100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > germanchoclate1981
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wouldn't recieving oral sex be against his religion? In Qatar, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
germanchoclate1981
on
Sat 09/26/15 07:47 PM
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
germanchoclate1981
on
Sat 09/26/15 02:29 AM
|
|
projected date of completion of her new book "My Battle against Satan" : december 1st 2015.... kim will immediately begin the book signing tour at a Half-Priced Books store in your city....watch for her table in the *Religion section..... 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.......  '
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But should anyone run a red light and run over one of these starving twitching heathens crushing their bones and severing their flesh shall be forgiven as long as you don't fellate anyone whose marriage license was signed by her grace, our lady of Rowan Kim Davis. Im confused as to where this violent streak is coming from,, I haven't mentioned violence ONCE,, but Im supposed to be the illogical judgmental one in this discussion? whats really going on,,,,,,,,,  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..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
where are all these extreme leaps coming from? The Bible, that's where the extremes came from. Maybe you should read it if you want to call yourself a christian. I have read it, I doubt you have Christians follow the example of Christ, adultery is another sexual sin, but jesus refused to STONE anyone, he simply corrected them, educated them, and tried to guide them in the right direction,,, What Book Chapter and Verse was the Rowan County Clerks oath in? The 14th amendment? The 1st amendment? The Prophecy of Kim Davis' oppression by gay Pharoah? The Exodus of Magistrates? I cant seem to find them in my King James version, maybe the Anglican church edited them out because they would be admitting to our DIVINE FOUNDING OF A SEPARATE NATION THAT HAS SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But should anyone run a red light and run over one of these starving twitching heathens crushing their bones and severing their flesh shall be forgiven as long as you don't fellate anyone whose marriage license was signed by her grace, our lady of Rowan Kim Davis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Except THAT LAW has not changed. No new "Same-sex marriage Bill" has been passed so that HAS BEEN her job all along. All the supreme court did was issue a LEGAL review and compel those who were RELIGIOUSLY opposed to ALLOW THE PEOPLE THEIR FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND EQUAL PROTECTION AND RIGHTS under THE SAME CONSTITUTION THAT APPLIES TO ALL OTHER CITIZENS. Had they not done so, they would CONDONE the COUNTIES STATES AND IRS to not recognize these PEOPLE as HUMAN BEINGS and as COUNTIES STATES AND A COUNTRY AS AUTHORITY OF LAW to DENY THEM THEIR FREEDOM RIGHTS AND PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. LAW not religion. Not personal belief. Not homphobia. U.S. Law applies to all citizens. Even ones we don't personally agree with. There is nothing on the marriage LICENSE that says I agree that these two people should be together in HOLY MATRIMONY for all the days of their life and if they conduct ANY SIN to include a SINFUL SEXUAL ACT that I (Kim Davis) will be personally responsible for said sin directly to God even though I was not present and did not encourage or participate in THAT sinful sexual act, payable with my soul's eternal damnation in the hottest of the fires in all of hell for eternity. Straight people commit RELIGIOUSLY sinful sexual acts too. and they don't mandate others SIGN OFF on them Everyone who Kim Davis HAS issued a license to that had 'interesting sex lives' did. She didn't go hunt any of them down and revoke their license. Their sexual sins are not her responsibility either. She ran forPUBLIC OFFICE. No same sex couple googled 'most homophobic lady in Rowan County' an conspired to write her in on the ballots. If her religious convictions (bull5#it) will not allow her to "execute the duties