CDZ U.S. Courts Lack Jurisdiction, Violates Constitutionally Reserved Rights!

[frigidweirdo]

Prohibiting the free exercise of religion doesn't mean that a government employee can do whatever the hell they like with religion.

"Oh, I work for the government and my God needs a sacrificial killing to appease him, so I'm going to go kill someone and then it'll all be perfectly legal because I WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT"

Do you see how silly this is?

If you mean the new religion, the gubmint yes the supporters want to use the Nuremberg Defense.

A legal ploy in which the defendant claims he/she was "only following orders" from a higher authority. The "Nuremberg Defense" is often used by U.S. companies and U.S. government entities to defend themselves against charges of reverse discrimination.

its not a defense and they hung all those nazis who tried to use it.

I assume you are referring to the davis case and her exercising her right not to be an accessory to the commission of a sin against her God.




.

What? "the supporters", so, I say something, then you go off on one about Nuremburg, then you start saying "the supporters" say this. But you were talking to ME.

Talk about just twisting everything so it looks like someone is saying something you think you can attack.

I don't care if this is a legal ploy or not. It's not what I was talking about.

I said:

"Prohibiting the free exercise of religion doesn't mean that a government employee can do whatever the hell they like with religion.

"Oh, I work for the government and my God needs a sacrificial killing to appease him, so I'm going to go kill someone and then it'll all be perfectly legal because I WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT"

Do you see how silly this is?"

Do you want to reply to my post now? Instead of what you think someone else said?

Or you could contact your attorney and have them translate the meaning of my response. Otherwise without knowing what you dont understand I dont know what to simply, if this can even be simplified more than I already have.

I understand what you're saying, I just don't understand WHY you're saying it.

I say "I like fish" and you respond with "Oh, I don't know why she'd even think of marrying him".

You see how silly that is?

why dont you put that in perspective and apply to the above quotes instead of using some completely detached example and I will see what I can do.

Let's try this.

The law is the law. The law is the law in cases that happen every day. It's also the law in cases that may not happen.

Sacrificial killings, sun dances, many other such things that are religious in nature but have been banned because they go against the principles of Human Rights.

On the other hand you're coming on here telling me that Christians refusing to obey the equality of the law, the right to marry and going against the principles of smaller govt staying the ef out of people's lives is okay and shouldn't be a problem when the government prohibits these.

I stand by using sacrificial killings because they're RELIGIOUS and the govt cannot carry them out, nor can a government official.

I do, however, understand that when an argument gets a little too tricky for you to handle you resort to "why don't you talk about something else".

 

[danielpalos]

Simply establishing a for-profit venture in Commerce precludes any standing of Religion over secular and temporal Public Accommodation laws; those capitalists are welcome to be more socialist, and go, not-for-the-profit-of-lucre to exercise their religious preference.

 

[frigidweirdo]

First. Why shouldn't they demand that Davis does her job?

well lets start here:

First Amendment - Religion and Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

you could amend the constitution I suppose.

I assume you agree that she does in fact have the right to protect her religion does she not?

.

The "free exercise" of religion doesn't mean an individual can make a sacrificial killing, does it? All rights are LIMITED, aren't they?

She can carry out her religious beliefs all she likes. But she is trying to infringe on the rights of other people. Therefore what she is doing is NOT PROTECTED. Does this make sense?

I can kill anyone in a sacrificial killing, except where it actually takes away someone's rights. Which just happens to be in every case.

She can believe that gay marriage is wrong, she can do whatever she likes in these regards as long as it doesn't go against the Rights of people, say, by stopping them from getting married.

So she has two choices. Either accept the US Constitution and the US government, which she actually works for, or she can quit her job.

 

[KokomoJojo]

So if your God needs a sacrificial killing, that would violate anothers rights and we call that murder in which you would wind up in jail.

Oh good. Getting to the point three posts in.

First. Why shouldn't they demand that Davis does her job?

Yes, it would violate other people's rights to have sacrificial killings. Davis has a job to do. Her job is give a license to marry. She's not giving licenses to marry because of her supposed religious beliefs and therefore imposing her religious belief on people who want a marriage certificate from her office.

You argument appears to be this, in terms of sacrificial killings.

Mr A who requires sacrificial killings and works for the government can only have sacrificial killings in his own county. Therefore people who don't want to be the victim of a sacrificial killing can go elsewhere and not get killed for sacrifice.

Seems rather silly, don't you think?

you cant compare within any realm of sanity that I can think of sacrificial killing with a ministerial government function. Its purely ridiculous comparison.

