New Precedent: Federal Court Upholds Christians' Rights To Refuse. Kim Davis Has Case.

Court: Birth control mandate violates religious rights

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A federal judge has ruled in favor of a Missouri lawmaker who cited religious objections while challenging the inclusion of birth control coverage in his government-provided health insurance....The lawsuit by Wieland and his wife, Teresa, who are Roman Catholics, asserted that it violates their religious beliefs to include contraception coverage in the state health insurance plan that he participates in as a lawmaker....In a ruling Thursday siding with the Wielands, U.S. District Judge Jean Hamilton cited the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says government shall not "substantially burden" a person's exercise of religion..."the only way plaintiffs can comply with their religious conscience is by dropping their insurance altogether, which would result in them foregoing a valuable job benefit

Kim Davis, you listening? The only way Kim Davis could keep her job would be to violate her religious conscience. Remember, Kim Davis took her job BEFORE Obergefell's illegal Ruling (two justices were mandated to have recused themselves from Obergefell, for performing gay marriages as representatives of the fed while deciding "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage?").

I found this part utterly hilarious...as if a precedent only applies on a case by case basis...as if all Americans don't enjoy interpretation of law equally... :lmao: What a jokester that Senator was saying this:
State Sen. Paul Wieland said Friday that the ruling , while applying only to his family, could serve as a guide for others seeking to challenge the application of a section of President Barack Obama's health care law that requires insurers to include coverage of contraceptives

As if laws protecting religious freedoms ONLY apply to one person and ONLY in certain specific violations of religious conscience...you know...but not others... !

Jonathan Turley needs to get a hold of Kim Davis. They have a case to file..
Male escorts are making crazy money at the RNC | New York Post

The clientele has included mostly married white men between the ages of 40 and 50, said another escort who’s seen eight johns so far.


I thought that allowing heterosexuals to marry was going to put an end to all this....
Most Republicans would be shocked to death if they learned how many Republican staffers on Capitol Hill are gay.

DC is as queer as San Francisco.
 
So you advocate someone else defining your rights...

... based on their beliefs?
You can't require the Bible to be rewritten because sexual deviants want to circumvent democracy
The Christian Bible speaks out against adultery more than it does homosexuality. Jesus even specifically condemns adultery and divorce:

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

Jesus never addresses homosexuality.

Kim Davis has been married several times. And since she works in Kentucky, which has one of the highest divorce rates in the country, you and I both know she has signed the marriage certificates of biblically defined adulterers many hundreds of times.

So don't pretend this has anything to do with the Bible. The Bible has a lot to say about hypocrites, too.

This is about hate.

James 1:26: If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless.
 
Last edited:
Most Republicans would be shocked to death if they learned how many Republican staffers on Capitol Hill are gay.

DC is as queer as San Francisco.

Even if that was true, it has no bearing on law. The majority decides. And, 1st Amendment Rights to exercise of religion were upheld in federal courts.

A man's shortcomings don't set the trend of law. For that matter, all homo sapiens are predisposed not only to ingrained self or otherwise trained/habitual sexual perversions, but we also have a penchant for killing or brutalizing each other when we're angry. Should we make those behaviors promoted/legal as well, in spite of the majority's wishes/ideals for itself, just because they are very prevalent?

Your logic is asinine.

The Christian Bible speaks out against adultery more than it does homosexuality. Jesus even specifically condemns adultery and divorce:

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

Jesus never addresses homosexuality.

Jesus never addresses ANYTHING in the New Testament, idiot. You might remember that Jesus was crucified before he could put pen to papyrus? The Christian mandate (The New Testament) is made up of witnesses to what Jesus taught. That being said, Jude, Jesus's daily companion and servant, spoke on behalf of his master and friend saying in Jude 1 that homosexual spread...the spread of the idea as an IDEAL, was forbidden under pain of eternal damnation. It is a mortal sin to do nothing to stop the spread of a homosexual culture like Sodom, or worse, to give it a leg up or participate in it. You might also want to read Roman's 1 for more of the Biblical New Testament view on homosexuality in general; in case you're still unclear about whether Christians should 1. Promote it or 2. Resist it. (No matter what their own personal failings are with regards to abstaining from it).