of her office faithfully without favor or partiality" as she swore an oath to just like every other County Clerk, then she's got to wave goodbye to that $80,000 paycheck. That's her problem. here is the difference: when issuing a license we cant assume what specific type of sex (interesting or not) a hetero couple will have, but there IS a moral sex they could be engaging in there is NO SUCH OPTION for same sex couples, so the ONLY sex they could be having is amoral,,,, no need to hunt them down, its obvious once the gender is known,,, What LEGAL marriage license has a 'Promise to have sex with this person but put all RELIGIOUS responsibility for whatever kind of sex we chose to have on KIM DAVIS' soul for reckoning' section. It's a LEGAL DOCUMENT. That's it. She signs she stamps she collects $80,000 and says whatever the hell she wants to say about them behind their backs in church or on public television or in the newspaper. Where does it stop? Drivers licenses carry gays to gay clubs where they are having adulterous sinful sex. No more gay drivers. Food fuels the energy for gay sex. No food for gays. See how this works? What rights should we LEGALLY DENY THEM AS HUMAN BEINGS when they are paying taxes and not committing violent crimes? Anyone adulterer goes against the bible, should we starve them to death? Mary someone who divorced before? You starve to death. No drivers license because GOD IS WATCHING. Die in the most inhumane and slowest way. Starve until your body consumes itself and your kidneys fail. Flail on the hot street because your sin may damn anyone else who attends school with pure lady parts to hell forever.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yep same sex marriage is the law of the land now,, got it don't agree with it, and still admire those who will not be bullied into going against their religious convictions and participate in a process to propogate behaviors against their religious doctrine,,, Should they be stoned? Drawn and queertered? Have their fingers lips penises nipples testes breasts labia and clitorii cut off? Would that satisfy God's LEGAL will? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Except THAT LAW has not changed. No new "Same-sex marriage Bill" has been passed so that HAS BEEN her job all along. All the supreme court did was issue a LEGAL review and compel those who were RELIGIOUSLY opposed to ALLOW THE PEOPLE THEIR FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND EQUAL PROTECTION AND RIGHTS under THE SAME CONSTITUTION THAT APPLIES TO ALL OTHER CITIZENS. Had they not done so, they would CONDONE the COUNTIES STATES AND IRS to not recognize these PEOPLE as HUMAN BEINGS and as COUNTIES STATES AND A COUNTRY AS AUTHORITY OF LAW to DENY THEM THEIR FREEDOM RIGHTS AND PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. LAW not religion. Not personal belief. Not homphobia. U.S. Law applies to all citizens. Even ones we don't personally agree with. There is nothing on the marriage LICENSE that says I agree that these two people should be together in HOLY MATRIMONY for all the days of their life and if they conduct ANY SIN to include a SINFUL SEXUAL ACT that I (Kim Davis) will be personally responsible for said sin directly to God even though I was not present and did not encourage or participate in THAT sinful sexual act, payable with my soul's eternal damnation in the hottest of the fires in all of hell for eternity. Straight people commit RELIGIOUSLY sinful sexual acts too. and they don't mandate others SIGN OFF on them Everyone who Kim Davis HAS issued a license to that had 'interesting sex lives' did. She didn't go hunt any of them down and revoke their license. Their sexual sins are not her responsibility either. She ran forPUBLIC OFFICE. No same sex couple googled 'most homophobic lady in Rowan County' an conspired to write her in on the ballots. If her religious convictions (bull5#it) will not allow her to "execute the duties of her office faithfully without favor or partiality" as she swore an oath to just like every other County Clerk, then she's got to wave goodbye to that $80,000 paycheck. That's her problem. