Does claiming religious freedom exempt you from having to obey the law?
Kim Davis, county clerk in Kentucky had now been jailed on charges of contempt of court for refusing, on God's authority, to to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. Her appeal was denied by the state and by the Supreme Court. She is claiming that her religious freedom is being infringed upon. Does religious freedom exempt you from following the lease or conducting the job you were elected to do? If yes, please indicate where to draw the line. For example, since the bible orders gay people to be killed, should a Christian who murders a gray couple get a pass?
It does not exempt anyone. This woman is misguided and is getting bad advice. She can't win and will lose her job if she keeps this up. Secular laws trump religious beliefs for good reason. Do you remember the woman who wanted her driver's license photo taken with a burkha that covered her face? The state would not allow it. Some public school districts have tired to set up prayer rooms for both Christians and Muslims. The cases ended up in court. The legal system is one of the few things that can unite us if properly administered. There are instances where exemptions are allowed (military draft era, etc.). But it is a very narrowly-defined list. We are a nation of laws and allowing religion to trump that idea will lead to chaos.
Hello Julie. I actually live 25 minutes from where this took place. Anyway I feel that she done right in standing up for her believes right up til the time they told her that she absolutely had to issue a license for homosexuals to marry. That is when Mrs. Davis should have resigned.
Also the homosexuals were not ordered to be killed by Christians,but rather the Israelites. I still believed God loves all people, but I believe there was a purpose in the Old Testament for this. I know God constantly dealing with this sin, and I believe He continues to do that as well today. Especially by STDs. However, God also tells us to love, Christ spoke of loving all mankind. I have good friends and family members who I love, and they practice homosexuality. They know I disagree, but they know I love them as well. They in turn respect me for my stance. God is their judge not me.
If a "Christian" was to murder he/she would be against what Christ taught, therefore they would not be a Christian. Once again God is there judge not me, but Christ said in Matthew 7:20, "Therefore by their fruit you will know them." While judgement is left to God on both believers and unbelievers, we still can know who is living right and who isn't. No one is perfect, but are we striving for perfection.
Mrs Davis should have walked away. That would have been a better witness anyway.
Law of the land must be obeyed and the notion of religious freedom should not be used to violate the constitution. I believe that if you don't agree to a particular rule, just obey it, reach the top, and then change the rule. If you cannot change it, do not disobey it in a way that others are affected. You may only take a course of action, which has implication upon yourself.
Business Ethics also asks to observe morality in our business / official conduct, but some of the times, the popular path has to be unfollowed just to fulfill the business needs. Considering this in the scenario of the woman who pretended to not obey the American law about Gay Marriage on the supreme Authority of God (which is the popular way), she could have allowed the licenses just to fulfill her official responsibilities. Otherwise it might cost her her job, and which would be an expensive decision.
Here's the thing: Kim Davis is infringing upon other people's religions by refusing the licenses. The ones who want it obviously think it's fine by their religious values but Davis is basically telling them her religious values are more valid than theirs when she refuses. Either way, someone feels like their religious values are being violated, right? Well, the law is where the line is drawn. Davis knew what would happen when gay marriage was declared legal and if she was uncomfortable with it, she should have found another job. All she was doing was trying to cause drama in a very childish manner because the government ruled in religious tolerance for all and not just some (definitely not all, since I'm a Christian myself) Christians.
I don't think religious freedom should exempt anyone from obeying the law. If one has been hired or elected to carry out duties of the State or federal government, they have a responsibility to carry them out within the laws that dictate those duties. If one's religious beliefs and convictions conflict with said duties to the point where it becomes impossible for them to carry out their duties, they should consider resigning. In the case of Kim Davis refusing to do her job, in my opinion, amounted to her attempting to change a system because of her strong, personal religious beliefs against gay marriage. You can't do that. It would make sense to me if she said, "My religious beliefs prevent me from providing services to gay couples. Therefore, I quit." I would still find it discriminatory but I would accept that her decision was based on her beliefs
First, the Bible does not order that Christians kill gays. God said in the Old Testament that AMONG THE ISRAELITE people, for a certain time, to kill any Israelite practicing homosexuality.
This is why there are millions of Christians in America and there is not a single instance, as far as I know, of a Christian killing a homosexual because he/she is gay.
