[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Business
See other Business Articles

Title: Muslim flight attendant: I was suspended for not serving alcohol
Source: CBS
URL Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/muslim- ... t-expressjet-airlines-alcohol/
Published: Sep 3, 2015
Author: CBS Staff
Post Date: 2015-09-06 09:37:11 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 44191
Comments: 251

A Muslim flight attendant filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claiming she was suspended from her job for not serving alcohol, which is against her religious beliefs, CBS Detroit station WWJ-AM reports.

Lena Masri, an attorney for the Council on American-Islamic Relations Michigan, said Charee Stanley followed management's directions, working out an arrangement with her coworkers to accommodate passenger requests for alcohol.

However, Masri said, ExpressJet Airlines put Stanley on administrative leave after another attendant filed "an Islamophobic complaint" that referenced Stanley's head scarf.

"We notified ExpressJet Airlines of its obligation under the law to reasonably accommodate Ms. Stanley's religious beliefs," Masri said at a news conference in Farmington Hills on Tuesday. "Instead, ExpressJet close to violate Ms. Stanely's constitutional rights, placed her on administrative leave for 12 months, after which her employment may be administratively terminated."

Masri said the arrangement Stanley had with other attendants to serve alcohol for her had been working out fine since Stanley converted to Islam about a month after becoming a flight attendant for ExpressJet.

"I don't think that I should have to choose between practicing my religion properly or earning a living," Stanley said. "I shouldn't have to choose between one or the other because they're both important."

Contacted by WWJ-AM for comment, airline spokesman Jarek Beem responded with the following statement:

"At ExpressJet, we embrace and respect the values of all of our team members. We are an equal opportunity employer with a long history of diversity in our workforce. As Ms. Stanley is an employee, we are not able to comment on her personnel matters."

The Islamic-relations council is America's largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization with the mission "to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding."

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-53) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#54. To: TooConservative (#48)

Actually, they targeted her just to persecute her. They went out of their way to force her to refuse them a license. Attention whores.

Yes they are and it fits the sodomite mafia playbook.

"The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8

redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-06   22:31:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: TooConservative (#48)

Both were imposed solely by the fiat of the Supreme Court in the state of Kentucky. And this is a Kentucky county clerk. She has no more authority to deny a sodomy marriage than an interracial marriage. And Kentucky had laws to prevent both sodomy and interracial marriages for a long time before the Supremes struck those laws down.

So, yep.

So you supported the SCOTUS sodomite marriage decision?

The meme of gay marriage discrimination is akin to interracial discrimination was used by the gay mafia for years. That finally worked on the SCOTUS.

I'm still not buying it.

"The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8

redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-06   22:34:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: redleghunter (#20)

I agree that we should not judge the Muslim woman or Mrs. Davis. Judgment belongs to God.

Somebody does have to figure out what to do in such cases, though. My preference is to go straight to the religious texts of Mrs. Davis and the Muslim woman and show them both point blank what their respective gods did and did not say, to reason with them directly on a religious level, using the sacred text of their religion as they believe was revealed by God.

When they are shown that God does not command them to do anything like what they are doing they may be abashed and knuckle down to their God's actual law (in which case Davis will issue the certificates and the Muslim woman will serve the drinks). But if they won't, then they can be charged truly with the statement that they are not, in fact, upholding their religion's beliefs or their God's commandments, but simply making themselves a law unto themselves, without Scriptural basis, because they individually and personally don't like something.

If they are not engaged directly with their Scriptures, then their view is a sincerely held religious error. But once they've been SHOWN the error, if they go ahead and do their jobs it is well. If they STILL refuse, then they can be criticized as simply being stubborn individuals who are using a religious claim to try to be a law unto themselves. That's really what they ARE doing - being a law unto themselves alone - but right now they do it in ignorance and therefore should be forgiven their trespasses and reasoned with - on the basis of their own religious texts.

But once the effort has been made to meet them all the way on their religion: to open up with the pages of the words of their God SHOW them that what they are insisting on doing just is not there, if they persist anyway, they're just trying to impose their own will, and then we needn't feel badly about moving them aside, because there's no reason to allow them to do that.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-06   22:35:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: redleghunter, sneakypete (#51)

The SCOTUS by 5-4 tyranny imposed its will on 50 states. A small county in KY just voted 1-0 against their tyranny.

