Author Topic: Kentucky Clerk...how far can government go?  (Read 4830 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online portnoy311

  • Posts: 752
Re: Kentucky Clerk...how far can government go?
« Reply #175 on: September 05, 2015, 05:52:36 PM »
I hate Huckabee so much. It terrifies me that someone with his mindset can get so close to the White House. Shame on him.

It gets worse.

"“This is the criminalization of Christianity,” Huckabee said.

Huckabee noted that Davis is being held without bail for following her convictions, and he remarked that even serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer got bail.

“Who’s next? Are pastors next? Florists? Caterers? Who else goes to jail before this is over?” he asked."

I always love that they talk about judicial oppression, but never governmental oppression. Kim Davis LITERALLY WAS THE GOVERNMENT OPPRESSOR but you can't say that, so it gets changed to "judicial" oppression.

And he's not alone, most of them agree with her:

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/09/03/candidates-support-kim-davis-with-varying-intensity/?_r=0


I'm pretty impressed with Carly Fiorina in how she's handled this, and a couple other things. Granted, she was a HORRIBLE CEO of HP, who quite literally cost tens of thousands of people their jobs, but her campaign has been pretty solid for what her actual resume is. And, Chris Christie once again shows why he should and would be my favorite candidate, if he didn't make such boneheaded remarks and decisions. The guy has the most solid set of ideals I think you can ask for in a mainstream GOP candidate, but man he's let me down with some of what he's said and done the past 2 years.

Jeb and Trump - the most electable, and the frontrunner respectively - both were noncommittal that she should be allowed to have someone else in her office do it. Which I actually still disagree with, she's the clerk she should've resigned or faced the consequences. Nothing that has happened to her is unfair. She's there to uphold the laws, not the Bible.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2015, 06:01:44 PM by portnoy311 »

Online portnoy311

  • Posts: 752
Re: Kentucky Clerk...how far can government go?
« Reply #176 on: September 06, 2015, 09:33:33 PM »
Keeping it short:

I don't have a serious problem with her recusing herself.  My problem is she enforced *recusal* on other staff.

I think jail and forcing the release of certificates with her name on it is bordering on cruel and unusual punishment.  Simply remove her authority over her subordinates.

While there are derogatory remarks about Cruz here, I think he nailed it when he said the problem is with uneven enforcement.
Quote
They are defending a hypocritical standard. Where is the call for the mayor of San Francisco to resign for creating a sanctuary city? … Where is the call for President Obama to resign for ignoring and defying our immigration laws, our welfare reform laws, and even his own Obamacare?


How is that cruel and unusual? That is literally what happens to people in her position who defy the law. Why are people calling for special treatment for this woman?

Offline Scorpion

  • Unreal Heir
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9782
  • Gender: Male
  • Ragnarök around the Clöck!
Re: Kentucky Clerk...how far can government go?
« Reply #177 on: September 06, 2015, 11:38:16 PM »
As far as I know, because her position is an elected one, she cannot simply be removed. Blame that on the fact that Kentucky elects somebody to give out marriage licenses.
scorpion is my favorite deathcore lobster
Hey, the length is fine :azn: Thanks!

Online portnoy311

  • Posts: 752
Re: Kentucky Clerk...how far can government go?
« Reply #178 on: September 06, 2015, 11:46:57 PM »
How is that cruel and unusual? That is literally what happens to people in her position who defy the law. Why are people calling for special treatment for this woman?

First, no.  It is not what happens to people in her position who defy the law.  I already provided links.

Second, I think it is cruel to imprison her instead of simply removing her.  Further, they shouldn't make the decision hers as to whether or not to "sanction" others to create the licenses in her name.  Just take it out of her name.  Otherwise, you are, once again, making her a part of the equation knowing full well it will violate her religion.

I'm looking for the threads that mentioned all the other imprisonment of the other law breakers when the law was 180 from now.  Please link me to those on this forum.

