Guess she missed the bit about not lying. Itâs ok, itâs easy to miss. Itâs just in THE BIBLE,
Or that whole thing about rendering unto CaesarâŚ
Damn. Given the choices, I think a pair of earplugs would have been her best option.
How in the hell can the judge even do that? He has to know this âcounselorâ isnât even qualified to clean a toilet much less help someone with an issue like this.
Or maybe he does know and thinks âJebus!â will take care of it.
Why the fuck is this demented Jeebus freak on the courtâs payroll/contact list/whatever? As if I need to ask, considering all the people whoâve died because the Steppers have all the rehab work from the courts and cheerfully chuck young, vulnerable addicts in the same room as predators. Cults are cheap, and they speak that authoritarian jive juuuuuussst fineâŚ
That cannot possibly be legal. Itâs a clear violation of Salzmanâs 1st Amendment rights. The judge needs to be censured or removed, and I suspect that Salzman has a very good basis for a lawsuit.
Nope. Offering La Pepper a coffee with six tabs of acid and a packet of ex lax in it.
Watch for news about people killed in a murderous rage shortlyâŚ
Tell that to all the DUIs sentenced to court mandated AA meetings. Donât care if youâre an atheist, you still gotta attend meetings where the second step is to admit and give over to an âhigher powerâ.
Technically I suppose the court which issued the order would count as a âhigher power.â
It does sound dubious, but if youâre given a court order to do something, you donât just stop going, you take your own legal action.
I also am curious if this was the only counselor the person had to choose from. Iâm not defending the government mandating anything religion-based, but the lack of information in this article makes me extremely skeptic.
I know this is going to get a lot of jeers, but in the wake of everyone I know on FB yelling âdo your damn job!â at some woman because she refused to do something she was morally against, is this that much different? This person had some domestic issues, the state had to intervene, and it resolved the issue by ordering her to get counseling and she refused to follow the law. Why does she get to ignore the law based on her own, individual beliefs, but not Kim Davis?
I mean, yes, I disagree with Davisâ assessment of homosexuality, and I totally agree with this womanâs analysis of the crackpot counselor, but obviously thatâs my subjective point of view. Either we allow folks to think for themselves, or we donât. âDo your damn jobâ is the stupidest phrase Iâve heard being yelled in years, and the fact that itâs being yelled by mostly liberal intellectuals does not speak well of liberal intellectuals as a whole.
Watch the video. It shows the actual court order that names Mary Pepper specifically as the person she had to contact for her counseling.
Embedded flash player? Câmon BB, I thought you were more modern than that.
Are the cases really comparable? The story here is about a woman forced by a judge to get Christian counseling, while Davis enforced her religion as an official state actor.
What about separation of Church and State? An official appointed by the State should not be allowed to bring religion into it.
I watched the video, it said that court ordered counseling was required, it never said with whom specifically. Even the part where the âACLU does not have all the facts in the caseâ makes this sound a bit sensationalist.
If Iâm mistaken and thereâs a point where it specifically says âshe was ordered to specifically take counseling from Mary Pepperâ Iâd like to know where.
Couldnât she have played along, for her kids you know?
Admittedly, itâs under a âRecommendedâ heading.
