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

[KokomoJojo]

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?

She is, yes.
So your point must be that gubmint requires her to give up her religion to hold office is that it?

 

[KokomoJojo]

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

so now you are back to the Nuremberg Defense

The Nuremberg Defense is 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.



So in your world view she is going to say "Hey come on God, you can t blame me, I was only following orders", if men did not buy it, why would God?

If it didnt work at nuremburg why would it work with God?

 

[Tresha91203]

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?

??? Too vague? I just showed you two ways a government agent could deny my drivers licence or shut down my (nonexistant) restaurant on religious grounds.

"It is against my religion for women to drive; therefore, I refuse to issue drivers licenses to women."

"God says it is unclean to use the same equipment and utensils for both meats and fruits/veggies/grains; therefore, your restaurant is unclean and I cannot renew/issue your permits and you are shut down."

Are you OK with that?

 

[Tresha91203]

She refused to issue marriage licenses and refused to allow her underlings to use her seal to issue them, so she DID prevent them from getting married.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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?

She is, yes.
So your point must be that gubmint requires her to give up her religion to hold office is that it?

Not at all.

If a Muslim doesn't like alcohol and doesn't want to touch alcohol, they're free to not work in a bar.

If she doesn't like giving marriage licenses to gay people, then she's free not to work there.

However, I don't remember anything in the Bible that says "thou shalt not giveth marriage licenses to gay people", do you?

She's NOT MAKING THE POLICY. So she just merely carries out the actions of someone else. It isn't against her religion to do this. She's decided this goes against her beliefs.

As I said, if her belief was sacrificial killing, would she be allowed to carry this out?

NO THE HELL SHE WOULD NOT. Why? Because it goes against the rights of others.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

so now you are back to the Nuremberg Defense

The Nuremberg Defense is 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.



So in your world view she is going to say "Hey come on God, you can t blame me, I was only following orders", if men did not buy it, why would God?

If it didnt work at nuremburg why would it work with God?

No, YOU'RE BACK to Nuremburg.

 

[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?

??? Too vague? I just showed you two ways a government agent could deny my drivers licence or shut down my (nonexistant) restaurant on religious grounds.

"It is against my religion for women to drive; therefore, I refuse to issue drivers licenses to women."

"God says it is unclean to use the same equipment and utensils for both meats and fruits/veggies/grains; therefore, your restaurant is unclean and I cannot renew/issue your permits and you are shut down."

Are you OK with that?

Do either of your examples for the muslim or jew to commit a sin against their God or G-D whichever the case may be? In the davis case that is the issue you know.

 

[KokomoJojo]

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?

She is, yes.
So your point must be that gubmint requires her to give up her religion to hold office is that it?

Not at all.

If a Muslim doesn't like alcohol and doesn't want to touch alcohol, they're free to not work in a bar.

If she doesn't like giving marriage licenses to gay people, then she's free not to work there.

However, I don't remember anything in the Bible that says "thou shalt not giveth marriage licenses to gay people", do you?

She's NOT MAKING THE POLICY. So she just merely carries out the actions of someone else. It isn't against her religion to do this. She's decided this goes against her beliefs.

As I said, if her belief was sacrificial killing, would she be allowed to carry this out?

NO THE HELL SHE WOULD NOT. Why? Because it goes against the rights of others.

You are simply going around in circles restating the same thing that I have already explained this to you in great detail. Going into a rant because you cannot defeat my argument wont help you.

Why dont you tell us if people have the right to exercise their religion or not? Lets do this step at a time since you seem to have such a difficult time wrapping your head around the way law works

 

[KokomoJojo]

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

so now you are back to the Nuremberg Defense

The Nuremberg Defense is 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.



So in your world view she is going to say "Hey come on God, you can t blame me, I was only following orders", if men did not buy it, why would God?

If it didnt work at nuremburg why would it work with God?

No, YOU'RE BACK to Nuremburg.

Its the defense you have chosen use by your argument dont blame me because I recognize it for pete sake.

 

[Tresha91203]

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?

??? Too vague? I just showed you two ways a government agent could deny my drivers licence or shut down my (nonexistant) restaurant on religious grounds.

"It is against my religion for women to drive; therefore, I refuse to issue drivers licenses to women."

"God says it is unclean to use the same equipment and utensils for both meats and fruits/veggies/grains; therefore, your restaurant is unclean and I cannot renew/issue your permits and you are shut down."

Are you OK with that?

Do either of your examples for the muslim or jew to commit a sin against their God or G-D whichever the case may be? In the davis case that is the issue you know.

Yes, in both of those cases. Jewish people have specific laws from God on food handling, the method of butchering animals, etc. It is called Kosher. Halal is another set of God's laws for another religious group. For both, pork (and maybe shellfish?) is deemed unclean by God. Someone not following those laws is being unclean. Cleanliness is required for food service permits.

Do you not know anything about the other major religions?

Some men cannot touch women not their wife, daughter or mother, not even a handshake. Can he refuse to do his government job every time he encounters a female? No. Do you want that fireman at a scene where women are trapped inside?

Kim Davis has the same means of protest that all citizens have, as an individual. As a government agent, she may also resign in protest and make as big of a stink as she pleases. She may not, in her capacity as the government, deny someone his legal rights on religious grounds. That is government not only endorsing a religion, but enforcing it as well.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

so now you are back to the Nuremberg Defense

The Nuremberg Defense is 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.



