SCOTUS rules: gay marriage approved

[DrDoug]

Maybe because some of us still respect the rights of ALL individuals.

...

No "some of you" don't. If you did you would respect same sex couples rights too, not her rights over theirs.

Good try but no sale.

 

[RY62]

No "some of you" don't. If you did you would respect same sex couples rights, not her rights over theirs.

Good try but no sale.

Don't judge what you know nothing about.

I don't respect the rights of any individual over another if there is any way possible to preserve the rights of both.

Same sex marriage is the law and has been declared a legal right. I respect that right would fight to protect that right just the same as her right to religious freedom.

 

[waggy]

Don't judge what you know nothing about.

I don't respect the rights of any individual over another if there is any way possible to preserve the rights of both.

Same sex marriage is the law and has been declared a legal right. I respect that right would fight to protect that right just the same as her right to religious freedom.

she has religious freedom. She just doesn't have the right to pick and choose what her job is.

She does not want to do her job she does not have to. She is free to find another job.

IF she want's to keep her job she has to do it all. even to those couples of the same sex.

it's really not as complicated as people are trying to make it.

 

[MrPickins]

Don't judge what you know nothing about.

I don't respect the rights of any individual over another if there is any way possible to preserve the rights of both.

Same sex marriage is the law and has been declared a legal right. I respect that right would fight to protect that right just the same as her right to religious freedom.

She is acting as an agent of the state, and actually violating the 1st amendment by refusing to issue the certificates. (Remember the whole church=/=state thing?)

The only people who are having their rights violated are those who were refused marriage certificates.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

She is acting as an agent of the state, and actually violating the 1st amendment by refusing to issue the certificates. (Remember the whole church=/=state thing?)

The only people who are having their rights violated are those who were refused marriage certificates.

I don't see how she is violating the first amendment, unless she somehow has dictatorial powers over the government and solo established a law and also calls herself congress.

 

[DrDoug]

Don't judge what you know nothing about.

I don't respect the rights of any individual over another if there is any way possible to preserve the rights of both.

Same sex marriage is the law and has been declared a legal right. I respect that right would fight to protect that right just the same as her right to religious freedom.

Religious freedom does not trump Constitutional rights that every citizen has. She has a government job where she has to serve every single citizen of her county, not just those her religion approves of. She swore an oath to God that she would perform her job, not an oath to obey the Bible as she interprets it, and now she wants to renege on that oath and work out a new one that is unique to the special snowflake she sees herself as. There was no "... unless the laws change to allow same sex marriage..." in her oath. She swore to follow the law and she has violated that oath. Quit making excuses for her, there are none.

She can quit her job and then her 'rights' won't be violated one bit, no special snowflake exceptions needed.

 

[shira]

She offered a compromise - she didn't want her name on the forms and others could sign instead of her. Her name was printed on the forms and she wanted it removed before they were issued.

So what about this:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/05/travel/muslim-flight-attendant-feat/index.html

If we follow the same logic - screw her religion and jail her for not serving alcohol. But nobody takes up that narrative because it's a muslim.

First of all, there was an easy "accommodation" available to the airline for that flight attendant: Assign her only to flights where other attendants are available to serve alcohol. In fact, under Title VII Civil Rights Act, the airline is required to make this accommodation unless it's too difficult or expensive, which wouldn't have been the case.

Second, Davis could have had her office issue licenses while she sought remedy from the state, rather than bringing the issuance of marriage licenses to a screeching halt.

So I'm fully on board with "accommodation" of religious beliefs, but respect is needed by both sides.

 

[Perknose]

FLAMING HYPOCRITE ALERT​

Kim Davis, upholding the Christian sanctity of marriage again and again and again:

Kim Davis believes that her three divorces and four marriages are relevant only in that they give her particular insight into the matter currently at hand. She believes that having a track record that enables a US News & World Report writer to note, “She gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband. They were fathered by her third husband but adopted by her second” is not what’s really important here and now.

[...]

In the constitutionally protected America that we’re all supposed to be living in here, it should not matter how many times the county clerk has been married, or what her marital status was at the time she conceived her children. It should not matter because her personal life isn’t supposed to have anything to do with how she performs her duties. Just like it shouldn’t matter if the two people applying for a license are a man and a woman, or two men, or two women. By bringing her personal judgment into a civic job, Davis has invited commentary on her own life. And that’s just pointless and sad, for everyone...

 

[MrPickins]

I don't see how she is violating the first amendment, unless she somehow has dictatorial powers over the government and solo established a law and also calls herself congress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause

The second half of the Establishment Clause inherently prohibits the government from preferring any one religion over another; which tends to allow for a greater harmony amongst all of the many denominations in the United States.

She is promoting her version of Christianity over anyone else's beliefs. As an agent of the state, this is unconstitutional.

 

[DrPizza]

I don't see how she is violating the first amendment, unless she somehow has dictatorial powers over the government and solo established a law and also calls herself congress.

The First Amendment doesn't just apply to Congress, it applies to all branches of the government.

