Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis Jailed for Not Issuing Gay Marriage Licenses

[zephyrWiccan]

Have you noticed that it was before she was saved? Paul was a murderer, but we don't hold that against him, now, do we?

Did Paul continue to murder people after he became a Christian? No?

She is continuing to live in an adulterous marriage.

 

[loveofourlord]

The alcohol example is a straw man argument. This issue of redefining marriage as the court has attempted to do rises far above the use and serving of alcohol. Perhaps the restaurant,which has happened, could accommodate the Christian in this alcohol issue, which is what the court could have done but did not. This is a religious freedom issue and it will be born out as such in the courts. The First Amendment guarantees me that the government cannot keep me from exercising my religion. Exercising Christianity involves obedience to God.

do you guys even have a clue what happend? Seriously, your right the example is wrong, the example is a head waitress that works for a resteraunt, refuses to sell/serve alcohol, but also refuses to let any other waiters serve alchohol, and refuses to quit, and can't be fired, so the resteraunt is not allowed to sell alchohol because of sone person who feels it's her right to dictate for the resteraunt what they can or can't serve.

 

[smaneck]

Perhaps the restaurant,which has happened, could accommodate the Christian in this alcohol issue, which is what the court could have done but did not.

No, Kim did not allow for any accommodation. She not only refused to issue these licences, she prohibited the deputy clerks from doing so. If she had simply stepped aside and let one of her deputies that didn't object to it issue the licenses for gay marriages this never would have gone to court. Instead she used her office to violate the rights of others.

 

[Cute Tink]

Part of the freedom to exercise religion is for the Christian to be able to obey God. But the government is attempting to force Kim to sin against Him. This freedom is guaranteed in the First Amendment and this is where the government has violated its own law.

Part of living in a society is recognizing that your rights are not absolute, particularly when the intrude on the rights of others. The First Amendment doesn't guarantee you the absolute right to disregard whatever law you find inconvenient because you feel the law goes against your choice of religion.

 

[bhsmte]

Part of the freedom to exercise religion is for the Christian to be able to obey God. But the government is attempting to force Kim to sin against Him. This freedom is guaranteed in the First Amendment and this is where the government has violated its own law.

You can obey your perception of what God wants you to do, but those rights, end, when they violate the rights of others.

Just as, the Baptist county clerk can't refuse a marriage license to a Mormon, because of religious reasons. Or, a person can tell the government, my God doesn't want me to pay taxes, so you can't force me to.

You really, really need to study up on the basic rights and when they reach their limits.

 

[golgotha61]

I hate to break it to you, but religious freedoms are not limitless and never have been.

Show me in the constitution where it is limited. We are simply back to the argument that we don't measure our laws against the constitution anyway. The Supreme Court justices simply divine interpretation according to their political bent or religious bias. Two of the justices performed gay marriage ceremonies just before they made the ruling in favor of changing the definition of marriage. I know of no other court that would not recuse a judge who had done this except this Supreme Court; what a farce.

 

[bhsmte]

Show me in the constitution where it is limited. We are simply back to the argument that we don't measure our laws against the constitution anyway. The Supreme Court justices simply divine interpretation according to their political bent or religious bias. Two of the justices performed gay marriage ceremonies just before they made the ruling in favor of changing the definition of marriage. I know of no other court that would not recuse a judge who had done this except this Supreme Court; what a farce.

If you went for a marriage license and the clerk was a different religion than you and they claimed they could not issue you a license, because of their religious beliefs and would also not allow any of their deputy clerks to issue one either, would you be ok with that?

 

[golgotha61]

You can obey your perception of what God wants you to do, but those rights, end, when they violate the rights of others.

Just as, the Baptist county clerk can't refuse a marriage license to a Mormon, because of religious reasons. Or, a person can tell the government, my God doesn't want me to pay taxes, so you can't force me to.

You really, really need to study up on the basic rights and when they reach their limits.

The rights of others are being violated now by the government. These so called rights that you are referring to are man made and that my friend does not rise over God's precepts. Again with the straw man arguments, stay with the issue at hand and stop using the logical fallacies. None of your examples rise to a parallel in this issue.

