Sitamun
New member
Obviously she doesn't have contempt for her paycheck. She loves Caesars money, just not his rules. I wonder if this was a non Christian worker complaining about the rules their Christian bosses had if they'd feel the same.
Kentucky Kim and cakes
- Thread starter Totton Linnet
- Start date
Obviously she doesn't have contempt for her paycheck. She loves Caesars money, just not his rules. I wonder if this was a non Christian worker complaining about the rules their Christian bosses had if they'd feel the same.
she was elected by local voters based on existing law
shagster01
New member
She knew laws can change when she took it. And she's free to quit.
Yeah, and it keeps me up at night. You're babbling worse than usual.
She works for the state. The state's bound by law. It's literally her job to enforce the work of the state. None of this is hard to understand.
shagster01
New member
So just to be clear...
If somebody is elected to that position right now when gay marriage is legal, and scotus later decides to make it illegal again, you would support an accommodation being made for that person to still issue gay marriage licenses if they so choose because the law was that way when they were elected?
Or are you just a big fat hypocrite?
She didn't go to jail *for her beliefs* ...
GuySmiley
Well-known member
She went to jail for contempt of court due to refusing a court order to act contrary to her beliefs. It's way different.
Did all those people who issued licenses to gays when it was illegal, quit?
Did they get thrown in jail for not following the law?
shagster01
New member
I don't know what they all did, but they should have quit or been relieved of their duty. It would have been the reasonable thing.
Then you believe our president should be thrown in jail too for ignoring immigration laws and all those leaders of sanctuary cities also?
shagster01
New member
Uh oh, she's grasping at straws.
Oh, there aren't immigration laws anymore?
Or are you saying its ok to be above the law only when you dont like the law?
shagster01
New member
I'm saying immigration policy and domestic security are matters that are a wee bit more complicated than what goes on down at the local clerk's office and to even try to compare them in a discussion like this is a ludicrous attempt to change the subject because you know I'm right.
What do you think should be done about Kim Davis?
Oh there are good reasons to violate the law, depending on veiwpoint, got it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Yet I don't see you disagreeing with my earlier statement: [about shag's ignorance of Holy Scripture and HATRED of God]
We need to dig deeper into that one living brain cell and find out what caused such HATRED of God and everything decent.
Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
How is that "coexisting"? It appears to me that you want people to abide by the rules set forth by the judicial activists of the LGBTQueer movement or "perish"?
So your definition of freedom comes with an *. If there are *'s involved, then there can't be coexistence (someone has to give up either their religious rights or their supposed right to buggerize whatshisname).
We're talking about co-existing. Can the bull dykes, drag queens and fairies of the LGBTQueer movement coexist with people who believe in decency? You haven't been able to show that the two can.
Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Again, show me how people of faith can coexist with baby murderers, sodomites and every other piece of vermin that slithers along the ground and still be a faithful follower of Christ.
But that's not "coexisting" :
Not on a personal level, but we've seen Christian florists, bakers, photographers, etc. etc. etc. and now a County Clerk that were fined/forced to close their business and now jailed because your ever so "tolerant" LGBTQueer movement doesn't believe in coexistence.
Hobby Lobby was a SCOTUS case where they didn't want to be force to pay for employee birth control/abortions.
So show me that the two sides can coexist or admit that one side will have to give up their religious values or give up their supposed right to have all of the benefits that go against Judeo/Christian doctrine.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Yet I don't see you disagreeing with my earlier statement: [about shag's ignorance of Holy Scripture and HATRED of God]
We need to dig deeper into that one living brain cell and find out what caused such HATRED of God and everything decent.
Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
How is that "coexisting"? It appears to me that you want people to abide by the rules set forth by the judicial activists of the LGBTQueer movement or "perish"?
So your definition of freedom comes with an *. If there are *'s involved, then there can't be coexistence (someone has to give up either their religious rights or their supposed right to buggerize whatshisname).
We're talking about co-existing. Can the bull dykes, drag queens and fairies of the LGBTQueer movement coexist with people who believe in decency? You haven't been able to show that the two can.
Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Again, show me how people of faith can coexist with baby murderers, sodomites and every other piece of vermin that slithers along the ground and still be a faithful follower of Christ.
But that's not "coexisting" :
Not on a personal level, but we've seen Christian florists, bakers, photographers, etc. etc. etc. and now a County Clerk that were fined/forced to close their business and now jailed because your ever so "tolerant" LGBTQueer movement doesn't believe in coexistence.
Hobby Lobby was a SCOTUS case where they didn't want to be force to pay for employee birth control/abortions.
So show me that the two sides can coexist or admit that one side will have to give up their religious values or give up their supposed right to have all of the benefits that go against Judeo/Christian doctrine.
Last edited:
Yes ... we know this ...
Her beliefs are irrelevant and she got what she had coming. She's not a martyr, she's a bureaucrat who refused to do her job.
She's a tax-paid employee, not a private citizen. So, yeah: It is way different.
shagster01
New member
Are you friends with Angel4Truth? Because you are both good at grasping for desperate arguments when backed into a corner.
Coexistence doesn't mean you get everything you want. Quite the opposite actually.
Since you're not able to show that the LGBTQueer movement and those who embrace biblical values can "coexist", it's you that is backed into the proverbial corner.
Ok, show me who should give up some of the things that they want. Start with your LGBTQueer movement.
BTW, I moved this debate over to my WHMBR Part4! thread because many outside of TOL are following the thread but not other threads on TOL.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4452961&postcount=560
genuineoriginal
New member
It is obvious how much people want to prevent Christians with real convictions about their faith from becoming elected officials.