Kentucky Gubernatorial win is big win for Kim Davis

[bendog]

The fed is marriage now. States no longer have a say. If they can't determine at minimum requirements a mother and father, then they're out of the game completely.

Minimum requirements don't require genitals, but rather psychological and physical support

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

From the Kentucky Constitution, Section 228:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of .... according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."

Section_228

Last time I looked, free exercise of religion is in the Constitution. I guess she can't defend that on her own behalf.

Yes it is. So if that idiot's religious beliefs conflicted with her oath of office she should have resigned rather than violate both her oath before God and, in doing so, her alleged religious beliefs in keeping her faith! Hypocrisy is her true faith!

Hating of religion, or should I say the Christian religion, is your faith.

Do you support the Muslim delivery boys getting their court settlement because they refused to do their job based on religious beliefs and were fired for it? Should they have resigned?

Yup, you're an idiot to jump to those irrational conclusions.

Where's the jump?

You're either proving my point in spades, or you're being intentionally obtuse!

Have I said anything at all for any reasonable person to conclude I hate religion. Did the truck drivers take an oath of office before God? That is being an idiot and jumping to conclusions, fool!

 

[Conservative65]

Last time I looked, free exercise of religion is in the Constitution. I guess she can't defend that on her own behalf.

Yes it is. So if that idiot's religious beliefs conflicted with her oath of office she should have resigned rather than violate both her oath before God and, in doing so, her alleged religious beliefs in keeping her faith! Hypocrisy is her true faith!

Hating of religion, or should I say the Christian religion, is your faith.

Do you support the Muslim delivery boys getting their court settlement because they refused to do their job based on religious beliefs and were fired for it? Should they have resigned?

Yup, you're an idiot to jump to those irrational conclusions.

Where's the jump?

You're either proving my point in spades, or you're being intentionally obtuse!

Have I said anything at all for any reasonable person to conclude I hate religion. Did the truck drivers take an oath of office before God? That is being an idiot and jumping to conclusions, fool!

Your statements are the same as those who oppose or reject religion.

I asked a question about the truck drivers. I didn't make a statement. They, when hired, agreed to do a job that they know involved delivering alcohol.

 

[Skylar]

No surprise the butt fuck brigade doesn't or can't comprehend why this is a good win for Kim and religious rights in Kentucky. Oh well sit back and watch girls.

Religious rights? Trashing your oath as a GOVERNMENT employee is a right? WTF?
AGAIN, THE GOVERNMENT DOESNT HAVE RIGHTS

Kim Davis didn't take an oath to marry faggots, nor did she swear to commit sacrilege for the job. She took an oath to serve the majority of her community, which she did.

Her oath meant defending the Constitution. She failed to do that, and her job.

You're working under the impression that these folks consider the Constitution the supreme law of the land. They consider Christianity the Supreme Law of the Land. With all civil laws subject to it.

Which explains both their opposition to Sharia. And their opposition to secular law that they feel conflicts with Christianity.

 

[Skylar]

Last time I looked, free exercise of religion is in the Constitution. I guess she can't defend that on her own behalf.

Yes it is. So if that idiot's religious beliefs conflicted with her oath of office she should have resigned rather than violate both her oath before God and, in doing so, her alleged religious beliefs in keeping her faith! Hypocrisy is her true faith!

Hating of religion, or should I say the Christian religion, is your faith.

Do you support the Muslim delivery boys getting their court settlement because they refused to do their job based on religious beliefs and were fired for it? Should they have resigned?

Yup, you're an idiot to jump to those irrational conclusions.

Where's the jump?

You're either proving my point in spades, or you're being intentionally obtuse!

Have I said anything at all for any reasonable person to conclude I hate religion. Did the truck drivers take an oath of office before God? That is being an idiot and jumping to conclusions, fool!

There's no 'right to have beer delivered'. There is a right to marry. Thus, the 'muslim delivery boys' weren't denying anyone any right. While Kim Davis was.

The 'muslim delivery boys' weren't exercising government power. Kim Davis is.

The 'Muslim delivery boys' could have been accommodated by having another driver run the alcohol. Kim Davis was offered the accommodation of another clerk issuing the licenses. She refused insisting that she would prevent any clerk from issuing any such licenses.

You can ignore these immediately germane and utterly obvious differences. But you can't make a rational person ignore them. Which is where your arguments so often fail.

 

[Conservative65]

Yes it is. So if that idiot's religious beliefs conflicted with her oath of office she should have resigned rather than violate both her oath before God and, in doing so, her alleged religious beliefs in keeping her faith! Hypocrisy is her true faith!

Hating of religion, or should I say the Christian religion, is your faith.

Do you support the Muslim delivery boys getting their court settlement because they refused to do their job based on religious beliefs and were fired for it? Should they have resigned?

Yup, you're an idiot to jump to those irrational conclusions.

Where's the jump?

You're either proving my point in spades, or you're being intentionally obtuse!