 

[bhsmte]

Show me in the constitution where it is limited. We are simply back to the argument that we don't measure our laws against the constitution anyway. The Supreme Court justices simply divine interpretation according to their political bent or religious bias. Two of the justices performed gay marriage ceremonies just before they made the ruling in favor of changing the definition of marriage. I know of no other court that would not recuse a judge who had done this except this Supreme Court; what a farce.

Does freedom of speech allow you to libel and defame someone at will?

Does religious freedom allow you to break laws because you claim it is your genuine religious belief?

A simple, yes or no will do.

 

[Cute Tink]

Show me in the constitution where it is limited.

It's reality. You cannot simply disregard whatever law you feel goes against your beliefs, otherwise laws are pointless as you could disregard laws against murder simply because you claim it is your duty under your religion to kill someone.

 

[bhsmte]

The rights of others are being violated now by the government. These so called rights that you are referring to are man made and that my friend does not rise over God's precepts. Again with the straw man arguments, stay with the issue at hand and stop using the logical fallacies. None of your examples rise to a parallel in this issue.

Than go ahead and make the legal argument and explain in detail, how rights are being violated.

 

[Cute Tink]

The rights of others are being violated now by the government. These so called rights that you are referring to are man made and that my friend does not rise over God's precepts. Again with the straw man arguments, stay with the issue at hand and stop using the logical fallacies. None of your examples rise to a parallel in this issue.

You are claiming that your religion allows you to violate laws with impunity, are you not?

 

[bhsmte]

The rights of others are being violated now by the government. These so called rights that you are referring to are man made and that my friend does not rise over God's precepts. Again with the straw man arguments, stay with the issue at hand and stop using the logical fallacies. None of your examples rise to a parallel in this issue.

My examples are spot on with this issue.

 

[zephyrWiccan]

Show me in the constitution where it is limited.

It is limited where it violates other laws. A follower of an Aztec or similar religion cannot cut the heart out of someone as a sacrifice to their deity, even though that is a part of their religion.

 

[bhsmte]

You are claiming that your religion allows you to violate laws with impunity, are you not?

It would appear so.

It is times like these, I am glad I am communicating at arm's length.

 

[golgotha61]

If you went for a marriage license and the clerk was a different religion than you and they claimed they could not issue you a license, because of their religious beliefs and would also not allow any of their deputy clerks to issue one either, would you be ok with that?

The license was not refused on the basis of differing religions, for crying out loud, stay in the same ball game. If I really wanted to get married, just to accommodate you, and I was refused as you have posited, I would simply go to a court house that would give me the license.

 

[bhsmte]

The license was not refused on the basis of differing religions, for crying out loud, stay in the same ball game. If I really wanted to get married, just to accommodate you, and I was refused as you have posited, I would simply go to a court house that would give me the license.

Doesn't matter, the clerk in my case cited their personal religious beliefs to refuse to issue the license, just as Kim Davis has.

And if it is your position, that people can refuse service based on their personal religious beliefs, than my example applies perfectly.

 

[golgotha61]

It is limited where it violates other laws. A follower of an Aztec or similar religion cannot cut the heart out of someone as a sacrifice to their deity, even though that is a part of their religion.

More straw men. We are not Aztecs cutting out hearts. No law can violate the First Amendment but that is what is happening and the government and the court is wrong.

 

[Cute Tink]

The license was not refused on the basis of differing religions, for crying out loud, stay in the same ball game. If I really wanted to get married, just to accommodate you, and I was refused as you have posited, I would simply go to a court house that would give me the license.

No matter how far away? Keep in mind you have to travel to a different county to do so and hope that they have a different perspective on the matter.

 

[loveofourlord]

Where does the right to ignore laws start and end? As has been mentioned, can you refuse to do your job and impede the buisness? Reasonable acomidation means that you must still allow the buisness to run, your desire not to serve alcohol shouldn't put undue burdeon on the buisness, and so on. In this case she was putting undue burdeon on both the gays and her office, and stepped over reasonable comidation, and she didn't have her religious freedom violated, as she was given ways out of having to have her religious freedom infringed. You don't have a right to force a buisness to meet your standards, any more then the buisness can force you to meet theirs.