Kentucky Clerk Ready to Go to Jail

[Listening]

I agree that every citizen has the right to obey the Law. And, I also agree that the moral compass of those in Office determine the quality of enacted Laws. But In this case, obeying the Law put an employee into a conflict of interest with company policy. Do you realize another point you're making? If they insist you do as they do, you have a choice of either doing likewise or leaving. A business has that right, and the Government is also a business. As an employer, it has certain expectations of its employees which it enforces as it sees fit determined by the politics at the time.

I'm not saying the employee doesn't have a say in how the Office is run, but you can't work alongside the servants of Satan in their framework of rules and expect to a Christian in shining armour at the same time. That is what is really at issue, not democratic rights which are fuzzy at best.

You are misrepresenting the whole Point i made, which is that the constitution is above all laws
Including the One The judge refused to enforce. She Used the consitutional right to not enforce and is out of jail now or was, A d in line with the constitutional right of 1 st ammend, she Is still in her job being paid and fighting the law to change it.
This is as should be. She cannot be sacked and can oppose what she sees as immoral as she has done.

 

[Dovegiven]

A real showdown is overdue for every level of government to be held to the Constitution. As a federal employee, just ten years ago a newly hired Muslim man joined our office. None of us guessed his religion until he spread his prayer rug out and began his ritual. I kept working on my computer, realizing we had a Muslim in our midst. None of us knew how to deal with that, having not seen the prayer deal. He finished, went to work on his orientation app, then did it again right at shift change. I got up to log out, and the night crew came on, everyone squeezing past the guy. He didn't move out of the way, drawing some complaints. That was on a Friday. Come Monday most of us had a travel voucher envelop in our In baskets. We were sent to a sensitivity seminar for a week covering Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Native American, and other religions, plus LGBT awareness. While there I easily made my decision to retire ASAP. I had plenty, 36 years, and didn't want to work in this new world order. I knew there was better money in the parallel private sector.

In that U.S. Government seminar we were told about a massive list of "rights" for every religion and significant association that might target government property, except Christianity, taught by men I knew were Christians. Because we are in the majority, we are responsible for protecting the liberty of everyone else! I learned I couldn't run a Witch Convention out of a government park just because they were sacrificing a black cat over a bonfire. I had to refer that on to the state wildlife guys who would have to determine whether a wild animal was involved. So in the meanwhile neighboring campers had to listen to the madness, or pack up and leave. When a totem pole was found somewhere without a permit, we usually loaded it up and stored until the owner claimed it. No more! Leave it out of respect for....whatever it is to be respected. Attach a warning ticket to a stake no closer than 100 feet away.

A cross put up at an accident site on government property was to be taken up and dumped in the nearest authorized dump, no warning given.

The wheels that squeak the loudest get the most oil.

Jesus taught in Luke 11 that prayers spoken in persistence are the ones most answered. God doesn't put mere wishes on his priority list. Many beliefs among people are getting their way because they are the most vocal, though each is a tiny minority. It's time for the churches to agree on this one issue, knowing some have taken the Devil's side already. .

So I see Kim Davis is making up a squeaking wheel. Peter and John, Paul and Barnabus did that, willing at every turn to be locked up for defying orders to stop preaching Jesus.

The US and state constitution is supposed to protect her. She has at least the same rights as those homosexuals. It's really supposed to be a states rights issue now, a state forcing Congress to uphold a state right of morality. It can be done. Even with a fairly poor Christian identity in the nation, We still have the opportunity to demand changes and/or enforcement of federal law in favor of the will of the people. The will of the people is far higher than 2% of our population.

 

[Shutterbug]

You are misrepresenting the whole Point i made, which is that the constitution is above all laws
Including the One The judge refused to enforce. She Used the consitutional right to not enforce and is out of jail now or was, A d in line with the constitutional right of 1 st ammend, she Is still in her job being paid and fighting the law to change it.
This is as should be. She cannot be sacked and can oppose what she sees as immoral as she has done.

