Business
See other Business Articles
Title: Muslim flight attendant: I was suspended for not serving alcohol
Source:
CBS
URL Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/muslim- ... t-expressjet-airlines-alcohol/
Published: Sep 3, 2015
Author: CBS Staff
Post Date: 2015-09-06 09:37:11 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 52128
Comments: 251
A Muslim flight attendant filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claiming she was suspended from her job for not serving alcohol, which is against her religious beliefs, CBS Detroit station WWJ-AM reports. Lena Masri, an attorney for the Council on American-Islamic Relations Michigan, said Charee Stanley followed management's directions, working out an arrangement with her coworkers to accommodate passenger requests for alcohol. However, Masri said, ExpressJet Airlines put Stanley on administrative leave after another attendant filed "an Islamophobic complaint" that referenced Stanley's head scarf. "We notified ExpressJet Airlines of its obligation under the law to reasonably accommodate Ms. Stanley's religious beliefs," Masri said at a news conference in Farmington Hills on Tuesday. "Instead, ExpressJet close to violate Ms. Stanely's constitutional rights, placed her on administrative leave for 12 months, after which her employment may be administratively terminated." Masri said the arrangement Stanley had with other attendants to serve alcohol for her had been working out fine since Stanley converted to Islam about a month after becoming a flight attendant for ExpressJet. "I don't think that I should have to choose between practicing my religion properly or earning a living," Stanley said. "I shouldn't have to choose between one or the other because they're both important." Contacted by WWJ-AM for comment, airline spokesman Jarek Beem responded with the following statement: "At ExpressJet, we embrace and respect the values of all of our team members. We are an equal opportunity employer with a long history of diversity in our workforce. As Ms. Stanley is an employee, we are not able to comment on her personnel matters." The Islamic-relations council is America's largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization with the mission "to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: cranky (#0)
Works for me. I'll get a job as a bartender, convert to Islam, refuse to serve customers, then sue for religious discrimination when I'm fired. $5 million will make me feel better.
That's just for starters. The endgame is when it will really get interesting. There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
So do the supporters of the KY county clerk who won't issue sodomy marriage licenses also support this Muslim's right to refuse serving alcohol as part of her legally prescribed job duties?
I can see this playing out now. She becomes a heroine to the fundie towel heads for refusing to serve alcohol to infidels,and then they murder her for talking to infidels to refuse to serve them without a male family member being with her and approving. And I promise to try hard to not weep for her when she is murdered. 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)
Of course they do. You don't think they are hypocrites,do you? 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)
A county clerk is not the best choice to try to overrule a Supreme Court decision.
Serving alcohol is a job requirement. And it is not against the Koran to serve alcohol to infidels. It is against the Koran to drink it. Muslims don't know the actual commandments of their god any better than Christians do. If they did, the world would be a more peaceful place.
“The Century War,” said the Time Traveler. I blinked and tried to remember some history. “You mean the Hundred Year War? Fifteenth Century? Fourteenth? Sometime around there. Between . . . France and England? Henry V? Kenneth Branagh? Or was it . . .” “I mean the Century War with Islam,” interrupted the Time Traveler. “Your future. Everyone’s.” He was no longer smiling. Without asking, or offering to pour me any, he stood, refilled his Scotch glass, and sat again. He said, “It was important to me to come back to this time early on in the struggle. Even if only to remind myself of how unspeakably blind you all were.” “You mean the War on Terrorism,” I said. “I mean the Long War with Islam,” he said. “The Century War. And it’s not over yet where I come from. Not close to being over.” http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message/2006_04.htm An oldie but a goodie. This is a very pertinent commentary on Muslims. Follow the link to read more of the PARTIAL excerpt listed above.
You never know when a spark will ignite a forest fire,and she does seem to be dedicated to becoming a martyr for her religious beliefs. Who knows where this thing will go if the fundie leaders can put their petty jealousies and greed behind them long enough to unite? 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)
You are confused. True, a follower is to avoid alchoholic consumption but they are also to impose the will of Allah for the non-believers; hence, even they are to avoid alchohol.
{chuckle} {snort} {gaffaw} Stop it, your killing me!!! потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Now that I wiped the tears from my eyes make that guffaw.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Your statement reeks with support for sodomites.
No, it doesn't. I'm asking if conservatives now support the "right" not to do the job an employee (or public official) agreed to do (instead of resigning from that job). I'll point out that the KY clerk is on her fourth marriage. What if she ran across a Catholic or Church of Christ or Jehovah's Witness serving as a county clerk who don't believe in divorce. Does this much-married KY clerk think they should have the right to refuse to issue her and husband #5 a marriage certificate?
That's an interesting angle. According to a k a Stone she has since found religion herself recently - so she's allowed to impose her religious beliefs on others now. That didn't work out so well for her. I predict she'll be in jail until the GoFundMe money runs out.
Yes I support this Muslim woman. We have Baptists who work in our local restaurants waiting tables. One lady a family friend will not serve alcoholic beverages at the restaurant. Too easy, the assistant manager a Catholic serves the drinks. The Muslim woman should also not serve pork sandwiches on the flight. Just like when vegans refuse to even handle meat. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
I'll point out that the KY clerk is on her fourth marriage. What if she ran across a Catholic or Church of Christ or Jehovah's Witness serving as a county clerk who don't believe in divorce. Does this much-married KY clerk think they should have the right to refuse to issue her and husband #5 a marriage certificate? An employee to a company is different then an elected official. Please cite the Kentucky law that authorizes her to issue faggot pretend marriage licenses. You can't because no such law exists. The Judge is a homosexual activist like the Peter. She is in her fourth marriage. Irrelevant. She wasn't a Christian before.
Jesus said that there is no such thing as divorce. So they are correct. There is no such thing as two men being married. No matter what the two hell bound dykes on the supreme court say.
It is my opinion that whoever runs the company should make that decision. You should be to fire someone for any reason. Even if unreasonable. Afterall they own the business.
We should not judge this Muslim woman. Just as back in the NT church those who refused to eat meat sacrificed to idols. It's a conscience decision. Some are strong and some are weak. We don't judge. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
Lies. The truth is the truth. Two men can't be married. I don't associate with queers. But if one ever came up and told me they were married. I'd tell them they were full of shit. If they wanted to keep talking about it. I'd knock them out cold. I used to be tolerant of them. No more.
Good point. She could be a modern Joan of Arc. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
Well, her son is one of her deputy clerks so he has been refusing to sign sodomy marriage certificates too. Not that anyone has asked him to. The other deputy clerks are all accepting them, probably eyeing running for the big money as county clerk themselves in 2016. But you do have to wonder which of the KY clerk's Wow, that is handy.
How do you know? Yes, I remember the good ol' days when you were so well-known for your tolerance for Teh Gays.
I support the Muslim woman. Serving alcohol to passengers is such a small part of her job. There are plenty of flight attendants who don't have a conscience issue with doing so. So let them serve it. I also support vegan airline attendants refusing to serve non vegan meals. Why do so many people want to create conscience crisis to make them viloate their values. Judge not unless we want to be judged. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
I don't associate with queers. If they are in the closet I wouldn't know. There are no queers in my neighborhoood. At least not openly. A couple of dykes used to rent the house across the street. I pretty much ignored them. If they said hello I would say hello back. I'm not rude. I just wouldn't hang out with freaks like that.
I also support vegan airline attendants refusing to serve non vegan meals. If the airline wants to make special accomodations for her. That is fine. If they don't they should be to fire her if they want to.
Leaving out the entire passage perverts the meaning of what you quoted. The Bible also says judge righteous judgement. What you quoted basically means don't judge someone for faults that you have also. Don't be a hypocrite in your judgement. I'm fairly certain I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know.
My friend educated me on her marriage journeys this past Friday while we lunched together. Marriage #1 hubby was not the father of her twin boys - marriage #3 hubby was. Marriage #2 hubby adopted the twin boys that weren't his. Then she married #3 hubby, the father of the twin boys. Now she's on hubby #4 and she has found religion. Got it?
I believe her divorces happened before she became a Christian. But to answer the question. Yes I believe a Catholic if they knew she was previously married and divorced should have the liberty to refuse her a marriage certificate. Just as a Catholic refuses to perform abortions and write prescriptions for birth control. Yes I would lock arms with those Catholics if they were fired for standing on their faith and catechism. We may not see issues with some of the reservations of others. But as commanded we strive not to offend. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
Got it? I read on an opposition site that hubby 4 is hubby 2.
That is not proper english. A grammar nazi such as yourself should know that.
Well yes of course. However, it seemed she worked out an accommodation. The airline will lose. Muslims in the West are a protected minority. They will lose big bucks. It would have been better for the airlines if the woman was a Baptist. Then they could fire her and not worry about being sued. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
I'm only going by what my friend told me at lunch while reading her status to me from his mobile device. Having lived in Kentucky I've learned more than a few couples remarry after getting divorced, so what you wrote might be correct.
Corrected: That is not proper English.
What is she imposing on others? She is being forced to endorse something she was never elected to do. This is what happens with judicial fiat. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
Does that happen often? I saw your previous comment also. I'm finished here. No reason to beat a dead horse. There are laws I don't agree with morally, like abortion, but what am I going to do? Burn down Planned Parenthood offices? String up doctors who perform them? I don't think so.
That is her testimony. That she was a damned, destitute sinner in need of Christ as Savior and Lord. People are born again every day. Who am I to judge her conversion. Since her professed new birth we as Christians have only one thing to consider in her walk. This refusal to sign sodomite certificates. So, so far she is doing pretty good. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
Why do people knowingly take jobs that require absolutely legal and overwhelmingly socially acceptable duties? Her protest is pure BS. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
You mean, the same laws that require her to issue interracial marriage licenses? IOW, the decision of the Supreme Court when they decided decades back that miscegenation laws were unconstitutional and that a state could not forbid the marriage of a white man to a black or an Asian or a Hispanic. So this KY clerk is already issuing marriage licenses based solely on previous decisions of the Supreme Court. The case was brought by Mildred Loving, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, who had been sentenced to a year in prison in Virginia for marrying each other. Their marriage violated the state's anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which prohibited marriage between people classified as "white" and people classified as "colored". The Supreme Court's unanimous decision determined that this prohibition was unconstitutional, reversing Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States. Yes, Kentucky was one of those states in the Loving verdict. All interracial marriage certificates in Kentucky have been issued solely on the authority of the Supreme Court's decision. No Kentucky laws were ever written to support interracial marriage. Alabama (1819)
So pre-Christian divorces can now be consider "free" divorces in moral terms and nothing a person did before becoming a Christian counts against them legally? I bet a lot of convicts would love to hear this news, including plenty on Texas's death row. You don't actually want to seriously debate this point, do you? Claiming you have become a Christian doesn't give you legal authority to overrule the Supreme Court. Because they're, like, Supreme and stuff.
Well yes you are right. But we are not talking about sin. We are talking about two people who have conscience issues. Most would just do what everyone else is doing. But the clerk and Muslim have standards we should not judge. They are not trying to offend other people...just following their conscience. As Christians we should follow the advice in 1 Corinthians 8 on these matters. But yes...the Muslim and the Christian clerk should realize that nonconformity may lead to suffering the consequences. So the Muslim should expect to be fired and the clerk should expect to be impeached or lose the next election. But we as Christians should not be advocating they compromise their conscience. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
I got this far before I started laughing. Till death (or a bad mood) do us our marriage journey part... Marriage #2 hubby adopted the twin boys that weren't his. Then she married #3 hubby, the father of the twin boys. Now she's on hubby #4 and she has found religion. So is hubby #2 still the legally recognized father of the twins? Or did she switch those (in some newfangled court) to their baby-daddy, hubby #3? Or did she sweep them into some paternity deal with hubby #4? Normally, a Kentucky marriage isn't quite so interesting.
Marriage #2 hubby adopted the twin boys that weren't his. Then she married #3 hubby, the father of the twin boys. Now she's on hubby #4 and she has found religion. Got it? Sounds like another sinner has come to the fount of Grace. But I don't know the woman nor her journey towards Christ. If she said she was a damned destitute sinner and repented of her sins to Christ. Who am I to judge her current walk. Has she been divorced since her conversion? Apparently not. Jesus forgave a lot of repentant wicked people while He sojourned with us on earth. Some ended up following Him and contributing to His ministry with works befitting discipleship. At the Gospel Mission home my friend runs he has encountered 4-5 time drug rehab failures. The joy in knowing that some of them after coming to Christ have never went back to drugs or alcohol abuse. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
I don't think so. Don't know why you are finished here. Your comments are most welcome IMO. There are many non violent ways to protest abortion. Find a clinic in your area and join the people who peacefully protest and lovingly encourage the mother not to abort. If that is too overt for you, volunteer at a pro life pregnancy crisis clinic. You don't have to be part of a church to do this, but you will find that 90% of those in the pro life movement are Christians. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
I would agree if she ran for clerk in Kentucky and sodomite marriage was legal. It wasn't when she was elected. KY in fact rejected sodomite marriage. It was against state law. So comes along a 5-4 decision by judicial fiat, and all of a sudden the clerk is an outlaw defending state law. The sodomites could have found another county to get their false license. But instead they decided to test this woman's conscience. Whatever happens, she wins as long as she does not give in to the darkness. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
You see sodomite marriage akin to interracial marriage?
"The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
Both were imposed solely by the fiat of the Supreme Court in the state of Kentucky. And this is a Kentucky county clerk. She has no more authority to deny a sodomy marriage than an interracial marriage. And Kentucky had laws to prevent both sodomy and interracial marriages for a long time before the Supremes struck those laws down. So, yep. Actually, they targeted her just to persecute her. They went out of their way to force her to refuse them a license. Attention whores.
No I'm talking about fag pretend marriage. No such thing as interracial marriage. Only one race the human race.
Well, Kentucky certainly thought so from 1792-1967 when the Supreme Court finally told them otherwise.
