There is no violence in the accidental maiming of an emaciated twitching mass of heathenous sodomite. The red light runner is redeemed because their crushing is righteous in the eyes of the lord. They are redeemed.
The State is still going to press charges.....

I have read it, many, many times in fact. I do believe I may have read it a bit more closely than you have.

"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." Leviticus 20:13


Sure, let's see what he said about the old laws....

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17

if sex wasn't a requirement it couldn't be grounds for annulment, but there is no way to know there was no sex until someone files the annulment stating so,,,


for example, giving massages is not part of my job, I can not be fired for not giving massages,,,,helping people manage their finances is part of my job,, I may be able to get away without doing it for a while or if I know the right person or am sleeping with the boss , or any number of reasons,, but IF someone chooses to fire me,, not helping with those accounts would be grounds for dismissal,,,,



people can feel like they should marry all day long, there are siblings and relatives who feel like they should marry,, cant read anyone elses THOUGHTS OR FEELINGS,, but if they cross the line into actually MARRYING Each other, then its possible to disagree with that ACTION.


Im saying there are many feelings that acting upon are wrong, yes
acting upon anger by hitting, would be one example
acting upon lust by laying down with someone spouse would be another,,,etc,,etc,,




After the supreme court passed the decision on same sex marriage , she stopped issuing ANY licenses



not marrying is also an option,,,just like not being employed in a job whose duties are altered from what you agreed to is another option,,, but some people feel they should be able to still marry, and some feel they should still be able to keep their job


and homosexuals were law abiding without this law,, weren't they?
yet they felt 'forced in a closet' because they weren't free to marry

like Christians feel 'forced in a closet' because they aren't free to live a life according to religious convictions without accepting having their LIFE turned upside down to do so,,,

The State is pressing charges but Mike Huckabee will be a character witness and the trial will be teleconferenced to Chaplin Kim Davis' cell so it's all good.

Leviticus is a law for the CHOSEN , those CHOSEN to be a holy nation through the most holy and pure of expectations

Leviticus was a law that pointed out how sinful their nature was that they couldn't perfectly follow the laws and be therefore holy

Leviticus was a precursor to the need for Jesus and his sacrifice and example as a passageway to eternal life, instead


he didn't abolish the law, he fulfilled it, for the wages of sin are DEATH , and he fulfilled the wage through his

'We are the Champions" by Queen will be played as the defendant enters the courthouse in shackles, they'll be rockstars when it's all said and done. Casey Anthony has an afterparty planned at a club if she can get a babysitter.

Ah but it doesn't say the punishment is death. It said they are to be put to death. Therefore, it says they should be killed.


Anyway, the whole rambling conversation comes down to the fact that Kim Davis is refusing to do her job (breaking the law in the process) and still wants her paycheck. Booo Hooo

This conversation is becoming filled with more and more logical fallacies, it's starting to make me nauseous. So I leave you to whatever beliefs you have, thoughts you call reality, and happiness you may find.

ditto

The title has been changed by the publisher, it's now " Kim Davis' guide to Sharia Law FOR CHRISTIANS.
David Duke is supplying crosses and Bush Petroleum has donated 100 barrels of crude. Fireworks courtesy of South of the Border, lube bottle rockets and Roman butt candles. Free fuzzy cuffs to the first 500 straight couples and a free copy of Suzy Ormans "Budgeting for meth, f#@k....... '

Absolutely. In your private life. If, in your working life, you are asked to sign something you don't like, you are still entirely free to resign that job. Nothing else.




Unless, of course, you have been hired as my driver. In which case, again, you are quite free to refuse, provided you give up your job as my driver.



Quite alright. Unless, of course, you also try to actively interfere with something I want to do for myself, which is entirely legal, and has nothing to do with you. Then you become wrong.





Again, absolutely and 100% false, especially in this case, where she was using the fact that her signature was REQUIRED BY LAW on the forms, to (again) cause her RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS to become the law of the land.




No one of legal consequence has called upon any recognized Church institution to alter it's convictions, and marry people with whom they disagree. Had this woman not conflated her duties as a government representative with her religious ideas, there would never have been a problem to begin with.

Personal belief: Kim Davis' lawyer released a statement saying the LIFELONG democrat (Davis) has renounced her (PERSONAL) political affiliation with the democratic party due to lack of support from members and the party leadership (of her PERSONAL beliefs).
A public press release.

Absolutely. In your private life. If, in your working life, you are asked to sign something you don't like, you are still entirely free to resign that job. Nothing else.



,,this is in no way an absolute though, if you are asked to sign something that infringes upon your rights, you have another choice,,,CONTEST IT,,which was what she chose,,


and , again, even if I am someones personal driver, if they ask me to drive someplace that , lets say, puts me in danger, I can indeed refuse and seek damages if they fire me,, being employed wouldn't give an employer the right to put me in any circumstances they choose,,,I still have certain rights,, even then


if something you want to do for yourself INVOLVES me, I should have the right to decline being involved,,,that is not ACTIVELY INTERFERING< that is opting out,,,


actively interfering would be standing in front of you and not letting you pass,, that would be ACTIVELY INTERFERING


and yes, the law of the land that requires her signature to something against her religious convictions is the law of the land, but deserves to be contested on the grounds of its infringement , especially if there is a compromise that can be struck,, like no longer REQUIRING any personal signature,, or allowing exemptions to those who were employed BEFORE the change


and again, the whole debate centers around the word 'marriage'

when we speak in terms of her DUTIES to the public, we are talking in a legal and CIVIL capacity of marriage as a mere contract

but when someone VIEWS marriage as sacred according to their religion and that CIVIL capacity has been in line with their sacred beliefs previously and changed to be out of line with it

then a problem begins


one that the mention of RELIGION in the constitution makes much less simple than 'just do your job'

She changed husbands, she changed her religion, the Law and her oath of office have not changed. Her duties have not changed. She can BELIEVE PRIVATELY whatever she wants. If she wants to walk on broken glass and hot coals at

CHURCH

She's FREE

to do so. At CHURCH. Her OFFICE is LEGAL. It is ILLEGAL to practice or process LEGAL DOCUMENTS or not based on ]> PERSONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS<[ in THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION of THE UNITED STATES.