I apologize if I did as that was not my intent. In reality, the Constitution is the moral guideline for all other laws. Amendments were added after the fact. I agree that the punishment of Ms. Davis was draconian. Unfortunately, I have to make some assumptions that A) she was the only employee available; and B) the compliant filed against her was also based on being denied Constitutional rights because of recently passed Federal and State legislation under Rights and Freedoms. In effect, she is using the Constitution which protects her to fight against another part of the Constitution which protects them, and vice versa. The only recourse she has is to deny her antagonists their rights and freedoms. And of course, they are willing to do the same. While I agree with and support her motives, I guarantee those affected will not. Worse, the Government has to backtrack on its promises regarding Rights and Freedoms.

I appreciate her willingness to stand up for her beliefs as some would not. My point is that if one works in an environment which will create a conflict of interest, then one should relocate to another position or to another employer. Trust me, I work in a unionized environment in which the Union works against its members, too. And, it's all about pride.

 

[Shutterbug]

So I see Kim Davis is making up a squeaking wheel. Peter and John, Paul and Barnabus did that, willing at every turn to be locked up for defying orders to stop preaching Jesus.

A Wikipedia article on the case of Kim Davis reported that she is Oneness Pentecostal. For those who uphold the triune God, she will argue that God is one and the Trinity is a lie. God role plays Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as required. God himself came down and died on the cross. So again, she creates conflict with others even within her own beliefs.

Jesus was convicted of only one issue which put him in conflict with Roman law: at some point He would form his own government. The Apostles would have preached this which would also place them in direct conflict and could be jailed for it.

When Ms. Davis was elected to Office, she swore to "follow the statutes of this office to the letter". I appreciate she never imagined certain constitutional rights would change. But, they did placing her in direct conflict and she no longer upholds certain statues of her office as a result. I'm not saying she can't uphold her beliefs under Law, but she can't deny others the same right under Law. But, she did and continues to do so. To satisfy her rights, the Government would have to violate the rights of others and reneg on its promises under the 14th Amendment.

 

[B-A-C]

For anyone who has been in public office for more than a couple of years. The laws about homosexual marriages were not in place
at that time. The oath they swore, they swore to the laws in place at the time. Still the question is, should we obey the laws of man,
or the laws of God? There are verses like Rom 13:1-5; but those verses don't address specific laws that are against the Bible.

Peter mentions this in Acts 5:29; There are stories in the old testament, such as Shadrach, Meshach and Abednigo ( Daniel 3:10-12; ) who were commanded by the king to bow down to an idol. How far should we take following the government? ( Also see Haman in Esther 3; )

Also in Revelation, the beast (the government) will force everyone to bow down to him and his image (idol). Should we
follow the law of the government and bow down to him? Rev 14:11; and Rev 19:20; don't paint a very good picture for those
who do this.

I may not agree with Ms Davis's theology... but I commend her for standing by what she thinks is Biblically right.

 

[Listening]

I apologize if I did as that was not my intent. In reality, the Constitution is the moral guideline for all other laws. Amendments were added after the fact. I agree that the punishment of Ms. Davis was draconian. Unfortunately, I have to make some assumptions that A) she was the only employee available; and B) the compliant filed against her was also based on being denied Constitutional rights because of recently passed Federal and State legislation under Rights and Freedoms. In effect, she is using the Constitution which protects her to fight against another part of the Constitution which protects them, and vice versa. The only recourse she has is to deny her antagonists their rights and freedoms. And of course, they are willing to do the same. While I agree with and support her motives, I guarantee those affected will not. Worse, the Government has to backtrack on its promises regarding Rights and Freedoms.

I appreciate her willingness to stand up for her beliefs as some would not. My point is that if one works in an environment which will create a conflict of interest, then one should relocate to another position or to another employer. Trust me, I work in a unionized environment in which the Union works against its members, too. And, it's all about pride.

That is ok, it is just after writing a whole long post ....
The laws of the land are on her side, the law being the constitution .
Which itself is above any laws.
And if the government becomes evil and disobeys the constitution the law of the land and the constitution are still on her side and she is still on the side of the right, and the enemy Falls and fails, anyway.