One is murdering people and one is not signing a piece of paper. Its difficult to even conceptualize what you are seeking to argue when you post comparisons with such disparity.

The government has no authority to create any law that would infringe upon anyones religion.

She was forced into this situation by the courts making an unconstitutional ruling. Not the ruling that says gays can marry but the other side of that coin that forces people to commit or become an accessory to the commission of a sin against their religion as a result of the gubmint enforcing those decisions.

I want to see where the courts have the authority to do this, can you post a citation for me please?

 

[KokomoJojo]

First. Why shouldn't they demand that Davis does her job?

well lets start here:

First Amendment - Religion and Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

you could amend the constitution I suppose.

I assume you agree that she does in fact have the right to protect her religion does she not?

.

The "free exercise" of religion doesn't mean an individual can make a sacrificial killing, does it? All rights are LIMITED, aren't they?

She can carry out her religious beliefs all she likes. But she is trying to infringe on the rights of other people. Therefore what she is doing is NOT PROTECTED. Does this make sense?

I can kill anyone in a sacrificial killing, except where it actually takes away someone's rights. Which just happens to be in every case.

She can believe that gay marriage is wrong, she can do whatever she likes in these regards as long as it doesn't go against the Rights of people, say, by stopping them from getting married.

So she has two choices. Either accept the US Constitution and the US government, which she actually works for, or she can quit her job.

You are going to have to come up with a different angle than sacrificial killings because its impossible to discuss this and remain within the boundaries of reason on your terms.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Simply establishing a for-profit venture in Commerce precludes any standing of Religion over secular and temporal Public Accommodation laws; those capitalists are welcome to be more socialist, and go, not-for-the-profit-of-lucre to exercise their religious preference.

huh????

religions were established prior to for-profit ventures in Commerce and it did not stop them from adding their layer to the mix. Is there a point that I can argue for or against in there somewhere?

 

[KokomoJojo]

They don't have to give up their religion to work for the government. They are not allowed *as an agent of government* to inflict their religious beliefs on others. If one cannot perform his job duties as a government agent, he may resign in protest but he may not use his religion as a weapon against others. This is not a religious institution or even a private enterprise. This is the government, so no.

Edited to fix tense and correct fat finger grammar.

Davis did not force her religion on anyone, how did you come up with that?

 

[frigidweirdo]

So if your God needs a sacrificial killing, that would violate anothers rights and we call that murder in which you would wind up in jail.

Oh good. Getting to the point three posts in.

First. Why shouldn't they demand that Davis does her job?

Yes, it would violate other people's rights to have sacrificial killings. Davis has a job to do. Her job is give a license to marry. She's not giving licenses to marry because of her supposed religious beliefs and therefore imposing her religious belief on people who want a marriage certificate from her office.

You argument appears to be this, in terms of sacrificial killings.

Mr A who requires sacrificial killings and works for the government can only have sacrificial killings in his own county. Therefore people who don't want to be the victim of a sacrificial killing can go elsewhere and not get killed for sacrifice.

Seems rather silly, don't you think?

you cant compare within any realm of sanity that I can think of sacrificial killing with a ministerial government function. Its purely ridiculous comparison.

One is murdering people and one is not signing a piece of paper. Its difficult to even conceptualize what you are seeking to argue when you post comparisons with such disparity.

The government has no authority to create any law that would infringe upon anyones religion.

She was forced into this situation by the courts making an unconstitutional ruling. Not the ruling that says gays can marry but the other side of that coin that forces people to commit or become an accessory to the commission of a sin against their religion as a result of the gubmint enforcing those decisions.

I want to see where the courts have the authority to do this, can you post a citation for me please?

Er... yes you can.

We're dealing with the same law. I'm just putting it in a case which is a little more extreme. Well, you can try and wiggle your way out of having a bad argument by pretending that you can't compare this and that. Oh, I've heard this excuse a million times. You can't compare ANYTHING with anything else, apparently. But then again I'm not interested in these semantics. You can either respond to me, or not bother, I couldn't give a damn. You are free to remain in ignorance.

No, the courts did not make an unconstitutional ruling. The Supreme Court does have the power to interpret the constitution, it's called JUDICIAL POWER, you can read that in the constitution itself.

You're basically against a decision, so you call it unconstitutional. Er....

So your argument is that a government employee should not have to do anything which goes against their religion.

But you can get divorced. This goes against the Bible, doesn't it? So, no govt official should have to allow divorce? Or to accept marriage where divorce is an option? So in theory this eejit Davis, if she'd thought about it all properly, would have to refuse to give marriage licenses to all people because this marriage is different to what it says in the Bible.

