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

[bhsmte]

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.

Maybe you should be her lawyer then and you can state your legal case and get her out of jail and back in her job, refusing to do her job.

 

[golgotha61]

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.

It does matter; homosexuality is not a religion. I can and will refuse to sin against God as a directive given by any person.

 

[bhsmte]

It does matter; homosexuality is not a religion. I can and will refuse to sin against God as a directive given by any person.

Hilarious.

 

[zephyrWiccan]

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.

Thank you for your concession that, indeed, religious freedom is not limitless and is indeed limited.

You also clearly do not understand what a strawman is.

 

[bhsmte]

Thank you for your concession that, indeed, religious freedom is not limitless and is indeed limited.

You also clearly do not understand what a strawman is.

I would appear, when she/he agrees with the religious stance, the freedom should be limitless. When she/he doesn't agree, then that is a different story.

 

[seashale76]

I wonder if Davis ever refused marriage licenses to people if they had ever been divorced before, or were Christians getting married to non-Christians? I seriously doubt it. If not she was very selective.

 

[bhsmte]

I wonder if Davis ever refused marriage licenses to people if they had ever been divorced before, or were Christians getting married to non-Christians? I seriously doubt it. If not she was very selective.

Fundies, are usually the best cherry pickers.

 

[zephyrWiccan]

I wonder if Davis ever refused marriage licenses to people if they had ever been divorced before, or were Christians getting married to non-Christians? I seriously doubt it. If not she was very selective.

I doubt it as well, considering she has been divorced three times and married four times herself......

 

[jayem]

If I was employed in advance of a job description change that would violate as grievously as this one does, in the case of Kim Davis, and force me to sin against God as seriously as this example does, then I don't see any customer service issue that could possibly rise to this level of religious intolerance. This is not a view, this is sin against a holy God and it rises far above personal views.

If you think your job forces you to sin, then you resign. You can still make it known that your new job duties are unrighteous. Make your case in the court of public opinion.

In your thinking, I would guess that whistle blowers would be the bad guys.

Irrelevant. Kim Davis's employer isn't cheating consumers or breaking any laws. SHE's the one violating a lawful court order and refusing to serve her constituents. If she was a person of honor, she would resign her job and devote herself to changing the law. Which can be done lawfully with a Constitutional amendment. Instead of wasting time in jail, why not start organizing support for an amendment to abrogate Obergefell?

 

[Hank77]

But even in the private sector, are you seriously suggesting that ethics can not be a part of the employee employer relationship and that an employer has full authority to force any level of ethics bending on its employees?

As long as it does not break any laws, yes.
Once again your view is an extreme leftist view. An employer makes the rules for their employees to follow. As long is the employer is not breaking any laws, they have that right. If the employee doesn't like the rules they are free to leave. They are not free to expect to be paid for not following the rules. Period.

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.

No they are not. They are simply saying that she cannot decide to serve SOME of the taxpayers and not others. That's it.
She is a PUBLIC SERVANT. She must serve ALL the public or get another job. I'll sure she doesn't want to give up her $80,000 a year with government benefits but her name has to be on those licenses, by law because she is the County Clerk.

What makes you think that we Christians have the right to bully other people? Where do you see that in the Bible?
In this country we vote and if we loose we loose. That doesn't mean that because abortion or same-sex marriage is legal you or I have to take part in it by working at an abortion clinic or issuing marriage licenses.

 

[golgotha61]

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

All I am claiming first of all is what the constitution allows me to do in reference to religious freedom as outlined in the First Amendment. Second, I will follow the teaching of the Bible that are clear in their intent and purpose. If the government sees fit to punish me for obeying God over them, then so be it. I will abide by Romans 13:1-7 but I know that there are times when Christians have suffered for the cause of the Gospel, I just never thought that I would see it in my life time in this country, but Christ is my King and not the government. I give you Dietrich Bonhoeffer: “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

 

[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.

it already went through the courts, she lost, thats why she's in jail, she has no where to go with the courts.

 

[pat34lee]

Where do you draw the line when individuals can decide redefine right and wrong and openly defy the rule of law in doing so?

The wording is a little strange, but any time man's laws go against God's law, we are to defy man's law.

 

[pat34lee]

funny then how the concept of one group superior then another is older then evolution, but don't let reality and truth get in the way of good propaganda lie.

Darwin didn't invent evolution; he just popularized it.

 

[golgotha61]

As long as it does not break any laws, yes.
Once again your view is an extreme leftist view. An employer makes the rules for their employees to follow. As long is the employer is not breaking any laws, they have that right. If the employee doesn't like the rules they are free to leave. They are not free to expect to be paid for not following the rules. Period.

No employer has the right to force me to act in contradiction to God. Period.