Stop drawing goofy parallels between refusing to issue a marriage license and murdering someone.
This nation was built on the foundation of religious freedom, and I believe it must not be infringed upon.
If you read my question, you will see that I stated that the bible orders people to kill homosexuals, and Paul states in the new testament that they are worthy of death. someone could conceivably take that into their own hands.
240 millions Christians in the U.S. and no a single example of murder. Paul says they are worthy of spiritual death if they do not repent; does not call for killing them. Atheist could "conceivably" kill Christians for their beliefs but so what?
You're saying Christians have never committed a murder? I could prove you wrong with actual facts, but you'll hide behind the "no true scottsman" fallacy and say they weren't "real"Christians. A convenient, yet fallacious excuse"
JM: You're mixing "spiritual death" with "carnal death!" Paul wrote of "spiritual" things or did u not read Jn 4:24? Yes MANY (before coming to Christ) Christians killed in Scripture but due to "ignorance!" Did u find 1 "AFTER" coming under NC?
Norine, all of the entire list of Christian atrocities were after the nc, because there were no Christians before it. I'm not sure why that's hard to understand.
'Christians' have murdered abortionists, that's a fact, and in doing so shown that they have not understood their bible, for nowhere does Yeshua allow us to kill others, except possibly in defence of others.
But they must pay the price.
Thank you for not saying they were not real Christians, they just misunderstood their bible. Your honesty is refreshing.
JM: After NC Christians came over fm OT;I Pet4:6! But who "murdered" another after NC was my question?
PAUL didn't say ANYTHING according to Jer & Hebs! Why u say PAUL said when JESUS talked THRU Paul R Scripture LIED (Jer 31:33;Heb 8:10;10:
Norine, thousands of people were killed under the banner of Christianity for almost 2000 years. It's almost like you know nothing about the history of the church at all. Before Jesus, there were jews, not Christians.
If u would move under NC, u would know that Jesus offered the same Grace to the dead before ascending into heaven & though not written became Christ Followers or Christians so says Scripture!
History is being taught but neglect NC?
I Peter 3:19 When Jesus went into grave & spoke to prisoners (souls) & I Pet 4:6 "...that they may be judged according to men in the flesh..." He afforded EVERYONE "GRACE" so they could be judged as the living have been afforded. The same GRA
The entire issue should be moot. Marriage is not a government edict. There should be no marriage licenses. Marriage should be privatized. The Supreme Court ruled on a issue they had no business ruling upon. Now they've created a "catch-22" scenario. If one's religion does not allow for same sex marriage and one is the issuer of government granted licenses, one has to violate his/her belief system, when government and religion should be separate - but marriage should not be part of government anyway. What a mess.
I would agree, but Kim Davis is not being forced to have a gay marriage. She was ordered to issue the marriage license a a function of the job she was elected to perform.
I gathered that, but if marriage was private, no clerk would have been requested to issue a government license in the first place. Arrest the Supreme Court, release Davis, and make marriage private.
If marriage was private and not regulated somewhere, then how would surviving partner and next of kin and health decisions if one person is incapacitated be feasible?
Marriage does not require regulation. If one is wishes certain 'rights' over property and health issues of others, one would simply draw up the necessary contracts. This is common place.
Until the 16th-century, Christian churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s declarations.Since 1837, the proof of a marriage has been by a marriage certificate. The court should rule on legal processes.
JG: Marriage "contracts" are throughout Bible (ex: I King 3/Solomon)! What "man" fails to realize, "marriage" is btwn "male & female" so says Rm 1:25-32! GOD "allows man" to enact evil laws to "test" blvrs & KIM DAVIS "passed!" Thank GOD f
Marriage existed long before the bible, Norine, although the bible says you can sell your daughter into marriage and have multiple wives and women should marry their rapists. Sounds good, right?
Why don't you "upgrade?" It's a new day & we're under a New Covenant! Why not spend more time studying that instead of of "history?"
Because the new covenant is interpreted in a million different ways just like the rest of the bible is, and not even believers agree on it. History is a lot more interesting.
That's where you go "against" Scripture! II Cor 3:18 says "We chg from glory to glory." How do you do that if remaining in history? Move forward! Come out fm Old Cov (history)! It's a new day w/New Covenant or lost (Gal 1:6-9)!
