If she doesn't comply an orange jumpsuit is in her future

by DJS 508 Replies latest social current

• 

  Fisherman

  I'm happy whenever discrimination against people who are causing no harm ends.

  DJS, you have a dog in this fight. I do not. When did religion push government to do their job and put gays in jail in the US for their "crimes?" I remember though watching on tv, a while back, "Christian" religion endorsing the execution of gays in other countries. JW would never try to prevent gays from getting married or to have them jailed or executed.

  You see Davis' action as gay "discrimination" because she discriminated by not giving licenses to gays, a very recent legal provision. But only about 69 days ago, the US government discriminated against gays . That discrimination was the law of the land (in some states it was ok)

  I have already posted that people should not use religion as an excuse for not doing their job, but in all fairness, that should apply to everyone.

  It is a circuitous tactic to get her for contempt, but not for refusing to endorse gay marriages-they couldn't, so they used the catch-all device.

  Did not know you were a dub. I am not a fundie. JW are not fundies. I told you it is not about gay rights. Who am I to try to prevent others from being happy. When people's actions to themselves offend me. I do not hate them. I feel hurt. Same as I would if it was a son or someone that I loved. If it was my son though I would try to stop him but not someone else. I would not stop someone from being happy--Unless their actions were harming me, like rights to smoke in a public place and I had to breath their smoke.
• 

  Viviane

  I do not. When did religion push government to do their job and put gays in jail in the US for their "crimes?"

  One case that comes to mind is when Focus on the Family, a right wing-nut religious group, filed an amicus brief in Lawrence v. Texas where sodomy was illegal, urging the Supreme Court to allow sodomy and homosexual behavior to be criminalized.

  JW would never try to prevent gays from getting married or to have them jailed or executed.

  Irrelevant.

  It is a circuitous tactic to get her for contempt, but not for refusing to endorse gay marriages-they couldn't, so they used the catch-all device.

  It's not circuitous at all. She is refusing to obey a lawful order of the court, something that she sought and swore to do as a condition of her job. Nor is she jailed for refusing to endorse gay marriage. Not one person is being asked to endorse gay marriage. She simply needs to, issue, sign and file marriage paperwork if properly submitted and executed. No endorsement is necessary, despite your attempts to pretend endorse means something it doesn't.

  Honesty and education... you should try those. You would be wrong far less often.
• 

  Fisherman

  She is refusing to obey a lawful order of the court.

  Correct, and remanded for that. They cannot force her to endorse gay marriages, but they can enforce a Court Order.
• 

  Viviane

  They cannot force her to endorse gay marriages, but they can enforce a Court Order.

  No one is asking her to endorse gay marriage. You are using the word "endorse" incorrectly.
• 

  Fisherman

  incorrectly.

  Do not get angry with me viv, but that is an assertion.
• 

  Viviane

  Do not get angry with me viv, but that is an assertion.

  It's an incorrect assertion, one you are making. Why do you feel you should escape the consequences of your actions?
• 

  Fisherman

  It's an incorrect assertion, one you are making.

  I have not asserted.
• 

  SecretSlaveClass

  Zimunzucz:
  Simply put, the future generations of mankind derive no useful benefit from homosexuality. Traditional marriage is all about procreation and the viable continuation of our species.

  I was not going to reply to this because your comments had me fuming so bad It actually caused me acid reflux but I found myself still stewing a while later and realized I was not going to get past this until I said something. So I put down the laundry and picked up my iPad:

  
  

  What you are suggesting is that the only reason people get married is for pro-creation. This tells me a few things.

  1) Your marriage must be awful having been married for this sole purpose. Not love, not mutual respect, not common interests. Your wife is merely there as a dutiful sperm receptacle so you can ensure the survival of our species. How noble! I would much rather have a gay marriage for reasons Other than ensuring the continuance of our species. Since I got a vasectomy to avoid contributing to the population problem, I guess my wife can leave me now that there is no other purpose for me in the relationship.

  2) Clearly global overpopulation is also less important to you than your own needs and views, much in the same way as the happiness of others. You're an outstanding example of selflessness!

  3) You personify everything that is still wrong with our species in the 21st century.

  I do not want to get into a discussion with you in much the same way I would not want to attempt conversation with a brick. I just wanted to let you know that you sound ridiculous, pathetic, disturbing and I would say pitiful if I held any pitty for you but the truth is I don't. I find you utterly repulsive and I despise everything you and your ilk represent.

  That is all.

  
  

  
  
  
• 

  Viviane

  I have not asserted.

  Here is a direct quote from you asserting that she is refusing to endorse gay marriage:

  She refuses to endorse ss marriages.The Bible teaches that homosexual (ss) conduct is bad and also teaches tohate what is bad.

  You absolutely did make that assertion, your denial of that fact is 100% untrue. Now that we have established the facts, why do you think you should escape the consequences of your actions?
• 

  TakeOffTheCrown

  Some day it may be legal for a man to marry a very young boy. It will not be considered illegal or child abuse.