This is less about keeping individuals on track than it is about keeping entire cultures on track. Apparently God gets really pissed off when sin becomes an inescapable norm in his earthly societies. So from the Bible we see that when a society becomes saturated to a certain point with monkey-see, monkey-do sin behaviors, that society has to be rubbed out and started over from square one. What child could escape or even have a point of reference on a sin, if that sin is taught to him since day one by everything and everyone he sees as a "virtue" instead?

The sin of adultery isn't associated with eternal damnation as far as I remember. There are mortal sins, and venial ones. Jude 1 says to not damn the individual homosexual, but rather to hate his sin and reach out to him 'making a difference'. And if you don't, you yourself face eternal peril. That's different than "say a few hail Marys and it's all good", at confession. The destruction of two perverse cultures (Sodom and Gomorrah) and the promise of eternal damnation for anyone who helps (actively or passively) to create new cities, states or societies like them is the worst punishment anyone could face at the hands of God.
 
Last edited:
So you advocate someone else defining your rights...

... based on their beliefs?
You can't require the Bible to be rewritten because sexual deviants want to circumvent democracy and force the majority via their pocket Justices to have so-called "gay marriage".

People like to avoid this little adjunct, but I'm going to bring it up here again. For the first time in human history, a court has acted to permanently divorce children from either a mother or father for life. HUGE issue. Children had no representative in Obergefell. Marriage deeply affects children more than any other demographic.

Enjoy the Obergefell Ruling while you can..

BTW, I wonder how the ruling in the OP affects the Oregon bakers' case?
. For the first time in human history, a court has acted to permanently divorce children from either a mother or father for life. HUGE issue. Children had no representative in Obergefell. Marriage deeply affects children more than any other demographic.

Clearly, this is something you read at American Thunker, or some such...

How about a link?
 
So you advocate someone else defining your rights...

... based on their beliefs?
You can't require the Bible to be rewritten because sexual deviants want to circumvent democracy
The Christian Bible speaks out against adultery more than it does homosexuality. Jesus even specifically condemns adultery and divorce:

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

Jesus never addresses homosexuality.

Kim Davis has been married several times. And since she works in Kentucky, which has one of the highest divorce rates in the country, you and I both know she has signed the marriage certificates of biblically defined adulterers many hundreds of times.

So don't pretend this has anything to do with the Bible. The Bible has a lot to say about hypocrites, too.

This is about hate.

James 1:26: If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless.
It is about hate....why do you hate Christians?
 
Court: Birth control mandate violates religious rights

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A federal judge has ruled in favor of a Missouri lawmaker who cited religious objections while challenging the inclusion of birth control coverage in his government-provided health insurance....The lawsuit by Wieland and his wife, Teresa, who are Roman Catholics, asserted that it violates their religious beliefs to include contraception coverage in the state health insurance plan that he participates in as a lawmaker....In a ruling Thursday siding with the Wielands, U.S. District Judge Jean Hamilton cited the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says government shall not "substantially burden" a person's exercise of religion..."the only way plaintiffs can comply with their religious conscience is by dropping their insurance altogether, which would result in them foregoing a valuable job benefit

Kim Davis, you listening? The only way Kim Davis could keep her job would be to violate her religious conscience. Remember, Kim Davis took her job BEFORE Obergefell's illegal Ruling (two justices were mandated to have recused themselves from Obergefell, for performing gay marriages as representatives of the fed while deciding "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage?").

I found this part utterly hilarious...as if a precedent only applies on a case by case basis...as if all Americans don't enjoy interpretation of law equally... :lmao: What a jokester that Senator was saying this:
State Sen. Paul Wieland said Friday that the ruling , while applying only to his family, could serve as a guide for others seeking to challenge the application of a section of President Barack Obama's health care law that requires insurers to include coverage of contraceptives

As if laws protecting religious freedoms ONLY apply to one person and ONLY in certain specific violations of religious conscience...you know...but not others... !

Jonathan Turley needs to get a hold of Kim Davis. They have a case to file..

