100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Kim Davis Loses In Court Again | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Fri 09/25/15 10:44 PM
|
|
and if what I am signing changes, it indeeds changes what I am doing thats like my daughter bringing me a form to sign for her to have my consent to go on a field trip and then asking me to sign a form permitting her to have consent to go on a field trip at 3 am and declaring,, you were going to sign it before,,,,and Im still just asking you to sign it,, so nothing changed,,, That is only because signing a field trip consent form is in fact giving your consent from someone you are responsible for. It's not the same thing as signing a marriage license. She is not responsible for the people getting married. All she is signing is a document that says it is legal for them to get married. Which it is. This has nothing to do with religion or what she thinks is right or wrong. This has only has to do with what is legal. You can not be a public servant and violate the law you swore to uphold. Which is exactly what she is doing. This is basicly the same as when County Clerks we denying marriage licenses to mixed couples. They didn't think with a black person should marry a white person. However, the law said they could. Once again, they either had to follow the law or resign their jobs. History shows, they either did their jobs or got replaced. The county clerk's office is not the place to make a stand like that anyway. This was a ruling by the Federal supreme court. The only way to really make a stand against them is to make it with the federal government. Therefore, what she is doing makes no sense. She can't change the law from her position, and instead of working with the people that could change the law she is making a media circus and getting her name in the headlines. She want's her 15 minutes. Well, now she's had her time and nothing has changed. Except now people know how much of a bigot she really is. The law will not change because it is in agreement with 14th Amendment. The only way to change the law is to modify the 14th Amendment. Which, by the way, would also take away women's rights. Are you sure you support her now? In the US we have equal rights due to the 14th. You change the 14th and we no longer have equal rights. Sure, that would mean same sex marriage could be illegal. However, it also means black people would have no rights, the only people that could own land is white males, and the only people that could vote are land owners. That is what the constitution said before the 14th amendment was added. Why would anyone want to go back to that? Besides some white male landowners that is. Over all what it comes down to is, if you don't like the law, changed it. Although, the day the US stops having equal rights is the same day I move permanently to another country where they do. she shouldn't have to sign to say its legal, if its legal no individual needs to attest to it,, it just is in her view, she is signing to authorize/consent to the contract in my view, she is signing just to 'witness' that the laws were followed for her and her conscious to not be willing to compromise her values by consenting to an amoral behavior,, and because I believe that is her conscience, I admire her for standing up for her values this is not about equal rights, its about SEXUAL RELATIONS civil unions would be about 'equal' rights and 'equal' access, because by nature of it not being in anyway connected to or predicated by SEXUAL relations,, it would truly be available to any two people sharing a life UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE but marriage, uniquely, has such a strong EXPECTATION of sex as part of the deal, that one can have a legal document that virtually says it was never VALID if sex didn't occur,,,, and because it was once supporting and encouraging the commitment and SEXUAL commitment of men and women who may very well create lives and families, little lives that in every statistic do better with a mother and father,,,, and even though EVERYONE is equally protected so long as they are male or female,, the definition was changed based upon what someones DESIRES are instead it would be like someone wanting to be a soldier but being passive,, claiming because their personal disposition would keep them from personally joining, they are not being provided access to joining UNLESS you include in the military a provision for PASSIVE military units as well,,, its a nonsense argument, but it succeeded,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt the LGBT movement will have any tolerance for anything but EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US type execution of the law,,,but I admire her for trying
I'm not quite sure what you admire about a citizen going against the law of the land when hundreds of thousands of dollars have most likely already been spent on this absurdity(her). Would you admire a Muslim pushing a verse in the Koran in the same public manner? you surprise me daily MsH 
