The homophobic thread :>

[Vrede too]

homerfobe's obsession with gays, nttawwt, makes him stupid and gullible about the law, poor thing.

[Seth Milner]

(nothing worth quoting)

Not opened, but I did get the quote notification.... How many of his invisible posts are still directed at me? What an idiot! ...

Hee hee; I think he likes you!

That guy is one real piece of work, but I think some of his parts are missing, or defective, or both.

[Seth Milner]

Let's pretend for a moment I'm a successful surgeon. Let's say I've been with the hospital several years. One day I convert to Jehovah's Witness.
I can no longer deal with blood transfusions.... so I can't do my job anymore. Is the hospital supposed to keep paying me for doing a job I refuse to do?

That would depend on how seriously you take the oath you swore to save lives. (they still do that don't they? How about it Vrede too?)
Also, I thought that "religious" trait was the Church of Christ, Scientist, (not that I ever dreamed that Christ was a scientist.)

[Seth Milner]

Which is it, that you also hate the Constitution or that you don't hate bigotry?

"UNLESS explicitly stated, there is no endorsement, support, adoration, or advocacy for any subject matter."

[Vrede too]

I think that MDs still take an oath, like the bigoted clerk you defend did, but whether the hospital is supposed to keep paying the hypothetical MD has nothing to do with the oath. Are you still ducking or did banni's question confuse you?

[Vrede too]

Like the ones standing at the desk shouting insults at Kim Davis?

Unconstitutional bigotry gets hated, deal with it.

Thanks for verifying; I was correct.

Which is it, that you also hate the Constitution or that you don't hate bigotry?

Own "logic" ducked, as usual.

[Seth Milner]

. . . like the bigoted clerk you defend. . .
"UNLESS explicitly stated, there is no endorsement, support, adoration, or advocacy for any subject matter."

Are you still ducking or did banni's question confuse you?
Is there a rule that states I have to reply to every comment? Or are you ripped because I won't play your silly little game?

[bannination]

Let's pretend for a moment I'm a successful surgeon. Let's say I've been with the hospital several years. One day I convert to Jehovah's Witness.
I can no longer deal with blood transfusions.... so I can't do my job anymore. Is the hospital supposed to keep paying me for doing a job I refuse to do?

That would depend on how seriously you take the oath you swore to save lives. (they still do that don't they? How about it Vrede too?)
Also, I thought that "religious" trait was the Church of Christ, Scientist, (not that I ever dreamed that Christ was a scientist.)

Obviously religion trumps any oath I've taken. So how about a straight answer?

[Seth Milner]

Obviously religion trumps any oath I've taken. So how about a straight answer?

What you or Kim Davis decide to do with your lives is no skin off my teeth, nor is it any concern of mine whether either of you should continue to draw your pay. In Kim's case, that decision is up to the voters or whatever board decides such matters. It's not the decision of a mass of pissed-off supporters of homosexual rights. Your decision as a doctor suddenly deciding that your religion trumps your duties as a saver of lives is your own moral dilemma, and the hospital board's decision as to whether or not to keep you on the payroll. That decision is not mine or anyone else who would view you solely as a religious wingnut. Is that straight enough for you?

If you really cared about saving lives, you would give serious thought as to whether you really wanted to join a denomination that is so warped in their thinking while not realizing that if there is a God, it was He who gave you the ability and skills to become a caring, thoughtful individual that wanted to put your learned skills to good use.

Since you mixed the subject of Kim Davis and Jehovah's Witnesses, check this out.

[bannination]

Well this is all easy.

Get government job. Claim work is against my religion. PROFIT! Apparently the religious homophobes are fine with this!

[Seth Milner]

Well this is all easy.

Get government job. Claim work is against my religion. PROFIT! Apparently the religious homophobes are fine with this!

Kim Davis had her government job long before the gay marriage issue arose. And where is the PROFIT in any employment? If there is any PROFIT in employment wages, we can all claim PROFIT if we have a job. The thing I see here is you and the homosexual supporting masses are totally pissed she's still got her job, her government job that is!

[bannination]

Well this is all easy.

Get government job. Claim work is against my religion. PROFIT! Apparently the religious homophobes are fine with this!

Kim Davis had her government job long before the gay marriage issue arose. And where is the PROFIT in any employment? If there is any PROFIT in employment wages, we can all claim PROFIT if we have a job. The thing I see here is you and the homosexual supporting masses are totally pissed she's still got her job, her government job that is!

If only we could get just a few more worker protections for the rest the workers in the U.S. 80K a year to not do a job. Not bad.

*Actually she got the job knowing that gay marriage was getting ready to pass. Dodge much? You've tried to get out of answering a simple question every way possible.

[Seth Milner]

If only we could get just a few more worker protections for the rest the workers in the U.S. 80K a year to not do a job. Not bad.
Would you be happier if she only made 25K a year? Hell, look at a TV meteorologist, they get paid big bucks whether they're right or wrong in their forecasts; no big deal.

*Actually she got the job knowing that gay marriage was getting ready to pass.
So? You're really going to get pissed if she wins her appeal and goes back to work.

Dodge much?
No; Ford.

You've tried to get out of answering a simple question every way possible.
I've not tried to do any such. I answered with what I feel; you just don't like my answers; they don't lean in your direction. Bottom line, bannination, I care less about Kim Davis, whether she stays in jail or gets out, your support of homosexuals, what homosexuals want, what they get or don't get. . . it's not my fight. I'm only sitting back and commenting and watching you and the others here fume, moan, and whine. I don't condemn or condone homosexuality. I'm satisfied with my life and I don't take up a mantle, pro or con, for every issue that hits the news. If Kim wins, good for her. If she loses, the homosexuals have won. . . that was easy.

