- Oct 2, 2013
- 2,180
- 185
- 85
- Thread starter
- #41
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?