Because, Norine, I don't believe your book is actually true, giving me no reason to follow it. This is a simple concept. People who do believe are welcomed to, but more people world Wide don't than do.
What other book have prophecies prophesied over 2K yrs ago & have come true? Ex: 9/11 Is 9:10! "...but more people world Wide don't than do." Do you go w/flow? WOW! I thought only Christians "flowed" in "faith!" At least we have a "hopeful" end!
You have a very loose definition of prophecy. Do the prophecies in Islam and other religions make them true, too?
Have we seen them fulfilled in this day & age? Name them?
Ask a Muslim. They'd say yes. You'd also have to prove that ties are actually prophecies and meet the criteria. It's a weak argument to make.
To answer your question in all fairness , you read the bibles moral views, but you must remember the bible in Hebrew and Greek was compiled for the Jewish Nation Of Isreal, they had a contract that they agreed to keep with their God.
All other nations were not binding .
Later Jesus upgraded the laws because of his blood value that there was no actual stoning after his death, only the Jews Who Rejected Him As THE Messiah would still keep the old mosaic laws.
The principles of right and wrong are still in tact, that is your own moral decision and your conscious that bears witness to you .
Next the law in our time as what the bible says people are not sticking togather as Iron and clay of image in the last days,
Case and point those who are raised and breaded on bible laws and principles have bible conscious to live and please their God, even if that means not agreeing to new laws of the land that say it is ok, because the bible says it's not.
But those who feel it is ok, want both worlds ,
Example the bible says it is wrong to kill, steal, and many more , and yet the law of the land agrees as well ,
But on the other hand the law says you can own a gun , most people are not hunters of animals ,but they will a human. The point is the law of the land is made for the land and majes appearances and changed, but the law of God has always been a works and bears witness to our human conscious even when people do not know it is active, some people will not cross that line no matter what.
Da 7:10A stream of fire was flowing and going out from before him. A thousand thousands kept ministering to him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. The Court took its seat, and books were opened.
The courts in the heavens stands.
K&T: Yes, "The courts in the heavens stands" but let's see how Fed Govt reacts since they enforce BOTH Religion (Davis) & Sex (LGBT's) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, as amended! I'd like to see them weezle themselves out o
Though, I had an acquaintance that was following an intense training to get married to his Jewish friend in a synagogue in New York, so???
The problem I have with your question is about it being law. The Supreme Court of the United States does not have the authority to make or create laws. That task is granted to Congress according to the Constitution of the US. "Article. I.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
EDIT: How many who read this question and agree that she should have just given licenses out to those who want them have any integrity about them at all? What I mean by this is, "If you believed that something you do is right, whether it is right according to anyone else at all, would not do it no matter how much pressure was put upon you."
EDIT: 2 In Kentucky, there are 120 counties. Each one has a County Clerk's office. No other County Clerk in KY refused to give out marriage licenses. Why did they pick on that certain one? They talk about how it is all about love, but yet they wanted time in the spotlight.
One couple came from Ohio to get a license in that County simply because one of them used to live there. Makes no sense to me at all. They wanted thier time on TV to show who they really are but many will turn a blind eye to them and agree with them because it is the popular thing to do.
The Supreme Court did not create the law, they interpreted the law. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc … ll/396995/ Davis swore an oath to uphold the law and failed to do so in contempt.
The KY Constitution says marriage is between a man and a woman. Kim was doing her job up until the SC changed things. Right or wrong, she has integrity.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc … ll/396995/ it doesn't really matter what Kentucky says. Someone full of such hypocrisy cannot be acting with integrity.
So there is no integrity for someone who holds to what they believe to be absolutely true. Got it. Thank you. Unfollowing now.
That's not at all what I said, and you know it. It has nothing to do with how true she holds her beliefs. Prior to the SC ruling, she had no problem issuing marriage licenses to people who had been divorced. It's hypocrisy and discrimination
JM from an earthy sense this seems to be the only law, but it is not, the law of God still stands and operates his own court and he is the higher Judge, look up because we are not alone nor uncountable in his court of LawPs 50:6, God does not change
Definition of marriage according to US Government Publishing Office. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-201 … 1-sec7.htm the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman
Yes, from 2011 and the defense of marriage act. Baker was overturned by the Supreme Court in Obergefell.
