I was waiting for Jim to start a thread explaining how this woman had all the rights in the world to not issue wedding certificates.

I was waiting for Jim to start a thread explaining how this woman had all the rights in the world to not issue wedding certificates.

She is a Democrat. And as such, she may just be following the Democrat legal doctrine of "it's OK if we do it." Quite like Obama's Attorney General being ordered not to enforce various laws that Obama doesn't like.

Funny thing is she is a registered Democrat. Surprise
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So it's defendable to deny baking a cake but fine to deny a marriage license .


Got it :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So it's defendable to deny baking a cake but fine to deny a marriage license .


Got it :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


There is a huge difference between the two. One is a private enterprise and the other is a government agency . I don't think people should be able to refuse service to anyone arbitrarily. Regardless The public has responded by boycotting said businesses .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

True. Good points.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So it's defendable to deny baking a cake but fine to deny a marriage license .


Got it :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why the "but" conjunction rather than "and"? The two ideas are similar rather than dissimilar in philosophical perspective.

i.e.--"So it's defendable to deny baking a cake AND DEFENDABALE to deny a marriage license."

she is very wrong not to issue the license.....but in a private business U should have the right to serve or not to serve a person.

I had to laugh at the white house press secretary and hillery stating we R a country of laws....if that were the case obama should be in jail when it comes to illegals coming into the country....LOL....:)

Agree on the Public / Private. Being a public government employee the requirement to grant the license is stronger

So how do we square the circle and allow both people's rights and beliefs to be respected? One does not want their religious beliefs to be contradicted, one does not want their personal/ legal beliefs constrained. How do we let both sides win? Does it have to be zero sum?

I saw online something that is probably true : Would this get the coverage it is getting if it was a Muslim Clerk fighting to not give a license. Two PC protected classes duking it out. Add a third if the worker is a Union Member.

She is defending the sanctity of marriage.

Hopefully she finds the right guy for her 5th marriage.

I watched this video and it pretty much cleared everything up for me...I identify as fishing fluid transurf panfly


https://youtu.be/rnbnF8QAnsY

She is defending the sanctity of marriage.

Hopefully she finds the right guy for her 5th marriage.

:rotfl: !!!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe, the constitution gives the baker the right to act in accordance with his religiously informed conscience.

As others have said, you can't have an entire public agency unwilling to obey the law. If she didn't want to issue a license for religious reasons, it should be easy enough to have someonbe else in the office do it. But gay couples absolutely have the right to get the certificate from someone in that office.

That said, if she is subject to arrest for violating this law, why can't we arrest the officials of sanctuary cities for violating federal immigration laws?

No one died because this woman refused to issue mariage licenses. The officials of San Francisco have innocent blood on their hands, so why is this clerk in jail and not the mayor of San Francisco?

So how do we square the circle and allow both people's rights and beliefs to be respected? One does not want their religious beliefs to be contradicted, one does not want their personal/ legal beliefs constrained. How do we let both sides win? Does it have to be zero sum?

.

It's easy. Let someone else give the happy couple the license, or the cake, whatever it is. That way, the nuptuals can proceed, and no one has their constitutional rights trampled. Easy in theory. In practice it's a lot harder, because it requires liberals to display a tiny speck of the tolerance that they claim to have a monopoly on.

We give people religious exemptions from laws all the time. Conscientious objectors cannot be drafted and put in combat.

Regardless The public has responded by boycotting said businesses .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have no problem with boycotting, if that's how the community feels, that's what they should do.

The bigger problem is that the baker was fined by the local government. Punished by the state, for the crime of adhering to their Christian beliefs, and THAT should scare all of us. Because even if you don't agree with that baker, if you don't defend his rights, then don't complain when the state takes away something you hold dear next.

A number of Repub. pres. candidates are saying she should be allowed to not issue the licenses.

A number of Repub. pres. candidates are saying she should be allowed to not issue the licenses.

Which ones?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have no problem with boycotting, if that's how the community feels, that's what they should do.

The bigger problem is that the baker was fined by the local government. Punished by the state, for the crime of adhering to their Christian beliefs, and THAT should scare all of us. Because even if you don't agree with that baker, if you don't defend his rights, then don't complain when the state takes away something you hold dear next.

I don't disagree. Let the market dictate the business climate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas said on Thursday that Ms. Davis jailing was an act of “judicial tyranny,” and in a statement he called on “every Believer, every Constitutionalist, every lover of liberty to stand with Kim Davis.”

