United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Kentucky clerk still won't issue same-sex marriage licenses
Source:
Associated Press
URL Source: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie ... AULT&CTIME=2015-09-01-08-52-48
Published: Sep 1, 2015
Author: Claire Valofaro
Post Date: 2015-09-01 10:04:38 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 36134
Comments: 339
A county clerk in Kentucky has again refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, invoking her religious beliefs and "God's authority" - this time in defiance of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling against her. On Tuesday morning, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis' office denied the licenses to at least two couples. At first, Davis was in her office with the door closed and blinds drawn. But she emerged a few minutes later, telling the couples and the activists gathered there that her office is continuing to deny the licenses "under God's authority." The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to intervene in the case, leaving Davis no legal grounds to refuse to grant the licenses. A district judge could now hold her in contempt of court, which can carry steep fines or jail time. As an elected official, Davis can't be fired. Davis asked David Moore and David Ermold to leave her office after they were denied a license Tuesday morning - the couple's fourth rejection. They refused, surrounded by reporters and cameras. "We're not leaving until we have a license," Ermold said. "Then you're going to have a long day," Davis told him. From the back of the room, Davis' supporters said: "Praise the Lord! ... Stand your ground." Other activists shouted that Davis is a bigot and told her: "Do your job." Davis has said her deeply held Christian beliefs don't let her endorse gay marriages. She stopped issuing all marriage licenses in the days after the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage across the nation. Two gay couples and two straight couples sued her, arguing that she must fulfill her duties as an elected official despite her personal religious faith. A federal judge ordered her to issue the licenses, and an appeals court upheld that decision. Her lawyers with the Liberty Counsel filed a last-ditch appeal to the Supreme Court on Friday, asking that they grant her "asylum for her conscience." Justice Elena Kagan, who oversees the 6th district, referred Davis' request to the full court, which denied the stay without comment. After Tuesday's denials, the rejected couples' supporters called the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the lawsuit on their behalf. They asked that the attorneys file that day to have Davis held in contempt. Shortly after Davis' remarks in her office, the sheriff's office cleared the room and building of those gathered to support both sides of the issue. The two groups lined up on the lawn, on either side of the courthouse entrance to chant at each other. Davis' supporters have told her to "stand firm," while gay-rights activists shouted "do your job." Randy Smith, leading the group supporting Davis, said he knows following their instruction to "stand firm" might mean Davis goes to jail. "But at the end of the day, we have to stand before God, which has higher authority than the Supreme Court," he said. Ermold hugged Moore, his partner of 17 years, and they cried and swayed as they left the clerk's office. Davis' supporters marched by, chanting. "I feel sad, I feel devastated," Ermold said. "I feel like I've been humiliated on such a national level, I can't even comprehend it." 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-263) not displayed.
.
.
.
#264. To: tpaine (#199)
I established it. When he wants SPECIAL TREATMENT for faggots. When he lies and says they were born that way. When he says they can be married. Children can read that and take him seriously. So Pete needs to quit being a hypocrite and a liar, and stop posting pedophile propaganda.
You're an a-hole. Do you think you'll make the LGBT types disappear 'cuz you hate them and want them done away with? Good luck with that. Those married ones deserve the right to be as miserable as you are.
I am not kidding. God, in his law, goes into agonizing detail about every aspect of ritual and sacrifice - HOW it is to be done, WHO is to do it, the lobes of the liver to cut, where to pour the blood, how to salt the grain. He even killed two sons of Aaron for burning incense at the wrong time. God specific every rite, and told men not to add to the law. And guess what never appears in the Law: ANY rite of marriage. Nothing. The Aaronic priests are assigned no part in marriage. Neither are the Levites. No ceremony is described, no vow, nothing. So, it is all well and good that Jews and Christians have developed human traditions to solemnize marriage. But it is a sin to claim that passage through these mere human traditional rites is in any way necessary for marriage. God established no rite, which means that THERE IS NO RITE. And adding a rite to the law is a sin. It's not a sin to haver a tradition and follow it because you like it. It IS a sin to claim that the tradition is mandatory, or anything other than a mere human tradition, for that is all there is. As far as shotgun weddings go, Adam accepted Eve from the moment he saw her. This one is flesh of my flesh.
