So, we can arrest Kim Davis now, right?

BedellBrave said:
"...Neither you nor I nor Kim Davis have a “right” to follow our consciences. That’s silly. Our consciences do not wait upon the niceties of rights. I would not protest if higher authorities decided to remove Davis from her position. The law has a proper claim on public life, even if it does not have a final authority over our consciences.

Our legal and political system has no final authority over us, because there is a higher one. At times, one ought not to do what one is told to do. Kim Davis finds herself in just that sort of situation. Good for her. She’s doing something noble: quietly following the dictates of her conscience."

Link
Click to expand...

rallying around a 3 time divorced adulterer

odd choice of nobility.

also, if you believe the rubish i just quoted, then don't put your hand on a bible saying your going to uphold the laws of the land etc. cause that is the highest law she has to answer to for that job.

don't like it? go work in a soup kitchen or a church where you can preach your nonsense and have your fake moral high ground

11988539_10200985869004228_1980855816740898394_n.jpg
 
sturg33 said:
you refuse to answer bc you don't want to expose your hypocrisy... no worries it's not a secret
Click to expand...

sure

believe that if you want

or you could show me a case of that happening and i will give my opinion on it after reading about it

but whatever

now that we got all that out of the way, this thread is about Kim Davis. thanks
 
goldfly said:
rallying around a 3 time divorced adulterer

odd choice of nobility.

also, if you believe the rubish i just quoted, then don't put your hand on a bible saying your going to uphold the laws of the land etc. cause that is the highest law she has to answer to for that job.

don't like it? go work in a soup kitchen or a church where you can preach your nonsense and have your fake moral high ground

11988539_10200985869004228_1980855816740898394_n.jpg
Click to expand...

She became a Christian after those I hear.

Such venom in your words. Interesting.
 
goldfly said:
the people

but it isn't a white and black issue. would be determined in each instance

i would like to see how you are trying to relate this to this topic though
Click to expand...

What people? Not the individual that makes the decision to disobey?

Isn't it obvious how it relates? You think she is doing wrong for not following a law. Are you consistent with that view? No, we all know you are not. You think it is fine to disobey a law or statute you disagree with but not one you agree with and belittle those who do.
 
BedellBrave said:
He's like jello.

I'm not sure why it is so hard for gold to ever give you a straightforward answer?
Click to expand...

I give you answers. You don't like the answers or that I will play your game

Seriously, show me a story of what he described and I will give you my thoughts. The "what if" bull**** is just that
 
I think it's wrong to arrest her. It unnecessarily dignifies her plight. Can't she simply be reassigned to a different job in city hall?
 
Runnin said:
I think it's wrong to arrest her. It unnecessarily dignifies her plight. Can't she simply be reassigned to a different job in city hall?
Click to expand...

Cant reassign an elected official. In most cases they would fine her but the judge thought other people would pay the fine for her so thats why she gets jail time. But look on the bright side, now she has a lot more time to read the bible. Its a win win situation.
 
goldfly said:
I give you answers. You don't like the answers or that I will play your game

Seriously, show me a story of what he described and I will give you my thoughts. The "what if" bull**** is just that
Click to expand...

exactly, sturg always asks for black and white scenarios with no real context. give a legit story, a legit, real life scenario, and ask for comment on that.
 
she is a beautiful "christian" face of hypocrisy.
i'm pretty sure jesus would frown upon her excluding others. but then, they don't actually follow jesus' teachings.
 
If only she realized people like her are why non-nutty religious people leave religion. a lot of younger religious people who have gay friends and family members look at her and are disgusted (not just because of how she looks). jesus isn't on your side, bitch.

