Tell me again how it is you differ from radical Islam
I am Christian and that is the foundation from which I view the world. Although accused of it every time I mention the subject, I have never once tried to force anyone to accept my beliefs. If asked or invited to do so, I will share. I most certainly do believe God blessed all of us with free will – freedom – to choose the path in life that we feel suits us. If you feel that your freedom is derived from some other source or no source, then that is certainly your choice to make. So, it does not concern me that someone chooses another religion or no religion or whatever other path they wish to walk. I do not care if a person chooses to center their lives on an intimate relationship with a person of the same sex. There is a caveat. If your chosen path is to make me accept and endorse whatever it is you believe when it is absolutely contrary to what I firmly accept and believe then as they say over here in the hills, me and you, we going to have us a problem.
As the President’s ineptly named JV team continues their reign of terror across the Middle East great numbers of people are being brutally murdered. I am convinced they have some evil bastard whose job it is to dream up more horrific ways to murder people so they can share their terror with the world. Not only are they wiping out entire villages that do not hold their world view, they are destroying all vestiges of history they come across.
In the land of the free, there is a more sophisticated brand of coercion. If you are a baker and because of your beliefs you refuse to provide a cake supporting homosexual marriage, you will be sued, chased out of business, fined by some philosophically driven judge, and ordered to not speak about it. The same thing will happen to you if you are a florist, a photographer, or own a wedding chapel. Now, we have progressed to the next level wherein we have our first political prisoner. A woman jailed because her religious convictions prevent her from providing a marriage license bearing her name to homosexuals. She will remain in jail according to the judge, until she changes her mind. Until she changes her mind and goes against her conscious and Christian beliefs. In other words, endorse what we believe or we will destroy your life or put you in prison. How exactly does that differ from what is taking place in the Middle East? We have just not arrived at the point of killing people – yet.
There is a tremendous purge of American history happening right before our eyes and being endorsed by every talking head and chickensh*t politician in sight. The evil Confederate battle flag is being banned everywhere. Statues are coming down, schools are being renamed, even idiots wanting to dig up and move the remains of the dead. I read an article in Army magazine recently where some nitwit Army Major insisted that we rename all of those US Army bases that are currently named for traitors and slave owners. I could almost imagine the spit flying out of his mouth while he was pounding on the keyboard. When you are wiping out history, how again is that different from what is happening in the Middle East?
For the County Clerk who is currently jailed I have heard a lot of suggestions. If she refuses to obey the law, then she should be removed from office. That will be acceptable to me right after Barack Obama is removed from office for the same albeit more egregious reasons. Besides, I do not know which law the clerk is breaking. I do not believe a Supreme Court decree is a law. Another I have heard is if she does not want to do that job then she should just get another job. In other words if you choose to not violate your religious beliefs, you are banned from holding public office. There is religious accommodation all over federal and state governments and in the armed forces. Apparently, when it comes to homosexuality there is not. The rainbow flag of terror flies high.
I think I’ll go watch some football. Watching 300 pound men trying to impose their wills on another makes sense to me right now. You bust me in the mouth. I bust you in the mouth. Is that not what it is coming down to right here in the land of the free?
© 2015 J. D. Pendry American Journal All Rights Reserved
Category: Politics
FIRST !!!!
This video was put up on the internet about a year after to 2011 London riots, in which large groups of rioters did their very best to burn that ancient city to the ground. It may be a bit out of date, because of the passage of time, but in view of the current swarms of refugees from Syria overwhelming national boundaries in Europe, and the more recent events in Ferguson, MO, and Baltimore, MD, it may become quite pertinent.
As it is, he nearly sets the screen on fire in the course of making some very pointed remarks. It’s about 5 minutes long.
https://dotsub.com/media/72457cbc-fe18-4053-ae3f-6c7639cf4e79/embed/
P.S. I think I’m in love with this man.
Same for me, and I’m not even gay!
NICE SPEECH, and my sentiments exactly.
You’re in love with him, too? Hey! I saw him first! Piss off!
Maybe we should turn the tables on the left and call for the mayors and other pols lording over “Sanctuary Cities” harboring illegal aliens and watch them screech? The same liberals will screech for abolition of the death penalty and doing all they can to spare the lives of condemned murderers while openly espousing the wanton murder of unborn children. Liberalism IS a Mental Disorder! Look at how the Nazis treated any German who dissented with Hitler and his agenda, and vompare it to how today
s libs treat anyone dissenting with their political agenda, dissent with them and you’re “racist”, Homophobic”, “Isalamophobic”,… I wear those titles with pride the moment some booger-eating Christianophobic, Haplophobic liberal calls me one!
If the town clerk said she was a Muslim and was offended their would be no problem with it.
imho
Yup.
As I have said before, the Baker, Pizzeria owners, Florist and Photographer are all private businesses and so distinct from the public official. I have every sympathy with private businesses wishing to do business consistent with their own values and another individual that they turn down for business can always go to one of their competitors to have the requested work done, I believe this is perfectly consistent with the principle of free association.
Government-holding, as it does, a monopoly on legitimized violence-should be constrained in ways that individuals should not. And so I cannot extend the same benefit to the elected County Clerk.
I believe the clerk asked that her name be taken off the marriage licenses. How hard is that for a government office to do?
In her case, I completely agree with her. I am really fed up with the diktats coming down from on high. I thought we had some choices in this country. They seem to be ebbing away. Perhaps it is time we said ‘Not just NO, but F–K NO.’
Good article, JD, to the point and well done.
The problem is that she is the only clerk in the county who can sign the license. Its not like a pharmacy where a clerk who doesnt believe in birth control can have another clerk step in,, no fuss no muss. The only way for anyone to get married in that county is with her approval.
Unless she is removed from office (or replaced due to being in Jail) no one can marry without her say so.
