Or is that an invalid argument because of conscientious objectors?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah ok but by the same token she doesn't have to work in a position that requires her to perform duties that are objectionable to her faith.

The county needs to move her laterally or she can leave. This is a hot button issue but I am more than certain there are other duties as a clerk that would more than likely be objectionable to her faith.

Issuing occupancy to an abortion clinic? Filing paperwork for any other number of things would be equally objectionable under true Christian beliefs. She is just being a frigging zealot
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The constitution allows you to freely observe your religion. It does not allow you to force others to practice your religion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's not the gotcha statement you think. Even in time of war, we allow religious exemptions for conscientious objectors. I can list as many religious exemptions to our laws as you'd like. Courts have ruled that Christian business owners don't have to obey the parts of Obamacare that mandate free coverage for certain types of birth control.

"she doesn't have to work in a position that requires her to perform duties that are objectionable to her faith".

Correct, she doesn't have to take that job. But if she chooses to take that job, her employer (in this case, the state) cannot require that she abandon her religious beliefs when she's on the clock.

"She is just being a frigging zealot"

Maybe. But guess what? She has that right. Or at least, she used to, until this administration came along.

Terrible argument. In this case, she is not forcing the gay couple to practice her Christianity. She's not forcing them to go to Church and get communion. It is the state, and the homosexual activists, who want to force their beliefs on the Christians. I don't get how you can fail to see that. We have had this discussion before. The baker, and this clerk, are not forcing the gay couple to convert to Christianity, they aren't even saying the gay couple can't get married. They just want to be left out of it. Let a co-worker provide the license, let another baker provide the cake.

we bend over backward to make accommodations for people due to all sorts of weird crap...particularly for people interacting with government....we can't accommodate this woman?..is she grandfathered in since the law has changed since her employment began?..if she wanted to pee in the men's bathroom they'd figure out a way to make her happy...or someone would get sued

Yes we would, because in that case, she would be in a class which liberals have anointed with "victim" status.

can we put the leadership of the various Sanctuary Cities in jail for ignoring or refusing to help enforce Federal Law?

funny how this works isn't it?

if you are a leftist, a leftist running for office, a member of a leftist grievance group and adhere to leftist dogma...you can break the law, cause all sorts of mayhem, make all sorts of threats, comments and innuendo, march protest break stuff... and that's acceptable...

if you disagree with leftist dogma...they want you in jail.....

"The FFRF (Freedom From Religion Foundation)has now gone ballistic over the baptism of an on-the-field high school football coach in Villa, Ricca, Georgia. Attendance was voluntary and the students who attended did so on their own time and of their own free will. When the FFRF saw a video of the ceremony, it fired off a letter of righteous indignation to the Carroll County School superintendent:

“It is illegal for coaches to participate in religious activities with students, including prayer and baptisms,” attorney Elizabeth Cavell wrote. “Nor can coaches allow religious leaders to gain unique access to students during school-sponsored activities.”

They called the full emersion baptisms an “egregious constitutional violation.”

Now, administrators are investigating what's become a battle over church, state and sports, reports CBS News correspondent Mark Strassmann.

Three weeks ago, a local Baptist church took a video showing almost two dozen people being baptized before the Villa Rica Wildcats' football practice.

On the video, defensive coordinator and gym teacher Andy Szatkowski was first to be baptized. Then one player after another lined up, 18 in all.

The soon-to-be controversial video was uploaded to YouTube with the caption, "Take a look and see how God is still in our schools!" (this sounds like something Satan would say)

Alan Martinez, head of the local booster club, watched the baptisms and said the overall message of that day was one of "hope, care and compassion from the community."

“I believe we live in a free country,” the pastor said. “These people that are trying to say you can’t do that -- well -- they’re taking away freedom. When did it become illegal to bow your head and pray? When did it become illegal to say I’m a Christian?”

"The Freedom from Religion Foundation, which is already suing another Georgia public school over school prayers, told "CBS This Morning" it would take legal action against this school if it thinks it's necessary."



strange country we're living in right now...zealots with too much time on their hands...probably because such a huge portion of the population is no longer working

Apples and oranges IMHO. immigration is a lot different than religious issues.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

religious issues....that's funny...


Eben...which is a greater threat to our nation...religious issues or immigration issues? particularly when it involves ignoring laws


pretty simple solution to this problem....the clerk steps aside and her supervisor or someone else at town hall fills out the paperwork.....not too hard to figure out....but the left is far more invested in making examples and exacting punishment for not thinking the right way...see it every day....read it in Animal Farm and Brave New World and 1984...natural state of the Totalitarian....if you get the opportunity to watch the news feed for the baptism above...pretty funny....you'd think the performed a mass execution...i don't know if they should or should not have done it...but good grief....the outrage is hilarious

True. It's hilarious. Which is why I made this thread :hihi:
I never said immigration isn't an issue...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i never said you said immigration wasn't an issue:hihi:


you said it was an apple

and not to beat a dead horse...but if you read the actual wording of the Constitution and apply it to these cases...it appears as though Congress and federal law have no role in these matters of religious issues...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech....in fact, what the left is doing is using Congress and the Federal Government to establish and entrench their own "religion" and "religious issues" regarding which they are very much zealots and radicals as we've witnessed...they just pray to a different type of god...that's all.....make no mistake about it

And it is so open, in your face, and obvious. Unlike the clerk who is practicing the tradition of civil disobedience (or not, since the Kentucky constitution does not allow gay marriage), and paying the price for it, this new type of statist god is ALLOWED to disregard laws with which it disagrees, or doesn't like, or endangers its power.

