quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

sorry there is no obvious connection between rome jews and the us gubblemint that applies to this topic.

I can't speak for Kirata, of course, but I'm guessing he was thinking of Matthew 22:15-22.

the problem is the gubblemint is trespassing, matthew has nothing to do with gubblemint over-reach in violation of rights, only taxes.

The question never reaches the issue of rights. She's basing her claim on her alleged Christian morality. But if we credit Christ with some passing knowledge of the liabilities involved, then signing a marriage license doesn't make her complicit in the "sin" of homosexuality any more than paying taxes made a Jew complicit in the sins of Rome. The woman is a fraud.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

The question never reaches the issue of rights because her claim is fraudulent, so whether she has any is irrelevant.

K.

[/font][/size]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

I will explain this, however before I do I need a bit more information.
Why is her refusal "violating a teaching of "Jesus Himself"."? (You say loc cit but there is no reference to this.)
depending on how you answer I may need more information.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

yes its a reasonable question since homosexuality is condemned everywhere throughout the bible and deeply engrained in the christian religion as a sin against God, and since he is saying her take on homosexuality by refusing to be an accessory and accommodating party violates the teaching of jesus christ, which is a direct contradiction to what is generally understood, claiming its cited, where I could find no cite, it requires further explanation to make some kind of sense out of what he is driving at.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

I think she may stand a chance but only because the Fed allowed those of the Sikh faith to wear beards and turbins in the military

KD, not on point. One is private the other is govt. A govt. mandate trumps religious practice. Religious practice is itself...private.

RealOne, that Senate Res. is unmitigated bullshit beyond the DOI.

What lead to the settlement of this land was the Spanish, the French and the English could steal Indian land. Then the colonists revolted against the BOE (Bank of England) only to take what the crown had, buy what they could from the French and then...steal the rest.

Actually I believe it is exactly on point.

AR 670-1 http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/r670_1.pdf Chapter 3 describes the appearance and groom standards of the Army. The federal court created a religious exemption to this requirement. Didn't happen under the UCMJ http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/r670_1.pdf That being said where the military has control over things that otherwise in society we find discusting or undesirable for whatever reason (not mine to understand just comply with). Since the federal court system created an exemption for these federal employees (for those that forgot the military is comprised of federal employees) then she is seeking an exemption for her county job based upon her religion. And she can use t his military exemption as a part of the basis for her appeal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

atheism is not a religion since it does not meet the necessary and sufficient conditions of the definition of religion:

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
a particular system of faith and worship.
a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

another dictionary

: the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

As it seems to me, the elephant in the room is that none of those definitions are sufficiently definitive. Some schools of Buddhism would fail to meet either of the primary definitions, and in both cases the third allows for anything to be a "religion."

K.

In a previous thread I gave a definition that adequately covers the whole enchilada, not some 'this is the usage and how we are abusing word today' definition above.



Its a bit more difficult to understand unfortunately because it requires some background exposure and knowledge of philosophical terms.

we discussed this already.

quote:

Here let me make this super simple; If you sign paperwork certifying and acknowledging the acceptance of zyklon-b sales to the nazis knowing they are going to use it to holocaust jews then you are an accessory to a crime under the state. (or international law more precisely)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Here let me make this super simple; If you sign paperwork certifying and acknowledging the acceptance of zyklon-b sales to the nazis knowing they are going to use it to holocaust jews then you are an accessory to a crime under the state. (or international law more precisely)

Here let me make this super simple: If you think the Holocaust is even remotely comparable to issuing a marriage license to which a loving same-sex couple is legally entitled, then you are a nut job who needs professional help at the earliest opportunity.