There are whole states that refuse to issue licenses for same-sex “marriages”, and Kentucky law also does not permit it. She is acting within Kentucky law and the will of the people who put her in office.
“I believe the clerk asked that her name be taken off the marriage licenses. How hard is that for a government office to do?”
That’s literally her only job. Why have chef if the waiter cooks the food and brings it to your table? Who’s name do we put on there? She was coercing all of her employees to also avoid signing.
That’s literally not true.
As county clerk I am responsible for providing many services to the people of Rowan county. These duties include general categories of clerical duties of the fiscal court: issuing and registering, recording and keeping various legal records, registering and purging voter rolls, and conducting election duties and tax duties.
Source: http://rowancountyclerk.com/
You can go to the site and see what the “various legal records” and what other specifics her job entails.
It is far more than just the issuance of a marriage license.
And what’s keeping those same gay Libtards from going to another county?
You’re killing me with the July “What did you suppose will be next? thread, Pendry. Damned if I’m gonna get tied up in another!
The Kim Davis story dominates everything around here right now so much so it’s hard to stay out of it with friends and family to the point it’s a chore to talk about. To me it is very simple: she promised to uphold the Constitution not just the parts she agrees with so she needs to do her job or resign. Until then jail is exactly where she should stay. A lot of people around here think her religious position holds no validity considering her background but on that point I’d give her the benefit of the doubt.
She’s probably safer in jail than at home. People seem to be quite unruly about these things at this point in time.
At least she’s safe from the radical liberals screeching about her like they did on the Christian bakers and their cake fiasco. Maybe i should go to a gay-owned and operated bakery and ask if they’ll bake a Confederate Battle Flag cake for me? If they don’t then it’s my right to picket those racist Confederophobes!!
That’s because your stereotypical redneck moron usually falls back to a position of petty threats and violence. We were at the protests in Rowan County, people on both sides were pretty vocal about what harm they wished to see fall on the opposite side.
I think they have her in a different county though, abundance of caution and all that.
I just don’t follow her logic that providing the license is as good as condoning what they are doing. All it really says is any subsequent marriage would be legal from a paperwork point of view (ie you paid your 30 bucks). Now if she were an official being forced to perform the service that actual makes the union then it would be a whole different story.
Hey Sparkle Pony, look at the radical leftists openly calling for the murder of those people who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding because of their religious beliefs, it happened. I couldn’t care less if someone’s gay or not, but if they are and push it in my face demanding that I openly accept every bit of it, I’ll tell them to go fuck themselves and get out of my face.
First, if you go back and read what I posted I clearly said people on both sides were threatening the other so I’m quite aware there is enough stupidity to go around.
Second, you have made your…..let’s say stance…concerning homosexuality quite clear, don’t worry.
Yes, uphold the Constitution, and her state’s Constitution as well.
Now, the SCrOTUS made a decision that homosexual marriage is the law of the land . . . based on WHAT law, and what part of the Constitution?
Last I heard, there was a DoMA (law? or another out of whole cloth un-enumerated right?) that BODAPreezy said trhat he would support and defend. Now which is it? Can’t have it both ways.
We should probably ask ourselves why the government is in the business of marriage licensing.
While I agree that the clerk doesn’t belong in jail, I also agree with the other side – that she signed on for the job and if she disagrees with what the job entails, she should show some backbone and resign. Then she could be a martyr. Now she’s just a criminal in the eyes of Man’s laws.
It’s different than a baker forced to make a gay cake – the baker is a private citizen with a privately held business. The baker is governed by the laws of economics.
Agreed.
Government officials uphold the Constitution. The US Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to deny anyone a marriage license. Thus those that work for the government have to comply whether they agree wth it or not.
Private citizens on the other hand, should not be forced to comply on their property in their own business. As you said, they are governed by the laws of economics.
If a private business owner refuses to do business with someone based on their beliefs, I see nothing wrong with that. Now in this day and age, it will likely be a business killer to do so, but that should be the proprieters choice. Not a forced one.
Indeed, it’s a frustrating issue to deal with. This is certainly a battle that needs to be fought in the interests of freedom, but her own choices, both in years past and recently, make her situation a poor field on which to fight. Frankly, I wouldn’t be too surprised if the whole scenario was set up specifically to force the battle on terms favorable to those looking to further reduce Christianity’s influence in the public mind. Nothing concrete to support that, of course. Her refusal to take the historically-obvious course of action (and continued incendiary statements) paired with the judge’s decision to go straight to jail time just makes me wonder if it isn’t a setup for maximum outrage knowing there is less solid ground to back that outrage up than another case might have. Anyway, a few thoughts on the issue, though not necessarily tied to her case in particular: First, does a court-declared right hold the same power as one explicitly enumerated in the Constitution? For all that the court claims the right to marry whomever is in the Constitution, you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who can get there without some impressive legalese. When one comes into conflict with the other, I would think the explicit right takes precedence, but maybe that’s just me. Second, even if one assumes that the court’s decree must be taken as absolute gospel and followed accordingly, there is a long history of accommodations made for those with constitutionally-legitimate objections. Why is this situation so different that it demands jail time as a first resort? Should we begin jailing conscientious objectors in the military who refuse to carry arms? Third, a great many people have used “she took an oath to uphold the laws” as another reason she does not deserve any accommodation. This line ignores the fact that the laws she swore an oath to uphold were effectively changed by the court’s ruling. If she entered office after the ruling, I would agree that she could be targeted for breach of oath, but I question whether the oath, essentially a contract… Read more »
Pardon the diversion from my usual shit stirring diatribe. There are occasions, albeit infrequent, when I feel compelled to respond in a much more lucid manner than usual. First, SCOTUS does not declare rights, they interpret rights enumerated in the Constitution. I will be the first to agree that they have, on occasion, stretched the limits of their authority. However, that is the purpose of their very existence. Our founders knew from the beginning that the framework of our government would require an authority that would clarify its intent.
