|
Real0ne -> RE: Kim Davis' lawyers file new appeal over same-sex marriage license order (11/10/2015 8:34:25 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
A couple of quick points:
1) The woman is divorced and remarried, which technically makes her and her present husband guilty of adultery in the early church. You see, under the law of Moses, a man could give his wife a divorce, freeing him to remarry if he could prove some immoral behavior on her part, there was no divorce just because the man got tired of her, or her him.
Adultery was the only allowable reason for a divorce, which was usually followed by a public stoning.
2) Under the UCMJ, every member of the military has the right to practice his or her religion, those who's religion forbids the taking up of arms serve as medics or other non combat areas.
No officer can order any member of the armed forces to violate their religion.
3) In this case, whether or not she signs the papers is beside the point. As has been pointed out, her signature is not her approving or disapproving of gay marriage, nor does it make her an accomplice to the violation of religious law.
If, practicing one's religion meant the freedom to do everything that the bible commands to be done as penalties for breaking the laws of Leviticus and exodus:
Exodus 21:7
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free as male slaves do."
Exodus 35:2
"On six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be sacred to you as the sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Anyone who does work on that day shall be put to death."
For football players and fans:
Leviticus 11
7and the pig, which does indeed have hoofs and is cloven-footed, but does not chew the cud and is therefore unclean for you.
8Their flesh you shall not eat, and their dead bodies you shall not touch; they are unclean for you."
However, the United States is not subject to the laws of the bible, and until it becomes a christian theocracy, everything this woman is claiming is nothing more than her being a sanctimonious ass, typical of many (not all or the majority of) born again, holier than thou Christians.
If this is such a major issue to her, she has the right to resign, nothing more. And considering the bad publicity she is getting for the county she lives in, Im actually surprised she is still in office.
The woman is divorced and remarried
of course thats irrelevant to this event.
No officer can order any member of the armed forces to violate their religion.
Just civilian courts can force people to violate their rights.
damn maybe we should all join the army so we can have our rights ya think?
In this case, whether or not she signs the papers is beside the point. As has been pointed out, her signature is not her approving or disapproving of gay marriage, nor does it make her an accomplice to the violation of religious law
Also as has been pointed out certifying gay marriages and the proliferation 'gay' forces her into becoming 'an accessory to the commission of a crime against her God'.
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free as male slaves do."
On a kink site where these people get of irrevocable power of attorney? LOL
slavery is alive and well in the US just under a different name. 'National Debt'
"On six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be sacred to you as the sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Anyone who does work on that day shall be put to death."
yep sunday is still a day of rest and its illegal for dealerships to be open and to sell cars etc on sunday in many states. sounds like an established religion to me.
Leviticus 11
7and the pig, which does indeed have hoofs and is cloven-footed, but does not chew the cud and is therefore unclean for you.
8Their flesh you shall not eat, and their dead bodies you shall not touch; they are unclean for you."
Such restrictions exist in Jewish dietary laws (Kashrut) and in Islamic dietary laws (Halal). They are mandated by the Hebrew Bible, and the Muslim Quran, respectively. Among many Christian sects, the restrictions were interpreted to be lifted by Peter's vision of a sheet with animals. However, Seventh-day Adventists consider pork taboo, along with other foods forbidden by Jewish law. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church[6] does not permit pork consumption, while the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria is divided on the subject.[7]
If this is such a major issue to her, she has the right to resign, nothing more. And considering the bad publicity she is getting for the county she lives in, Im actually surprised she is still in office.
If you have the right to shoot your guns, its a right, why didnt you turn them over when the gubmint comes around to collect them? You would fight claiming your right. Well guess what, its her right and she fought as would have I, as would have you if they passed a law that said they could take your guns.
However, the United States is not subject to the laws of the bible, and until it becomes a christian theocracy, everything this woman is claiming is nothing more than her being a sanctimonious ass, typical of many (not all or the majority of) born again, holier than thou Christians.
So then people do not have the right to exercise their religion in your scheme of things after all?
The US is in fact subject to the laws of the bible and the bible of every other religion on the planet.
Read what you said, you are confusing respecting a persons religion with establishing a religion and mixing it up in the same pot. Its does not work that way.
Free Exercise Clause
The Free Exercise Clause guarantees a person the right to practice a religion and propagate it without government interference. This right is a liberty interest that cannot be deprived without Due Process of Law. Although the government cannot restrict a person's religious beliefs, it can limit the practice of faith when a substantial and compelling state interest exists. The courts have found that a substantial and compelling State Interest exists when the religious practice poses a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of the public. For example, the government could legitimately outlaw the practice of Polygamy that was formerly mandated by the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) but could not outlaw the religion or belief in Mormonism itself (Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 25 L. Ed. 244 [1878]). The Supreme Court has invalidated very few actions of the government on the basis of this clause.
As I have stated and as everyone here continues to dismiss WITHOUT reason:
health, safety, or welfare
So which one of those were in imminent danger again?
as a side note, that is aside from the fact polygamy does nothing to endanger health, safety or welfare, anyone here able to pick out a couple other parts that are fallacious orwellian reasoning by the court in reynolds v us?
|
|
|
|
