Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

09/09/2015 07:21:55 PM · #6601

Originally posted by Nullix:

If you voted in a Muslim, would you be surprised when they held to their Muslim beliefs?

Totally surprised... because elected office is a state position, not a church. God and Jesus do not appear anywhere in the constitution that bigot swore to uphold and then violated in a blatant act of legal contempt and religious hyprocrisy. It would be just as shocking if a Kentucky judge decided to follow sharia law on exactly the same idiotic grounds you're asserting.

09/09/2015 07:33:18 PM · #6602

Originally posted by Nullix:

When courts begin to imprison elected officials based on how they perform their duties...

Clown lady wasn't imprisoned for failing to perform her duties (like D. Bruce Hanes or Mayor Gavin Newsom). She was imprisoned for violating a court order. Hanes and Newsome complied with their court orders and thus avoided jail time.

09/09/2015 07:34:22 PM · #6603

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Nullix:
If you voted in a Muslim, would you be surprised when they held to their Muslim beliefs?

Totally surprised... because elected office is a state position, not a church. God and Jesus do not appear anywhere in the constitution that bigot swore to uphold and then violated in a blatant act of legal contempt and religious hyprocrisy. It would be just as shocking if a Kentucky judge decided to follow sharia law on exactly the same idiotic grounds you're asserting.

So you're claiming you can separate a person from their beliefs?

Sorry, but I'm not certain what world you're living in where that happens. You yourself cannot even separate your anti-religious bias in your statement when you believe she is a bigotted clown with a religious hyprocrisy.

How can you expect her to seperate her beliefs from her job?

Tell you what, if you have a big problem with Christians, don't elect them. She was elected. Impeach or vote her out of office. Throwing her in jail is a misstep of the judicial system. The state imposing it's beliefs on Christians.

Message edited by author 2015-09-09 19:46:02.

09/09/2015 10:50:25 PM · #6604

Originally posted by Nullix:

The state imposing it's beliefs on Christians.

A state doesn't have beliefs. It has laws, and they apply to everyone precisely BECAUSE Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. aren't allowed to govern by their beliefs. Christmas is no longer banned in Massachusetts, and Catholics are no longer barred from public office in Maryland for that very reason. Unfortunately, plenty of bigots still have deeply held beliefs that blacks are inferior, interracial couples shouldn't marry, and women shouldn't own businesses. Do they get to withhold governement services from the targets of their religious hatred based upon those beliefs? Absolutely not. In an elected position a person MUST separate their duties from those beliefs, and they swear a vow to do so when they take the oath of office. It's not only a legal requirement, but a practical mandate since even people of the same denomination don't agree on what their god wants (a sure sign of mythology). You would separate yourself from this particular belief in a nanosecond if the elected official was a Muslim or Puritan denying YOUR constitutional rights.

Message edited by author 2015-09-09 22:52:27.

Luciemac

Nikon D5600

09/09/2015 11:24:38 PM · #6605

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Nullix:
The state imposing it's beliefs on Christians.

A state doesn't have beliefs. It has laws, and they apply to everyone precisely BECAUSE Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. aren't allowed to govern by their beliefs. Christmas is no longer banned in Massachusetts, and Catholics are no longer barred from public office in Maryland for that very reason. Unfortunately, plenty of bigots still have deeply held beliefs that blacks are inferior, interracial couples shouldn't marry, and women shouldn't own businesses. Do they get to withhold governement services from the targets of their religious hatred based upon those beliefs? Absolutely not. In an elected position a person MUST separate their duties from those beliefs, and they swear a vow to do so when they take the oath of office. It's not only a legal requirement, but a practical mandate since even people of the same denomination don't agree on what their god wants (a sure sign of mythology). You would separate yourself from this particular belief in a nanosecond if the elected official was a Muslim or Puritan denying YOUR constitutional rights.

Nullix, would you answer the question honestly: would you be rallying around a Muslim who wouldn't serve your wife for not wearing a hijab? A pacifist who wouldn't sell you a gun license?

It's difficult to understand why you think Davis was jailed for her faith. It was explained so clearly by so many, but you still don't seem to understand. Is that what blind faith does to you? Makes you completely illogical?

09/10/2015 06:48:37 AM · #6606

Originally posted by Nullix:

How can you expect her to seperate her beliefs from her job?