many changes have come through people protesting or contesting or 'going against ' the law peaceful protests where blacks set where they were not permitted were against the law, and I admire MLK for his habit of leading them and yes, I would admire a muslim if they entered a position in one capacity and then had to endure a change that directly contested their religious convictions with no opportunity for some interim compromise to acknowledge the reality that their job has changed from what they were to believe they would do when they applied,,especially if they have done that job well up til the point that the dynamics changed,,, As I said it's perfectly understandable IF she made a mistake, she didn't. This was made VERY CLEAR when she was compelled by the SUPREME COURT to do the DUTY SHE WAS ELECTED TO DO, which HAS NOT CHANGED. She was ORDERED nicely without being jailed to STOP DISCRIMINATING AGAINST CITIZENS AND DENYING THEM THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. She instead, DENIED ALL CITIZENS THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, as a LEGAL AUTHORITY OF Rowan County and the State of Kentucky for >HER PERSONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS<. No Muslim Jew Christian Hindu Buddhist or any other religion can make or DENY a LEGAL DOCUMENT to ANYONE for a RELIGIOUS BELIEF. Not in AMERICA. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt the LGBT movement will have any tolerance for anything but EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US type execution of the law,,,but I admire her for trying
I'm not quite sure what you admire about a citizen going against the law of the land when hundreds of thousands of dollars have most likely already been spent on this absurdity(her). Would you admire a Muslim pushing a verse in the Koran in the same public manner? you surprise me daily MsH
many changes have come through people protesting or contesting or 'going against ' the law peaceful protests where blacks set where they were not permitted were against the law, and I admire MLK for his habit of leading them and yes, I would admire a muslim if they entered a position in one capacity and then had to endure a change that directly contested their religious convictions with no opportunity for some interim compromise to acknowledge the reality that their job has changed from what they were to believe they would do when they applied,,especially if they have done that job well up til the point that the dynamics changed,,, As I said it's perfectly understandable IF she made a mistake, she didn't. This was made VERY CLEAR when she was compelled by the SUPREME COURT to do the DUTY SHE WAS ELECTED TO DO, which HAS NOT CHANGED. She was ORDERED nicely without being jailed to STOP DISCRIMINATING AGAINST CITIZENS AND DENYING THEM THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. She instead, DENIED ALL CITIZENS THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, as a LEGAL AUTHORITY OF Rowan County and the State of Kentucky for >HER PERSONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS<. No Muslim Jew Christian Hindu Buddhist or any other religion can make or DENY a LEGAL DOCUMENT to ANYONE for a RELIGIOUS BELIEF. Not in AMERICA. no legal document should REQUIRE ANYONES SIGNATURE< except those entering in a contract, to define its legality especially if such person is not in agreement with the contract and no lunch bar should be denying service on the base of color, but they did for YEARS, while the authorities compelled them to stay in their place , by actions ranging from compelling 'nicely'(whatever that is) to incarcerating thank goodness they didn't just say , its the law so I will just follow it,,,or give up,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ms, with all respect, I'm going to give you a hypothetical comparison to this. I want you to answer honestly with regards to legality ONLY.
A devout Hindu becomes the head of the FDA. To him, the cow is holy, and he starts failing every business that processes any products that contain dairy and beef. If a slaughter house fails a FDA inspection for cleanliness, they cannot LEGALLY sell ANYTHING as food to ANYONE. McD's BK steak houses and grocery stores will run out of meat and dairy IF enough or large enough suppliers shut down. Many people will start asking questions and getting angry because there is not new stock being supplied. This supervisor is inquired by Congress, the CDC has nothing like mad cow disease cases or foot and mouth disease as LEGAL EVIDENCE for shutting down the processors dairies and slaughtering. This devout Hindu not only tells congress and the CDC that all these places fail because they slaughter and sell parts of holy animals, but cannot be cleansed enough to resume processing ANY OTHER MEATS due to the RELIGIOUS SINS committed in the slaughter of cows. Is he LEGALLY sound in his reasoning? The facilities cannot process anything without FDA approval. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Fri 09/25/15 11:40 PM
|
|