Actually, we don't know what that county's voters think.

But we do know that the Constitution establishes a Supreme Court. The Constitution does not establish a Supreme County Clerk.

The Supreme Court was in error on sodomy marriage (just as they have made grotesque errors in other cases). That doesn't give everyone the right to arbitrarily reject their decisions, government agents -- like much-married county clerks -- least of all.

This woman isn't the right choice to challenge the Supremes on their sodomy marriage ruling. In fact, she hurts the cause.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-06   22:38:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: redleghunter (#51)

Paul was a murderer. He was also an Apostle. He certainly should not have been silent because of his past. Everybody is a sinner. Once God touches you and shows you the way, you follow that way.

Of course that makes you a "hypocrite" against your former norm. But your former norm was bad. It's ok to be an inconsistent hypocrite if the direction of your hypocrisy is in the direction of GOOD.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-06   22:38:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: TooConservative, A K A Stone (#50)

Well, Kentucky certainly thought so from 1792-1967 when the Supreme Court finally told them otherwise.

Did this clerk refuse interracial marriage certificates? No she did not. So that is irrelevant.

Now as a Christian she would have no moral grounds to deny an interracial certificate. With sodomites she does.

She's in jail for refusing to issue a certificate based on her Christian moral convictions.

"The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8

redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-06   22:39:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: TooConservative (#57) (Edited)

Where the Supreme Court is wrong on moral decisions that directly contradict the Law of God, the fact that the Law of God has been contradicted in fact DOES give everyone the right to reject their decisions and do otherwise. It's no "arbitrary" if people do that - it's based on a Supreme Law far above the mere supreme court of the united states.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-06   22:39:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: TooConservative (#57)

she hurts the cause.

You hurt the cause with your sodomite talking points.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-09-06   22:43:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: Vicomte13 (#58)

Paul was a murderer. He was also an Apostle. He certainly should not have been silent because of his past.

Among the other disciples were the hated Roman tax collectors, about as popular as a legally sanctioned mob enforcer would be today.

But a KY county clerk probably does not have apostolic authority. Of course, I may not be the most neutral source since I would say the same about some self-aggrandizing bishop of Rome and it doesn't slow him down either.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-06   22:43:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: redleghunter (#59)

Did this clerk refuse interracial marriage certificates? No she did not. So that is irrelevant.

The only lawful authority for issuing such marriage certificates came from the Supreme Court. Kentucky and the other holdouts never did legalize interracial marriage at all. It was all done on the authority of the Supreme Court then and still is today.

In that sense, this KY clerk has no more (or less) authority in the matter of issuing a sodomy marriage license than an interracial marriage license. Both were imposed by the Supremes.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-06   22:48:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: Vicomte13, nolu chan (#60)

Where the Supreme Court is wrong on moral decisions that directly contradict the Law of God, the fact that the Law of God has been contradicted in fact DOES give everyone the right to reject their decisions and do otherwise. It's no "arbitrary" if people do that - it's based on a Supreme Law far above the mere supreme court of the united states.

Yeah, good luck arguing that in a court of law. Or even at a meeting of the local bar association.

But that's just your rhetoric. I know that you know better.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-06   22:51:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: TooConservative (#62)

Well, for my part I feel sorry for this woman. She believes that she is taking a stand for God's law, and I think she deserves to be admired for that.

Unfortunately, her actual understanding of God's law is incorrect: there's no such thing as a real marriage certificate. These things she issues are not licensing marriage. They merely say they are. They're an American tradition. But the tradition has no divine substance. I'd prefer it if somebody sat down with her and went through the Scriptures with her line by line until she saw the mistake she has made about the law of God. Then she could laugh at the absurdity of what she's really issuing, go back and issue these things, and maybe even gain some more revenue for her county by issuing "Gravity Defiance Licenses", which solemnly authorize their holders to break the laws of gravity.

Right now, it's much more serious, because she truly believes she is right, and she's certainly more right than the gays or the court. I just hate to see her getting ground up like this, because we need courageous people.