I'm so surprised people are having a hard time understanding that if you have a government job, you can't enforce your own beliefs on other people through that job. What if the head of a state liquor board changed his religion to Islam, and suddenly decided to deny every application for renewal of liquor licenses, because alcohol was evil? What if whoever it is who grants pistol permits decided, "I'm a Quaker now. Guns are violent, I'm a pacifist. No one gets gun permits any more." What if 51% of your local population were Muslim - a strong enough majority to guarantee to get a Muslim elected as Mayor or whoever it is in your city who grants permits for public festivals, and festivals at churches. "Nope, we're not granting you a permit, because there's going to be music." "Nope, we're not granting you a permit, because there's going to be alcohol."

You seem to think it takes a law to deny people the right to do something, and you seem to agree that it would be wrong to make a law to enforce a religious belief that was central to only some religions. Or, are you in favor of Sharia law in your town if a few Muslims are elected to your town board/city council, or whatever local legislative body you have? You seem to not realize that individuals and groups can still abuse (illegally) their government position to oppress people of other groups. And, that's about as wrong of a position to have in this country that you could have. "I'm the county clerk, and I refuse to certify this home sale, because it's to a Muslim/Hebrew/black/gay/etc."

 

[RY62]

The First Amendment doesn't just apply to Congress, it applies to all branches of the government.

I'm so surprised people are having a hard time understanding that if you have a government job, you can't enforce your own beliefs on other people through that job. What if the head of a state liquor board changed his religion to Islam, and suddenly decided to deny every application for renewal of liquor licenses, because alcohol was evil? What if whoever it is who grants pistol permits decided, "I'm a Quaker now. Guns are violent, I'm a pacifist. No one gets gun permits any more." What if 51% of your local population were Muslim - a strong enough majority to guarantee to get a Muslim elected as Mayor or whoever it is in your city who grants permits for public festivals, and festivals at churches. "Nope, we're not granting you a permit, because there's going to be music." "Nope, we're not granting you a permit, because there's going to be alcohol."

You seem to think it takes a law to deny people the right to do something, and you seem to agree that it would be wrong to make a law to enforce a religious belief that was central to only some religions. Or, are you in favor of Sharia law in your town if a few Muslims are elected to your town board/city council, or whatever local legislative body you have? You seem to not realize that individuals and groups can still abuse (illegally) their government position to oppress people of other groups. And, that's about as wrong of a position to have in this country that you could have. "I'm the county clerk, and I refuse to certify this home sale, because it's to a Muslim/Hebrew/black/gay/etc."

Why do you all insist that she's forcing her beliefs on others? She simply doesn't want to violate her own beliefs.

If this were just about denying the rights of same sex marriage, I would be all in with you. If were a case of denying any of the rights you suggested, I'd be all in but this is not the case.

I know you're not too dense to see that a compromise has been offered which protects the rights of ALL parties. Why does tolerance only extend to those you like or agree with?

I don't understand how she considers it a sin to issue the license, with her name on it, but she does and I am will to respect that and seek compromise to protect her rights as well as the rights of same sex couples.

 

[Sonikku]

The posters defending her to their dying breath have had their arguments completely and utterly eviscerated over and over again. If the facts haven't changed their mind by now, they basically have resigned themselves to living in their ignorant bubble permanently and any attempt to help them see reason is for nought.

 

[MongGrel]

FLAMING HYPOCRITE ALERT​

Kim Davis, upholding the Christian sanctity of marriage again and again and again:

I love ya man

 

[RY62]

FLAMING HYPOCRITE ALERT​

Kim Davis, upholding the Christian sanctity of marriage again and again and again:

You don't understand Christianity at all, do you?

If any of us were perfect and could live a life without sin, we wouldn't need the gift of salvation that comes from Jesus Christ. I'm sure she did some awful things before she was saved, most of us did. Having recently accepted Jesus, she should now be trying to live as close to sin free as she can, in the best way she understands it. I think that's what she's doing.

It's not her place, as a Christian, to force you or anyone else, accept her faith or live by her values. Her only obligation to others is to love them and share the good news, that they can make their own choice.

 

[chubbyfatazn]

Why do you all insist that she's forcing her beliefs on others? She simply doesn't want to violate her own beliefs.

She's choosing not to violate her own beliefs in her capacity as a public official. She's free to do that on her own time

I know you're not too dense to see that a compromise has been offered which protects the rights of ALL parties.

Sure, but she's not fulfilling the duties she was elected to and agreed to fulfill by not granting anyone, be they homo- or heterosexual, any marriage licenses.

I don't understand how she considers it a sin to issue the license, with her name on it, but she does and I am will to respect that and seek compromise to protect her rights as well as the rights of same sex couples.

No one's trampling on the rights she has as an individual, i.e. not acting as an agent of the government.

 

[sandorski]

You don't understand Christianity at all, do you?

If any of us were perfect and could live a life without sin, we wouldn't need the gift of salvation that comes from Jesus Christ. I'm sure she did some awful things before she was saved, most of us did. Having recently accepted Jesus, she should now be trying to live as close to sin free as she can, in the best way she understands it. I think that's what she's doing.

