quote:

The constitution protects the free exercise thereof...that's it. The rights all people are to enjoy irrespective of their religious beliefs is equality before the law, that law also now allowing that equality to extend to gay marriages.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

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.

Once again RO, this 'religious belief system'...is a non-system. Here's a philosophical term...bullshit.

As an alleged practicing catholic and after putting 4 daughters through private catholic schools, a close friend and businessman from back east, goes to church on Sundays, and on Monday, sells his neighbor an $8,000 job for $12,OOO, goes to church the next Sun. and on Monday, fucks his neighbor's wife, goes to church the next Sun. and on Monday, cheats on his taxes. OOOHH but brother...he 'believes.'

Belief systems so-called, are a matter of convenience of conscience...it's that simple. Communists, fascists, monarchists, all...have belief systems.

yes for some unscrupulous slime of the earth people giving religion lip service that is true. no doubt.

But these people none the less have their religious rights protected by the constitution.

That and unlike the majority of posters here, these constructs have a basis in an argued under the rules of 'reason and logic' at a much higher academic level. The people here just post what think or what they want it to be, or what they would like it to be, not what it really is.

In fact I have only seen one other poster who seems to understand the scope of its meaning.

Look man, you are beating a dead horse. The constitution protects the free exercise thereof...that's it. The rights all people are to enjoy irrespective of their religious beliefs is equality before the law, that law also now allowing that equality to extend to gay marriages.

Now Davis can have a religious belief that would have her hate the very idea of gay marriage but those beliefs or her 'belief system' do not in her 'free exercise thereof' bestow upon her any right as a govt. agent duly bound, to deny the gay applicants their equality under the law...simple as that. If she still finds that just too much, she resigns...simple as that.

BTW polygamy has been flat out prohibited by law denying Morman's their free exercise thereof and violating their belief system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

The constitution protects the free exercise thereof...that's it. The rights all people are to enjoy irrespective of their religious beliefs is equality before the law, that law also now allowing that equality to extend to gay marriages.

It's worth adding that some of us--many Episcopalians, for example--celebrate gay marriages as part of our free exercise of religion. Are those free exercise rights less valid than Davis's?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
well the bible proves that it is in fact a religious matter.

when you go to court for a traffic ticket they do not dredge up and re-try everything you have ever done in your life. All other things she did is not the subject matter of the case. (in other words real courts especially federal court is not even in the same universe as judge judy made for tv) For divorced people she would have no way to know if they were divorce on its face. The only way should know is by researching the people before certification and that would remove her protection and drop the corporate veil making her liable to a personal suit.

It's not on their face. It's on their application for the marriage license.

quote:


Application:

Information needed (from both applicants) to complete the application includes:

Name & address

Date of birth & age

Place of Birth (If in KY give county, in another state give state)

Father’s name

Mother’s first & maiden name

Current status of bride & groom (Single, Divorced, Annulled, Widowed)

Number of previous marriages of both applicants

Occupations of both applicants

Race of both applicants

Whether applicants are related (First & second cousins are not permitted to marry in Kentucky)

Date of marriage

***


Previous Marriages:

If previously married, applicant must provide documentation to prove a previous marriage has been dissolved either through death or divorce.

Link for reference: http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/marriage-license/kentucky/clerk-recorder/county-requirements.shtml

In other words, every person applying for a marriage license who has been married prior has to show the documentation for why the prior marriage is no longer valid. For the application to be processed, that means showing proof of divorce.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

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.

Once again RO, this 'religious belief system'...is a non-system. Here's a philosophical term...bullshit.

As an alleged practicing catholic and after putting 4 daughters through private catholic schools, a close friend and businessman from back east, goes to church on Sundays, and on Monday, sells his neighbor an $8,000 job for $12,OOO, goes to church the next Sun. and on Monday, fucks his neighbor's wife, goes to church the next Sun. and on Monday, cheats on his taxes. OOOHH but brother...he 'believes.'

Belief systems so-called, are a matter of convenience of conscience...it's that simple. Communists, fascists, monarchists, all...have belief systems.

yes for some unscrupulous slime of the earth people giving religion lip service that is true. no doubt.

But these people none the less have their religious rights protected by the constitution.

That and unlike the majority of posters here, these constructs have a basis in an argued under the rules of 'reason and logic' at a much higher academic level. The people here just post what think or what they want it to be, or what they would like it to be, not what it really is.

In fact I have only seen one other poster who seems to understand the scope of its meaning.