You don't actually want to seriously debate this point, do you? Claiming you have become a Christian doesn't give you legal authority to overrule the Supreme Court. Because they're, like, Supreme and stuff. You tucked in quite a few assertions I never made. You called into question whether or not this woman should even consider making a stand on marriage because of her past. Well converted murderers, drug addicts and rapists do speak out to others about there former sins and law breaking. They should not, and most don't, seek pardons from their sentences. They are still bound to their temporal decisions and the consequences of such. Just as this woman is still suffering the temporal consequences of her previous divorces. It's happening here and in the media. So the clerk a previous violator of marriage and now by her profession a repentant sinner, refused to sign a certificate for something she knows is wrong. It was her conscience decision to make. The SCOTUS by 5-4 tyranny imposed its will on 50 states. A small county in KY just voted 1-0 against their tyranny. I will let you judge the moral implications. I can't because I'm not God but you do a good job of that here from time to time. It seems from Scriptures Christ can pardon this woman her past. All we have is her testimony and the MSM "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
That is the dumbest thing I ever saw you write. You're not opposed to sodomite pretend marriage. You're not a true supporter of the first amendment. You're not a true supporter of the 10th amendment. You're not a true supporter of "no religious test" found in the constitution. You're a supporter of usurption. You would have been a supporter of Dred Scott.
Who cares. It wasn't the truth then or now. God made Adam and Eve. We are all decendants of them. We just have different characteristics. One race the human race.
Yes they are and it fits the sodomite mafia playbook. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
So, yep. So you supported the SCOTUS sodomite marriage decision? The meme of gay marriage discrimination is akin to interracial discrimination was used by the gay mafia for years. That finally worked on the SCOTUS. I'm still not buying it. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
I agree that we should not judge the Muslim woman or Mrs. Davis. Judgment belongs to God. Somebody does have to figure out what to do in such cases, though. My preference is to go straight to the religious texts of Mrs. Davis and the Muslim woman and show them both point blank what their respective gods did and did not say, to reason with them directly on a religious level, using the sacred text of their religion as they believe was revealed by God. When they are shown that God does not command them to do anything like what they are doing they may be abashed and knuckle down to their God's actual law (in which case Davis will issue the certificates and the Muslim woman will serve the drinks). But if they won't, then they can be charged truly with the statement that they are not, in fact, upholding their religion's beliefs or their God's commandments, but simply making themselves a law unto themselves, without Scriptural basis, because they individually and personally don't like something. If they are not engaged directly with their Scriptures, then their view is a sincerely held religious error. But once they've been SHOWN the error, if they go ahead and do their jobs it is well. If they STILL refuse, then they can be criticized as simply being stubborn individuals who are using a religious claim to try to be a law unto themselves. That's really what they ARE doing - being a law unto themselves alone - but right now they do it in ignorance and therefore should be forgiven their trespasses and reasoned with - on the basis of their own religious texts. But once the effort has been made to meet them all the way on their religion: to open up with the pages of the words of their God SHOW them that what they are insisting on doing just is not there, if they persist anyway, they're just trying to impose their own will, and then we needn't feel badly about moving them aside, because there's no reason to allow them to do that.
Actually, we don't know what that county's voters think. But we do know that the Constitution establishes a Supreme Court. The Constitution does not establish a Supreme County Clerk. The Supreme Court was in error on sodomy marriage (just as they have made grotesque errors in other cases). That doesn't give everyone the right to arbitrarily reject their decisions, government agents -- like much-married county clerks -- least of all. This woman isn't the right choice to challenge the Supremes on their sodomy marriage ruling. In fact, she hurts the cause.
Paul was a murderer. He was also an Apostle. He certainly should not have been silent because of his past. Everybody is a sinner. Once God touches you and shows you the way, you follow that way. Of course that makes you a "hypocrite" against your former norm. But your former norm was bad. It's ok to be an inconsistent hypocrite if the direction of your hypocrisy is in the direction of GOOD.
Did this clerk refuse interracial marriage certificates? No she did not. So that is irrelevant. Now as a Christian she would have no moral grounds to deny an interracial certificate. With sodomites she does. She's in jail for refusing to issue a certificate based on her Christian moral convictions. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
Where the Supreme Court is wrong on moral decisions that directly contradict the Law of God, the fact that the Law of God has been contradicted in fact DOES give everyone the right to reject their decisions and do otherwise. It's no "arbitrary" if people do that - it's based on a Supreme Law far above the mere supreme court of the united states.
You hurt the cause with your sodomite talking points.
Among the other disciples were the hated Roman tax collectors, about as popular as a legally sanctioned mob enforcer would be today. But a KY county clerk probably does not have apostolic authority. Of course, I may not be the most neutral source since I would say the same about some self-aggrandizing bishop of Rome and it doesn't slow him down either.
The only lawful authority for issuing such marriage certificates came from the Supreme Court. Kentucky and the other holdouts never did legalize interracial marriage at all. It was all done on the authority of the Supreme Court then and still is today. In that sense, this KY clerk has no more (or less) authority in the matter of issuing a sodomy marriage license than an interracial marriage license. Both were imposed by the Supremes.
Yeah, good luck arguing that in a court of law. Or even at a meeting of the local bar association. But that's just your rhetoric. I know that you know better.
Well, for my part I feel sorry for this woman. She believes that she is taking a stand for God's law, and I think she deserves to be admired for that. Unfortunately, her actual understanding of God's law is incorrect: there's no such thing as a real marriage certificate. These things she issues are not licensing marriage. They merely say they are. They're an American tradition. But the tradition has no divine substance. I'd prefer it if somebody sat down with her and went through the Scriptures with her line by line until she saw the mistake she has made about the law of God. Then she could laugh at the absurdity of what she's really issuing, go back and issue these things, and maybe even gain some more revenue for her county by issuing "Gravity Defiance Licenses", which solemnly authorize their holders to break the laws of gravity. Right now, it's much more serious, because she truly believes she is right, and she's certainly more right than the gays or the court. I just hate to see her getting ground up like this, because we need courageous people. As far as the dignity of the court goes? I don't care. The judge should have decided differently. He chose to decide as he has, and now he shall have to bear the consequences of what he has done forever. Bad choice on his part.
I "know better" in the sense that I know that most lawyers and judges are not with God, serve Satan and that therefore OF COURSE they will not agree with anything that upholds God's law. They never do nowadays.
I don't think Davis should in good Christian conscience sign the marriage certificates. I would have advised her to resign her position and make the statement that government has once again embraced evil and it is no longer a place a Christian can in good conscience serve. No way would I advise her to sign the false pieces of paper. As I would not advise a 1st century Christian to work at the Roman Colosseum. It's that bad now. The Muslims situation is akin to Southern Baptists. It's a conscience issue. I know why they frown upon alcohol and activities promoting alcohol. I also know the Scriptures don't forbid drinking or handling alcohol. Yet I will not poke Baptists in the eye about it based on 1 Corinthians 8. Their is much to be said about dry weddings in the South. Not one of the ones I went to ended in a DUI, fight or someone crying uncontrollably. Yet I was raised Irish and Catholic and witnessed all of the above:) "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
I know it really stinks when the peasants resort to the practices of Der Mezzziah Zero. How dare they ignore the SCOTUS. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
Of course that makes you a "hypocrite" against your former norm. But your former norm was bad. It's ok to be an inconsistent hypocrite if the direction of your hypocrisy is in the direction of GOOD. Vic that was pretty good and waxed a bit poetic:) "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
I think I met a queer lady briefly today; her name is Heidi. Stupid me, I said hi and nice to meet you. I should have followed your Christian advice and knocked her out cold. Next time.
As I understand it, she does not object to recording a sodomy marriage, merely to signing it in advance, considering that she is giving her official blessing to such a marriage in advance. The marriage is solemnized by a justice of the peace or a minister or other lawful officiant. The clerk merely signs the license application and records it. That is not the same as the clerk being forced to actually perform a gay marriage ceremony which is the most relevant part of a state-licensed marriage procedure. The application and the recording are merely clerical functions for the actual solemnization of the marriage by the marriage vows proffered before a legal officiant and witnesses.
Well, it was true enough to send interracial couples to prison for 175 years in Kentucky.
The KY clerk is a problematic case with some distracting personal and legal issues. More straightforward is this Oregon judge. HotGas: Oregon judge now under investigation for not performing same sex weddings
No,she should be fired if her personal beliefs conflict with her duties,and be replaced with someone who will do the job. 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)
Suppose the first three were to other women,and now she has sworn off tuna,and wants to slide up next to you? 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)
They why do you keep your panties all in a wad over it if it doesn't happen? 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)
What right does she have to impose the burden of her work on the other stewardesses? How fair is that to the other stewardesses? She HAD to have known serving alcohol was a part of the job when she took it. 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)
Marriage #1 hubby was not the father of her twin boys - marriage #3 hubby was. Marriage #2 hubby adopted the twin boys that weren't his. Then she married #3 hubby, the father of the twin boys. Now she's on hubby #4 and she has found religion. Got it? Fred,I think we are witnessing the beginning of the newest reality teebee show. 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)
So comes along a 5-4 decision by judicial fiat, and all of a sudden the clerk is an outlaw defending state law. Then she should resign. The oath she took was to obey the law, whatever and whenever if is passed. How it ends for her is very much in the air. It's hard for me to beleive that she has gained any points with God for refusing to rendering to Caeser what is Caeser's. A state sanctioned marriage is nothing more than a civil union. There is nothing spiritual or religous about it. A state license is not a sacrament, it's in essence a civil contract. Gays will still exist. And just like straights gays will still live together in a sexual relationship. Religions should leave civil union marriages to the stae and deal with a Holy Union (or whatever you wish to call it) that has spiritual and religious dimensions and significance. As for the Muslim flight attendant, her complaint is still pure BS. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Correct me if I am wrong,but wasn't a part of her job requirement to follow and obey Ky law? It is obviously legal in Ky for homosexual couples to marry,or this wouldn't be an issue. 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)
Seeems like you will believe anything. Ever seen a pygmy Scandinavian? Ever notice how all the people native to Asia look a tad different than you? 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)
I guess that makes Cain and Abel MoFO's,right? 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)
I suppose that a general rule of conscientious objection based on religious principles is not a bad way to go. The key will be to be sure to apply that where it counts: on things like the draft, or release from military service once one has had a crisis of conscience. But ultimately there will have to an imposition of God's Law, if the human law is made optional, because God's law does not require men to punish other men for, say, fornication, but it DOES require men to punish men for murder. A general religious exemption for conscience would result in a very free society, with few legal norms. But Christian norms would still have to be imposed when it came to killing. And people would have to tolerate a lot of very grim sexual business, as polygamy, child marriage, temporary wives, arranged marriages, marital sex rights (no such thing as marital rape) are all religious norms in some major religions. You sort of have a choice: make a Christian nation, or live as a Christian among the pagans. If you make a Christian nation, the laws of the nation have to adhere to God's laws. You cannot pick and choose - to have God's Law where you want it (sex law, for example), but then disregard God's law and do what you want in other areas (economic law, for example, and warfare) because that's not a Christian nation at all. It's just another form of pagan nation. In fact we live as a pagan nation, and we live as Christians among pagans. This imposes an immense number of burdens on us, because our faith is very much at odds with the world in which we live. We face a dilemma, and it's a dilemma that is within the Law itself, that the Law and Scripture don't clearly answer. On the one hand, God very clearly authorized deceit as a tactic in warfare. Deceit in warfare was legitimate for God's people when fighting the heathen. They did not have to be open and truthful to their enemy when at war. They could trick him. On the other hand, Jesus said "Let your yes be yes and your no be no", establishing a high demand of truth. But on the other hand still, Jesus said that with regards to swearing oaths - and it is not at all clear under the Law of God that legitimate warfare deceit went so far as swearing false oaths to heathen enemies to trick them into a disadvantage. There is no example of that in either testament. What, then, is the right answer? Well, we each have to work that out for ourselves. The Law says to honor your oaths, that God will hold you to them. But the law also provides a right of atonement and release from rash oaths that men tend to swear. And Jesus clarified: be truthful and don't swear oaths. But clearly if you're in a just war (most are not), you can deceive your enemy in battle. However, I don't think that goes so far as permitting you to swear false oaths before an enemy. Which means, bottom line, that there are some jobs in this pagan world that Christians cannot take, because they are required to swear oaths to do things that Christians cannot do. CIA assassin, for example: this is not a role that a Christian can take...unless he really thinks that service to some national idol is worth eternal damnation. It looks as though the pagans in America have found a way to scrape off county clerk as a job that can be held by Christians, because there's an oath, and then a requirement to issue things that some Christians find shock their conscience. The REAL answer to all of this is for Christians to obey the ECONOMIC aspects of God's Law with regards to EACH OTHER. If we really did that, Christians would rapidly rise to be richer than Jews, and would be "the club" to join...but which would have a membership requirement that simply will turn back the worst pagans at the door. Just consider if every Christian in earshot here followed the law. If we met in a conclave, discovered our assets and liabilities, used the assets to buy the freedom from debt slavery for the weaker members, and then used the cooperation to turn the fruits from ongoing labor into a system of interest-free lending and preferential cooperation to one another. We all would find ourselves without mortgages or debts within a very few years, and then we would find ourselves with a lot of excess fruit, which could fund more Christian liberty, and enterprise. Just restoring that one simple rule among Christians - of no-interest debt - coupled with Christian sobriety. Think what even two Christian neighbors could do for one another. And then multiply that out. The Christians would not "drop off the grid", but remain very much active in the society, living and working. THEY would just be able to do it with interest-free debt, and they would favor each other in forming alliances and contracts and businesses, because of the fundamental trust and the complete lack of lawsuits. It's what the early Christians did, and it gave them such an advantage over time in a pagan society that they ended up taking it over and changing it. Unfortunately, we latter-day Christians have compromised with paganism such that we've incorporated pagan economics and concepts of recourse to civil law into the very heart of our own families. Which economically puts us down with the rest of the pagan cattle. Our ancestors sold our birthright for a mess of pottage (in the form of royal banners, conquests, slaves and easy divorce). Now we're economically no different from the pagans, and therefore not able to enjoy the communal security that early Christians had. But we can change that at any time, but simply deciding to follow the law, and agreeing with each other to do that. There are many Christian churches and groups that are close enough to do it, they just need to actually DO it. If they were to start, and did so in a disciplined, loving and faithful manner, they would find that God rewards them quickly.
