Forcing Your Religion on Everyone You Serve...

[Being]

This just isn't funny anymore. She thinks religious freedom is just about her. Put the Democratic Apostolic freak in jail.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ken...bol/ar-AAdR9Qf

http://solidrockapostolic.org/features

Funny that,

...We believe that the church is the physical representation of Jesus to the world, and as such, we live our lives in service to others. Hebrews 10:24 says, "And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works." And Galatians 5:13 and 14 tell us: "...through love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

As long as you believe what they believe. Otherwise, well, fuck you just keep giving me my $80K a year.

[GGT]

She can't be fired, because she was elected?

I don't know why she couldn't have asked a fellow state employee to give a marriage license according to state or federal law.

[Being]

She can be held in contempt. She is in her third marriage for christ's sake. Sanctity of herself is what she serves, not her constituents.

[Being]

I don't know why she couldn't have asked a fellow state employee to give a marriage license according to state or federal law.

She has 6 people in her charge (read it somewhere). Only one doesn't give a shit about her beliefs and would issue licenses but she won't allow it (she being the Clerk has her name on it).

[GGT]

It doesn't matter how many times she's been married or divorced. What does matter is what the township or county expects.

In other words, I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect "elected officials" will carry out their public duties, regardless of their personal or religious beliefs.

[Hazir]

She can be held in contempt. She is in her third marriage for christ's sake. Sanctity of herself is what she serves, not her constituents.

Fourth, according to her own religion she's an adulterer.

[Ominous Gamer]

but all thats been washed away since she took jesus into her life 4 years ago. crazy religious folk eat that shit up.

tomorrow will be very interesting to see if the judges throws contempt charges on her.

[Hazir]

but all thats been washed away since she took jesus into her life 4 years ago. crazy religious folk eat that shit up.

tomorrow will be very interesting to see if the judges throws contempt charges on her.

Oh, that explains everything; suppose the first stone is her's to throw then too.

[Ominous Gamer]

I wish for 2 things to happen tomorrow

1) contempt charges
2) someone to ask her how it feels to be on the wrong side of history


She makes $80,000 a year to file fucking paper work, god has nothing to do it.

[Lewkowski]

She can be held in contempt. She is in her third marriage for christ's sake. Sanctity of herself is what she serves, not her constituents.

And if she was only on one marriage would it make a difference? Either way she's in the wrong. She could be a saint or a serial killer the action itself should be debated not their personal life.

In any event she's clearly in the wrong here. If she doesn't want to do it she should resign. I mean honestly we are talking about a secular institution here not the biblical one. Just because the state calls it a marriage should hold no validity to the church so what's the point? That's like saying that everyone who got married 400 years ago weren't really married because they didn't get a license. My wife and I got married in the eyes of God and our family some time before we were 'officially' wed by the state.

[Being]

... She could be a saint or a serial killer the action itself should be debated not their personal life.

Religion is personal. Are you saying that should be eliminated from the debate as well as her hypocrisy about the sanctity of what she considers marriage?

[Lewkowski]

Religion is personal. Are you saying that should be eliminated from the debate as well as her hypocrisy about the sanctity of what she considers marriage?

The point is that if the action is incorrect it doesn't matter if she was the greatest and kindest person on the earth. And vice versa. You're making an argument that serves no purpose, it isn't germane to the discussion. Why? Because if someone could prove to you that she was in fact a great person and there was a misreporting and she actually has only been married once... would it change your position? If it wouldn't why bring it up?

[Being]

My level of vitriol would much lower. Hypocrisy is worse than not doing your job and still getting paid. Oh wait...kinda the same thing, eh?

[Loki]

Huckabee: "I spoke with Kim Davis this morning to offer my prayers and support. I let her know how proud I am of her for not abandoning her religious convictions and standing strong for religious liberty. She is showing more courage and humility than just about any federal office holder in Washington.
Kim is asking the perfect question: "Under what law am I authorized to issue homosexual couples a marriage license?" That simple question is giving many in Congress a civics lesson that they never got in grade school.
The Supreme Court cannot and did not make a law. They only made a ruling on a law. Congress makes the laws. Because Congress has made no law allowing for same sex marriage, Kim does not have the Constitutional authority to issue a marriage license to homosexual couples.
Kim is a person of great conviction. When people of conviction fight for what's right they often pay a price, but if they don't and we surrender, we will pay a far greater price for bowing to the false God of judicial supremacy. Government is not God. No man - and certainly no unelected lawyer - has the right to redefine the laws of nature or of nature's God. Five unelected lawyers have abused their power by ruling in favor of a national right to same-sex marriage with no legal precedent and with nothing in our Constitution to back it up. They have violated American's most fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution - religious liberty.
I stand with Kim Davis and every American of faith under attack by Washington elites who have nothing but disdain for us, our faith and the Constitution."