In a very real sense one can reasonably argue that the creation of Eve was in fact a marriage ceremony. And certainly one can reasonably argue that the proclaimation of man cleveing to his wife was in fact a ceremony, a rite. Genesis 2:23-24King James Version (KJV) 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. If that last sentence is not a rite then nothing is. But perhaps you are saying that Adam instituted thiss rite not God? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
You really are insane,so it's no surprise you don't understand how nuts you look to everyone else. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Just where was it established that Pete is "spreading -- pedophile philisophy"? Just above, I read a post where he wrote the opposite. -- So I don't think the issue is 'established' at all, it's still being argued. He has his opinions, -- you have yours. BFD... Get serious yourself. Kids aren't reading this forum, and in any case, no one is posting pedophile propaganda.. Sorry, but I think you're hyping up the issue.
I'm pretty sure he meant to use his teachings in wise manner, stick up for what you believe in not be a wimp like some want to interpret... Sometimes the "inconvenient way" is the only way to get things done, she's gonna try and bring this to a head and let the chips fall where they may. I would say she is counting on support from those that feel the same way she does. She may lose but I don't think that is going to matter as long as it opens the eyes of the public as to what is "really going on" in the government... She is fighting for her and everybody else in this country to maintain their religious rights. As other people have brought up in this and other threads there are things (abortion, birth control) that are the law of the land and those laws are being ignored by those who have deep religious convictions, this one "SHOULD" be too and she knows it!!! One doesn't seem to care about living their lives they way they want to live them and the other (for the most part) still desires that freedom. And are willing to defend those freedoms not count on someone else to do it for them!!! SOSO, please don't be so contentious. For pages and pages I've written what? I've written that God instituted marriage, and it was one man, one woman, before God, sealed by sex. I said that THAT is marriage, and was, since the beginning. I have always been talking about Adam and Eve. And I have been always saying that THAT, the marriage of Adam and Eve, is the ONLY FORM OF MARRIAGE God EVER prescribes in the Bible. You think you're quarreling with me, but you're actually agreeing with me, you just don't realize it. THAT is marriage, and THAT is ALL that is required: Man, Woman, God, sexual intercourse. THAT is marriage. No priest is required. The state has nothing to say about it. That has been my point all along. It's THAT realization that OUGHT to allow Christians to come off the ramparts and not go to jail because of a "marriage license", which REALLY is just a "tax relief contract" for people who are married. The state CLAIMS to give them permission to marry, but it does not. The church CLAIMS to be necessary for marriage, but it IS not. In a world in which secularism and corruption, including the corruption of religion, beats down everywhere, the only way OUT for Christians is to shake off their traditional torpor and easy acceptance of traditions, actually LOOK at what God REALLY SAID, and then positively assert, in their own lives, that what GOD SAID actually IS the law, and IS the only requirement, and that ALL of the rest of it: state marriage licenses, and clergy who now require state marriage licenses to marry you, is NOT required at all to be married - and that anybody who says either of those things IS required for a true marriage is full of bullshit. THAT has been my POINT. Because you're contentious and just want to bicker with me no matter what I write, you THINK you're poking a hole in what I said, but what you are doing is confirming it. The "rite" of marriage is in Genesis, yes. You've written it out, yes. There is no church or government or other men in it, is there? No. One man, one woman, God, and sex. That's marriage.