As far as the dignity of the court goes? I don't care. The judge should have decided differently. He chose to decide as he has, and now he shall have to bear the consequences of what he has done forever. Bad choice on his part.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-06   22:55:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: TooConservative (#64)

I "know better" in the sense that I know that most lawyers and judges are not with God, serve Satan and that therefore OF COURSE they will not agree with anything that upholds God's law. They never do nowadays.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-06   22:56:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: Vicomte13 (#56)

When they are shown that God does not command them to do anything like what they are doing they may be abashed and knuckle down to their God's actual law (in which case Davis will issue the certificates and the Muslim woman will serve the drinks). But if they won't, then they can be charged truly with the statement that they are not, in fact, upholding their religion's beliefs or their God's commandments, but simply making themselves a law unto themselves, without Scriptural basis, because they individually and personally don't like something.

I don't think Davis should in good Christian conscience sign the marriage certificates. I would have advised her to resign her position and make the statement that government has once again embraced evil and it is no longer a place a Christian can in good conscience serve.

No way would I advise her to sign the false pieces of paper. As I would not advise a 1st century Christian to work at the Roman Colosseum. It's that bad now.

The Muslims situation is akin to Southern Baptists. It's a conscience issue. I know why they frown upon alcohol and activities promoting alcohol. I also know the Scriptures don't forbid drinking or handling alcohol. Yet I will not poke Baptists in the eye about it based on 1 Corinthians 8.

Their is much to be said about dry weddings in the South. Not one of the ones I went to ended in a DUI, fight or someone crying uncontrollably. Yet I was raised Irish and Catholic and witnessed all of the above:)

"The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8

redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-06   22:56:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: TooConservative (#57)

The Supreme Court was in error on sodomy marriage (just as they have made grotesque errors in other cases). That doesn't give everyone the right to arbitrarily reject their decisions, government agents -- like much-married county clerks -- least of all.

I know it really stinks when the peasants resort to the practices of Der Mezzziah Zero. How dare they ignore the SCOTUS.

"The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8

redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-06   22:59:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: Vicomte13 (#58)

Paul was a murderer. He was also an Apostle. He certainly should not have been silent because of his past. Everybody is a sinner. Once God touches you and shows you the way, you follow that way.

Of course that makes you a "hypocrite" against your former norm. But your former norm was bad. It's ok to be an inconsistent hypocrite if the direction of your hypocrisy is in the direction of GOOD.

Vic that was pretty good and waxed a bit poetic:)

"The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8

redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-06   23:01:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: A K A Stone (#21)

I don't associate with queers. But if one ever came up and told me they were married. I'd tell them they were full of shit. If they wanted to keep talking about it. I'd knock them out cold.

I think I met a queer lady briefly today; her name is Heidi.

Stupid me, I said hi and nice to meet you. I should have followed your Christian advice and knocked her out cold.

Next time.

Fred Mertz  posted on  2015-09-06   23:02:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: Vicomte13, nolu chan (#65)

Unfortunately, her actual understanding of God's law is incorrect: there's no such thing as a real marriage certificate. These things she issues are not licensing marriage.

As I understand it, she does not object to recording a sodomy marriage, merely to signing it in advance, considering that she is giving her official blessing to such a marriage in advance.

The marriage is solemnized by a justice of the peace or a minister or other lawful officiant. The clerk merely signs the license application and records it. That is not the same as the clerk being forced to actually perform a gay marriage ceremony which is the most relevant part of a state-licensed marriage procedure. The application and the recording are merely clerical functions for the actual solemnization of the marriage by the marriage vows proffered before a legal officiant and witnesses.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-06   23:07:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: A K A Stone (#53)

Who cares. It wasn't the truth then or now.

Well, it was true enough to send interracial couples to prison for 175 years in Kentucky.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-06   23:21:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13, redleghunter, Fred Mertz, sneakypete, SOSO (#61)

The KY clerk is a problematic case with some distracting personal and legal issues. More straightforward is this Oregon judge.

HotGas: Oregon judge now under investigation for not performing same sex weddings

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-06   23:28:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: redleghunter (#16)

The Muslim woman should also not serve pork sandwiches on the flight. Just like when vegans refuse to even handle meat.

No,she should be fired if her personal beliefs conflict with her duties,and be replaced with someone who will do the job.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-09-06   23:32:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: A K A Stone (#17)

She is in her fourth marriage. Irrelevant. She wasn't a Christian before.

