Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Another false comparison.If a judge can make a baker to bake cake. Then he can make a woman do bible homework.
Sure. Again.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.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.
Cite the case please.
You do realize that there has not been a single case where a Judge ordered a baker to bake a cake, right?Another false comparison.If a judge can make a baker to bake cake. Then he can make a woman do bible homework.
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.
FalseBeing queer is a choice, being christian is a choice. No different.Not too familiar with the First Amendment, are we?If a judge can make a baker to bake cake. Then he can make a woman do bible homework.
I think a person should have the freedom to choose for themselves. Without government intrusion.So, then, the laws against discrimination based on religion, a choice, should also ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, a choice? Very enlightened of you.Being queer is a choice, being christian is a choice. No different.Not too familiar with the First Amendment, are we?If a judge can make a baker to bake cake. Then he can make a woman do bible homework.
Yes it is, being queer is also considered a mental disorder.FalseBeing queer is a choice, being christian is a choice. No different.Not too familiar with the First Amendment, are we?If a judge can make a baker to bake cake. Then he can make a woman do bible homework.
False the cake bullshit is contract law.Another false comparison.If a judge can make a baker to bake cake. Then he can make a woman do bible homework.
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.
So is being you.Yes it is, being queer is also considered a mental disorder.FalseBeing queer is a choice, being christian is a choice. No different.Not too familiar with the First Amendment, are we?If a judge can make a baker to bake cake. Then he can make a woman do bible homework.
Sure. Again.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.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.
Cite the case please.
Three federal circuit courts have held that coerced participation in 12-step programs like AA and NA violates the First Amendment. In Kerr v. Ferry, 95 F.3d 472 (7th Cir. 1996), the Seventh Circuit held that requiring an inmate to attend NA meetings or risk suffering adverse effects for parole eligibility violated the Establishment Clause. The Second Circuit reached a similar conclusion in Warner v. Orange County Department of Probation, 115 F.3d 1068 (2d Cir. 1997), striking a probation condition requiring attendance at AA meetings. And most recently the Ninth Circuit determined that a parolee’s First Amendment rights were violated when his parole officer forced him to attend 12-step meetings as a condition of his parole. Inouye v. Kemna, 504 F.3d 705 (9th Cir. 2007). In the latter two cases the courts found the law sufficiently clearly established to abrogate the officers’ qualified immunity." Does Mandatory AA/NA Violate the First Amendment?
False the cake bullshit is contract law.Another false comparison.If a judge can make a baker to bake cake. Then he can make a woman do bible homework.
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.
The other is for lack of the proper legal phase family law.
We are not talking about a divorce decree. You really ought to read the articles you comment on. From the ariticle:We are talking about what this divorce decree set of orders were for the divorcees and their children.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.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.
We are not talking about your imaginary cases.
What did the divorce decree pertaining to child custody in this case say?
I know he just got fined out of business. So his lively got taken because he didn't want to cater a queer wedding. But he did sell them pastries on a regular basis.You do realize that there has not been a single case where a Judge ordered a baker to bake a cake, right?Another false comparison.If a judge can make a baker to bake cake. Then he can make a woman do bible homework.
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.
but again, we know that wasn't the case here.I don't want to imagine, that's for fools. I want to see the court order. Is the judge part of a scam? NOT the first time.Let's imagine THIS scenario
Imagine the father is a Christian, and two children are likewise, and the mother is not.
Now understand THIS. Once you go into family court, they are in your business. If you don't want them there, don't end up in family court.
Now let's suppose the judge decided that mom needed to attend some sensitivity training to become a better parent to her children who wanted to be Christians against her wishes....
And boom , you have a reasonable reason for such a ruling.
If you don't think that's reasonable, it's because you're an idiot.We don't, but we do know it wasn't sensitivity classesIn other words, you do not have the whole story.actually, we do. the local news station article does not say that she was sent there for religious sensitivity, and the quoted materials from the class do not support a religious sensitivity curriculum.You don't know if that is true or not, and neither does the OP.
i'd also be very, very, very surprised if anyone was ever made to attend such a class.
Keep looking.
Why do you keep talking about sensitivity training?
A judge certainly can say " Go learn about the religion your children want to follow if you want custody"
that doesn't mean you have to become a Christian, or that the state is forcing you to do shit.
I mean you DO realize that you don't HAVE to go to family court right? You CAN divorce without going through court, I wouldn't recommend it, but you can do it.
Again falseYes it is, being queer is also considered a mental disorder.FalseBeing queer is a choice, being christian is a choice. No different.Not too familiar with the First Amendment, are we?If a judge can make a baker to bake cake. Then he can make a woman do bible homework.
Listen, dumb ass, a criminal defendant is subject to much more restriction on their liberty than a woman going to court asking for the Court to help her and her ex co-parent. If a criminal defendant has the right to not be forced into religious counseling, a custody litigant who asks for the court to intervene certainly does. And if your tiny little brain was capable of understanding the decisions I cited you, you would recognize that the principles of the 1st Amendment apply regardless of the setting.Sure. Again.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.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.
Cite the case please.
Three federal circuit courts have held that coerced participation in 12-step programs like AA and NA violates the First Amendment. In Kerr v. Ferry, 95 F.3d 472 (7th Cir. 1996), the Seventh Circuit held that requiring an inmate to attend NA meetings or risk suffering adverse effects for parole eligibility violated the Establishment Clause. The Second Circuit reached a similar conclusion in Warner v. Orange County Department of Probation, 115 F.3d 1068 (2d Cir. 1997), striking a probation condition requiring attendance at AA meetings. And most recently the Ninth Circuit determined that a parolee’s First Amendment rights were violated when his parole officer forced him to attend 12-step meetings as a condition of his parole. Inouye v. Kemna, 504 F.3d 705 (9th Cir. 2007). In the latter two cases the courts found the law sufficiently clearly established to abrogate the officers’ qualified immunity." Does Mandatory AA/NA Violate the First Amendment?
That's CRIMINAL court you dumb fuck, an ENTIRELY different matter than civil court.
FalseFalse the cake bullshit is contract law.Another false comparison.If a judge can make a baker to bake cake. Then he can make a woman do bible homework.
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.
The other is for lack of the proper legal phase family law.
LOL If it were contract law bro I could certainly refuse to serve a gay or a Mulsim, or a negro, or a white guy, or a woman, or whatever.
Has NOTHING to do with contract law.
We are not talking about a divorce decree. You really ought to read the articles you comment on. From the ariticle:We are talking about what this divorce decree set of orders were for the divorcees and their children.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.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.
We are not talking about your imaginary cases.
What did the divorce decree pertaining to child custody in this case say?
"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.
FalseFalse the cake bullshit is contract law.Another false comparison.If a judge can make a baker to bake cake. Then he can make a woman do bible homework.
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.
The other is for lack of the proper legal phase family law.
LOL If it were contract law bro I could certainly refuse to serve a gay or a Mulsim, or a negro, or a white guy, or a woman, or whatever.
Has NOTHING to do with contract law.
You should also fact check the base article. The judge did not order "religious sessions". The offering by the court has a syllabus that has nothing to do with religion. Mary Pepper who provides the classes should be the one drawing ire right now.We are not talking about a divorce decree. You really ought to read the articles you comment on. From the ariticle:We are talking about what this divorce decree set of orders were for the divorcees and their children.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.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.
We are not talking about your imaginary cases.
What did the divorce decree pertaining to child custody in this case say?
"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.