I wish he was in my intro to American politics class so I could fail him for his woeful knowledge of the US Constitution...

[Ominous Gamer]

Jail it is, till she agrees to do her job. If she holds out long enough hopefully someone else will do it for her.

[ImAnOgre]

I wonder if the world would be a better place if we just abolished all religions for what they are, pure BS.

[Lewkowski]

I wonder if the world would be a better place if we just abolished all religions for what they are, pure BS.

You liberals and your thought police. The new fascists, literally saying "We should abolish people who have different values and beliefs than I do."

[Enoch the Red]

You liberals and your thought police. The new fascists, literally saying "We should abolish people who have different values and beliefs than I do."

Unless his politics have shifted significantly recently, I think you'd be hard pressed to get the liberal label to apply to Ogre. Or do you use liberal as shorthand for, "someone who holds beliefs I find objectionable?"

[Lewkowski]

Unless his politics have shifted significantly recently, I think you'd be hard pressed to get the liberal label to apply to Ogre. Or do you use liberal as shorthand for, "someone who holds beliefs I find objectionable?"

I honestly don't pay too much attention to poster's views unless they post frequently in the discussions I participate in. In general the 'thought' police is a liberal notion. As is warring against religion. In general.

[Veldan Rath]

The moral right is/was also thought police Lewk, just a different stripe.

[Lewkowski]

The moral right is/was also thought police Lewk, just a different stripe.

In some ways but that was more of an action police. Liberals don't just want to stop a behavior they want to change people's thought processes through changes in word usage, changes in social norms, ect. Typically the right was just about banning a behavior not about modifying people's speech and thought.

[Loki]

You mean like banning flag burning? Or McCarthyism?

[Lewkowski]

You mean like banning flag burning? Or McCarthyism?

Kindly restrict your beef with stuff that happened during my life time. Also lets not forget there actually WERE communist spies over here. In regards to the modern day era which side, right or left is more focused on changing speech and indoctrinating people?

http://freebeacon.com/issues/college...n-male-female/

"A professor at Washington State University is barring students from using “offensive” and “oppressive” language, including the words “illegal alien,” “male” and “female.”"

lol 'male' and 'female' are offensive words. Liberals.

[Loki]

The right still supports a ban on flag burning. Unlike the crap with teachers, this would actually be a violation of free speech. And the boycotts of anyone who says anything bad about America or American troops (see Dixie Chicks). So sure, the left is doing this more now, but that's because the left is winning the culture wars. Where the right is still winning (the south) and in previous eras when the right had dominance, it was not better when it comes to respecting free speech.

[Enoch the Red]

The right still supports a ban on flag burning. Unlike the crap with teachers, this would actually be a violation of free speech. And the boycotts of anyone who says anything bad about America or American troops (see Dixie Chicks). So sure, the left is doing this more now, but that's because the left is winning the culture wars. Where the right is still winning (the south) and in previous eras when the right had dominance, it was not better when it comes to respecting free speech.

I don't disagree with the main thrust of your argument, but grass root boycotts are not remotely comparable to coercive governmental restrictions on speech.

[Loki]

Lewk's examples weren't of the government variety either.

[Enoch the Red]

Lewk's examples weren't of the government variety either.

There is also a fairly obvious difference between individuals being free to choose who and where to patronize and a professor punitively restricting speech.

[Loki]

Students can patronize different classes or even different universities. Plus this isn't really an issue of professors requiring stupid things; it's a question of students pushing professors to require stupid things.

[Enoch the Red]

Students can patronize different classes or even different universities. Plus this isn't really an issue of professors requiring stupid things; it's a question of students pushing professors to require stupid things.

This is true. It is also irrelevant. There is still an obvious difference between the two behaviors.

[Loki]

It's generally a case of private actors requiring stupid things. In both cases, there are alternatives available.