Kim Davis

[Rohzek]

I guess the question I have is, If she signs the certificate, is she participating in or promoting an immoral act? If everyone is expected to resign rather than give in to everything the “enlightened” progressives want, where does it stop? If accommodations and compromises cannot be made now, this sets a precedent that no sincerely-held belief can be used (e.g., doctors must perform abortions or resign, hospitals should perform abortions or lose federal funding, adoption agencies have to assent to gay couples, etc).

Also, for elected officials, do the voice of the people matter at all? A little bit?

Yes, it’s a slippery slope, but haven’t we gone down far enough to know that we’re halfway down the slope?

It’s not a slippery slope. Changing the entirety of the law to suit one woman’s conscience is not a reasonable accommodation. As for your other examples: No, doctors would never be forced because they aren’t elected and it is much more reasonable to find another doctor nearby to do it. The example doesn’t compare to enacting a long and complex legislative process just to suit an individual’s conscience. The other two examples I am not so sure about. However, if the hospitals and adoption agencies were both non-profit, then yes, they can refuse to serve those people or at least would have a much better case.

If President Nixon had turned out to be a true Quaker and thus a pacifist, would we give him a pass on not exercising his executive war duties? No, we would not have. We would have demanded he do his job, resign, or be impeached.

 

[EIF5A]

It’s not a slippery slope. Changing the entirety of the law to suit one woman’s conscience is not a reasonable accommodation. As for your other examples: No, doctors would never be forced because they aren’t elected and it is much more reasonable to find another doctor nearby to do it. The example doesn’t compare to enacting a long and complex legislative process just to suit an individual’s conscience. The other two examples I am not so sure about. However, if the hospitals and adoption agencies were both non-profit, then yes, they can refuse to serve those people or at least would have a much better case.

If President Nixon had turned out to be a true Quaker and thus a pacifist, would we give him a pass on not exercising his executive war duties? No, we would not have. We would have demanded he do his job, resign, or be impeached.

Why does it have to be a long, drawn out process to simply state that an alternative person can sign the document? Or a judge could have temporary authority to sign off?

You don’t hear the voices of the liberals saying abortion is women’s health/reproductive justice? How long before doctors with conscience are labeled as radicals who should quit because they’re not serving women’s health?

Hospitals may be non-profit but if they receive federal funding, you can bet someone will call for defunding at some point. Whether they will succeed is a different story.

The issue isn’t this example or that example. It’s setting of a precedent that if you give an inch you’ll lose a mile.

It’s the removal of religious conviction from “we, the people” that make up the government. Is “the government” an autonomous machine that just follows whatever law is passed?

Why should only the atheist/humanist/liberal agenda be forced upon people?

There has to be a compromise and the end to the false accusations of “bigotry” and “homophobia” that hamper and silence any attempt at communication across the aisle.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I guess the question I have is, If she signs the certificate, is she participating in or promoting an immoral act? If everyone is expected to resign rather than give in to everything the “enlightened” progressives want, where does it stop? If accommodations and compromises cannot be made now, this sets a precedent that no sincerely-held belief can be used (e.g., doctors must perform abortions or resign, hospitals should perform abortions or lose federal funding, adoption agencies have to assent to gay couples, etc).

Also, for elected officials, do the voice of the people matter at all? A little bit?

Yes, it’s a slippery slope, but haven’t we gone down far enough to know that we’re halfway down the slope?

No she’s not committing an immoral act, she signing off that the couple meets the State requirements for marriage. That the State allows what she considers immoral is another reason she should resign. She is currently employed by an immoral entity so if she really objects she should seek a different employer.

 

[BobCatholic]

It’s not a religious test, it’s performing the job. Her job is simply that of the county clerk signing off that the couple presenting themselves for a license meet the states criteria, not hers, the states.

OK, let’s test your theory.

If she were a CINO and not a practicing Christian who believed homosexual marriage is immoral, would there be a problem here?

A CINO doesn’t mind aiding and abetting someone else’s sin. But a practicing Christian can’t do that.

I think a code of ethics, which prohibits someone from doing something, should be treated the same as a disability, and as such given an accommodation.

THAT is tolerance.

 

[BobCatholic]

No she’s not committing an immoral act, she signing off that the couple meets the State requirements for marriage. That the State allows what she considers immoral is another reason she should resign. She is currently employed by an immoral entity so if she really objects she should seek a different employer.

Using this standard, every employer on the planet is immoral. After all, they have to follow the same laws as the state does. As a result, you’re saying Christians have no right to earn a living and should starve.

Sounds like a religious test for employment.

 

[BobCatholic]

Why should only the atheist/humanist/liberal agenda be forced upon people?

Because atheism is the official religion of the government.