Cain and Abel had sisters, and married them.
Marriage is something between two and God. The state has no authority to authorize it or prohibit it, nothing it can grant. A "marriage license" is REALLY a license to be able to take a certain set of tax breaks, and to get survivors benefits for Social Security et al. Truth is, we are reaping the bitter fruit of Christian abandonment of their faith. Back when Christians were the vast majority, in a democracy they had the moral duty to make their civil laws BE God's laws, and to have a Christian society living under Christian law, which they instituted. But that's not what Christians did. Christians were greedy and power hungry, so they behaved just like ancient Jews did - enforcing those parts of the law they liked, but disregarding everything they found inconvenient. And the trouble with THAT is that God didn't set up his Law as a TEST, "can they do it all?", but as the NECESSARY STRUCTURE for people to be able to all function happily and in health over the long haul. The result of all of this has been to neuter Christianity and turn it into a Sunday social club, whose members even think that God's law should not be THE law, because, you know, separation of Church and state...(in other words: because Christians don't REALLY want to live under God's law. They want to live under their own laws but be assured of a happy afterlife.) The clerk? Judges? How many imperial officials were Christians in the First Century?
Even evolutionists say we all have a common ancestor.
Did your faggot relatives die of aids? Did they spread their fag disease to others?
Hey "fag gene carrier" Please show us where Kentucky law says she has to marry two faggots. You can't because there are no laws. You're such a dumb ass and a piece of shit.
As for the Muslim flight attendant, her complaint is still pure BS. You've gone to the dark side. You support tyranny.
How long has it been since you got any pussy? Sounds like your sex fantasy.
Marriage #2 hubby adopted the twin boys that weren't his. Then she married #3 hubby, the father of the twin boys. I am curious if hubby #2, having adopted the twins, got stuck with child support for them when Kim married their birth-father (hubby #2). Since he adopted them, he would be their father legally and the birth-father's obligation would be terminated. So unless their birth-father (hubby #3) did adopt them when he finally married their mother, then hubby #2 (adoptive father) would be on the hook for child support. Sounds like the ultimate cuckservative ripoff by hubby #3.
Yes I support this Muslim woman. We have Baptists who work in our local restaurants waiting tables. One lady a family friend will not serve alcoholic beverages at the restaurant. Too easy, the assistant manager a Catholic serves the drinks. The Muslim woman should also not serve pork sandwiches on the flight. Just like when vegans refuse to even handle meat. I think we are clouding the issues . In one case it is an employee of a private business and in the other case we have an elected public official sworn to uphold the law. I see great areas of concern when a public official refuses to uphold the law....aka the lawless adm of the emperor . Let's say for example that one of our conservative candidates who have supported Kim Davis wins the elections and properly declares that sanctuary cities violate Federal immigration laws. Then a municipal official ,citing their faith and command to welcome the stranger and alien in your midst ( Leviticus 19:34 ),decides to use the pretext of religious liberty to violate the law ...and further claims any action taken against them is a 'persecution of Christianity' . How would that President then address the contradiction? Davis should've resigned .That was the correct course of action. But if she wants to be a martyr for the cause fine .But she was wrong in telling her deputies that they could not issue the licenses even if they had no moral objection to it. Let's say a Muslim director of the Dept of Motor Vehicles refuses to issue licenses to women ,and also instructs all the clerks in his office to likewise refuse . There is the real slippery slope of this issue . Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Liberal piece of shit position.
Sounds like you are talking about your boy friend and vaseline.
She makes her living off a saloon whose customers are drawn there to drink alcohol to which she objects. She is only particular about handling alcohol herself, not taking money from the sale of alcohol to others. And there are no other local dry restaurants where she could work? Or do the drinkers just tip better and she wants in on the cash? So could this Baptist woman, who presumably objects to prostitution as well as serving alcohol, work as the cashier in a brothel, as long as she doesn't have to do any whoring herself?
No she wasn't. That is the law.
But we do know that the Constitution establishes a Supreme Court. The Constitution does not establish a Supreme County Clerk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBiLT3LASk Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
If you are an official of the state and you are not willing to uphold the law because you have a serious issue of conscience over a particular law, then you should resign.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
So it was just "regular" incest? 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)
Is your worry about AIDS why you are so obsessed with homosexual sex and other men's asses? 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)
Show ME where it says in Kentucky law that faggots aren't citizens. 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)
I think we are clouding the issues . In one case it is an employee of a private business and in the other case we have an elected public official sworn to uphold the law. I see great areas of concern when a public official refuses to uphold the law....aka the lawless adm of the emperor . ....... Let's say a Muslim director of the Dept of Motor Vehicles refuses to issue licenses to women ,and also instructs all the clerks in his office to likewise refuse . There is the real slippery slope of this issue . EXCELLENT points. 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)
Liberal piece of shit position. Yours is a un-American fascist piece of shit position,but I do thank you for finally admitting your want your religious cult to rule the country,much like Islam rules other countries. I have no trouble at all picturing you and Grand Island volunteering to work as the "modesty police". 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)
The law also says there will be no official establishment of religion in this country. BTW,there is no such thing as life after death,and you are NOT going to go to heavy,no matter how much hatred you spew to please your religious masters. You are going to die,and then rot. 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)
I never claimed they weren't citizens. That is a another lie from you. Many lies come from you.
And there isn't. Which is good.
I don't know of any states where they recognize gay men as a particular grouping in that way. The old sodomy laws never really named any person as a sodomite, they just criminalized sodomy as a behavior.
That is because you have quite an imagination. I remember when the chicks used to go topless at Caesars Creek Beach. It didn't bother me in the least.
Of course you did. How else can you explain them not having the same rights aw other citizens? Or are like Obomber and the rest of the left,and wish to create whole groups of "special affirmative action citizens" that have more rights than the rest of us? If so,you are anti-American. 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)
So says the fool. I recall another lie of yours. When you claimed you were agnostic and weren't sure if there was a God or not. You sure lie a lot.
They have all the same rights as they should. Just not special rights to change definition to suit your families many perversions. Just like a man can't join college womans basketball teams. That isn't discrimination either. Making you not only a liar but a hypocrite. You want everything equal but not womens sports. Why is that hypocrite. I know because you are just an asshole who can't get any pussy. That is why your wife left you.
He thinks that's relevant because he thinks citizens should be allowed to marry whomever they want. Brother-sister. Father-daughter. Three women. Four men. 8-year-olds (hey, they're citizens!)
If Pete spouted off this nonsense in the founders day. He would have been swiftly killed. He is the enemy of America. I don't even know why I let the asshole post here frankly. I guess he amuses me. Or I am just to nice and fair minded.
There was even a famous case in Texas back in the late 60's or so where local cops were spying on a family for unstated reasons,and actually filmed the husband having anal sex with his wife while bent across the coffee table in their living room. They never did gather any evidence the couple were guilty of anything else,but they took them to trial for sodomy in the state court,and they got sentenced to 10 years in prison. IIRC,the film they used while peeping through the crack in the Venetian blinds was used as evidence in court,and there never was any legal explanation for why they were peeping in on and filming private citizens in the privacy of their own home. The Playboy Foundation and Hugh Hefner are the ones that brought this case to light and financed the appeal that got them out of prison. My best guess is they pissed off some local political official that wanted something they were refusing to sell cheap. Local authorities got away with a lot of crap back in the pre-internet days,when they could keep stuff like this private. 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)
LOL! I think you may be admitting to more than you intended. 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)
Mirror meet the Peter. Peter wants special rights for faggots. Because he has loads of faggots in his family. His words not mine. You and Obama agree on the faggots. I don't agree with anything Obama did. He is 100 percernt wrong on everything.
I think you may be admitting to more than you intended. It's the truth. They used to go topless back in the 90's or early 2000's. I only witnessed two of them. My wife told me about them. It didn't bother me in the least. I like tits.
What you are saying is that Christains can't be part of the government. Sorry for the course language. You deserve more respect.
NYSlimes, 2010: Transgender Man Is on Women’s Team Expect a lot more of this. If you can't make it as a male college ball player, just claim tranny status and get a full scholarship to play as a woman (but don't take the drugs or get the surgery). And you do get to shower with the female players (unfortunately mostly lesbians).
Once again you are proving yourself to be a liar. Produce ONE quote where I claim to have "loads of faggots in my family" or admit you are a lair. You are also delusional about your cult "owning marriage". Marriage existed BEFORE Christianity. If anything Christianity "stole" it. 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)
You said you had lots of homosexuals in your family. I'm not going to search for it. We all read it.
I don't recall it, not here or at LP or at TOS. I recall sneaky from all 3 sites, going back to the late Nineties or so. Not that I read every post he has made.
Ask Grand Island or White sands or maybe even cz82.
When I reminded him in the past his typical response was always something like you have fags in your family too.
Maybe Mike Tyson should make a comeback. As a womans boxer. He should go to the olympics. I'm sure the Peter sneaker would support it. I mean we are all equal. There is nothing different between men and women.
You can do site-specific searches of Google to locate phrases. Google: site:libertysflame.com "sneakypete posted" "in my family" Since you allow all the Lefty search engines (used by SPLC and other libs to target conservative sites) to index your entire site and to suck your bandwidth and to collect data on your site members (to build electronic dossiers on them), maybe you should use it to search for these alleged confessions by pete.
Lets address this. Suck up bandwidth. I pay a flat rate so that isn't an issue. Collect Data on site members- We are not doing anything illegal or immoral. Who cares. I believe you are under an illusion if you don't think the government has this information regardless. I wouldn't be surprised if Google indexes everything anyway. They just have some of it "roped" off for the government. The search engines let people find the site. Stumble upon it if you will. I will admit that not many of those people sign up though. But they get to read it if they find it interesting. I waste enough time debating with Pete over faggots.
Paul taught us that governments "which exist are established by God.” We are taught to be submissive to government even when we disagree and refuse to do immoral directives. But subordination is a prerequisite for civil service . That is the conundrum. Christians always have tough choices to make .Christians in government should not abandon their principles....but public officials should be expected to either work within the law or resign if they won't . Did you see the link I made to 'A Man for All Seasons ' ? The reason I added that was to say that we could easily live in a state soon where we are the significant minority . When that happens we will want and need the rule of law as our best protection against persecution. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Peter has proclaimed that not only does his family tree have fag apples hanging on the branches... but I've seen him suggest in posts, when confronted by his proclamation, that every poster here has faggots in their family. I'm here to state, that my family tree is free of the faggot apples. Not only do I make it my business to know the business of all my family members, but in today's day and age where being a freak of nature equals being a "courageous" hero... and almost all fucking fags are loud and proud, I'd know if I had any sick twisted fags in my family... and I don't. Now, my wife and I socialize with many people. One couple has a flaming fag adult son who lives with his partner in NYC. I have a buddy from high school that owns a restaurant, and he has a sister who is a fag... aside from that, I don't know too many fags in the thousands of people I know. I'll suggest that the fag population is 5% or less... but Hollywood AND PETE would like to falsely indoctrinate you into the idea that fags are everywhere... to help with their libtard agenda of equality and acceptance. Shit, you can't even watch a pay channel movie series without having fags shoved down your throat... all these cooking shows, fags everywhere... regular TV... GLEE, fucking fags. I don't need Pete to fag up the propaganda on LF... I get enough fag indoctrination from TV. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
I am pretty sure that if you modify your approach to see Stone's posting of "gay" or "homo" or "queer" you will find an endless tirad as though there is something meaningful. I am bored of his comments on this subject and rarely comment.
So, since Paul taught you everything you know about governments, what did Paul teach you about ISIS?
Look what you are personally performing. You are "FAGGIN' UP" the thread.
More agenda propaganda.... Try and de-fag the site and you're called a "fag" by the fag defenders. What an old, fruitless and obviously shitty debate tactic. I answered a question... the question had an answer... and you stooped as low as you could to yella the answer... because you and Commie Sanders loves fags. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
It is far more likely that you will be personally outed as a hate site owner and/or prosecuted than that you'll ever get a single new member at LF via search engine visitors.
You can't miss an opportunity to FAG UP a thread can you? Where did your Sanders guy enter the picture?
I did a bit of looking and learned that hubby #2 became hubby #4 - current hubby. Google found this link for me:
Pulling out all the closet angels, are ya Fred?
Hey, Bucky, thanks for posting the flow chart!
Ain't she a hon'? She is a real angel.
Incest only became a crime under the Laws of God when God revealed that to Moses at Sinai. Before it was revealed, it wasn't. Arguably, it's only a crime before God for Hebrews in Israel, but even if it isn't a crime as such, it's clear - by the fact that God gave the law to the Hebrews in order to protect them and so they would prosper - that there is something unhealthy about incest that we God wanted his people to avoid. It could be the genetic problem of inbreeding. Or it could be something more spiritual. In any case, there was nothing at all wrong, in a spiritual/moral sense, with brothers and sisters marrying before it was revealed by God to Moses that they should not. Cain did nothing wrong by marrying his sister.
Uh oh. Now we're going to be an incest site.
I still want to know if she forced hubby #1 to pay any child support for the twins that she conceived while an adulteress (giving birth to them a few months after she left her first husband). Normally, if you are married to it, you are the guy who pays even if the kid(s) were sired by another man. Also, did hubby #3 (birth father) pay any child support at all over the years or did hubby #2/#4 (adoptive father) pay for them instead. Like while she was married to hubby #3 (birth father) for a year back in 2007 or so. I'm thinking Little Kim is a real sleazebag but I'd like to see more info to detail it. There should be family court records and other documents to indicate what her conduct was and who paid child support for her twins.
The rest of that sounds pretty bad, but the marrying three women part is the best thing that Islam has going for it. mouse - mice louse - lice spouse...spice?
From a spiritual perspective, what happened before 2011 is irrelevant, unless she is unforgiving of other people who have sexual sins.