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ms, with all respect, I'm going to give you a hypothetical comparison to this. I want you to answer honestly with regards to legality ONLY. A devout Hindu becomes the head of the FDA. To him, the cow is holy, and he starts failing every business that processes any products that contain dairy and beef. If a slaughter house fails a FDA inspection for cleanliness, they cannot LEGALLY sell ANYTHING as food to ANYONE. McD's BK steak houses and grocery stores will run out of meat and dairy IF enough or large enough suppliers shut down. Many people will start asking questions and getting angry because there is not new stock being supplied. This supervisor is inquired by Congress, the CDC has nothing like mad cow disease cases or foot and mouth disease as LEGAL EVIDENCE for shutting down the processors dairies and slaughtering. This devout Hindu not only tells congress and the CDC that all these places fail because they slaughter and sell parts of holy animals, but cannot be cleansed enough to resume processing ANY OTHER MEATS due to the RELIGIOUS SINS committed in the slaughter of cows. Is he LEGALLY sound in his reasoning? The facilities cannot process anything without FDA approval. no, based upon this first sentence "a devout hindu becomes the head of fda,,,,to him the cow is holy' he took a job knowing the job and knowing cows were part of it WHEN HE STARTED, by accepting the job he accepted it WITH THAT JOB DESCRIPTION but more closely to kim would be 'a devout hindu becomes the head of fda, and THEN fetuses become defined as food,,, because fetus, in his religion , are human beings,, he refuses this ALTERATION to the original outline of his job expectations , and fights for a religious exemption to allow him to inspect everything BUT fetuses for consumption, like he did when originally accepting the position' based upon a situation where the definitions change AFTER the job is accepted,,there would be legal standing to challenge being forced to participate with those new definitions if they require him to support something (eating fetuses) that conflicts with his religious convictions,,, The 14th amendment HAS NOT CHANGED. Her SWORN LEGAL OATH for LEGAL OFFICE HAS NOT CHANGED. She IS NOT in a position of RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY. She IS NOT performing RELIGIOUS CEREMONYS, she isn't performing ANY CEREMONYS. Her OBLIGATION is LEGAL. Her office is LEGAL. Her work is LEGAL. Her title is LEGAL. Her 'boss' the COURTS, are COURTS OF LAW. Her RELIGIOUS BELIEF doesn't supersede ANY LAW IN ANY COURT IN THE UNITED STATES. it sure doesn't, and those Christians who found slavery amoral didn't have beliefs that SUPERCEDED law either, or those who struck out against segregation and jim crow, but thank God they made the sacrifices and stood up to those laws even to the point of breaking them,,,,, fighting a system that made certain people feel they had to CLOSET 'who they are' by just pushing some other group there instead is WRONG,, whether its 'legal' or not Wrong. You know you're wrong. There is nothing RELIGIOUS about slavery statutes that used to exist. They were, at the time, LEGAL binding contracts of sale or records of ownership of ANY PROPERTY, to the COUNTIES STATES AND the IRS have didlly squat to do with RELIGION. Jim crow laws were, at the time, LEGAL. They had no RELIGIOUS authority. These PEOPLE are LEGALLY RECOGNIZED AS PEOPLE. Not as Christians, or good Christians or saint's or ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH RELIGION. Legally. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Except THAT LAW has not changed. No new "Same-sex marriage Bill" has been passed so that HAS BEEN her job all along. All the supreme court did was issue a LEGAL review and compel those who were RELIGIOUSLY opposed to ALLOW THE PEOPLE THEIR FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND EQUAL PROTECTION AND RIGHTS under THE SAME CONSTITUTION THAT APPLIES TO ALL OTHER CITIZENS. Had they not done so, they would CONDONE the COUNTIES STATES AND IRS to not recognize these PEOPLE as HUMAN BEINGS and as COUNTIES STATES AND A COUNTRY AS AUTHORITY OF LAW to DENY THEM THEIR FREEDOM RIGHTS AND PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.