Look man, you are beating a dead horse. The constitution protects the free exercise thereof...that's it. The rights all people are to enjoy irrespective of their religious beliefs is equality before the law, that law also now allowing that equality to extend to gay marriages.

Now Davis can have a religious belief that would have her hate the very idea of gay marriage but those beliefs or her 'belief system' do not in her 'free exercise thereof' bestow upon her any right as a govt. agent duly bound, to deny the gay applicants their equality under the law...simple as that. If she still finds that just too much, she resigns...simple as that.

BTW polygamy has been flat out prohibited by law denying Morman's their free exercise thereof and violating their belief system.

Well the klien case is cut and dry, the state simply stomped on their religious rights.

and like you said with the mormons, amish and virtually all religions have been stomped on by the state.

That is no different than before the revolution, the king said this is the way its a gonna be and thats the way it was.

What changed? Not a damn thing. So much for the glorious revolution.

When it comes to davis if what you said were true then it has to apply across the board. Its does not.

The state is not above the constitution which is what you are saying.

At least not legitimately despite people worship the state like a god and place them above the constitution is a psychological issue not a legal one.

The bottom line is that the state has no authority to do anything entangling itself in religion. Which is not to say there is no gray area there always is but this is not it

This is cut and dry violation of davis rights to force her to sign certs for gay marriage.

You and everyone else needs to understand that there is HUGE money in this as well as tracking info etc etc.

Many years ago all it took was an affidavit from the parties in most cases filed for free. The same methods work today, but them the gubblemint does not make the money.

Its all about money.

The gub should get out of the marriage and religion business since they did not belong there in the first place

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
...
When it comes to davis if what you said were true then it has to apply across the board. Its does not.

The state is not above the constitution which is what you are saying.

At least not legitimately despite people worship the state like a god and place them above the constitution is a psychological issue not a legal one.

The bottom line is that the state has no authority to do anything entangling itself in religion. Which is not to say there is no gray area there always is but this is not it

This is cut and dry violation of davis rights to force her to sign certs for gay marriage.
...

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


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


I do not believe you think at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Last comment. Ms. Davis upon taking the position in govt., thereby becomes duty bound to and must relinquish or subjugate her religious beliefs to, comply with the law. If she does not wish to do so, she can resign the position.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
...
When it comes to davis if what you said were true then it has to apply across the board. Its does not.

The state is not above the constitution which is what you are saying.

At least not legitimately despite people worship the state like a god and place them above the constitution is a psychological issue not a legal one.

The bottom line is that the state has no authority to do anything entangling itself in religion. Which is not to say there is no gray area there always is but this is not it

This is cut and dry violation of davis rights to force her to sign certs for gay marriage.
...

No one was "forcing" Ms. Davis to do anything and she was free to resign, as is every employee who decides they cannot, for whatever reason, perform the duties of their chosen job.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis has lost another bid to delay issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Thursday denied her latest request for a reprieve.

Davis stopped issuing marriage licenses after the U.S. Supreme Court effectively legalized gay marriage in June. Four couples sued her, and U.S. District Judge David Bunning then ordered her to issue the licenses. He later clarified his order to include all couples, not just the four who filed suit.

Davis' attorneys have appealed that expanded order several times, arguing that the mandate to issue licenses should apply only to the four couples who filed suit. They received licenses during Davis' five-day stint in jail for defying the court's order.

The appeals court again rejected Davis' request Thursday.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis has lost another bid to delay issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Thursday denied her latest request for a reprieve.

Davis stopped issuing marriage licenses after the U.S. Supreme Court effectively legalized gay marriage in June. Four couples sued her, and U.S. District Judge David Bunning then ordered her to issue the licenses. He later clarified his order to include all couples, not just the four who filed suit.

Davis' attorneys have appealed that expanded order several times, arguing that the mandate to issue licenses should apply only to the four couples who filed suit. They received licenses during Davis' five-day stint in jail for defying the court's order.

The appeals court again rejected Davis' request Thursday.

yeh I told you she would get her ass handed to her. from the little I have seen of the those attorneys work on this case she does not stand a snowballs chance in hel of winning and at best will establish some shit precedence. Thats how its done in the big leagues btw.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

where did you find that? I cant put my finger on it.

I just read where the supreme court rejected hearing the case and they are totally silent on it. This shit is a powder keg and they know it.

I hear bad boys bad boys whatcha gonna do when the people come for you. LOL