Kim Davis - Unethical

Go start a thread on the internet about it.

 

no, dictionaries, at least the better ones, list the varying usages as pertaining to different applications.

I posted the variant that applies to 'this' topic with regard to the usages as would be found in reading philosophers, theologians, metaphysicists, while you posted common usage.

 

not at all. My position is and has been that the gvmnt is a dictatorship if those ruled by gvmnt are unable to receive remedy or the application of its said laws and said laws result in unequal results under the law.

every state will tell you that is an unconstitutional condition.

One man one agency not much difference. The kliens wont get or see any remedy in their lifetime.

 

Actually, you've mostly posted a bunch of bullshit points typical of someone who has an unfounded persecution syndrome which they feel the need to continue to justify the narrative that says the whole world is against them. OH NOOOOO.....look what they are doing to us!!!!! Poor us! Our influence isn't what it used to be! Poor Kim Davis! Please send money! God needs money.

Typical bullshit conservative talking points. I've already addressed your point about philosophers, etc. Your argument doesn't hold water. Get over it.

 

well no, youve addressed your point about philosophers actually (and I countered)

nope for me its what I do, its a legal argument that appears to be outside the normal range of discourse on this forum since everyone failed to level on point legal counter arguments, ad homs, snide remarks and sarcasm aside. I can think of a couple straight up but as I said in another thread I do not make a practice of arguing against myself

 

Yawn.

 

maybe my comprehension skills are totally fucked or I just haven't a clue to what you're actually arguing?..

 

I explained it fairly well in post #224.

 

not you silly..

 

I know.

 

well I made a thread dedicated to the issues I am arguing.

 

No, I find your word usage and syntax makes it very difficult to follow what you are actually saying. Perhaps try writing in the common vernacular.

AHA, too academic for most of us common folk to understand.

Perhaps some of us do not enmesh ourselves in the verbiage of philosophers, theologians or metaphysicists.

Most of us here have just been making the point that this religious nutcase is working in an office in the capacity of THE LAW and thinks her religious beliefs should overrule that law.

See, one sentence cut to the chase, no filosofy, no theology, no metafysix.

 

the key word is 'free' exercise of it. it is not a free exercise when you affect and/or reduce the quality of life of other people, including their right to get married. a free exercise would be protesting, writing appeals/texts on your beliefs, etc.

some examples:

quotes are taken from wikipedia.

the US law and court practice is a scramble to me, and i have heard of court case examples that are so ridiculous i can't even imagine why adult people would take such things seriously. so pretty much anything could be claimed to be anything and more and interpreted in a hundred different ways, it seems, in the US.

but sticking to the topic, does granting a right for gay couples to marry actually target a particular religious practice? i would think it only affects those marriages where a gay couple wants a church wedding and a catholic priest. in such a case, that would be a religious practice (not the marriage itself, but the church ceremony), and the priest would have a right to refuse to perform the ceremony. but marriage is a secular institution, not a religious practice. it can have a religious ceremony, a religious celebration to it, but it itself is a non-religious practice.

and a county clerk is not a priest and the clerk's office is not a church. thus, this law that grants the right for gay couples to marry, does not target any religious practice at all. it is about a secular practice and exercise of rights, and thus freedom for exercise of religious belief to counteract it does not hold.

 

well you have just changed the whole scope of the argument.

seems to me marriage is a sacrament in the catholic religion.

the problem is you are answering arguments I did not make.

the kool thing is that you actually posted a few citations that apply to my thread demonstrating how the vmnt is usurping religious rights.

 

Not everyone is religious...law, govt should have nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

 

It may be. I don't know. I'm not Catholic.

I can tell you that marriage is not exclusively a sacrament of the Catholic church.

 

if you had gotten involved in those areas you would discover that the courts rely heavily on the reasoning of aforesaid academics. I apologize for the legalese but this is about legal matters and to be reasonably accurate in conveying my arguments I really have no choice but to use the appropriate dialect.