Oh Horseshit! Incest has been an issue since the begiining of time; the probability of children being born with inferior capabilities is well known and understood well before any Jews. In rural societies, child bearing for the strongest features have been well known and identified; so the rite of passage about marriage was bound with strong familes. It was important to identify strong traits for survival. You act like this planet is centered on the fake Israel and its history. Its a BIG world out there ... you might want to explore it before you start wearing a skull cap.
Forcing them to marry three women would be the best thing we can do. Oops. Changed my mind. That would only create more suicide bombers.
I agree. Finding God was the best thing that happened to her in her screwed up life. I'd want to hang on to my new-found spirituality, too.
ROTFL! She is an angel, ain't she? Lost her wings and can't fly anymore because of this damned Internet and FRED!
Does her county or state or federal governments require her imposition of sexual mores? The answer is either "YES" or "NO"; if the answer is no, why is she exercising her personal perspective or religious perspective on the matter? If the the answer is "yes" ... you shouldn't be discussing these issues as you will be mocked as "clueless."
So it was just "regular" incest? Sneaky - the only difference between the scientific origin of species in which you believe and the religious record is that the religious record gives us NAMES for those early ancestors. It's the same thing either way: a small original population breeds and interbreeds and expands outward, with each expanded part becoming isolated and inbreeding. That how whites got white, or blondes got blonde, or Orientals got the slanted eyes, etc. And anyway, with Cain, we're talking about our grandfather, because all of us are descended from him. There were eight people on the Ark: Noah and his wife Naamah, and their three sons. Everybody descends from one of those sons, and the sons descend from Noah and Naamah. So, Noah and Naamah are our last common grandparents. We know the males of Noah's lineage all the way back to Adam. They are all our common ancestors, along with Eve. Zilch's father was Lamech, and her mother was Zillah. Lamech is the first recorded case of polygamy in the Bible. So we're all descended from polygamy. Lamech was the several-times-great-grandson of Cain, so we're all descended from Cain as well. Obviously Cain had to be incestuous: the only breeding pair were his mother and father. Other than his sister, who else was there to marry? So yes, we are all of us descended of incest, polygamy and at least one murderer. We've all got some of the image of Adam in us, and Eve, but also Cain. Sometimes around here our descent from Cain is on full display.
interesting question . Not sure of it's relevance to this topic ... but ... Paul was Saul ,a terrorist who persecuted early Christians . He thought he was doing God's work. He thought these followers of Christ were heretics . But he had his conversion moment on the road to Damascus where Jesus confronted him and asked Saul :Why are you persecuting me? ISIS should know that as they persecute ,they are persecuting the Lord. They should know that Gods justice will ultimately be served .Saul converted that day and became one of the strongest proclaimers of Jesus the Lord. Who knows ? Maybe there is a Saul in the ranks of the Islamic State too . http://www.christianpost.com/news/report-isis-fighter-who-enjoyed-killing- christians-wants-to-follow-jesus-after-dreaming-of-man-in-white-who-told-him- you-are-killing-my-people-139880/ Stranger things have happened . Meanwhile it is the job of the government to protect us from the nations enemies .That is a legitimate use of force. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Incest was required at the beginning of the species. Always is for all species. It's the nature of things. Animals don't care about incest. They do it without notice. That's how we get special dog breeds. People care about it, because after a certain point we were told not to do it.
You are clueless. I will not say anymore.
No comma meant that neither of you probably got the original ping. Therefore, reposted. Sneaky - the only difference between the scientific origin of species in which you believe and the religious record is that the religious record gives us NAMES for those early ancestors. It's the same thing either way: a small original population breeds and interbreeds and expands outward, with each expanded part becoming isolated and inbreeding. That how whites got white, or blondes got blonde, or Orientals got the slanted eyes, etc. And anyway, with Cain, we're talking about our grandfather, because all of us are descended from him. There were eight people on the Ark: Noah and his wife Naamah, and their three sons. Everybody descends from one of those sons, and the sons descend from Noah and Naamah. So, Noah and Naamah are our last common grandparents. We know the males of Noah's lineage all the way back to Adam. They are all our common ancestors, along with Eve. Zilch's father was Lamech, and her mother was Zillah. Lamech is the first recorded case of polygamy in the Bible. So we're all descended from polygamy. Lamech was the several-times-great-grandson of Cain, so we're all descended from Cain as well. Obviously Cain had to be incestuous: the only breeding pair were his mother and father. Other than his sister, who else was there to marry? So yes, we are all of us descended of incest, polygamy and at least one murderer. We've all got some of the image of Adam in us, and Eve, but also Cain. Sometimes around here our descent from Cain is on full display.
Ok, then, I'll take the last word on the matter.
I have realized, you don't no much of anything. You act as though ALL things originated from a unique location on the planet and in tyme. You are so full of SHIT, you stink up the discussion.
And I just realized that you don't check your spelling when you get worked up.
She HAD to have known serving alcohol was a part of the job when she took it. It's a trade off pete. The non-Muslim attendants serve the alcohol and she serves the smelly Muslims on the flight. Everyone wins. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
That seems to be an option. Or the sodomites could have went to another county. Why is everyone making special accommodations for sodomites? "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
It is obviously legal in Ky for homosexual couples to marry,or this wouldn't be an issue. It was illegal in KY for sodomite marriage prior to the SCOTUS ruling. She was elected prior to that. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
If you trace back your human origins through chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA, you will discover that geneticists speak of chromosomal "Adam" and mitochondrial "Eve". The dominant view of anthropologists in a long-running debate about origins is that humans did indeed originate from one specimen, not all over the place. There was always the alternative view, that humans originated in many places, but DNA studies have come down decisively on the side of chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve. So, while it may well be that there is a great big world out there, our human entry into it was in one small space and time, through a breeding pair. Traditionally, we have called them Adam and Eve. You may redeem them whatever you like. The biology remains the same. And the fact of originating with a breeding pair perforce means incest to perpetuate the species. As the population grew and spread, isolation caused specific races and local traits to grow more prominent - through inbreeding. Then as expansion continued further, inbred local populations re-encountered humans expanding from their own isolated centers, and the miscegenation that is seen all around the world today occurred. Nevertheless at our origins we were in one place, alongside a body of water, eating shellfish.
Do you REALLY want the answer to that question?
Good point. While in the Army I never saw someone forced into combat situations when claiming conscientious objection. Once someone claims CO, an investigation is started to determine if the claim is of merit. For example, someone who knowingly signed up for the Infantry was fully aware of what the Infantry will do in combat. The majority of CO cases turn into an MOS reclassification or chapter discharge from the service. There are some young soldiers who struggle with this. The Army solution is to look at CO on a case by case basis and see what can be done for the best of the unit, soldier and the force. So good example Vic. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
I knew that was going to be your response. Is Applebees a saloon? NO, Applebees primary purpose is to serve food. But yes, maybe she should be working at Cracker Barrel. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
That would be using the cuckoo bird version of the term.
Fresh today on HotGas, with more details on this case. “What this case comes down to is no one should have to choose between their career and religion and it’s incumbent upon employers to provide a safe environment where employees can feel they can practice their religion freely,” said Lena Masri, an attorney with Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Stanley, 40, started working for ExpressJet nearly three years ago. About two years ago she converted to Islam. This year she learned her faith prohibits her from not only consuming alcohol but serving it, too, Masri said… “They placed her on unpaid leave and they advised her that her employment may be terminated after 12 months,” Masri said. “We are requesting that her employment be reinstated and the accommodation of her religious beliefs be reinstated as well.” A spokesman for ExpressJet declined to discuss Stanley’s complaint. Reviewing the history of this case, it quickly becomes clear that ExpressJet has bent over backward in trying to accommodate her but she clearly wants to turn this into a politicized battle. At first her supervisors simply asked her to work with other flight attendants and have them take care of the alcohol sales, but not everyone wants to work a shift where their colleague dumps off part of their workload on them. Plus, many smaller flights only have one flight attendant, so someone else would have to take those flights. That clearly wasn’t going to work. ExpressJet also offered to move her into some other type of work where she wouldn’t be involved in serving food and beverages. She refused that as well. In the end it apparently became too much to deal with. I can’t wait to see how this one works out because there are clearly limits on how far employers have to go in terms of making religious accommodations for their employees where their practices are in direct conflict with the normal functions of the job. And let’s face it… Christians these days are regularly being informed that matters of conscience where their religious beliefs collide with their job functions are no excuse for not doing their jobs. Why would a court allow Stanley to gum up the operation in this fashion when so many others are not? Besides, there’s an element of common sense here which any judge should be willing to take into account. If you work in the meat department at the grocery store and decide to convert to Islam will you be allowed to tell any customer ordering pork sausage that they need to go stand in line for the next available butcher? Should a devout Christian judge be allowed to stone any women who come before him in a divorce case if they admit to adultery because Leviticus says he must? To take the question to its illogical extreme, if you are a stripper who works bachelor parties and you join the Amish, your boss isn’t going to allow you to do all your dances wearing a cape dress, apron and prayer cap. You need to find a new job. In a more real world example, a bartender who converts to Islam can’t expect the boss to allow her to stay on the job and only serve soda and water. And in a sense, that’s what Stanley is… part of her job is working as a bartender. Flying is stressful enough, what with worrying about whether or not the plane is going to fall out of the sky or if the guy in the next seat is sizing himself up for an eternity with 72 virgins in the next few minutes. I need a stiff drink, lady, so get on the stick or go find a new line of work.
It is a metaphor. Your argument starts right off stinkin' to high heaven.
The NAMES are a metaphor - the REALITY of genetic origins in single individuals is the point. The names are metaphorically given to the original individuals. That you don't understand that is surprising.
Science s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-s metaphors to within the local culture, it serves. And why not? You think the Jewish culture came before the Swahili?
But that's the thing. If I knowingly sign up for the Army, and take the benefits, knowing full well what the Army does in combat, but THEN God touches me, perhaps once I've SEEN combat, and I realize that what I am doing is evil and that I am serving Satan - THAT is the very situation where conscientious objection matters the most. The individual has already gotten the benefits, and sees and knows what it is, and he has changed his mind. He believes that it is wrong to do what he has been doing, what he was trained and paid to do, and what he used to support. MAYBE he is gaming the system. MAYBE he is telling the truth. Let's suppose he IS telling the truth (let's say the person is you, so you KNOW you're telling the truth). You're not dealing with men of faith who understand your objection. You're dealing with men for whom your "defection" is a giant pain in the ass. Indeed, your departure increases the danger to them, because now somebody who is less skilled has to come in. And why should YOU be able to save YOUR ass from getting killed, and go home and get to use that education, while THEY have to stay far from home and maybe die? That's the mentality of everybody doing the judging, which is why conscientious objectors historically had a very bad time. During World War II. Oh, so you're an objector, eh? Well then, we're going to put you right in the FRONT LINE of the MOST DANGEROUS stuff of all, a field medic. Nobody can object to that on moral grounds. So now you're MORE LIKELY to get killed than if you just took your chances. We're going to make you conscientious objectors BLEED more than regular people, to PROVE your objection by having a greater chance of getting killed than the soldiers. (THAT'll teach ya!) It does indeed teach SOMETHING. There's a lot of bad faith in the judgment process of conscientious objection. The default position is that the objector is a weasel trying to get out of something. So, how does he prove his status? Historically this has been tough. For example, Catholics cannot be conscientious objectors, because the Catholic Church does not as a doctrinal matter recognize the status, saying that there's a duty to serve lawful orders. Tough luck if you're a Catholic. Effectively, you have to have joined a pacifist religion. Now, perhaps things are at times relaxed, but often not. Truth is, the solution is very simple: permit resignation for reasons of conscience. If there is still an obligation period, require a pro-rata payback of whatever benefits were obtained. But such an approach is not morally satisfying to those in dominance, and it is very important psychologically for them to put any alleged conscientious objector through hell. The easier way to avoid combat in past times was to smoke a joint or suck a dick. Those things, which military pagans consider dirty or dangerous, will get you booted. But want to leave for RELIGIOUS reasons. Professional killers are not fans of excessive religious sentiment. You know what I mean.
I think the Basque culture came before all of them. Age of culture is not interesting when speaking of divine revelation. God is older than all, so if God bends down and tells an American what happened when, and the American writes it in modern English, that's STILL more accurate than the ancient contemporary accounts of what happened, because it's God, and his memory is perfect, and also his knowledge of everything that really happened. The Scriptures TELL US when the Hebrew culture was made: it was made by God with slaves from all over the place, in the desert, after the Exodus from Egypt. The written Hebrew language was devised by God to record the stories. There was no Hebrew literature before that. The Hebrews didn't EXIST as a large people before that. Egyptian, Sumerian and many other cultures are much older. But that doesn't make any difference because God spoke in Hebrew, and his knowlege is perfect, so to the extent that there were earlier records, what God said in Hebrew CORRECTS those records, because he's God. Obviously. This has nothing to do with Mitochodrial Eve and Chromosomal Adam though, other than the metaphoric names for the first specimens of each sex being named after the English words that translate the Hebrew Scriptures.
I am predictable enough.
You've gone to the dark side. You support tyranny. You support anarchy. We are supposed to live in a society of laws. Religious tyranny is just a foul as any other type of tyranny. If your conscience prevents you from doing a lawful job then find another job. Her refusal to perform gay marriage is totally feeble and inane. Irrespective of her position and assuming that she gets out of jail she still is living in a country that tolerates, if not supports, gay marriage. To where is she going to hide to escape that fact? To where is she going to run? I don't want my elected officials deciding what laws they will obey and enforce and what they won't. That is flat out tryanny if not totalitarianism. If you don't like the laws they campaign to change them. If you can't muster enough support to change the laws to your liking then you have another decision to make. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Your concept of "God" is cultural; in your case, you think Judaism is the most profound religion on the planet. It has little to do with objectivity or any serious truth about the world around us, you argue from cultural experience is all.
A leftist media induced strawman story. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Good post.