You want to see where the courts have this authority?

Article 3

"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. "

It's not difficult.

 

[frigidweirdo]

First. Why shouldn't they demand that Davis does her job?

well lets start here:

First Amendment - Religion and Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

you could amend the constitution I suppose.

I assume you agree that she does in fact have the right to protect her religion does she not?

.

The "free exercise" of religion doesn't mean an individual can make a sacrificial killing, does it? All rights are LIMITED, aren't they?

She can carry out her religious beliefs all she likes. But she is trying to infringe on the rights of other people. Therefore what she is doing is NOT PROTECTED. Does this make sense?

I can kill anyone in a sacrificial killing, except where it actually takes away someone's rights. Which just happens to be in every case.

She can believe that gay marriage is wrong, she can do whatever she likes in these regards as long as it doesn't go against the Rights of people, say, by stopping them from getting married.

So she has two choices. Either accept the US Constitution and the US government, which she actually works for, or she can quit her job.

You are going to have to come up with a different angle than sacrificial killings because its impossible to discuss this and remain within the boundaries of reason on your terms.

Fine, you can't discuss this. I don't care. You're unwilling to look at it from my point of view. Then don't. You go off and tell everyone how unconstitutional it is. And I'll go off and tell people how so many people don't understand how the Constitution works. That's fine by me.

 

[frigidweirdo]

They don't have to give up their religion to work for the government. They are not allowed *as an agent of government* to inflict their religious beliefs on others. If one cannot perform his job duties as a government agent, he may resign in protest but he may not use his religion as a weapon against others. This is not a religious institution or even a private enterprise. This is the government, so no.

Edited to fix tense and correct fat finger grammar.

Davis did not force her religion on anyone, how did you come up with that?

Because she prevent people from marrying because of her religious beliefs.

 

[KokomoJojo]

If you mean the new religion, the gubmint yes the supporters want to use the Nuremberg Defense.

A legal ploy in which the defendant claims he/she was "only following orders" from a higher authority. The "Nuremberg Defense" is often used by U.S. companies and U.S. government entities to defend themselves against charges of reverse discrimination.

its not a defense and they hung all those nazis who tried to use it.

I assume you are referring to the davis case and her exercising her right not to be an accessory to the commission of a sin against her God.




.

What? "the supporters", so, I say something, then you go off on one about Nuremburg, then you start saying "the supporters" say this. But you were talking to ME.

Talk about just twisting everything so it looks like someone is saying something you think you can attack.

I don't care if this is a legal ploy or not. It's not what I was talking about.

I said:

"Prohibiting the free exercise of religion doesn't mean that a government employee can do whatever the hell they like with religion.

"Oh, I work for the government and my God needs a sacrificial killing to appease him, so I'm going to go kill someone and then it'll all be perfectly legal because I WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT"

Do you see how silly this is?"

Do you want to reply to my post now? Instead of what you think someone else said?

Or you could contact your attorney and have them translate the meaning of my response. Otherwise without knowing what you dont understand I dont know what to simply, if this can even be simplified more than I already have.

I understand what you're saying, I just don't understand WHY you're saying it.

I say "I like fish" and you respond with "Oh, I don't know why she'd even think of marrying him".

You see how silly that is?

why dont you put that in perspective and apply to the above quotes instead of using some completely detached example and I will see what I can do.

Let's try this.

The law is the law. The law is the law in cases that happen every day. It's also the law in cases that may not happen.

Sacrificial killings, sun dances, many other such things that are religious in nature but have been banned because they go against the principles of Human Rights.

On the other hand you're coming on here telling me that Christians refusing to obey the equality of the law, the right to marry and going against the principles of smaller govt staying the ef out of people's lives is okay and shouldn't be a problem when the government prohibits these.

I stand by using sacrificial killings because they're RELIGIOUS and the govt cannot carry them out, nor can a government official.

I do, however, understand that when an argument gets a little too tricky for you to handle you resort to "why don't you talk about something else".

but the government did not try to carry out sacrificial killings.

what you do not understand is how frivolous your argument is and that I disposed of it my first response to you with that regard which is why I suggested that you consider having an attorney explain what I said to you.

 

[danielpalos]

When is the Right going to stop wasting the (other) Peoples' tax monies on frivolous litigation?

 

[KokomoJojo]

First. Why shouldn't they demand that Davis does her job?

well lets start here:

First Amendment - Religion and Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

you could amend the constitution I suppose.

I assume you agree that she does in fact have the right to protect her religion does she not?

.

The "free exercise" of religion doesn't mean an individual can make a sacrificial killing, does it? All rights are LIMITED, aren't they?