"Jesus loves lepers, strippers, HATES THE QUEERS."


already posted this but always relevant
 
You know, Foxworthy said something (roughly) along the lines of "there are plenty of smart people in the south, you just never see them on TV, when there's a disaster and the cameras are out you see some 300 lb woman with wearing a Mumu with her hair in curlers ranting on and on about something". There are LOTS of examples of people of faith trying to be good Christians, doing the right thing, etc., but the cameras are never around to capture that. Here are my opinions on these matters, all at once, for your viewing and ridiculing enjoyment:
1.) Refusing to do your job and grant a marriage license to a same sex couple despite a Supreme Court (and other courts too for that matter) order to do so-----Fail on her part. If following these laws is too much for you to take, get a new job.
2.) Refusing to make a cake for a same-sex couple, seems like a stupid business move and something that in no way encourages or discourages same sex relations should IMO be the right of the business in question, the government should not get involved in something like this. Rosa Parks managed to use the "free market" to correct these sorts of things, why can't today's folks who feel they've been wronged?
3.) Same sex couples demanding to be married in a church by a minster who feels this would be against his/her beliefs? I'd side with the minister, period. Oh and for those insist this will never happen, HAH!! It absolutely WILL happen, in fact I'm surprised it hasn't already happened.

OK, have a nice Labor Day and while you're enjoying it, remember that it sure as hell wasn't because of the "kind Christian charity" of management/ownership that this holiday that you're enjoying was established but because of those nasty labor unions, who really can be a "pill" sometimes made it so.

Surely this post ought to give everyone from all points of view something to be pissed about, so here you are, enjoy!!! :icon_biggrin:
 
most of my friends and family are religious but they're just not ****ty people like this lady.

i don't care if a minister doesn't want to marry a same-sex couple. i think this request, if it comes up, will be few and far between.
 
yeezus said:
If only she realized people like her are why non-nutty religious people leave religion.
Click to expand...

If people actually 'leave religion' because of other people then they gloriously missed the entire point -- which I guess speaks more to intellect than anything else.
 
yeezus said:
exactly, sturg always asks for black and white scenarios with no real context. give a legit story, a legit, real life scenario, and ask for comment on that.
Click to expand...

It's a pretty straight forward question. Would you support a gay business refusing service to this woman?

Why is that a BS question to ask? Because you don't like the answer?
 
BedellBrave said:
"...Neither you nor I nor Kim Davis have a “right” to follow our consciences. That’s silly. Our consciences do not wait upon the niceties of rights. I would not protest if higher authorities decided to remove Davis from her position. The law has a proper claim on public life, even if it does not have a final authority over our consciences.

Our legal and political system has no final authority over us, because there is a higher one. At times, one ought not to do what one is told to do. Kim Davis finds herself in just that sort of situation. Good for her. She’s doing something noble: quietly following the dictates of her conscience."

Link
Click to expand...

Kim Davis likely raised her right hand and took an oath of office that dictated she follow the law in the execution of her duties. She has refused to do so. She could choose to resign from office if her beliefs were threatened by the execution of her duties, which would have been the noble thing to do in this instance. What the folks over at First Things fail to understand is that if elected executive officials start picking and choosing which laws they are going to enforce and which ones they are going to ignore, what does that do to the rule of law? I also find Reno's logic laughable in that "the other side does it, so why can't Kim Davis?" I always thought two wrongs don't make a right.

I imagine there are plenty of secretaries of state and local election officials who, by conscience, would love to ignore the tightening of voter identification laws and many Americans would sympathize with them if they refused to tighten the requirements for voting, but again, doing so would ignore the rule of law. There are a litany of other duties elected officials could choose to ignore and anger the left or the right in the process, but that is not what the proper application of secular authority is about.
 
sturg33 said:
It's a pretty straight forward question. Would you support a gay business refusing service to this woman?

Why is that a BS question to ask? Because you don't like the answer?
Click to expand...

Because there is no black and white answer.
 
sturg33 said:
While I support gay marriage, what an unbelievable ridiculous ruling by the supreme court to undo state's rights like that.
Click to expand...

I think one should be careful when playing the states' rights card. The Supreme Court also overrode states' rights on issues of racial discrimination. When it comes to the failure to recognize the rights of some citizens, the 14th amendment is going to take precedence over states' rights. We can argue whether or not this should apply to the rights of homosexuals both inside and outside of the marriage issue, but this Supreme Court went the 14th amendment route.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top