That seems to be an option. Or the sodomites could have went to another county. Why is everyone making special accommodations for sodomites? So it's OK with you that an elected public offical can inconvenience me by forcing me to go outside my county to go go to mass because that offical won't allow a Catholic church to be built or otherwise opened in my county? What if a County Clerk decided only to issue licenses to gay couples and not to straights? Will you still insist that the striaght couples go to another county to get a license? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
My knowledge of the existence of God is based on direct personal revelation and miracle. I have fleshed out my understanding of who God is and his historical interaction with people through the Jewish, Christian and Muslim Scriptures, and by considering also certain Vedic and Bhuddist writings. God is. That I know directly. Likewise, I know that America is, today, because I live in it. For me to know God or America BEFORE my immediate time, and to understand what each means more profoundly, I have to read. Hebrew, Christian and Muslim writings are the most accurate sources of information about the particular God who talked to me and saved my life by miracle. That's my concept of God. Culture's got nothing to do with it. In fact, as I read I have to control for culture and strain it out, so that can discern what God himself says and does from the cultural reactions and writings about it. If you really want to argue with me about what I believe, then you need to start with the proper factual basis. My concept of God is not cultural. Id ton't think that Judaism is the most profound religion on the planet. Catholicism is. My view of God has everything to do with objectivity and the desire to absolutely precise.. The world around us is the God-made proving ground for all ideas. I more than ignore cultural experience. When speaking of God, I actively denigrate it and shred its dignity, and claim that culture must always be thrown away as evil garbage whenever and wherever it conflicts with the pure moral pronouncements of God. You will not find a person more hostile to culture as a normative force than me. Culture is entertainment, food styles, art. But as a basis for law, it is shit. All of it. Including American.
That is a fairly limited perspective. What sets mankind apart from all other animals on the planet is the respect for the dead; hence a reverence of a creator. Mankind is the only animal on the planet that buries the dead. This has been going on for millions of years and is not limited to any Jewish tradition.
Yes. Like Galileo's. He looked through a telescope and all he really saw were the moons of Jupiter. Which is really just a little thing, objectively speaking. So, Jupiter has moons. Who knew? Now Galileo knew. But one little objective fact that other people don't know, or don't know for sure, can change everything. Depends on what the fact is, and what mind has it in its possession.
You consistently discuss "God" as though the Jews invented the creature. That is your problem, not mine.
Incest has been an issue since the begiining of time; the probability of children being born with inferior capabilities is well known and understood well before any Jews. Exactly. That was one of the prime reasons different prehistoric tribes attacked one another,and took children and young women captive. They understood they needed to deepen the gene pool if the tribe was going to survive. 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)
There were eight people on the Ark: Noah and his wife Naamah, and their three sons. Everybody descends from one of those sons, and the sons descend from Noah and Naamah. So, Noah and Naamah are our last common grandparents. Some people will believe anything. BTW,which one of Eve's daughters was humping the go-rilla that fathered the Neanderthalls? 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)
Unless of course life springs up independently in several places in a short span (relatively speaking) of time,which it does. 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)
Not unless she is serving them that sweet-tasting exotic western drink called "Anti-Freeze". I could really get behind that one. 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)
Either would have worked,but the HOMOSEXUALS (I seriously doubt either of those Lesbians were sodomites) never took an oath or public money to obey the laws of the state and the US Constitution. In other words,the woman in jail is the only one that was under any obligation,both legal as well as moral. She is in effect STEALING the public's money by virtue of fraud because she took money to perform a job she refused to do. 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)
How does that make any difference when it comes to what she did that got her locked up? Was somebody forcing her against her will to not resign 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)
HorseHillary! There is absolutely no proof at all of that being true. 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)
If she resigned she would lose her manna from goobermint paycheck.
Not only that,but she would lose out on the book deal and the speaking tour to fundie churches. 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)
I have no particular problem at all. You merely have a problem comprehending me. We have not been generically discussing God. We have specifically, on this thread and others, been discussing aspects of the moral law revealed by God. If we were looking at physics, chemistry, astronomy and biology, we would not be discussing the moral law at all. God has a law of physics also, and we would be discussing that. God first revealed his detailed moral law directly to Moses, and through him, to the Hebrews. Ancient Israel was the only human state that God ever ruled DIRECTLY, so by studying his laws, we study the statecraft of the King of Kings, and we discover various subtle provisions that God put in place that the Hebrews, at their level of development, could not even understand. They simply had to DO them. With our greater knowledge, we can see what God was addressing - for example, with the cleanliness laws. Jesus modifies the Jewish law and takes it out to the whole world. Still, this particular law is the only one that came from God, and that's why we have to study the Hebrew Torah: it's the only place where God himself laid out a complete law for mankind. All other law codes are man groping forward based on his own will, enlightened by God, perhaps, on a detail or two, but ultimately focused downward on material things and power. God's law alone keeps our eyes lifted off the dirt to understand that the reason WHY we must do these things that are hard is for our own ultimate good, because it pleases God. The Jewish cultural aspects of God's law are pretty irrelevant. That the Jews (partly) followed God's law for so long caused his law to form the structures of their part of their culture, so there is an affinity between aspects of God's law and Jewish culture, though they are long estranged.
Well, there actually is. But you won't take a scientific tone but an angry emotional one. This stuff plays around with your superstitions. And I'm not so much up for a spit and vomit bath today, so I think I'll pass. Maybe another time.
Human life did not spring up in a short time over a variety of places. Our chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA trace backwards to a singular origin.
And morality is not confined to Judeo-Christian religions.
Where is this place? Shangra-la?
We don't know the names of any of Eve's daughters. We may know the names of some of the spirits that mated with them to spin off some odd progeny, however.
Looks like somewhere in East Africa or the Middle East.
True enough. Morality is the set of social customs. The moral law revealed by God is the only true one that will lead to mankind's ultimate happiness, will cause him to please God, and will give him a place in the City of God in the afterlife, though. That's why it's the only one worth focusing on.
We can? Show comparative examples from around the world based on historic evidence. Here is one example: If it wasn't for Marco Polo bringing back Chinease knowledge about how to wipe our own asses (circa ~1300), the Christians and the Jews would have still been a stinky lot of folk.
What God is this? Your God? Where is this God, so I can admonish the creature for all your silly concepts that do not lead to survival of the fittest?
You are referring to Babylon, correct?
You are misinformed. The Romans wiped their asses using sponges on a stick.
You will know soon enough.
No. Not correct. I was referring to the Great Rift.
I would rather face my maker with the force of free will as opposed to adhering to some faerie-tale that you adhere towards. At least I can go down as a MAN as opposed to some silly, little groveling idiot that shouldn't be on the planet anyways.
It really doesn't matter. You are not capable or discussing factual data.
Thanks for the article. Seems Hot Air is taking the conservative libertarian approach to government involvement in marriage. I noticed the disclaimer for age and consent. Interesting.
"The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
Oh,the irony! 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)
BullBush! NO life,be it plant or animal,suddenly leaps forward out of a vacuum. The ideal conditions have to exist for it to come into being,and when they do,life will suddenly appear all over. Then again,you no doubt believe the fable about Noah and the Ark. 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)
I would advise Davis to resign. She was elected when sodomite marriage was illegal. Now according to 5-4 fiat it is not. Then again the sodomite couple could have gone elsewhere. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
Do you REALLY want the answer to that question? I'm sure I will get an answer:) "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
The three conscientious objector cases I was familiar with involved soldiers who converted to Islam. They would not fight against other Muslims. Two were chartered with a general discharge. One decided he was no longer Muslim when handed orders for Korea. On a separate note...the majority Christian denomination in Army Special Forces is Catholic. You gung ho Catholics:) "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
Yet a bogus response. Restaurants like Applebees are not Saloons nor brothels. You are pretty jaded these days. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
Sure. People used to cross state lines to get married in MD due to the younger age requirement. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
I think I'm becoming a grumbly non-voter. Putting up with people in the party swooning over obvious hucksters like, well, Cain or Carson or Trump has worn thin. It means there is no longer any point in voting at all, and it isn't as though there was any actual payoff for me personally before the GOP party base turned into gullible nutjobs. This latest flap of the Supreme Clerk of Kentucky is just another Schiavo spectacle, another Cliven Bundy, another occasion to convince me that the GOP has some really really stupid voters and that I'm worn out paying attention to them.
Of course I believe in Noah's Ark. I believe in Pearl Harbor too. History is history.
What if a County Clerk decided only to issue licenses to gay couples and not to straights? Will you still insist that the striaght couples go to another county to get a license? Sure. If you say so. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Do you REALLY want the answer to that question? I'm sure I will get an answer:) I'm not inclined to want to answer this one, because it cuts uncomfortably close to clairvoyance about a topic most don't want to know that people are clairvoyant about.
At last!
A bit late but welcome to the club. I that hope all the PolyAnna is gone. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
The Catholic Church has historically been militant, and the ethnic groups that make up Catholicism tend to be hotheads or stubborn drunks. And Catholicism cut its teeth passively getting devoured by the Romans for centuries, before finally getting the upper hand once Roman government fell apart. When the ethnic tribes of Europe emerged from Roman rule, they mostly emerged Catholic, and nothing like the passivist Greeks, Jews and urban Easterners. Passively submitting and eschewing violence is not really a Latin, Celtic or Germanic trait. Something close to the opposite is. And then, no sooner did the Empire recede, then the Muslims explode on the scene trying to conquer everybody. They managed to grab Spain and Southern Italy, for awhile, and raided and took slaves along the Mediterranean coasts. The Vikings came in the North too, and the Magyars in Central Europe, all in quick succession. The Catholic tribes didn't take it passively. They became "The Faith Militant". Hell, God even got into the game directly, calling a peasant girl to lead an army to drive out another army of Catholics out of France. You don't find many Catholic vegetarians either. "Catholic" is a culture as much as a religion, and it's a pretty ornery and militaristic culture too. Paul's bit about government being established by God - that's very deep Church doctrine. If some serviceman claims to be a Catholic conscientious objector, the Catholic Chaplain will meet with him and tell him there is no such thing. Like it or not, we're all warriors in a world filled with devils, and we have to FIGHT Satan with temporal weapons just as much as we have to fight him with spiritual ones. And because Catholics are not quarrelsome individualistic Bible readers but rather tribal in their culture, they look to the chief for answers. The chief is the Pope, and while Popes preach peace in the age of nuclear weapons, they were also preaching resistance. It's a very passive-aggressive religion, really...passive when force won't work (Concordats with Napoleon and Hitler), aggressive when it will. Example: the Pope just ordered the Church to take a refugee family per parish all over Europe. Therefore, that will happen. The Church obeys the chain-of-command - the rest of Christianity refuses to admit there IS a chain-of-command LOL. And then there are the Irish. Notre Dame - Our Lady of the Lake - dedicated itself by name to the sweet, gentle Virgin Mary...has not even a frisson of doubt about the contradiction of calling themselves the "Fighting Irish" and having a stereotypical monkey-man Mick with his fists up as their mascot. And they have their proud tradition that EVERYBODY (even the girls) all play Intramural football (it's true), And then there were the old days, with the famous Catholic monastic brother who was a coach in the athletic departments. When there was a dispute, it was "Alright, now, we're gon' t' settle this the way God intended!" and he'd hand the two disputants boxing gloves. Seriously. Catholicism is not at its heart an intellectual religion like Eastern Orthodoxy. It's not all that pious. It's a more rough-and-tumble antidote-to-Islam sort of thing. It went awry in the 1960s trying to take down sex. The Church never said "Boo" for a thousand years of Kings and their open mistresses, but when the peasants start getting hooch the Church reacts. That was a mistake. We're all sinners. And we have to pick our fights. I remember back at Annapolis in the 1980s that both USNA and West Point were majority Catholic, and there was a huge contingent of Catholics at Air Force also. It was a curious thing. I figured it was because the schools are competitive, and the Catholic Schools are a cheap private school system that has a lot of students. But I do think there was more to it than that. I recall that there were very active Protestant proselytizers at Annapolis. Students who had their Christian fellowship groups and were very active, even aggressive, about recruiting. I remember that the agnostics/atheists - there are always a few - found them very annoying and would rail about them. The Catholics just ignored them. I remember trying to go to one of their meetings, but they told me no, I did not have the "proper spirit". In other words, "You're Catholic - you're the enemy!" As the years have gone on, I observe that every one of the guys that I knew who stayed in for a full 20 year career and beyond is Catholic. Every one of them. I had an Air Force general as a history prof, and I remember him saying once on a field trip that the service academies are actually majority Catholic. He opined that it was the Catholic service ethic. I think it's that, but also more specific Catholic militarism. Catholicism is a hierarchical, monarchical religion, with a clear and undisputed chain-of-command. Catholics are from cultures that all still exist because of a military ethic. Consider this too: the Catholics know when to be charitable. During World War II, the Catholic monasteries and the parishes were THE refuge for Jewish children. The Church took on all sorts of children, and women especially, men also, and pretended they were Catholic, pretended they were nuns in training, pretended lots of things. They saved a huge number of people. And the Jews remember. When you look at the way Jews feel about Christians, they really distrust the Evangelicals, and they are distant from Protestants, but they feel much closer to and more comfortable with Catholics. The same thing is likely to happen in Europe because of the refugee crisis with Muslims. The Church, in fine, all over the continent, is going to take in Muslim families, one or two per parish. It'll get them housed and clothed and fed and set up with programs, and shepherd them through the system. And THOSE Muslims will end up carrying a lifelong gratitude to THOSE SPECIFIC Christians, the Catholics. It will create a bridge, but not from some idealistic thing, from very practical homes and food and safety - and always from a position of power, and structure. Magnanimity that overlooks the religious error of the refugee. It changes things. I'm not a Catholic because I like it. I don't, actually. I'm a Catholic because it's True.
Well, they do like to fuck children so it isn't that surprising. The Israeli Jews are quite close with evangelicals and conservative Prots. They loathe Catholics and miss few opportunities to make that clear. Demographically, American non-Orthodox Jews are dying out or being absorbed by Gentilism (atheism/agnosticism, intermarriage). Meaning that it is widely understood they are not Jewish in any meaningful sense and they will disappear from history as so many other Jews have done over the long centuries, something even American rabbis speak openly about now.
