how can this be

[whitsend]

Freedom OF religion is freedom FROM the religious influences of other religions. In my book, Christians fighting against gay marriage on religious grounds is exactly equal to Muslims fighting for sharia law on religious grounds. I will tell them both equally to leave the rest of us alone.

As to my last post, I DO NOT mean to say all Christians believe those things, only expressing my belief that Mr. Whit is likely one of those that do genuinely believe such things.

This show your lack of knowledge about what I believe.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[AustinBR]

It sounds like some of you are more for "freedom FROM religion" rather than "freedom OF religion".

Things like these statements above (Assumptions that Christians are somehow all uneducated hypocrites that do not help or love all of mankind) does actually paint a picture that you don't understand Jesus' role at all in the bible nor has shown what he did for all of humanity (yes ALL). But I (and we) digress.

This thread is about a human who took an oath (yes oath infers something sacred as opposed to an affirmation) to do an elected job because her religious oath (to the God of her practiced religion) was also satisfied in this position. Then the government decided to change the law and is now trying to force her to break her religious practice as opposed to finding any other way around this situation. This is totally against the first ammendment of the Constitution. The government should provide some other solution to issue this gay couple a marriage license if that's their new position...what's the issue there guys?

This is not the fault of the woman...it is the fault of the government.

If you had other religions' rules / ideals / codes being forced upon you by a government, you would want freedom from those as well. Part of freedom OF religion allows each individual to practice what religion they want. If they are homosexual and want to marry, they should not be prohibited from it just because someone else's religion prohibits it.

This lady was prohibiting others from marrying LEGALLY because HER religion and HER beliefs did not support it.

Putting aside the morality of homosexuality and the constitutionality of the courts ruling, we come back to the original issue, Kim Davis was put in jail for standing up for her Christian beliefs. That is by its very definition religious persecution.
She didn't single out homosexuals when not issuing marriage licenses, she didn't issue any marriage license. The couple could have gone to another county and got a license.
I've already said it once, if she is in violation of her oath of office there are procedures in place to deal with that. Follow those legal processes.
Many are in support of her stand and many more agree with her but keep quiet so as to not be called bigots by liberals and those pushing the homosexual agenda.
If anyone thinks this is just about equality in marriage and not an agenda to force everyone to accept a deviant lifestyle, they need to get their head out of the sand.

It's about equality. She was arrested for being in contempt of court. Her job was to issue marriage licenses. She chose not to issue them because she didn't agree with the people getting them because of her religion - not because they were against the law. The court ordered her to do her job and follow the letter of the law, and she refused.

She isn't a priest. She is not marrying someone in a Church of God. I think people keep getting that mixed up. She was not bonding people, under God, spiritually, like a priest would. She was bonding them under the eyes of the law so they could partake in the values and privileges that come with being married under the law. Her job had absolutely NOTHING to do with religion. She tried to bring religion into it, thus breaking the whole "separation from church and state" thing.

I bold this last statement because I think it is important to understand that the law is not forcing her to do anything that deals with religion. They are forcing her to uphold the rule of the land that holds all people equal, regardless of their beliefs.

 

[AustinBR]

Freedom OF religion is freedom FROM the religious influences of other religions. In my book, Christians fighting against gay marriage on religious grounds is exactly equal to Muslims fighting for sharia law on religious grounds. I will tell them both equally to leave the rest of us alone.

This is my point exactly. Christians do not have to adhere to beliefs and requirements of other religions in this country. That is not the same in other countries. In many places you can be killed for not following the country's established religion. In the good ole US of A we are free to practice whatever religion we want. That means we should be free from any religion restraining us from sharing the same treatment from the government.

 

[Harrisracing]

If you had other religions' rules / ideals / codes being forced upon you by a government, you would want freedom from those as well. Part of freedom OF religion allows each individual to practice what religion they want. If they are homosexual and want to marry, they should not be prohibited from it just because someone else's religion prohibits it.

This lady was prohibiting others from marrying LEGALLY because HER religion and HER beliefs did not support it.


It's about equality. She was arrested for being in contempt of court. Her job was to issue marriage licenses. She chose not to issue them because she didn't agree with the people getting them because of her religion - not because they were against the law. The court ordered her to do her job and follow the letter of the law, and she refused.

She isn't a priest. She is not marrying someone in a Church of God. I think people keep getting that mixed up. She was not bonding people, under God, spiritually, like a priest would. She was bonding them under the eyes of the law so they could partake in the values and privileges that come with being married under the law. Her job had absolutely NOTHING to do with religion. She tried to bring religion into it, thus breaking the whole "separation from church and state" thing.

I bold this last statement because I think it is important to understand that the law is not forcing her to do anything that deals with religion. They are forcing her to uphold the rule of the land that holds all people equal, regardless of their beliefs.

So let's get this straight (pun!)

