives/2019/02...dicial-nominee-believe-gay-relationships-sin/

The unconstitutional religious tests continue.

 

[lwf]

Religious tests are forbidden by The Constitution. This is more proof that the Democrats can't be trusted with our civil rights. And these clowns want to transform The United States into a democratic socialist country, where they have even more power? **** that ****.

https://hotair.com/archives/2019/02...dicial-nominee-believe-gay-relationships-sin/

That isn't a religious test, it's a homophobia test and his constituents have a right to know if homophobia will affect his duty as a judge.

 

[Crovax]

That isn't a religious test, it's a homophobia test and his constituents have a right to know if homophobia will affect his duty as a judge.

The question that was asked wasn’t related to his duty as a judge

 

[apdst]

That isn't a religious test, it's a homophobia test and his constituents have a right to know if homophobia will affect his duty as a judge.

It's absolutely a religious test.

 

[lwf]

The question that was asked wasn’t related to his duty as a judge

It was a leading question to determine whether or not he was homophobic. The reason people have a right to know whether or not he is homophobic is because he is a judicial nominee. It would be no different than asking a leading question to determine if he had racist beliefs. The very fact of a person being a homophobe or a racist makes their judicial nomination questionable.

 

[Crovax]

It was a leading question to determine whether or not he was homophobic. The reason people have a right to know whether or not he is homophobic is because he is a judicial nominee. It would be no different than asking a leading question to determine if he had racist beliefs. The very fact of a person being a homophobe or a racist makes their judicial nomination questionable.

Christian=homophobe to you, you must be a delight at parties

 

[Trippy Trekker]

Booker is a clueless fool.......... Spartacus strikes again!

Cory Booker schooled by Kavanaugh replacement pick after question on ‘LGBTQ law clerks’

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cory-booker-schooled-by-kavanaugh-replacement-pick-after-question-on-lgbtq-law-clerks

"Have you ever had any LGBTQ law clerks?" Booker asked.

Rao responded: "Senator, I've yet to be a judge. I don't have law clerks."

Booker didn’t miss a beat, and clarified that he meant “someone working for you.” Rao is currently the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, a position described as the Trump administration’s “deregulatory czar."

“To be honest I don’t know the sexual orientation of my staff,” Rao responded. “I take people as they come, irrespective of their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation. I treat people as individuals.”

Clueless fool?

Doh! Booker, a Rhodes Scholar, has an impressive athletic pedigree, an undergraduate degree from Stanford and a Law Degree from Yale. Upon graduating Yale, he eschewed the prospect of beginning a career with a prestigious law firm, instead returning to the Newark area, serving on the city council, then Mayor of Newark, then as the junior Senator from NJ.

 

[lwf]

Christian=homophobe to you, you must be a delight at parties

Christian does not equal homophobe, unless you think all Christians are against homosexuality. If that's the case, then it is you to whom Christian = homophobe.

 

[Grokmaster]

Religious tests are forbidden by The Constitution. This is more proof that the Democrats can't be trusted with our civil rights. And these clowns want to transform The United States into a democratic socialist country, where they have even more power? **** that ****.

https://hotair.com/archives/2019/02...dicial-nominee-believe-gay-relationships-sin/

Illegal to question his Faith. What a SLIMEBALL.

 

[Crovax]

Christian does not equal homophobe, unless you think all Christians are against homosexuality. If that's the case, then it is you to whom Christian = homophobe.

That fact that you are so close mined that thinking that something is a sin means that you are against a person and would be discriminate towards them shows that you are incapable of understanding the problem with the question posed by Booker

 

[Grokmaster]

Clueless fool?

Doh! Booker, a Rhodes Scholar, has an impressive athletic pedigree, an undergraduate degree from Stanford and a Law Degree from Yale. Upon graduating Yale, he eschewed the prospect of beginning a career with a prestigious law firm, instead returning to the Newark area, serving on the city council, then Mayor of Newark, then as the junior Senator from NJ.

Rhodes Scholarships are POLITICAL APPOINTMENTS...for SOFT SUBJECT, like "political science"....and Booker was the worst mayor in the history of Newark, by ANY MEASURABLE METRIC.

Apparently he FAILED the Constitution part of his education, as he is NOT ALLOWED to challenge a nominee's RELIGIOUS BELIEFS....

 

[Tanngrisnir]

It's absolutely a religious test.