That's fine. It was good for awhile. Now that the generations have turned, the world is different. Now it's time for a Palestinian state, to curb Jewish pretensions.
No shiite, Moo (pigpiss be upon you). Time to get a real religion; your fake one is going away.
You mean, the same laws that require her to issue interracial marriage licenses? The Kentucky state law still forbids same sex marriage but must be considered null and void following Obergefell. It should also be noted that Davis has declined to issue any marriage licenses to anyone to avoid a discrimination charge. But do all the people have a constitutional right to get married, and are the actions of Davis interfering with those constitituional rights? The below article gives the best review of the applicable law that I have seen. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of Kentucky comes into play, as well as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. It is very much worth the read. When does your religion legally excuse you from doing part of your job? By Eugene Volokh Washington Post September 4, 2015 NO TEXT - Washington Post source
She's been married 4 times, but only 3 men. She married one twice. http://m.snopes.com/kim-davis-married-four-times/ She married her first husband, Dwain Wallace, when she was 18, and divorced him in 1994. She acknowledged in a 2008 divorce filing having had two children in 1994 while she was not married. In 1996, at age 30, she married Joe Davis for the first time. They divorced in 2006. The next year, at 40 years old, Davis wed Thomas McIntryre, though their marriage lasted less than a year. She re-married Joe Davis in 2009.
Well, there is a right or a moral duty to disobey the law, such as sitting in the front of the bus or at the White lunch counter. Called civil disobedience, the doers should expect to be fined, go to jail or be mistreated.
She objects to having her name on it certifying that is was authorized by her as County Clerk. State law required that her name be on the certificate. If state law changed and took her name off, then she would be accepting.
No she wasn't. That is the law. The deputies can only issue licenses with her name on them as the County Clerk. She has refused to allow any licenses to be issued to anybody in her name, as it would be a violation of Federal law to discriminate against gays. She stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether. The below article has an excellent review of the applicable laws. When does your religion legally excuse you from doing part of your job? By Eugene Volokh Washington Post September 4, 2015 NO TEXT - Washington Post source
The doers can expect to be mistreated by evil men. And the evil men can expect, in turn, to be treated justly by God in recompense. The evil men won't like God's justice.
Where the Supreme Court is wrong on moral decisions that directly contradict the Law of God, the fact that the Law of God has been contradicted in fact DOES give everyone the right to reject their decisions and do otherwise. It's no "arbitrary" if people do that - it's based on a Supreme Law far above the mere supreme court of the united states. How very Magdeburg of you:) “Divine laws necessarily trump human ones.” -The Magdeburg Confession, 1550 "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
I saw Stone post a WaPo recently so maybe he doesn't care. I guess all is well until you receive that first registered letter from WaPo's legal team, like TOS did many years back. As for Volokh, he highlights the state/federal laws well enough but I'm not too persuaded by his various arguments. A lot of wiggle room with the KY RFRA and federal RFRA though. Any federal judge worth his salt could drive a Mack truck through all those loopholes and arrive at any number of outcomes.
Trump, trump, trump. Is that all we hear about any more? LOL
But it is not "Kim Davis, private citizen" signing those licenses. It is "Kim Davis who embodies the lawful authority of an elected Kentucky county clerk". It's silly to pretend that an official signing a document is rendering a personal political or religious decision. They are certifying, as required by law, that the applicants have met the state's (or federal) requirement to receive said license. She has no basis at all to refuse on religious grounds. That she discriminates against hetero couples just as much as gay couples in a way to shield herself only compounds her guilt. Even by her own standards, she has and is violating the rights of the vast majority of couples (straight) applying for marriage licenses in her county. I've begun to think she should be prosecuted and spend 6 months to a year in jail or in a state prison.
LOL. But this discussion seems to be touching on some of the points made by the Magdeburg magistrates. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
I'm beginning to thing that the only way to defeat the American government is massive lawbreaking. The political system has written rules to make it very difficult for the people's will to express itself, but very easy for very rich people to get what THEY want. And the electoral system has been corrupted by electronic voting machines fulfilling Stalin's dictum that it doesn't matter who votes but who counts the votes. Given that control of the government has slipped from the public's grasp, the public should slip the bonds of the rule of the government's law, as the government is no longer legitimate. Massive lawbreaking on a modest level would be a terrifying wake up call to everybody, because it would demonstrate, peacefully, that the people actually CAN tear up all of the contracts and, say, stop paying their mortgages and their taxes and credit cards - revoke their contracts. The system would collapse from that much more quickly than it could assert its control. The last Viceroy of India said that he was pleased the British were allowed to make an orderly exit, because if the Indians had simply refused to pay their taxes British rule would have fallen apart completely in two weeks. That's the truth of it. The political system is so completely corrupt now that we in fact have taxation without representation. A peaceful shot across the bow of government - a week of universal disregard for some law - would be good tonic for the system. Davis believes what she believes, and to the extent she is wrong about that, it's only because Christians in general do not get the Law (of God) quite right. Given her (and their) understanding of it, drawing the line by refusing to obey bad law has promise, because it could motivate millions of people to break the law, and derail the system itself. That wouldn't be a bad result. But it doesn't seem likely to happen here, because of the woman's past, which Christians should overlook, but won't.
“Divine laws necessarily trump human ones.” -The Magdeburg Confession, 1550 Luther was right about a lot. But then, so was ________.
Actually the confession happened after Luther and after a lot of bloodshed on both sides, which we have lamented on in the past. Was I supposed to guess how to fill in your blank above? Is is Pope Leo X:) "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
I grasp the argument. As CA and other states have designated sanctuary cities and CO and other states have flouted federal drug laws. I'll skip detailing all of Odinga's lawlessness in the interest of brevity. Maybe the Dems won't respect the rule of law until we demonstrate that we are as willing to violate any rule of law as thoroughly and outrageously as they do. It is quite a stretch to argue that lawlessness is the best way to combat lawlessness. This is the obvious weakness of adopting a retaliatory lawlessness strategy. You'd also really need to hold the White House before you tried it. You need an Enabler-In-Chief to keep the various federal agencies off your backs.
Not true. If a reasonable accomodation is available, then it is usually required. I keep hearing the talking heads saying that Kim Davis agreed to the judge's terms, but I see no such agreement reflected in the Order. I see only his Order.
Not handing out licenses to heteros is not discrimination. Not handing out any licenses at all is not discrimination and she has not been charged with discrimination. What Federal crime are you going to convict her of? The State has taken no action against her. She is certainly not in violation of the State laws.
Not if the revolt is big enough, and involves massive default on monetary obligations.
Really, just about anybody's name will fit that blank.
She had handed out licenses to straight couples for years. Her sudden refusal to hand out licenses when some of the applicants were same-sex tells any court all they need to know. No judge will be fooled by this amateur window dressing.
Of course! She believes in marriage, and gays getting together isn't marriage. So she refused to call it marriage, and refused to hand over a certificate that said it was marriage. If she handed them out just to heteros, it would be discrimination on the face. By refusing the hand them out at all, under her name, she avoided the direct offense. The mighty government came down and jailed her. Then let her go when it got its way. Once again the government takes the side of evil. Once again, yet another Republican judge comes down on the side of wrong and commits oppression in support of evil. And Christians are forced to choose between their state and its laws, or their God. This time, this woman chose her God. And many Christians criticized her. I was inclined to criticize the logic, but mainly to keep her out of jail. I'm more of the subtle-as-serpent type. She is unsubtle and straightforward and honest - and that is good, actually. Christians are going to be challenged more and more. We see bakeries shuttered and people bankrupted because they won't make wedding cakes for gays. And we see photographers broken because they won't photograph gays. Christians shatter and divide over these things. I think more and more that the ones who defy the law are the holy ones, and the ones who try to defend the law or the honor of the state, are the ones who are siding with evil, because they fear confronting it, and because they have made an idol of the law. I'm halfway there. I DO fear the law and what the state can do. I have obligations, people depending on me. I cannot afford to make a beau geste that will imperil other people. So I will opt to be subtle as a serpent. But I'm not going to try so hard to criticize the braver ones. In fact, I admire them, and I'm going to root them on. For a time I was inclined to try to make peace with Caesar. I was also inclined to take the traditional read of Paul that would have "rulers" mean civil authorities. But I'm more inclined to read rulers as meaning ecclesial authorities, and not the state at all. The bonds of loyalty are snapping, because the country is just too evil. My ancestors left countries in Europe because they became too evil for their blood. America now has the most liberal abortion laws in the Western world, and a very aggressive approach to gay marriage that seeks to visibly crush, as an example, people who stand up to it. More and more, it seems as though the system itself is evil, the people who man it are evil, and that's erasing any residual feelings of affection I had for it. I felt sorry for her all along. Increasingly, I think she is right.
You're being silly and you know better. The sudden change in her behavior makes it clear she is discriminating and knows that she is, hence her attempt to avoid prosecution by shielding herself with the refusal to issue any marriage licenses, including those she had issued for years with no problems. No federal judge will fail to discern her motives or fall for her amateur legerdemain.
She has the right to discriminate. God discriminates against gays. She's following his law.
An argument that would get you laughed out of any courtroom. And you know it.
Of course I know it would get me laughed out of the courtroom. "I am the Son of God" got Jesus laughed out of a courtroom too. Those judges are not laughing now. My point is that there are two realities. A temporary, artificial, human law reality that only lasts for a short time and then is gone with the wind. That is the reality of Supreme Court decisions and laws and politics. And then there is the permanent reality of God's law, with Heaven and Hell at stake for each man. That is true reality. Nothing done in the transient reality should risk that true reality. But that is what is happening. We have a legal system and a culture that believes more in its own philosophies than in the Truth, and that has set itself with a will directly against the truth on so many things that it is not possible to actually enforce American law and still keep the Law of God. The former has been structured to directly attack the latter. I take the "subtle as serpents" approach to these things. I would not go into a courtroom. I would try to show Mrs. Davis the truth about marriage licenses - that they are nothing, meaningless - that they are the equivalent of meat sold at the marketplace sacrificed to idols: the idols are not real, and you know it, so there is no sin in eating the meat. I would hope that by facing the full truth she would not enter into the full on conflict with the authorities that will have her laughed out of court into a jail cell - even though she is right and the judge has imperiled his own future horrendously by oppressing her. I would try to persuade her to be strong and remember the truth, and not become entangled in superstitions about idols. You're not serving an idol if you do not believe in it. But if those words were unpersuasive to her (and they seem to have gone right over everybody's head here too, because people here are so angry about the issue that they just can't pull back to see the overarching theology), if she is one of those who is weak and really sees the meat "sacrificed" "to idols" has being really sacrificed to idols, such that eating it is idolatry, well then I would encourage her to be strong in facing the martyrdom coming her way. Christianity survived its early trials BOTH because some people were strong and went to the lions, inspiring others, but ALSO because most were quiet, passive, subtle as serpents, maintained their faith within but shrugged their shoulders at the outward demands. This allowed them to SURVIVE. Had every Christian been a lion and strode into the arena, there would have been none left. Christianity survived because most Christians were subtle as serpents - and under God's law, deceit of the enemy is a legitimate tactic in warfare. Christians must be honest in their dealings, BUT Christians can lie in warfare as a tactic against their enemies, just as Hebrew prophets under the law deceived their enemies in order to defeat them. The Falun Gong in China are aboveboard, passive, straightforward. And Falun Gong will not be around in a century to be a new Christianity, because the Falun Gong are not subtle. The openly defy, and they openly die. Christians both openly defied, but much moreso quietly resisted, passively (and with the deception permitted to warriors of God, when necessary), and actively when they dared risk it. This is why Christianity wore out the Empire. The Christians presented an ever-shifting, and growing, mosaic of people, some of whom were lions who inspired others by their martyrdom, and others who were serpents who preserved themselves, their families and those around them by dissimulation, while expanding the reign of God through silent marches in back passages. Both the lions and the serpents advanced the cause. Davis here was a lion. I am pleased she is out of prison. Her example will embolden other Christians: the state really can't do much to defiance. It can jail you - at significant cost to itself. If poor Christians, especially, take a tough stance and refuse to back down, they can become so numerous that they act as support for each other in prison - a political prisoner class - and they can begin to impose immense costs on the state which the state is ill-prepared to bear. Christians outside can visit them (as we are supposed to do) and provide them succor and support - and jobs and reinsertion into society when they come out. Christians should actively discriminate in their hiring practices in favor of other Christians, just as Jews have done for centuries. If this nation wants to go to war with the reign of God, then Christians need to rise to the challenge, undermine the nation just as they undermined Rome, and through their superior cooperation with one another, cause a new thing to be born. It is clear from the pagan's behavior that Christians and pagans really cannot any longer live side by side in peace. The pagans are waging war on the Christians, and stepping up their attacks. The Christians have been torpid, in the lazy and excessively hopeful belief that it was a "Christian" nation whose traditions would prevent persecution of Christians. But that is no longer true. The nation has turned on Christ. Therefore Christians must undermine it and destroy it, and replace it with a Christian government. If they won't, then the Muslims will eventually get here and do it, as they are in Europe.
What was Luther "right" about? You can identify his "righteousness" can't you?
He was right about the absurdity and wrongness of selling forgiveness.
"since Stanley converted to Islam about a month after becoming a flight attendant for ExpressJet.
#2. To: misterwhite (#1)
I'll get a job as a bartender, convert to Islam, refuse to serve customers, then sue for religious discrimination when I'm fired.
#3. To: cranky (#0)
#4. To: cranky (#0)
#5. To: TooConservative (#3)
So do the supporters of the KY county clerk who won't issue sodomy marriage licenses also support this Muslim's right to refuse serving alcohol as part of her legally prescribed job duties?
#6. To: sneakypete (#5)
#7. To: cranky (#0)
#8. To: cranky (#0)
I tried to relax. “What do you want to talk about?” I said.
#9. To: TooConservative (#6)
A county clerk is not the best choice to try to overrule a Supreme Court decision.
#10. To: Vicomte13 (#7)
And it is not against the Koran to serve alcohol to infidels. It is against the Koran to drink it.
