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.
I am against gay marriage but not against gay unions, which gives gays all the legal rights of married couples. To bring a priest and conduct a marriage ceremony for two gay people is a mockery of many faiths and the concept of marriage.
Kim Davis' actions on the other hand, although heroic is misguided. This is a secular country and the office of the clerk is a secular institution as well. So what happens if someone who's Catholic refuses to give out a divorce certificate because Catholicism says you'll go to hell? This is a slippery slope we are going down.
I don't think she should be in jail. They can just fire her.
America made a mistake of electing Obama and unfortunately this is what we get. And as Oblahblah said himself, elections have consequences.
Nope. She is fighting a recent court ruling legitimizing and mainstream sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality).This woman is fighting for Christianity to be the supreme law of the land.
That is YOUR interpretation of what your religion says. You are a supporter of Christian Sharia. There is very little difference between you and some muslim who interprets their religion to say women should be covered or else it's sexual deviancy and perversion and tries to ignore the law and force their interpretation onto others.Nope. She is fighting a recent court ruling legitimizing and mainstream sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality).This woman is fighting for Christianity to be the supreme law of the land.
This one is different because the OP used a different angle to look at it. Now had that clerk been muslim the court would have ruled they must accommodate her on religious grounds.I suppose the 32 other threads on Davis wasn't good enough. lol
That woman's religious right is as much a civil right as the muslim's right.
Not hardly.
Would you be fine if a Muslim manger of at the DMV ordered his staff to not issue drivers licences to women on the basis of his deeply held religious beliefs? I sure as hell wouldn't be cool with it.
Pretty sure the regulations for issuance of drivers' licenses weren't illegally imposed by judicial fiat.
No worries. I will. So will a very great many other Americans....You can continue to make this an "us against them" issue...
Yes, it is....But it is not an us against them issue...
The Will of the People to hold sexual deviancy and perversion at-bay is being overturned by a tiny group of people. That constitutes being 'under the thumb' in 'in thrall'....No one is "in thrall"...
No. It is a matter of suppressing sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality) rather than legitimizing and mainstreaming it....It is a simple matter of equality under the law...
In the past... as in the future... those citizens may marry anyone they like, of the opposite sex, as God, Nature and Man all intended....And granting ALL citizens the same rights...
But it is the very legality of such marriages that Davis disputes.
Correct.Not being allowed to drive has nothing to do with Islam or Sharia law. Automobiles did not exist when Sharia law was created. Not being allowed to drive is a Saudi Arabia cultural thing. In all other Muslim countries, women drive. Just so you know.This one is different because the OP used a different angle to look at it. Now had that clerk been muslim the court would have ruled they must accommodate her on religious grounds.I suppose the 32 other threads on Davis wasn't good enough. lol
That woman's religious right is as much a civil right as the muslim's right.
Not hardly.
Would you be fine if a Muslim manger of at the DMV ordered his staff to not issue drivers licences to women on the basis of his deeply held religious beliefs? I sure as hell wouldn't be cool with it.
I am not saying it's fine. I'm saying it's NOT equal.This one is different because the OP used a different angle to look at it. Now had that clerk been muslim the court would have ruled they must accommodate her on religious grounds.I suppose the 32 other threads on Davis wasn't good enough. lol
That woman's religious right is as much a civil right as the muslim's right.
Not hardly.
Would you be fine if a Muslim manger of at the DMV ordered his staff to not issue drivers licences to women on the basis of his deeply held religious beliefs? I sure as hell wouldn't be cool with it.
I disagree. Not too long ago Muslims cabbies in Minnesota started refusing fares on the basis of their deeply held religious beliefs. They sued and the judge told them to either do their jobs or find another line of work that would fit their faith.
Kim Davis Is Rosa Parks
Weird thing is today's democrats hate this woman for standing for religious freedom,1950-1960's democrats were the members of the klan and the ones that wanted blacks at back of the bus! I see not much has changed.
Kim Davis is not standing for religious freedom. Kim Davis is in jail for using the government to force others to practice her religion.
I am not saying it's fine. I'm saying it's NOT equal.This one is different because the OP used a different angle to look at it. Now had that clerk been muslim the court would have ruled they must accommodate her on religious grounds.I suppose the 32 other threads on Davis wasn't good enough. lol
That woman's religious right is as much a civil right as the muslim's right.
Not hardly.
Would you be fine if a Muslim manger of at the DMV ordered his staff to not issue drivers licences to women on the basis of his deeply held religious beliefs? I sure as hell wouldn't be cool with it.
I disagree. Not too long ago Muslims cabbies in Minnesota started refusing fares on the basis of their deeply held religious beliefs. They sued and the judge told them to either do their jobs or find another line of work that would fit their faith.
Last time I checked, cab drivers aren't elected officials. They're hired employees. There is a difference.
