Thousands Rally in Support of Christian Clerks Who Refuse to Issue ‘Gay Marriage’ Licenses

[MarcoPolo]

People have certainly been conscientious objectors before, but they usually pay a price for doing so such as being sued, being fined, being arrested, losing their job, etc. If their beliefs are important enough to them and they are willing to pay that price, then no one can stop them. But they shouldn’t be surprised or expect that there will be no consequences.

That’s really the question, isn’t it? Is the government forcing the employee to do something immoral? And is this such an occasion that calls for good men to resist? Just saying “that’s part of the job” doesn’t really cut to the crux of the matter.

 

[exnihilo]

A government official should do the job that they are paid to do and which is part of their job description. If the job description for a county clerk includes issuing marriage licenses, then the person who holds that job must issue a license to all people who meet the requirements in the law for a marriage license.

The law of the state in question says marriage is between a man and a woman. It is true that five judges say otherwise. But they say so in contradiction of democracy, natural law and reason. If people ignored this usurpation by the courts they’d be exposed for impotent body they truly are.

But I wonder, would you say the same thing if the issue in question was a police officer enforcing segregation law in the past? It seems to me most people don’t insist an agent of the state abide by the law when the law itself is immoral. Not only is the law of same sex ‘marriage’ immoral but the way it was achieved was invalidating laws determined by democratic means. Thus there are two reasons to consider the law immoral and invalid.

 

[unstoppable_II]

WHAT! No. She is a government official that must treat everyone equally. If she can’t do her job, she should resign.

The inescapable conclusion is we are all government employees.

These inversions of decency and sanity are not the work of anarchists. They are the logical consequence of the central credo of modern liberalism: that all intolerance and discrimination must be eliminated. In a society dedicated to that proposition, the good itself must ultimately be seen as evil, because the good discriminates against evil, while evil must be blessed with victim status, because it is excluded by the good. – From The Closing of the American Mind

 

[Thorolfr]

But I wonder, would you say the same thing if the issue in question was a police officer enforcing segregation law in the past? It seems to me most people don’t insist an agent of the state abide by the law when the law itself is immoral. Not only is the law of same sex ‘marriage’ immoral but the way it was achieved was invalidating laws determined by democratic means. Thus there are two reasons to consider the law immoral and invalid.

Your example of segregation laws don’t get us anywhere. Those segregation laws in the South were passed by democratic means and many racist white people probably considered them to be perfectly moral and in accordance with their version of natural law.

 

[exnihilo]

Your example of segregation laws don’t get us anywhere. Those segregation laws in the South were passed by democratic means and many racist white people probably considered them to be perfectly moral and in accordance with their version of natural law.

I don’t know what you mean by don’t get us anywhere. The point was I’m sure lots of people, maybe you included, would say that agents of the state shouldn’t have enforced those laws as they were immoral.

 

[Thorolfr]

I don’t know what you mean by don’t get us anywhere. The point was I’m sure lots of people, maybe you included, would say that agents of the state shouldn’t have enforced those laws as they were immoral.

But you just said that the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage “was invalidating laws determined by democratic means” which is also what they did when they overturned segregation laws. So an argument against the Supreme Court “invalidating laws determined by democratic means” doesn’t make much sense since you seem to support the Supreme Court when they did this in the case of segregation but are opposed when they did this in the case of same-sex marriage.

 

[ellam25]

At least not yet, but doctors are not government employees. If a doctor doesn’t believe a particular medicine is a violation of their religious beliefs, they are not obligated, technically or otherwise, to do so. They can send them to a different doctor.

Jon

True, I hadn’t thought of this, thank you.

 

[unstoppable_II]

… If a doctor doesn’t believe a particular medicine is a violation of their religious beliefs, they are not obligated, technically or otherwise, to do so. They can send them to a different doctor.
Jon

This statement is confusing. To whom does “their” and “they” refer? The doctor in your hypothetical, or the government employees?

One day, before the civil rights movement, I was having my hair cut when a black customer came in the shop. The barber said he [the barber] couldn’t cut Afro hair for lack of the proper cutters and referred him to a different shop. If the barber said it today, would it be a violation of the law?

 

[frobert]

This statement is confusing. To whom does “their” and “they” refer? The doctor in your hypothetical, or the government employees?

One day, before the civil rights movement, I was having my hair cut when a black customer came in the shop. The barber said he [the barber] couldn’t cut Afro hair for lack of the proper cutters and referred him to a different shop. If the barber said it today, would it be a violation of the law?

Interesting! Are you saying that the barber should have cut his hair with cutters that would be inadequate for a black customer? Perhaps you have reason to believe that the barber was being dishonest?

 

[JonNC]

This statement is confusing. To whom does “their” and “they” refer? The doctor in your hypothetical, or the government employees?

One day, before the civil rights movement, I was having my hair cut when a black customer came in the shop. The barber said he [the barber] couldn’t cut Afro hair for lack of the proper cutters and referred him to a different shop. If the barber said it today, would it be a violation of the law?

The doctor can send a patient to a different doctor.
If the barber doesn’t have the equipment, no, it is not, nor should it be, a violation of the law.