Suppose the first three were to other women,and now she has sworn off tuna,and wants to slide up next to you?

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-09-06   23:33:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: A K A Stone (#21)

The truth is the truth. Two men can't be married.

They why do you keep your panties all in a wad over it if it doesn't happen?

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-09-06   23:35:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: redleghunter (#25)

I support the Muslim woman. Serving alcohol to passengers is such a small part of her job. There are plenty of flight attendants who don't have a conscience issue with doing so. So let them serve it.

What right does she have to impose the burden of her work on the other stewardesses? How fair is that to the other stewardesses?

She HAD to have known serving alcohol was a part of the job when she took it.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-09-06   23:37:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: Fred Mertz (#29)

My friend educated me on her marriage journeys this past Friday while we lunched together.

Marriage #1 hubby was not the father of her twin boys - marriage #3 hubby was.

Marriage #2 hubby adopted the twin boys that weren't his.

Then she married #3 hubby, the father of the twin boys.

Now she's on hubby #4 and she has found religion.

Got it?

Fred,I think we are witnessing the beginning of the newest reality teebee show.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-09-06   23:39:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: redleghunter (#46)

I would agree if she ran for clerk in Kentucky and sodomite marriage was legal. It wasn't when she was elected. KY in fact rejected sodomite marriage. It was against state law.

So comes along a 5-4 decision by judicial fiat, and all of a sudden the clerk is an outlaw defending state law.

Then she should resign. The oath she took was to obey the law, whatever and whenever if is passed. How it ends for her is very much in the air. It's hard for me to beleive that she has gained any points with God for refusing to rendering to Caeser what is Caeser's. A state sanctioned marriage is nothing more than a civil union. There is nothing spiritual or religous about it. A state license is not a sacrament, it's in essence a civil contract. Gays will still exist. And just like straights gays will still live together in a sexual relationship. Religions should leave civil union marriages to the stae and deal with a Holy Union (or whatever you wish to call it) that has spiritual and religious dimensions and significance.

As for the Muslim flight attendant, her complaint is still pure BS.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-09-06   23:42:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: redleghunter (#36)

She is being forced to endorse something she was never elected to do.

Correct me if I am wrong,but wasn't a part of her job requirement to follow and obey Ky law?

It is obviously legal in Ky for homosexual couples to marry,or this wouldn't be an issue.

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-09-06   23:56:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#81. To: A K A Stone (#49)

Only one race the human race.

Seeems like you will believe anything.

Ever seen a pygmy Scandinavian?

Ever notice how all the people native to Asia look a tad different than you?

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-09-07   0:02:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#82. To: A K A Stone (#53)

God made Adam and Eve. We are all decendants of them.

I guess that makes Cain and Abel MoFO's,right?

Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)

sneakypete  posted on  2015-09-07   0:03:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#83. To: redleghunter (#67)

I suppose that a general rule of conscientious objection based on religious principles is not a bad way to go. The key will be to be sure to apply that where it counts: on things like the draft, or release from military service once one has had a crisis of conscience.

But ultimately there will have to an imposition of God's Law, if the human law is made optional, because God's law does not require men to punish other men for, say, fornication, but it DOES require men to punish men for murder.

A general religious exemption for conscience would result in a very free society, with few legal norms. But Christian norms would still have to be imposed when it came to killing.

And people would have to tolerate a lot of very grim sexual business, as polygamy, child marriage, temporary wives, arranged marriages, marital sex rights (no such thing as marital rape) are all religious norms in some major religions.

You sort of have a choice: make a Christian nation, or live as a Christian among the pagans. If you make a Christian nation, the laws of the nation have to adhere to God's laws. You cannot pick and choose - to have God's Law where you want it (sex law, for example), but then disregard God's law and do what you want in other areas (economic law, for example, and warfare) because that's not a Christian nation at all. It's just another form of pagan nation.

In fact we live as a pagan nation, and we live as Christians among pagans. This imposes an immense number of burdens on us, because our faith is very much at odds with the world in which we live.

We face a dilemma, and it's a dilemma that is within the Law itself, that the Law and Scripture don't clearly answer. On the one hand, God very clearly authorized deceit as a tactic in warfare. Deceit in warfare was legitimate for God's people when fighting the heathen. They did not have to be open and truthful to their enemy when at war. They could trick him.

