The only "wrath" that God has is one your religion has created to keep you in line. The only "Hell" that exists is one created by your religion to keep you in line. Effectively, too, I might add.
Paul, Huckabee, Cruz, Jindal and Walker Support Kentucky County Clerk
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Bullsh*t. Actually he wasn't, but we know you are the bible scholar because your dad was a minister. LOL.
Brilliant logic. How many times did Jesus speak out against rape? So, that means it's no big deal. LOL.
Link the Bible verses where Jesus stated something for us then, Mr. Cafeteria Catholic...
Joe doesn't understand the RFRA. See, it requires reading and doesn't come with bright colored charts, so he's incapable of understanding the law.
Now, in this situation, I'm not sure Davis would qualify because I'm not sure there's an accommodation. In other words,the government can interfere with a person's free exercise of religion if it meets two conditions, and I'm not sure the government hasn't in this situation.
Would Jesus teachings lead you to believe that rape was 'ok'?
Let's see....one of his foundational messages was "Love one another".
Does rape fall under a category as an act of love? Are you truly this stupid and wanting to put your stupidity on display for everyone here?
Do you really wish to try to extend RFRA type protections to public officials?
Even for you Phantom that seems absurd.
Nope, nor would his teachings lead me to believe gay marriage was "ok".
Still, what your biblical understanding isn't important dipwad. The 1st amendment is free exercise of religion. It's not qualified, "free exercise of Joe's religion" or how Joe interprets the bible. Are you really this dense? What am I saying, of course you are. The important thing is did it violate her (Davis) religious beliefs, whether or not you think they are crazy AND whether the government has met the two criteria needed in order to violate a persons free exercise of religion, according to RFRA. As I stated earlier, I think the government has, but I'm not sure (maybe they can work out an accommodation for her that doesn't violate her beliefs and everyone is issued marriage licenses from her office).
Can you show me in the law where the RFRA doesn't apply to public officials? I'm not saying it does/doesn't, I don't see where it automatically doesn't. I've said in this case I don't think Davis has a case because I think the government meet the necessary two criteria needed.
So, you are saying if I am public official, and a law was passed prohibiting public officials from ever consuming alcohol, this wouldn't violate my free exercise of religion? I'm not sure I go along with that view.
Do you need me to use a pretty chart?Could you please try again here, only with complete sentences this time?
Your biblical interpretation isn't important. It doesn't matter if you don't think there's anything in the bible to justify Davis religious objection. What matters is HER religious beliefs on the issue, not yours. That's what free exercise of religion means. RFRA may or may not protect her free exercise of religion as it applies to gay marriage. I don't think it does, but your points about your biblical understanding on gay marriage are about as relevant as who should start at QB this week for Iowa.
You're an asshole, but keep believing your fairy tales, they have nothing to do with the law.
Guys...remember this country was founded on freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion...All religions would be welcomed here and no religion would be welcomed here, too........This country was founded as a nation of LAW.....This gal in the county office in Kentucky refuses to support the LAW of the land because she has "religious reasons" for opposing it......Again, go back to the beginning. This country was founded on freedom from religion as well as religious freedom. This is a nation of LAW. The woman cannot do her job for reasons of conscience, so be it. Let her resign and fill the position with someone who can follow directions.
Please do. Make a pie chart for us with two categories: 'number of times Jesus said to give to the poor' and 'number of times Jesus mentioned anything about homosexuality'.
Then, go re-read the verses in the Bible where Jesus said to "Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar" and how that example applies here. Specifically, how someone can remain true to God's word while still following the Laws of the Land that might seem incompatible....
This issue has nothing to do with her beliefs; if she were to act like a true Christian, she would step aside and resign and not stand in her own personal judgement of others she dislikes. Remember that whole parable of 'he who is without sin should cast the first stone'? Step aside and let other people live their lives without her meddling and interference. Their marriages have absolutely no personal impact on her, and yet she and her illegal and petty actions are impacting others. That's certainly NOT compatible with ANY of Jesus' teachings...