That America is an independent country at all, and not just another Scotland to Great Britain, is BECAUSE the French were willing to fight, bleed, die - and bankrupt themselves - making that happen. The French FOUGHT the Nazis in 1939 and 1940, and the Free French kept fighting them throughout the war. What were the Americans doing? Being neutral, while the world was devoured by Nazis, all the way until December, 1941. The Americans were NOT willing to fight the evil UNTIL the evil attacked them. The French declared war on Hitler when he invaded Poland. Where was America? Had the Americans done the right thing and declared war on the side of freedom in Fall 1939, Hitler would have been finished in the Spring of 1940, and all the rest of the horror would have never happened. Americans were exactly like the Soviets: they stayed out and LET the Nazis and the Fascists and the Japanese devour the free world all the way up to the point that, finally, the Nazis and the Japanese attacked THEM. The US didn't declare war on Hitler. Hitler declared war on the US. There is no heroism in what the US did. The US was attacked, like the USSR, and the USSR and USA, together, as allies, great big countries, finally stomped out Hitler and Tojo and Mussolini. France had 42 million people. Germany had in excess of 60 million, plus their Italian allies and the resources pillaged from Poland. Just how the hell were the French going to stand alone against the Nazi juggernaut? The Soviets were unable to also. It took an ALLIANCE to bring down Hitler. And the only people brave enough to see that Hitler had to be STOPPED, by force, were the British and the French - THEY declared war on Hitler when he invaded Poland. America didn't. Russia didn't. America won. So did the USSR. They won because they were big. They entered the war only because they were attacked. There was nothing heroic at all about America or the USSR sitting there in 1939 and 1940 and 1941 while Hitler conquered Europe. The French fought, and lost. The Poles fought, and lost. The British fought, and would have lost but for the water. The Americans and Soviets were cowards who refused to fight the evil. They only entered because the evil dragged them into it, and then they lost a lot more than they ever had to, because they let the Nazis grow to massive size.
Then if we are talking about impeachment for " failure to perform the duties of their office ", then that should be applied to Ovomit, and to Congress, and other Federal Officials. If we are going to be so pure to apply that to this clerk, then it should be applied to the officials higher up the ladder. Until Ovomit & members of Congress are marched out in handcuffs, I call BS on anyone expressing what they seem to think of as righteous indignation by calling for her impeachment. Otherwise, it is just as I said BS !!! Will they be impeached? Of course not! Because those with the ability & authority to do so are exactly like the citizenry, a bunch of spineless, ball less, candy ass wimps!!! And that is why our nation will go the way of the Roman Empire, into the dustbin of history! Spit! Si vis pacem, para bellum
I was kinda eluding to the fact that its up to the people to deal with her not the feds. It pisses me off that Hillary has clearly violated the law and nothing is being done about it but this lady stands on principle and is going to be hammered with everything the federal government can mustard.
No, it is not. A man must also leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife. For all your citation and translations you conveniently fail or refuse to use the full breadth of your intellect. The words are right in front of you. I don't understand why you choose to ignore them. God deemed this so, not just for Adam and Eve but for anyone that wishes to enter into a conforming marriage in His eyes. As for the need for a priest, the issue appears to be whether or not there needs to be a witness other than God to the couples' intent to marry. In the case of Adma and Eve God was a witness as were the Angels I presume. The fact is there was no-one else nor any state to witness the marriage. It seems ridicules that God would address a non-existent condition. However any rational reading of Genesis 2:23-24 supports the consclusion that the instrucrion to leave one's parents and cleve to the spouse is a ritual of sorts that is binding on Adam and Eve's progeny. As for Adam and Eve's children, well for sure Adam and Eve by definition were a witness to their chidrens' marriages as they were the parents that were left by their children to cleave to a spouse. I concede that the ceremonies that we witness today are more grandious than need be but disagree that consensual sexual intercourse without the leaving and cleaving consitutes a marriage in God's eye and to His will. I also disagree that a marriage in God's eye does not have to be witnessed by other than just God if at all practical. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
The US was not going to sit out that war and you know it you just say that because a small percentage of Americans wanted to stay out of it. Roosevelt knew America was going to have to get involved in the war and started preparing for it. I wouldn't be afraid to say the oil embargo and freezing of the Japanese assets were meant to get Japan to attack the US so Roosevelt could come riding to the rescue in Europe... And used what to kick Hitlers ass a couple hundred thousand ill equipped military personnel??? LOL... If they had paid attention to what the "Little Corporal" was saying they would have known Hitler was gonna come their way, he wanted retribution and their money... They only have themselves to blame for not being more prepared. And after seeing how Hitler took care of Poland they ignored that and put their faith in good old WW1 trench tactics. That weren't going to work 20 years after the Allies showed how to defeat them, did they think the Germans ignored that lesson??? Oh wait never mind they did think that!!! The Brits should have pulled out when they had the chance especially after they found out how the French were going to fight... Have you ever signed a contract? "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