In my scenario, she is oppressed by the government from them changing a law while she is in office without proper channels to execute their new law. Therefore the government is trying to force her to do something against her religious practices that she previously had no issues of doing before. In my scenario the gay couple isn't oppressed by anyone but the government (as a whole) and yet the civil worker is also oppressed by the government.

In your scenario SHE is the government...and her role in the story is the government preventing people from practicing their religion of homosexuality. Remember the government was the complete issue to start with...as gay marriage hasn't been recognized until now. The government decided they were "wrong", tried to "right" it to satisy gay people, and executed the change without taking into account how it would affect other people's religious or moral beliefs. How is the government NOT at fault here?

 

[Harrisracing]

I'm sure throughout history lots of poeple have been jailed by not doing things the government wanted them to do because of a moral or religious dilemma. Remember what it means when the government takes that power into their hands. We aren't talking about terminating her position, we are talking about criminal charges and jail time!

 

[Cochise]

Mr Harris, I understand your position. I sympathize with it to a point. But she took it to trial, then took it to appeal, and lost both times. She then had three options, and she chose the one that landed her in jail. She could have resigned. She could have followed court orders, while she continued to appeal, but she chose to ignore a direct order from a supreme court judge. I still support her rights, if she had chosen to perform the gay marriages, I would have even supported her right to sling homophobic epithets while doing so, but I cannot sympathize with her after directly refusing the order of her lost appeal.

 

[Harrisracing]

Mr Harris, I understand your position. I sympathize with it to a point. But she took it to trial, then took it to appeal, and lost both times. She then had three options, and she chose the one that landed her in jail. She could have resigned. She could have followed court orders, while she continued to appeal, but she chose to ignore a direct order from a supreme court judge. I still support her rights, if she had chosen to perform the gay marriages, I would have even supported her right to sling homophobic epithets while doing so, but I cannot sympathize with her after directly refusing the order of her lost appeal.

Of course termination couldn't have been a possibility...

 

[Cochise]

Of course termination couldn't have been a possibility...

As an elected official, no, she can not be terminated, only asked to resign or recalled in an election

 

[Harrisracing]

I understood. Which is why I used the example in the beginning of the cleo refusing to sign off. Extremely similar situation, huge can of worms. Hers is even compounded due to the law change during term.
Changing a law during term and issues regarding the execution of such clearly have reared the head that they are not effective in regards to keeping elected officials' first ammendment rights in view.

This case may be as important as Rosa Parks refusing to move on a bus one day. Who knows maybe the gay guys are Rosa Parks?

 

[US Infidel]

I understood. Which is why I used the example in the beginning of the cleo refusing to sign off.

Off topic but State Police will sign off if you have your concealed carry permit. Just in case anyone didn't know.

 

[Rainsdrops]

Rosa parks was a different situation. There were no alternative buses, races riding different buses, isnt wasn't a religious practice. Rosa was Physically threatened and verbally abused, along with many other minorities.
Noone ever said, that Gays, cannot marry. I'm saying you shouldn't force someone to do so. And She is being forced. The Judge stated she would not be released from Jail, until she changes her position. If that not force, we aren't gun nuts.
All the gay marraige / rights aside, I say again, its unconstitutional to force (coerce with the threat of arrest) a citizen against their religious beliefs.
She religiously believes, she should not be a part of a homosexual union. (which wasn't in her initial job description) The court believes, she should ignore her beliefs, and issue the certificate.
she did not ignore her beliefs, therfore she was arrested, will remain in jail, until she agrees to go against her Beliefs. I think thats the just of it.

In my original post, I made references to Muslims. I did so, because muslims are employed by the federal government . The Big GOV tends, to afford them, "allowances or exceptions"
when dealing with arab policy. Normally by tranfers to areas of non conflict. Especially if said conflict, wasn't part of the job description, at time of hire

I keep seeing gay rights, No one has said, they cant get married. I'm saying you can't make everyone contribute of your marriage, when it is against their beliefs.

And whats Jacked up, is that when the clerk failed to give in, they did not seek impeachment, or termination, probably due fear of a law suit. They did a work around, by not removing her from office, but arresting her, and placing her in Jail, until she changes her stance.. Crap john boy, if we fire her she gonna sue... oh!! oh!! i know!! i know!!! lets throw her in Jail, that'll change her mind. Geez biily bob thats super smart. It'll make the rest of them, get inline too.. dee-amn dats why U gots dats nice black robe bruh.

 

[Whitebread]

Raindrops, I agree with you that what the judge did was dirty, but you said it yourself, this country was founded for freedom from religious persecution. Don't gay people deserve to be free from religious persecution, too?

Religious persecution?? In this country from christians?? In this day and age? About as common as white people killing blacks because they are black.