Yes, it's a nation of law, however, IF the law interferes with my free exercise of religion then I don't have to observe the law, unless the government meets the two point standard set out in the RFRA.
I agree with you that she should resign, since I can't see how the government can accommodate her to the satisfaction of both parties. Can marriage licenses be issued by her deputies without her name on them? If so, maybe that's a possibility, however, otherwise I think she needs to resign or stay in jail.
This has already been addressed; her name does NOT appear on any of the licenses, and she refused to allow her deputy clerks to sign in her stead. She also threatened to fire any of them who did. 5/6 of the deputy clerks indicated to the judge that they would issue licenses without any religious problems for them. The 6th deputy clerk is her son, who was directed by the judge to not interfere in any way.
So, she is unwilling to delegate the licenses to anyone else and is intending to infringe on others' rights just because they do not match hers.
She should spend the rest of her term in jail; the county should charge her for the associated costs.
And how does the law "interfere" with HER right to practice her religion as she sees fit? Her religious rights do not allow her to infringe on the rights of others Phantom. Sharia law does that. Are you like OiT and supporting sharia law in the US now?
I was born in small town Iowa. You didn't wash your car or mow your lawn on Sunday. If you did, someone might (probably would) say something to you about it....but they wouldn't stop you from doing so.
This lady has a legal obligation to provide legal documentation for her citizens, She needs to fulfill her obligation.....or get out of office.
CLEARLY, the gayness of SSM might rub off on her, and Satan would force her to get ANOTHER divorce and then marry a butch lesbian!!!
(Maybe she can get a cameo in the upcoming Orange Is The New Black season...)
1) LOL. I'll let you the times where he said give to the poor. I bet it's less than you think. Still, it's irrelevant. You are still applying the same standard I cited with rape. If you are worried about love, call it statutory rape. Your logic is incredibly flawed. Not to mention that your original assertion was proved wrong.
2) WTF? Is this a serious point or you just trying to provide chuckles with your silliness? You do realize what led up to him saying this? A question was put to him by the Pharisees to trap him, to speak out against Rome, which was an act of treason and punishable by death. Jesus, flipped it on them and said the above, but it in no way would be used to justify gay marriage. LOL. Using your logic Pope Francis shouldn't speak out morally against climate change because "Render unto Caesar". Ditto if a country passed a law supporting slavery, forced prostitution, etc, should religious leaders remain silent and say, "render unto Caesar"?
3) Again, wtf are you talking about? It has EVERYTHING to do with her religious beliefs and that of her church. Who are you to judge her and say she's not acting like "a true Christian"? Do you have the final say on how a "true Christian" acts? I sure hope not.
Seriously, a giant facepalm to what you've written. Do you understand what the 1st amendment means? Do you have any clue what the "free exercise of religion" clause means? I'm not even disagreeing with your interpretation of the bible regarding marrying a same sex couple. If I was in her position, my free exercise of religion would not prohibit from issuing licenses to same sex couples even though my religious belief tells me these are not marriages. However, it doesn't matter what my Christian belief is and it doesn't matter what your Christian belief is on the matter. The only thing that matters is HER religious beliefs. Free exercise of religion is specific to the person, it's not something that's applies the same to everyone. I don't have a problem with eating non-kosher meat, but many Jews would. If there was a law that said pork was the only meat allowed to be served in school lunches, that wouldn't have violated my religious freedom, but it would have a Jewish person.
If you want to persuade her that her opinion is wrong based on your understanding of the bible. Fine. That's great. However, I don't believe the government can compel her to violate her religious beliefs unless they meet two conditions. Do I think the government has met those? Likely. Should she resign? Absolutely. Do I support the judge sending her to prison unless she complies with the law? Yes.
Under the logic posed by the God Squad in this thread, if we allow this county clerk to violate others' rights because they don't jibe with her version of Christianity, any Muslim county clerk or DMV worker would be able to refuse service to any woman not wearing a burka with full face coverage, or any man who did not have a properly groomed Muslim beard.