No I'm not. I used one quote from Paul. And the quote compliments what I quoted from Jesus Christ. You are engaging in eisegesis. You que in on a few verses from Christ and apply your theological approach. I used wide sections of Scriptures from both the OT and NT and showed their consistent message. That is exegesis. I never claimed that people who do not forgive others are in right standing with God. Instead I showed scriptures where the truly born from above have the love of Christ indwelling them. As such, forgiveness is not an exercise of following stereo instructions but a deeply and loving commitment to the very Grace bestowed by God. If we don't forgive we never knew Him. We don't believe His promises if we don't follow His Light. But I do forgive you for misrepresenting my comments. Forget about it. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
The way I observe this issue? If someone who claims they have the Grace of God and are forgiven their sins, then turns to another not extending our own to them...That person must seriously pray and examine their lives. Putting ourselves in "the shoes" of one who has offended us just for a few minutes is a useful exercise. We then say "how would I want to be treated or handled in this matter." If I am not mistaken, the above is an example of the second commandment of love. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
What the HELL is Kim Davis doing working for a secular government when she wants to impose her own values upon others? Isn't this a form of hypocrisy?
She's collateral damage from a tyrannical court who things they are the supreme being who can define marriage.
"The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
She should have quit her job and renounced any affiliation with the government. Instead she chose to continue to receive a paycheck while pretending to perform her job making up rules.
Why should she quit? The sodomites could have gone to another county to get a license. Davis was the county clerk before the SCOTUS played God again. Abortion is legal but most doctors refuse to perform them. So the murderous woman can find another doctor. Just as Neal and Bob could have found a pro sodomite county clerk. If SCOTUS declared all butchers must serve pork, a Jewish butcher has a right to refuse. No matter how you look at it, a pulled pork sandwich is not corned beef. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
What is the addition in this? That he must leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife? Of course. Where is the Church rite or state ritual in this? There is none. Ritual? You marry, you live with your wife, and your wife is your first duty. There is no mention of witnessing. You've added something to the law. You've dug in on it. Nothing more to speak of here, really. Believe what you want - you're going to anyway.
The US DID sit out of the war, refusing to stand with the free world as it was devoured by the Nazis, country after country. The Czechs and Slovaks, the Poles, the Danes and Norwegians, the Dutch, Luxembourgeois and Belgians. Then the French. Then the Yugoslavs and Greeks. Then Russians. Britian was in terrible danger in 1940, and US ships were being torpedoed, but the US still did not stand up to fight Hitler. In the end Hitler declared war on the US, and dragged the US in. It is not heroic to stand by while the free world is butchered and bombed, to let the threat grow to titanic proportions, and then fight when the threat that you allowed to grow strong by your own fecklessness attacks you. That's what the US did. It was a good thing we were dragged into the war, lest the Nazis win. But the Nazis never should have gotten control of the Low Countries, let alone France or been able to burn down London. The US should have been there from the beginning. Had the US been there, Czechoslovakia wouldn't have been invaded. Or if it had been, Hitler would have been out of power before the first shot was fired in Poland.
The military forces which the mobilized United States would have immediately begun to churn out and send to Europe. The Air Forces that existed and could be deployed.
Like you don't? My last word on the subject is to suggest you read the traditional Catholic rite of marriage especially the part that begins: "Priest: Name) and (name), have you come here freely and without reservation to give yourselves to each other in marriage?" Will you honor each other as man and wife for the rest of your lives?" "Do you....take this....... in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, to love and honor her all the days of your life?" Then Bride and Groom pledge to each other in the following words (placing the wedding ring on his wife's ring finger): "(Name), take this ring as a sign of my love and fidelity. This sure sounds like cleaving to me. You may have the last word on this subject. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Japan attacked Pearl Harbon on December 7th and the U.S. Declared war on Japan. A day later Germany declared war on the U.S.