Second, jail time was not a first resort. In due process, her objections were heard, overruled, and she was give ample time to conform to the courts ruling. She could simply recuse herself from the matter.
Third, you bring up a great point. Since the oath was administered with a specific understanding by her that gay marriages would not be done, there was a breech of that oath and it is no longer valid. If she has not valid oath of office, she my not occupy the office.
Forth, I became a little confused here. If you were an employee with a government entity, and your job was responsible for taking my property for some valid reason, the yes you should. Back taxes, unsafe structures, drug trafficking, and so on have become valid reasons to take private property. Your personal opinion, faith based or not, does not effect your responsibility to carry out a court ruling.
Fifth, keeping personal religious dogma out of government is not a slippery slope. It is a wall, the foundation of that wall is deeply entrenched in the constitution.
Great post.
1: “Our founders knew from the beginning that the framework of our government would require an authority that would clarify its intent.” I think you would have difficulty supporting that claim, and therein is the major disconnect. You believe in a “living document” that gets added to and updated without any need for that messy, and politically difficult, amendment process. You need some justification as cover, hence the above statement. It lets you claim that all these new things being added are actually already there, just nobody was smart enough to see them before. I reject the entire premise and dismiss it entirely. The courts are a negative institution; they exist to reject things that do not conform to the Constitution. The plain text of the Constitution does not grant them leave to alter or expand laws or legal rights. 2: What punishment was tried before jail time? Why were no attempts made at accommodation until she was already in jail? I’m not defending her actions, as you should note from my opening above, but the judge went straight for “YOU WILL COMPLY!” instead of trying to work out an arrangement to protect conscience. Your “due process” amounted to “No… no… no… I don’t care. Violate your conscience and follow the magical new law that didn’t exist a month ago or go to jail.” 3: It’s curious that you feel Obama is illegally holding office. After all, the terms didn’t just change for her, and agreeing with the new terms doesn’t change the fact that the oath was to the old terms. Amusing asides aside, I appreciate your admission that the law was substantively changed by the SC ruling. 4: I agree that you are confused since you did not address my questions at all. Either the judge’s order is irrelevant or laws are not binding until one is ordered by a judge to obey them. 5: Separation of church and state was never intended to be the “wall” people like you claim. I doubt asking you to prove the Founders’ intent was to ban people of religious conviction from… Read more »
Ok, I will give it another try. Of course it is a living document. If there was no need to interpret the intent of Constitutional law there would be no need for a Supreme Court. Under your premise only amending the Constitution will do. Ok then, I guess we do away with the Supreme Court and when these pesky little issues come up we go through the amendment process. We go back to 1789 and delete every Court ruling ever made. Nonsense. What punishment was tried? You seem to have a problem understanding that she was given every reasonable opportunity to avoid any kind of punishment. The Court should have removed her from office. Yes, you will now comply after being given ample opportunity and due process to state your grievance and having it declined. I never said Obama was illegally holding office. Damn shame he cant be removed, I would support just about any legal means to do so. The law is relevant, her refusal to obey the law forced the Judge to act. She disagrees with the law, so what? I disagree with seat belt laws, if I do not abide by them I will be punished. I can change the law, but until then I must abide by them. Not sure who people like me are, but I never made any claim that the founding fathers wanted to ban people of religious conviction from holding public office. People may not change the law to meet their own religious dogma and force others to abide by it. A Muslim running the Department of Motor Vehicles may not refuse to issue drivers licenses to women based on his religious beliefs. By refusing to issue marriage licenses as the law has been defined she is forcing her fellow citizens to conform to her religious objections. In fact, using her office to force her religious beliefs on others. Plain and simple. Not sure why you quote Madison as he clearly states that her religious beliefs my not infringe upon the civil rights of others. That is exactly what she is doing.… Read more »
I am not sure I would say that the Court ordering her to issue the licenses is “every reasonable opportunity.” In fact, it sounds more like judicial thuggery. It is stunning that you say the judge should have removed her from office as there is no mechanism for a judge to remove a sitting elected official in the state of Kentucky. Why would you demand that Davis follow the law and then say the judge should have acted contrary to the law and remove her unilaterally? The other issue is that while there is a federal pronouncement on gay marriages, there is also the First Amendment which protects people from the government forcing people to act against their conscience and religious / moral beliefs. In this case, the Federal District Court said her beliefs were irrelevant. Not outweighed by other interests but irrelevant. (BTW – your example of not wearing a seat belt is faulty as there is no Constitutional protection to wear or not wear a seat belt. A better example might be a town that passes an ordinance prohibiting protests in public parks. You might support the ordinance as it “is the law,” but that doesn’t mean the protest is not protected speech and the LAW itself is un-Constitutional.) Whether you agree with it or not, the state of the law in this country is that people can be afforded accommodations that are not overly burdensome when it comes to protecting their religious beliefs. In her response to the complaint, Davis asked that she not be required to sign the license and that her name be removed from the license itself. Kentucky has a “Religious Freedom Restoration Restoration Act” which protects the religious freedoms of people from the government and judges. Part of that RFRA is the idea that when there are two competing statutes, in this case the gay marriage decision and the RFRA, a judge can modify a statute(s) to protect the religious rights of people without being burdensome on a business or public interest. In this case, a judge could simply say that Davis does… Read more »
“We should probably ask ourselves why the government is in the business of marriage licensing”
Jonn, I’ll actually ask an opposite question…why are churches performing gov contracts between two (or more) people? Get clergy out of issuing state marriage licenses (contracts) and allow them to perform a marriage ceremony that conforms to their religious beliefs free of gov intrusions.