So in your world view she is going to say "Hey come on God, you can t blame me, I was only following orders", if men did not buy it, why would God?

If it didnt work at nuremburg why would it work with God?

No, YOU'RE BACK to Nuremburg.

Its the defense you have chosen use by your argument dont blame me because I recognize it for pete sake.

Oh, god this is petty.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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?

She is, yes.
So your point must be that gubmint requires her to give up her religion to hold office is that it?

Not at all.

If a Muslim doesn't like alcohol and doesn't want to touch alcohol, they're free to not work in a bar.

If she doesn't like giving marriage licenses to gay people, then she's free not to work there.

However, I don't remember anything in the Bible that says "thou shalt not giveth marriage licenses to gay people", do you?

She's NOT MAKING THE POLICY. So she just merely carries out the actions of someone else. It isn't against her religion to do this. She's decided this goes against her beliefs.

As I said, if her belief was sacrificial killing, would she be allowed to carry this out?

NO THE HELL SHE WOULD NOT. Why? Because it goes against the rights of others.

You are simply going around in circles restating the same thing that I have already explained this to you in great detail. Going into a rant because you cannot defeat my argument wont help you.

Why dont you tell us if people have the right to exercise their religion or not? Lets do this step at a time since you seem to have such a difficult time wrapping your head around the way law works

You have the right to exercise your religion, but not to impose your religion on others, which is EXACTLY what this woman is doing.

 

[KokomoJojo]

You have the right to exercise your religion

ok so the answer to my question ends there the rest notwithstanding.

My next question: Did davis exercise her religion, yes or no?

 

[Tresha91203]

You have the right to exercise your religion

ok so the answer to my question ends there the rest notwithstanding.

My next question: Did davis exercise her religion, yes or no?

Do government agents following their non-Christian religion get to exercise their religious rights on you?

 

[KokomoJojo]

Kim Davis has the same means of protest that all citizens have, as an individual. As a government agent, she may also resign in protest and make as big of a stink as she pleases. She may not, in her capacity as the government, deny someone his legal rights on religious grounds. That is government not only endorsing a religion, but enforcing it as well.

again as I said several times before, the davis situation is not someone who entered the job knowing all the details then reneged on the contract, it is the gubmint that reneged on the contract by changing her duties without proper accommodation.

The jobs you defined all appear to have been after the fact, davis had this dumped upon her.

Next she is no protesting, she is fighting for her rights. That is not the same thing.

She did not deny these people anything but 'her' signature which she has a duty to her God to do. Even the old saying goes "God and Country" not the reverse.

Her signature is only an acknowledgement of recording as far as the legal system is concerned.

Yes the government has endorsed and chosen the gay religion and are forcing christians to endorse it as well against the christain religion.

Genesis 13:13
Now the men of Sodom were wicked exceedingly and sinners against the LORD.

Leviticus 18:22
…21'You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the LORD. 22'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. 23'Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.…

Leviticus 20:13
"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

1 Timothy 1:10
…9realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, 11according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

There is no reason that the needs of the jews, and muslims and christains cannot all be accomodated in government in fact it was and is their responsibility to form the government around the people not the other way around.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You have the right to exercise your religion

ok so the answer to my question ends there the rest notwithstanding.

My next question: Did davis exercise her religion, yes or no?

Did she exercise her religion? No. She decided what were her principles based on religion, she discarded some, took on others, changed them a little and decided that giving a marriage license was not in HER belief, as opposed to that of her religion.

Which is more important. A religious right or every other right?

The answer is simple, none are more important than others.

So, if she denies someone the RIGHT TO GET MARRIED then her right is not protected while she is doing so. It's quite simple.

If you don't like the right to get married you could choose the right to privacy and other such things.

However the law is that she, as a government official HAS TO give equal protection of the laws. She doesn't have to agree with those laws. I might not like the law that prevents sacrificial killing, I still have to abide by it.

So does she. If she doesn't like the laws of the government she works for, she can QUIT HER JOB.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Do government agents following their non-Christian religion get to exercise their religious rights on you?

all the time, all one need do is read the statutes, ordinances and by laws for 1 day and you can find at least 10.

People often make the grievous mistake of dependency on their illogic rather than thinking for themselves. The gubmint inflicts their religion upon you along with many other atrocities against your rights because they dont put a label on it and you have to figure it out for yourself what it all means. No one is going to teach you and dont think for a new york second attorneys and judges are going to give away their gravy train.

 

[KokomoJojo]

My next question: Did davis exercise her religion, yes or no?

No.

You are incorrect. One exercises their religion by abiding by the law set forth in that religion. she abided by that law.

 

[KokomoJojo]

So does she. If she doesn't like the laws of the government she works for, she can QUIT HER JOB.

So your version of law is if you dont like it STFU and get out. No remedy just fuck you good bye, your way or the hiway.

I disagree. There is no reason someone should give up their religion and life because the gubmint negligently changes the rules without regard to religion and proper accommodation to support the constitution of the united states.

 

[frigidweirdo]

My next question: Did davis exercise her religion, yes or no?

No.

You are incorrect. One exercises their religion by abiding by the law set forth in that religion. she abided by that law.

Which Christian law says "don't give marriage licenses to gay people" exactly?