Understanding What Kim Davis' Legal Argument Will Be..

[Syriusly]

There is something ironic about Sil creaming her panties over this woman, all in contempt for gay people.

Yes, one of the symptoms of "being gay" is sexualizing everything and then projecting that sexualizing fixation onto other people, assigning the whole world your illness so you don't have to suffer alone. I know, I know. All this would've been addressed in your persona except y'all had yourselves taken off the DSM by force and artifice so now what you do "is normal and everybody else better agree or they go to jail!!"..

And hence why this lawsuit is so important. Go Kim Davis. Go. Humanity itself depends on your lawsuit.

What "lawsuit"? The one that exists only in your head?

You think that she was stuck in jail for refusing to participate in a gay marriage (Jude 1) for fear for of the warning therein for her immortal soul... and she isn't going to sue for violation of her 1st Amendment civil rights?

She was in jail for contempt of court.

And Jude 1 doesn't say anything about gay marriage or marriage at all.

BUT- Paul did say that Christians are supposed to follow the law- and authority- because civil authority comes from God.

Romans 13:1-5 ESV / 235 helpful votes
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

 

[Syriusly]

You are aware that not all Christians interpret things the same way, aren't you?

I am aware that certain sects of Christianity resemble cults and have turned their backs on part of the Bible. Jude 1 though isn't up for negotiation..

Jude 1 doesn't mention homosexuality.

Romans isn't up for negotiation at all- Christians are instructed by Paul to obey authorities- like a judge- because his authority comes from God

Romans 13:1-5 ESV / 235 helpful votes
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

 

[Syriusly]

*crickets*

Yep, that's what I thought. You know this is going to SCOTUS.

Didn't it do so already, and they declined to hear it?

I think the rule of four will allow Kim Davis' case to be Heard. I feel confident that Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas will vote to Hear her case.

Hmmm those 4 already declined to do so.

 

[Silhouette]

Romans isn't up for negotiation at all- Christians are instructed by Paul to obey authorities- like a judge- because his authority comes from God

Romans 13:1-5 ESV / 235 helpful votes
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

You brought up Romans. So you might want to take a look at Romans 1 when you get a minute... lol..

 

[Syriusly]

Romans isn't up for negotiation at all- Christians are instructed by Paul to obey authorities- like a judge- because his authority comes from God

Romans 13:1-5 ESV / 235 helpful votes
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

You brought up Romans. So you might want to take a look at Romans 1 when you get a minute... lol..

Oh I have read Romans 1

Why do you insist on ignoring Romans 13?

Regardless of whether 'God' commands Christians not to be homosexuals(or not), according to the New Testament- God does command Christians to obey authority.

Or is that just one of those commands Christians get to ignore when they don't like the law?

 

[Silhouette]

Regardless of whether 'God' commands Christians not to be homosexuals(or not), according to the New Testament- God does command Christians to obey authority.

Or is that just one of those commands Christians get to ignore when they don't like the law?

Yes! Correct! Now, which authority do you suppose trumps in the Supreme Court of God? Secular or His?

Now, go back, read Romans 1 and Jude 1 and then understand for a Christian to assist a gay wedding is the same as them selling their soul to the devil. It is a MORTAL sin with the punishment of eternal death. Not 50 lashings from Caesar in the town square..

And isn't it funny how the unforgiveable sin of abetting homsexuality movements is mentioned in the very first passage of the Gospel of Jude and the report of Romans. Very first. Mortal sin. TOP priority. Numero Uno.

 

[Montrovant]

Regardless of whether 'God' commands Christians not to be homosexuals(or not), according to the New Testament- God does command Christians to obey authority.

Or is that just one of those commands Christians get to ignore when they don't like the law?

Yes! Correct! Now, which authority do you suppose trumps in the Supreme Court of God? Secular or His?

Now, go back, read Romans 1 and Jude 1 and then understand for a Christian to assist a gay wedding is the same as them selling their soul to the devil. It is a MORTAL sin with the punishment of eternal death. Not 50 lashings from Caesar in the town square..

And isn't it funny how the unforgiveable sin of abetting homsexuality movements is mentioned in the very first passage of the Gospel of Jude and the report of Romans. Very first. Mortal sin. TOP priority. Numero Uno.

Do you think your understand of Christianity is nearly as accurate and in-depth as your understanding of US law?

 

[Syriusly]

Regardless of whether 'God' commands Christians not to be homosexuals(or not), according to the New Testament- God does command Christians to obey authority.

Or is that just one of those commands Christians get to ignore when they don't like the law?

Yes! Correct! Now, which authority do you suppose trumps in the Supreme Court of God? Secular or His?
.

Once again- Paul tells Christians to obey civil authority- because Civil Authority comes from God.

Why do you refuse to address the very clear and concise and unequivocal instructions in the New Testament for Christians to obey and law and authority?