A marriage license today is more of a contract between to people than the sacrament that I believe in. The gov already dictates what benefits spouses receive and a gov official can dissolve the marriage, dictating who gets what share of the pie they’re entitled too. Most of the time, there is no clergy involvement in a divorce case. To the church, short of an annulment, they are still married.
I suggest, let the gov issue the marriage license (contract) they want, and then the churches can perform the marriage sacramental ceremony as they believe, thus limiting the marriages blessed by their beliefs.
and… as long as town clerk is a gov employee, she must do what her boss (the people) so order her to do or face the consequences. Being a capitalist, the free market should dictate who and what a private business owner should serve.
just my two cents.
TC, don’t want the cleregy to marry. Use a Justice of Peace or any other lawful enity to marry you,unless you just want to stir up trouble. Around 5 years ago Oklahoma overwhelming by State Voting not to issure same sex licenses. A (federal crout ruled acainst the legally passed law. What are the Feds doing getting into the States Laws before even having a case on the docket? Joe
“We should probably ask ourselves why the government is in the business of marriage licensing.” There’s a buck in it. Ya pays ya fee, ya gets ya license. No fee, no license, though I’m sure there is a waiver for indigent parties. Otherwise, that would be discrimination on account of broke. That’s in the Constitution, right alongside the same-sex marriage provision. If Clong would be good enough to pinpoint the latter, I’ll locate the former.
The constitution is a living document as we have all heard so many times. And while judicial review isn’t explicitly stated, skipping the M v M lesson, it’s been long accepted that the Supreme Court is to have the final say in what is and isn’t allowed in accordance with the spirit of the document. That includes issues of civil rights regardless of how abhorrent we may think of the behavior in question. In agreeing to uphold the constitution she gave her agreement to hold true to everything that rises from it be it legislatively passed laws or judicial opinions concerning those laws. It’s one of the prices we all pay for the privilege of having the system we do. She knew that(God willing) and is now paying the price for not upholding her end.
And no I don’t think an amendment is necessary in the accordance with the living document way of looking at things. Review of existing laws seems to be enough.
Clong. Then what is actually written in the Constitution says doesn’t matter because stuff can simply be added w/o benefit of the Constitutional procedure for changing it. Kind of makes the amendment process superfluous, eh?hi. What the Constitution says (you know, between the lines or through that invisible ink trick) is wholly dependent on what five lawyers say it says. And, of course, since all things die, this document will too. In fact, I see it in its death throes presently, what with literally a few lawyers dictating what is and isn’t in the Constitution. As for Kim Davis, I don’t like her simply because she’s a Democrat.
It’s the system. Like it or not we have to respect it.
“Like it or not, we have to respect it”? Really, I haven’t seen too many on the Progressive side who’ve shut their mouths about Citizens United, and “Like it or not we have to respect it”. Funny how that seems to work in today’s world.
“It’s one of the prices we all pay for the privilege of having the system we do.” I want a refund.
Haha can’t help you there. But if you want to get a little chuckle out of things, our office holders here in Kentucky also have to promise not to engage in duels.
My first response is simply that she voluntarily signed on for the job, so she needs to do her job. Except that this is not the job she was elected to do. The rules changed after she took the job.
So, no, I really don’t think she’s out of line in refusing to do things other than were in her job description when she was elected. Many others have faced similar dilemmas when the laws changed or court rulings changed their job descriptions after the fact. It might have been better had she resigned instead, though.
Devil’s advocate here.
She’s a government employee elected to serve the whole electorate she represents. Rules change so now she doesn’t want to do her job.
Now comes a Soldier who joined during a time when the President supported the troops and pushed to ensure a safe and strong nation. Now there’s a new President who rolls in, changes ROIs, cuts defense and puts troops in unnecessary harms way. The rules changed.
Two questions:
1-what’s really the difference between the two individuals?
2-which one continues to do their job to the utmost of their ability?
Interesting scenario. A solider refusing to do his job would have been locked up day 1 not two months later.
As I understand it from other news sources, Kim Davis has not violated any law.
There is no law requiring, or even permitting, homosexual marriage.
Furthermore, the judge exceeds his authority by, in effect, legislating from the bench.
If this is correct, then Kim Davis was falsely arrested and criminally incarcerated.
I agree with the final paragraph in J. D. Pendry’s post.
There’s going to be bloodshed between Christians and homosexuals, Christians and baby butchers, and for mere survival, between white and black.
“FREEEE-DOMMM ! ! !”
I think many on this board need to review the Bible again (if they are Christian or claim the Bible is against homosexuality), and then review the differences between cultic activities and ethical activities within the Bible; the former being the one in question that brings about the acts of homosexuality and how it is forbidden (but not for what you think).
Secondly, do not bring Leviticus, Sodom, Lot, or any OT cliff notes to the table. Lastly, find in the Bible where Jesus; a rabble rouser who’d rather hang with the undesirables and demonstrate God loves all His children no matter how far they’ve fallen….and find where he said queers, faggots, homos are gross and are going to hell. Oh and then, find evidence that a hell exists; outside the context of she’ol (a darkness/distance/emptiness from God in one’s life). An ACTUAL hell, and no Revelation doesn’t count. Find where Jesus said this.
I’ve had enough of this Christians (straight ones only) versus the world crap. There are a lot of people right now who persecute Christians unjustly, and then many Christians fight back in unjust methods, furthering the stereotype that Christians are hateful towards those who are unlike them.
Next time you look at your crucifix, remember Jesus didn’t die for YOUR sins….that’s crap, a cheap get out of jail pass.
Hit post too soon.
Jesus died because he upset the balance of power….he pissed off people who were corrupting the system, perverting God’s laws and choosing who deserves what and treating their pals better than the rest.
