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.
How can I get my facts straight when no one will offer the courtesy of stating their beliefs to me before jumping in the fray? He has been consistently anti-Christian so it is a logical conclusion.
...snip....
Not anti-Christian, Jeff. Most of the people I love in life are Christians - good, decent, warm-hearted people.
I am and always will be anti-fundamentalist Christian. My enemy is the bigotry and bullying epitomized by those who think like you.
If evil has a face, it's fundamentalism. As long as I am able, I'll challenge it, mock it, and shine a light on its darkness.
Why does it always have to be all encompassing or nothing with people like you? Certainly exceptions can be made if someone's religious beliefs causes harm to others. Kim Davis is not causing harm. She is causing an inconvenience at most.
She has also (and I've said this several times) ordered the clerks that serve under her to be complicit in illegal activity. And did she not consider the other employees that had to pick up the slack, doing what she refused to do?
We've told you a dozen or more times, Jeff: religion does not trump the law. Nor does it suddenly 'invalidate' an oath to administer your duties fairly and impartially.
As a matter of fact, I've found the text of the oath online:
30A.020 Oath of clerk and deputies.
Every clerk and deputy, in addition to the oath prescribed by Section 228 of the
Constitution, shall, before entering on the duties of his office, take the following oath in
presence of the Circuit Court: "I, ....., do swear that I will well and truly dis
charge the
duties of the office of .............. County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my
skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees,
opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing
and preserving in my office all
books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not
knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the
duties of my office without favor, affection o
r partiality, so help me God." The fact that
the oath has been administered shall be entered on the record of the Circuit Court.
Effective:
January 2, 1978
History:
Created 1976 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 21, sec. 2, effective January 2,
1978
So, by violating her oath (which includes the bolded phrase), she's a blasphemer, ahe has knowingly and willingly committed 'malfeasance of office' (by instructing her clerks to disobey the law) and has shown favor and/or partiality to her religious beliefs in the discharge of her duties.
And you're holding her up as a 'poster child' for Christian religious freedom?
Oh, yeah -- she's only committed blasphemy, broken her oath of office, made the clerks serving under her complicit in civil (and probably criminal) contempt of court, and misused her position as a clerk of Rowan County to defy a court order.
Given all of that, I wouldn't trust her to hang a picture.
Last edited by FredNotBob; 09-14-2015 at 09:35 AM..
Reason: Minor chage to alter unfortunately-phrased sentence XD
"while she still refuses to authorize marriage licenses, she will not interfere with a deputy clerk who began providing them more than a week ago."
Pretty much all the news.
Really she ought to issue them or leave but that is a good enough compromise with some accommodation wiggle room - as we saw with the muslim convert who couldn't serve booze. Perhaps on a bigger airline, she could have been accommodated.
A muslim checkout girl might be excused serving on the delicatessen counter or the liqor store, but on the checkout she cannot ring the bell and hold everyone up while someone comes and handles the bacon.
Same with the Amish. In their own area, they can be excused warning lights and those driving through should take care. But on roads outside, their wiggle room doesn't apply.
In my job a couple of people were excused handling work by organizations they disapproved of. I guess some accommodation that does not trash the works is ok.
Why does it always have to be all encompassing or nothing with people like you? Certainly exceptions can be made if someone's religious beliefs causes harm to others. Kim Davis is not causing harm. She is causing an inconvenience at most.
She is breaking the law and undermining the whole concept of separation of church and state. That is a harm, and a big one, as anyone realizes who is able to look past the simple notion of sending a gap couple to the next office up the road.... which is about as far as you can get with this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
He has been consistently anti-Christian so it is a logical conclusion.
Being anti YOUR interpretation of Christianity, one that appears to match not one other christian on this entire forum, is not being "Anti Christian".
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
They apparently just make up whatever sounds good to them.
Again with accusing others of doing what only you actually are. I'm sorry if posting facts is just too much for you to handle.
Equality should never come at the expense of sacrificing the 1st amendment. Check it out, even Ben Carson agrees, and I would certainly say he is an intelligent man.
He's also an anti-gay bigot, so unless he's discussing neurosurgery, his opinion is meaningless.
I bet her hands were clapped to her ears and she was rocking back and forth in her chair, humming loudly.
There were a group of protesters inside the office while the same-sex couple was getting their license. One, obviously a fundamentalist, could be heard loudly lecturing the happy couple and telling them they were fornicating sinners.
Which is the First Amendment at work. No one told them they had to leave. No one told them they couldn't say whatever they wanted. The fundamentalists who constantly complain that they are being denied their rights and have no voice were proven wrong. Again.
I'm sorry if posting facts is just too much for you to handle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Equality should never come at the expense of sacrificing the 1st amendment. Check it out, even Ben Carson agrees, and I would certainly say he is an intelligent man.
Jeff, I ask you yet again for the third time since you've ignored the previous two times this has been posed directly to you. What is the grammatical difference between these two sentences;
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
--and--
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion"
The second part of the question is simple. Which one of those sentences are found verbatim in the ultimate law of the land, the United States Constitution?
The fact that you answer other questions but continue to completely ignore these factually based questions destroys the credibility of your two quotes in this post.
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.
