Kim Davis

[zaffiroborant]

Did you ignore the rest of my post on purpose? I said: After all, they have to follow the same laws as the state does. The same laws that require people to do immoral things or else get fined.

Bankers, insurance agents, programmers, real estate agents, mayors, state legislators have to issue marriage licenses?

Let’s put this to the test.

How would the situation have played out if she were a United Church of Christ member? Or a Unitarian Universalist? (hint: they’re leftist dominated denominations).

The case would never have happened, because their religions approve of SSM.

The job is only for those with the correct doctrine. Wrong doctrine = you deserve to starve.

I’m trying to figure out how this is different from saying if you are a faithful member of [insert church here] you cannot have a job, and maintaining a list of forbidden religions. “No Catholics or incorrect denominations need apply” per colonial laws.

When people are forced to go against their conscience, whistleblowing will also be outlawed. After all, you said that people with a conscience are not allowed to have a job.

Quit putting words in my mouth, I did not say that “people with a conscience are not allowed to have a job” I said they have a responsibility to seek employment that is not counter to their beliefs. A friend of my nieces was doing well working in movie theaters, had a change of heart and just didn’t like many of the movies out there, he decided to change careers. I admire him.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

**Kim Davis: Blinded by belief **

So, Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused to sign marriage licenses for same sex couples, went to jail. And many political conservatives and religious fundamentalists praised her faith — as if she’s the first person ever jailed for following her convictions.

In fact, everything happened just as it should have happened. American democracy worked.

baptistnews.com/perspectives/kim-davis-blinded-by-belief/

 

[Vanny]

OK, let’s put this to the test.

How many clerks are Muslim? I’m sure there are a few.

Now, how many ACLU lawyer accompanied couples went up to that Muslim clerk and demanded a SSM license?

Zero.

Same question for Jewish clerks.

Zero.

You know why. Or do you seriously think that was a coincidence?

Remember, prejudice can happen when laws are unevenly enforced.

Exactly.

 

[BobCatholic]

Bankers, insurance agents, programmers, real estate agents, mayors, state legislators have to issue marriage licenses?

So bankers don’t have to issue loans to same sex couples in a “marriage” you say?
So real estate agents don’t have to sell homes to same sex couples in a “marriage” you say?

I wonder why that baker in Colorado got in trouble? She served homosexuals regularly, including the plaintiff’s partner. Guess it was the SSM non-approval - remember, can’t have differing opinions under penalty of law now.

Quit putting words in my mouth, I did not say that “people with a conscience are not allowed to have a job” I said they have a responsibility to seek employment that is not counter to their beliefs.

I see, so the blame is on the person with the conscience instead of the bad employer.

The burden of proof is only on those who have a conscience, not the one without the conscience.

 

[zaffiroborant]

So bankers don’t have to issue loans to same sex couples in a “marriage” you say?
So real estate agents don’t have to sell homes to same sex couples in a “marriage” you say?

In what way does a loan or real estate transaction have anything to do with marriage? Do you believe that two men or two women who are not married but would like to buy a house should be interrogated by the real estate agent? The marital state of the people involved has nothing to do with the transaction.

She refused to serve homosexuals in this case and got in trouble for it.

I see, so the blame is on the person with the conscience instead of the bad employer.

The burden of proof is only on those who have a conscience, not the one without the conscience.

Why should a business open up to provide a given set of services/products and then have to change it just because someone disagrees with it? I didn’t work at Hooters but instead choose a restaurant down the street, while I could have done the uniform justice it wasn’t what I wanted to do. Those I knew that worked there made more money than I did at my more sedately dressed establishment and encouraged me to move to Hooters but I didn’t want to dress that way. Should Hooters have made an exception for me and allow me to to wear my tuxedo shirt and black slacks?

When I decided I didn’t want to sell liquor and was looking for a part time job, I avoided grocery stores, gas stations and convenience stores that sold liquor. Should any one of those places hired me and let me not sell alcohol even when I was the only person old enough to sell it?

[/QUOTE]