The current progressive administration is openly transforming society, entrenching its own secular religion, by not enforcing existing laws such as it did with DOMA, immigration law, federal welfare law, drug laws, not prosecuting Black Panther voting intimidation, not opposing sanctuary cities, and using executive orders to override congressional decisions of established law, and much more.

Earlier in this thread, JohnR asked: "So how do we square the circle and allow both people's rights and beliefs to be respected? One does not want their religious beliefs to be contradicted, one does not want their personal/ legal beliefs constrained. How do we let both sides win? Does it have to be zero sum?"

There is, not to beat a dying horse, the Constitution. It is a legal foundation that provides the solution to John's question. But the encroaching statist god cannot abide such a legal foundation. It is an impediment to entrenching its power. As are such things as religion, especially Christianity, individualism, individual freedom (which first can be combated with collective rights), "traditional" family values (which can be diluted or destroyed by making gay marriage or lifestyle superior when the two conflict). Much, if not all, of past American culture and legal foundation must be, bit by bit, removed from the path to governing by the new religion.

Every aspect of our lives, which once were a matter of choice, personal belief, must be subservient to the godlike State. This is a religion which is tolerant of no other. What collectivists who oppose others not like them, and are now given power over others by the State, don't foresee, is that they are next in line to bend their knees to the new god. They are the useful idiots who are enlisted against the original American order. When that order has been fully ground into legal dust, even the little minority collectives will have to divest themselves of differences, and all will become the progressive ideal of worker bees in the uniform hive of State.

I doubt that Eben wants to be part of such a State. Yet when he belittles others who need a "little book" for guidance, he fails to see how he subscribes to the book of an all-powerful state when he justifies government suppression of one belief in favor of another. Or when he so enthusiastically supports the book of socialism when he chooses Sanders as a presidential contender. When Eben says freedom is the buzzword of fools, he doesn't see that that is the message that the god of State, or socialism, very much has as a footnote in their little book (or maybe he does). And when he doesn't care what the founding intentions were in the Constitution, but rather what it "says" (more precisely what progressive judges say it says) that he is following chapter and verse the book of this new religion.

But I think Eben is still evolving. There is definitely a ray of hope shining through a lot of his other comments.

"pretty simple solution to this problem....the clerk steps aside and her supervisor or someone else at town hall fills out the paperwork.....not too hard to figure out....but the left is far more invested in making examples and exacting punishment "

Correct. Liberals are a lot more reluctant to display tolerance than they are to demand it.

Nebe, here is what the first amendment says...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Now Nebe. With that in mind, why doesn't this clerk have the right to do what she did? If her interpretation of her religious doctrine is that issuing that license would be a violation of her religion, how can you deny that the first amendment gives her that right? What's the harm in having someone else in the office issue the license?

She's a hypocritical Attention Hoe who's become a media tool.....nothing more.....nothing less.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

she needs some kalifornication vacation time lol

as is the President and many of his cohorts in Washington and elsewhere who routinely ignore actual law (as opposed to rights created by fiat by an activist judiciary that some believe constitute law)...and I'm waiting for some of them to go to jail or lose their jobs

You may well be right. But the Constitution applies to all of us, even attention hoe's. That's the beauty of it, you don't have to pass an IQ test to earn the protections.

The Obama administration is suing truck transportation companies, to ensure that Muslim drivers are not forced against their religion, to deliver alcohol.

A quote from the Obama administration..."..."Everyone has a right to observe his or her religious beliefs, and employers don't get to pick and choose which religions and which religious practices they will accommodate If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so."

Tell that to Kim Davis, who was thrown in jail, without bail I think.

How does this principle NOT apply to Kim Davis?

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-29-13.cfm

From what I'm reading Kim Davis' big hang up isn't that she participates in the issuing of the license....they have deputy clerks that can perform that function. she is hung up because her name is on the license as she is the elected official responsible for them. She doesn't want her name/stamp on them.

Church and state are merging
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What has changed? State and federal laws state that employers must make reasonable accommodations for employees with religious beliefs.

Seems to me that what's changing, is that the current administration thinks they can pick and choose who has the right to expect religious accommodations at work (Muslim truck drivers) and who doesn't have that right(Christians). That should scare all of us, regardless of whether or not you support gay marriage.

That this woman was jailed instead of fired, feels like she was a political prisoner to me. Sounds like what I'd expect in China or North Korea, not here.

She kinda is.....she's an Elected Official....so she can't be fired outright. Gotta go through the process....which unfortunately means a judge has to get involved. He ordered her to perform her duties as such....she refused....so off to jail she goes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I heard that she was also trying to interfere with the ability of others in the office from issuing licenses. She can't do that. But it's not something they should have put her in jail for, that seems like something that would happen in Iran. I still can't believe she got locked up They couldn't just suspend her with pay or something?

Not sure you can suspend an Elected Official.....