Posted on 09/01/2015 5:55:47 AM PDT by Nextrush
It happened in Kentucky minutes ago with Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis explaining to a gay couple why she would not give them a marriage license....
Cameras were there......
Considering King’s association with Stanley Levison and others tied to the CPUSA during the height of the Cold War, the FBI surveillance of King was justified.
“The Supreme Being outranks the Supreme Court.”
Muslims will say the same thing. What are we going to do then? My religion trumps court orders but yours doesn’t? This is the inevitable outcome of a horrible SCOTUS decision.
Amen. now that’s real fortitude.
Anyone who does not support this woman’s position needs to review what has happened and is happening to America. It has become the modern day Sodom and Gomorrah. Evil is on the Throne while Good (decency & truth) is on the Gallows. It is time for all people to stand up and take action to alter this current disaster cycle.
The religion of Islam cannot claim protection under our Bill of Rights. They can try but it’s deceitful and assumes we Americans are too stupid to figure out the difference between our Founding Principles and what THEY practice.
“...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”
Islam believes no such thing.
They aren’t entitled to rights under a “flag” that spells out the Judeo Christian principles America espouses from her founding.
Civil disobedience of court orders is fully permissible in defiance of usurped authority, under American Principles.
A Muslim saying we must obey Allah and not a court order or a law has no such standing to do so. Allah tells them to do unspeakably horrible things in the name of their religion that directly defy all of what America stands for.
This just shows the incongruity, the incompatibility, of having Muslims flood into this nation.
Insanity.
Because it is wrong. It is along the same lines as the Nazis requiring Jews to get tattoos. It is an immoral law, and it should not be obeyed.
The "I was just following Orders" excuse went out with the Nazis. Government officials should not be forced to administer immoral laws. We didn't accept that "But it's the LAW!!!!" argument from the Nazis, and we shouldn't accept it from anyone else either.
If your government orders you to run concentration camps, you run concentration camps.
Extreme Court inJustices should be removed and jailed for violating their oaths to uphold the Constitution, as should the President, Congressmen and Senators.
A bad law that is now being enforced is the problem.
Quite frankly, I agree with anyone who isn’t standing in the way of fag marriage. There is nothing in the Bible, no words of God or Jesus Christ saying a court cannot rule in favor of fag marriage.
What the Bible does say is that we must love one another as we are loved by Him.
Although, it specifically says do not support sin.
But - I don’t support the Supreme Court. I haven’t since at least legalized abortion. ACA? and now this? Psssssh. Ninja please.
Give to Caesar what is of Caesar and to God what is of God.
God wants the salvation of your soul.
Silence on this matter is nowhere near support. Trump is good. He hasn’t built himself up as a do nothing legal expert like the rest of the field. And when Rowan county ditches this poor lady, none of the blowhards in Congress or the Senate will blow their sliver of hope for presidency on talking about gay marriage. Rightfully so.
Regards.
Handing out and processing civil marriage licenses (no one is asking her to perform religious marriages)--or, if she doesn't want to do that, having someone else in her office do it--is not the same as running concentration camps.
We do not redefine the meaning of clearly understood words just because the Supreme Court says so.
Your argument would compel obedience to a Supreme Court diktat that "black" now means "slave."
We do not allow people to force different meanings of words on us, and we do not give a sh*t if they claim to have the mandate of government behind them.
Anymore than the Muslim grocery clerk who refuses to ring up pork or liquor on religious grounds.
If he is given the job with the implicit understanding that he won't be forced to violate any of his religious beliefs, then he has a legitimate legal argument for breach of contract.
That is what this situation is. It is a breach of the implicit societal contract with this woman.
Suppose she can’t find another job? Should she be reduced to poverty just to satisfy the lawless whims of an evil court and the slimy sodomite revolution?
Make no mistake, this is a battle between God and Satan played out on a small scale.
If she resigns, they win.
If we were Muslims, they would not survive this test of wills. If we were Muslims, they would not even attempt such a test of wills.
I have been saying for a long time that we need to engineer confrontations between violent Muslims and these people. Getting your enemies to fight each other is a very sensible tactic.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
It doesn't exclude marriage to dogs or horses either, if you want to be a lying f***ing @$$ about it.
Reading something into the law that it wasn't deliberately intended to address is just as much a bastardization of it as is taking something out of it.
How about this? All laws that have never been comprehended to apply to deviation from the norm, will not apply to deviations from the norm.
Exactly!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.