C
cornbread_r2
Guest
Are you claiming that the government funds the ACLU like it does PP? If you are, I’m pretty sure that’s incorrect.
- Status
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Please explain. Kim Davis wasn’t mentioned by name but “government official” was, here is the relevant part of the transcript:
en.radiovaticana.va/news/2015/09/28/pope_francis_i%e2%80%99m_not_a_star,_but_the_servant_of_servants_o/1175317
C
Catholic_farmer
Guest
We had a conscientious objector on one of my ships in the US Navy. He could no longer stand watch in the Combat Information Center or on the bridge. The Captain had decided (and rightly so) that he should not be in a position where when asked to shoot, he could refuse and possible damage would occur to the ship by our enemies. So, he was given an alternative job. He spent his time fixing computers and working in engineering. If he had tried to interfere with other officers defending the ship during war…well, that would not have ended well. However, that didn’t happen. He personally had beliefs that made him object to fighting so he was not personally asked to fight.
Since a county clerk is elected, I’m not sure she could be switched to a different job, but that would be a nice way to resolve the issue. However, it sounds like she would not have accepted such a position, preferring instead to block the government from carrying out the law (however objectionable that law may be), rather than remove herself from the position that was obligating her her to do something she objected to.
Since a county clerk is elected, I’m not sure she could be switched to a different job, but that would be a nice way to resolve the issue. However, it sounds like she would not have accepted such a position, preferring instead to block the government from carrying out the law (however objectionable that law may be), rather than remove herself from the position that was obligating her her to do something she objected to.
S
SWolf
Guest
In the private sector this would make sense. However, in a monopolistic role, like in the State, it’s good to turn your objections into a three ring circus and wreak havoc on the organization. That goes doubly so for elected officials.
J
jtauke
Guest
Gay marriage is equivalent to mass murder? Seriously?
Care to try again without the illogical strawman argument?
B
Barricade
Guest
I think we as a society need to be a little more civil and a little more understanding. What do gay marriage proponents think is an appropriate penalty for Kim Davis? Fine her? Well how much? Do you continue to fine her until she has no money left? Send her to prison? For how long? For life? I just don’t understand how this coercive behavior is supposed to help leave anyone better off. Throwing Kim Davis into jail is not only a strain on her, but a strain on us since we’re paying for her to be locked up!
Why not simply allow people to opt out of things that conflict with their conscience?
We’ve recently heard the story about the Muslim flight attendant who refused to serve alcohol, well if I owned a restaurant and I had Muslim employees I would understand their reluctance and would have accommodated them by trading tasks with an employee who didn’t have the same beliefs about alcohol. Why? Because I would want the same thing to be done to me if I were working at a pharmacy and didn’t want to sell abortion inducing drugs.
The accommodations we are talking about for allowing people to act in accordance with their consciences are not extensive at all.
Why not simply allow people to opt out of things that conflict with their conscience?
We’ve recently heard the story about the Muslim flight attendant who refused to serve alcohol, well if I owned a restaurant and I had Muslim employees I would understand their reluctance and would have accommodated them by trading tasks with an employee who didn’t have the same beliefs about alcohol. Why? Because I would want the same thing to be done to me if I were working at a pharmacy and didn’t want to sell abortion inducing drugs.
The accommodations we are talking about for allowing people to act in accordance with their consciences are not extensive at all.
S
SWolf
Guest
Work on reading comprehension.
The poster did no such equivalency. It’s simply being established whether it is EVER acceptable to disobey government commands based on conscience. If it’s never acceptable to disobey orders based on conscience, then we can’t fault those that pushed the button to gas Jews.
If we establish that commands from superiors CAN be disobeyed, details of when it is appropriate can then be discussed.
R
Reepicheep
Guest
No.
We can’t necessarily. Nor can we say that failing on one specific issue will make the difference between having Divine protection and not having it.
R
Reepicheep
Guest
(Underline is mine)
…Not merely for refusing to do it herself; for blocking other clerks from doing it. We ust follow our own conscience. We must not try to stop others; from following theirs.
Kim Davis was right to refuse to issue the licenses against her own conscience. She became wrong when she tried to impose her conscience on her co-workers.
Uh…okay, gay marriage is wrong. It is not the same thing as herding large numbers of people into a gas chamber and dropping in the Zyklon B.
The pharmacy must do this. But must the pharmacist? May he not step aside to let another employee do it?
R
Reepicheep
Guest
No. It is not good to do that. We are not allowed to do wrong even in service of the right.
M
mikekle
Guest
Yeah, this pretty much reiterates the recent statement by the Vatican…
**“In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.”
**
Great to hear the Pope say this.