No they are not. They are simply saying that she cannot decide to serve SOME of the taxpayers and not others. That's it.
She is a PUBLIC SERVANT. She must serve ALL the public or get another job. I'll sure she doesn't want to give up her $80,000 a year with government benefits but her name has to be on those licenses, by law because she is the County Clerk.

The ruling, it is not law, was imposed upon her while she was employed by the government. She is Christ's servant above the public servant and that is what is at the center of the issue. In fact, she filled out no marriage licenses so that she would not be accused of what you have just suggested.

What makes you think that we Christians have the right to bully other people? Where do you see that in the Bible?
In this country we vote and if we loose we loose. That doesn't mean that because abortion or same-sex marriage is legal you or I have to take part in it by working at an abortion clinic or issuing marriage licenses.

Bullying? Are you serious? The court and the judge who put her in jail are the bullies. Tell that voting majesterial theory to the residents of California where the courts neutered the voter's power by overriding their passage of proposition 8. Kim was already employed at the bureau, she didn't hire in when the ruling was in place, she was already there. The imposition is on the government.

 

[loveofourlord]

Darwin didn't invent evolution; he just popularized it.

no he explained how it worked.

And this is off topic and meaningless because evolution is true, so anyone missussing it or abusing it doesn't mean anything, or would you argue that all the abuse and missusings by Christians some how makes Christianity false?

And lets not forget that even if hitler wasn't a Christian, many of the germans that followed him were.

 

[Hank77]

No employer has the right to force me to act in contradiction to God. Period.

I agree. And no one is FORCING her to do anything. She is FREE to seek other employment.

The ruling, it is not law, was imposed upon her while she was employed by the government. She is Christ's servant above the public servant and that is what is at the center of the issue. In fact, she filled out no marriage licenses so that she would not be accused of what you have just suggested.

It does not matter in the least if her job description changed.
An employer is free to change a job description, they are not beholding to the employee. They are the ones who pay the employee.

Bullying? Are you serious? The court and the judge who put her in jail are the bullies.

Again, where does the Bible say you or I can dictate to other people how they will live their lives?

Kim was already employed at the bureau, she didn't hire in when the ruling was in place, she was already there. The imposition is on the government.

Too bad, the job description changed, so what? Does her contract stipulate that her job description will never change? Does her contract stipulate that her job will always agree with her religious beliefs? If it doesn't she hasn't got a leg to stand on.

 

[loveofourlord]

No employer has the right to force me to act in contradiction to God. Period.



The ruling, it is not law, was imposed upon her while she was employed by the government. She is Christ's servant above the public servant and that is what is at the center of the issue. In fact, she filled out no marriage licenses so that she would not be accused of what you have just suggested.



Bullying? Are you serious? The court and the judge who put her in jail are the bullies. Tell that voting majesterial theory to the residents of California where the courts neutered the voter's power by overriding their passage of proposition 8. Kim was already employed at the bureau, she didn't hire in when the ruling was in place, she was already there. The imposition is on the government.

And again no court has tried to force her, she is the one that has refused to acomidations. Her employer can't force her against her religious beliefs, and she can't force the buisness to stick to her beliefs.

One woman can't dictate for all of her county who can or can't married.

 

[golgotha61]

And again no court has tried to force her, she is the one that has refused to acomidations. Her employer can't force her against her religious beliefs, and she can't force the buisness to stick to her beliefs.

One woman can't dictate for all of her county who can or can't married.

No, the court didn't accommodate her and that was specifically asked for. Her attorneys asked for the accommodation in the form of letting her keep her signature off the license but the court refused. This is not a business, it is the government and it is imposing its secularism upon her. She didn't hire on as the clerk when this redefinition of marriage was already in place, she was already an employee. The imposition is that of the government upon her. She is not trying to dictate anything, she is trying to remain faithful to God. Why should anyone in this circumstance resign to placate an egregious interpretation of the constitution that clearly violates God's design for His creation? These folks can get married, just not with her as the arbiter who sanctions such an act. This is not an action against a person, it is an action against a religion and that religion is Christianity.

 

[loveofourlord]

No, the court didn't accommodate her and that was specifically asked for. Her attorneys asked for the accommodation in the form of letting her keep her signature off the license but the court refused. This is not a business, it is the government and it is imposing its secularism upon her. She didn't hire on as the clerk when this redefinition of marriage was already in place, she was already an employee. The imposition is that of the government upon her. She is not trying to dictate anything, she is trying to remain faithful to God. Why should anyone in this circumstance resign to placate an egregious interpretation of the constitution that clearly violates God's design for His creation? These folks can get married, just not with her as the arbiter who sanctions such an act. This is not an action against a person, it is an action against a religion and that religion is Christianity.

because the US is a secular country and beliefs in god, even ours have no place dicatating what is or isn't legal, any more then muslims should get to dictate Sharia law.