Jesus shook the powers that be and showed everyone deserves love and compassion. Doesn’t matter what cloth you are cut from, be loving and equitable to all.
With regard to the terrorists who are just marxists in disguise trying to bring the whole world down and perverting every law possible, we cannot stand for it. How else will peace be achieved and love shine through? Gays are not evil, blacks, lepers, mexicans, mentally disturbed, and others are not evil and deserve equal love. Terrorists who are killing all to conquer with no plans other than to force their way only on us all is wrong and unjust in God’s eyes. But he gave us this world, set the life in motion and stepped back. This world is ours to care for, we must approach this sensibly and with appropriate actions per each issue.
Whether I agree or not with the intent behind what you wrote, you have a serious error in your comment: to a Christian, it is a fundamental article of faith that Jesus did indeed and in deed die for all of our sins. It is not a ‘cheap get out of jail free card’ which allows someone to excuse any action, any more than the old canard that ‘you can do anything, go to confession, be absolved, and go commit murder or whatever again.’ You cannot disprove an article of faith by simply saying there is no evidence.. by definition faith requires no evidence.
As for politicians and the news media constantly telling us that “radical Islam” is not representative of the majority of the members of Islam, I’m reminded of a “SIXTY MINUTES” broadcast following the attacks of Tuesday 11 September 2001, in which Islamic high school students in New York City were interviewed, and unanimously supported the actions of the Islamic jihadists.
And, can any of us forget and/or ignore the joyful Palestinian Arabs dancing in the streets and distributing candy, as they spontaneously celebrated upon hearing news reports of the attacks of Tuesday 11 September 2001?
If you think supporting Kim Davis is a good thing, religion has probably retarded your mind.
Support her and you support a Muslim working at DMV refusing to issue driver license to women.
You support Mormon’s working at Starbucks refusing to serve coffee to customers.
You support Scientologists working at CVS refusing to selling aspirin.
You support Jews working at Walmart refusing to sell regular pickles.
You support not using your brain to think things through before you open your mouth or pounce on a keyboard.
Yes, history has been forgotten. We have forgotten that this nation was founded on the idea that your personal religious belief is not more important than the beliefs of your fellow citizens.
If you think drinking the blood and eating the flesh of a two thousand year old Jew is a good thing, I think religion has bent your thinking.
If you think punishing the children of someone who has committed an offense is a good thing, something is wrong with your thinking. Teaching children that they are guilty of sin because some very distant retaliative offended an invisible man in the sky is just stupid.
If you think a bush burst into flames and wrote your moral code on a rock, well you are deluded in my opinion.
I have no respect for those kind of beliefs, none. What I do have a respect for it the right for my neighbors to have their own beliefs. Their right to believe they have magical telepathic superpowers to communicate to an invisible friend is more important than my belief that they are full of shit.
If you talk to your invisible friend and they turn out to the the one out of thousands of Gods who is actually real and you are part of a group out of tens of thousands of groups that think they know the path to get to him, let your little friend know Dave Hardin is sure he couldn’t have fucked things up much more than he did.
He has to be a he because no woman could have fucked up things this badly. Anyway if HE turns out to be real after all, HE got some splainin to be doin.
Maybe we are all Mormons. They eventually become Gods themselves ya know. Yep, the get their own world and everything later.
Maybe our world was inherited by some drop out from BYU who has too many wives bitching at him that he just does not have the time to bother with our bullshit.
Of course, the Jews might be right. We are all just screwed from birth because dad was busy on Fuck A Jew night.
What if someone down the line in the Hardin family did fuck a Jew. Do I get some kind of time share in Heaven? You what Jews are like, they probably will want an arm and a leg for a weekend.
I will just stay an Atheist, cause I am free to question or doubt my beliefs about anything. It makes it ok for me to sell a Cock cake to a couple of Jew fags on Christmas Sunday even if they don’t get a piece of paper from a mulit-divorced mother of bastard children that allows them to play house.
I openly invite people who view the world through a Christian lens to share with me. Mostly so I can point out how stupid they are. I don’t discriminate, I wouldn’t want to be bigoted. I really don’t care who your invisible friend is, they are equally idiotic to me.
I am a Patriot, I will defend your right to be as deluded as wish. I you refuse to sell me those sweet mini-pickles because your invisible daddy told you not too, well, expect me to exercise my right to free speech and tell you exactly how dumb your ass is.
I would just like to say that I like you more when you pick on the gun nutz.
Shhhh…….you will blow my cover.
Dave, the Romans also thought that when they died, if they petitioned the temple priests about it, they could become gods after death and be worshiped by the people of Rome. Of course, that depended on how much money they had to put into that request.
A little while ago, when I was in church, we were reminded and admonished that the Ten Commandments do not need to be rewritten.
Instead, the Ten Commandments need to be reread.
There is only one flag in America. The winner’s flag. Old Glory, the Stars and Stripes. I have had friends die for this country under this flag, just for your right to fly the loser’s flag.
The Confederate flag is symbol of one thing, and one thing only. It is not racism, slavery, Jim Crow, or Southern Pride. The Confederate flag is the symbol of losers. That side lost, and you do not fly the flags of losers over the winners’ country.
America loves winners. Losers are loathed. The south lost the Civil War. The “Stars and Bars” are the emblem of losers. By flying the Confederate flag they are celebrating being losers. Pathetic miserable losers.
I understand how it represents your heritage and lives lost in that war, and using that logic so does the NAZI flag, I’ll give you that. But my firm stance is that any group of traitors, anyone who tried to break up this country, deserves no honor once they’ve lost.
It’s less to do about me, and more to do with the fact that, as an American, I will not honor a group of treacherous traitors. That’s why I despise the rebel flag. Long live the South, and quickly die the Confederacy.
Dafuq are you talking about?
Why? Merica, that’s why.
