Court Forces Non-Religious Mom To Get Christian Counseling Or Lose Custody Of Her Children

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You are certainly not a lawyer, a first year law student knows that you don't have a right not to hear talk about God.

Talk about stupid.

The COTUS ONLY protects your rights from being violated by LAWS.

Nothing else.

Yes you do ever heard of nuisance laws?

So you're suggesting that every person who talks about religion where you can hear it should be charged with causing a nuisance?

You're an idiot.

Did'nt say or infer that .
I just pointed out the massive flaws in your pseudo logic

Daws, I'm magnitudes smarter than you are, and also you're a partisan chump.

Besides being hilariously wrong I could be brain dead and still be infinitely smarter and more clever than you on your best day.

You are brain dead, and wrong on this topic (as is your want)

Can judges order people to attend a faith based counseling session? Obviously, as this one just did.

Deal with that

 

[ogibillm]

Yes you do ever heard of nuisance laws?

So you're suggesting that every person who talks about religion where you can hear it should be charged with causing a nuisance?

You're an idiot.

Did'nt say or infer that .
I just pointed out the massive flaws in your pseudo logic

Daws, I'm magnitudes smarter than you are, and also you're a partisan chump.

Besides being hilariously wrong I could be brain dead and still be infinitely smarter and more clever than you on your best day.

You are brain dead, and wrong on this topic (as is your want)

Can judges order people to attend a faith based counseling session? Obviously, as this one just did.

Deal with that

i don't think it was his intention. why would she be surprised at the prayer if she had been sent to faith based counseling?

 

[jon_berzerk]

The judge should be removed form the bench as he is doing something unconstitutional by forcing his religious beliefs on normal people




Holly Salzman is a loving mother of two sons who lives in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She recently sought court aid in coparenting her children with their father, from whom she is now divorced. The judge then ordered her to attend sessions with a Christian counselor or face contempt of court charges and lose custody of her children.


Court Forces Non-Religious Mom To Get Christian Counseling Or Lose Custody Of Her Children

so what you leftards always say the judge is right

--LOL

Only when they are.

in your opinion

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then give us the grounds for the order.

Look at the original decree of termination of the marriage pertaining to the children. Wanna bet there is something about children living in a religious environment?

And if there is, the judge has grounds.

Fucking wow! You're on the right side for once.

I am always on the right side, and am almost never wrong. You think ideology instead of law and serve your neighbors. That is your greatest undoing.

You forgot modest.

I was imitating koshergrl's attitude and nearly crapped in my pants I was so full of it.

 

[aris2chat]

Non-religious woman who refused judge's order to meet with Christian counselor loses her sons

 

[jknowgood]

View attachment 50212

Yes it is, being queer is also considered a mental disorder.

Again false
Only homophobes say it is , but hey that's all you.

Yeah right, I have never done anything against a queer, but medically it is a mental disorder. I'm just tired of hearing about it every where I go.

False 50 years ago it was but not now it's as homophobic and as antiquated as the pejorative queer.

That is a mental disorder.

Next time you put on a suit which is really just another kind of costume .it must be a mental disorder too.
God you're an ignorant fuck.

They are proud to dress like that you degenerate.

 

[paddymurphy]

If a judge can make a baker to bake cake. Then he can make a woman do bible homework.

Another false comparison.

Actually it is not. You're just another partisan moron.

Both cases deal with the law. The difference is one case you want the law to allow something and in the other you don't , when the reality is that the law allows for BOTH, not just the one you approve of.

You do realize that there has not been a single case where a Judge ordered a baker to bake a cake, right?

False
Judge Orders Colorado Bakery to Cater for Same-Sex Weddings
A Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a gay couple has been given an ultimatum by a judge; serve gay weddings or face fines.

Did not order him to bake a cake, ordered him to follow the law that did not allow him to discriminate based on sexual orientation. It was a cease and desist order directing him to stop breaking the law. The wedding he refused to bake for was long over.

 

[paddymurphy]

Not too familiar with the First Amendment, are we?

Being queer is a choice, being christian is a choice. No different.

False

Yes it is, being queer is also considered a mental disorder.