Well let's see what happens because BOTH are of a "protected class" under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 (as amended)! Davis under Religion and LBGT' under Sex!
Fed Govt is a hoot trying to appease all men now they have their behin!
Freedom of religion protects you to worship and practice your religion, but not to discriminate or break the law. Davis is free to have her religion, but not to force it upon others, which is what she's trying to do by denying civil rights.
JM: Not SO! Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, as amended, "protects" religious beliefs! If against her belief, she should've been "ACCOMMODATED" which would have eliminated the problem. But let's see OBAMA sweat is the name of the game!
You're misunderstanding what freedom of religion means, Norine. If I'm on a diet, I have no right to force you to eat diet food. Having a religion does not give you the right to force others to adhere to it.
We're not talking "freedom of religion" but violation of Religious rights (beliefs)! Accommodate & would've been no problem! Now she has a "basis" to file under Title VII! I've seen "no Sunday" work violations win bcuz "Accommodated!"
You don't have to accommodate someone unwilling to do the job they were hired or elected to do. You do not get to use your religion do deny another person's rights with impunity. You have to face the consequences for breaking the law
Not according to Title VII. Religious accommodations decisions were made quite often under Title VII @ EEOC for beliefs of Sabbath Day (Sunday)! But this is diff. Homosexuality overrules religion according to Supreme Court! A mess US placing us n
Norine, if you got a job at a butcher shop and your religion forbade you from eating pork so you refused to sell pork for other people to eat and wouldn't let your coworkers sell it either, you should not keep your job. It's that simple.
Heard of accommodation? Someone else could've issued license as they've since done since she's gone to jail. What's wrong w/that?
IS THIS POLITICAL OR RELIGION VS US SUPREME COURT?
She refused to allow any of her deputy clerks to issue the license either, effectively forcing her employees and the citizens to abide by her religious beliefs. You are not legally allowed to discriminate. That's the bottom line here.
They got married while she was in jail. They could've done it before she went to jail. FORCING someone to go against "religious beliefs" is unconstitutional & so is denying the "legal rights" of same sex marriage! Govt enacted both. Needs revisio
I don't know how many people have to repeat this to you, Norine. Davis ordered her deputy clerks not to issue the licenses either. She is also saying that licenses issued during her imprisonment are invalid, but she's wrong about that too
How many x's do I have to tell you, they could've done what they did while she was in jail if "valid"-"Accommodate!" I still smell "Politics!" See Religion vs. Immorality? See US' response? See "Satan's Kingdom" becoming more prevalent in societ?
I'm not going to go around in circles with someone who just says the same thing over and over again despite having it explained to them.
Great! Until you read the laws and protection is gives, it's futile! As one doesn't read New Covenant & protection thereof!
I understand the law and it's protections. You're the one that thinks it means something that it doesn't.
I don't typically like to involve myself in these debates but I have to say that this is where problems lie when it comes to bible based scripture. When people take the text out of the context it gets twisted and used in ways it was not intended for. Leviticus was not about gays, lesbians, transgenders, it was about sexual immorality, sorcery, witchcraft and Molech - idolatry of a false God. God never commands that we murder anyone, you also have to remember that the laws were covered by the sacrificial lamb, Jesus, He took away all the things of the law and saved us through grace, it is by grace that you have been saved and that is not a gift of yourselves but a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8) it is not for us to judge the sinner only the sin, to judge the sinner is up to God not us, I know plenty of gay couples and have some as family and I do not love them any less than the next person, they know where I stand in my faith in God and what the bible says but God says to love one another and even Jesus sat with sinners, all we can do is pray for them and that they turn from their ways and find salvation, if not again God is the judge not us. As for obeying the law I personally feel if you own your own business it is wrong for anyone to sue you or try to shut you down based on your religious beliefs because that is a constitutional freedom we are supposed to have in the U.S. And the couple who refused to make the wedding cake is a shame on the two women taking everything they worked for away from them because of their moral foundation and again they will have to answer to God for doing that and shame on them but I also believe that God will take care of the business owners and bless them and great will their reward be in Heaven for the persecution they are getting for standing up for God, if you are in a government position where you have to issue marriage licenses then tell your supervisor you will not do it, you have the religious freedom to do so and they can either accept it and transfer you to a different position or hire another person to work with you who does not have the religious viewpoints as Christians do. If they end your position that's a lawsuit on their hands. I know our pastor would rather lose his marriage permit than marry a same sex couple and I stand by him on that. Because it is judging the sin not the sinner.