And for the record gays have had the same rights as strait folks. Any gay person can and always has been able to go down to the courthouse and file to join into a legally binding contract to split half their stuff with someone of the opposite sex. Bottom line the supreme court redefined the definition of marrage they didn't give equal rights the simply took an age old instatution created by God and changed it. Now yes strait people all over the globe have made a mockery of things, but that doesn't mean Christians should be forced to condon a blasfamus redefinition of marriage.

 

[Cochise]

Raindrops, she publicly, on television, said she refused to comply with the judges order. He had her arrested for contempt of court and she won't be released until she recants that contempt. That is standard procedure. She still has the option to resign and walk away, or to comply temporarily while seeking further appeals.

 

[whitsend]

Raindrops, she publicly, on television, said she refused to comply with the judges order. He had her arrested for contempt of court and she won't be released until she recants that contempt. That is standard procedure. She still has the option to resign and walk away, or to comply temporarily while seeking further appeals.

So theoretical she could serve life in prison for following her religious beliefs? How is this not religious persecution?



Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Cochise]

Mr Harris, your CLEO example is a good one, it illustrates why I am happy with the current situation. If your CLEO is refusing to perform a function of his job, then he needs to be railroaded out of his position. Get rid of him. I want to see more elected officials actually held accountable for their inappropriate actions and inactions.

 

[whitsend]

Mr Harris, your CLEO example is a good one, it illustrates why I am happy with the current situation. If your CLEO is refusing to perform a function of his job, then he needs to be railroaded out of his position. Get rid of him. I want to see more elected officials actually held accountable for their inappropriate actions and inactions.

There is are several procedures for that.

Impeachment, recall election, or not reelecting him.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Barry J]

Most everything I have seen on the news and on this post is that the deciding factor on if someone believes she should be in jail, they are for gay marriage. Is someone thinks she should not be in jail, they are opposed to gay marriage. The supreme court has decided gay people have the right to marry. There is no constitutional right to be clerk of court.

If a sheriff denied a carry permit because he is anti-gun, the post here would be 10 pages in an hour. Same thing with the gay marriage thing. Follow the law or quit your job.

 

[Rainsdrops]

One of the benefits of being American, we can stand up, for our, beliefs, and given enough support, make a change...
We are supposed to be able to do so non violently, and without fear of persecution.
All of us must acknowledge, non of the parties stood down. She could have resigned, those petitioning a license, could have obtained one in another county, and the judge could have called legislation for impeachment. From what I've been reading, the governor currently isn't touching this.

Austin, I don't care who gets married to whom, beating a dead horse here, but you can't for your lifestyle / opinions on people. That's bigotry or reverse bigotry when dealing with racism and sexuality.

Any body of any sex, race, culture or color, can have a medical power of attorney, there no need for a marriage to joint finance, a car, home or other large purchases, and there are ways to claim adults on taxes, that you were their primary means of support. Throughout the history of God / abraham based religion, marriage was a union of male and female before god. Sometimes more than one female ( god allowed). The European church was the first to make this union officially documented ad recognized by the ruling authorities ( probably so they could tax it, and charge to hold a wedding)
During this time priest were even married. Homosexual unions were never recognized. Homosexuals have been fighting to have their union accepted for a long time. God / Abraham based religion said no. Fast forward to current times, our government decides to recognize a homosexual union,and gave the public false claims as to why. Homosexual have had the same rights as everyone else for awhile now. Same health care plans, you can't fire a someone because their gay, you cannot deny gay people education in public schools, hell same sex adoptions are common thing now.
The dilemma for some, is that equal rights arent, enough, they want forced acceptance. Thats not going to happen, you cannot force everybody to accept everyone. Especially if their religious belief are against your lifestyle. Our laws are supposed to give religious citizens this freedom.

To me, this isn't about gay, it's about a citizen (regardless of employer) who says, I won't do this, because it's against my beliefs, and a judge, that couldnt impeach her, so he used the law, and had her arrested.

I ask all of you, if the day comes, where firearms are banned, where a law is created, to remove our 2nd Amend. How will you stand?

 

[PPBart]

...If a sheriff denied a carry permit because he is anti-gun, the post here would be 10 pages in an hour. Same thing with the gay marriage thing. Follow the law or quit your job.

That's the best comment I've read in this entire thread!

 

[Harrisracing]

Mr Harris, your CLEO example is a good one, it illustrates why I am happy with the current situation. If your CLEO is refusing to perform a function of his job, then he needs to be railroaded out of his position. Get rid of him. I want to see more elected officials actually held accountable for their inappropriate actions and inactions.

Again the responsibility of him to sign off on this hasn't changed in legislature during his term AND this hypothetical change isn't against his religious practices (that I know of).

My point in the CLEO's example is that other public servants (that i know of) aren't being jailed for their lack of service under negligence to fulfill duties and this even extends to where it's against the law (as someone else pointed out about clinton's email shenanigans). Her scandal is equally as publicized...and she isn't in jail.