On the other hand, Jesus said "Let your yes be yes and your no be no", establishing a high demand of truth.

But on the other hand still, Jesus said that with regards to swearing oaths - and it is not at all clear under the Law of God that legitimate warfare deceit went so far as swearing false oaths to heathen enemies to trick them into a disadvantage. There is no example of that in either testament.

What, then, is the right answer?

Well, we each have to work that out for ourselves.

The Law says to honor your oaths, that God will hold you to them. But the law also provides a right of atonement and release from rash oaths that men tend to swear. And Jesus clarified: be truthful and don't swear oaths. But clearly if you're in a just war (most are not), you can deceive your enemy in battle. However, I don't think that goes so far as permitting you to swear false oaths before an enemy.

Which means, bottom line, that there are some jobs in this pagan world that Christians cannot take, because they are required to swear oaths to do things that Christians cannot do. CIA assassin, for example: this is not a role that a Christian can take...unless he really thinks that service to some national idol is worth eternal damnation.

It looks as though the pagans in America have found a way to scrape off county clerk as a job that can be held by Christians, because there's an oath, and then a requirement to issue things that some Christians find shock their conscience.

The REAL answer to all of this is for Christians to obey the ECONOMIC aspects of God's Law with regards to EACH OTHER. If we really did that, Christians would rapidly rise to be richer than Jews, and would be "the club" to join...but which would have a membership requirement that simply will turn back the worst pagans at the door.

Just consider if every Christian in earshot here followed the law. If we met in a conclave, discovered our assets and liabilities, used the assets to buy the freedom from debt slavery for the weaker members, and then used the cooperation to turn the fruits from ongoing labor into a system of interest-free lending and preferential cooperation to one another.

We all would find ourselves without mortgages or debts within a very few years, and then we would find ourselves with a lot of excess fruit, which could fund more Christian liberty, and enterprise. Just restoring that one simple rule among Christians - of no-interest debt - coupled with Christian sobriety.

Think what even two Christian neighbors could do for one another. And then multiply that out.

The Christians would not "drop off the grid", but remain very much active in the society, living and working. THEY would just be able to do it with interest-free debt, and they would favor each other in forming alliances and contracts and businesses, because of the fundamental trust and the complete lack of lawsuits.

It's what the early Christians did, and it gave them such an advantage over time in a pagan society that they ended up taking it over and changing it.

Unfortunately, we latter-day Christians have compromised with paganism such that we've incorporated pagan economics and concepts of recourse to civil law into the very heart of our own families. Which economically puts us down with the rest of the pagan cattle. Our ancestors sold our birthright for a mess of pottage (in the form of royal banners, conquests, slaves and easy divorce). Now we're economically no different from the pagans, and therefore not able to enjoy the communal security that early Christians had.

But we can change that at any time, but simply deciding to follow the law, and agreeing with each other to do that. There are many Christian churches and groups that are close enough to do it, they just need to actually DO it. If they were to start, and did so in a disciplined, loving and faithful manner, they would find that God rewards them quickly.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-07   7:46:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#84. To: sneakypete (#82)

Cain and Abel had sisters, and married them.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-07   7:46:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#85. To: TooConservative (#71)

Marriage is something between two and God. The state has no authority to authorize it or prohibit it, nothing it can grant.

A "marriage license" is REALLY a license to be able to take a certain set of tax breaks, and to get survivors benefits for Social Security et al.

Truth is, we are reaping the bitter fruit of Christian abandonment of their faith. Back when Christians were the vast majority, in a democracy they had the moral duty to make their civil laws BE God's laws, and to have a Christian society living under Christian law, which they instituted.

But that's not what Christians did. Christians were greedy and power hungry, so they behaved just like ancient Jews did - enforcing those parts of the law they liked, but disregarding everything they found inconvenient. And the trouble with THAT is that God didn't set up his Law as a TEST, "can they do it all?", but as the NECESSARY STRUCTURE for people to be able to all function happily and in health over the long haul.

The result of all of this has been to neuter Christianity and turn it into a Sunday social club, whose members even think that God's law should not be THE law, because, you know, separation of Church and state...(in other words: because Christians don't REALLY want to live under God's law. They want to live under their own laws but be assured of a happy afterlife.)

