Free Republic

It will go the other way as well -— come what may for those poor fools.

Florida law allows for freedom of religion and individuals can appeal to authorities when that right to exercise their religion becomes burdened or threatened.

So it’s ok to go into a Church, shove the Priest or Eucharistic minister, and grab consecrated hosts at will? Can I go into your house, push my way to what I want, and leave any time I want? Where do you live? I need so more silverware.

776.013 (a) and especially 776.031.

Yes, that would be one argument for the dwelling angle. But in general Chapter 776 says the Priest had every right to do what he did to the psychotic dyke.

The turbo lesbo bitch used unlawful force thus (a) applies to that Preist’s actions for justifiable use of force under the State of Florida (Chapter 776: Justifiable use of Force). You can also make the argument of resident/dwelling as well.

To get the host meant an act of force and intent that intruded upon the rights of the Preist. I would of just decked her instead of biting her but whatever.

<"...she's seen pushing him so if anyone assaulted anyone it was her and in the State of Florida..."

776.013 Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.— (1) A person who is in a dwelling or residence in which the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use:

(a) Nondeadly force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force; or

(b) Deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

(2) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(3) The presumption set forth in subsection (2) does not apply if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or

(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened; or

(c) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity; or

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

(5) As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.

(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27; s. 4, ch. 2014-195; s. 1, ch. 2017-77. Copyright © 1995-2024 The Florida Legislature

Democracy along with universal suffrage (Female suffrage is bad enough with a lot of primary sources/history destroying societies through a gynocratic centered focus before the late 19th century backing that up) is the worst form of a political system within civilization. Evil men (And women now) just manipulated fish in a barrel through emotion/synapses before deciding when to easily dispose of them (Dictatorship of the proletariat will never happen but these “smart” barbarians do love their Engels/Marx fecal smothered “hope”).

A and B in my post above. He is a political opportunists, but the direction he is pointing to regardless is positive. Be the cynic and the truth teller weeding out the obvious but embracing the positive. I would not vote for him, however, would not castigate him from saying “after the sun rises on a cloudless day, the sky does look blue and healthy hydrated grass/plants that are germinating do look green.

Jesus called Rabbis/ teachers attempting to represent His Father's context sons of Satan; what Sununu said was child's play compared to what the Son of God said to enemies of the Truth.

A) At least Sununu is trying, in the public square, to make an effort (Again publicly) to get his moderate/lazy intellectual (Which defines a moderate, also add female reproductive body part as well) buttocks off criticizing political “friends”.

B) Reads the tea leaves of middle-class/lower-classes anger in an elitist State where there are still a lot of voters earning below the haughty and arrogant financial “Mendoza line” these pretentious elitists A-holes (Who vote overwhemengly democrat) set to determine riff-raff status.

David Silver wishes that Ebrahim Raisi was just as replaceable as Kobe Bryant (Being a dime drawer) for TV ratings. Any Iranian Pres is a projection of the Shia theocratic method which center of gravity needs to be destroyed. Thing is Iran has $$$$$ which Repubs and Dems can't resist underneath the table. Goes double for any Sunni sect with large cash reserves.

Btw, I agree with the “putting Mary on a seperate pedestal” stuff though that was officially done in the 19th century and 1950’s through ex-cathedra. Roman Catholics attempt at appeasement against the Great Awakenings that saw a lot of females leaving the RCC.

If you knew and understood their Catechism it would not be ironic but understandable (Ordination of presbyteros who were all men for obvious reasons). Stay ignorant and throw those stones I guess. And add to the freeper upstream, Paul had an issue with female leadership (Men more “stoic” in general, effeminate fags and women not so much). Now effeminate fags and females are spreading in the pulpits while Churches are weakening/watering down the Gospel based on emotional gobbledygook.

...Statists’ boots...

Central banks are fine if they are heavily regulated, inflationary bodies, and have a sunset clause but the Federal Reserve is anything but that. The Fed is a conduit for the stupid tax (Inflation) and massive deficit spending aided by the Treasury Department/slave banks. Do you really think the Great Depression started in the late 1920’s? It started way before that when the Fed raised interests rates on non-member banks as soon as they got their claws in.
And J.P. Morgan was not a savior of the 1907 crash, he was the cause of it along with the small cartel of Trusts at the time (Precursor to the FR). Of course that 5 time felon banking institution that owns 1/3 of the FRNY constantly made underhanded deals (Grover Clevand and gold deposit for starters) to manipulate their way to controlling the “lessors”. There are alternatives, quit licking evil Starists’ boots.

BTW, Christendom built societal barriers based on what God deemed correct (Raising families/sexual mores, etc...). The feminist movement, that started in the the mud-late 19th century in the US blew all of that up. These nuns are feminist first, followers of Christ last, point I was making, that is all.

So you actually believe to go and multiply thus creating a family is idolatry? Sounds like a command to me. Stick to the subject, agape is low hanging fruit or milk rather than meat in the context of the subject matter of this thread. “Housewife is servitude thus is Spiritually impotent”/being a power feminist first pretending to be a cloistered nun point presented.

Lydia “the purple” hung with the Roman aristocrats who had low birth rates in general so being without child would of been a rational reason of not having kids (Acts does not go into detail of her personal life) so you assumed especially her being a recent convert. Lydia was not brought up from the time of birth into the Christian faith (We are around 2,000 years from events unlike Lydia, so we have no excuse), so your point is moot about the tone these nuns are spouting in the article posted.

You need to read the Scriptures as well, God separates roles of the sexes as designed, enumerated that many times throughout the Books.