Considering that Kim's job is a seperately electable position it should make people wonder how her job can be taken away without the consent of the people who voted for her. This is still a democracy where the people decide who gets to have power in this country. At least it was....
 
. For the first time in human history, a court has acted to permanently divorce children from either a mother or father for life. HUGE issue. Children had no representative in Obergefell. Marriage deeply affects children more than any other demographic.

Clearly, this is something you read at American Thunker, or some such...

How about a link?
1. I was the one who was talking about gay marriage being de facto a permanent divorce of children from either a mother or father for longer than I've seen anyone else talking about it. and

2. Do you need a link to cipher whether or not two men marrying mean the children involved will never know a mother? Or two women being married mean the children will never know a father? Really? It's unclear to you whether or not that is the case until you see a link?
 
. For the first time in human history, a court has acted to permanently divorce children from either a mother or father for life. HUGE issue. Children had no representative in Obergefell. Marriage deeply affects children more than any other demographic.

Clearly, this is something you read at American Thunker, or some such...

How about a link?
1. I was the one who was talking about gay marriage being de facto a permanent divorce of children from either a mother or father for longer than I've seen anyone else talking about it. and

2. Do you need a link to cipher whether or not two men marrying mean the children involved will never know a mother? Or two women being married mean the children will never know a father? Really? It's unclear to you whether or not that is the case until you see a link?

How does prohibiting gays from marrying stop them raising children? This question sends you fleeing every time.
 
Court: Birth control mandate violates religious rights

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A federal judge has ruled in favor of a Missouri lawmaker who cited religious objections while challenging the inclusion of birth control coverage in his government-provided health insurance....The lawsuit by Wieland and his wife, Teresa, who are Roman Catholics, asserted that it violates their religious beliefs to include contraception coverage in the state health insurance plan that he participates in as a lawmaker....In a ruling Thursday siding with the Wielands, U.S. District Judge Jean Hamilton cited the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says government shall not "substantially burden" a person's exercise of religion..."the only way plaintiffs can comply with their religious conscience is by dropping their insurance altogether, which would result in them foregoing a valuable job benefit

Kim Davis, you listening? The only way Kim Davis could keep her job would be to violate her religious conscience. Remember, Kim Davis took her job BEFORE Obergefell's illegal Ruling (two justices were mandated to have recused themselves from Obergefell, for performing gay marriages as representatives of the fed while deciding "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage?").

Kim Davis was a government employee using the government to deny individuals their constitutional rights. The ruling that you're citing never upholds any part of that.

You genuinely have no idea how the law works, Sil. You never have.

As if laws protecting religious freedoms ONLY apply to one person and ONLY in certain specific violations of religious conscience...you know...but not others... !

Jonathan Turley needs to get a hold of Kim Davis. They have a case to file..

Nope. The ruling you've cited never states that a government official can deny people their constitutional rights because of their own personal religious beliefs.

Once again, you've offered us the same pseudo-legal gibberish that has no relevance to the world we live in. You have *never* offered us a legal prediction that turned out to work.

Ever. Your every prediction has been wrong, without exception. But this time its different, huh?
 
How does prohibiting gays from marrying stop them raising children? This question sends you fleeing every time.

Non sequitur. This is about ALLOWING gays to marry, thus divorcing children involved from ever having either a mother or father. Single gays aren't part of the conversation. This is about a legal move that divorces children from the hope of ever knowing either a mother or father.
 
. For the first time in human history, a court has acted to permanently divorce children from either a mother or father for life. HUGE issue. Children had no representative in Obergefell. Marriage deeply affects children more than any other demographic.

Clearly, this is something you read at American Thunker, or some such...

How about a link?
1. I was the one who was talking about gay marriage being de facto a permanent divorce of children from either a mother or father for longer than I've seen anyone else talking about it. and

And....you didn't know what you were talking about then either. You were the one offering us meaningless pseudo-legal nonsense that has no relevance to any law or any marriage.

Remember, none of your nonsense is recognized by *any* state or any law. Making it gloriously irrelevant to the law.