Jon

 

[Peter_Plato]

\So an argument against the Supreme Court “invalidating laws determined by democratic means” doesn’t make much sense since you seem to support the Supreme Court when they did this in the case of segregation but are opposed when they did this in the case of same-sex marriage.

And you seem to support the Supreme Court when they did this in the case of same-sex marriage but are opposed when they did this in the case of segregation.

The point is you are resorting to the same argument you claim “doesn’t make much sense.”

So the question is, “Which is takes precedence, the Supreme Court or the will of the people?”

I say neither.

Both the Supreme Court and the people have to resort to sound ethical reasoning to justify whether either the will of the people or the Supreme Court judgement ought to prevail.

In the case of these SCOTUS decision, basing that judgement on the right of individuals to determine for themselves what constitutes their own “pursuit of happiness” without any reference whatsoever to the public good is an inherent undermining of morality in order to replace it with an arbitrary nod to “the will” of individual caprice. Hardly a justifiable legal decision.

 

[Son_of_Niall]

Appeals Court Upholds Ruling Ordering Christian Clerk to Issue ‘Gay Marriage’ Licenses

christiannews.net/2015/08/27/appeals-court-upholds-ruling-ordering-christian-clerk-to-issue-gay-marriage-licenses/

 

[unstoppable_II]

Interesting! Are you saying that the barber should have cut his hair with cutters that would be inadequate for a black customer? Perhaps you have reason to believe that the barber was being dishonest?

After the black guy left, the barber told me he was afraid of losing white customers. There were no special cutters for Afros.

 

[Thorolfr]

Both the Supreme Court and the people have to resort to sound ethical reasoning to justify whether either the will of the people or the Supreme Court judgement ought to prevail.

In the case of these SCOTUS decision, basing that judgement on the right of individuals to determine for themselves what constitutes their own “pursuit of happiness” without any reference whatsoever to the public good is an inherent undermining of morality in order to replace it with an arbitrary nod to “the will” of individual caprice. Hardly a justifiable legal decision.

So who will decide which judgement ought to prevail? Should the US be a theocracy like Iran with a religious “Supreme Leader” or “Guardian Jurist” at the top who makes these kinds of judgments? Should the ethical reasoning of the Catholic Church be used or of a more liberal denomination like the Episcopal Church?

 

[Peter_Plato]

So who will decide which judgement ought to prevail? Should the US be a theocracy like Iran with a religious “Supreme Leader” or “Guardian Jurist” at the top who makes these kinds of judgments? Should the ethical reasoning of the Catholic Church be used or of a more liberal denomination like the Episcopal Church?

Being the gentleman that I am, I insist that you have the first volley. Which ethical reasoning do you suggest?

I am perfectly willing to accept any solid and respectable ethical reasoning which proves its merit over NO ethical reasoning, which appears to be, in the final analysis, where you hope to go by disqualifying all ethical reasoning merely because some differences exist.

Personally, I have no need to distinguish except that the reasoning be sound and ethical.

 

[unstoppable_II]

So who will decide which judgement ought to prevail? Should the US be a theocracy like Iran with a religious “Supreme Leader” or “Guardian Jurist” at the top who makes these kinds of judgments? Should the ethical reasoning of the Catholic Church be used or of a more liberal denomination like the Episcopal Church?

I can’t help getting the felling this is a false dilemma fallacy.

 

[Thorolfr]

I am perfectly willing to accept any solid and respectable ethical reasoning

I found the ethical and legal reasoning in Justice Kennedy’s opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges quite convincing, solid and respectable. Apparently, four other justices did, too. So I guess that settles it.

 

[benjohnson]

Marriage from the state’s perspective is a legal love registry that exists to give people social acceptance.

Very well put!

 

[unstoppable_II]

I found the ethical and legal reasoning in Justice Kennedy’s opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges quite convincing, solid and respectable. Apparently, four other justices did, too. So I guess that settles it.

It was so “convincing, solid, and respectable” that it prompted Scalia to ask, “Just who do we think we are?” That question should be carved in big letters over the exit [not entrance] to the room where they hear cases so they can see it from their high thrones.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I found the ethical and legal reasoning in Justice Kennedy’s opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges quite convincing, solid and respectable. Apparently, four other justices did, too. So I guess that settles it.

That would be because you are easily persuaded by the rhetoric of those who deify the four primary ideals of social justice: Equality, Diversity, Tolerance, and Progress. These are mutually contradictory and wouldn’t survive an intense logical assessment but they do tug on the heartstrings of those who wouldn’t recognize the truth even if it bit them on the backside (and try to evade it because they are afraid it might.)

The dissenting judges who understood better that truth, justice and liberty are far more solid grounds for legal determinations were simply outgunned because SCOTUS has been co-opted over the years by strategically successful and politically placed SJWs.

Their decision wasn’t based on ethically sound reasoning, nor was it convincing, solid or respectable except to those who have already entered into a Faustian bargain with the Father of Lies to promote the pseudo-social morality of “social justice” over truth, justice and liberty.

I highly recommend Vox Day’s new book, SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police, to anyone interested in countering and immunizing oneself and one’s community against the awful malady which is the “social justice” infestation.

amazon.com/SJWs-Always-Lie-Taking-Thought-ebook/dp/B014GMBUR4