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky told CNN, “I think it’s absurd to put someone in jail for exercising their religious liberty.”

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas said on Twitter that he would go to Kentucky on Tuesday to support Ms. Davis. “We must end the criminalization of Christianity!” he wrote.

Rick Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator, said he had “great respect” for Ms. Davis; he called for passage of federal and state laws to shield people in similar positions.

Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana linked the case of Ms. Davis, who refused to comply with a court order to issue wedding licenses, citing her religious beliefs, to the cases of florists and bakers who have been sued or fined for refusing their services for gay weddings

“I don’t think anyone should have to choose between following their conscience and religious beliefs and giving up their job and facing financial sanctions,” Mr. Jindal told The Huffington Post on Wednesday.

and some other viewsAt least three candidates, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Carly Fiorina, the former Silicon Valley executive, said that as a government employee Ms. Davis was obligated to carry out the law, despite personal religious objections.

In a radio interview on Tuesday, Mrs. Fiorina, who has been forceful about the rule of law, said, “Is she prepared to continue to work for the government, be paid for by the government, in which case she needs to execute the government’s will, or does she feel so strongly about this that she wants to sever her employment with the government and go seek employment elsewhere where her religious liberties would be paramount over her duties as a government employee?”

Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin appeared less clear on his position. Asked by the radio host Laura Ingraham on Thursday if Ms. Davis should be compelled to issue marriage licenses, Mr. Walker said:

“It’s a balance that you’ve got to have in America between the laws that are out there, but ultimately ensuring the Constitution is upheld. I read that the Constitution is very clear, that people have the freedom of religion. That means you have the freedom to practice your religious beliefs out there.”

A number of Repub. pres. candidates are saying she should be allowed to not issue the licenses.

Here is the exact text of the first amendment regarding religion...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Nowhere in there, does it say that the right to freely exercise your religion, ends at the door of your office. Nor does it say that the freedom to exercise your religion stops at the point where someone's feelings are hurt.

We give religious exemptions to all kinds of laws. Why doesn't this woman deserve the same freedom? As long as there is someone else in the office who could easily grant the license, then there doesn't need to be an issue unless the activists want to make it an issue, which of course they do.

I am pro gay marriage. I am also pro-constitution.

I can see her getting fired. But put in jail? Because of her Christian beliefs?

Again, why isn't the mayor of every sanctuary city also in jail? Why do they get to violate the laws they don't happen to like, and get away with it?

[QUOTE=PaulS;“I don’t think anyone should have to choose between following their conscience and religious beliefs and giving up their job and facing financial sanctions,” Mr. Jindal told The Huffington Post on Wednesday.

[.”[/QUOTE]

In light of the first amendment of the constitution, what argument is there against what Goj Jindal said? Because what he said was, "I believe the first amendment protects all Americans, even Christians."

That notion is offensive to you, Paul?

Freedom of speech, like it or not, means an artist can hang a painting of Holy Mary covered in feces. Freedom of assembly, like it or not, means the Klan can hold a rally. Freedom of the press, like it or not, means Al Sharpton can have a show where he blames whitey for everything. Freedom to petition for redress of grievances, like it or not, means Willie Horton can get an audience with elected officials. And freedom of religion, like it or not, means that those who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons, should be able to distance themselves from it.

She got put in jail bc she defied the court.

She got put in jail bc she defied the court.

The courts don't have the authority to order someone to abandon a constitutionally protected belief.

she was found in contempt of court for refusing to obey the court's order to issue the license. If you view that as the court ordering someone "to abandon a constitutionally protected belief" then I guess you can contact her lawyers and help fund an appeal of the ruling - but it looks like you would loose.

lunatic fringe
give her 30 days
and she'll be singin
a different tune

she was found in contempt of court for refusing to obey the court's order to issue the license. If you view that as the court ordering someone "to abandon a constitutionally protected belief" then I guess you can contact her lawyers and help fund an appeal of the ruling - but it looks like you would loose.

The US supreme Court also once ruled that slavery was OK. They are not infallible.

Read the first amendment, as it pertains to freedom of religion, and please then explain to me, through that lens, why it's OK to force her to do that which violates her religious beliefs. That you don't hold those beliefs, doesn't matter.

Can a court order a Jewish deli owner to serve shellfish? Or force a Muslim convenience store owner to serve pork? I don't think so.

In times of war, do we force conscientious objectors to fight? Nope.

In 2004, San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom handed out thousands of gay marriage certificates in defiance of the law, because his conscience compelled him to do so.