Ms, with all respect, I'm going to give you a hypothetical comparison to this. I want you to answer honestly with regards to legality ONLY. A devout Hindu becomes the head of the FDA. To him, the cow is holy, and he starts failing every business that processes any products that contain dairy and beef. If a slaughter house fails a FDA inspection for cleanliness, they cannot LEGALLY sell ANYTHING as food to ANYONE. McD's BK steak houses and grocery stores will run out of meat and dairy IF enough or large enough suppliers shut down. Many people will start asking questions and getting angry because there is not new stock being supplied. This supervisor is inquired by Congress, the CDC has nothing like mad cow disease cases or foot and mouth disease as LEGAL EVIDENCE for shutting down the processors dairies and slaughtering. This devout Hindu not only tells congress and the CDC that all these places fail because they slaughter and sell parts of holy animals, but cannot be cleansed enough to resume processing ANY OTHER MEATS due to the RELIGIOUS SINS committed in the slaughter of cows. Is he LEGALLY sound in his reasoning? The facilities cannot process anything without FDA approval. no, based upon this first sentence "a devout hindu becomes the head of fda,,,,to him the cow is holy' he took a job knowing the job and knowing cows were part of it WHEN HE STARTED, by accepting the job he accepted it WITH THAT JOB DESCRIPTION but more closely to kim would be 'a devout hindu becomes the head of fda, and THEN fetuses become defined as food,,, because fetus, in his religion , are human beings,, he refuses this ALTERATION to the original outline of his job expectations , and fights for a religious exemption to allow him to inspect everything BUT fetuses for consumption, like he did when originally accepting the position' based upon a situation where the definitions change AFTER the job is accepted,,there would be legal standing to challenge being forced to participate with those new definitions if they require him to support something (eating fetuses) that conflicts with his religious convictions,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
she shouldn't have to sign to say its legal, if its legal no individual needs to attest to it,, it just is With that view, you wouldn't need to get a license to get married or drive a car. A county clerk issues a marriage license. In some counties the clerk's signature is a required item. Therefor, she is making it legal for the people to get married. Otherwise, it's not a legal marriage. Just like driving a car isn't legal unless you have a valid driver's license. in her view, she is signing to authorize/consent to the contract If this infact true, she doesn't understand how the law works and isn't qualified to be a county clerk in the first place. in my view, she is signing just to 'witness' that the laws were followed Basically, yes. for her and her conscious to not be willing to compromise her values by consenting to an amoral behavior,, and because I believe that is her conscience, I admire her for standing up for her values I cannot admire anyone that treats other people with bigotry. I also cannot admire anyone that breaks the law and oath of office just because they disagree with it. There are many other legal ways to protest what she wrongly conceives to be abnormal and immoral. There is no reason to break the law or refuse to do her job. You go right on ahead and admire her, but then you should also admire terrorist. No one stands up for what they believe more than terrorist. You should also admire Dylann Roof because he thought shooting up a black church was the right thing to do. You should also admire the KKK because they firmly believe hating everyone that is not white is the right thing to do. Oh, you don't admire these people? But they really, really are not willing to compromise their values. My point is, standing up for your beliefs is fine. However, these acts of unyielding conscience can do more harm than good. Especially when the person's beliefs are bigoted, hateful, and completely illogical. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt the LGBT movement will have any tolerance for anything but EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US type execution of the law,,,but I admire her for trying
I'm not quite sure what you admire about a citizen going against the law of the land when hundreds of thousands of dollars have most likely already been spent on this absurdity(her). Would you admire a Muslim pushing a verse in the Koran in the same public manner? you surprise me daily MsH
many changes have come through people protesting or contesting or 'going against ' the law peaceful protests where blacks set where they were not permitted were against the law, and I admire MLK for his habit of leading them and yes, I would admire a muslim if they entered a position in one capacity and then had to endure a change that directly contested their religious convictions with no opportunity for some interim compromise to acknowledge the reality that their job has changed from what they were to believe they would do when they applied,,especially if they have done that job well up til the point that the dynamics changed,,, As I said it's perfectly understandable IF she made a mistake, she didn't. This was made VERY CLEAR when she was compelled by the SUPREME COURT to do the DUTY SHE WAS ELECTED TO DO, which HAS NOT CHANGED. She was ORDERED nicely without being jailed to STOP DISCRIMINATING AGAINST CITIZENS AND DENYING THEM THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. She instead, DENIED ALL CITIZENS THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, as a LEGAL AUTHORITY OF Rowan County and the State of Kentucky for >HER PERSONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS<. No