Have I said anything at all for any reasonable person to conclude I hate religion. Did the truck drivers take an oath of office before God? That is being an idiot and jumping to conclusions, fool!

There's no 'right to have beer delivered'. There is a right to marry. Thus, the 'muslim delivery boys' weren't denying anyone any right. While Kim Davis was.

The 'muslim delivery boys' weren't exercising government power. Kim Davis is.

The 'Muslim delivery boys' could have been accommodated by having another driver run the alcohol. Kim Davis was offered the accommodation of another clerk issuing the licenses. She refused insisting that she would prevent any clerk from issuing any such licenses.

You can ignore these immediately germane and utterly obvious differences. But you can't make a rational person ignore them. Which is where your arguments so often fail.

They weren't doing the job they agreed to do when hired. That's why they were let go.

You oppose a Christian exercising their rights yet believe Muslims should be rewarded for failing to do their job. That's why you're a born loser.

If there is a right to marry, one can assume you support incestuous marriages or polygamous marriages?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Yes it is. So if that idiot's religious beliefs conflicted with her oath of office she should have resigned rather than violate both her oath before God and, in doing so, her alleged religious beliefs in keeping her faith! Hypocrisy is her true faith!

Hating of religion, or should I say the Christian religion, is your faith.

Do you support the Muslim delivery boys getting their court settlement because they refused to do their job based on religious beliefs and were fired for it? Should they have resigned?

Yup, you're an idiot to jump to those irrational conclusions.

Where's the jump?

You're either proving my point in spades, or you're being intentionally obtuse!

Have I said anything at all for any reasonable person to conclude I hate religion. Did the truck drivers take an oath of office before God? That is being an idiot and jumping to conclusions, fool!

Your statements are the same as those who oppose or reject religion.

I asked a question about the truck drivers. I didn't make a statement. They, when hired, agreed to do a job that they know involved delivering alcohol.

You're an IDIOT! I don't repeat myself multiple times to repetitive IDIOTS!

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Yes it is. So if that idiot's religious beliefs conflicted with her oath of office she should have resigned rather than violate both her oath before God and, in doing so, her alleged religious beliefs in keeping her faith! Hypocrisy is her true faith!

Hating of religion, or should I say the Christian religion, is your faith.

Do you support the Muslim delivery boys getting their court settlement because they refused to do their job based on religious beliefs and were fired for it? Should they have resigned?

Yup, you're an idiot to jump to those irrational conclusions.

Where's the jump?

You're either proving my point in spades, or you're being intentionally obtuse!

Have I said anything at all for any reasonable person to conclude I hate religion. Did the truck drivers take an oath of office before God? That is being an idiot and jumping to conclusions, fool!

There's no 'right to have beer delivered'. There is a right to marry. Thus, the 'muslim delivery boys' weren't denying anyone any right. While Kim Davis was.

The 'muslim delivery boys' weren't exercising government power. Kim Davis is.

The 'Muslim delivery boys' could have been accommodated by having another driver run the alcohol. Kim Davis was offered the accommodation of another clerk issuing the licenses. She refused insisting that she would prevent any clerk from issuing any such licenses.

You can ignore these immediately germane and utterly obvious differences. But you can't make a rational person ignore them. Which is where your arguments so often fail.

You misinterpreted what I wrote to another and expanded upon your faulty interpretation. I'm not at all surprised.

 

[TNHarley]

Hating of religion, or should I say the Christian religion, is your faith.

Do you support the Muslim delivery boys getting their court settlement because they refused to do their job based on religious beliefs and were fired for it? Should they have resigned?

Yup, you're an idiot to jump to those irrational conclusions.

Where's the jump?

You're either proving my point in spades, or you're being intentionally obtuse!

Have I said anything at all for any reasonable person to conclude I hate religion. Did the truck drivers take an oath of office before God? That is being an idiot and jumping to conclusions, fool!

There's no 'right to have beer delivered'. There is a right to marry. Thus, the 'muslim delivery boys' weren't denying anyone any right. While Kim Davis was.

The 'muslim delivery boys' weren't exercising government power. Kim Davis is.

The 'Muslim delivery boys' could have been accommodated by having another driver run the alcohol. Kim Davis was offered the accommodation of another clerk issuing the licenses. She refused insisting that she would prevent any clerk from issuing any such licenses.

You can ignore these immediately germane and utterly obvious differences. But you can't make a rational person ignore them. Which is where your arguments so often fail.

They weren't doing the job they agreed to do when hired. That's why they were let go.
QUOTE]
Holy shit Batman!
You have GOT to be fuckin kiddin me!!!!

 

[Skylar]

Hating of religion, or should I say the Christian religion, is your faith.

Do you support the Muslim delivery boys getting their court settlement because they refused to do their job based on religious beliefs and were fired for it? Should they have resigned?

Yup, you're an idiot to jump to those irrational conclusions.

Where's the jump?

You're either proving my point in spades, or you're being intentionally obtuse!