Amen! Straight from the Word of God! Love the sinner, "hate" the sin!
Norine Julie is Atheist and really she is a very respectable allowing others to speak ,
You can not represent your case with the bible alone because she does not belief in God , or in his word the Bible , the Father forces no one to come understand
WORD doesn't say "leave atheist alone!" I know Julie is Atheist but has a soul! I appreciate her kindness but WORD is for ALL!
True Norine the word is for all and you have a zeal to share it , but we should be argumentive.
For people who insisted that the comparison of Kim Davis to someone murdering a gay person was unfair (and it might have been) let's go with a different example. If there is a Muslim in a clerks office who refuses to issue drivers licenses to women because of their religious beliefs, should they be allowed to do so? What about if they're also refusing to allow deputy clerks to issue the licenses as well, effectively not only holding to their personal religious beliefs, but also forcing them onto others who work with them in subordinate positions? How about a surgeon who converts to be a Christian scientist who now refuses to perform surgery because of their religious beliefs? Should they expect to keep their jobs while refusing to perform them?
Ms. Davis is choosing to follow God's law, but took an oath to follow man's law, and she cannot have it both ways. She needs to find a new profession.
Freedom of Religion is simply that. Everyone has the freedom to choose their Religion and not be forced to worship or not worship any God.
Any person who commits a murder for any reason should not get a pass!
You may say what about self defense? Self defense is not murder.
Well, whether one likes it or not, here is what the Word of God says regarding homosexuality and the action taken by Kim Davis! First of all, one must realize that "this world" is Satan's Kingdom; therefore, "laws" are established by "man" who God knew from the beginning was "evil" in his heart (Gen 8:21)! Therefore, "laws" this world has enacted usually does not coincide with the Word of God (Satan's Kingdom)!
Believers NOW live under the New Covenant (Grace and Truth) in which Romans 13:1 says "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers..." But did anyone continue reading? Verse 4 says "...But if thou do what is evil (Romans 1:24-32), BE AFRAID; for he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God (People (man/evil) are put in positions of authority to "test" Believers and Kim passed the "test!") an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." (Jail for it was against "man's" law!)
Did you read the verse in preceding chapter (Rm 12:19)? "...AVENGE not yourselves but, rather, GIVE PLACE UNTO WRATH (And She DID by going to jail!); for IT IS WRITTEN, "VENGEANCE IS MINE; I WILL REPAY, SAITH THE LORD." If they think they've gotten away with what they've done, WAIT! It may take years, but this nation will suffer; in the area of reproduction if nothing else!
GOD'S LAWS supersedes "man's" laws. Under the NEW COVENANT, Scripture says in Acts 5:29 "Then Peter and the other apostles answered, and said, "WE OUGHT TO OBEY GOD RATHER THAN MEN." Kim knew this and is why she displayed "integrity" which a "TRUE BELIEVER" should display when in accordance with "GOD'S WORD!"
I know MOST don't want to hear "truth," especially when it conflicts with one's "preferred lifestyle," but if a believer, we must tell ALL what is written in the Word of God! We love the sinner, but "hate" the sin!
If one doesn't obey the law of the land, they MAY go to jail,
But if one doesn't obey GOD, they WILL go to hell!
Thank GOD for Kim Davis and I Pray for more "Believers" like her! If she runs for an office and I can vote, I'll vote for her!
Uhhh, no. I feel sorry for everyone because, people don't understand each other, have different beliefs, habits, choices and get upset with each other, allow themselves to do and say things to others… peace.
Julie the scriptures says this at 1Co 6:9The Bible was written for the Jews in the old testement, but Jesus upgraded in New Testament .
Notice if God allows an Authority To Stand or exist
He is higher then that Authority.
So if Christians are to throw out the old testament, you've lost both original sin (the reason Jesus came at all) and all of Jesus heritage, since he was a practicing jew. He said heaven and earth would disappear before the law did.
Julie Jesus words at Mt 5:17“Do not think I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill.