13 All of you must obey those who rule over you.
There are no authorities except the ones God has chosen.
Those who now rule have been chosen by God.
2 So whoever opposes the authorities opposes leaders whom God has appointed.
Those who do that will be judged.
3 If you do what is right, you won’t need to be afraid of your rulers.
But watch out if you do what is wrong! You don’t want to be afraid of those in authority, do you?
Then do what is right, and you will be praised.
4 The one in authority serves God for your good.
But if you do wrong, watch out! Rulers don’t carry a sword for no reason at all.
They serve God. And God is carrying out his anger through them.
The ruler punishes anyone who does wrong.
5 You must obey the authorities. Then you will not be punished. You must also obey them because you know it is right.

 

[Syriusly]

Regardless of whether 'God' commands Christians not to be homosexuals(or not), according to the New Testament- God does command Christians to obey authority.

Or is that just one of those commands Christians get to ignore when they don't like the law?

And isn't it funny how the unforgiveable sin of abetting homsexuality movements is mentioned.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that 'abetting homosexuality' or that anything regarding homosexuality is an unforgivable sin.

There is no 'unforgivable sin' according to the Bible.

If you believe that Jesus is your savior than any sin can be forgiven.

Of course you should strive to follow Jesus's instructions- which include among other things- obeying authority.

 

[JoeB131]

The 1st Amendment. Next stupid question? Passively refusing to participate in promoting a deviant sex cult isn't an assault on anyone.

If she feels that way, she should quit her job. That's the legal remedy she has.

She has a right to a religion. Her office does not.

this isn't at all complicated. She was elected to provide services, not impose her religious views on the community.

 

[Silhouette]

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that 'abetting homosexuality' or that anything regarding homosexuality is an unforgivable sin.

There is no 'unforgivable sin' according to the Bible..

Jude 1 says that as plain as the nose on your face. Let's look:

1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Hmmm... the passage ends up reminding Christians again that if they want to meet up with God at the end of their time, they'd better fly right by Jude 1:3

I trust you remember what Sodom and Gomorrha were famous for? Here, let's look at the very first passage of Romans:

Romans 1:

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


So...yeah. Kim Davis had the choice of abetting or taking pleasure in granting "gay marriage" licenses against God's clear command and warnings or not doing that. She made the correct choice.

Not a lot of warm fuzzies and forgiveness described in either passage for those who disobey. Looks more like a one way ticket to the devil's dungeons from where I'm sitting.

 

[JoeB131]

Jude 1 says that as plain as the nose on your face. Let's look:

some 2000 year old rantings from a guy who didn't know where the sun went at night doesn't impress me.

Do you have any arguments against gay marriage that don't consist of

"I think it's icky"

and

"My Imaginary Friend in the Sky says it's bad."

 

[Silhouette]

some 2000 year old rantings from a guy who didn't know where the sun went at night doesn't impress me. Do you have any arguments against gay marriage that don't consist of "I think it's icky" and "My Imaginary Friend in the Sky says it's bad."

So you're argument is "Christianity is dumb"? And you're complaining about Kim Davis' argument that it isn't dumb? That's going to be a weird day in Court for sure...lol..

The 1st & 9th Amendments will be the argument in this particular case. No, Kim Davis won't be using the secular argument in her case. For more information on the secular argument visit this link: States Have a Valid Legal Argument to Defy Gay Marriage | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[JoeB131]

So you're argument is "Christianity is dumb"? And you're complaining about Kim Davis' argument that it isn't dumb? That's going to be a weird day in Court for sure...lol..

The 1st & 9th Amendments will be the argument in this particular case. No, Kim Davis won't be using the secular argument in her case. For more information on the secular argument visit this link: States Have a Valid Legal Argument to Defy Gay Marriage | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Guy, she doesn't have a religious argument. If we started allowing people to refuse to do their jobs based on their bizarre interpretations of religion, that would be chaos in the workplace.

Her options are pretty clear. She can obey the law and do her job or follow her faith and find something else to do for a living that won't offend her beliefs. That's the options the 1st and 9th Amendment give her.

Oh, Davis has already announced she won't interfere with her clerks issuing gay marriage licenses.

 

[Silhouette]

Guy, she doesn't have a religious argument. If we started allowing people to refuse to do their jobs based on their bizarre interpretations of religion, that would be chaos in the workplace.

Her options are pretty clear. She can obey the law and do her job or follow her faith and find something else to do for a living that won't offend her beliefs. That's the options the 1st and 9th Amendment give her.

Oh, Davis has already announced she won't interfere with her clerks issuing gay marriage licenses.

Well that's why I posted the excerpts from Jude 1 and Romans 1 so you can see there is no interpretation necessary. The commands are plain upon their face, reiterated twice (at least) in the New Testament and featured as the number one concern of the Gospel of Jude and accounts of Romans. Jude 1, Romans 1..."thou shalt not normalize homosexuality...under pain of eternal soul death". There's no interpretation needed.