[O Really]

(sigh)... it really has nothing to do with homosexuality. Kim did have a "government job" for years, working for her Mom who was the elected official. But she hasn't been the elected official all that long - 5 months or so. So yes, it was predictable by any rational person that she would be expected to issue licenses on an equality basis by the time she took office. But here's the thing - her offense is "contempt of court." That means, short version, that she refused to comply with a lawful order of a court that had jurisdiction over her. It doesn't matter whether her original offense was refusing to issue licenses or reveal her source as a journalist or whatever. The law, as determined by the Supreme Court is that her county had to issue marriage licenses without regard to sexual orientation. She refused, for whatever reason or reasons. The judge gave her opportunities to find a solution. She refused. It doesn't matter whether she refused to issue licenses or refused to answer a subpoena or refused to produce evidence, she refused a lawful court order. That's contempt. The lady is getting really bad legal advice, and she's going to lose her lucrative job unnecessarily.

[rstrong]

The thing I see here is you and the homosexual supporting masses are totally pissed she's still got her job, her government job that is!

No-one really cares that she has *A* government job. Few really care about the three-generation nepotism involved. Heck, few even care that she refuses to actually DO that her job.

The problem is that she's trampling on the rights of others.

No-one is trampling on HER rights, because she never had the right to dictate law in the first place. 50 years ago a Catholic marrying a Protestant was a big no-no. For a government official refusing to let a black marry a white, you only have to go back to 2009. Those officials never had the right to set policy based on their personal bigotries, and nor does she.

The mountain of hypocrisy on her part doesn't help. Religious grounds? She's doing some major cherry-picking. There are plenty who would argue based on the Bible that as a divorcee she should not have been allowed her second marriage. Or her third. Or her fourth. Should a government employee be allowed to refuse her new marriage licences on religious grounds?

Meanwhile there are major Christian denominations who AS CHRISTIANS have no problem recognizing and performing same-sex marriages.

[Vrede too]

I think that MDs still take an oath, like the bigoted clerk you defend did, but whether the hospital is supposed to keep paying the hypothetical MD has nothing to do with the oath.

Point still ducked, what a wuss!

"UNLESS explicitly stated, there is no endorsement, support, adoration, or advocacy for any subject matter."

You have been defending her. You sure are a wimp when busted, poor thing.

Are you still ducking or did banni's question confuse you?

Is there a rule that states I have to reply to every comment? Or are you ripped because I won't play your silly little game?

You did reply to his comment, just stupidly or as a coward. You sure are a silly little wimp when busted, poor thing.

[Vrede too]

Well this is all easy.

Get government job. Claim work is against my religion. PROFIT! Apparently the religious homophobes are fine with this!

Kim Davis had her government job long before the gay marriage issue arose.

Lie, as usual when you're floundering. She started the job in Jan. 2015, two years after the SCOTUS handwriting was on the wall. Now, throw another whiny tantrum about my style. It's what you always do when you flub the facts, poor thing.

And where is the PROFIT in any employment? If there is any PROFIT in employment wages, we can all claim PROFIT if we have a job.

She's being paid 80K a year to not do her job, idiot, and she's getting donations by the truckload.

The thing I see here is you and the homosexual supporting masses are totally pissed she's still got her job, her government job that is!

Ummm, she's in jail and SSM will happen in the county. Get back to us when you have a clue what you're posting about.

[Seth Milner]

She's being paid 80K a year to not do her job, idiot, and she's getting donations by the truckload.

And that is the underlying reason that you and the SSM supporters have your undies in a twist. She's doing better in jail than at her job!!
It doesn't take a Philadelphia lawyer to see right through your fury! Hey, if she pulling one, in any form or fashion, she isn't so dumb after all!

[Seth Milner]

Ummm, she's in jail and SSM will happen in the county. Get back to us when you have a clue what you're posting about.

I never said it wouldn't.
Get back to us, whoever "us" that is really interested in this banter is, when you have a clue what you're posting about.

[Vrede too]

Duh, Kim Davis has never personally begged for money on GoFundMe, as the headline stated.

That's not what the headline states, it's merely preemptive. Comprehend much?

Illiteracy ducked, as usual.

I don't really care to think regarding her funding her legal defense; and according to GoFundMe, it isn't their website, so I'd have to say private donations.

English please.

Illiteracy ducked, as usual.

You are only speculating

Ummm, she's already getting help and there's no indication that she's rejecting it.

Stupidity contradicted without admission by your more recent post.

... Not all the plaintiffs voiced no jail time.

Citation needed.

Challenge ducked, as usual.

I got it that you believe anyone with sincere Christian beliefs that condemn homosexuality are bigots and homophobes.

I don't care about the ones that aren't trying to see their bigotry and homophobia reflected in law and policy. Plus, they aren't "sincere Christian beliefs" if other mandates from the same books are ignored.

Hypocrisy ducked, as usual.

Despite the fact that Kim Davis has been married four times, in violation of Christian beliefs, the fact that her marriages were/are hetero, does not conflict with her beliefs regarding same sex unions.

Duh, but it does conflict with her Christianity. Both divorce and adultery are condemned more often in the Bible than homosexuality is. She's just another hypocrite cherry-picking the Bible to justify her modern prejudice.

Point ducked, as usual. Poor thing.