Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Trump fires acting Attorney General

The refugees from Syria are already facing 1 to 2 years worth of vetting process so I am pretty sure the process is pretty secure. So i just disagree with you.

OK but you're wrong - even the Clinton State Department said they have no way of knowing who these people are because there are no records.
 
I'm sure they do, despite it going against their doctrine. In this case, along with adultery. If she can't follow the teachings of her own religion, she sure as shit shouldn't be shoving that religion and it's rules down someone else's throat. Throwing stones in glass houses...black kettles...etc.

so because she's been divorced, she forfeits her first amendment rights?
 
so because she's been divorced, she forfeits her first amendment rights?

I disputed your claim that it went against her 'deeply held religious beliefs' as she clearly doesn't have any (unless it's convenient for her). Again, she wasn't marrying them, merely issuing a license. It didn't go against her beliefs any more than her divorces and infidelities.

Freedom of religion =! Freedom to discriminate
 
I disputed your claim that it went against her 'deeply held religious beliefs' as she clearly doesn't have any (unless it's convenient for her). Again, she wasn't marrying them, merely issuing a license. It didn't go against her beliefs any more than her divorces and infidelities.

Freedom of religion =! Freedom to discriminate

who are you or I or anyone else for that matter to say what someone's religious beliefs are? The fact is she has a first amendment right to them. And she wasn't preventing same sex couples from getting licenses, she wasn't issuing them herself. Weren't same sex couples still getting their licenses from another clerk in the office? But that's not enough - she has to lose her job and not be able to get another one and suffer whatever other punishment a social justice campaign can wreak upon her.
 
Back
Top