 

[Montrovant]

Guy, she doesn't have a religious argument. If we started allowing people to refuse to do their jobs based on their bizarre interpretations of religion, that would be chaos in the workplace.

Her options are pretty clear. She can obey the law and do her job or follow her faith and find something else to do for a living that won't offend her beliefs. That's the options the 1st and 9th Amendment give her.

Oh, Davis has already announced she won't interfere with her clerks issuing gay marriage licenses.

Well that's why I posted the excerpts from Jude 1 and Romans 1 so you can see there is no interpretation necessary. The commands are plain upon their face, reiterated twice (at least) in the New Testament and featured as the number one concern of the Gospel of Jude and accounts of Romans. Jude 1, Romans 1..."thou shalt not normalize homosexuality...under pain of eternal soul death". There's no interpretation needed.

Have you forgotten what a quote is again?

 

[Silhouette]

Have you forgotten what a quote is again?

You know I was paraphrasing. Have you forgotten what honesty is?

Strawman aside, the clear Command of Jude 1 & Romans 1 is "thou shalt not normalize homosexuality...under pain of eternal soul death" [PARAPHRASED]

If you want to volley semantics in a courtroom fine, but that is what the Court will also boil Jude 1 and Romans 1 down into for the sake of giving Kim Davis' stance the benefit of the doubt and the application of the 1st Amendment protections, affirmed by the 9th as undilutable.

I suspect the test the Court will apply to future objections on religious grounds is "is this physically hurting anyone?" Feelings aren't going to count in an attack on the 1st Amendment. And even if they did count, we aren't talking about a race of people, but rather people who DO certain sexual behaviors habitually. That cannot, must not, will not take precedence to force others into abiding by or promoting those behaviors that are strictly and so clearly prohibited by their faith.

Now if Kim Davis had cut the right hand off of someone she caught stealing pens at the Clerk's Office's counter then no, that would not be supported 1st Amendment stuff because it would be physical harm outside of secular law about a behavior (stealing) that is worse than the offense of stealing. Passively refusing to participate in a gay-behavior "marriage" harms no one and so, it must be allowed.

 

[bendog]

Sil, paraphrase adultery. LOL

 

[Montrovant]

Have you forgotten what a quote is again?

You know I was paraphrasing. Have you forgotten what honesty is?

Strawman aside, the clear Command of Jude 1 & Romans 1 is "thou shalt not normalize homosexuality...under pain of eternal soul death" [PARAPHRASED]

If you want to volley semantics in a courtroom fine, but that is what the Court will also boil Jude 1 and Romans 1 down into for the sake of giving Kim Davis' stance the benefit of the doubt and the application of the 1st Amendment protections, affirmed by the 9th as undilutable.

I suspect the test the Court will apply to future objections on religious grounds is "is this physically hurting anyone?" Feelings aren't going to count in an attack on the 1st Amendment. And even if they did count, we aren't talking about a race of people, but rather people who DO certain sexual behaviors habitually. That cannot, must not, will not take precedence to force others into abiding by or promoting those behaviors that are strictly and so clearly prohibited by their faith.

Now if Kim Davis had cut the right hand off of someone she caught stealing pens at the Clerk's Office's counter then no, that would not be supported 1st Amendment stuff because it would be physical harm outside of secular law about a behavior (stealing) that is worse than the offense of stealing. Passively refusing to participate in a gay-behavior "marriage" harms no one and so, it must be allowed.

Your interpretation of the Bible is not, clearly, one which is universally held, whatever you may claim.

You suspect a lot of things about the courts and legal system which are clearly untrue. Why should this be any different? Have the courts ever used a litmus test of 'physically hurting anyone' when ruling on 1st amendment cases before? Are the courts known for using particular Bible quotes to justify 1st amendment rulings? Is race the only measure of discrimination in the courts? I think you know, but will ignore, the answers to all of those question.

Passively refusing to participate in gay marriage is allowed. Refusing to allow the people of your county to get legal marriage licenses by abusing the power of your office, however, is clearly not.

I don't think the courts are going to see an argument that because it doesn't involve mutilation, it cannot be stopped as valid.

Oh, and homosexuality is not a behavior. You have been told this, shown that the definition of the word is not a behavior, yet you insist it is.

 

[Silhouette]

Your interpretation of the Bible is not, clearly, one which is universally held, whatever you may claim.

I reiterate, there is no interpretation required of Jude 1 and Roman's 1 and the mandate prescribed therein, "Thou shalt not normalize homosexuality under pain of eternal soul death" [paraphrase to be decided in Court}

The Bible says plainly what it does on that one particular point and punishment. If people choose not to follow such a dire warning in the New Testament of Jesus, then they are not Christians. They may call themselves Christians, but they are not. The question will of course come down to the study of these passages and their plain meaning. I never thought I'd live to see the day when the Bible was given as an exhibit at SCOTUS but I believe to prove the clear intent of a true Christian's mandate, that's what it will come down to.