Again false
Only homophobes say it is , but hey that's all you.

Yeah right, I have never done anything against a queer, but medically it is a mental disorder. I'm just tired of hearing about it every where I go.

Stop hanging out in gay bars then.

 

[paddymurphy]

Stupidest post (and most dishonest) of the day: "A judge cannot order a party to undergo religious counseling. End of story."

Beginning of story: if a court order has accepted a proposed decree jointly agreed to by all parties that religious counseling of some sort be part of the decree, then, yes, it is legal.

You know it, paddy, so stop the lying.

You add in a fact that is not part of the story; that it was agreed to. If it was agreed to, then, yes, a Judge can order her to do that which she agreed to. If it was not then forcing her to attend counseling that is based on religion and requiring the parent to participate in things like bible reading violates the First Amendment. I see you have not bothered to address the court cases that clearly hold that such an order is a violation of the First Amendment.

We are talking about what this divorce decree set of orders were for the divorcees and their children.

We are not talking about your imaginary cases.

What did the divorce decree pertaining to child custody in this case say?

We are not talking about a divorce decree. You really ought to read the articles you comment on. From the ariticle:

"Holly Salzman was hoping to get some help co-parenting her 11-year-old twin boys with her ex-husband. Instead she says she got 10 court-ordered religious sessions that she did not want.

“It’s very inappropriate,” Salzman said.

District Court ordered 10 classes through it’s Family Court Division. Family Court provides services in child custody cases to reduce conflict."

She went to Court to ask that her and her husband attend co-parenting counseling. There was no order before that. You insert facts that are not present because you know you are making a fool of yourself.

What part did you not read that the counselor opened the sessions with prayer. That is it period.
It is Salzman who went overboard with saying it was court ordered religious sessions.
Opening prayer is not religious sessions.

She was ordered by the counselor to write an essay about who God was to her. If that is true and if the counselor imbued the sessions with religion, it was a violation of the mother's rights to be compelled to engage in such religious activity.

 

[paddymurphy]

Stupidest post (and most dishonest) of the day: "A judge cannot order a party to undergo religious counseling. End of story."

Beginning of story: if a court order has accepted a proposed decree jointly agreed to by all parties that religious counseling of some sort be part of the decree, then, yes, it is legal.

You know it, paddy, so stop the lying.

You add in a fact that is not part of the story; that it was agreed to. If it was agreed to, then, yes, a Judge can order her to do that which she agreed to. If it was not then forcing her to attend counseling that is based on religion and requiring the parent to participate in things like bible reading violates the First Amendment. I see you have not bothered to address the court cases that clearly hold that such an order is a violation of the First Amendment.

We are talking about what this divorce decree set of orders were for the divorcees and their children.

We are not talking about your imaginary cases.

What did the divorce decree pertaining to child custody in this case say?

And what were the grounds the court used to REQUIRE she go?

Note the anti-Godists won't answer this.

Thank you, Peach, for that.

The grounds were that she asked the Court to order her and her ex to participate in co-parenting counseling. The Court chose a counselor that has decided to include religion in her work.

 

[paddymurphy]

How so when Salzman was interested in religion?
It's a she said, then she said type of thing.
We don't know which one is right or not.
We need other people to come forward if Pepper pushed religion on them.
It also seems that no one else so far is complaining about it.

i find pepper's claim that salzman was interested in having a religious class while professing a disbelief in god to be somewhat hard to swallow.
again, if you don't believe in a particular deity why would you want to learn how that supposed deity would want you to behave?

Did you forget about this part?
“There was interested in analyzing her belief system. She asked me specifically… how do I understand spirituality, meaning and purpose and life,” Pepper said.

i know what she claims. just doesn't seem very likely since she does say, on camera, that she knows salzman doesn't believe in god.
but again, i don't think this is a problem with the judge, or with the courts. I think it's a problem with farming out government work to someone with little oversight.