Muslim Jew Christian Hindu Buddhist or any other religion can make or DENY a LEGAL DOCUMENT to ANYONE for a RELIGIOUS BELIEF. Not in AMERICA. no legal document should REQUIRE ANYONES SIGNATURE< except those entering in a contract, to define its legality especially if such person is not in agreement with the contract and no lunch bar should be denying service on the base of color, but they did for YEARS, while the authorities compelled them to stay in their place , by actions ranging from compelling 'nicely'(whatever that is) to incarcerating thank goodness they didn't just say , its the law so I will just follow it,,,or give up,, Those who participated in the sit ins were not elected officials compelled by the SUPREME COURT to do LEGAL PAPERWORK. She isn't the victim, those being DENIED LEGAL service GUARANTEED TO THEM AS TAX PAYING CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES and the SUPREME COURT LEGAL REVIEW THAT DID NOT CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES or HER LEGAL OBLIGATION AS ELECTED COUNTY CLERK. This IS NOT a peaceful protest. Her RELIGIOUS FREEDOM is not gone, she may practice her religion in any church she wishes to be a member. This is HIGHLY PUBLICIZED ONE WOMAN WAR ON THE SUPREME COURT AND SAME-SEX COUPLES seeking LEGAL DOCUMENTS and her (un)justification for denying EVERYONE seeking a marriage license they MUST AQUIRE to be LEGALLY RECOGNIZED AS MARRIED BY THE STATE AND THE IRS is Her own mistaken belief that she can make or deny LEGAL decisions for the couples, the IRS in the name of ROWAN COUNTY and THE STATE OF KENTUCKY for HER PERSONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEF. She's wrong. She has NO AUTHORITY to impose HER RELIGIOUS BELIEF on ANYONE for ANY REASON at ANY TIME as AN ELECTED LEGAL CLERK. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Fri 09/25/15 11:50 PM
|
|
tell me, rug, whose signature is on your license
my license only has MINE,, the person entering the obligation,,, that's my point having a document attesting to legality is enough without having a PERSONAL signature to further make it legal,,,, the drivers license manages to be valid without a need for anyone to SIGN IT(except the driver) its not bigotry to believe an action is wrong,, people confuse being against behaviors with being against people,, they are separate matters.. what other ways, outside of civil disobedience, do you suggest for 'protesting' an unjust law..? just curious are you unable to admire the people who sat at lunch tables that were segregated,, against the law,, or those people who served 'coloreds' against the law and against their jobs expectations? I don't admire terrorist, because they go BEYOND refusing to participate in things that are against their values,, and cross over into physically HARMING others to force them to also abide by their values I don't admire ANYONE who uses the threat of VIOLENCE against others,, this has NOTHING to do with that,,, what is bigoted or hateful or illogical about her belief? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but more closely to kim would be 'a devout hindu becomes the head of fda, and THEN fetuses become defined as food,,, because fetus, in his religion , are human beings,, he refuses this ALTERATION to the original outline of his job expectations , and fights for a religious exemption to allow him to inspect everything BUT fetuses for consumption, like he did when originally accepting the position' based upon a situation where the definitions change AFTER the job is accepted,,there would be legal standing to challenge being forced to participate with those new definitions if they require him to support something (eating fetuses) that conflicts with his religious convictions,,, Ah but that is not really the case here. What the Supreme Court did was realise that same sex marriage has been legal since the 14th amendment was established back in 1868. Therefore, her job always included signing same sex marriage licenses. Kim's job did not change or get redefined. The only change is that everyone became aware of the fact that part of her job included signing said licenses. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt the LGBT movement will have any tolerance for anything but EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US type execution of the law,,,but I admire her for trying
I'm not quite sure what you admire about a citizen going against the law of the land when hundreds of thousands of dollars have most likely already been spent on this absurdity(her). Would you admire a Muslim pushing a verse in the Koran in the same public manner? you surprise me daily MsH