LAW not religion. Not personal belief. Not homphobia. U.S. Law applies to all citizens. Even ones we don't personally agree with. There is nothing on the marriage LICENSE that says I agree that these two people should be together in HOLY MATRIMONY for all the days of their life and if they conduct ANY SIN to include a SINFUL SEXUAL ACT that I (Kim Davis) will be personally responsible for said sin directly to God even though I was not present and did not encourage or participate in THAT sinful sexual act, payable with my soul's eternal damnation in the hottest of the fires in all of hell for eternity. Straight people commit RELIGIOUSLY sinful sexual acts too. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ms, with all respect, I'm going to give you a hypothetical comparison to this. I want you to answer honestly with regards to legality ONLY. A devout Hindu becomes the head of the FDA. To him, the cow is holy, and he starts failing every business that processes any products that contain dairy and beef. If a slaughter house fails a FDA inspection for cleanliness, they cannot LEGALLY sell ANYTHING as food to ANYONE. McD's BK steak houses and grocery stores will run out of meat and dairy IF enough or large enough suppliers shut down. Many people will start asking questions and getting angry because there is not new stock being supplied. This supervisor is inquired by Congress, the CDC has nothing like mad cow disease cases or foot and mouth disease as LEGAL EVIDENCE for shutting down the processors dairies and slaughtering. This devout Hindu not only tells congress and the CDC that all these places fail because they slaughter and sell parts of holy animals, but cannot be cleansed enough to resume processing ANY OTHER MEATS due to the RELIGIOUS SINS committed in the slaughter of cows. Is he LEGALLY sound in his reasoning? The facilities cannot process anything without FDA approval. no, based upon this first sentence "a devout hindu becomes the head of fda,,,,to him the cow is holy' he took a job knowing the job and knowing cows were part of it WHEN HE STARTED, by accepting the job he accepted it WITH THAT JOB DESCRIPTION but more closely to kim would be 'a devout hindu becomes the head of fda, and THEN fetuses become defined as food,,, because fetus, in his religion , are human beings,, he refuses this ALTERATION to the original outline of his job expectations , and fights for a religious exemption to allow him to inspect everything BUT fetuses for consumption, like he did when originally accepting the position' based upon a situation where the definitions change AFTER the job is accepted,,there would be legal standing to challenge being forced to participate with those new definitions if they require him to support something (eating fetuses) that conflicts with his religious convictions,,, The 14th amendment HAS NOT CHANGED. Her SWORN LEGAL OATH for LEGAL OFFICE HAS NOT CHANGED. She IS NOT in a position of RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY. She IS NOT performing RELIGIOUS CEREMONYS, she isn't performing ANY CEREMONYS. Her OBLIGATION is LEGAL. Her office is LEGAL. Her work is LEGAL. Her title is LEGAL. Her 'boss' the COURTS, are COURTS OF LAW. Her RELIGIOUS BELIEF doesn't supersede ANY LAW IN ANY COURT IN THE UNITED STATES. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt the LGBT movement will have any tolerance for anything but EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US type execution of the law,,,but I admire her for trying I'm not quite sure what you admire about a citizen going against the law of the land when hundreds of thousands of dollars have most likely already been spent on this absurdity(her). Would you admire a Muslim pushing a verse in the Koran in the same public manner? you surprise me daily MsH  many changes have come through people protesting or contesting or 'going against ' the law peaceful protests where blacks set where they were not permitted were against the law, and I admire MLK for his habit of leading them and yes, I would admire a muslim if they entered a position in one capacity and then had to endure a change that directly contested their religious convictions with no opportunity for some interim compromise to acknowledge the reality that their job has changed from what they were to believe they would do when they applied,,especially if they have done that job well up til the point that the dynamics changed,,, As I said it's perfectly understandable IF she made a mistake, she didn't. This was made VERY CLEAR when she was compelled by the SUPREME COURT to do the DUTY SHE WAS ELECTED TO DO, which HAS NOT CHANGED. She was ORDERED nicely without being jailed to STOP DISCRIMINATING AGAINST CITIZENS AND DENYING THEM THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. She instead, DENIED ALL CITIZENS THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, as a LEGAL AUTHORITY OF Rowan County and the State of Kentucky for >HER PERSONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS<. No