#11. To: TooConservative, cranky, All (#3)
So do the supporters of the KY county clerk who won't issue sodomy marriage licenses also support this Muslim's right to refuse serving alcohol as part of her legally prescribed job duties?
#12. To: TooConservative, cranky, All (#11)
#13. To: TooConservative (#3)
So do the supporters of the KY county clerk who won't issue sodomy marriage licenses also support this Muslim's right to refuse serving alcohol as part of her legally prescribed job duties?
#14. To: A K A Stone, SOSO, sneakypete (#13)
Your statement reeks with support for sodomites.
#15. To: TooConservative (#14)
What if she ran across a Catholic or Church of Christ or Jehovah's Witness serving as a county clerk who don't believe in divorce.
#16. To: TooConservative, liberator (#3)
So do the supporters of the KY county clerk who won't issue sodomy marriage licenses also support this Muslim's right to refuse serving alcohol as part of her legally prescribed job duties?
#17. To: TooConservative (#14)
I'm asking if conservatives now support the "right" not to do the job an employee (or public official) agreed to do (instead of resigning from that job).
#18. To: All (#17)
What if she ran across a Catholic or Church of Christ or Jehovah's Witness serving as a county clerk who don't believe in divorce.
#19. To: redleghunter (#16)
Yes I support this Muslim woman.
#20. To: Vicomte13 (#7)
#21. To: Fred Mertz (#15)
so she's allowed to impose her religious beliefs on others now.
#22. To: sneakypete (#9)
(Edited)
Who knows where this thing will go if the fundie leaders can put their petty jealousies and greed behind them long enough to unite?
#23. To: Fred Mertz (#15)
That didn't work out so well for her. I predict she'll be in jail until the GoFundMe money runs out.
serial adulteries...ahem...marriages this son was a product of, particularly considering his possible status as a bastard child of this woman's adulteries. According to a k a Stone she has since found religion herself recently - so she's allowed to impose her religious beliefs on others now.
#24. To: A K A Stone (#21)
I don't associate with queers.
I used to be tolerant of them. No more.
#25. To: SOSO (#11)
#26. To: TooConservative (#24)
I don't associate with queers. How do you know?
#27. To: redleghunter (#25)
I support the Muslim woman. Serving alcohol to passengers is such a small part of her job. There are plenty of flight attendants who don't have a conscience issue with doing so. So let them serve it.
#28. To: redleghunter (#25)
Judge not unless we want to be judged.
#29. To: TooConservative (#23)
...marriages this son was a product of, particularly considering his possible status as a bastard child of this woman's adulteries.
#30. To: TooConservative (#14)
I'll point out that the KY clerk is on her fourth marriage. What if she ran across a Catholic or Church of Christ or Jehovah's Witness serving as a county clerk who don't believe in divorce. Does this much-married KY clerk think they should have the right to refuse to issue her and husband #5 a marriage certificate?
#31. To: Fred Mertz (#29)
Now she's on hubby #4 and she has found religion.
#32. To: Fred Mertz (#29)
Got it?
#33. To: A K A Stone (#19)
#34. To: A K A Stone (#31)
#35. To: A K A Stone (#32)
That is not proper english[sic].
#36. To: Fred Mertz (#15)
so she's allowed to impose her religious beliefs on others now.
#37. To: redleghunter (#30)
But to answer the question. Yes I believe a Catholic if they knew she was previously married and divorced should have the liberty to refuse her a marriage certificate.
#38. To: TooConservative (#23)
Wow, that is handy.
#39. To: redleghunter (#25)
Why do so many people want to create conscience crisis to make them viloate their values.
#40. To: A K A Stone, nolu chan, SOSO, sneakypete (#17)
(Edited)
Please cite the Kentucky law that authorizes her to issue faggot pretend marriage licenses.
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967),[X 1] [X 2] is a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court, which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage. Sixteen states saw their anti-miscegenation laws overturned by Loving v. Virginia in 1967:
Arkansas (1836)
Delaware (1787)
Florida (1845)
Georgia (1788)
Kentucky (1792)
Louisiana (1812)
Mississippi (1817)
Missouri (1821)
North Carolina (1789)
Oklahoma (1907)
South Carolina (1788)
Texas (1845)
Tennessee (1796)
Virginia (1788)
West Virginia (1863)
#41. To: redleghunter (#30)
I believe her divorces happened before she became a Christian.
#42. To: A K A Stone (#28)
#43. To: Fred Mertz, redleghunter, nolu chan (#29)
My friend educated me on her marriage journeys...
Marriage #1 hubby was not the father of her twin boys - marriage #3 hubby was.
#44. To: Fred Mertz (#29)
Marriage #1 hubby was not the father of her twin boys - marriage #3 hubby was.
#45. To: Fred Mertz (#37)
I saw your previous comment also. I'm finished here. No reason to beat a dead horse. There are laws I don't agree with morally, like abortion, but what am I going to do? Burn down Planned Parenthood offices? String up doctors who perform them?
#46. To: SOSO (#39)
Why do people knowingly take jobs that require absolutely legal and overwhelmingly socially acceptable duties? Her protest is pure BS.
#47. To: TooConservative (#40)
#48. To: redleghunter (#47)
(Edited)
You see sodomite marriage akin to interracial marriage?
The sodomites could have found another county to get their false license. But instead they decided to test this woman's conscience.
#49. To: TooConservative (#40)
You mean, the same laws that require her to issue interracial marriage licenses?
#50. To: A K A Stone (#49)
No such thing as interracial marriage.
#51. To: TooConservative (#41)
So pre-Christian divorces can now be consider "free" divorces in moral terms and nothing a person did before becoming a Christian counts against them legally? I bet a lot of convicts would love to hear this news, including plenty on Texas's death row.
#52. To: TooConservative (#48)
She has no more authority to deny a sodomy marriage than an interracial marriage.
#53. To: TooConservative (#50)
Well, Kentucky certainly thought so from 1792-1967 when the Supreme Court finally told them otherwise.
#54. To: TooConservative (#48)
Actually, they targeted her just to persecute her. They went out of their way to force her to refuse them a license. Attention whores.
#55. To: TooConservative (#48)
Both were imposed solely by the fiat of the Supreme Court in the state of Kentucky. And this is a Kentucky county clerk. She has no more authority to deny a sodomy marriage than an interracial marriage. And Kentucky had laws to prevent both sodomy and interracial marriages for a long time before the Supremes struck those laws down.
#56. To: redleghunter (#20)
#57. To: redleghunter, sneakypete (#51)
The SCOTUS by 5-4 tyranny imposed its will on 50 states. A small county in KY just voted 1-0 against their tyranny.
#58. To: redleghunter (#51)
#59. To: TooConservative, A K A Stone (#50)
Well, Kentucky certainly thought so from 1792-1967 when the Supreme Court finally told them otherwise.
#60. To: TooConservative (#57)
(Edited)
#61. To: TooConservative (#57)
she hurts the cause.
#62. To: Vicomte13 (#58)
Paul was a murderer. He was also an Apostle. He certainly should not have been silent because of his past.
#63. To: redleghunter (#59)
Did this clerk refuse interracial marriage certificates? No she did not. So that is irrelevant.
#64. To: Vicomte13, nolu chan (#60)
Where the Supreme Court is wrong on moral decisions that directly contradict the Law of God, the fact that the Law of God has been contradicted in fact DOES give everyone the right to reject their decisions and do otherwise. It's no "arbitrary" if people do that - it's based on a Supreme Law far above the mere supreme court of the united states.
#65. To: TooConservative (#62)
#66. To: TooConservative (#64)
#67. To: Vicomte13 (#56)
When they are shown that God does not command them to do anything like what they are doing they may be abashed and knuckle down to their God's actual law (in which case Davis will issue the certificates and the Muslim woman will serve the drinks). But if they won't, then they can be charged truly with the statement that they are not, in fact, upholding their religion's beliefs or their God's commandments, but simply making themselves a law unto themselves, without Scriptural basis, because they individually and personally don't like something.
#68. To: TooConservative (#57)
The Supreme Court was in error on sodomy marriage (just as they have made grotesque errors in other cases). That doesn't give everyone the right to arbitrarily reject their decisions, government agents -- like much-married county clerks -- least of all.
#69. To: Vicomte13 (#58)
Paul was a murderer. He was also an Apostle. He certainly should not have been silent because of his past. Everybody is a sinner. Once God touches you and shows you the way, you follow that way.
#70. To: A K A Stone (#21)
I don't associate with queers. But if one ever came up and told me they were married. I'd tell them they were full of shit. If they wanted to keep talking about it. I'd knock them out cold.
#71. To: Vicomte13, nolu chan (#65)
Unfortunately, her actual understanding of God's law is incorrect: there's no such thing as a real marriage certificate. These things she issues are not licensing marriage.
#72. To: A K A Stone (#53)
Who cares. It wasn't the truth then or now.
#73. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13, redleghunter, Fred Mertz, sneakypete, SOSO (#61)
#74. To: redleghunter (#16)
The Muslim woman should also not serve pork sandwiches on the flight. Just like when vegans refuse to even handle meat.
#75. To: A K A Stone (#17)
She is in her fourth marriage. Irrelevant. She wasn't a Christian before.
#76. To: A K A Stone (#21)
The truth is the truth. Two men can't be married.
#77. To: redleghunter (#25)
I support the Muslim woman. Serving alcohol to passengers is such a small part of her job. There are plenty of flight attendants who don't have a conscience issue with doing so. So let them serve it.
#78. To: Fred Mertz (#29)
My friend educated me on her marriage journeys this past Friday while we lunched together.
#79. To: redleghunter (#46)
I would agree if she ran for clerk in Kentucky and sodomite marriage was legal. It wasn't when she was elected. KY in fact rejected sodomite marriage. It was against state law.
#80. To: redleghunter (#36)
She is being forced to endorse something she was never elected to do.
#81. To: A K A Stone (#49)
Only one race the human race.
#82. To: A K A Stone (#53)
God made Adam and Eve. We are all decendants of them.
#83. To: redleghunter (#67)
#84. To: sneakypete (#82)
#85. To: TooConservative (#71)
#86. To: sneakypete (#82)
God made Adam and Eve. We are all decendants of them. I guess that makes Cain and Abel MoFO's,right?
#87. To: sneakypete (#76)
#88. To: sneakypete (#80)
#89. To: SOSO (#79)
Then she should resign. The oath she took was to obey the law, whatever and whenever if is passed. How it ends for her is very much in the air. It's hard for me to beleive that she has gained any points with God for refusing to rendering to Caeser what is Caeser's. A state sanctioned marriage is nothing more than a civil union. There is nothing spiritual or religous about it. A state license is not a sacrament, it's in essence a civil contract. Gays will still exist. And just like straights gays will still live together in a sexual relationship. Religions should leave civil union marriages to the stae and deal with a Holy Union (or whatever you wish to call it) that has spiritual and religious dimensions and significance.
#90. To: sneakypete (#75)
Suppose the first three were to other women,and now she has sworn off tuna,and wants to slide up next to you?
#91. To: sneakypete, Fred Mertz, nativist nationalist (#78)
Marriage #1 hubby was not the father of her twin boys - marriage #3 hubby was.
#92. To: redleghunter, TooConservative (#16)
So do the supporters of the KY county clerk who won't issue sodomy marriage licenses also support this Muslim's right to refuse serving alcohol as part of her legally prescribed job duties?
#93. To: tomder55 (#92)
Davis should've resigned
#94. To: tomder55 (#92)
There is the real slippery slope of this issue .
#95. To: tomder55, redleghunter (#92)
We have Baptists who work in our local restaurants waiting tables. One lady a family friend will not serve alcoholic beverages at the restaurant. Too easy, the assistant manager a Catholic serves the drinks.
#96. To: tomder55, nolu chan (#92)
But she was wrong in telling her deputies that they could not issue the licenses even if they had no moral objection to it.
#97. To: TooConservative, redleghunter, (#57)
Actually, we don't know what that county's voters think.
#98. To: A K A Stone (#96)
#99. To: Vicomte13 (#84)
Cain and Abel had sisters, and married them.
#100. To: A K A Stone (#87)
Did your faggot relatives die of aids? Did they spread their fag disease to others?
#101. To: A K A Stone (#88)
Hey "fag gene carrier" Please show us where Kentucky law says she has to marry two faggots.
#102. To: tomder55 (#92)
The Muslim woman should also not serve pork sandwiches on the flight. Just like when vegans refuse to even handle meat.
#103. To: A K A Stone (#93)
Davis should've resigned
#104. To: A K A Stone (#96)
(Edited)
No she wasn't. That is the law.
#105. To: sneakypete (#101)
#106. To: sneakypete (#104)
The law also says there will be no official establishment of religion in this country.
#107. To: sneakypete (#101)
Show ME where it says in Kentucky law that faggots aren't citizens.
#108. To: sneakypete (#103)
I have no trouble at all picturing you and Grand Island volunteering to work as the "modesty police".
#109. To: A K A Stone (#105)
I never claimed they weren't citizens.
#110. To: sneakypete (#104)
BTW,there is no such thing as life after death,and you are NOT going to go to heavy,no matter how much hatred you spew to please your religious masters. You are going to die,and then rot.
#111. To: sneakypete (#109)
(Edited)
Of course you did. How else can you explain them not having the same rights aw other citizens?
#112. To: A K A Stone (#105)
"I never claimed they weren't citizens."
#113. To: misterwhite (#112)
#114. To: TooConservative (#107)
The old sodomy laws never really named any person as a sodomite, they just criminalized sodomy as a behavior.
#115. To: A K A Stone (#108)
I remember when the chicks used to go topless at Caesars Creek Beach. It didn't bother me in the least.
#116. To: sneakypete (#109)
Or are like Obomber and the rest of the left,and wish to create whole groups of "special affirmative action citizens" that have more rights than the rest of us?
#117. To: sneakypete (#115)
LOL!
#118. To: tomder55 (#98)
If you are an official of the state and you are not willing to uphold the law because you have a serious issue of conscience over a particular law, then you should resign.
