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.
We're not distracted by your attempts to derail the issue.
Why is she being singled out where others are not? That's all I'm asking. I say it's 2 reasons: One is that she dared to go against the gaystappo, and two is that she is acting on her religion in the process.
Why is she being singled out where others are not? That's all I'm asking. I say it's 2 reasons: One is that she dared to go against the gaystappo, and two is that she is acting on her religion in the process.
She was sued by couples, in her county, who wanted to get married. She's being singled out because she brought it upon herself for not complying. I'll bet $1,000 that the SSM couples who wanted a license could care less if she was Christian, Atheist, Buddhist, Islamic or worshiped Zeus.
Why is she being singled out where others are not? That's all I'm asking. I say it's 2 reasons: One is that she dared to go against the gaystappo, and two is that she is acting on her religion in the process.
this was a choice that she made the minute she decided to break the law and refuse to issue those marriage licenses, this was her choice and nobody else's.
The 1st amendment does not protect an elected official when it comes to operating as a government official.
Now if she was on the street as K Davis and said that gays are scum, great. have at it. Bur as K Davis county clerk she can not refuse to uphold the laws of the country and the state. If and when caught, like she was, face the consequences.
She is setting herself up for impeachment by holding press conferences stating that she will not resign and she will not do her job nor allow other deputy clerks to do it.
BBM~ But didn't Mike Huckabee say yesterday that Ms. Davis IS upholding the law of KY...Apparantly KY has enacted law that banns same sex marriage ( at least according to him) and therefore blah blah...
If it's true that KY has such a law..It's that law NOW deemed "Unconstitutional" following the SCOTUS ruling? I say yes..however Mike Huckabee feels that until KY legislature changes that law..She is being treated unfairly bah bah...Course KY legislature only works half of the year..so conveniently that means their laws on this couldn't even be addressed until January ( I believe) of 2016!! I just shake my head sometimes listening to these extreme ideologies spew their strict views on the "Constitution"..and praise it when ruling go in their favour...Then scream "States Rights" when it doesn't
No, it doesn't. Like a broken clock, I'll repeat for the hundredth time:
"Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order," In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Supreme Court found that while laws cannot interfere with religious belief and opinions, laws can be made to regulate some religious practices (e.g., human sacrifices, and the Hindu practice of suttee). The Court stated that to rule otherwise, "would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government would exist only in name under such circumstances."[27] In Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), the Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendmentapplied the Free Exercise Clause to the states. While the right to have religious beliefs is absolute, the freedom to act on such beliefs is not absolute.[28]
That is very much consistent with what the federal judge said when he sent her to jail for contempt. As a matter of fact, the judge said that, while he had deeply held religious beliefs, he could not let that interfere with his application of the law.
Why is she being singled out where others are not? That's all I'm asking. I say it's 2 reasons: One is that she dared to go against the gaystappo, and two is that she is acting on her religion in the process.
This is so simple that I'm surprised anybody asked. She isn't being singled out. She refused to comply with the law, so she was sued. The suit went to court, where she lost. She appealed (you know she had free legal help, don't you?) and lost again. She appealed to the Supreme Court where she lost again. At that point, all of her legal appeals were exhausted so the federal judge told her to comply or risk being held in contempt.
Now, if any other county clerk refuses to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple on religious grounds, that clerk can expect to receive exactly the same treatment.
So, no, she is not being singled out.
There is no such thing as a "gaystappo." (Sounds like an application of Godwin's law to me. ) Did Matt Slick give you that word?
Her religion became irrelevant once she defied a court order. Then it became a matter of contempt.
I have not given you a post to dodge and ignore for a few days, so here is one to add to the LONG list
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Or we could exercise our American right to oppose and protest unjust law. Freedom of religion USED to mean something in this country. Congrats on destroying it.
It still means what it always did. The problem for you is that people are realising more and more what it means.... and that clarification is showing it means less and less what you WANT it to mean.
YOU think it means that anyone claiming a religion should obtain special privileges for doing so. REALITY thinks it means that people are free to practice and enjoy their religion any way they like in their own time so long as it does not break the law, or impact on their ability to do their job.
Big difference, and one that you do not appear willing to acknowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
No, gay people demand that she personally give up her beliefs or pay the consequence of losing her job. Where is the oppression huh?
No one is demanding anything you keep putting in their mouth. The ONLY thing people are demanding is that people do the job they were hired to do, and are not given special exemptions or privileges based on their hobby/religion.
This is not difficult to understand, so pretending not to understand it is simply contriving to be obtuse. So yeah, where IS the oppression huh? I certainly am not seeing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
It's funny how when it comes to other religions, I see accommodations made in respect to their beliefs. For example, I once had a Jordanian Muslim boss, and despite the work load, it was understood not to disturb him at a certain hour so he could do his daily prayers.
Here we agree. This is wrong. For the same reason you are wrong above. You should have / still should report this to the FFRF who will take the case quite readily. Peoples hobbies, like religion, should not give them special privileges at work. Someone who refuses to do work during their WORK HOURS because they want to indulge their hobby should simply be fired unless they have negotiated a specific contract for this with their boss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
No, but it does mean that the government shouldn't be making laws that interfer with the free exercise of religion. Apparently you think we should check our faith at the door as soon as we leave the church doorsteps.
Another false statement from you. There are many other places you can engage with your hobbies. I could list them all night and still not be finished. Your hobby however should be checked at the door of your work place for example. Your hobbies are for YOUR time. That is what freedom of religion means. Leave your hobby at home when you go into work however. Is that so difficult?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Sure I can. The design of the male body vs female body pretty clearly shows that they were designed to go together sexually.
Except it does no such thing. It shows that biologically we DO go together sexually, but "design" is an inference you are pulling out of nowhere.
What if a Quaker clerk refused issue gun licenses because they are pacifists and it is against their religion? I bet the right-wing would be (dare I say) up in arms about this. They wouldn't be supporting the clerk claiming "religion freedom."
Cat
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.
