Kentucky clerk refusing gay marriage has wed four times

[NYcarbineer]

I don't remember you defending the lawlessness of any of those people and demanding they be exempted from the law.

They had the right to protest just not the right to shut down businesses.

This clerk shut down part of her business, the part that issues marriage licenses to same sex couples.

Government is not a businesses.
A whole bunch on here say that.
Especially when they say Government should not be run as a business, when a business man runs for President.

She denied a service.

Would you prefer to say that she violated her oath of office while she was illegally denying a government service to eligible constituents?

She has a right to protest just like everybody else in this country.

People routinely go to jail for 'protesting'. That's where she is.

 

[peach174]

They had the right to protest just not the right to shut down businesses.

This clerk shut down part of her business, the part that issues marriage licenses to same sex couples.

Government is not a businesses.
A whole bunch on here say that.
Especially when they say Government should not be run as a business, when a business man runs for President.

She denied a service.

Would you prefer to say that she violated her oath of office while she was illegally denying a government service to eligible constituents?

She has a right to protest just like everybody else in this country.

People routinely go to jail for 'protesting'. That's where she is.

Yep!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Some of you might gain some insight by reading this quote on the issue of religious freedom and the law, from,

(just so you can't play the liberal bias card) Justice Scalia:

(it's the religion/peyote case from years ago)

" We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):

Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.

(Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice.

"Laws," we said, are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief?

To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

italics mine.

I have to say it warms my heart to see where Scalia is using the polygamy case in his argument in the same way I used it on this board, repeatedly, long before I ever read Scalia's opinion.

Employment Division v. Smith | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[RKMBrown]

Other than you being sassy, you're just wrong. I'm not blabbering. FYI you're hate is showing.

Well chump I hate to burst your bubble but the Old Testament and writings took place around 4,000 BC....Christianity didn't come about until around 33 AD. See your problem here? I doubt it but hey I gave a shot at educating you.

What part of my statement confused you where I said that "christians were jews at the time of christ." Chump? Educate me? On what? Your complete lack of reading comprehension?

Your statement that "christians were Jews at the time of Christ" is stupid. Jews are not Christians and never were. Good grief

Christians are a fork off the Jewish faith. Get over yourself.

You're one stupid individual LMAO and a Biblical illiterate

I'm sure you think Jesus is gonna pat you on the back for all the hate and bile that gushes forth from your pie hole. Good luck with that..

 

[Redfish]

Wrong, the earlier posts were discussing the FACT that our constitution was based on Judeo/Christian principles and that founders recognized God as the giver of all good things.

Secondarliy we were talking about the morals and ethics of the time, and that they differ from the morals and ethics of today. Miley Cyrus and Beyonce would have probably been burned as witches in the 1700s. In the 1200s they would have been beheaded. Today they are "role models".

Please try to keep up with the thread before you butt in

This particular discussion related to the statement that God was directly involved in our winning the Revolutionary War and the writing of the Constitution

No it wasn't and it never was about that.
That was how it was twisted.
They don't understand the difference of having helping hand and direct involvement or direct writing.

My guestion was....Why would God get involved in a document written by a slaveholder and incorporating the institution of slavery into a new nation?

Because in those times the general belief was that slavery was an acceptable way of life. Again you are trying to judge the people of 1776 by the morals of 2015.

Once again...I am not judging the people of 1776
I am judging any God that would help to establish a slave state

You are not qualified to judge God. Its the other way around.