Psalm 37
Yes, the Germany declared war on the US. The US did not declare war on Nazi Germany. In 1938 the Nazi Germans invaded Czechoslovakia, and the US did nothing. The British and French negotiated with Germany because they did not want to fight. But the Germans pressed on, into Poland. And so France and Britain declared war - to stop the Nazis. They failed. The Soviets divvied up Poland and attacked Finland, and then the Nazis overran Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg, all free countries. America did nothing. Germany lunged into France, America's oldest ally. America did nothing. The English lost most of an army and all of their equipment, and the Germans began to level British cities. Nazi submarines tore up British - and American - shipping. And the Americans stayed out of the war. The Nazis overran Yugoslavia and Greece, and the Americans stayed out. The Nazis plunged deep into Soviet Russia, threatening to conquer it and, with it, Europe. The Americans stayed out. Japan attacked the US. The US replied by declaring war on Japan, not Germany. Had Hitler not declared war, the US would not have come after Germany first. Maybe eventually. Maybe not.
Psalm 37. Yes.
Fuck you buckeroo. The constitution says no religious test. Someone shouldn't have to quit their job because of some piece of shit who DECIDED TO BE FAGGOT OR DYKE! I wouodn't shed a tear if someone went and took a 2x4 to any and all queers who think they can marry the same sex. People who supportr Faggots aren't going to be posting here much longer. People who argue with me about it aren't going to be here much longer.
Aids is lookinmg for them. They can't hide forever.
You said it is ok to kill slave masters. Jesus said it isn't ok to do that. Doies thqt make you a christian hypocrite?
I think I'll recommend you be reinstated on Freedom4um.com Do you approve? Or will you censor this comment also?
Do you approve? Or will you censor this comment also? Christine would never do that. I'm not to interested either. But thank you for the offer.
"The Christian religion, which orders men to love one another, no doubt wants the best political laws and the best civil laws for each people, because those laws are, after [religion], the greatest good that men can give and receive..." Montesquieu understood the inherently selfish nature of man, and that, opportunity provided, one would accumulate power and become a despot. He introduced the revolutionary idea of separating the powers of a monarch into judicial, legislative and executive bodies which would jealously pull against each other, allowing power to check power. Montesquieu wrote: "Nor is there liberty if the power of judging is not separated from legislative power and from executive power. If it were joined to legislative power, the power over life and liberty of the citizens would be arbitrary, for the judge would be the legislator. If it were joined to executive power, the judge could have the force of an oppressor. All would be lost if the same...body of principal men...exercised these three powers." [...] "I have always respected religion; the morality of the Gospel is the noblest gift ever bestowed by God on man. [...] The principles of Christianity, deeply engraved on the heart, would be infinitely more powerful than the false honor of monarchies, than the humane virtues of republics, or the servile fear of despotic states. It is the Christian religion that, in spite of the extent of empire and the influence of climate, has hindered despotic power ... [...] The Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic power. The mildness so frequently recommended in the Gospel is incompatible with the despotic rage with which a prince punishes his subjects, and exercises himself in cruelty.... [...] A moderate Government is most agreeable to the Christian Religion, and a despotic Government to the Mahommedan.... While the Mahommedan princes incessantly give or receive death, the religion of the Christians renders their princes...less cruel. The prince confides in his subjects, and the subjects in the prince. How admirable the religion which, while it only seems to have in view the felicity of the other life, continues the happiness of this! [...]" http://myemail.constantcontact.com/FEB--10---Montesquieu--Christian-religion---has-hindered-despotic-power-.html?soid=1108762609255&aid=fwuABvnCpFE
That is correct. and she is performing that test, isn't she?
Not if the Jew works for any government entity.
Comments (304 - 339) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestJust where was it established that Pete is "spreading -- pedophile philisophy"?