I can understand that.
What I have a problem with is, this is the only person so far that is complaining about her.

well, for one, if it were me in that position, i'd suck it up, do the time, and get it over with if the lady was telling me to give my life over the flying spaghetti monster. i mean this lady lost her kids because she stopped going. how many people in a position to lose their kids would raise a stink about the counseling the court ordered them to attend? my guess is not many. it's also tough to say how long she's been doing the counseling, and how many people would actually object to the religious aspects of it. most people in this country are christians after all.
finally, there always has to be a first.

That is what she did. She finished the sessions and then complained about it.

 

[paddymurphy]

Then give us the grounds for the order.

Look at the original decree of termination of the marriage pertaining to the children. Wanna bet there is something about children living in a religious environment?

And if there is, the judge has grounds.

Fucking wow! You're on the right side for once.

Except, he is not. The counseling was not the result of any decree provision regarding religion. The counseling was not about religion. It was supposed to be about co-parenting and the counselor turned it into an opportunity to proselytize to a captive audience.

 

[paddymurphy]

Yes you do ever heard of nuisance laws?

So you're suggesting that every person who talks about religion where you can hear it should be charged with causing a nuisance?

You're an idiot.

Did'nt say or infer that .
I just pointed out the massive flaws in your pseudo logic

Daws, I'm magnitudes smarter than you are, and also you're a partisan chump.

Besides being hilariously wrong I could be brain dead and still be infinitely smarter and more clever than you on your best day.

You are brain dead, and wrong on this topic (as is your want)

Can judges order people to attend a faith based counseling session? Obviously, as this one just did.

Deal with that

No, they cannot as several court decisions I showed you proved. More importantly, the Judge did not order her to religious based counseling. He ordered her to counseling on co-parenting that the counselor conducted through a religious perspective. You make up facts to support your opinion.

 

[jknowgood]

Being queer is a choice, being christian is a choice. No different.

False

Yes it is, being queer is also considered a mental disorder.

Again false
Only homophobes say it is , but hey that's all you.

Yeah right, I have never done anything against a queer, but medically it is a mental disorder. I'm just tired of hearing about it every where I go.

Stop hanging out in gay bars then.

Never done that, I would rather not meet you.

 

[peach174]

If a judge can make a baker to bake cake. Then he can make a woman do bible homework.

Another false comparison.

Actually it is not. You're just another partisan moron.

Both cases deal with the law. The difference is one case you want the law to allow something and in the other you don't , when the reality is that the law allows for BOTH, not just the one you approve of.

You do realize that there has not been a single case where a Judge ordered a baker to bake a cake, right?

False
Judge Orders Colorado Bakery to Cater for Same-Sex Weddings
A Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a gay couple has been given an ultimatum by a judge; serve gay weddings or face fines.

Did not order him to bake a cake, ordered him to follow the law that did not allow him to discriminate based on sexual orientation. It was a cease and desist order directing him to stop breaking the law. The wedding he refused to bake for was long over.

Semantics seems to have blinded you in your ideology.
He ordered him to bake cakes for future weddings.
Nicolle Martin, an attorney for Masterpiece Cakeshop, told The Associated Press that the judge's decision was "reprehensible" and "antithetical to everything America stands for."

"He can't violate his conscience in order to collect a paycheck," Martin said. "If Jack can't make wedding cakes, he can't continue to support his family. And in order to make wedding cakes, Jack must violate his belief system."

 

[paddymurphy]

Another false comparison.

Actually it is not. You're just another partisan moron.

Both cases deal with the law. The difference is one case you want the law to allow something and in the other you don't , when the reality is that the law allows for BOTH, not just the one you approve of.

You do realize that there has not been a single case where a Judge ordered a baker to bake a cake, right?

False
Judge Orders Colorado Bakery to Cater for Same-Sex Weddings
A Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a gay couple has been given an ultimatum by a judge; serve gay weddings or face fines.

Did not order him to bake a cake, ordered him to follow the law that did not allow him to discriminate based on sexual orientation. It was a cease and desist order directing him to stop breaking the law. The wedding he refused to bake for was long over.

Semantics seems to have blinded you in your ideology.
He ordered him to bake cakes for future weddings.
Nicolle Martin, an attorney for Masterpiece Cakeshop, told The Associated Press that the judge's decision was "reprehensible" and "antithetical to everything America stands for."