2. Do you need a link to cipher whether or not two men marrying mean the children involved will never know a mother? Or two women being married mean the children will never know a father? Really? It's unclear to you whether or not that is the case until you see a link?

Do you need a link or a cypher to realize that nothing you've posted is recognized by any law, any court, or any ruling?
 
How does prohibiting gays from marrying stop them raising children? This question sends you fleeing every time.

Non sequitur. This is about ALLOWING gays to marry, thus divorcing children involved from ever having either a mother or father. Single gays aren't part of the conversation. This is about a legal move that divorces children from the hope of ever knowing either a mother or father.

Nope. As marriage isn't what 'divorces' children from having a mother or father by your own logic. Same sex parenting is. You've got the wrong causation.

And of course, your argument has no basis in the actual law. Children aren't 'married' to their parents. Making it impossible to be 'divorced' from them. Its just another meaningless pseudo-legal bit of nonsense that has no relevance to the actual law. And has no impact on any marriage.

Remember.....you have no idea what you're talking about. And your arguments have nothing to do with the law.
 
How does prohibiting gays from marrying stop them raising children? This question sends you fleeing every time.

Non sequitur. This is about ALLOWING gays to marry, thus divorcing children involved from ever having either a mother or father. Single gays aren't part of the conversation. This is about a legal move that divorces children from the hope of ever knowing either a mother or father.

Non sequitur my ass. Gay people are going to continue to raise their children whether they are married or not.

By the way, you're the only person that mentioned single people...gay or otherwise. lol
 
Court: Birth control mandate violates religious rights

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A federal judge has ruled in favor of a Missouri lawmaker who cited religious objections while challenging the inclusion of birth control coverage in his government-provided health insurance....The lawsuit by Wieland and his wife, Teresa, who are Roman Catholics, asserted that it violates their religious beliefs to include contraception coverage in the state health insurance plan that he participates in as a lawmaker....In a ruling Thursday siding with the Wielands, U.S. District Judge Jean Hamilton cited the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says government shall not "substantially burden" a person's exercise of religion..."the only way plaintiffs can comply with their religious conscience is by dropping their insurance altogether, which would result in them foregoing a valuable job benefit

Kim Davis, you listening? The only way Kim Davis could keep her job would be to violate her religious conscience. Remember, Kim Davis took her job BEFORE Obergefell's illegal Ruling (two justices were mandated to have recused themselves from Obergefell, for performing gay marriages as representatives of the fed while deciding "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage?").

I found this part utterly hilarious...as if a precedent only applies on a case by case basis...as if all Americans don't enjoy interpretation of law equally... :lmao: What a jokester that Senator was saying this:
State Sen. Paul Wieland said Friday that the ruling , while applying only to his family, could serve as a guide for others seeking to challenge the application of a section of President Barack Obama's health care law that requires insurers to include coverage of contraceptives

As if laws protecting religious freedoms ONLY apply to one person and ONLY in certain specific violations of religious conscience...you know...but not others... !

Jonathan Turley needs to get a hold of Kim Davis. They have a case to file..
Male escorts are making crazy money at the RNC | New York Post

The clientele has included mostly married white men between the ages of 40 and 50, said another escort who’s seen eight johns so far.


I thought that allowing heterosexuals to marry was going to put an end to all this....
I read that article ice. Anyone that gives it credence gives standing to the anecdotal accounts provided by gay prostitutes. Why?
 
Court: Birth control mandate violates religious rights

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A federal judge has ruled in favor of a Missouri lawmaker who cited religious objections while challenging the inclusion of birth control coverage in his government-provided health insurance....The lawsuit by Wieland and his wife, Teresa, who are Roman Catholics, asserted that it violates their religious beliefs to include contraception coverage in the state health insurance plan that he participates in as a lawmaker....In a ruling Thursday siding with the Wielands, U.S. District Judge Jean Hamilton cited the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says government shall not "substantially burden" a person's exercise of religion..."the only way plaintiffs can comply with their religious conscience is by dropping their insurance altogether, which would result in them foregoing a valuable job benefit

Kim Davis, you listening? The only way Kim Davis could keep her job would be to violate her religious conscience. Remember, Kim Davis took her job BEFORE Obergefell's illegal Ruling (two justices were mandated to have recused themselves from Obergefell, for performing gay marriages as representatives of the fed while deciding "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage?").