It's not her place, as a Christian, to force you or anyone else, accept her faith or live by her values. Her only obligation to others is to love them and share the good news, that they can make their own choice.

What's to understand? Apparently it also means acting like an asshole by using your position to deny someone a service you don't like and to go out of your way to avoid that service being provided by others.

 

[nickqt]

Why do you all insist that she's forcing her beliefs on others? She simply doesn't want to violate her own beliefs.

If this were just about denying the rights of same sex marriage, I would be all in with you. If were a case of denying any of the rights you suggested, I'd be all in but this is not the case.

I know you're not too dense to see that a compromise has been offered which protects the rights of ALL parties. Why does tolerance only extend to those you like or agree with?

I don't understand how she considers it a sin to issue the license, with her name on it, but she does and I am will to respect that and seek compromise to protect her rights as well as the rights of same sex couples.

This is about someone not performing their job.

No matter how many times you say the word compromise, or exclaim that it's everyone else who is intolerant, the scumbag you're defending refused to perform her job. Period.

But go ahead. Keep using the word compromise, and keep calling everyone else a bigot.

You're totally right here. You have to be, because Compromise! And Intolerance!

 

[Victorian Gray]

Why do you all insist that she's forcing her beliefs on others? She simply doesn't want to violate her own beliefs.

If this were just about denying the rights of same sex marriage, I would be all in with you. If were a case of denying any of the rights you suggested, I'd be all in but this is not the case.

I know you're not too dense to see that a compromise has been offered which protects the rights of ALL parties. Why does tolerance only extend to those you like or agree with?

I don't understand how she considers it a sin to issue the license, with her name on it, but she does and I am will to respect that and seek compromise to protect her rights as well as the rights of same sex couples.

Her rights are already being protected. She is free to practice her religion as much as she wants. But, when she is acting as an agent of the State she is not allowed to alter her legal duties based on her personal belief system. As county clerk she is *not* Kim Davis, "private citizen". She*is* Kim Davis, "representative of the State" and the State says homosexual couples get the same marriage licenses as heterosexual couples.

If Kim Davis, the private citizen, feels that by doing her legally mandated duties she is acting against her religious beliefs she is free to resign from her *public* position and continue to practice her *personal* beliefs as a private citizen. And the State will protect her right to do so.

 

[DrDoug]

Why do you all insist that she's forcing her beliefs on others? She simply doesn't want to violate her own beliefs.

If this were just about denying the rights of same sex marriage, I would be all in with you. If were a case of denying any of the rights you suggested, I'd be all in but this is not the case.

I know you're not too dense to see that a compromise has been offered which protects the rights of ALL parties. Why does tolerance only extend to those you like or agree with?

I don't understand how she considers it a sin to issue the license, with her name on it, but she does and I am will to respect that and seek compromise to protect her rights as well as the rights of same sex couples.

Why do you all insist that they're forcing their beliefs on her? They simply don't want her to violate their Constitutional rights.

If this were just about denying her the rights of her religion, I would be all in with you. If were a case of denying any of her religious rights you suggested, I'd be all in but this is not the case.

I know you're not too dense to see that a compromise that allows her a Constitutional exception is unacceptable as it places the religious rights of the individual over those that the Constitution grants every citizen. Why does intolerance only extend to those you like or agree with?

I don't understand how she considers it a sin to issue the license, with her name on it, but she does and if that is the case then she needs to resign her position in government. I am not willing to respect her religion over Constitutional rights and the only compromise I can see is for her to protect her rights as well as the rights of same sex couples is for her to resign.

Did I do it right? :biggrin:

 

[RY62]

Did I do it right? :biggrin:

Almost. You just need to add a little truth and maybe some sincerity.

 

[MrPickins]

Almost. You just need to add a little truth and maybe some sincerity.

At this point I'm pretty sure you're a sock-puppet troll.

 

[Darwin333]

I wonder how many licenses she has signed for a persons second, third or even fourth marriage? Don't you have to bring in your divorce papers to get a marriage license if you've previously been married before? Isn't divorce not allowed in the bible and as such granting someone "permission" (as if the bible ever stipulated that some peon working for the state was required to grant permission for marriage) to get married for the second time be at least as much of a sin?''

Or is it purely a case of her being really scared of catching the gay?

 

[DrDoug]

At this point I'm pretty sure you're a sock-puppet troll.

That or just really ignorant. Maybe both?

 

[Ns1]

I wonder how many licenses she has signed for a persons second, third or even fourth marriage? Don't you have to bring in your divorce papers to get a marriage license if you've previously been married before? Isn't divorce not allowed in the bible and as such granting someone "permission" (as if the bible ever stipulated that some peon working for the state was required to grant permission for marriage) to get married for the second time be at least as much of a sin?''

Or is it purely a case of her being really scared of catching the gay?

Clearly critical thinking is not a requirement for that position.

 

[RY62]

I'm fine with them taking her name off of the forms and her returning to do her job, because that is her capitulating to the rule of law and trying to use a trivial point to save face.

One voice of reason from the entire day. I guess there is still hope.