In the article a comment was made about changing history, make an effort to read the whole article… “There is a tremendous purge of American history happening right before our eyes and being endorsed by every talking head and chickensh*t politician in sight. The evil Confederate battle flag is being banned everywhere. Statues are coming down, schools are being renamed, even idiots wanting to dig up and move the remains of the dead. I read an article in Army magazine recently where some nitwit Army Major insisted that we rename all of those US Army bases that are currently named for traitors and slave owners.”
Yeah, just watch the baclash the moment they say they want to rename Ft. Benning (Named after MG Henry Benning, C.S.A), Ft. Polk, Ft. Bragg,… SHIT, the limp-wristed rabid PC SJW’s are proposing the erasure of the names of every slaveowner from public buildings and places. What’s next, are we now supposed to rename Washington DC to Martin Luther King, DC?
They should rename Ft. Bragg if for no other reason than such a high profile base should not bear the name of such a bumbling incompetent.
” Bully for Bragg,,, He’s Hell on Retreat”
Losers don’t get sprinkles either. Just ask Flo…
I guess they should disband every Unit in the US Army that ever Lost its Colors to the Confederate Army,, since they were “losers”.. as well as all the American units that Surrendered in Corregidor.
In our current society, everybody wants to be seen as “tolerant”, and hopes to avoid being offensive, judgmental, or even worse, to be accused of being “racist”.
Well, eventually, whether they like it or not, the time comes when each individual must heed their own conscience and stand for what’s right, rather than what’s popular.
Homosexuality is wrong, and should not be tolerated.
Infanticide is wrong, and should not be tolerated.
Euthanasia is wrong, and should not be tolerated.
Restrictions on private citizens possessing and/or carrying firearms is wrong, and should not be tolerated.
Islam is wrong and should not be tolerated.
White people not being allowed to live, work, and/or conduct business with whoever they wish, and not being allowed to refuse to live, work, or conduct business with any specified group, is wrong, and should be tolerated.
There are some lines that cannot be crossed, and because of that, we as a nation, are condemned by our own actions to endure a massive bloodshed, maybe even a total national suicide, as our present situation inevitably continues to worsen in its perversion, deviance, and degeneration.
OOPS!
I made a typographical error, accidentally omitting the word, “not”, in a critical location.
I don’t identify as “White”. I assume you are referring to abortion with the Infanticide comment, I support it. It should be mandatory if I am expected to pay the expenses of raising the little bastards.
Euthanasia, well, I have never let an animal I had suffer. Took no joy in putting a few of them down but letting them suffer is wrong. I don’t want to suffer like that at the end. I would rather die in a pool of my own blood than a puddle of my own piss.
There should be some restrictions on guns. The thought of you walking around with a grenade launcher in a non-white neighborhood is a bit too much to tolerate.
Islam is wrong, no argument from me. So is your goofy ideas on the matter.
I think someone tried to create a nation like the one you are talking about. I don’t think it turned out so well for Hitler.
I would wish you luck with all that but I will be busy defending the Constitution from people like you.
Semper Fi.
I forgot to include illegal aliens in that list of items that should not be tolerated.
Anyway, my point is that we, ALL of us, regardless of our opinions, are being forced by circumstances into corners from which we cannot retreat, with our backs to the wall.
As J. D. Pendry stated, we’re going to HAVE to fight.
Odd. I thought that there was supposed to be no religious test to hold office. Now there is a no religion test to hold any office.
Actually, as with the case in Kentucky, there are many states that have laws that require a belief in God to hold office. Those laws have no weight because the Federal law says they don’t. Arkansas Article 19, section 1: “No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.” Maryland Article 37: “That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.” Mississippi Article 14, section 265: “No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this State.” North Carolina Article VI, section 8: “The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.” Pennsylvania Article 1, section 4: “No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.” Note: Pennsylvania differs from the other states in that it says believers cannot be disqualified from holding office for his or her religious sentiments, but that is not extended to atheists. South Carolina Article XVII, section 4: “No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.” Tennessee Article IX, section 2: “No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishment, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.” Note: Ministers are also barred from holding office, because they “ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their functions; therefore, no minister of the Gospel, or priest of any denomination whatever, shall be eligible to a seat in either House of the Legislature,” according to article… Read more »
The clerk took a oath and her religious beliefs should be left outside the door. Having gay friends who had to hide for so many years, finally have the right to get married.
All religions should be left at home, period.
You don’t get to decide which among us takes their religious beliefs with them wherever they go.
I hate a reformed anything.
Really?
Orthodox Druids worship oak trees. Reformed Druids worship bushes.
The disagreements over which plant species to use as a symbol can be staggering, although neither group approves of plastic mistletoe for anything, including holiday kissing rituals.
wow, there’s a long list of women I hope never read that last bit… sometimes the real mistletoe is not available and ya gotta go with what you can get.
She was not arrested for breaking the law per se, she was arrested for contempt of court for not following the orders of the court. The reason that she was jailed instead of fined as the judge clearly stated, groups were collecting money to pay her fine which would have just prolonged the present situation. Though I am a Christian if you spend any time studying the writings of Thomas Jefferson, you come away with a completely different take on what the Founding Fathers meant with the religious clause of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution than is popularly held opinion of many Christian Fundamentalist. In fact it expressly implies to matters exactly such as this. On Thomas Jefferson’s tombstone, he left explicit instructions that he wanted to be remembered for just three specific things: Here was buried Thomas Jefferson Author of the Declaration of American Independence of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom & Father of the University of Virginia Virginia’s Statute of Religious Freedom was the basis for the Religious Freedom clause of the 1st Amendment. When you read the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom it is abundantly clear the Jefferson was trying to protect the citizen FROM over bearing religion, not the other way around. The Pilgrims came to the New World to escape religious persecution just to do the same to others when they got here. Roger Williams had to leave and founded the colony of Rhode Island because of this. The Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom states: “Be it enacted by the General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities.” Re read that last line . . . The same shall in no… Read more »
Reading the Redeemer by Ace Atkins and thought this is a relevant quote:
Render unto Caesar no more than you got to Keep the Lord in your heart, and keep your powder dry. But do you good in mean time While you’re waiting on a good time, draw the line. —CHRIS KNIGHT “IN THE MEAN TIME”
I personally dont give 2 shits about who is gay and have no problem with gays getting to experience the joys of getting fucked in a divorce but I dont see the justice in some semi literate hillbilly being thrown in jail over a few inconvenienced fruits (marry in another county until its sorted out) while the Hildebeast is still free to run her suck after jeopardizing the entire nation.