Note: though she was a lifelong democrat, NOBODY in the democratic party came forward to support her because she is WRONG. They are not going to change the COUNTY, STATE or CONSTITUTION for (per her specific oath of office) failure to execute faithfully the LEGAL DUTIES of her ELECTED LEGAL position, or do so from a recently converted religious prejudice.That goes DIRECTLY AGAINST her oath and the Constitution.

No one ever had an oath sworn to public office specifically to enslave blacks or segregate races.

democratic label does not define right and wrong, anymore than republican label does

some think she is wrong and some don't

the power in the court will fall continuously on the powerful side of the LGBT community

by the way, what was the actual 'oath' she took? did she take an oath to sign marriage licenses?

I, ....., do swear that I will well and truly discharge the
duties of the office of .............. County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my
skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees,
opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all
books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not
knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the
duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God."





so, due entry, record of orders, judgements and decrees, opinions, proceedings, filing, preserving books papers

no mention of signing anything in that oath,,,which seems like an area where discretion is able to be used,,,

That's why she's a LEGAL CLERK. Process the appropriate LEGAL documents and make sure they don't get lost. Sign said documents making them LEGAL and RECOGNIZED LEGALLY by the County State and IRS. Make sure people and or property is what it is claimed to be before said recognition, don't sign a bill of sale for the Brooklyn bridge or marry a 9 year old to a gerbil.

unless some court decides its a 'fundamental' right to do so,,,,

If I had a good job and the rules change ...and I had to go against what I believe..or break the law to stand behind my faith... I would quit my job...after all the Christians are supposed to not break mans laws and should have enough faith that God will provide... I don't have what I want but I don't go without what I need..she seems to be a spotlight lover..she would impress me if she quit her job proclaiming it was against Gods will...instead she's breaking the law and illustrating her lack of trust in her own God...sad with everything going on in the world she's considered news worthy..

IF the JOB (legal) or the RULES (legal) or the OATH (legal) or the DUTIES (legal) or the LAWS (legal) had changed,

NO LAWS RULES OATHS DUTIES OBLIGATIONS JOB DESCRIPTION (all legal) have changed. 0 legal change. None.

then a PROPERLY EXECUTED LEGAL CHALLENGE for HER PERSONAL GRIEVANCE (which she'd still be barking up the wrong tree) COULD HAVE BEEN a tolerable solution to HER PERSONAL PROBLEM.

Let's not ignore the FACT that she used her 1st Amendment freedom to CHANGE HER RELIGION. Convert, changed woman, saved, redeemed, whatever she wants to use her 1st amendment freedom to call it, no one stopped her. No one in government said ' thou shalt not jump ship midstream lest ye change the current of others in thy wake'. The GOVERNMENT DID HELP HER to LEGALLY dissolve 4 previous marriages, without that LEGAL provision she could still be stuck miserably with Mr. Wrong #1. No one from GOVERNMENT intervened on her CHOICE of lifestyle.
She INTERVENED in the religious freedom or freedom from religion and denied UNCHANGED CONSTITUTIONAL LEGAL RIGHTS of ALL CITIZENS after being SPECIFICALLY INSTRUCTED by the same court she swore her oath to that THIS HAS BEEN YOUR DUTY ALL ALONG and YOU CANNOT HOLD OTHERS ACCOUNTABLE TO YOUR OWN PERSONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS IN ANY LEGAL OR POLITICALELECTED OFFICE. There is a misplaced comma in the oath, (so, help me God) but if you stand witness in ANY COURT OF LAW they will ask you "do you swear or affirm that the testimony/statements/answers you are going to give are the truth?" YOU may chose another holy book besides the Bible or no holy book at all. Jews, Muslims, Hinduse Buddhists.... ARE NOT FORCED to swear to JESUS or JEHOVAH/YAHWEH/ELOHIM on the CHRISTIAN BIBLE.
So, help me God, because my duty is to set aside my PERSONAL beliefs and feelings to provide others the freedoms and choices that were LEGALLY provided to me.

Instead breaking the LAW and illustrating a lack of trust in her own God. Brilliantly worded Kindlightheart.

She should take a trip to Baghdad or Mecca or Tehran where she can witness the execution of Sharia Law in all its 'religious' gore. Witness the power of theocracy in the rape and murder of girls who were in the wrong place at the wrong time and EXECUTED FOR BEING RAPED BY THE POLICE because she was pretty (a 14 y/o Iranian girl whose name escapes me). When you see how truly vile people can be to one another it changes how you see things. It takes only one torture or forced amputation to scar you for life, not watching it on a movie or tv or even on YouTube of an actual event but being there seeing it firsthand and hearing it for yourself unfiltered.

Just curious what Kim Davis' comstituents think....I mean, they elected her. Is she representing their views? Time will tell I suppose. She WAS elected before the gay marriage ruling was made.
Just asking questions...kinda with the "do your job" crowd...but I can see both sides.


TBH...she's a bit annoying though....