Have I said anything at all for any reasonable person to conclude I hate religion. Did the truck drivers take an oath of office before God? That is being an idiot and jumping to conclusions, fool!

There's no 'right to have beer delivered'. There is a right to marry. Thus, the 'muslim delivery boys' weren't denying anyone any right. While Kim Davis was.

The 'muslim delivery boys' weren't exercising government power. Kim Davis is.

The 'Muslim delivery boys' could have been accommodated by having another driver run the alcohol. Kim Davis was offered the accommodation of another clerk issuing the licenses. She refused insisting that she would prevent any clerk from issuing any such licenses.

You can ignore these immediately germane and utterly obvious differences. But you can't make a rational person ignore them. Which is where your arguments so often fail.

They weren't doing the job they agreed to do when hired. That's why they were let go.

Any other drivers could have made those trips. One of the many reasons your comparison with Kim davis breaks....is because she was offered such an accomidation with other clerks being willing to issue the licenses.

And she turned it down, insisting that she would prevent ANY clerk from issuing those licenses. If the Muslim drivers had insisted that they wouldn't allow ANY other driver to deliver that alcohol, then you might have the beginning of a point. But all they asked was that someone else deliver it.

 

[boilermaker55]

In your small minded way of thinking. Of course!

That doesn't change the USSC decision.

You mean the illegal OPINION...yeah no one gives a shit With a republican now in charge that will DO HIS JOB the state can actually make a law dealing with the illegal opinion of the SC and do as several other states have and allow clerk of courts to not violate their religious views by forcing them to give marriage licenses to queers.

 

[Seawytch]

Hating of religion, or should I say the Christian religion, is your faith.

Do you support the Muslim delivery boys getting their court settlement because they refused to do their job based on religious beliefs and were fired for it? Should they have resigned?

Yup, you're an idiot to jump to those irrational conclusions.

Where's the jump?

You're either proving my point in spades, or you're being intentionally obtuse!

Have I said anything at all for any reasonable person to conclude I hate religion. Did the truck drivers take an oath of office before God? That is being an idiot and jumping to conclusions, fool!

There's no 'right to have beer delivered'. There is a right to marry. Thus, the 'muslim delivery boys' weren't denying anyone any right. While Kim Davis was.

The 'muslim delivery boys' weren't exercising government power. Kim Davis is.

The 'Muslim delivery boys' could have been accommodated by having another driver run the alcohol. Kim Davis was offered the accommodation of another clerk issuing the licenses. She refused insisting that she would prevent any clerk from issuing any such licenses.

You can ignore these immediately germane and utterly obvious differences. But you can't make a rational person ignore them. Which is where your arguments so often fail.

They weren't doing the job they agreed to do when hired. That's why they were let go.

They were hired to drive trucks. You have to show where, in their hiring contract, that it was implicitly stated they would have to transport alcohol.

You oppose a Christian exercising their rights yet believe Muslims should be rewarded for failing to do their job. That's why you're a born loser.

You're an idiot because you don't understand that Kim Davis was offered the same religious accommodation given the truck drivers. She refused to be accommodated.

If there is a right to marry, one can assume you support incestuous marriages or polygamous marriages?

The right to marry existed before Obergefell.

If there is a right to keep and bear arms, do you support convicted felons and the certifiably insane owning them?

 

[Conservative65]

Yup, you're an idiot to jump to those irrational conclusions.

Where's the jump?

You're either proving my point in spades, or you're being intentionally obtuse!

Have I said anything at all for any reasonable person to conclude I hate religion. Did the truck drivers take an oath of office before God? That is being an idiot and jumping to conclusions, fool!

There's no 'right to have beer delivered'. There is a right to marry. Thus, the 'muslim delivery boys' weren't denying anyone any right. While Kim Davis was.

The 'muslim delivery boys' weren't exercising government power. Kim Davis is.

The 'Muslim delivery boys' could have been accommodated by having another driver run the alcohol. Kim Davis was offered the accommodation of another clerk issuing the licenses. She refused insisting that she would prevent any clerk from issuing any such licenses.

You can ignore these immediately germane and utterly obvious differences. But you can't make a rational person ignore them. Which is where your arguments so often fail.

They weren't doing the job they agreed to do when hired. That's why they were let go.

They were hired to drive trucks. You have to show where, in their hiring contract, that it was implicitly stated they would have to transport alcohol.

They were hired to deliver, period. That means whatever the company has to deliver is included in what they are hired to do.

You oppose a Christian exercising their rights yet believe Muslims should be rewarded for failing to do their job. That's why you're a born loser.

You're an idiot because you don't understand that Kim Davis was offered the same religious accommodation given the truck drivers. She refused to be accommodated.

If there is a right to marry, one can assume you support incestuous marriages or polygamous marriages?

The right to marry existed before Obergefell.

If there is a right to keep and bear arms, do you support convicted felons and the certifiably insane owning them?