Today he is the Lieutenant Governor of California. Meanwhile Kim Davis is a prisoner.

Yeah, that's equal protection under the law.

I should fix the typo.

Read the first amendment, as it pertains to freedom of religion, and please then explain to me, through that lens, why it's OK to force her to do that which violates her religious beliefs. That you don't hold those beliefs, doesn't matter.
Jim, it's an elected position. She ran for office. You don't run for office then decide you're going to object to clearly defined duties of the position you just willingly sought.

Thou shall not kill.


How many people have been drafted and forced to kill ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Or is that an invalid argument because of conscientious objectors?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The courts don't have the authority to order someone to abandon a constitutionally protected belief.

Yeah ok but by the same token she doesn't have to work in a position that requires her to perform duties that are objectionable to her faith.

The county needs to move her laterally or she can leave. This is a hot button issue but I am more than certain there are other duties as a clerk that would more than likely be objectionable to her faith.

Issuing occupancy to an abortion clinic? Filing paperwork for any other number of things would be equally objectionable under true Christian beliefs. She is just being a frigging zealot
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The constitution allows you to freely observe your religion. It does not allow you to force others to practice your religion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thou shall not kill.


How many people have been drafted and forced to kill ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's not the gotcha statement you think. Even in time of war, we allow religious exemptions for conscientious objectors. I can list as many religious exemptions to our laws as you'd like. Courts have ruled that Christian business owners don't have to obey the parts of Obamacare that mandate free coverage for certain types of birth control.

Yeah ok but by the same token she doesn't have to work in a position that requires her to perform duties that are objectionable to her faith.

The county needs to move her laterally or she can leave. This is a hot button issue but I am more than certain there are other duties as a clerk that would more than likely be objectionable to her faith.

Issuing occupancy to an abortion clinic? Filing paperwork for any other number of things would be equally objectionable under true Christian beliefs. She is just being a frigging zealot
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"she doesn't have to work in a position that requires her to perform duties that are objectionable to her faith".

Correct, she doesn't have to take that job. But if she chooses to take that job, her employer (in this case, the state) cannot require that she abandon her religious beliefs when she's on the clock.

"She is just being a frigging zealot"

Maybe. But guess what? She has that right. Or at least, she used to, until this administration came along.

The constitution allows you to freely observe your religion. It does not allow you to force others to practice your religion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Terrible argument. In this case, she is not forcing the gay couple to practice her Christianity. She's not forcing them to go to Church and get communion. It is the state, and the homosexual activists, who want to force their beliefs on the Christians. I don't get how you can fail to see that. We have had this discussion before. The baker, and this clerk, are not forcing the gay couple to convert to Christianity, they aren't even saying the gay couple can't get married. They just want to be left out of it. Let a co-worker provide the license, let another baker provide the cake.

we bend over backward to make accommodations for people due to all sorts of weird crap...particularly for people interacting with government....we can't accommodate this woman?..is she grandfathered in since the law has changed since her employment began?..if she wanted to pee in the men's bathroom they'd figure out a way to make her happy...or someone would get sued

if she wanted to pee in the men's bathroom they'd figure out a way to make her happy

Yes we would, because in that case, she would be in a class which liberals have anointed with "victim" status.

can we put the leadership of the various Sanctuary Cities in jail for ignoring or refusing to help enforce Federal Law?

funny how this works isn't it?

if you are a leftist, a leftist running for office, a member of a leftist grievance group and adhere to leftist dogma...you can break the law, cause all sorts of mayhem, make all sorts of threats, comments and innuendo, march protest break stuff... and that's acceptable...

if you disagree with leftist dogma...they want you in jail.....

"The FFRF (Freedom From Religion Foundation)has now gone ballistic over the baptism of an on-the-field high school football coach in Villa, Ricca, Georgia. Attendance was voluntary and the students who attended did so on their own time and of their own free will. When the FFRF saw a video of the ceremony, it fired off a letter of righteous indignation to the Carroll County School superintendent:

“It is illegal for coaches to participate in religious activities with students, including prayer and baptisms,” attorney Elizabeth Cavell wrote. “Nor can coaches allow religious leaders to gain unique access to students during school-sponsored activities.”

They called the full emersion baptisms an “egregious constitutional violation.”

Now, administrators are investigating what's become a battle over church, state and sports, reports CBS News correspondent Mark Strassmann.

Three weeks ago, a local Baptist church took a video showing almost two dozen people being baptized before the Villa Rica Wildcats' football practice.