But thats just me I guess.
Interesting post and discussion- we’ve managed to compare the U.S to Nazi Germany and ISIS. Could we please get some perspective?
O.k., here’s how we are different: First, Kim Davis was allowed to appear in public unveiled and run for public office. Of course, she would have been publicly executed years ago for adultery…
Second, she is alive and we’ll in jail on the orders of a judge, not an Imam or mufti (a cleric specializing in sharia law). Then again, this never would have come up because the gay couple would have been stoned to death by their families long ago.
I think it is hypocritical for Christian fundamentalists to complain about separation of church and state when religious freedom laws in the U.S. exist because of them- Baptist preachers were some of the first victims of religious persecution in the U.S. I would think that as a Christian you would applaud the separation of church and state- what if a bunch of Muslims move to your county and want to impose sharia law for civil cases?
WRT erasing history, ISIS destroys these sites because if their religious significance- Salafists feel that any shrine, temple, gravesite, or other monument to a religious figure is idolatry- this is why they get angry when people draw Mohammed.
No one has banned the Confederate Flag- the SC legislature wisely moved it from their capital grounds, and people are rightly asking why we have military installations named after people that were responsible for so many US military deaths. There is a heritage on the other side of that war, as well, and it just so happens that side prevailed, so their symbols prevail.
This lady in Kentucky is an elected official, and she should be impeached. If she can’t do her duties due to her religious views, she should resign. That simple
Thank you for your thoughtful and sensible comment….my thoughts exactly.
Well said.
Yep.
Eugene Volokh has a really good summary of the legal aspects of this case. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/04/when-does-your-religion-legally-excuse-you-from-doing-part-of-your-job/ The bottom line is that Kentucky could have someone else sign the license which would be acceptable under the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act. (RFRA). Davis herself has suggested such an action which is a reasonable accommodation under the laws governing this type of situation. The problem with this case, (and similar cases in the private sector) is that Christians do feel their rights are being trampled upon. Despite the Supreme Court clearly saying acts of photography and the creation of artwork / special designs is speech and the government cannot compel speech, tribunals and commissions say that baking a cake or taking wedding pictures is not art and therefore does not deserve 1st Amendment protection. It is the twisting of the law and precedent that bothers Christians to a great extent. For example, each school year there are kids who will be suspended or disciplined for praying on their own time at school. They will be denied the use of facilities for a Bible club under the same guidelines and rules as other clubs. Colleges will demand Christian clubs accept non-Christian members while saying that LGBT, women’s groups, ethnic groups, etc can bar membership if a person doesn’t meet certain criteria. There will be some kid who gets a failing grade because he wrote a paper about Christ or a poem about his beliefs. All these things are against the law and the Constitution, but schools will do them anyway and force a legal fight that should not have to happen. Before reading the Volokh article (and others) my opinion was that Davis was wrong because there was no way around her signing the licenses. She is free to disagree with gay marriage, but her disagreement and ideas does not trump the ideas and support of others. With the idea of a reasonable accommodation, my position changed. Davis can still protect and observe her religious beliefs and couples can still have a license issued and get married. So why isn’t that course of action… Read more »
You make good points. I think one of the largest obstacles to reach that end is of course money. It would take up to half a mil to call a special session and get to work on a way to make everyone as happy as possible. The Governor doesn’t feel she warrants the expense. As of know marriage certificates require the county clerk signature to be valid. Brings into question what the deputies are issuing now? Are they pre-signed by her or are they signing in her place, which of course would make them invalid.
Now not know, grr.
C.Long,
I am disturbed by the idea that the protection of freedoms and liberties has cost as a factor. Either we are dedicated to protecting the freedoms of all, or we are not dedicated to the protection of the freedoms of any. After all, what size group or what number of people would merit protection by the government? It’s a really bad slippery slope, in my opinion.
However, there is no need for a special session. As Volokh notes:
But with RFRA, the Kentucky Legislature has already enacted a state law that provides for religious exemptions from existing state laws — there doesn’t have to be any follow-up statute implementing any such exemption; a court can simply issue an order saying that an exemption from one state statute (the signature requirement) is available because of another state statute (the RFRA).
(Using the “cost” as a criteria, which is more costly? A judge signing an order or keeping some one in jail for days on end?)
It doesn’t really matter. The reasonable accommodation is sitting there, already agreed to by Davis but not accepted by those who are supposed to uphold the law.
Money being a factor bothers you and me both. The exception mentioned has a flaw that has been pointed out. Even though it may legally allows Davis to object, there is still no process in place to issue the licenses that are due the citizens. Just cause they can go to a county other then their residence(we did) doesn’t mean they should have to, that’s the reasoning being put out there.
I agree that couples should not have to go to another county to get a license. The problem is not that there is not a process that would allow Davis her religious objections and that would allow people to get licenses, but rather that the judge is not allowing or using that process and instead throwing her in jail for her legally protected rights.
