Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That was not mockery, Jeff. It was enjoyment of a healthy and witty repartee. Vizio and you are clearly being disingenuous and obtuse, if not overtly dishonest in your attempt to not acknowledge what the real issues are in favor of your persecution narrative, especially using pejoratives like "gaystappo."
It is a form of mockery and not a very good testimony to attack and put down your Christian brothers. That's not how the body of Christ works.
Did you notice that she does not perform marriage ceremonies...for anybody?
It's part of her job. If she can't do her job she should either go to jail or resign.
Vizio, seriously, wise up.
Marriages are not part of a judge's job. They are authorized to do them. The same way that a priest is authorized, but not obligated to perform exorcisms. Their job, in fact is to rule on cases, which by the way, there are no shortages of. They can refuse to perform weddings, because it's a job someone else can do. Priests, for instance.
Also, she's not refusing to marry hetero. She's refusing to marry at all. In the eyes of the law, she is not discriminating.
That was not mockery, Jeff. It was enjoyment of a healthy and witty repartee. Vizio and you are clearly being disingenuous and obtuse, if not overtly dishonest in your attempt to not acknowledge what the real issues are in favor of your persecution narrative, especially using pejoratives like "gaystappo."
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
It is a form of mockery and not a very good testimony to attack and put down your Christian brothers. That's not how the body of Christ works.
That is where we differ, Jeff. My Christian brothers are not limited and include those Vizio disparages as the "gaystappo." Your obsessive/compulsive attitude toward what you see as the sins of gays makes me think you must not have ANY sins of your own to focus on. Why are you doing that, Jeff. God is not counting our sins against us so why do you???
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,926,708 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
So then the ONLY reason you oppose Kim Davis is because it is a requirement of her job? Seems like there is always an exception when the shoe is on the other foot like the gay bakers refusing to make a cake for Christians.
Bovine scat Jeff. Davis is required to issue marriage license, the judge has the choice whether she performs wedding ceremonies but is not required to.
You can't see the difference there is much hope for you.
So then the ONLY reason you oppose Kim Davis is because it is a requirement of her job?
The explanations are very simple and have been explained to you at length. I am happy to repeat it every time you pop up pretending to still not get it.
We have a secular law. No one gets to use their religion as an excuse to get special privileges or exemptions within that law.
That is it. It really is that simple.
Kim Davis refused to do part of her job requirement and description, and was then in contempt of court, and her only defense was to cite her religion.
The Judge in this case was in contempt of no court, was not doing something that was optional in her job description and was not a requirement. Therefore there is no issue here, despite the OP contriving to fabricate one to invent a double standard which simply is not there.
The explanations are very simple and have been explained to you at length. I am happy to repeat it every time you pop up pretending to still not get it.
We have a secular law. No one gets to use their religion as an excuse to get special privileges or exemptions within that law.
That is it. It really is that simple.
Kim Davis refused to do part of her job requirement and description, and was then in contempt of court, and her only defense was to cite her religion.
The Judge in this case was in contempt of no court, was not doing something that was optional in her job description and was not a requirement. Therefore there is no issue here, despite the OP contriving to fabricate one to invent a double standard which simply is not there.
Again: That is it. It really is that simple.
Repeating is such a waste of time as the two adamantly opposed to SSM posters do not care about facts, logic or laws. They repeatedly claim religious persecution based on that they are no longer allowed to force their religious beliefs upon the law. It makes me almost wished I was a believer so I could be comforted by knowing how they would be received in the afterlife. God asking why dI'd you think I needed to be defended with lies, false accusations and illogical arguments?
A rolleyes? Vizio, PLEASE tell me you are not that stupid. You can address the point reasonably or you can avoid,(which is what you are trying to do) but you can NOT say they are unreasonable, because they are the simple truth.
Actually, as someone who is in favor of equal rights for SSM couples, I'd prefer he does keep on posting as much as possible. I think the more moderate voters see how little there is to anti-SSM ranting such as this the more likely they are to support equal rights for gay couples.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