The clerk? Judges? How many imperial officials were Christians in the First Century?

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-07   8:05:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#86. To: sneakypete (#82)

God made Adam and Eve. We are all decendants of them. I guess that makes Cain and Abel MoFO's,right?

Even evolutionists say we all have a common ancestor.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-09-07   8:20:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#87. To: sneakypete (#76)

Did your faggot relatives die of aids? Did they spread their fag disease to others?

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-09-07   8:21:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#88. To: sneakypete (#80)

Hey "fag gene carrier" Please show us where Kentucky law says she has to marry two faggots.

You can't because there are no laws.

You're such a dumb ass and a piece of shit.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-09-07   8:23:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#89. To: SOSO (#79)

Then she should resign. The oath she took was to obey the law, whatever and whenever if is passed. How it ends for her is very much in the air. It's hard for me to beleive that she has gained any points with God for refusing to rendering to Caeser what is Caeser's. A state sanctioned marriage is nothing more than a civil union. There is nothing spiritual or religous about it. A state license is not a sacrament, it's in essence a civil contract. Gays will still exist. And just like straights gays will still live together in a sexual relationship. Religions should leave civil union marriages to the stae and deal with a Holy Union (or whatever you wish to call it) that has spiritual and religious dimensions and significance.

As for the Muslim flight attendant, her complaint is still pure BS.

You've gone to the dark side.

You support tyranny.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-09-07   8:24:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#90. To: sneakypete (#75)

Suppose the first three were to other women,and now she has sworn off tuna,and wants to slide up next to you?

How long has it been since you got any pussy? Sounds like your sex fantasy.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-09-07   8:26:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#91. To: sneakypete, Fred Mertz, nativist nationalist (#78)

Marriage #1 hubby was not the father of her twin boys - marriage #3 hubby was.

Marriage #2 hubby adopted the twin boys that weren't his.

Then she married #3 hubby, the father of the twin boys.

I am curious if hubby #2, having adopted the twins, got stuck with child support for them when Kim married their birth-father (hubby #2). Since he adopted them, he would be their father legally and the birth-father's obligation would be terminated. So unless their birth-father (hubby #3) did adopt them when he finally married their mother, then hubby #2 (adoptive father) would be on the hook for child support.

Sounds like the ultimate cuckservative ripoff by hubby #3.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-09-07   9:06:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#92. To: redleghunter, TooConservative (#16)

So do the supporters of the KY county clerk who won't issue sodomy marriage licenses also support this Muslim's right to refuse serving alcohol as part of her legally prescribed job duties?

Yes I support this Muslim woman.

We have Baptists who work in our local restaurants waiting tables. One lady a family friend will not serve alcoholic beverages at the restaurant. Too easy, the assistant manager a Catholic serves the drinks.

The Muslim woman should also not serve pork sandwiches on the flight. Just like when vegans refuse to even handle meat.

I think we are clouding the issues . In one case it is an employee of a private business and in the other case we have an elected public official sworn to uphold the law. I see great areas of concern when a public official refuses to uphold the law....aka the lawless adm of the emperor .

Let's say for example that one of our conservative candidates who have supported Kim Davis wins the elections and properly declares that sanctuary cities violate Federal immigration laws. Then a municipal official ,citing their faith and command to welcome the stranger and alien in your midst ( Leviticus 19:34 ),decides to use the pretext of religious liberty to violate the law ...and further claims any action taken against them is a 'persecution of Christianity' . How would that President then address the contradiction? Davis should've resigned .That was the correct course of action. But if she wants to be a martyr for the cause fine .But she was wrong in telling her deputies that they could not issue the licenses even if they had no moral objection to it. Let's say a Muslim director of the Dept of Motor Vehicles refuses to issue licenses to women ,and also instructs all the clerks in his office to likewise refuse . There is the real slippery slope of this issue .

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

tomder55  posted on  2015-09-07   9:08:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#93. To: tomder55 (#92)

Davis should've resigned

Liberal piece of shit position.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-09-07   9:15:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#94. To: tomder55 (#92)

There is the real slippery slope of this issue .

Sounds like you are talking about your boy friend and vaseline.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-09-07   9:16:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (95 - 251) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com