It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Neo you believe that we are bind to follow religious believes regardless?
how about people like me that have not reason why to believe in organized religion and neither to follow a book that I find full of myth and lore written by man.
So discrimination, irrationality, prejudice is ok as long as some asswise think that they have religion to do as they wish?,
Are we no all by religious accounts created equal in the image of a God? who created inequality? but mankind itself.
Is nothing wrong with the bible as per say, what is wrong is with those that interprets the bible to pursue their derailed irrational believes that tells them they are better than others so that empower them to become self-righteous.
The biggest danger to humanity is no just government but the man made religions of the world.
originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: AboveBoard
Definition of marriage is state law. I apologize , you are one of the better posters here on this thread, if I came off as splitting hairs. I do that some times , especially when someone misspeaks.Nowhere on here am I validating what she did . (even though I was accused of making lame excuses for her) .
originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: TheJourney
Who cares? Attacking her for her religious failings is just as screwed up as her "attacking" the gays for their perceived religious failings.
People aren't perfect, she's gone through several marriages and an affair. Considering something like 60% of people divorce and 50% cheat she's hardly in a minority for either group. Just as she's able to remarry and move on, so should a gay person be able to.
originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Bicent76
She is free to exercise her religion. No one has denied her any rights.
But you have to remember that we have separation of church and state. Is her place of work her church? No.
446.3 50 Prohibition upon government substantially burdening freedom of religion -- Showing of compelling governmental interest -- Description of "burden."
Government shall not substantially burden a person's freedom of religion. The right to act or refuse t o act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be substantially burdened unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A "burden" shall include indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities. Effective: June 25, 2013
History: Create d 2013 Ky. Acts ch. 111, sec. 1, effective June 25, 2013
She is also free to exercise her rights as a citizen of the Commonwealth. As such, she asked for a reasonable accommodation for her religious beliefs.
The governor of Kentucky and the Attorney General have denied her rights by ignoring her plea for accommodation.
simply ordering that the license be printed without her name attached. That would be a reasonable accommodation
They did not offer her the accommodations she requested and as a result she ended up in a jail cell.