But it is the very legality of such marriages that Davis disputes.
Wrong she recommended they just go to the next county over to get a marriage license. She recognizes the legality of same-sex Civil Marriage, she just didn't want to do her job to issue them a license.
The going to another county to get a marriage license was something she raised at trial -->> http://www.aclu-ky.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Bunning-Rowan-Ruling-81215.pdf
>>>>
I am not saying it's fine. I'm saying it's NOT equal.This one is different because the OP used a different angle to look at it. Now had that clerk been muslim the court would have ruled they must accommodate her on religious grounds.
That woman's religious right is as much a civil right as the muslim's right.
Not hardly.
Would you be fine if a Muslim manger of at the DMV ordered his staff to not issue drivers licences to women on the basis of his deeply held religious beliefs? I sure as hell wouldn't be cool with it.
I disagree. Not too long ago Muslims cabbies in Minnesota started refusing fares on the basis of their deeply held religious beliefs. They sued and the judge told them to either do their jobs or find another line of work that would fit their faith.
Last time I checked, cab drivers aren't elected officials. They're hired employees. There is a difference.
No shit. Last time I checked, elected officials, as agents of the state, do not have a right to place a religious test on the citizens they are supposed to serve. If she was a Muslim though I bet you would be gassing on about Sharia Law.
I am not saying it's fine. I'm saying it's NOT equal.Not hardly.
Would you be fine if a Muslim manger of at the DMV ordered his staff to not issue drivers licences to women on the basis of his deeply held religious beliefs? I sure as hell wouldn't be cool with it.
I disagree. Not too long ago Muslims cabbies in Minnesota started refusing fares on the basis of their deeply held religious beliefs. They sued and the judge told them to either do their jobs or find another line of work that would fit their faith.
Last time I checked, cab drivers aren't elected officials. They're hired employees. There is a difference.
No shit. Last time I checked, elected officials, as agents of the state, do not have a right to place a religious test on the citizens they are supposed to serve. If she was a Muslim though I bet you would be gassing on about Sharia Law.
Nice straw man, but since she's not saying, "I'm only issuing licenses to Jews", or "I'm only issuing licenses to Catholics", there's no "religious test" involved. Nothing has ever indicated that Ms. Davis gives a rat's furry ass crack what religion applicants practice.
Your bets based on projecting your bigoted viewpoints onto others means less than nothing to me, so please don't waste my time.
Ms. Davis is adhering to the duly- and legally-passed law on the books from the CORRECT legal authorities on the subject of Kentucky marriage licenses - which is what she swore to do when she took office - and refusing to comply with a law invented out of whole cloth by a non-legislative body on a level of government that has no purview over marriage licenses whatsoever.
Clearly you don't understand anything concerning this issue.But it is the very legality of such marriages that Davis disputes.
Wrong she recommended they just go to the next county over to get a marriage license. She recognizes the legality of same-sex Civil Marriage, she just didn't want to do her job to issue them a license.
The going to another county to get a marriage license was something she raised at trial -->> http://www.aclu-ky.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Bunning-Rowan-Ruling-81215.pdf
>>>>
I don't see that as her recognizing the legality of homosexual "marriage" at all. I see it as her recognizing that the next county over will comply with the illegal court ruling. She, however, does NOT wish to comply with it. Which I can understand, since it is illegal.
This is as ignorant as it is ridiculous and wrong.I am not saying it's fine. I'm saying it's NOT equal.Not hardly.
Would you be fine if a Muslim manger of at the DMV ordered his staff to not issue drivers licences to women on the basis of his deeply held religious beliefs? I sure as hell wouldn't be cool with it.
I disagree. Not too long ago Muslims cabbies in Minnesota started refusing fares on the basis of their deeply held religious beliefs. They sued and the judge told them to either do their jobs or find another line of work that would fit their faith.
Last time I checked, cab drivers aren't elected officials. They're hired employees. There is a difference.
No shit. Last time I checked, elected officials, as agents of the state, do not have a right to place a religious test on the citizens they are supposed to serve. If she was a Muslim though I bet you would be gassing on about Sharia Law.
Nice straw man, but since she's not saying, "I'm only issuing licenses to Jews", or "I'm only issuing licenses to Catholics", there's no "religious test" involved. Nothing has ever indicated that Ms. Davis gives a rat's furry ass crack what religion applicants practice.
Your bets based on projecting your bigoted viewpoints onto others means less than nothing to me, so please don't waste my time.
Ms. Davis is adhering to the duly- and legally-passed law on the books from the CORRECT legal authorities on the subject of Kentucky marriage licenses - which is what she swore to do when she took office - and refusing to comply with a law invented out of whole cloth by a non-legislative body on a level of government that has no purview over marriage licenses whatsoever.