many changes have come through people protesting or contesting or 'going against ' the law peaceful protests where blacks set where they were not permitted were against the law, and I admire MLK for his habit of leading them and yes, I would admire a muslim if they entered a position in one capacity and then had to endure a change that directly contested their religious convictions with no opportunity for some interim compromise to acknowledge the reality that their job has changed from what they were to believe they would do when they applied,,especially if they have done that job well up til the point that the dynamics changed,,, As I said it's perfectly understandable IF she made a mistake, she didn't. This was made VERY CLEAR when she was compelled by the SUPREME COURT to do the DUTY SHE WAS ELECTED TO DO, which HAS NOT CHANGED. She was ORDERED nicely without being jailed to STOP DISCRIMINATING AGAINST CITIZENS AND DENYING THEM THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. She instead, DENIED ALL CITIZENS THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, as a LEGAL AUTHORITY OF Rowan County and the State of Kentucky for >HER PERSONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS<. No Muslim Jew Christian Hindu Buddhist or any other religion can make or DENY a LEGAL DOCUMENT to ANYONE for a RELIGIOUS BELIEF. Not in AMERICA. no legal document should REQUIRE ANYONES SIGNATURE< except those entering in a contract, to define its legality especially if such person is not in agreement with the contract and no lunch bar should be denying service on the base of color, but they did for YEARS, while the authorities compelled them to stay in their place , by actions ranging from compelling 'nicely'(whatever that is) to incarcerating thank goodness they didn't just say , its the law so I will just follow it,,,or give up,, Those who participated in the sit ins were not elected officials compelled by the SUPREME COURT to do LEGAL PAPERWORK. She isn't the victim, those being DENIED LEGAL service GUARANTEED TO THEM AS TAX PAYING CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES and the SUPREME COURT LEGAL REVIEW THAT DID NOT CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES or HER LEGAL OBLIGATION AS ELECTED COUNTY CLERK. This IS NOT a peaceful protest. Her RELIGIOUS FREEDOM is not gone, she may practice her religion in any church she wishes to be a member. This is HIGHLY PUBLICIZED ONE WOMAN WAR ON THE SUPREME COURT AND SAME-SEX COUPLES seeking LEGAL DOCUMENTS and her (un)justification for denying EVERYONE seeking a marriage license they MUST AQUIRE to be LEGALLY RECOGNIZED AS MARRIED BY THE STATE AND THE IRS is Her own mistaken belief that she can make or deny LEGAL decisions for the couples, the IRS in the name of ROWAN COUNTY and THE STATE OF KENTUCKY for HER PERSONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEF. She's wrong. She has NO AUTHORITY to impose HER RELIGIOUS BELIEF on ANYONE for ANY REASON at ANY TIME as AN ELECTED LEGAL CLERK. I agree, she shouldn't be able to IMPOSE upon others or be IMPOSED upon when it comes to her religious freedom she shouldn't be able to STOP same sex couples from getting marriage license but she shouldn't be IMPOSED upon to sign her name to it,,,when that has NEVER been and NEVR was part of what her job entailed and IS against her religious convictions,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ms, with all respect, I'm going to give you a hypothetical comparison to this. I want you to answer honestly with regards to legality ONLY. A devout Hindu becomes the head of the FDA. To him, the cow is holy, and he starts failing every business that processes any products that contain dairy and beef. If a slaughter house fails a FDA inspection for cleanliness, they cannot LEGALLY sell ANYTHING as food to ANYONE. McD's BK steak houses and grocery stores will run out of meat and dairy IF enough or large enough suppliers shut down. Many people will start asking questions and getting angry because there is not new stock being supplied. This supervisor is inquired by Congress, the CDC has nothing like mad cow disease cases or foot and mouth disease as LEGAL EVIDENCE for shutting down the processors dairies and slaughtering. This devout Hindu not only tells congress and the CDC that all these places fail because they slaughter and sell parts of holy animals, but cannot be cleansed enough to resume processing ANY OTHER MEATS due to the RELIGIOUS SINS committed in the slaughter of cows. Is he LEGALLY sound in his reasoning? The facilities cannot process anything without FDA approval. no, based upon this first sentence "a devout hindu becomes the head of fda,,,,to him the cow is holy' he took a job knowing the job and knowing cows were part of it WHEN HE STARTED, by accepting the job he accepted it WITH THAT JOB DESCRIPTION but more closely to kim would be 'a devout hindu becomes the head of fda, and THEN fetuses become defined as food,,, because fetus, in his religion , are human beings,, he refuses this ALTERATION to the original outline of his job expectations , and fights for a religious exemption to allow him to inspect everything BUT fetuses for consumption, like he did when originally accepting the position' based upon a situation where the definitions change AFTER the job is accepted,,there would be legal standing to challenge being forced to participate with those new definitions if they require him to support something (eating fetuses) that conflicts with his religious convictions,,, The 14th amendment HAS NOT CHANGED. Her SWORN LEGAL OATH for LEGAL OFFICE HAS NOT CHANGED. She IS NOT in a position of RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY. She IS NOT performing RELIGIOUS CEREMONYS, she isn't performing ANY CEREMONYS. Her OBLIGATION is LEGAL. Her office is LEGAL. Her work is LEGAL. Her title is LEGAL. Her 'boss' the COURTS, are COURTS OF LAW. Her RELIGIOUS BELIEF doesn't supersede ANY LAW IN ANY COURT IN THE UNITED STATES. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but more closely to kim would be 'a devout hindu becomes the head of fda, and THEN fetuses become defined as food,,, because fetus, in his religion , are human beings,, he refuses this ALTERATION to the original outline of his job expectations , and fights for a religious exemption to allow him to inspect everything BUT fetuses for consumption, like he did when originally accepting the position' based upon a situation where the definitions change AFTER the job is accepted,,there would be legal standing to challenge being forced to participate with those new definitions if they require him to support something (eating fetuses) that conflicts with his religious convictions,,, Ah but that is not really the case here. What the Supreme Court did was realise that same sex marriage has been legal since the 14th amendment was established back in 1868. Therefore, her job always included signing same sex marriage licenses. Kim's job did not change or get redefined. The only change is that everyone became aware of the fact that part of her job included signing said licenses. please paste the part of the decision that stated such? let me sum up what it actually said we are going to support same sex marriage based upon five things 1)right to personal choice 2)support of two person unions based on its importance to those in the union 3)protection of children,to have stability, though children are neither a mandate or condition of marriage 4) because marriage is CENTRAL to the social order which provides a 'constellation' of 'benefits' in exchange 5)equal protection (to the 'benefits' hetero couples receive) HYPOCRITICAL LEGALESE , basically,,,,since marriage still has groups that aren't 'equally' supported like first degree relatives but back to the point,,,, no supreme court decision is retro active, or alot of bigoted families wouldnt have their wealth as it would have been taken as proceeds from illegal behavior when slavery and jim crow were eliminated so this was a NEW law that changed her description,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ms, with all respect, I'm going to give you a hypothetical comparison to this. I want you to answer honestly with regards to legality ONLY. A devout Hindu becomes the head of the FDA. To him, the cow is holy, and he starts failing every business that processes any products that contain dairy and beef. If a slaughter house fails a FDA inspection for cleanliness, they cannot LEGALLY sell ANYTHING as food to ANYONE. McD's BK steak houses and grocery stores will run out of meat and dairy IF enough or large enough suppliers shut down. Many people will start asking questions and getting angry because there is not new stock being supplied. This supervisor is inquired by Congress, the CDC has nothing like mad cow disease cases or foot and mouth disease as LEGAL EVIDENCE for shutting down the processors dairies and slaughtering. This devout Hindu not only tells congress and the CDC that all these places fail because they slaughter and sell parts of holy animals, but cannot be cleansed enough to resume processing ANY OTHER MEATS due to the RELIGIOUS SINS committed in the slaughter of cows. Is he LEGALLY sound in his reasoning? The facilities cannot process anything without FDA approval. no, based upon this first sentence "a devout hindu becomes the head of fda,,,,to him the cow is holy' he took a job knowing the job and knowing cows were part of it WHEN HE STARTED, by accepting the job he accepted it WITH THAT JOB DESCRIPTION but more closely to kim would be 'a devout hindu becomes the head of fda, and THEN fetuses become defined as food,,, because fetus, in his religion , are human beings,, he refuses this ALTERATION to the original outline of his job expectations , and fights for a religious exemption to allow him to inspect everything BUT fetuses for consumption, like he did when originally accepting the position' based upon a situation where the definitions change AFTER the job is accepted,,there would be legal standing to challenge being forced to participate with those new definitions if they require him to support something (eating fetuses) that conflicts with his religious convictions,,, The 14th amendment HAS NOT CHANGED. Her SWORN LEGAL OATH for LEGAL OFFICE HAS NOT CHANGED. She IS NOT in a position of RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY. She IS NOT performing RELIGIOUS CEREMONYS, she isn't performing ANY CEREMONYS. Her OBLIGATION is LEGAL. Her office is LEGAL. Her work is LEGAL. Her title is LEGAL. Her 'boss' the COURTS, are COURTS OF LAW. Her RELIGIOUS BELIEF doesn't supersede ANY LAW IN ANY COURT IN THE UNITED STATES. it sure doesn't, and those Christians who found slavery amoral didn't have beliefs that SUPERCEDED law either, or those who struck out against segregation and jim crow, but thank God they made the sacrifices and stood up to those laws even to the point of breaking them,,,,, fighting a system that made certain people feel they had to CLOSET 'who they are' by just pushing some other group there instead is WRONG,, whether its 'legal' or not |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tell me, rug, whose signature is on your license