On the video, defensive coordinator and gym teacher Andy Szatkowski was first to be baptized. Then one player after another lined up, 18 in all.

The soon-to-be controversial video was uploaded to YouTube with the caption, "Take a look and see how God is still in our schools!" (this sounds like something Satan would say)

Alan Martinez, head of the local booster club, watched the baptisms and said the overall message of that day was one of "hope, care and compassion from the community."

“I believe we live in a free country,” the pastor said. “These people that are trying to say you can’t do that -- well -- they’re taking away freedom. When did it become illegal to bow your head and pray? When did it become illegal to say I’m a Christian?”

"The Freedom from Religion Foundation, which is already suing another Georgia public school over school prayers, told "CBS This Morning" it would take legal action against this school if it thinks it's necessary."



strange country we're living in right now...zealots with too much time on their hands...probably because such a huge portion of the population is no longer working

Apples and oranges IMHO. immigration is a lot different than religious issues.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Apples and oranges IMHO. immigration is a lot different than religious issues.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

religious issues....that's funny...


Eben...which is a greater threat to our nation...religious issues or immigration issues? particularly when it involves ignoring laws


pretty simple solution to this problem....the clerk steps aside and her supervisor or someone else at town hall fills out the paperwork.....not too hard to figure out....but the left is far more invested in making examples and exacting punishment for not thinking the right way...see it every day....read it in Animal Farm and Brave New World and 1984...natural state of the Totalitarian....if you get the opportunity to watch the news feed for the baptism above...pretty funny....you'd think the performed a mass execution...i don't know if they should or should not have done it...but good grief....the outrage is hilarious

True. It's hilarious. Which is why I made this thread :hihi:
I never said immigration isn't an issue...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

True. It's hilarious. Which is why I made this thread :hihi:
I never said immigration isn't an issue...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i never said you said immigration wasn't an issue:hihi:


you said it was an apple

and not to beat a dead horse...but if you read the actual wording of the Constitution and apply it to these cases...it appears as though Congress and federal law have no role in these matters of religious issues...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech....in fact, what the left is doing is using Congress and the Federal Government to establish and entrench their own "religion" and "religious issues" regarding which they are very much zealots and radicals as we've witnessed...they just pray to a different type of god...that's all.....make no mistake about it

i never said you said immigration wasn't an issue:hihi:


you said it was an apple

and not to beat a dead horse...but if you read the actual wording of the Constitution and apply it to these cases...it appears as though Congress and federal law have no role in these matters of religious issues...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech....in fact, what the left is doing is using Congress and the Federal Government to establish and entrench their own "religion" and "religious issues" regarding which they are very much zealots and radicals as we've witnessed...they just pray to a different type of god...that's all.....make no mistake about it

And it is so open, in your face, and obvious. Unlike the clerk who is practicing the tradition of civil disobedience (or not, since the Kentucky constitution does not allow gay marriage), and paying the price for it, this new type of statist god is ALLOWED to disregard laws with which it disagrees, or doesn't like, or endangers its power.

The current progressive administration is openly transforming society, entrenching its own secular religion, by not enforcing existing laws such as it did with DOMA, immigration law, federal welfare law, drug laws, not prosecuting Black Panther voting intimidation, not opposing sanctuary cities, and using executive orders to override congressional decisions of established law, and much more.

Earlier in this thread, JohnR asked: "So how do we square the circle and allow both people's rights and beliefs to be respected? One does not want their religious beliefs to be contradicted, one does not want their personal/ legal beliefs constrained. How do we let both sides win? Does it have to be zero sum?"

There is, not to beat a dying horse, the Constitution. It is a legal foundation that provides the solution to John's question. But the encroaching statist god cannot abide such a legal foundation. It is an impediment to entrenching its power. As are such things as religion, especially Christianity, individualism, individual freedom (which first can be combated with collective rights), "traditional" family values (which can be diluted or destroyed by making gay marriage or lifestyle superior when the two conflict). Much, if not all, of past American culture and legal foundation must be, bit by bit, removed from the path to governing by the new religion.

Every aspect of our lives, which once were a matter of choice, personal belief, must be subservient to the godlike State. This is a religion which is tolerant of no other. What collectivists who oppose others not like them, and are now given power over others by the State, don't foresee, is that they are next in line to bend their knees to the new god. They are the useful idiots who are enlisted against the original American order. When that order has been fully ground into legal dust, even the little minority collectives will have to divest themselves of differences, and all will become the progressive ideal of worker bees in the uniform hive of State.