She can carry out her religious beliefs all she likes. But she is trying to infringe on the rights of other people. Therefore what she is doing is NOT PROTECTED. Does this make sense?

I can kill anyone in a sacrificial killing, except where it actually takes away someone's rights. Which just happens to be in every case.

She can believe that gay marriage is wrong, she can do whatever she likes in these regards as long as it doesn't go against the Rights of people, say, by stopping them from getting married.

So she has two choices. Either accept the US Constitution and the US government, which she actually works for, or she can quit her job.

You are going to have to come up with a different angle than sacrificial killings because its impossible to discuss this and remain within the boundaries of reason on your terms.

Fine, you can't discuss this. I don't care. You're unwilling to look at it from my point of view. Then don't. You go off and tell everyone how unconstitutional it is. And I'll go off and tell people how so many people don't understand how the Constitution works. That's fine by me.

You post argumentative fallacies.

Davis is not forcing her religion upon anyone, she is rejecting the gubmints religion from being forced upon her.

It cant be reduced more than that.

 

[KokomoJojo]

When is the Right going to stop wasting the (other) Peoples' tax monies on frivolous litigation?

Can you post something with a solid point? People pay the courts except in the case of the kliens where agencies made the decisions circumventing due process.

 

[Tresha91203]

They don't have to give up their religion to work for the government. They are not allowed *as an agent of government* to inflict their religious beliefs on others. If one cannot perform his job duties as a government agent, he may resign in protest but he may not use his religion as a weapon against others. This is not a religious institution or even a private enterprise. This is the government, so no.

Edited to fix tense and correct fat finger grammar.

Davis did not force her religion on anyone, how did you come up with that?

She is the government in this case, the ONLY government agent in that capacity. The government used religion to deny citizens their legal rights. That is illegal. She's not a private citizen baking a cake. She is the government. Do Muslims at the DMV get to deny me a drivers license because I'm a woman? No. Do Jewish inspectors get to shut down my restaurant because it is not kosher? No. You see her as Christian Kim Davis. She's the Clerk of Court, the government.

The government used religion as a weapon against nonbelievers. Are you OK with that?

 

[frigidweirdo]

What? "the supporters", so, I say something, then you go off on one about Nuremburg, then you start saying "the supporters" say this. But you were talking to ME.

Talk about just twisting everything so it looks like someone is saying something you think you can attack.

I don't care if this is a legal ploy or not. It's not what I was talking about.

I said:

"Prohibiting the free exercise of religion doesn't mean that a government employee can do whatever the hell they like with religion.

"Oh, I work for the government and my God needs a sacrificial killing to appease him, so I'm going to go kill someone and then it'll all be perfectly legal because I WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT"

Do you see how silly this is?"

Do you want to reply to my post now? Instead of what you think someone else said?

Or you could contact your attorney and have them translate the meaning of my response. Otherwise without knowing what you dont understand I dont know what to simply, if this can even be simplified more than I already have.

I understand what you're saying, I just don't understand WHY you're saying it.

I say "I like fish" and you respond with "Oh, I don't know why she'd even think of marrying him".

You see how silly that is?

why dont you put that in perspective and apply to the above quotes instead of using some completely detached example and I will see what I can do.

Let's try this.

The law is the law. The law is the law in cases that happen every day. It's also the law in cases that may not happen.

Sacrificial killings, sun dances, many other such things that are religious in nature but have been banned because they go against the principles of Human Rights.

On the other hand you're coming on here telling me that Christians refusing to obey the equality of the law, the right to marry and going against the principles of smaller govt staying the ef out of people's lives is okay and shouldn't be a problem when the government prohibits these.

I stand by using sacrificial killings because they're RELIGIOUS and the govt cannot carry them out, nor can a government official.

I do, however, understand that when an argument gets a little too tricky for you to handle you resort to "why don't you talk about something else".

but the government did not try to carry out sacrificial killings.

what you do not understand is how frivolous your argument is and that I disposed of it my first response to you with that regard which is why I suggested that you consider having an attorney explain what I said to you.

Wait, what? I didn't say the government tries to carry out sacrificial killings. I also didn't say the government tries to stop gay people from marrying, did I? Now they down. They did.

I was talking about a government employee, representing the govt when doing their job, carrying out this action.

Davis is going against government policy, this policy being that two consenting people can marry in most cases.

Now, it is possible that someone takes on a native American religion (north or south, including, for example, the Incas who liked their sacrificial killings) and decides that they can do what they like.

