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.
No one EVER had a legal justification to refuse a judicial order because it offended her religious beliefs. She was not ordered to violate her beliefs, she was ordered to perform her official duties. She had a clear option. Resign.. 1st Amendment protection of citizen. I don't recognize my Country anymore. Now, we are being ruled by a Party of either dictators or dick-tasters.How are her religious views a defense to breaking the law?
if that's the case, this should be in the religious section of the site.This is a theological argument, not a legal one.
No, she had the job first, before the deviant sex cult came along and insisted she bow at their altar. So her employer is guilty of discrimination of an existing employees' religious faith. A new regulation cannot become a punishment to their 1st Amendment rights.I must disagree. The 1st guarantees her unfettered expression of her religion, but does not guarantee her a job of choice should she choose to exercise that right within
the parameters of her elective office.
She has a choice to make.
No, she had the job first, before the deviant sex cult came along and insisted she bow at their altar. So her employer is guilty of discrimination of an existing employees' religious faith. A new regulation cannot become a punishment to their 1st Amendment rights.I must disagree. The 1st guarantees her unfettered expression of her religion, but does not guarantee her a job of choice should she choose to exercise that right within
the parameters of her elective office.
She has a choice to make.
What is a dick taster? Sounds like you have experience. Can you explain?. 1st Amendment protection of citizen. I don't recognize my Country anymore. Now, we are being ruled by a Party of either dictators or dick-tasters.How are her religious views a defense to breaking the law?
gay people are not a deviant sex cult say false and stupid shit like that is entertaining but doesn't help your psychotic ramblings any.No, she had the job first, before the deviant sex cult came along and insisted she bow at their altar. So her employer is guilty of discrimination of an existing employees' religious faith. A new regulation cannot become a punishment to their 1st Amendment rights.I must disagree. The 1st guarantees her unfettered expression of her religion, but does not guarantee her a job of choice should she choose to exercise that right within
the parameters of her elective office.
She has a choice to make.
For instance, SCOTUS can't pass a law that all IRS employees have to eat raw pork on Fridays and then go and fire all the jews working there for their "refusal to obey the law; they should not work as IRS employees if they don't want to eat raw pork on Fridays!"...and then throw one of them in jail for good measure for refusing to abide by "the law" as a jewish IRS agent.
The state cannot endorse a religion as per the constitution. You are saying my belief and my religion are fake? That is violating my religious freedom give me your money.The OP covers that too, society determines what a sublime and legitimate religion is, not you or five people in DC. That's why a majority rule was so important to the founding fathers: so legal messes like this can be sorted out by the People.I just joined a reigion that says I have to rob people to be saved. Silhouette give me your money or you're violating my religious freedom.
Your cult has not the same legal footing as Christianity does. So says THE MAJORITY.
No one EVER had a legal justification to refuse a judicial order because it offended her religious beliefs. She was not ordered to violate her beliefs, she was ordered to perform her official duties. She had a clear option. Resign.. 1st Amendment protection of citizen. I don't recognize my Country anymore. Now, we are being ruled by a Party of either dictators or dick-tasters.How are her religious views a defense to breaking the law?
Are you saying she didnt know that laws change when she took the job? There is a reason she is in jail. Seems you would have figured it out by now instead of whining about 1rst amendment rights.Who you calling slapdick, dumass..
Matthew 6:24...Of course she already had a lawyer or a team of them before she went to jail. But there seems to be quite a rukkus and misunderstanding of religion when it comes to how her attorneys will frame their argument. Here is a spot to debate Kim Davis' flaws and how they will weigh in on her arguments at trial(s) and on appeal to the US Supreme Court, probably by about late 2016 or early 2017.
The following comment sparked this topic:
Yes, she is a sinner. And that's why she is a Christian. It's a requirement to walk through the door of a church. You don't approach Christianity from a perspective of perfection, you approach it saying "I am a flawed being, I'm struggling, I need help". That's how it works.Just saw on TV that she was married FOUR FUCKING TIMES and had TWINS out of wedlock. Is that true? I can smell the hypocrisy.
On the topic of adultery and the famous story in the Bible of the stoning incident with Jesus, he said "let any of you who is without sin cast the first stone". His point was twofold: 1. To save the poor stoning victim and 2. To really seat in the minds of the angry mob that we are all sinners and must not judge; judgment is for God.
That being said, Jude 1 spells out that a Christian (who is also a sinner, remember) must reach out to homosexuals with compassion, "making a difference". But that to promote them as a group mentality into the fabric of any society is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN. This message exists in the New Testament and in Jesus' teachings as I recall, there are very few examples of of him saying "Oh yeah, you know that Old Testament law and the shit that went down then with God casting people into Hell for eternity? Yeah, this one's like that. It's for realsies." Yet that's what we find in Jude 1.
And it makes sense if you understand sociology. When it comes to human behaviors and mimickry in youth, trends have a way of catching fire in any society. And what do we see today after 30 years of nonstop campaigning by LGBT cult to the youth in media? That's right, hordes of "bi-curious" or "gay" youth popping up like a dandelion-epidemic in a lawn that used to be relatively weed free. God's OK with his lawn having occasional dandelions but not the whole lawn being taken over with time. God remembers Ancient Greece and you don't. So he is wiser than you. God remembers Sodom and you don't. So he is wiser than you.
