What a Good Democrat Christian Woman

[Yinzerlyn]

Just in case anyone wondered.....Kim Davis is a Democrat.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Just in case anyone wondered.....Kim Davis is a Democrat.

Funnier yet. That's why they don't mention her party in the news.

 

[RollRed]

Her divorces took place before she found Christl.

Well isn't that convenient..... The simple fact of the matter is that you can't have employees granted immunity when they refuse to do the job they were hired to do just because they claim that doing so would conflict with some privately held belief they have. Talk about a slippery slope. If a bartender refuses to serve a homosexual because of his Christian beliefs, what happens when the waiter refuses to serve a customer because he cheats on his wife.... or the waitress refuses to serve someone because that person has served time for being a thief? And how exactly do you determine the validity of one's beliefs? If an employee is allowed to refuse to perform a task required as per his or her job description because it conflicts with his Christian or Judeo faith, how do you not grant the same pass to the employee that won't do his job because the moon god Rama-lama-ding-dong that he worships says it's a no no? Sounds ridiculous, buts it's the exact same argument many on the right made when they claimed changing the definition of marriage to accommodate homosexual couples would open the door to people wanting to, and more importantly having the legal right to, marry their dog or their hamster or their favorite candy bar or some such nonsense. Just like the woman who "found Christ" after she was twice divorced now thought it was perfectly within her rights to refuse to issue a marriage license to a gay couple, what happens when the tree trimmer you hired a few years ago to work for your tree trimming business refuses to cut down certain trees because the "Church of the God of Nature" he now attends has made him come to believe that certain trees are "holy trees" and are not to be cut or trimmed or disturbed in any way? Of course it's nonsense, but one could argue all of these different beliefs are nonsense.

 

[EdReed4Prez]

Well isn't that convenient..... The simple fact of the matter is that you can't have employees granted immunity when they refuse to do the job they were hired to do just because they claim that doing so would conflict with some privately held belief they have. Talk about a slippery slope. If a bartender refuses to serve a homosexual because of his Christian beliefs, what happens when the waiter refuses to serve a customer because he cheats on his wife.... or the waitress refuses to serve someone because that person has served time for being a thief? And how exactly do you determine the validity of one's beliefs? If an employee is allowed to refuse to perform a task required as per his or her job description because it conflicts with his Christian or Judeo faith, how do you not grant the same pass to the employee that won't do his job because the moon god Rama-lama-ding-dong that he worships says it's a no no? Sounds ridiculous, buts it's the exact same argument many on the right made when they claimed changing the definition of marriage to accommodate homosexual couples would open the door to people wanting to, and more importantly having the legal right to, marry their dog or their hamster or their favorite candy bar or some such nonsense. Just like the woman who "found Christ" after she was twice divorced now thought it was perfectly within her rights to refuse to issue a marriage license to a gay couple, what happens when the tree trimmer you hired a few years ago to work for your tree trimming business refuses to cut down certain trees because the "Church of the God of Nature" he now attends has made him come to believe that certain trees are "holy trees" and are not to be cut or trimmed or disturbed in any way? Of course it's nonsense, but one could argue all of these different beliefs are nonsense.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/muslim-flight-attendant-says-she-was-unfairly-suspended/

 

[RollRed]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/muslim-flight-attendant-says-she-was-unfairly-suspended/

Exactly....

 

[Troglodyte]

Just in case anyone wondered.....Kim Davis is a Democrat.

Well, she is a public employee. There are also a lot of pro-life, pro-gun, anti-gay marriage democrats who none the less understand they're members of a workers union.

 

[Yinzerlyn]

Funnier yet. That's why don't mention her party in the news.

Yeah....it's pretty rich. Much like people don't mention that Fred Phelps was a Democrat too.

 

[Vis]

Just in case anyone wondered.....Kim Davis is a Democrat.

But only GOP candidates supporting her.

 

[Yinzerlyn]

But only GOP candidates supporting her.

They probably don't know she's a (D).

 

[Vis]

They probably don't know she's a (D).

They know. The Judge in TN is a better story though.

 

[Yinzerlyn]

They know. The Judge in TN is a better story though.

The gay judge who won't marry straight couples?

 

[Vis]

The gay judge who won't marry straight couples?

The Judge who refused to grant a divorce.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/...clines-divorce-case-citing-gay-marria/323201/

A local judge contends the U.S. Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage has derailed Tennessee's ability to determine what constitutes divorce — leaving one Signal Mountain couple married against their will.

Hamilton County Chancellor Jeffrey Atherton denied the divorce petition last week after hearing from seven witnesses and going through 77 exhibits. Among several reasons he cited in rejecting the couple's divorce, one was the Supreme Court's June ruling.

Atherton said the Supreme Court must clarify "when a marriage is no longer a marriage." Otherwise, he contended, state courts are impaired from addressing marriage and divorce litigation altogether.