Only to the terminally deluded and blissfully inebriated.

It wasn't a test, nor can you show that it was.

 

[Felis Leo]

Only to the terminally deluded and blissfully inebriated.

It wasn't a test, nor can you show that it was.

Asking someone whether or not something is a "sin" to them is a religious test. It may not be as nasty as asking if they are a "Papist." It may not be as sinister as asking whether or not they believe in transubstantiation over consubstantiation. But it is a question directly regarding their personal religious faith and is unacceptable.

Booker could have asked: "Do you believe gay people are entitled to equal protection under presently-existing public accommodation laws?" I think that is a perfectly acceptable question to ask, and gets to the meat of the issue without bringing in the candidates religious faith.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Asking someone whether or not something is a "sin" to them is a religious test. It may not be as nasty as asking if they are a "Papist." It may not be as sinister as asking whether or not they believe in transubstantiation over consubstantiation. But it is a question directly regarding their personal religious faith and is unacceptable.

Booker could have asked: "Do you believe gay people are entitled to equal protection under presently-existing public accommodation laws?" I think that is a perfectly acceptable question to ask, and gets to the meat of the issue without bringing in the candidates religious faith.

No, it's not, as no particularly religion was specified.

 

[Moderate Right]

Religious tests are forbidden by The Constitution. This is more proof that the Democrats can't be trusted with our civil rights. And these clowns want to transform The United States into a democratic socialist country, where they have even more power? **** that ****.

https://hotair.com/archives/2019/02...dicial-nominee-believe-gay-relationships-sin/

Shame. This country was founded on religious freedom and yet the left want no one to have religious freedom. They must be persecuted for any and all beliefs. Constitution be damned. Funny how, having been an employer for many decades, I can't legally ask questions regarding religious issues and yet Cory Booker seems to be able to.

 

[lwf]

That fact that you are so close mined that thinking that something is a sin means that you are against a person and would be discriminate towards them shows that you are incapable of understanding the problem with the question posed by Booker

Is it incorrect to say that if you think something is a sin, you are not in favor of it?

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Shame. This country was founded on religious freedom and yet the left want no one to have religious freedom. They must be persecuted for any and all beliefs. Constitution be damned.

No, it was founded on revolting against taxation w/out representation and against royalty. The Pilgrims were not the Founding Fathers.

We were not founded on religious freedom.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/americas-true-history-of-religious-tolerance-61312684/

Why do you hate history and the US Constitution?

 

[Crovax]

Is it incorrect to say that if you think something is a sin, you are not in favor of it?

Moving the goal post, you originally claimed that if someone think something is a sin they are irrevocably prejudiced against it

 

[lwf]

Moving the goal post, you originally claimed that if someone think something is a sin they are irrevocably prejudiced against it

If someone is against something, they are prejudiced against it. (Not irrevocably so.)
If a sin is something you are against, and you think homosexuality is a sin, then you are prejudiced against it. (Not irrevocably so.)
If you are against homosexuality, then you are homophobic.
If all Christians believe homosexuality is a sin, then all Christians are homophobic.
If not all Christians believe homosexuality is a sin (which I believe is the case,) then not all Christians are homophobic.

 

[ataraxia]

Religious tests are forbidden by The Constitution. This is more proof that the Democrats can't be trusted with our civil rights. And these clowns want to transform The United States into a democratic socialist country, where they have even more power? **** that ****.

https://hotair.com/archives/2019/02...dicial-nominee-believe-gay-relationships-sin/

So if there was a Muslim SCOTUS appointee in the future, would it be wrong to ask him if he believed if it's a sin for women to walk outside without a burka or vote?

 

[Felis Leo]

If someone is against something, they are prejudiced against it. (Not irrevocably so.)
If a sin is something you are against, and you think homosexuality is a sin, then you are prejudiced against it. (Not irrevocably so.)
If you are against homosexuality, then you are homophobic.
If all Christians believe homosexuality is a sin, then all Christians are homophobic.
If not all Christians believe homosexuality is a sin (which I believe is the case,) then not all Christians are homophobic.

Having once been religious, I find it important that distinctions need to be made. Believing (or acknowledging) that something is a sin and believing that public policy should be set against it are two different things. Most Christians agree that adultery is a sin under Bible. It literally is within the Ten Commandments. Very few Christians in the United States, to my knowledge, believe that there should be anti-adultery laws that imprison or execute people for cheating on their spouses.