God teaches us to love the sinner but hate the sin. And that's what Jude 1 is all about. Jesus also extended compassion to prostitutes, thieves and lepers. Does that mean that anyone against or refusing to participate in promoting prostitution, robbery or coming down with leprosy is a "hater"? NO! Of course not! So, Kim Davis is in God's favor. The Bible's New Testament isn't all roses and hippy love fest. There are some hard rules and one of the hardest is not to tamper with God's lawn by helping to seed it with weeds. Otherwise the good grass will be choked out and wouldn't have a chance to grow in that enviroment even if it wanted to desperately. THAT is why the punishment for promoting homosexuality using God's sacred vehicle of the family (marriage) is such a pisser for God. And you will get eternity in the slammer if you fail to heed Jude 1's warning.
So, any lawyer coming forward saying "she's an adulterer! How can she object?!!" is flat out of line. Kim Davis isn't the Bible. Kim Davis is a flawed sinning Christian doing her level best to abide by the Bible in this particular instance. She has read the warnings in Jude 1, presumably. So she knows she must choose between eternal peril or jail. She has chosen wisely. But the people who put her in jail have not chosen wisely. They will be judged twice. Once here on earth in the dank and dusty courtooms. And a second time as they foolishly try to enter the Pearly Gates.
The 1st Amendment of the Constitution protects the exercise of religion. It does so not for a building or a group of people, but for an individual following a known and accepted faith (not a cult). The differences between a sublime religion and a cult are determined by society, not one judge or a small panel of them. Christians were who founded our country. And it's going to be a long day in court for an attorney trying to argue how a Johnny-Come-Lately deviant sex cult has a "right" to force a Christian to their knees to bow at a new rainbow colored altar.
The 9th Amendment of the Constitution says that no law may come along and dilute the potency of the 1st Amendment. So Ms. Davis can use the 9th to drive a big fat nail in the wall and hang her 1st Amendment hat on it. "Public Accomodation" must and will take a back seat to the 1st Amendment. Public accomodation is a brand new concept of forcing people to go along with in this case, behaviors they object to.
There was a flawed premise at the very start of all this. And it was/is "behaviors = race". A waffling group of deviant sex behaviors who don't even understand themselves completely, cannot dictate to our nation's sublime stalwart religion since day one (Christians) that they will now have to essentially tear out sections of the Bible and burn them as newly-irrelevant.
they were just little dicks and it was only a couple of times!What is a dick taster? Sounds like you have experience. Can you explain?. 1st Amendment protection of citizen. I don't recognize my Country anymore. Now, we are being ruled by a Party of either dictators or dick-tasters.How are her religious views a defense to breaking the law?
She was told to stop being a Christian? Tell us, what part of Christianity (chapter and verse please) requires one to be a clerk for the state, the secular, by law, state? I must have missed that part.No one EVER had a legal justification to refuse a judicial order because it offended her religious beliefs. She was not ordered to violate her beliefs, she was ordered to perform her official duties. She had a clear option. Resign.. 1st Amendment protection of citizen. I don't recognize my Country anymore. Now, we are being ruled by a Party of either dictators or dick-tasters.How are her religious views a defense to breaking the law?
Yeah she was
Context moron, context. Read the verse prior...According to the Bible, every time Kim Davis issues a marriage license to someone who has divorced, she is helping that person commit adultery.
Not in the past. In the present. The very act of remarrying is adultery, according to the Bible.
Kim Davis is party to adultery every single working day. She gets PAID to help people commit adultery. This is ongoing, unrepentant sinning. This is not "I will do my best to sin no more". This is actively engaging in the sin of adultery.
Every. Single. Day.
Kentucky has one of the highest divorce rates in the country. Having had four marriages does not make Kim Davis exceptional. She is the norm.
And she works every day to make multiple marriages and adultery the norm.
So don't give me this BULLSHIT she is abiding by the Bible. That is a MONSTROUS LIE.
Heeeeeeeeeeere's JESUS!!!:
"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."
You see that? The very act of remarrying is adultery. You cannot remarry unless Kim Davis gives you the marriage certificate. Kentucky law requires a person provide a certificate of divorce to Kim Davis if they have been married before. So she knows they are breaking Biblical law. When she gives them that certificate, she is knowingly letting them commit adultery.
So the next time you hypocritical assholes shed tears of blood over Kim Davis and her fake defense of the Bible, I strongly suggest you actually READ IT.
you, and that's dumbass...Who you calling slapdick, dumass..
No, she had the job firstI must disagree. The 1st guarantees her unfettered expression of her religion, but does not guarantee her a job of choice should she choose to exercise that right within
the parameters of her elective office.
She has a choice to make.
So her employer is guilty of discrimination of an existing employees' religious faith. A new regulation cannot become a punishment to their 1st Amendment rights.