This might come as an absolute shock to you my friend, but many people regularly separate their religious beliefs from their jobs and do so on a regular basis. What you seem to be unable to understand is that no one is asking this woman to participate in any action she finds offensive, all that is being asked is that she issue marriage licences... period.

At one time I too held very fervent religious beliefs and in my job as a enforcer of the law, I did my job regardless of my personal dislike for the actions the people were involved in. You see, I was not hired to pass on my own version of what is morally acceptable, mine was to deal with the laws at hand.

Originally posted by Nullix:

Tell you what, if you have a big problem with Christians, don't elect them. She was elected. Impeach or vote her out of office. Throwing her in jail is a misstep of the judicial system. The state imposing it's beliefs on Christians.

Be very careful what you wish for since the day could come where you are in the minority and then, by your own logic, you would have to abide by the rules of the majority. I am certain that your tune would change dramatically if you had to abide by the religious inclinations of a Muslim.

Time to appreciate the fact that if you can't do your job because of religious convictions that maybe, just maybe, you should look for another job.

Ray

Message edited by Bear_Music - fixed quote.

09/10/2015 07:13:59 AM · #6607

in the end she got what she wanted, she doesn't have to issue licenses, someone else is doing it.

i'm as pro-gay marriage as you can be without being gay myself. Don't make the conservatives right by turning this into a witch hunt. As long as gay couples have a way to get married, let the lady hide in the back office when they come in. Make it a new requirement upon hire that you agree to do same sex licenses. Eventually this nutjob will retire and it'll be over with.

Yes, morally they're wrong and should get fired but this is a war of propaganda don't load their gun for them.

Message edited by author 2015-09-10 07:43:00.

09/10/2015 08:17:02 AM · #6608

Originally posted by Mike:

You did read that, after being released, she opined that since she is the manager of the officer and had not consented to those licences being issued and as such they were all null and void.

The problems will continue as long as people like her fail to perform the duties that they were hired for.

Ray

09/10/2015 10:24:21 AM · #6609

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Mike:
in the end she got what she wanted, she doesn't have to issue licenses, someone else is doing it.

i'm as pro-gay marriage as you can be without being gay myself. Don't make the conservatives right by turning this into a witch hunt. As long as gay couples have a way to get married, let the lady hide in the back office when they come in. Make it a new requirement upon hire that you agree to do same sex licenses. Eventually this nutjob will retire and it'll be over with.

Yes, morally they're wrong and should get fired but this is a war of propaganda don't load their gun for them.

You did read that, after being released, she opined that since she is the manager of the officer and had not consented to those licences being issued and as such they were all null and void.

The problems will continue as long as people like her fail to perform the duties that they were hired for.

Ray

i did not see that. I saw General commented it but i have yet to read a story where she said that, link?

09/10/2015 11:03:37 AM · #6610

Originally posted by Mike:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Mike:
in the end she got what she wanted, she doesn't have to issue licenses, someone else is doing it.

i'm as pro-gay marriage as you can be without being gay myself. Don't make the conservatives right by turning this into a witch hunt. As long as gay couples have a way to get married, let the lady hide in the back office when they come in. Make it a new requirement upon hire that you agree to do same sex licenses. Eventually this nutjob will retire and it'll be over with.

Yes, morally they're wrong and should get fired but this is a war of propaganda don't load their gun for them.

You did read that, after being released, she opined that since she is the manager of the officer and had not consented to those licences being issued and as such they were all null and void.

The problems will continue as long as people like her fail to perform the duties that they were hired for.

Ray

i did not see that. I saw General commented it but i have yet to read a story where she said that, link?

Link

I don't have time to look for others as I am at work... but there were others.

Ray

09/10/2015 11:26:53 AM · #6611

Originally posted by Luciemac:

A few things, you would have to assume a Muslim was voted into office and for the past X years have been not serving the public because of their beliefs based on the status quo (women must wear a hijab). If the status quo changed while they were in office (women were aloud not to wear a hijab) and this Muslim wouldn't serve them.

Honestly, I'd be pretty annoyed as I'm sure she would. What could we/she do:
1. Go somewhere else (there are other county clerks in Kentucky issuing marriage licenses).
2. Impeach
3. Vote them out of office.