**“In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.”
**
Great to hear the Pope say this.
R
Reepicheep
Guest
She is not being punished in the hope to force her to issue the licenses. She is being punished because (a) she coerced her subordinates into not issuing licenses and (b) she lied to a federal judge.
As for your questions: (“fine her until she has no money left? Send her to prison? For how long? For life?”) I think that’s a straw man. Nobody is saying they should fine her into poverty, nor that she should go to prison for life.
As to your last question: (“Why not simply allow people to opt out of things that conflict with their conscience?”) Kim Davis had that option. She could have stepped aside and let her assistant clerks issue the licenses. Once brought to court, she was offered that option again by the federal judge. She said she would accept it, and then went back on her word once back at work.
J
jtauke
Guest
My comprehension is fine, thank you.
The issue is the situations themselves, are so dissimilar, it borders on ridiculous. In one situation, obeying means murdering people. In the other situation, obeying simply means two people have met the standard for civil marriage (emphasis on civil).
Citizens absolutely have a right to exercise their conscience, but they are not free of the repercussions of their actions.
Suudy
Active member
No. From
ncsl.org/research/health/pharmacist-conscience-clauses-laws-and-information.aspx
On June 1, 2006 the Washington Board of Pharmacy approved proposed rule language regarding a pharmacist’s responsibilities in dispensing a lawful prescription. This language would amend Washington Admin. Code 246-863-095 to prohibit a pharmacist from delegating the decision not to dispense prescriptions for any reason.
L
LilyM
Guest
So to go back to an earlier example, if I personally am opposed to gassing Jews I must just meekly step aside and allow others who have no such qualms of conscience to exterminate them? I am not allowed to prevent them doing so?
Or a less extreme example - if I know someone is cheating on their taxes or lying to Social Security to fraudulently obtain benefits - must I meekly step aside and let them do so as their conscience permits, or can I coercively prevent them, eg by reporting them?
And no, I am not for a minute suggesting that gay marriage is morally equivalent to mass murder. I am merely wondering why one serious mortal sin can be coercively prevented and the other not. Why is there this divide between the two types? Where does this idea come from that coercive prevention only be used for sins that ALSO endanger life limb or property?
M
Maximilan_Kolbe
Guest
Exactly.
It simply shows that people do not understand the gravity of something like same sex marriage, or even abortion.
I said as much in the fight to defund Planned Parenthood. It gets a big “meh” from people when the issue of a government shutdown comes up. But if we were discussing funding gas chambers for the Jews, or harvesting body parts from live women, I suspect people would take it more seriously. And I mean the people here on CA. I expect more from actual Catholics.
It appears most everyone agrees that you should be able to follow your conscience and object (or even interfere with) actions at some point on the morality scale. The problem is the subjective decision of which ones are okay and which ones aren’t. Seems a bit arbitrary.
R
Reepicheep
Guest
But if the examples are not equivalent, then they are not equivalent.
If Kim Davis had been asked to kill people she would of course have been justified in not only refusing but trying to stop others from doing it. In fact Kim Davis was not being asked to directly harm people. She was being asked to issue licenses.
As for the tax cheat example: what legal duty do you have that would require you to help people cheat on their taxes? What duty of conscience prevents you from reporting illegal actions? Should the assistant clerks have tried to hide what Kim Davis was doing, in the name of respecting her conscience?
One question more. How does reporting a lawbreaker equate to coercing the lawbreaker?
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
But what about reasonable accommodation for those that have conscientious objection?
R
Reepicheep
Guest
Kim Davis was offered reasonable accommodation. She would be allowed to decline to sign the license forms provided her assistants were free to do so.She agreed to that, then went back to work, and revised all the forms to delete any mention that they came from the County Clerk’s office. Then she added a note that they were issued on the court’s authority. Not the county-- the court.
I would be astonished to hear that any court in America would consider the altered license forms to be still legally valid. So Davis was trying to make the forms useless while still pretending she was abiding by her promise to the court.
She was offered reasonable accommodation and used it to sabotage her own office.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
According to the following, her name was taken off and it says “pursuant to court order” and “Kentucky state law requires that “every license blank shall contain the identical words and figures.” But Beshear noted that the federal judge overseeing Davis’ case has not raised any objections to the licenses.”
If she has altered it any more than that, that raises questions, if that was done why did she do it?
This is a bigger issue than Kim Davis. There are other Kentucky clerks refusing to same-sex marriage licenses: nbcnews.com/news/us-news/why-arent-other-defiant-kentucky-clerks-joining-kim-davis-jail-n423496
There are Judges refusing same-sex marriages, such as:
newsweek.com/northcarolinajudgesrecusesamesexmarriage-370971
- Status