|
Post by Bevo on Sept 10, 2015 18:34:17 GMT
I don't know about you guys... but, I find the QUOTE editing in this new forum more difficult to use... Even when I do get it, the difference in formatting (ie background color) is so small, it's really hard to read, and follow who said what??
I wonder if the color schemes are editable??
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Sept 10, 2015 20:00:29 GMT
I don't know about you guys... but, I find the QUOTE editing in this new forum more difficult to use... Even when I do get it, the difference in formatting (ie background color) is so small, it's really hard to read, and follow who said what?? I wonder if the color schemes are editable?? Agree, I was responding to EV on another thread, and I ended up responding to Doc.
|
|
|
Post by aufan59 on Sept 11, 2015 0:24:09 GMT
No, she can still freely exercise her religion. Case closed.
Being forced, by your government to affix your personal name to a document certifying a perversion that is opposed by your religion, is NOT "free exercise".
Yes... it's her job. But, she was elected. And, the rules were changed AFTER she was elected. There are ways to accommodate her deeply held religious beliefs. The fixes don't place any great burden on the state, or any affected party. It should be fixed ASAP.
Congress has not passed a law that violates her ability to freely exercise her religion. Period. Its funny how we talk about the intent of the founders, but only when it is about a decision we disagree with. Do we really believe the founding father's intent for the free exercise clause was for judges to determine whether someone has a sincerely held belief, to base the judgement on whether the state is burdened or not, to decide whether or not a person can be employed? Gay marriage laws have nothing to do with an establishment of religion or free exercise thereof. She can freely exercise her religion and the government can do absolutely nothing about it. The first amendment working exactly as the founders intended. But of course, we like how we've overreached on this amendment.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Sept 11, 2015 14:37:44 GMT
When you're in jail, you are NOT "free". Period.
Some interesting points raised....I'll get back to them when I have a bit more time.
|
|
|
Post by aufan59 on Sept 12, 2015 4:11:22 GMT
When you're in jail, you are NOT "free". Period. Some interesting points raised....I'll get back to them when I have a bit more time. She was not put in jail because of her religion, but because she broke the law. While in jail, she is still free to practice her religion. Your interpretation is that any law that contradicts one's religious views is unconstitutional, unless we make exceptions. Completely and utterly ridiculous, because ANYTHING can be a religious view. My religion states I am able to exceed the speed limit if I need to get to work. If I exceed the speed limit and get fined or arrested, can I claim a violation of my first amendment rights?
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Sept 12, 2015 4:30:31 GMT
She was not put in jail because of her religion, but because she broke the law. Just curious -- what law did she break?
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Sept 12, 2015 20:24:17 GMT
No federal judge has ANY authority over a county clerk to force her to issue marriage licenses.
None... Zip.... Nada.
If anyone did, it would be the Govenor or Kentucky, or the people of her county.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Sept 12, 2015 20:39:00 GMT
She was not put in jail because of her religion, but because she broke the law. Just curious -- what law did she break? That's the 64,000 question someone please cite what Kentucky law or statute she broke?
|
|
|
Post by aufan59 on Sept 12, 2015 21:41:41 GMT
She was not put in jail because of her religion, but because she broke the law. Just curious -- what law did she break? She was jailed for contempt of court, apparently. Nobody can answer my question. What law did congress pass that prohibited her free exercise of religion? If she is being denied her right to exercise her religion, then so am I. I religiously believe I should be able to drive faster than the speed limit on my way to work. My freedom of religion is being violated.
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Sept 12, 2015 22:04:59 GMT
When you're in jail, you are NOT "free". Period. Some interesting points raised....I'll get back to them when I have a bit more time. While in jail, she is still free to practice her religion. Nonsense
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Sept 12, 2015 22:08:08 GMT
I don't know about you guys... but, I find the QUOTE editing in this new forum more difficult to use... Even when I do get it, the difference in formatting (ie background color) is so small, it's really hard to read, and follow who said what?? I wonder if the color schemes are editable?? Agree, I was responding to EV on another thread, and I ended up responding to Doc.
Totally agree Fonts are ridiculously small in all cases.
|
|
|
Post by tigercpa on Sept 13, 2015 13:32:52 GMT
Agree, I was responding to EV on another thread, and I ended up responding to Doc.
Totally agree Fonts are ridiculously small in all cases. I think, in my case, i'm just an old fart...
|
|
|
Post by Hero on Sept 13, 2015 13:53:22 GMT
Totally agree Fonts are ridiculously small in all cases. I think, in my case, i'm just an old fart... Yikes...let's not go there.
|
|
|
Post by aufan59 on Sept 13, 2015 21:18:24 GMT
While in jail, she is still free to practice her religion. Nonsense She can't practice Christianity in jail? That is news to me.
|
|
|
Post by aufan59 on Sept 13, 2015 21:19:56 GMT
Just curious -- what law did she break? That's the 64,000 question someone please cite what Kentucky law or statute she broke? She was jailed for contempt of court. the real question, what law did congress pass that prevented her free exercise of religion?
|
|