"The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces," Atherton wrote.

The couple — Thomas Bumgardner, 65, and his wife, Pamela, 61 — were married in November 2002, records show. They had no children together and filed for divorce in September 2014, citing irreconcilable differences.

After four days of testimony, Atherton decided their marriage was not "irretrievably broken," and said it could be salvaged.

The Bumgardners and their attorneys, Jillyn O'Shaughnessy and Pamela O'Dwyer, decided not to comment on the matter.

Atherton's decision follows on the heels of officials in other states refusing to obey the Supreme Court's ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. The most prominent is Kim Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky, who said she invoked "God's authority" Tuesday by denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Davis is scheduled to appear in federal court today for defying several court orders.

Regina Lambert, one of the lawyers who represented Tennessee plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case, called Atherton's reasoning irrelevant.

He knows he's being obnoxious. It's all about a statement he wants to make. So to troll the Supreme Court, this Judge is screwing with these people's lives. I'd petition for his disbarment.

 

[Rod Farva]

Well isn't that convenient..... The simple fact of the matter is that you can't have employees granted immunity when they refuse to do the job they were hired to do just because they claim that doing so would conflict with some privately held belief they have. Talk about a slippery slope. If a bartender refuses to serve a homosexual because of his Christian beliefs, what happens when the waiter refuses to serve a customer because he cheats on his wife.... or the waitress refuses to serve someone because that person has served time for being a thief? And how exactly do you determine the validity of one's beliefs? If an employee is allowed to refuse to perform a task required as per his or her job description because it conflicts with his Christian or Judeo faith, how do you not grant the same pass to the employee that won't do his job because the moon god Rama-lama-ding-dong that he worships says it's a no no? Sounds ridiculous, buts it's the exact same argument many on the right made when they claimed changing the definition of marriage to accommodate homosexual couples would open the door to people wanting to, and more importantly having the legal right to, marry their dog or their hamster or their favorite candy bar or some such nonsense. Just like the woman who "found Christ" after she was twice divorced now thought it was perfectly within her rights to refuse to issue a marriage license to a gay couple, what happens when the tree trimmer you hired a few years ago to work for your tree trimming business refuses to cut down certain trees because the "Church of the God of Nature" he now attends has made him come to believe that certain trees are "holy trees" and are not to be cut or trimmed or disturbed in any way? Of course it's nonsense, but one could argue all of these different beliefs are nonsense.

None of the employees you cite are elected officials. In the incidents you posit the employees would likely be fired or the aggrieved party could go elsewhere or hire another contractor. None of the "religions" you cite are established, recognized religions. And the beauty of freedom of religion is that you don't (or shouldn't) have to "prove" to anyone what your beliefs are or whether they are genuine.

But only GOP candidates supporting her.

Sooo.......they base their support on the merits of the situation rather than what letter follows a person's name? Shameful.

The Judge who refused to grant a divorce.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/...clines-divorce-case-citing-gay-marria/323201/


He knows he's being obnoxious. It's all about a statement he wants to make. So to troll the Supreme Court, this Judge is screwing with these people's lives. I'd petition for his disbarment.

Or is the federal government "screwing with people's lives" and his statement is that they need to leave some things to the state's to decide?

 

[Vis]

None of the employees you cite are elected officials. In the incidents you posit the employees would likely be fired or the aggrieved party could go elsewhere or hire another contractor. None of the "religions" you cite are established, recognized religions. And the beauty of freedom of religion is that you don't (or shouldn't) have to "prove" to anyone what your beliefs are or whether they are genuine.



Sooo.......they base their support on the merits of the situation rather than what letter follows a person's name? Shameful.



Or is the federal government "screwing with people's lives" and his statement is that they need to leave some things to the state's to decide?

When a state decides to discriminate it is wrong. All the Supreme Court did was to limit the power of the various levels of government.

 

[ark steel]

Well isn't that convenient..... The simple fact of the matter is that you can't have employees granted immunity when they refuse to do the job they were hired to do just because they claim that doing so would conflict with some privately held belief they have. Talk about a slippery slope.

So, what you are saying is that there is a specific law that requires the elected official to follow it, that elected official should follow it or be removed from office and/or jailed? Interesting.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

None of the employees you cite are elected officials. In the incidents you posit the employees would likely be fired or the aggrieved party could go elsewhere or hire another contractor. None of the "religions" you cite are established, recognized religions. And the beauty of freedom of religion is that you don't (or shouldn't) have to "prove" to anyone what your beliefs are or whether they are genuine.

"Oh no sir, Festivus is all too real."

 

[Vis]

So, what you are saying is that there is a specific law that requires the elected official to follow it, that elected official should follow it or be removed from office and/or jailed? Interesting.

She's in jail for civil contempt. She can get out anytime she wants.