my license only has MINE,, the person entering the obligation,,, that's my point having a document attesting to legality is enough without having a PERSONAL signature to further make it legal,,,, the drivers license manages to be valid without a need for anyone to SIGN IT(except the driver) In my state it's only mine as well. However, there are some counties that do not require a clerk signature on a marriage license. Which makes your whole point mute. its not bigotry to believe an action is wrong,, people confuse being against behaviors with being against people,, they are separate matters.. You right, believing an action is wrong is not bigotry. However, what she believes to be wrong is who these people are. An action comes with a choice. These people did not choose to be homosexrals. Just as you did not choose to be hetralsexal. All they are asking for is to be treated the same as everyone else. When treating someone differently because of something they did not choose is bigotry. what other ways, outside of civil disobedience, do you suggest for 'protesting' an unjust law..? just curious Oh let's see...Write to government leaders and explain your cause, Stage peaceful protest, organized groups of like minded people, try to use logic and reason to persuade others, start petitions, vote for people that want to use the legal ways of changing laws to implement the changes you would like to see happen. All of these are legal means to accomplish what she is attempting to do by breaking the law. are you unable to admire the people who sat at lunch tables that were segregated,, against the law,, or those people who served 'coloreds' against the law and against their jobs expectations? No, I do not admire them. While I think what they were standing for was good. They should have protested in legal ways. The only time it is acceptable to break a the law is when there is no legal means to protest. I don't admire terrorist, because they go BEYOND refusing to participate in things that are against their values,, and cross over into physically HARMING others to force them to also abide by their values I don't admire ANYONE who uses the threat of VIOLENCE against others,, this has NOTHING to do with that,,, Good, we have something in common. what is bigoted or hateful or illogical about her belief? Bigoted - Treating groups of people differently only because they are different from her. Hateful - She thinks these people should be put in hell for eternity. Illogical - Same sex marriages do not affect her in anyway. It only affects the people that are getting married. Therefore, it is illogical for her to oppose it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Except THAT LAW has not changed. No new "Same-sex marriage Bill" has been passed so that HAS BEEN her job all along. All the supreme court did was issue a LEGAL review and compel those who were RELIGIOUSLY opposed to ALLOW THE PEOPLE THEIR FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND EQUAL PROTECTION AND RIGHTS under THE SAME CONSTITUTION THAT APPLIES TO ALL OTHER CITIZENS. Had they not done so, they would CONDONE the COUNTIES STATES AND IRS to not recognize these PEOPLE as HUMAN BEINGS and as COUNTIES STATES AND A COUNTRY AS AUTHORITY OF LAW to DENY THEM THEIR FREEDOM RIGHTS AND PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.
LAW not religion. Not personal belief. Not homphobia. U.S. Law applies to all citizens. Even ones we don't personally agree with. There is nothing on the marriage LICENSE that says I agree that these two people should be together in HOLY MATRIMONY for all the days of their life and if they conduct ANY SIN to include a SINFUL SEXUAL ACT that I (Kim Davis) will be personally responsible for said sin directly to God even though I was not present and did not encourage or participate in THAT sinful sexual act, payable with my soul's eternal damnation in the hottest of the fires in all of hell for eternity. Straight people commit RELIGIOUSLY sinful sexual acts too. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You right, believing an action is wrong is not bigotry. However, what she believes to be wrong is who these people are. An action comes with a choice. These people did not choose to be homosexrals. Just as you did not choose to be hetralsexal. All they are asking for is to be treated the same as everyone else. When treating someone differently because of something they did not choose is bigotry.
no, what she believes to be wrong is what these people DO,,,sex always comes with a choice, she believes the CHOICE of laying down with the same sex is wrong that is not about who someone 'is' , its about what someone 'does' I can choose to be promiscuous, or choose to be abstinent, I can choose to sleep with men or woman or both that's all about BEHAVIOR and the opinion about those behaviors is not about 'who someone is',,,, she is treating it differently on something they are choosing to DO,,,simple,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only time it is acceptable to break a the law is when there is no legal means to protest.
I disagree. unjust laws should be broken,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 09/26/15 12:28 AM
|
|
Bigoted - Treating groups of people differently only because they are different from her.