I didn't mention the pacifist selling you a gun license. If you vote in a pacifist as someone who issues gun licenses, you get what you vote for.

09/10/2015 11:53:27 AM · #6612

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Link

I don't have time to look for others as I am at work... but there were others.

Ray

she said that before she got out of jail, as of now she hasn't said anything or done anything to stand in the way of her deputies issuing them. besides, she doesn't get to determine if the license is valid. She have to go through the motions of getting them recalled which would be a court battle, which she would lose.

Message edited by author 2015-09-10 12:22:36.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

09/10/2015 12:43:26 PM · #6613

Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by Luciemac:
Nullix, would you answer the question honestly: would you be rallying around a Muslim who wouldn't serve your wife for not wearing a hijab? A pacifist who wouldn't sell you a gun license?

It's difficult to understand why you think Davis was jailed for her faith. It was explained so clearly by so many, but you still don't seem to understand. Is that what blind faith does to you? Makes you completely illogical?

A few things, you would have to assume a Muslim was voted into office and for the past X years have been not serving the public because of their beliefs based on the status quo (women must wear a hijab). If the status quo changed while they were in office (women were aloud not to wear a hijab) and this Muslim wouldn't serve them.

Honestly, I'd be pretty annoyed as I'm sure she would. What could we/she do:
1. Go somewhere else (there are other county clerks in Kentucky issuing marriage licenses).
2. Impeach
3. Vote them out of office.

I didn't mention the pacifist selling you a gun license. If you vote in a pacifist as someone who issues gun licenses, you get what you vote for.

I am rather intrigued by your comment regarding the hijab. Are you suggesting that a person wearing a hijab could not be employed in a government related function.

Similarly, why would I or anyone else have to go somewhere else to get a service that ought to be provided at any government offices. The clerk is there to provide a service, not foister their interpretation of the bible on the rest of the constituents.

Lastly, if this person is not doing her job, why can't she simply be replaced with someone who can and will abide by the laws of the land.

Ray

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

09/10/2015 01:36:39 PM · #6614

Originally posted by RayEthier:

I am rather intrigued by your comment regarding the hijab. Are you suggesting that a person wearing a hijab could not be employed in a government related function.

The parallel he's drawing is that Davis was voted into office when one set of rules was in place, rules she supports, and that they changed the rules on her in a way that violates her sense of morality.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

09/10/2015 01:54:01 PM · #6615

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by RayEthier:
I am rather intrigued by your comment regarding the hijab. Are you suggesting that a person wearing a hijab could not be employed in a government related function.

The parallel he's drawing is that Davis was voted into office when one set of rules was in place, rules she supports, and that they changed the rules on her in a way that violates her sense of morality.

yes, and she should have said, "look this is against my beliefs, I dont want to stand in the way of the people's right to marriage, can we make it so someone else can perform this?" ask for an alternative if your beliefs are that strong.

instead she threw a hissy fit and said she wasn't issuing any licenses, got all sorts of publicity for acting like a child, refused to follow the law and got thrown in jail.

when you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

09/10/2015 02:35:47 PM · #6616

Originally posted by Nullix:

How can you expect her to seperate her beliefs from her job?

Well, she doesn't seem to have any problems believing by convenience in her personal life .

Three divorces??????

Please tell me what part of the sanctity of marriage covers that?

What happened to "Love, honor, & cherish 'till death do us part."?

This is a perfect example of why I take umbrage at high-handed Christians talking about "their" institution of marriage.

How about fixing your own abysmal statistics in your own lives and don't offer your version of it until it's cleaned up.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

09/10/2015 04:39:02 PM · #6617

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

By that reasoning, nobody can take stand on anything.

I've had pre-marital sex, does that mean I can't take a stand with my children on pre-marital sex?
I've done drugs, does that mean I can't be against the use of drugs?
I've driven while drunk, does that mean I can't be against drunk drivers?

I'll stop there and hope you get the idea (otherwise we'd get into some pretty crazy stuff that I've done that I'm against).

Again, she was elected into that office as a divorced Christian. Why would you then have a problem when she acts like one at her job?

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

09/10/2015 06:46:25 PM · #6618

Originally posted by Nullix:

Again, she was elected into that office as a divorced Christian. Why would you then have a problem when she acts like one at her job?