He came to upgrade the law to better it,
Example no more gifts of animal sacrefice,
No more circumcision not required
Keep reading verses 18-20. Has the earth disappeared? You're taking the words of Paul, who never met Jesus, over the words of Jesus himself.
JM: Read Jer 31:31-33; Heb 8:10;10-16 re: New Covenant's origination! Jn14:26 &16:13 Promised Holy Spirit.Came Acts 2:2; began"puting laws n hearts & minds via Holy Spirit AFTER Jesus ascended telling Apostles what to do. So NOT "Paul" but HS
And how do you prove that? Didn't the holy Spirit think to inform Jesus of that in Matthew? I know you believe that it was the holy Spirit, but believing something doesn't make it true.
Read Jn 14:26 ("..in MY name..") so Holy Spirit's NAME is JESUS!
He did as He said in Matt "fulfilled law" by "puting laws in hearts & minds" vs. "stone!"
New Covenant is ALL Spirit (Jn 4:24)!
Lol so no proof, just more baseless claims that go against trinitarian doctrine now. Do you understand that saying something doesn't make it true?
Are you saying the Scriptures (WORD OF GOD) I just gave you are LIES? Did u read? Do u care or just talking? Acts 17:11 Read to "see if these thgs are so!"
I'm saying that the bible is the claim, and something cannot be the claim and the proof that the claim is true. By your logic, you also have to agree that the Koran is true because it says it is. You're using fallacious circular reasoning.
Did I not tell u that "proof" is in "belief?" PK1-PhD? Action has been shown me by Holy Spirit which inc my "faith!" Read II Chron 7:14! Try It to "see" PROOF!
Taking something that says it's true does not make it actually true, no matter how much you believe it. Thank you for admiring you have nothing but hot air. Please stop invading my question with your twisted rhetoric or it will be deleted.
Norine we should not be argumentive, you do not argue with sheep , they come by Jesus call. we just feed and help.
A person have the right of freedom to do whatever they want, but that right does not include behavior that effect other's freedom, hurt others, endanger society or threaten the state. Therefore, a person has the right to religion freedom providing they don't effect other's freedom, hurt others, endanger society or threaten the state. Therefore, law maker has right to make law to protect people's freedom, not to be harm, maintain social order and protect the state, of course by doing so, the law is also effecting other's freedom and might hurt others (e.g. drafting people into military service against their will, executing people or throwing people in prison.) therefore, the question is, to what extend is it acceptable for law maker to make law, that effect other's freedom or could cause harm to other, to protect people's protect people's such right of freedom (get a bit confusing here, isn't it?). But having say that, I don't believe religion is above law and if the law serve the function protecting freedom, not to be harm, maintain social order, protecting the state, the law is morally just, to undermine the religion freedom of people.
One of the most interesting case surrounding the issue today, is surprisingly rape. Sometime rape occur, because the guy thought the girl consent, but the girl didn't. In this instant some states and nations, throw the guy in prison anyway, because it seriously violated the girl's free will. But, by throwing the men in prison for rape, is violating his freedom too. As a result, in some state and nation, they look at who is at fault for the misunderstanding, if it is the guy, then he got to prison, if it is the girl (usually happen, because the girl is afraid to say no or so shock, she didn't know what to do.) then the guy, is pardon from rape charges. Although now it is known some people would rape a girl, in sleep walking, today, the court throw these men in prison for 10~20 years for rape. But consider he didn't rape consciously, should he be charged so seriously or should he maybe be given a lesser charge e.g. financial compensation to the girl. As a result, there are girls been rape by sleep walking men, even choose to forgive him and withhold information to police, so he won't get in trouble, knowing he didn't do it consciously and felt it is unfair, for him to receive such harsh sentence for conducting rape when he was unconscious.
The religion freedom issue remind me of an episode of the Simpsons, where Mr. Burn go around hunting people alive and his lawyer use the term "it is Mr. Burn's religion to hunt human" to make it holdup in any court. That is of course inappropriate and the term "it is my religion" shouldn't be an excuse to grand a person the right to murder another. Few years ago in Australia there was a proposal to outlaw Muslim women from covering their face, when ISIS raise to power. It was on good ground during that time, but the law didn't pass, because (1) the Prime minister's attitude was seen as racist by opposition and Australian public (2) some people think it is unnecessary (3) it isolated out Muslim religion practice only, other people can still cover their face, in other word, double standard.