There has to be a compromise and the end to the false accusations of “bigotry” and “homophobia” that hamper and silence any attempt at communication across the aisle.

There is no compromise from the gay agenda. Their goal is a “shut up don’t think” society, and they’re succeeding wildly.

 

[BobCatholic]

It’s not a slippery slope. Changing the entirety of the law to suit one woman’s conscience is not a reasonable accommodation.

She didn’t ask for that accomodation. She asked her name to be removed from the document. That doesn’t require a law change, it just requires new stationary to be printed.

No, doctors would never be forced because they aren’t elected and it is much more reasonable to find another doctor nearby to do it.

False. They already did that.

In Illinois pharmacists were required by law to dispense contraceptives and plan B pill, even if their religious convictions prohibited them from doing it. They were required to post signs saying “if your pharmacist refuses, call this nice little tattle-tale line”

It took a lawsuit to put an end to this nonsense.

So, are you saying that the only way to get an accommodation is by having a class action lawsuit?

If President Nixon had turned out to be a true Quaker and thus a pacifist, would we give him a pass on not exercising his executive war duties? No, we would not have. We would have demanded he do his job, resign, or be impeached.

So you disagree with Article VI section 3 of the Constitution then, so you would require a religious test before someone will serve. Only those on an approved list can serve. CINOs, humanists, atheists, agnostics, leftist Christians…everyone else can just be told to shut up, pay taxes and obey their masters.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Using this standard, every employer on the planet is immoral. After all, they have to follow the same laws as the state does. As a result, you’re saying Christians have no right to earn a living and should starve.

Sounds like a religious test for employment.

How is every employer immoral?

 

[zaffiroborant]

Using this standard, every employer on the planet is immoral. After all, they have to follow the same laws as the state does. As a result, you’re saying Christians have no right to earn a living and should starve.

Sounds like a religious test for employment.

It’s not a religious test for employment, it’s a religious person deciding who to work for and whether the employers actions violate their beliefs.

 

[Rohzek]

She didn’t ask for that accomodation. She asked her name to be removed from the document. That doesn’t require a law change, it just requires new stationary to be printed.

Yeah, and by law her name has to be on that document. That’s the way the law is written for governing the marriage licenses of that state.

False. They already did that.

In Illinois pharmacists were required by law to dispense contraceptives and plan B pill, even if their religious convictions prohibited them from doing it. They were required to post signs saying “if your pharmacist refuses, call this nice little tattle-tale line”

It took a lawsuit to put an end to this nonsense.

So, are you saying that the only way to get an accommodation is by having a class action lawsuit?

Clearly the state of Illinois was out of line. Sometimes, lawsuits must be filed when the government steps out of line. It’s one means of keeping a check on power. That being said, the doctors won the lawsuit. They aren’t being forced into anything.

So you disagree with Article VI section 3 of the Constitution then, so you would require a religious test before someone will serve. Only those on an approved list can serve. CINOs, humanists, atheists, agnostics, leftist Christians…everyone else can just be told to shut up, pay taxes and obey their masters.

You don’t know anything about the Constitution, clearly. No one would give a rat’s butt about Nixon’s religion so long as it didn’t impair his ability to push the button should the Soviets ever had made one wrong move. Letting a pacifist run the military makes just about as much sense as letting Pope Francis or Patriarch Bartholomew star in a porno, but with no sex scenes. It’s not a religious test. It’s a matter of practicality. Religions should always be accommodated, but it if it means that it unreasonably impairs the individual from carrying out their responsibilities, then they are in the wrong line of work. Either do the job or quit. In whatever case, they should stop wasting everyone’s time.

It’s not a religious test. No one cared what Nixon’s beliefs were. No one cares what Davis’ beliefs are, as long as she does her job. Religious tests barred colonial peoples from serving in government capacities usually because they were Catholic. It had nothing to do with their loyalty to the King of England or their ability to carry out their duties. The situation here with Davis is completely different. No one cares what here beliefs are. They only care if she will or won’t do her job.

And no one is telling you to shut up. I have no idea where you get your sense of persecution from, especially on an online religious board where conservatives seem to outnumber liberals 2:1 to say the least.

 

[EIF5A]

There’s a lot of mentioning of “Kim Davis just needs to do her job.”

And when clerks issued gay marriage certificates when they were illegal? No one was saying they’re breaking the law. On the contrary, they were praised. It’s not about “doing their job”, it’s about “doing their job a certain liberal, progressive way”.

Judges can recuse themselves, and the court system is still functioning.

An accommodation cannot be made, not because it’s too cumbersome, but because the liberals cannot stand that someone disagrees with them and opposers need to be ousted from having any sort of public role.

(And she became clerk before this gay marriage fiasco.)

And safety of the entire nation in an emergency nuclear war situation is different from an office where documents are signed.