Do you honestly believe that it's acceptable to circumvent the law by electing functionaries who don't agree with it and won't implement it? That's insane.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

09/10/2015 08:00:31 PM · #6619

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Nullix:
Again, she was elected into that office as a divorced Christian. Why would you then have a problem when she acts like one at her job?

Do you honestly believe that it's acceptable to circumvent the law by electing functionaries who don't agree with it and won't implement it? That's insane.

Well, if you vote in a pacifist to issue gun licenses, don't be surprised when the don't.

How about when the Attorney General Decided not to support DAMA because of his views? Was he thrown in jail?

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

09/10/2015 08:29:55 PM · #6620

Originally posted by Nullix:

How about when the Attorney General Decided not to support DAMA because of his views? Was he thrown in jail?

He's entitled to an opinion. Everyone is, including Davis. But DAMA was never law, and the AG wasn't ignoring established law.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

09/10/2015 10:07:06 PM · #6621

Originally posted by Nullix:

...you get what you vote for.

That might be the single dumbest thing you've ever posted (and the competition is fierce). How on earth are you supposed to know a government official's belief on every single issue before electing them? I'm sure 90% of U.S. clerks are Christian, and mostly Protestant, yet only one has defied a court order to issue marriage licenses. What if your particular clerk has a personal belief against divorce and refuses to issue a license for a second marriage? There are far more biblical prohibtions against divorce than homosexuality, so how could you possibly know if the official you were voting for would cherry pick that belief to follow? This is why elected officials swear to follow the laws of the constitution, with specific interpretations provided by the Supreme Court, rather than wildly conflicting personal interpretations of religions with hundreds of directly opposing guidelines.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

09/10/2015 11:41:29 PM · #6622

Originally posted by scalvert:

There are far more biblical prohibtions against divorce than homosexuality, so how could you possibly know if the official you were voting for would cherry pick that belief to follow? This is why elected officials swear to follow the laws of the constitution, with specific interpretations provided by the Supreme Court, rather than wildly conflicting personal interpretations of religions with hundreds of directly opposing guidelines.

I'm waiting for some clerk to cite the Bible and start issuing licenses to own slaves ...

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

09/11/2015 06:57:46 AM · #6623

the supreme court issuing with finality that choosing who you marry is protected under the constitution. that's it. final, you can't overturn it. people can whine and bitch all they want but its never going to change.

this lady tried to change the law.

you cannot allow people to overrule the constitution on grounds of their own beliefs, otherwise we would have chaos. There has to be rule of law for everyone to follow, whether some of us like it or not.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

09/11/2015 04:00:27 PM · #6624

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Nullix:

By that reasoning, nobody can take stand on anything.

Not the case at all. My point is that she's a total hypocrite, and her stance is untenable both because of her professionally *AND* personally.

Originally posted by Nullix:

I've had pre-marital sex, does that mean I can't take a stand with my children on pre-marital sex?

You should do your best to instill caution in your children especially if you have first hand experience to validate it.

But stay the heck away from my kids or we'll have problems. Our lives are none of your business.

Originally posted by Nullix:

I've done drugs, does that mean I can't be against the use of drugs?

Again, often first hand experience is the best validation of bad judgement. But again, there's a major difference between expressing your point of view and imposing your will on someone because of your beliefs. That's my issue. I'll listen to your perspective.......just don't tell me I have to agree to it because in your eyes it's "right".

Originally posted by Nullix:

I've driven while drunk, does that mean I can't be against drunk drivers?

No, and you should know better. This is related in what way to the case of a woman who is directly controverting both her job and a court order?

Originally posted by Nullix:

I'll stop there and hope you get the idea (otherwise we'd get into some pretty crazy stuff that I've done that I'm against).

And again.......that's how people learn some things......by making mistakes. Often the biggest issue with raising children is watching one of your own screw up and suffer in the same way you did. It hurts, and causes andst in that you know had the child listened to you and understood, he/she would not have had to suffer......but then again, sometimes a hard learned lesson is sometimes the only way.

Originally posted by Nullix:

Again, she was elected into that office as a divorced Christian. Why would you then have a problem when she acts like one at her job?

No, she was elected into that office as a county clerk. Her religious affiliation and her personal hypocrisy are completely irrelevant to her job.

That seems to be the basic point you're missing.

Mousie