"Undue hardship?" NO! They married when she went to jail! T7 enforces BOTH! Nxt GOVT will protect prostitution if that's what "the PPL want!" Does it make it rt? Who care what GOD wants? But "VENGEANCE IS MINE, SAITH THE LORD!" So don't cry, PPL!
Law came into existence because religion alone could not keep people from committing crimes. Abiding by the law is the only way to keep order in this world. Nothing can or should exempt anyone from obeying the law.
True we are to obey theGoverment to a point because even Jesus says so ,
Mr 12:17Jesus then said: “Pay back Caesar’s things to Caesar, but God’s things to God.”
But notice we are not to give God things to Ceasar.
Ac 5:29 God is a higher ruler .
Romans 13:let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed.
True Scripture Julie as posted , but this is about Basic law and order we are to obey , like paying taxes, human endangerment, street laws, the reason that does not apply to this Subject because God himself condemn homosexual relationships.1Co 6:9
Did u continue reading Rm 13:14 "...make not prov for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts." If they would've, none of this would be happening!
If man's laws conflict w/GOD'S law, then Acts 5:27-29 applies "...We ought to obey GOD rather than man!"
There was no such thing as exclusive homosexual relationships in biblical times. It was tired to pedophilia and cult temple prostitution. Applying it here is composting apples to oranges. She defied an order from the Supreme Court. Period.
it is really strange to know about this!But there should be some way to solve this law with peace in society.
I think it would be different if laws were applied fairly. San Francisco Mayor Newsom directed city clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. At that time, gay marriage was prohibited in California. He was NOT sent to jail. Willis D. Bruce Hanes issued the first marriage license to a same-sex couple despite Pennsylvania’s ban on gay marriage. He did NOT go to jail. It seems going to jail is only an option for those who are not politically correct. Attorney General in Virginia Mark Herring refused to obey the state's laws against same sex marriage. He said “As attorney general, I cannot and will not defend laws that violate Virginians’ rights,” I guess he got to pick and choose which laws he would obey. Again, no jail time and was thought of as a hero. There are many more examples. Can anybody see the hypocrisy happening in this situation?
Do you think the Muslim flight attendant should get to keep her job after refusing to serve drinks to passengers over her religious freedom in deference to islam?
A flight attendant does not have a governmental position. She is not paid by taxpayers. In this situation there is no issue of following established law. A private company should have the right handle things differently.
So you think that because Kim Davis is an elected official, she should be free to break the law in denying equal rights, while others who act for equal rights should be punished? I'm going to understand your position here.
The point is that since so many other government officials in the past disobeyed the law of the land, as did Kim Davis, and were not put into Jail for it, she should not be put in jail.
Do you have verifiable links to the other two cases you mentioned? As well as the "many other examples"? Did either of those people defy a court order from the Supreme Court, because that's what she's actually in jail for -contempt of court.
What I mentioned were from news stories. If you can do research and find them then maybe you can't. The Supreme Court did not issue a court order. They deferred to a ruling from a lower court. She was in jail for contempt of court..
by Dan Harmon2 years ago
Texas attorney general Ken Paxton has issued a statement that the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage is illegal. “Texas must speak with one voice against this lawlessness, and act on multiple levels to further...
by M. T. Dremer3 weeks ago
Do you believe non-religious people, who lead a good life, are still going to hell?One of my biggest frustrations with religion is the idea that, how you live your life is of no consequence if you do not accept god. For...
by Dwight Phoenix2 years ago
What are the most annoying responses Christians give to questions atheists ask?I'm a christian and I think that it would be helpful in ministry, if Christians new a bit more about how atheists felt about a Christian's...
by Ron Montgomery8 years ago
Possible? Interesting? Shortest thread ever?I was raised in a conservative Christian family, but no longer refer to myself as a Christian. I am agnostic, meaning I live in a world full of...
by Cassie Smith5 years ago
"In one of the clearest rulings for religious freedom in years, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided that courts may not intervene in church hiring decisions, protecting the “ministerial exception” that...
by Scott Bateman23 months ago
The Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act protects religious people from legal repercussions if they verbally condemn the lifestyle or actions of LGBT persons. Additionally, the bill expands the definition of an...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.