 

[Steeltime]

When a state decides to discriminate it is wrong. All the Supreme Court did was to limit the power of the various levels of government.

Marital rights and obligations are not and never have been a Federal prerogative. The Supreme Court was just wrong in entering the dispute over gay marriage.

I know that when their side "wins," most feel that the decision is great. However, would we feel the same way if the Supreme Court deemed gay marriage invalid? Wouldn't you say, "What the @#$% business is that of the Federal government?"

And you would be right. Massachusetts is free to recognize gay marriage, as is Hawaii, and on and on. It is no concern of Nevada how Idaho addresses gay marriage, and vice-versa.

Giving the authority to the Supreme Court to render these decisions undercuts individual liberty. I know that is counterintuitive, but accurate nonetheless. Specifically, giving the power to declare public policy and decide issues of personal behavior to the Supreme Court means that the citizens have basically no say in the outcome, nor any means to change the decision. As long as the Supreme Court is "on your team," hey, great.

But that will not always be the outcome. Don't believe me? Just look over the history of gay marriage decisions by Federal courts. Or how about the rights of African-Americans? The Supreme Court did not fix their own terrible decision - the states passed a Constitutional freaking amendment.

So when the citizens of this country invest plenary authority in the Supreme Court to make decisions regarding personal decisions such as marriage, please spare me the sobbing and whining when the same group decides to step in and override state laws giving citizens rights in terms of drug use, or gun ownership, or restrictions on use of property.

 

[EdReed4Prez]

Im just hoping for a federal conceal carry permit to happen. Can't wait for New Yorkers and Californians to start crying about states rights. But seriously, fighting gay marriage is setting the R party back big time IMO.

 

[Rod Farva]

But seriously, fighting gay marriage is setting the R party back big time IMO.

Oh, no doubt. This isn't about that though.

 

[Rod Farva]

When a state decides to discriminate it is wrong. All the Supreme Court did was to limit the power of the various levels of government.

The Constitution reserves ALL rights not enumerated in it to the states, not vice versa.

She's in jail for civil contempt. She can get out anytime she wants.

Just as soon as she abdicates her personal beliefs in one God in favor of a power that would be.

 

[Vis]

The Constitution reserves ALL rights not enumerated in it to the states, not vice versa.

Or the people. The whole problem with the bill of rights is that people think it has to be there to be a right. That' was the debate in the Federalist Papers.

Don't ask me where is says the state can't stop gay marriage, tell me where it says anywhere they can.

Just as soon as she abdicates her personal beliefs in one God in favor of a power that would be.

Religion over law of the land. Sounds sharia-like to me.

When a citizen enters government service, the citizen by necessity must accept certain limitations on his or her freedom. See, e.g., Waters v. Churchill, 511 U. S. 661, 671 (1994) (plurality opinion)

 

[deljzc]

The Supreme Court has always ruled on the state vs. federal government issue when it comes to rights of minorities.

The same "state" argument used against gay marriage was used in the 60's for segregation. Back then, every southern states said the same thing you are saying. That federal government should stay out of it's business and if people don't like their state laws they can just move to a state that isn't segregated.

That's not the way it works.

You can't have families recognized as married in one state, then move to another state and lose civil privileges. You can't file for dual income tax as a married couple in Oregon then move to Texas and not have that same right. You can't have different visitation rights in hospitals. You can't have different rights when it comes to adoption.

This is clearly an issues that has ramifications for people "freedoms" that extends beyond State borders and that's why the Supreme Court was correct in their decision to finally intervene on this matter and makes one thing "Law of the Land" once and for all.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Just as soon as she abdicates her personal beliefs in one God in favor of a power that would be.

However Jesus said "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's", which can be interpreted to mean that it's okay to obey the government.
Contrasted with Islam where they believe that no law is superior to Allah and Mohammed's laws so I don't have to ******* sit down on this airplane and you're not the boss of me.

 

[ark steel]

The Supreme Court has always ruled on the state vs. federal government issue when it comes to rights of minorities.

The same "state" argument used against gay marriage was used in the 60's for segregation. Back then, every southern states said the same thing you are saying. That federal government should stay out of it's business and if people don't like their state laws they can just move to a state that isn't segregated.

That's not the way it works.

You can't have families recognized as married in one state, then move to another state and lose civil privileges. You can't file for dual income tax as a married couple in Oregon then move to Texas and not have that same right. You can't have different visitation rights in hospitals. You can't have different rights when it comes to adoption.

This is clearly an issues that has ramifications for people "freedoms" that extends beyond State borders and that's why the Supreme Court was correct in their decision to finally intervene on this matter and makes one thing "Law of the Land" once and for all.

or we could have a smaller government that doesn't involve itself in whether people are married or not or who as visitation rights in hospitals. People, you know the ones who are supposed to be in charge, could decide those things for themselves. ..