I doubt that Eben wants to be part of such a State. Yet when he belittles others who need a "little book" for guidance, he fails to see how he subscribes to the book of an all-powerful state when he justifies government suppression of one belief in favor of another. Or when he so enthusiastically supports the book of socialism when he chooses Sanders as a presidential contender. When Eben says freedom is the buzzword of fools, he doesn't see that that is the message that the god of State, or socialism, very much has as a footnote in their little book (or maybe he does). And when he doesn't care what the founding intentions were in the Constitution, but rather what it "says" (more precisely what progressive judges say it says) that he is following chapter and verse the book of this new religion.

But I think Eben is still evolving. There is definitely a ray of hope shining through a lot of his other comments.

religious issues....that's funny...


Eben...which is a greater threat to our nation...religious issues or immigration issues? particularly when it involves ignoring laws


pretty simple solution to this problem....the clerk steps aside and her supervisor or someone else at town hall fills out the paperwork.....not too hard to figure out....but the left is far more invested in making examples and exacting punishment for not thinking the right way...see it every day....read it in Animal Farm and Brave New World and 1984...natural state of the Totalitarian....if you get the opportunity to watch the news feed for the baptism above...pretty funny....you'd think the performed a mass execution...i don't know if they should or should not have done it...but good grief....the outrage is hilarious

"pretty simple solution to this problem....the clerk steps aside and her supervisor or someone else at town hall fills out the paperwork.....not too hard to figure out....but the left is far more invested in making examples and exacting punishment "

Correct. Liberals are a lot more reluctant to display tolerance than they are to demand it.

Nebe, here is what the first amendment says...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Now Nebe. With that in mind, why doesn't this clerk have the right to do what she did? If her interpretation of her religious doctrine is that issuing that license would be a violation of her religion, how can you deny that the first amendment gives her that right? What's the harm in having someone else in the office issue the license?

She's a hypocritical Attention Hoe who's become a media tool.....nothing more.....nothing less.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

she needs some kalifornication vacation time lol

a hypocritical Attention Hoe who's become a media tool.....nothing more.....nothing less.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

as is the President and many of his cohorts in Washington and elsewhere who routinely ignore actual law (as opposed to rights created by fiat by an activist judiciary that some believe constitute law)...and I'm waiting for some of them to go to jail or lose their jobs

She's a hypocritical Attention Hoe who's become a media tool.....nothing more.....nothing less.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You may well be right. But the Constitution applies to all of us, even attention hoe's. That's the beauty of it, you don't have to pass an IQ test to earn the protections.

The Obama administration is suing truck transportation companies, to ensure that Muslim drivers are not forced against their religion, to deliver alcohol.

A quote from the Obama administration..."..."Everyone has a right to observe his or her religious beliefs, and employers don't get to pick and choose which religions and which religious practices they will accommodate If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so."

Tell that to Kim Davis, who was thrown in jail, without bail I think.

How does this principle NOT apply to Kim Davis?

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-29-13.cfm

From what I'm reading Kim Davis' big hang up isn't that she participates in the issuing of the license....they have deputy clerks that can perform that function. she is hung up because her name is on the license as she is the elected official responsible for them. She doesn't want her name/stamp on them.

Church and state are merging
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Church and state are merging
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What has changed? State and federal laws state that employers must make reasonable accommodations for employees with religious beliefs.

Seems to me that what's changing, is that the current administration thinks they can pick and choose who has the right to expect religious accommodations at work (Muslim truck drivers) and who doesn't have that right(Christians). That should scare all of us, regardless of whether or not you support gay marriage.

That this woman was jailed instead of fired, feels like she was a political prisoner to me. Sounds like what I'd expect in China or North Korea, not here.

feels like she was a political prisoner to me.

She kinda is.....she's an Elected Official....so she can't be fired outright. Gotta go through the process....which unfortunately means a judge has to get involved. He ordered her to perform her duties as such....she refused....so off to jail she goes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She kinda is.....she's an Elected Official....so she can't be fired outright. Gotta go through the process....which unfortunately means a judge has to get involved. He ordered her to perform her duties as such....she refused....so off to jail she goes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I heard that she was also trying to interfere with the ability of others in the office from issuing licenses. She can't do that. But it's not something they should have put her in jail for, that seems like something that would happen in Iran. I still can't believe she got locked up They couldn't just suspend her with pay or something?

Not sure you can suspend an Elected Official.....