Now, you said, and I said, that a sacrificial killing would not be allowed because it infringes on other people's rights. The same is said for preventing individuals from marrying. SCOTUS has said various times that there is a right to marry, neither here nor there, because the 14th Amendment says equal protection of the laws.

Davis CANNOT prevent equal protection of the laws. She CANNOT prevent someone from marrying and gaining certain benefits from doing so, as long as they meet the requirements for the marriage license. She CANNOT decide who gets a marriage license or not, she simply HAS TO give as her job prescribes. Her job is not to make law, nor is it to interpret the law.

Congress makes laws, legislative power. The Supreme Court interprets the laws, judicial power, Davis merely executes the laws. So why the hell does she (and you) think she has legislative or judicial power?

 

[KokomoJojo]

They don't have to give up their religion to work for the government. They are not allowed *as an agent of government* to inflict their religious beliefs on others. If one cannot perform his job duties as a government agent, he may resign in protest but he may not use his religion as a weapon against others. This is not a religious institution or even a private enterprise. This is the government, so no.

Edited to fix tense and correct fat finger grammar.

Davis did not force her religion on anyone, how did you come up with that?

Because she prevent people from marrying because of her religious beliefs.

Come on, that is not true what so ever.

She is only the recorder and registrar, and she has no powers to marry or prevent a marriage.

 

[frigidweirdo]

First. Why shouldn't they demand that Davis does her job?

well lets start here:

First Amendment - Religion and Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

you could amend the constitution I suppose.

I assume you agree that she does in fact have the right to protect her religion does she not?

.

The "free exercise" of religion doesn't mean an individual can make a sacrificial killing, does it? All rights are LIMITED, aren't they?

She can carry out her religious beliefs all she likes. But she is trying to infringe on the rights of other people. Therefore what she is doing is NOT PROTECTED. Does this make sense?

I can kill anyone in a sacrificial killing, except where it actually takes away someone's rights. Which just happens to be in every case.

She can believe that gay marriage is wrong, she can do whatever she likes in these regards as long as it doesn't go against the Rights of people, say, by stopping them from getting married.

So she has two choices. Either accept the US Constitution and the US government, which she actually works for, or she can quit her job.

You are going to have to come up with a different angle than sacrificial killings because its impossible to discuss this and remain within the boundaries of reason on your terms.

Fine, you can't discuss this. I don't care. You're unwilling to look at it from my point of view. Then don't. You go off and tell everyone how unconstitutional it is. And I'll go off and tell people how so many people don't understand how the Constitution works. That's fine by me.

You post argumentative fallacies.

Davis is not forcing her religion upon anyone, she is rejecting the gubmints religion from being forced upon her.

It cant be reduced more than that.

SHE IS THE GOVERNMENT.

You're saying something about the "gubmints religion", I'm going to assume you mean "government's religion", but, what the hell are you talking about?

It can't be reduced to more than bad spelling, bad grammar and nonsense about some govt religion? Really? It's sunk that low?

 

[frigidweirdo]

They don't have to give up their religion to work for the government. They are not allowed *as an agent of government* to inflict their religious beliefs on others. If one cannot perform his job duties as a government agent, he may resign in protest but he may not use his religion as a weapon against others. This is not a religious institution or even a private enterprise. This is the government, so no.

Edited to fix tense and correct fat finger grammar.

Davis did not force her religion on anyone, how did you come up with that?

Because she prevent people from marrying because of her religious beliefs.

Come on, that is not true what so ever.

She is only the recorder and registrar, and she has no powers to marry or prevent a marriage.

She has no powers to prevent a marriage. Then she should issue marriage certificates then. Seeing as this is her job.

 

[KokomoJojo]

She is the government in this case, the ONLY government agent in that capacity. The government used religion to deny citizens their legal rights. That is illegal. She's not a private citizen baking a cake. She is the government. Do Muslims at the DMV get to deny me a drivers license because I'm a woman? No. Do Jewish inspectors get to shut down my restaurant because it is not kosher? No. You see her as Christian Kim Davis. She's the Clerk of Court, the government.

The government used religion as a weapon against nonbelievers. Are you OK with that?

Sorry too vague for me to respond in a meaningful manner.

If you could come up with some religious reason that any of those people would not do their job then we would have something to discuss. On the other hand we could argue that davis took the job under one set of and the courts changed the rules such that the new rules violated her religion. Hence the gubmint changed the job requirements and davis found her self swimming without a lifeboat.

The gubmint should have made accomodations for those with religious objection instead they resort to forcing her to act against her religion, a religion she has the reserved right to protect.

How do you think (in law) that she is wrong?