Quetzal
New member
I hear Saudi Arabia is nice this time of year.
Oregon Judge Refuses To Perform Same-Sex Marriages
- Thread starter serpentdove
- Start date
Laws come from God (Ge 2:7) :straight: not government (Ge 11:4). :Commie:
It's your house of cards (Rom. 2:5). :burnlib:
Are you a Sodomite (heterosexual [Lev. 20:10–12] or homosexual [Lev. 20:10,13)? :smokie:
See:
From "Just Leave Us Alone" to "Arrest that Woman!" by Bob Enyart
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
And the right to religious freedom is a constitutional right not some half baked law pushed upon the people by the personal bias' of a supreme court justice. The so-called rights are perceived if others do not recognize the authority of the SCOTUS to trample their rights to impose it. This same court also has made past decisions that have been ignored, opposed, & overturned and it is in public descent that laws get overturned. The SCOTUS overstepped their constitutional boundaries on this one...expect to see more civil disobedience as time goes on.
They already do...No Prayer in school unless your a muslim? How about the gay bakeries that refuse to make wedding cakes for straight christian couples? Both are happening now and Yes, the right to have a worldview & reject/discriminate against another worldview already exists. You cannot legislate social acceptance as much as you would like to try.
Nah, she doesn't belong in jail ... she just needs to lose her job and carry the legacy of an employee who refuses to fulfill her required duties.
Quetzal
New member
My point is that Saudi Arabia has laws based on what they believe is God's laws. In reality, it is not a very welcoming place to visit for a large number of people. I imagine if you drafted laws according to what you believe God's laws are, it would be similar here.
Jose Fly
New member
And she refused to follow the law, despite taking an oath pledging to uphold it.
We are certainly a more lawful society.
Jose Fly
New member
Yes it is. But it is not a universal get-out-of-jail-free card that allows one to break whatever laws one wishes.
Do you feel the same about Loving v. Virginia?
Or, as is more often than not, the laws continue.
How? They acted exactly as the Constitution directs them to, i.e., evaluating the Constitutionality of laws.
I'm sure.
What in the world are you talking about?
Where? Link please.
No one's asking for acceptance. Just as people are still free to believe that interracial marriage is immoral and wrong, you remain free to believe the same about same sex marriage.
:yawn: Skin color is irrelevant (Ac 17:11). Sexual sin (heterosexual [Lev. 20:10–12]/homosexual [Lev. 20:10,13]) is relevant. :dizzy:
Last edited:
It's called civil disobedience unless you haven't heard it is all the rage, your president has been ignoring the law at his preference going on 7 years now. Hey people are just following his lead on this one.
What about it? That a black man can marry a white woman or vice versa? No rub at all, it is a natural & legitimate union of a man & a woman. There is nothing natural or legitimate about homosexuality...it is an anomaly.
Do They? Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu v US and numerous more crappy decisions from a politically motivated judicial body.
No, they did not, they imposed the political whims of an illegitimate group upon the constitutional rights of those that oppose it on religious & moral grounds. In essence they have pitted the constitution against itself by creating rights for an illegitimate group based upon aberrant behavior not even named in the constitution.
Bet on it...
You must live under a rock and this is not the only instance of it...
http://lastresistance.com/9546/michigan-public-school-board-allows-muslims-pray/
Read about it right here on TOL...
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106423
Oh but, that is where you are dead wrong, the homosexual movement is all about acceptance & legitimacy of physiologically unnatural behavior which cannot be legislated. I don't believe anyone denies the sexual legitimacy of a marriage between a man & a woman regardless of race or ethnicity, nor is it even in the ballpark as a parallel for the opposition to homosexual marriage or the legitimacy of said marriage on biological, physiological, or moral grounds.
Last edited:
No she didnt, in the state of kentucky its illegal, she followed the law, the supreme court cant make law- they can only intepret it. Its still up to the state or congress to make the law that allows it. That hasnt happened yet.
False, congress is who makes law.
He thought he'd get around it by not marrying anyone. It didn't work out that way.
Hundreds rally outside jail to support Ky. clerk
You discriminate every day. You discriminate between good eggs and rotten eggs. You discriminate between good milk and sour milk. You discriminate between good fish and bad fish. :idunno: What's wrong with having discriminating tastes? Is 5:20
Quetzal
New member
Now imagine that if you didn't like eggs, you were not allowed to get married. To discriminate or have a bias in and within itself is harmless. When there are legal restrictions attached to those discriminations, that is the problem.
I imagine that's in The Constitution :freak: if you look hard enough (Is 5:20).
opcorn:Think murder is a problem? How 'bout adultery? Kidnapping?
lain: These are all problems to God-fearing people. Gen. 13:13
Quetzal
New member
I can choose if I want to kill someone. I can choose to cheat on my wife. I can choose to kidnap the next door neighbor. I cannot choose the sex of a person that I am attracted to. Whatever excuse you use to ostracize and demonize people is up to you. Just don't expect everyone to support you.I imagine that's in The Constitution :freak: if you look hard enough (Is 5:20).
Think murder is a problem? How 'bout adultery? Kidnapping?