 

[Listening]

A Wikipedia article on the case of Kim Davis reported that she is Oneness Pentecostal. For those who uphold the triune God, she will argue that God is one and the Trinity is a lie. God role plays Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as required. God himself came down and died on the cross. So again, she creates conflict with others even within her own beliefs.

Jesus was convicted of only one issue which put him in conflict with Roman law: at some point He would form his own government. The Apostles would have preached this which would also place them in direct conflict and could be jailed for it.

When Ms. Davis was elected to Office, she swore to "follow the statutes of this office to the letter". I appreciate she never imagined certain constitutional rights would change. But, they did placing her in direct conflict and she no longer upholds certain statues of her office as a result. I'm not saying she can't uphold her beliefs under Law, but she can't deny others the same right under Law. But, she did and continues to do so. To satisfy her rights, the Government would have to violate the rights of others and reneg on its promises under the 14th Amendment.

God is one
The bible states this as the truth
We know there is One God The Father
We also know there is one Lord, jesus The son of God who is God in the flesh
And one Spirit who is also God
Yet God is one.

Truine and trinity are words not used by God to describe his nature.
And as they are not words used by God to describe his nature, none of his people have to use them.
For they are not of God's mind but mans addition to God's word.

 

[Shutterbug]

God is one
The bible states this as the truth
We know there is One God The Father
We also know there is one Lord, jesus The son of God who is God in the flesh
And one Spirit who is also God
Yet God is one.

Truine and trinity are words not used by God to describe his nature.
And as they are not words used by God to describe his nature, none of his people have to use them.
For they are not of God's mind but mans addition to God's word.

You won't get any argument from me. My point is more about a number than a description.

 

[Listening]

You won't get any argument from me. My point is more about a number than a description.

One is the only number we need concern ourselves to agree with.
For God is one.
This is what the word stresses so it is important to hold as true, for it is true.
Anything other In addition to the word and made doctrine Beyond the word is is only due to confusion by those who cannot except spiritual truths.
That God is one is the true doctrine.
As for those who want to go beyond the word to me they are wrong to do so.
And i do not care who they are or were or how many they are in number.
For God's word is above all teachings of men, no matter who's name they come in

It is no surprise to me that the distractive extra biblical doctrine of the trinity and triunity instead of oneness of God was a distraction designed by the popes in order to argue with God's clear word.

 

[Listening]

The adoption of other distractive heresies such as infant baptism was also taken up by some .
It is not only the distractive heresy of contradicting God's oneness by introducing words that mean three instead of one, and then as if to give justification of the distraction, say three in one.
It is all a distraction.

God is one.

Yes the contradiction of the oneness of God by the none sound doctrine Called trinity which means three A doctrine invented by the seat of antichrist the papacy, was another way of using the great high sounding words of apostate theologists and For giving them cause And reason to be able to Position themselves as weeds within and into the arena Of place only God himself should rule By his word and his Spirit.
As if academic super scholars Are the super beings; the only ones able to understand the word of God and the its Gospel.
Yet They and their doctrines are all a waste of time a complete distraction not to mention heresy against the sound doctrine.

Such theologians of rome are perverters of God's word, not teachers.

 

[Shutterbug]

One is the only number we need concern ourselves to agree with.
For God is one.
This is what the word stresses so it is important to hold as true, for it is true.
Anything other In addition to the word and made doctrine Beyond the word is is only due to confusion by those who cannot except spiritual truths.
That God is one is the true doctrine.
As for those who want to go beyond the word to me they are wrong to do so.
And i do not care who they are or were or how many they are in number.
For God's word is above all teachings of men, no matter who's name they come in

It is no surprise to me that the distractive extra biblical doctrine of the trinity and triunity instead of oneness of God was a distraction designed by the popes in order to argue with God's clear word.

The Trinity wasn't invented by the RCC, nor in 325 AD as some claim. If I insist on a number, then I'm left with God died on the cross, the Flesh prayed to his Spirit, etc. The Father, the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit are roles or offices. John 17 gives us more insight into the relationship between Father and Son.

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: Deu 6:4
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: Mark 12:29
One Lord, one faith, one baptism, Eph 4:5