Is that clearer to understand the problems we run into if people can use 'religion' as the go-to excuse? No one is preventing her from worshipping as she chooses. Period.
Ask her. I'm not saying I agree with her. I'm assuming she believes that by issuing a license she is participating or approving the marriage. Again, I'm not agreeing with her position but our opinion doesn't matter. What is HER belief, what is the teaching of her church? Nice misrepresentation of my position by throwing in the 'sharia law'. Read the Religious Restoration Freedom Act. The government CAN pass laws that violate a persons free exercise of religion and yet that person must still follow the law.
Since you tried to bring up a strawman like Sharia law, let's use an example involving Muslim women. Let's say the government passes a law saying women may not wear a hajib in public buildings. According you that law might not be a good law but it wouldn't violate religious freedom laws. Wrong. The gov't would first have to show that it has a compelling gov't interest for the law (strict scrutiny). The law doesn't pass the first test, so no need to even go to the 2nd test.
Have no idea what relevance your 2nd paragraph has in this discussion.
To your final point. Agree, and have said so numerous times. Because even if the law violates her free exercise, I think the gov't has met the two conditions. Not sure why people are having trouble understanding the point one can understand her religious argument (even if one disagrees with her), yet still think she should resign or remain in jail.
I've done literally hundreds of charts, Joe. Why should I here? You logic, like most of your rantings in non-science posts, is incredibly flawed (actually many of your science ones are also but not quite as extreme). You're just trying to lick your wounds because I bitch slapped you with your flawed premise.
Because you said you could.
Can you? Apparently not.
(Here's a hint: the number of times Jesus mentions gays is zero.)
I know it's not as fun as reading a report from IPCC, but try reading the RFRA so you don't look so ignorant in these threads. Then you wouldn't embarrass yourself by making such asinine posts, like this one.
Free exercise of religion is not synonymous with worshiping. The latter is part of the former, but not synonymous.
You're the main poster in this thread making asinine and conflicting statements. Perhaps that's just another symptom of Cafeteria Catholicism...
Nope, you're the only dope in this thread. You have the intellectual grasp of a child on this subject. What conflicting 'statements' have I made?
BTW. You still haven't proven you know the definition of a cafeteria Catholic, so would you like another shot. I'm just waiting once for you to provide a definition to see if you even know what the term means. I'm convinced you've heard the term used and have no freakin' clue what it actually means.
LOL
Apparently my usage of the term has been appropriate enough to get you ranting like a grade schooler again.
Act like an adult in these threads for once, and maybe others won't use terms against you that set you off like a two year old throwing a tantrum.
LOL dolt. Sodomy is covered under fornication. Educate yourself, so you don't look so ridiculously stupid. Have some self pride, Joe.
Last edited:
You are getting schooled and you're upset. So, you need to deflect which is modus operandi. I would expect nothing less from you since we've seen you do this hundreds of times before. You can't admit you're wrong, or ignorant on a subject, so it's lash out and deflect.
You've based your entire ramblings on emotional argument, not a single rational, well reasoned argument has come from you. You failed to show a single point where I'm wrong. You've claimed I've made "conflicting statements" but have been unable to back it up with even ONE example. You're getting pwn'd, my friend.
No, I think it's embarrassing you continue to use a term you don't understand the meaning. I actually feel sorry for you. Why can't you provide a definition of "cafeteria Catholic"? Just once and I'll never ask you to do it again. I think we both know your silence is an admission you have no freakin' clue what it means.
Do yourself a favor? Google the following:
"Free exercise of religion"
"Worshipping"
"Religious Freedom Restoration Act"
You have a poor understanding, or no understanding of what these things mean. Again, educate yourself.
I love how you dish out shots left and right and then cry like a baby when someone responds in kind. You can sure dish it out but you can never take it. Hypocrite.