I see what you are saying but I guess I’m lost on how the judge, whose role isn’t to make law\procedure, could both ensure the people of Rowan County get their licenses in their county and allow Davis her objection when her signature is required by law. That is to say the law allows for her to object but not for her to not do her job and withhold the signature needed to make the licenses valid; soinds like a catch 22. The Governor and legislators could make the changes, I just don’t see how the judge could have done anything other then what he did.
I’ll let Volokh explain it:
Some commenters argue that the clerk’s name can only be removed if the Kentucky Legislature amends the relevant law. But with RFRA, the Kentucky Legislature has already enacted a state law that provides for religious exemptions from existing state laws — there doesn’t have to be any follow-up statute implementing any such exemption; a court can simply issue an order saying that an exemption from one state statute (the signature requirement) is available because of another state statute (the RFRA).
Relatedly, some commenters argue that asking to be excused from the state law requiring the clerk’s signatures would be trying to violate the law. I agree that just refusing to issue licenses is a violation of state law. But asking for an exemption from a state statute under the state RFRA would be asking for something that state law itself provides, because state law includes the state RFRA.
The judge would not be creating new law, he would be following the law as written and intended by the legislature and the governor.
Ah I see. But doesn’t that leave the people of Rowan County out in the cold still? Concerning their licenses I mean, if she is the only one who can sign them and make them valid. As far as I know that’s the only person who can. Heck even the judge himself all but said the deputy issued licenses are probably not valid.
So I see your point concerning keeping her out of jail. Very interesting.
Or are you arguing that a legal exemption would there by make the deputy signed or even unsigned licenses legal?
The point is that the judge can sign an order that would allow other people in her office to sign the licenses and make them legal.
That’s all that has to be done.
It’s an easy and reasonable accommodation.
All I see anymore on this is attention whoring from both sides.
I enjoyed Volokh’s article. He concedes, though, that Davis’s original petition for a religious accommodation was baseless; her duties are simply to certify that applicants meet the legal requirements for marriage.
Of course, Davis isn’t a Muslim flight attendant being asked to serve alcohol,, a truck driver being asked to deliver beer, or The Cake Boss being asked to make a cake for a gay wedding. She is an elected official, serving at the pleasure of the people. If she doesn’t agree, she should resign in protest and make a public statement, write a book, or do whatever else will make her happy. After all, it’s a free country…
I think you may have misread that part of the article.
It is the federal district court that said Davis’ duty was to certify the legal requirements for marriage.
Far from saying that the claim for religious accommodation was baseless, Volokh makes the argument that the claim for a minor accommodation was warranted saying:
But though I agree that her religious convictions can’t excuse her from issuing marriage licenses altogether, I think the judge erred in the rest of the analysis in this paragraph. If Davis believes that it’s religiously wrong for her to issue licenses with her name on them, ordering her to do that indeed burdens her religious beliefs, enough to trigger the Kentucky RFRA. And giving her the more modest exemption from the include-the-court-clerk’s-name requirement might therefore indeed be required by the Kentucky RFRA.
In short, Volokh is saying that if there was no other option, Davis should be required to issue the licenses. But as there is another option that is non-burdensome (much less overly burdensome) and a more than reasonable accommodation, the judge was wrong to dismiss her objections under the RFRA.
Weed is legal In certain states, but it doesn’t matter because civilian and military wise you can still get in trouble or lose your job over it. However, gay marriage is now federal and not just by state and she thinks she has the right to say I think it’s wrong? So I can piss hot living in a state that weed is legal and then just sit in jail and get to ride out my stance was right? Well no, I cannot. I would lose my civilian and military job in a second if I pissed hot. Rules are rules and laws are laws, but either obey the laws or dont. I mean there are service members holding up signs over their faces online saying, “I didn’t join to fight in a Syrian Civil War.” Well guess what, you joined to do whatever the fuck the Government says you’re going to do, and you can be a con. objecter if you want but noone put a gun to your head and forced you to join (so IMO you’re a piece of shit you know what the risk were when you joined). I don’t think people do things anymore (in positions of power) because they believe in right or wrong, but because it is about money or power. Then, when it comes down to the middle class and below doing things they believe are right or wrong, they will be completely punished without question. If I used my Gmail to send secret emails I would be so fucked that the tip would be coming out of my mouth, but a person in power does it and it’s a year + long investigation. If it was me or any other SM that investigation would last less then 24 hours before you were getting railed from behind. If you’re not in a power position in this country, then I guess your not in the position to be “free” or have a say so on what free even means.
There are many examples in post WWII America of the Supreme Court’s concocting and stretching Constitutional provisions to justify a majority fancy and dictate it to the country. Same-sex marriage is merely the latest instance. Many conservatives, along with a happy Left, have taken the position that respect for and obedience to Supreme Court decisions honors the much-repeated (if untrue in many ways) phrase that we are a nation of laws, not men. There’s a problem with that. We are also a republican democracy and, as such, one unelected lawyer sitting as a Supreme Court justice and constituting the fifth and deciding opinion in a 5-4 decision should not have the power to dictate to more than 300 million people. The duly elected representatives of the people, as well as millions of citizens using referenda, rejected same-sex marriage, yet it is said now to be the law, thanks to an exercise in judicial tyranny. Compelling Constitutional decisions usually prevail by 9-0 or 8-1. In same-sex marriage, as the decision on obamacare, the court’s decision was 5-4. Why? Because the US Constitution contains no provision that truly supports same-sex marriage. So, if we are a nation of laws and not men, the key question is why we should obey one lawyer or a few of them who have undercut that lofty sentiment? If we truly were to honor the Constitution and our system of laws and lawmaking, we would thumb our collective nose at the Supreme Court’s five tyrants. But being the good sheep, we won’t. Instead, we will lambaste and smugly assume moral superiority when one or two people actually honor our Constitution and our republican democracy.
Nice take 2/17 Air Cav.