Hateful - She thinks these people should be put in hell for eternity. Illogical - Same sex marriages do not affect her in anyway. It only affects the people that are getting married. Therefore, it is illogical for her to oppose it. I agree, bigoted would be treating differently ONLY because one is 'different' that is different than treating someone as if they are WRONG because you believe their actions are not only 'different' but 'wrong',, the way this woman is being judged and treated differently for 'who she is', because its different than what the ruling class are willing to be 'tolerant' of I have not heard her say she believes anyone 'should be put in hell for eternity' having to be unemployed wont affect people? worrying about being sued and having to endure lawsuits for not complying wont affect people? slavery and jim crow only affected blacks, but thank goodness so many 'illogical' whites opposed it,,, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Except THAT LAW has not changed. No new "Same-sex marriage Bill" has been passed so that HAS BEEN her job all along. All the supreme court did was issue a LEGAL review and compel those who were RELIGIOUSLY opposed to ALLOW THE PEOPLE THEIR FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND EQUAL PROTECTION AND RIGHTS under THE SAME CONSTITUTION THAT APPLIES TO ALL OTHER CITIZENS. Had they not done so, they would CONDONE the COUNTIES STATES AND IRS to not recognize these PEOPLE as HUMAN BEINGS and as COUNTIES STATES AND A COUNTRY AS AUTHORITY OF LAW to DENY THEM THEIR FREEDOM RIGHTS AND PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. LAW not religion. Not personal belief. Not homphobia. U.S. Law applies to all citizens. Even ones we don't personally agree with. There is nothing on the marriage LICENSE that says I agree that these two people should be together in HOLY MATRIMONY for all the days of their life and if they conduct ANY SIN to include a SINFUL SEXUAL ACT that I (Kim Davis) will be personally responsible for said sin directly to God even though I was not present and did not encourage or participate in THAT sinful sexual act, payable with my soul's eternal damnation in the hottest of the fires in all of hell for eternity. Straight people commit RELIGIOUSLY sinful sexual acts too. and they don't mandate others SIGN OFF on them |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ms, with all respect, I'm going to give you a hypothetical comparison to this. I want you to answer honestly with regards to legality ONLY. A devout Hindu becomes the head of the FDA. To him, the cow is holy, and he starts failing every business that processes any products that contain dairy and beef. If a slaughter house fails a FDA inspection for cleanliness, they cannot LEGALLY sell ANYTHING as food to ANYONE. McD's BK steak houses and grocery stores will run out of meat and dairy IF enough or large enough suppliers shut down. Many people will start asking questions and getting angry because there is not new stock being supplied. This supervisor is inquired by Congress, the CDC has nothing like mad cow disease cases or foot and mouth disease as LEGAL EVIDENCE for shutting down the processors dairies and slaughtering. This devout Hindu not only tells congress and the CDC that all these places fail because they slaughter and sell parts of holy animals, but cannot be cleansed enough to resume processing ANY OTHER MEATS due to the RELIGIOUS SINS committed in the slaughter of cows. Is he LEGALLY sound in his reasoning? The facilities cannot process anything without FDA approval. no, based upon this first sentence "a devout hindu becomes the head of fda,,,,to him the cow is holy' he took a job knowing the job and knowing cows were part of it WHEN HE STARTED, by accepting the job he accepted it WITH THAT JOB DESCRIPTION but more closely to kim would be 'a devout hindu becomes the head of fda, and THEN fetuses become defined as food,,, because fetus, in his religion , are human beings,, he refuses this ALTERATION to the original outline of his job expectations , and fights for a religious exemption to allow him to inspect everything BUT fetuses for consumption, like he did when originally accepting the position' based upon a situation where the definitions change AFTER the job is accepted,,there would be legal standing to challenge being forced to participate with those new definitions if they require him to support something (eating fetuses) that conflicts with his religious convictions,,, The 14th amendment HAS NOT CHANGED. Her SWORN LEGAL OATH for LEGAL OFFICE HAS NOT CHANGED. She IS NOT in a position of RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY. She IS NOT performing RELIGIOUS CEREMONYS, she isn't performing ANY CEREMONYS. Her OBLIGATION is LEGAL. Her office is LEGAL. Her work is LEGAL. Her title is LEGAL. Her 'boss' the COURTS, are COURTS OF LAW. Her RELIGIOUS BELIEF doesn't supersede ANY LAW IN ANY COURT IN THE UNITED STATES. it sure doesn't, and those Christians who found slavery amoral didn't have beliefs that SUPERCEDED law either, or those who struck out against segregation and jim crow, but thank God they made the sacrifices and stood up to those laws even to the point of breaking them,,,,, fighting a system that made certain people feel they had to CLOSET 'who they are' by just pushing some other group there instead is WRONG,, whether its 'legal' or not Wrong. You know you're wrong. There is nothing RELIGIOUS about slavery statutes that used to exist. They were, at the time, LEGAL binding contracts of sale or records of ownership of ANY PROPERTY, to the COUNTIES STATES AND the IRS have didlly squat to do with RELIGION. Jim crow laws were, at the time, LEGAL. They had no RELIGIOUS authority. These PEOPLE are LEGALLY RECOGNIZED AS PEOPLE. Not as Christians, or good Christians or saint's or ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH RELIGION. Legally. |
|
|
|
|