#119. To: A K A Stone (#111)
#120. To: A K A Stone (#116)
Peter wants special rights for faggots. Because he has loads of faggots in his family. His words not mine.
#121. To: sneakypete (#120)
#122. To: A K A Stone (#121)
I'm not going to search for it. We all read it.
#123. To: TooConservative (#122)
#124. To: TooConservative (#122)
#125. To: TooConservative (#119)
NYSlimes, 2010: Transgender Man Is on Women’s Team
#126. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#123)
#127. To: TooConservative (#126)
Since you allow all the Lefty search engines (used by SPLC and other libs to target conservative sites) to index your entire site and to suck your bandwidth and to collect data on your site members (to build electronic dossiers on them), maybe you should use it to search for these alleged confessions by pete.
#128. To: A K A Stone (#118)
What you are saying is that Christains can't be part of the government.
#129. To: TooConservative, A K A Stone (#122)
I don't recall it, not here or at LP or at TOS. I recall sneaky from all 3 sites, going back to the late Nineties or so. Not that I read every post he has made.
#130. To: TooConservative (#126)
#131. To: tomder55 (#128)
Paul taught us that governments "which exist are established by God.”
#132. To: GrandIsland, sneakypete (#129)
I don't need Pete to fag up the propaganda on LF... I get enough fag indoctrination from TV.
#133. To: buckeroo (#132)
(Edited)
Look what you are personally performing. You are "FAGGIN' UP" the thread.
#134. To: A K A Stone (#127)
The search engines let people find the site. Stumble upon it if you will. I will admit that not many of those people sign up though. But they get to read it if they find it interesting.
#135. To: GrandIsland (#133)
#136. To: TooConservative (#91)
Sounds like the ultimate cuckservative ripoff by hubby #3.
#137. To: Fred Mertz (#136)
(Edited)
#138. To: buckeroo (#137)
#139. To: Fred Mertz (#138)
#140. To: sneakypete (#99)
#141. To: TooConservative (#134)
#142. To: buckeroo (#139)
#143. To: misterwhite (#112)
(Edited)
He thinks that's relevant because he thinks citizens should be allowed to marry whomever they want. Brother-sister. Father-daughter. Three women. Four men. 8-year-olds (hey, they're citizens!)
#144. To: buckeroo (#137)
#145. To: Vicomte13 (#140)
Incest only became a crime under the Laws of God when God revealed that to Moses at Sinai. Before it was revealed, it wasn't.
#146. To: Vicomte13 (#143)
"but the marrying three women part is the best thing that Islam has going for it."
#147. To: Vicomte13 (#144)
(Edited)
"From a spiritual perspective, what happened before 2011 is irrelevant"
#148. To: TooConservative, Fred Mertz (#142)
#149. To: Vicomte13 (#144)
unless she is unforgiving of other people who have sexual sins.
#150. To: sneakypete Too Conservative (#99)
(Edited)
Cain and Abel had sisters, and married them.
#151. To: buckeroo (#131)
So, since Paul taught you everything you know about governments, what did Paul teach you about ISIS?
#152. To: buckeroo (#145)
#153. To: Vicomte13 (#150)
the only difference between the scientific origin of species in which you believe and the religious record is that the religious record gives us NAMES for those early ancestors.
#154. To: Sneakypete, Too Conservative (#150)
#155. To: buckeroo (#153)
You are clueless. I will not say anymore.
#156. To: Vicomte13 (#152)
Incest was required at the beginning of the species. Always is for all species. It's the nature of things.
#157. To: buckeroo (#156)
I have realized, you don't no much of anything.
#158. To: sneakypete (#77)
What right does she have to impose the burden of her work on the other stewardesses? How fair is that to the other stewardesses?
#159. To: SOSO (#79)
Then she should resign.
#160. To: sneakypete (#80)
Correct me if I am wrong,but wasn't a part of her job requirement to follow and obey Ky law?
#161. To: buckeroo (#156)
#162. To: redleghunter (#159)
Why is everyone making special accommodations for sodomites?
#163. To: Vicomte13 (#83)
I suppose that a general rule of conscientious objection based on religious principles is not a bad way to go. The key will be to be sure to apply that where it counts: on things like the draft, or release from military service once one has had a crisis of conscience.
#164. To: TooConservative (#95)
She makes her living off a saloon whose customers are drawn there to drink alcohol to which she objects.
#165. To: TooConservative (#91)
Sounds like the ultimate cuckservative ripoff by hubby #3.
#166. To: (#0)
The parallels to the much-married KY county clerk are obvious.
Muslim flight attendant suspended for not serving booze
I watched an interview on CNN this weekend with Lena Masri, the attorney for Charee Stanley, which had me ready to shut off the television by the time it was over. Stanley is the recently converted Muslim flight attendant who was suspended from her job because she refused to serve alcoholic beverages to passengers. Now she’s bringing suit to demand her job back and the restoration of the “reasonable religious accommodation” she feels she is owed. (CNN)
#167. To: Vicomte13 (#161)
If you trace back your human origins through chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA, you will discover that geneticists speak of chromosomal "Adam" and mitochondrial "Eve".
#168. To: buckeroo (#167)
#169. To: Vicomte13 (#168)
The names are metaphorically given to the original individuals.
#170. To: redleghunter (#163)
#171. To: buckeroo (#169)
#172. To: redleghunter (#164)
I knew that was going to be your response.
#173. To: A K A Stone (#89)
As for the Muslim flight attendant, her complaint is still pure BS.
#174. To: Vicomte13 (#171)
Obviously.
#175. To: TooConservative, A K A Stone, Vicomte13, redleghunter, Fred Mertz, sneakypete (#73)
When this topic has come up in the past, one of the chief differences we noted between the Kim Davis situation and this one is that Judge Day and the rest of the judges in the state are not required to perform any wedding ceremonies. They are legally entitled to do so, but it’s an optional service they can perform above and beyond their normal duties on the bench. But this “ethics investigation” probably never could have taken place had he not made a point of telling his staff to forward the gay marriage requests to other judges. What’s left out of the local coverage above, though, is the timeline. The judge is no longer officiating any weddings at all, but an AP report seems to indicate that his decision was rolled out in stages. (Yahoo News)
#176. To: SOSO (#173)
Religious tyranny is just a foul as any other type of tyranny. If your conscience prevents you from doing a lawful job then find another job. Her refusal to perform gay marriage is totally feeble and inane.
#177. To: redleghunter (#159)
Then she should resign.
#178. To: buckeroo (#174)
Why is everyone making special accommodations for sodomites?
#179. To: Vicomte13 (#178)
My knowledge of the existence of God is based on direct personal revelation and miracle.
#180. To: buckeroo (#179)
(Edited)
That is a fairly limited perspective.
#181. To: Vicomte13 (#180)
#182. To: buckeroo (#145)
Oh Horseshit!
#183. To: Vicomte13 (#150)
(Edited)
And anyway, with Cain, we're talking about our grandfather, because all of us are descended from him.
#184. To: Vicomte13 (#152)
Incest was required at the beginning of the species. Always is for all species. It's the nature of things.
#185. To: redleghunter (#158)
she serves the smelly Muslims on the flight. Everyone wins.
#186. To: redleghunter (#159)
That seems to be an option. Or the sodomites could have went to another county.
#187. To: redleghunter (#160)
It was illegal in KY for sodomite marriage prior to the SCOTUS ruling. She was elected prior to that.
#188. To: Vicomte13 (#161)
Nevertheless at our origins we were in one place, alongside a body of water, eating shellfish.
#189. To: sneakypete (#187)
Was somebody forcing her against her will to not resign
#190. To: Fred Mertz (#189)
If she resigned she would lose her manna from goobermint paycheck.
#191. To: buckeroo (#181)
You consistently discuss "God" as though the Jews invented the creature. That is your problem, not mine.
#192. To: sneakypete (#188)
There is absolutely no proof at all of that being true.
#193. To: sneakypete (#184)
#194. To: Vicomte13 (#191)
[We] been discussing aspects of the moral law revealed by God.
#195. To: Vicomte13 (#193)
Our chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA trace backwards to a singular origin.
#196. To: sneakypete (#183)
BTW,which one of Eve's daughters was humping the go-rilla that fathered the Neanderthalls?
#197. To: buckeroo (#195)
#198. To: buckeroo (#194)
And morality is not confined to Judeo-Christian religions.
#199. To: Vicomte13 (#191)
With our greater knowledge, we can see what God was addressing - for example, with the cleanliness laws.
#200. To: Vicomte13 (#198)
(Edited)
The moral law revealed by God is the only true one that will lead to mankind's ultimate happiness, will cause him to please God, and will give him a place in the City of God in the afterlife, though. That's why it's the only one worth focusing on.
#201. To: Vicomte13 (#197)
Looks like somewhere in East Africa or the Middle East.
#202. To: buckeroo (#199)
#203. To: buckeroo (#200)
Where is this God, so I can admonish the creature for all your silly concepts that do not lead to survival of the fittest?
#204. To: buckeroo (#201)
You are referring to Babylon, correct?
#205. To: Vicomte13 (#203)
You will know soon enough.
#206. To: Vicomte13 (#204)
I was referring to the Great Rift.
#207. To: TooConservative (#73)
#208. To: Vicomte13 (#192)
But you won't take a scientific tone but an angry emotional one. This stuff plays around with your superstitions.
#209. To: Vicomte13 (#193)
Human life did not spring up in a short time over a variety of places. Our chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA trace backwards to a singular origin.
#210. To: tomder55 (#92)
#211. To: Vicomte13 (#162)
Why is everyone making special accommodations for sodomites?
#212. To: Vicomte13 (#170)
#213. To: TooConservative (#172)
#214. To: SOSO (#177)
What if a County Clerk decided only to issue licenses to gay couples and not to straights? Will you still insist that the striaght couples go to another county to get a license?
#215. To: redleghunter (#213)
You are pretty jaded these days.
#216. To: sneakypete (#209)
#217. To: redleghunter (#214)
#218. To: redleghunter (#211)
Why is everyone making special accommodations for sodomites?
#219. To: TooConservative (#215)
I think I'm becoming a grumbly non-voter.
#220. To: TooConservative, redleghunter (#215)
I think I'm becoming a grumbly non-voter. Putting up with people in the party swooning over obvious hucksters like, well, Cain or Carson or Trump has worn thin. It means there is no longer any point in voting at all, and it isn't as though there was any actual payoff for me personally before the GOP party base turned into gullible nutjobs.
#221. To: redleghunter (#212)
On a separate note...the majority Christian denomination in Army Special Forces is Catholic. You gung ho Catholics:)
#222. To: Vicomte13 (#221)
During World War II, the Catholic monasteries and the parishes were THE refuge for Jewish children.
And the Jews remember. When you look at the way Jews feel about Christians, they really distrust the Evangelicals, and they are distant from Protestants, but they feel much closer to and more comfortable with Catholics.
#223. To: TooConservative (#222)
#224. To: cranky (#0)
#225. To: TooConservative, A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#40)
Please cite the Kentucky law that authorizes her to issue faggot pretend marriage licenses.
The Volokh Conspiracy
opinion
#226. To: TooConservative, Fred Mertz, redleghunter (#43)
Court records detail Kim Davis’ turbulent marital history: She has been married to her current husband twice, with a divorce and another husband in between.
#227. To: TooConservative, Vicomte13 (#64)
Where the Supreme Court is wrong on moral decisions that directly contradict the Law of God, the fact that the Law of God has been contradicted in fact DOES give everyone the right to reject their decisions and do otherwise.
#228. To: TooConservative, A K A Stone (#72)
As I understand it, she does not object to recording a sodomy marriage, merely to signing it in advance, considering that she is giving her official blessing to such a marriage in advance.
#229. To: A K A Stone, tomder55 (#96)
But she was wrong in telling her deputies that they could not issue the licenses even if they had no moral objection to it.
The Volokh Conspiracy
opinion
#230. To: nolu chan (#227)
Called civil disobedience, the doers should expect to be fined, go to jail or be mistreated.
#231. To: Vicomte13 (#60)
#232. To: nolu chan, A K A Stone (#225)
NO TEXT - Washington Post source
#233. To: redleghunter (#231)
“Divine laws necessarily trump human ones.”
#234. To: nolu chan (#228)
She objects to having her name on it certifying that is was authorized by her as County Clerk. State law required that her name be on the certificate. If state law changed and took her name off, then she would be accepting.
#235. To: TooConservative (#233)
Trump, trump, trump. Is that all we hear about any more? LOL
#236. To: TooConservative (#234)
I've begun to think she should be prosecuted and spend 6 months to a year in jail or in a state prison.
#237. To: redleghunter (#231)
How very Magdeburg of you:)
#238. To: Vicomte13 (#237)
Luther was right about a lot. But then, so was ________.
#239. To: Vicomte13 (#236)
(Edited)
I'm beginning to thing that the only way to defeat the American government is massive lawbreaking.
#240. To: TooConservative (#234)
She has no basis at all to refuse on religious grounds.
#241. To: TooConservative (#234)
That she discriminates against hetero couples just as much as gay couples in a way to shield herself only compounds her guilt.
#242. To: TooConservative (#239)
You need an Enabler-In-Chief to keep the various federal agencies off your backs.
#243. To: redleghunter (#238)
Was I supposed to guess how to fill in your blank above? Is is Pope Leo X:)
#244. To: nolu chan (#241)
Not handing out licenses to heteros is not discrimination. Not handing out any licenses at all is not discrimination and she has not been charged with discrimination.
#245. To: TooConservative (#244)
She had handed out licenses to straight couples for years. Her sudden refusal to hand out licenses when some of the applicants were same-sex tells any court all they need to know. No judge will be fooled by this amateur window dressing.
#246. To: Vicomte13 (#245)
If she handed them out just to heteros, it would be discrimination on the face. By refusing the hand them out at all, under her name, she avoided the direct offense.
#247. To: TooConservative (#246)
#248. To: Vicomte13 (#247)
#249. To: TooConservative (#248)
#250. To: Vicomte13 (#237)
Luther was right about a lot.
#251. To: buckeroo (#250)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]