Unlike you, I have used reasoned arguments, not emotional ones. I've cited RFRA. You've went off on tangents, like YOUR interpretation of the bible, which have NO relevance in this instance. What you think is the proper Christian belief of gay marriage is IRRELEVANT in whether or not this women's free exercise of religion has been violated. Why can't you understand this very basic concept?
And yet Jesus never used the term once. Not.One.Time.
One would think that something so egregious against God would have merited at least a mention if it was going to keep you out of the Kingdom of Heaven....
Why is that?
Again, why do you insist on throwing absurd analogies in this? Is it because you can't actually argue for this woman. Oh, duh, of course that is the reason.
I presume you are using a hypothetical ban on consuming alcohol as a communion ban? That would be the government violating a government officials Constitutional right...so of course it wouldn't be ok. It actually would be analogous in that the hypothetical is as bad as the clerks'.
The government doesn't need to, and shouldn't, have to meet RFRA in a case like this, a case where:
A government official with a non-discretionary duty refuses to perform that duty because of "religious belief," especially when the considered refusal is a blatant violation of a persons Constitutional right.
Do you need to review RFRA precedent to figure out this scenario?:
Duly elected mayor believes it is his religious duty to expand his brand of religion, whatever it is, and that he is required to do so at all costs, therefore he writes deeds to himself of 100 properties in the city, and pays nothing for them. This would be a clear violation of the Constitution, and nobody would be ok with it.
Or:
Elected Sheriff refuses to grant non-discretionary gun permits to men, because they are men, and his religious belief is that men can't have guns.
We don't need RFRA to figure out that elected, or non, government officials can't violate the Constitution. They can't do it without religion...why should they be allowed to do so "with religion?"
This isn't talking about religious paraphernalia, the wearing of a head-covering which affects only the person wearing it, we are talking about affecting peoples' private Cobatitutional rights.
Phantom: do you believe Obama is, or would be, violating his oath of office/the law/something else by refusing to deport/enforce immigration laws?
(Alternatively, is there another aspect of his Presidency where you believe he is doing so?)
(Alternatively, is there another aspect of his Presidency where you believe he is doing so?)
Here is are a couple questions for everyone. This woman is violating the the civil rights of the gay community, hence illegal. Therefore she should face the consequences for her actions. Correct? There are also millions of people entering this country in violation of the immigration laws, hence illegal. Therefore they should face the consequences for their actions. Correct? Why the hypocrisy from both sides. Illegal is illegal plain and simple. You can't just pick and choose which laws to follow simply because you don't like it. Throw this lady in jail and send the illegal immigrants back to where the came from.
lol, in the real world, job descriptions change all the time.
also in the real world, if you fail to do the job you are being paid to do, then you are relieved of your position.
this crazy chick is certainly allowed her right to religious beliefs, however there is no right to employment or keeping a job. she needs to find employment at a mega church
LOL, he just keeps bringing that up as though it's his 'wild card', but it clearly doesn't apply here, nor would it apply to any other civil servant in a government job refusing to provide a basic civil service because they didn't agree with the religion or morals of the person they are required to serve.
PhantomFlyer- the SCOTUS already determined RFRA doesn't apply; the judge who put her in jail for contempt has determined RFRA doesn't apply. Why do you keep bringing this red herring up? Are you this worked up about gays being able to marry now?
He's clearly losing it in this thread, as all he can do is toss around irrelevant insults and rants.
No Phantom...our opinion DOES matter. In this case it makes all the difference needed. What this woman thinks personally is of no importance at all. She cannot act illegally, even if she thinks she is morally correct. That is not how western law and justice works. This gal is a moron. A self-centered, egotistic and simple moron. Look at the choices she has made in her personal life to verify what I just said.
These simple, evangelical folk are trying to bend and interpret the law to deny others their constitutional rights. This whole "religious freedom" act is fraught with this type of thinking. In no way does homosexual marriage interfere with this or any other evangelicals rights to practice their religion...which is guaranteed under the Constitution.
I hope this gal rots in jail because of her self-centered, egotistical simpleton thinking. God knows when she comes out, she won't be any smarter.