 

[Rohzek]

There’s a lot of mentioning of “Kim Davis just needs to do her job.”

And when clerks issued gay marriage certificates when they were illegal? No one was saying they’re breaking the law. On the contrary, they were praised. It’s not about “doing their job”, it’s about “doing their job a certain liberal, progressive way”.

Judges can recuse themselves, and the court system is still functioning.

An accommodation cannot be made, not because it’s too cumbersome, but because the liberals cannot stand that someone disagrees with them and opposers need to be ousted from having any sort of public role.

(And she became clerk before this gay marriage fiasco.)

And safety of the entire nation in an emergency nuclear war situation is different from an office where documents are signed.

Clerks issuing marriage licenses to gay couples when they were illegal? When the heck did that ever happen? Contrary to your liberal boogeyman that you keep mentioning, accommodation cannot be made because it is unreasonable.

 

[EIF5A]

Clerks issuing marriage licenses to gay couples when they were illegal? When the heck did that ever happen? Contrary to your liberal boogeyman that you keep mentioning, accommodation cannot be made because it is unreasonable.

Gavin Newsom (of San Francisco) ordered them to issue marriage licenses.

Unreasonable to whom? To those that think their version of “love” is the correct one, and anyone who disagrees is a “bigot”. A bigot hates and devalues a person based on some criteria; gay marriage opposers oppose marriage and same-sex behavior, not the person.

It’s unreasonable to take her name off and have someone else sign-off?

 

[Rohzek]

Gavin Newsom (of San Francisco) ordered them to issue marriage licenses.

Well, then if it was against the law then it should have been condemned. We’re a nation of laws, not mob ruled.

Unreasonable to whom? To those that think their version of “love” is the correct one, and anyone who disagrees is a “bigot”. A bigot hates and devalues a person based on some criteria; gay marriage opposers oppose marriage and same-sex behavior, not the person.

That’s a different issue.

It’s unreasonable to take her name off and have someone else sign-off?

Yeah, it is because the law requires that her name be on it, because it is HER office that issues the license.

 

[EIF5A]

Well, then if it was against the law then it should have been condemned. We’re a nation of laws, not mob ruled.

But it wasn’t condemned by those who now say “Kim Davis needs to follow the law.” There’s a double-standard. Granted, double-standards are not exclusive to liberals as everyone is biased towards supporting their cause, but in this particular instance, this is clear double-standard.

That’s a different issue.

Really? Because all those #lovewins and #noh8 hashtags seem to indicate otherwise.

Yeah, it is because the law requires that her name be on it, because it is HER office that issues the license.

Then what’s the point of having lawmakers to represent the views of the people?

 

[EIF5A]

I assume you saw the news today. The “liberal side” and also “the conservative side” and also this “gay lobby” you speak of have allowed the issuing of the marriage documents *without *Ms. Davis’ name on them.
I guess their narrative of “justice” was not so false, and their toleration was healthy and compassionate.
I hope the other side would be as such.

abcnews.go.com/US/kim-davis-removed-license-sex-couple/story?id=33744855

.

This compromise could have and should have been done earlier. I guess better late than never.

But in the eyes of some, Kim Davis, and all who don’t condone same-sex relations, will always be a “bigot” and a “homophobe”.

(Obviously there’s no single “liberal”, “conservative”, or “progressive” side — it’s a broad term meant to be taken broadly. And I think we can reasonably formulate the idea of the “gay lobby”.)

 

[BobCatholic]

How is every employer immoral?

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.

It’s not a religious test for employment, it’s a religious person deciding who to work for and whether the employers actions violate their beliefs.

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.

 

[BobCatholic]

Oh, please.
Is Christianity the only religion that does not support same-sex marriage?
No.
If a Muslim clerk refused to issue the same-sex marriage documents, the same result would have happened (I give that little scenario for the people who consistently ask,* “…I wonder what would happen if a Muslim person did this/!!!”*)

.

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.

 

[BobCatholic]

I assume you saw the news today. The “liberal side” and also “the conservative side” and also this “gay lobby” you speak of have allowed the issuing of the marriage documents *without *Ms. Davis’ name on them.
I guess their narrative of “justice” was not so false, and their toleration was healthy and compassionate.
I hope the other side would be as such.

abcnews.go.com/US/kim-davis-removed-license-sex-couple/story?id=33744855

.

So where was this compromise before her being thrown in jail?

Oh.

It conveniently came AFTER.

The gay lobby wants their pound of flesh.

 

[QuestLove]

Thoughts on the Kentucky clerk who went to jail for not issuing marriage licences to any homosexual couple and refusing to let anyone under her issue any either.

I get why she refused licenses to the same sex couple still not sure why she refused opposite sex couples.