Muslim Jew Christian Hindu Buddhist or any other religion can make or DENY a LEGAL DOCUMENT to ANYONE for a RELIGIOUS BELIEF. Not in AMERICA. no legal document should REQUIRE ANYONES SIGNATURE< except those entering in a contract, to define its legality especially if such person is not in agreement with the contract and no lunch bar should be denying service on the base of color, but they did for YEARS, while the authorities compelled them to stay in their place , by actions ranging from compelling 'nicely'(whatever that is) to incarcerating thank goodness they didn't just say , its the law so I will just follow it,,,or give up,, Those who participated in the sit ins were not elected officials compelled by the SUPREME COURT to do LEGAL PAPERWORK. She isn't the victim, those being DENIED LEGAL service GUARANTEED TO THEM AS TAX PAYING CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES and the SUPREME COURT LEGAL REVIEW THAT DID NOT CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES or HER LEGAL OBLIGATION AS ELECTED COUNTY CLERK. This IS NOT a peaceful protest. Her RELIGIOUS FREEDOM is not gone, she may practice her religion in any church she wishes to be a member. This is HIGHLY PUBLICIZED ONE WOMAN WAR ON THE SUPREME COURT AND SAME-SEX COUPLES seeking LEGAL DOCUMENTS and her (un)justification for denying EVERYONE seeking a marriage license they MUST AQUIRE to be LEGALLY RECOGNIZED AS MARRIED BY THE STATE AND THE IRS is Her own mistaken belief that she can make or deny LEGAL decisions for the couples, the IRS in the name of ROWAN COUNTY and THE STATE OF KENTUCKY for HER PERSONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEF. She's wrong. She has NO AUTHORITY to impose HER RELIGIOUS BELIEF on ANYONE for ANY REASON at ANY TIME as AN ELECTED LEGAL CLERK. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ms, with all respect, I'm going to give you a hypothetical comparison to this. I want you to answer honestly with regards to legality ONLY.
A devout Hindu becomes the head of the FDA. To him, the cow is holy, and he starts failing every business that processes any products that contain dairy and beef. If a slaughter house fails a FDA inspection for cleanliness, they cannot LEGALLY sell ANYTHING as food to ANYONE. McD's BK steak houses and grocery stores will run out of meat and dairy IF enough or large enough suppliers shut down. Many people will start asking questions and getting angry because there is not new stock being supplied. This supervisor is inquired by Congress, the CDC has nothing like mad cow disease cases or foot and mouth disease as LEGAL EVIDENCE for shutting down the processors dairies and slaughtering. This devout Hindu not only tells congress and the CDC that all these places fail because they slaughter and sell parts of holy animals, but cannot be cleansed enough to resume processing ANY OTHER MEATS due to the RELIGIOUS SINS committed in the slaughter of cows. Is he LEGALLY sound in his reasoning? The facilities cannot process anything without FDA approval. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt the LGBT movement will have any tolerance for anything but EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US type execution of the law,,,but I admire her for trying I'm not quite sure what you admire about a citizen going against the law of the land when hundreds of thousands of dollars have most likely already been spent on this absurdity(her). Would you admire a Muslim pushing a verse in the Koran in the same public manner? you surprise me daily MsH many changes have come through people protesting or contesting or 'going against ' the law peaceful protests where blacks set where they were not permitted were against the law, and I admire MLK for his habit of leading them and yes, I would admire a muslim if they entered a position in one capacity and then had to endure a change that directly contested their religious convictions with no opportunity for some interim compromise to acknowledge the reality that their job has changed from what they were to believe they would do when they applied,,especially if they have done that job well up til the point that the dynamics changed,,, As I said it's perfectly understandable IF she made a mistake, she didn't. This was made VERY CLEAR when she was compelled by the SUPREME COURT to do the DUTY SHE WAS ELECTED TO DO, which HAS NOT CHANGED. She was ORDERED nicely without being jailed to STOP DISCRIMINATING AGAINST CITIZENS AND DENYING THEM THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. She instead, DENIED ALL CITIZENS THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, as a LEGAL AUTHORITY OF Rowan County and the State of Kentucky for >HER PERSONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS<. No Muslim Jew Christian Hindu Buddhist or any other religion can make or DENY a LEGAL DOCUMENT to ANYONE for a RELIGIOUS BELIEF. Not in AMERICA. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