"He can't violate his conscience in order to collect a paycheck," Martin said. "If Jack can't make wedding cakes, he can't continue to support his family. And in order to make wedding cakes, Jack must violate his belief system."

Ordered him to cease and desist from violating Colorado law. Does not want to follow the law, move or choose a different occupation.

 

[peach174]

Actually it is not. You're just another partisan moron.

Both cases deal with the law. The difference is one case you want the law to allow something and in the other you don't , when the reality is that the law allows for BOTH, not just the one you approve of.

You do realize that there has not been a single case where a Judge ordered a baker to bake a cake, right?

False
Judge Orders Colorado Bakery to Cater for Same-Sex Weddings
A Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a gay couple has been given an ultimatum by a judge; serve gay weddings or face fines.

Did not order him to bake a cake, ordered him to follow the law that did not allow him to discriminate based on sexual orientation. It was a cease and desist order directing him to stop breaking the law. The wedding he refused to bake for was long over.

Semantics seems to have blinded you in your ideology.
He ordered him to bake cakes for future weddings.
Nicolle Martin, an attorney for Masterpiece Cakeshop, told The Associated Press that the judge's decision was "reprehensible" and "antithetical to everything America stands for."

"He can't violate his conscience in order to collect a paycheck," Martin said. "If Jack can't make wedding cakes, he can't continue to support his family. And in order to make wedding cakes, Jack must violate his belief system."

Ordered him to cease and desist from violating Colorado law. Does not want to follow the law, move or choose a different occupation.

The Court gave rights to a small minority and took rights away from the large majority, rather than working things out where both have their rights.

 

[paddymurphy]

You do realize that there has not been a single case where a Judge ordered a baker to bake a cake, right?

False
Judge Orders Colorado Bakery to Cater for Same-Sex Weddings
A Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a gay couple has been given an ultimatum by a judge; serve gay weddings or face fines.

Did not order him to bake a cake, ordered him to follow the law that did not allow him to discriminate based on sexual orientation. It was a cease and desist order directing him to stop breaking the law. The wedding he refused to bake for was long over.

Semantics seems to have blinded you in your ideology.
He ordered him to bake cakes for future weddings.
Nicolle Martin, an attorney for Masterpiece Cakeshop, told The Associated Press that the judge's decision was "reprehensible" and "antithetical to everything America stands for."

"He can't violate his conscience in order to collect a paycheck," Martin said. "If Jack can't make wedding cakes, he can't continue to support his family. And in order to make wedding cakes, Jack must violate his belief system."

Ordered him to cease and desist from violating Colorado law. Does not want to follow the law, move or choose a different occupation.

The Court gave rights to a small minority and took rights away from the large majority, rather than working things out where both have their rights.

What rights were taken away? The right to discriminate? Sorry, that right was taken away by the Colorado legislature when they passed the anti-discrimination laws.

 

[peach174]

False
Judge Orders Colorado Bakery to Cater for Same-Sex Weddings
A Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a gay couple has been given an ultimatum by a judge; serve gay weddings or face fines.

Did not order him to bake a cake, ordered him to follow the law that did not allow him to discriminate based on sexual orientation. It was a cease and desist order directing him to stop breaking the law. The wedding he refused to bake for was long over.

Semantics seems to have blinded you in your ideology.
He ordered him to bake cakes for future weddings.
Nicolle Martin, an attorney for Masterpiece Cakeshop, told The Associated Press that the judge's decision was "reprehensible" and "antithetical to everything America stands for."

"He can't violate his conscience in order to collect a paycheck," Martin said. "If Jack can't make wedding cakes, he can't continue to support his family. And in order to make wedding cakes, Jack must violate his belief system."

Ordered him to cease and desist from violating Colorado law. Does not want to follow the law, move or choose a different occupation.

The Court gave rights to a small minority and took rights away from the large majority, rather than working things out where both have their rights.

What rights were taken away? The right to discriminate? Sorry, that right was taken away by the Colorado legislature when they passed the anti-discrimination laws.

The right to practice their faith.
It is also discrimination against those of faith.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And nobody has produced the original decress that would influence the court's decisions.

Until that happens, none of you have proven anything.