#265. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#264)
I established it. When he wants SPECIAL TREATMENT for faggots. When he lies and says they were born that way. When he says they can be married.
#266. To: SOSO (#262)
#267. To: Vicomte13 (#266)
ANY rite of marriage. Nothing.
#268. To: A K A Stone (#264)
So Pete needs to quit being a hypocrite and a liar, and stop posting pedophile propaganda.
#269. To: A K A Stone (#264)
I established it. When he wants SPECIAL TREATMENT for faggots.
When he lies and says they were born that way. When he says they can be married.
Children can read that and take him seriously.
So Pete needs to quit being a hypocrite and a liar, and stop posting pedophile propaganda.
#270. To: Vicomte13 (#260)
(Edited)
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#271. To: Vicomte13 (#179)
So yes, there are differences between France and America. No, they don't count for much.
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#272. To: SOSO (#267)
If that last sentence is not a rite then nothing is. But perhaps you are saying that Adam instituted thiss rite not God?
#273. To: CZ82 (#271)
One doesn't seem to care about living their lives they way they want to live them and the other (for the most part) still desires that freedom. And are willing to defend those freedoms not count on someone else to do it for them!!!
#274. To: nolu chan (#247)
" failure to perform the duties of her office. It does not invoke Federal jurisdiction for discrimination. It can bring impeachment. "
#275. To: nolu chan (#134)
She can't be fired. She is an elected official. The only way to remove her is to impeach her in the Kentucky House of Representatives and convict her in the Senate. I heard (have not confirmed) the KY legislature was out of session and there were no plans at this time to recall them.
#276. To: Vicomte13 (#272)
THAT is ALL that is required: Man, Woman, God, sexual intercourse. THAT is marriage.
#277. To: Vicomte13 (#273)
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#278. To: Vicomte13 (#273)
Had the Americans done the right thing and declared war on the side of freedom in Fall 1939, Hitler would have been finished in the Spring of 1940, and all the rest of the horror would have never happened.
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#279. To: Vicomte13 (#273)
Just how the hell were the French going to stand alone against the Nazi juggernaut?
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#280. To: Vicomte13 (#205)
By swearing an oath at all, she defied Jesus' commandment not to swear oaths.
#281. To: Vicomte13 (#203)
You are reading Paul to cancel Jesus
#282. To: Liberator (#246)
Isn't it our belief in Jesus' promise that our sin is covered by His blood along with our repentance as the sinners that we ALL that we're promised Eternal Life? That's called "Grace." If anyone believes they are at any second or minute in their lives "sinless" by their own volition, they are believing a lie.
#283. To: redleghunter, Liberator (#282)
#284. To: buckeroo (#283)
#285. To: redleghunter (#284)
#286. To: buckeroo (#285)
#287. To: SOSO (#276)
No, it is not. A man must also leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife. For all your citation and translations you conveniently fail or refuse to use the full breadth of your intellect. The words are right in front of you. I don't understand why you choose to ignore them. God deemed this so, not just for Adam and Eve but for anyone that wishes to enter into a conforming marriage in His eyes.
#288. To: CZ82 (#277)
#289. To: CZ82 (#278)
(Edited)
And used what to kick Hitlers ass a couple hundred thousand ill equipped military personnel??? LOL...
#290. To: Vicomte13 (#287)
Believe what you want - you're going to anyway.
#291. To: Vicomte13 (#288)
#292. To: Don (#291)
#293. To: Don (#291)
#294. To: buckeroo (#285)
#295. To: redleghunter (#286)
Neal and Bob
#296. To: A K A Stone (#294)
#297. To: CZ82 (#41)
Christian hypocrites
#298. To: A K A Stone (#297)
#299. To: A K A Stone (#297)
#300. To: Fred Mertz (#299)
I think I'll recommend you be reinstated on Freedom4um.com
#301. To: tpaine (#3)
#302. To: A K A Stone (#294)
The constitution says no religious test.
#303. To: redleghunter (#286)
If SCOTUS declared all butchers must serve pork, a Jewish butcher has a right to refuse.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]