I found this part utterly hilarious...as if a precedent only applies on a case by case basis...as if all Americans don't enjoy interpretation of law equally... :lmao: What a jokester that Senator was saying this:
State Sen. Paul Wieland said Friday that the ruling , while applying only to his family, could serve as a guide for others seeking to challenge the application of a section of President Barack Obama's health care law that requires insurers to include coverage of contraceptives

As if laws protecting religious freedoms ONLY apply to one person and ONLY in certain specific violations of religious conscience...you know...but not others... !

Jonathan Turley needs to get a hold of Kim Davis. They have a case to file..
Male escorts are making crazy money at the RNC | New York Post

The clientele has included mostly married white men between the ages of 40 and 50, said another escort who’s seen eight johns so far.


I thought that allowing heterosexuals to marry was going to put an end to all this....
I read that article ice. Anyone that gives it credence gives standing to the anecdotal accounts provided by gay prostitutes. Why?

Because they are likely to be more credible than Unrepentant 2 Time Scrub Voting Drudge Huffing Imbeciles?

Admittedly, that is a very low bar, but still....
 
No, I think most people have moved on from worrying about two queers getting hitched. Hell, even the GOP platform dropped its support for a Constitutional amendment. To be honest, I am far more concerned about our crushing debt.
Support for fag marriage as something GOOD for the country has never been a majority. At best people have taken a live and let live attitude that will change as they see the harm such nonsense causes to national demographic growth rates.
as they see the harm such nonsense causes to national demographic growth rates.


Male escorts are making crazy money at the RNC | New York Post

Another escort said he had already earned $1,600 since Monday — over six times the amount he usually makes.


“I normally only make $200 to $300, but I’ve been seeing lots of guys in hotels downtown,” he said, noting the boom in business near the Quicken Loans Arena.


The clientele has included mostly married white men between the ages of 40 and 50, said another escort who’s seen eight johns so far.
This article shouldn't surprise anyone. I bet some of the staunch rightwing opponents on this very site would be their customers.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Laws should be based on facts not myths.

God is most likely not real and so being so doesn't belong in front of the SCOTUS.
You have no proof that the story of the destruction of Sodom is a myth. Nor that an intelligence more comprehensive and elusive than we could ever understand "doesn't exist". I've seen things that would curl your hair boy. Things that can't be explained with the best physics on earth. So have millions of others.

The 1st Amendment isn't a myth. You might want to read it sometime. Also, federal judges are upholding Christian's rights to passively refuse to participate when their faith mandates they don't go along. Might want to read the OP here too.
 
And to the Skylar/mdk duo: Yes, gay marriage is a legal act which permanently divorces any children involved from either a mother or father for life. You may LIKE that and be in FAVOR of it. But it is factually what happens. Most people DON'T LIKE IT. That number runs around 90%. 90% of people on this poll believe having a mother and father for a child is important and would object to the erasure of hope for any child of having either one or the other removed for life.

In other words, without stating it, or even realizing it upon first consideration, 90% of folks don't approve of gay marriage because of how important they feel having both a mother and father is to children.

Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?
 
So you advocate someone else defining your rights...

... based on their beliefs?
You can't require the Bible to be rewritten because sexual deviants want to circumvent democracy
The Christian Bible speaks out against adultery more than it does homosexuality. Jesus even specifically condemns adultery and divorce:

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

Jesus never addresses homosexuality.

Kim Davis has been married several times. And since she works in Kentucky, which has one of the highest divorce rates in the country, you and I both know she has signed the marriage certificates of biblically defined adulterers many hundreds of times.

So don't pretend this has anything to do with the Bible. The Bible has a lot to say about hypocrites, too.

This is about hate.

James 1:26: If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless.
It is about hate....why do you hate Christians?

Since when is quoting the bible "hateful"?
 

Forum List

Back
Top