Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It was 2014 when she took the job, we were all very aware that SSM was coming. Kim learned her mother was stepping down so ran for the position. There were cries of nepotism from the one facing off against her in the primary. Kim previously was reporting to her mother.
You said that Kim Davis was marrying gays. That would have meant, in addition to her several marriages, she was now marrying gays.
No I didn't. It is my understanding she didn't perform one same sex marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse
She was, by her oath, required to issue marriage licenses, she wasn't a part of the ceremony. Actually SCOTUS did not grant the privilege of marriage to gays, but required states not to deny them marriage.
Actually SCOTUS did say, in effect, states had to grant the privilege of same sex marriage. Is it your contention that after that ruling Kentucky would cease with all marriages? lol
Your rewording doesn't change anything. In your haste to prove me wrong you forgot the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse
Someone else was available to issue the marriage licenses, some of the employees in the office that Kim Davis supervised. She forbid them to issue them, thereby forcing her religious beliefs, in a government workplace, on her employees.
No she didn't. Only she had the authority to allow same sex licenses to be distributed. It's not about the messenger who performs the act it's about the one with the authority who grants that act.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse
If I refuse to wait on a glutton as a waitress, should they have to go somewhere else and eat? No, they shouldn't
If they want to eat of course they go elsewhere. No one should have the right to force others to work for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse
and neither should those that Kim Davis refused to serve have to leave their county where they paid taxes and get a marriage license elsewhere.
You don't pay taxes to get a marriage license. You pay a user fee to get that license.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse
If they approved prostitution, would Kim Davis be able to deny issuing a license on that, if that was against her "religion"? That was my point. Can she continue to refuse duties based on her religion even when these duties are a part of her job description?
Here's the point that you refuse to address and yet another reason you shouldn't be in this discussion. Why does a prostitute need a government permit? Same question you've dodged before. Why do people need a government license to marry someone they love? It's about needing governments permission.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse
She didn't throw her religious beliefs out the window
because she did not marry same sex couples. That is why she didn't throw her religious convictions out the window.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse
she denied marriage licenses to people who were entitled and didn't do her job.
Because her job description changed. You ignoring that fact is yet another reason you shouldn't be in this discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse
She was judging others and let's face it, if we start judging her actions in the past......... Exactly how did her religious beliefs go out the window?
Same sex marriage is against her religion. Asking the question '"how did her religious beliefs go out the window" is another reason you shouldn't be in this discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse
She is bound to follow the law just like everyone else.
Like Jim Crow? You'll ignore that too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse
I guess she is new age Christian, since I remember this from probably 50 years ago, just about how long it has been since I belonged to "organized religion". (When Christianity left God, I left Christianity.)
Nothing to do with new age Christianity. Christianity generally speaking has been against same sex marriage. Where do you keep pulling these absurd comments from?
You deflected and haven't really addressed anything I've said. You made up quite a few things that fit your twisted agenda and refused to take on the points I've made.
Sure, it would make just as much sense. Enforce the unconstitutional Jim Crow laws or enforce the unconstitutional SSM bans. In both cases she would not be doing her job of issuing licenses to those legally allowed to marry.
......sigh You're still not getting it. Would you be defending her because she didn't issue mixed marriage licenses because of Jim Crow or would you be protesting her?
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
Yep. And she would still have the exact same option of resigning in protest if she disagreed with it.
She is shirking her responsibility. If she desires not to follow out the responsibilities of her job, she should seek another position.
Government is shirking their responsibility by getting involved in the marriage business in the first place. No way to solve it because big government can't get another person to marry same sex couples. That's who I want running things, government, because they really, really solve problems.
The bolded describes exactly how she failed to fulfill her oath. And in case you don't understand the word, here is the definition of partiality:
"unfair bias in favor of one thing or person compared with another."
Her refusal to issue marriage licenses to gay couples while continuing to issue them for heterosexual couples fits this definition to a T.
You're welcome.
So according to you, from day one, before SCOTUS ruled on it, Kentuckys oath as it pertains to same sex marriage wasn't followed. Same with mix marriages.
Are you getting it yet?
Religious freedom vs government tyranny. Choose one.
......sigh You're still not getting it. Would you be defending her because she didn't issue mixed marriage licenses because of Jim Crow or would you be protesting her?
same question to you
If the Jim Crow laws were still in effect she would be required to follow the law in place. If she decided that Jim Crow still applied AFTER it was declared unconstitutional, then she would be acting in violation of the law.
If she denied SSM licences the day before the law was declared unconstitutional she would have been acting within the law. If she denied SSM licenses AFTER the law was declared unconstitutional she was acting in violation of the law.
If she just decided to deny mixed marriage licenses today, I would be protesting her since she would be acting in violation of the law. IF she denied mixed marriage licenses BEFORE the ruling I would not agree with the law but would work on getting the law changed.
This isn't difficult. As a government agent she is required to follow the laws of the land regardless of her personal beliefs on the law.
No, her job description didn't change. It was in her job description to issue marriage licenses to anyone legally allowed to get married. Gay couples are legally allowed to get married. She doesn't get to decide who is legally allowed to marry. AND she didn't even have to issue the licenses herself, she could have allowed someone else to do so and her godly hands wouldn't even need to touch those evil licenses.
You missed the part about muslims not wanting to drive alcohol around because of their religious beliefs.
jjrose owns that business. Would jjrose accommodate them and have other drivers take their route so they could have a route without alcohol? I'm pretty sure I know you would but I don't want to speak for you on this. So if you would, will you answer this question?
You missed the part about muslims not wanting to drive alcohol around because of their religious beliefs.
jjrose owns that business. Would jjrose accommodate them and have other drivers take their route so they could have a route without alcohol? I'm pretty sure I know you would but I don't want to speak for you on this. So if you would, will you answer this question?
The trucking company in that case stated that they could have easily accommodated the drivers by having other drivers deliver those routes, but didn't.
Kim Davis could have easily accommodated her own beliefs by allowing someone to issue the licenses, but refused to allow them to do so.
If it were my personal business and having someone else drive that route was a possibility, I would do that.
Honestly I don't think the whole Kim Davis thing would be an issue if she would have just allowed one of the several deputies that work there issue the licenses. She felt the need to martyr herself. She is reaping what she has sown.
So even the far right loon Trump put on is only a replacement for the horrible Scalia. Unless Kennedy or one of the liberals retire (not going to happen while Popular Vote Loser Illegitimate Trump is POTUS) the make up of the court is not going to change.
Actually, Trump is not a "far right loon" or even that conservative.
He identified himself as a Democrat not that long ago.
Go for it gay people have the right to be just as miserable as everyone else.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