Your crack research has led you to believe she's comparable to Obama, which is unsurprising. But her and her situation are far from Obama offending you and the situations are, correctly, treated differently. I'm sure in your world view that is a perfectly apt comparison, but in practice  (and reality) Obama has not directly defied a Supreme Court directive like she has.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2015, 12:09:33 AM by portnoy311 »

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40263
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Kentucky Clerk...how far can government go?
« Reply #179 on: September 07, 2015, 07:53:17 AM »
I think it is cruel to imprison her instead of simply removing her. 
Again, they can't "simply" remove her.  It is an elected position, she can't be fired or kicked out.  The state legislature can impeach her, but they won't be meeting again until 2016, and no way should anyone have to delay getting their marriage license for several months on the off chance that the only body who CAN remove her actually WILL (there is no guarantee that they would do so).

The judge imprisoned her for contempt of court to compel her to obey the order to do her job because he thought that fining her wouldn't make a difference (I agree).  So she can sit her ass in jail until she agrees to comply with the order to do her job or until her term expires.

Further, they shouldn't make the decision hers as to whether or not to "sanction" others to create the licenses in her name.  Just take it out of her name.  Otherwise, you are, once again, making her a part of the equation knowing full well it will violate her religion.
Her name has to go on it.  She is the official that ran for the office and was elected to the office. 

Again, NOT ONE THING is being done to her.  This is the job.  If she doesn't like it, she can resign.  That is all there is to it.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18700
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Kentucky Clerk...how far can government go?
« Reply #180 on: September 07, 2015, 12:36:55 PM »
How is that cruel and unusual? That is literally what happens to people in her position who defy the law. Why are people calling for special treatment for this woman?

First, no.  It is not what happens to people in her position who defy the law.  I already provided links.

Second, I think it is cruel to imprison her instead of simply removing her.  Further, they shouldn't make the decision hers as to whether or not to "sanction" others to create the licenses in her name.  Just take it out of her name.  Otherwise, you are, once again, making her a part of the equation knowing full well it will violate her religion.

I'm looking for the threads that mentioned all the other imprisonment of the other law breakers when the law was 180 from now.  Please link me to those on this forum.

Your crack research has led you to believe she's comparable to Obama, which is unsurprising. But her and her situation are far from Obama offending you and the situations are, correctly, treated differently. I'm sure in your world view that is a perfectly apt comparison, but in practice  (and reality) Obama has not directly defied a Supreme Court directive like she has.

Your crack research has left you short sighted into my "crack research", which is unsurprising.
The problem with your crack research was that all but one were accused of simply not defending a challenge to the law, and I'm not at all sure that's illegal or even improper. Same thing with Obama and Holder. Don't get me wrong, I agree that much of this has to do with which way the winds are blowing insofar as the mob is concerned. I just don't see it as a blanket indictment of all things liberal or democratic.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40263
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Kentucky Clerk...how far can government go?
« Reply #181 on: September 08, 2015, 04:54:39 AM »
The problem with your crack research was that all but one were accused of simply not defending a challenge to the law

First, even if it was just one, where was the uproar and jailing then?  It was a non-event.  But just one?

1.  In 2004, then-San Francisco Mayor Newsom directed city clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. At that time, gay marriage was prohibited in California.

2,  Two years ago, Hanes issued the first marriage license to a same-sex couple despite Pennsylvania’s ban on gay marriage.

3.  Instead of defending state law, Madigan requested the attorney general’s office be allowed to join in two lawsuits challenging Illinois’s gay marriage ban in 2012. <--- that's more than simply refusing to uphold the laws of the state

So we are talking about crack research, but it seems nobody even clicked on the link (now that's crack research).  As far as the Attorney General's refusing to do their job ... which is to represent their state in court based off its laws, I'd say that counts.  How is that not picking and choosing a duty regardless of your state's law.

And these are just pure parallels.  When you go beyond the law of gay marriage, you have sanctuary cities, immigration laws, massive warping of Obamacare's legal execution (waivers galore among, deciding to just haphazardly move deadline dates, etc).  These are pretty easy comparisons.
And in any of those circumstances, citizens were free to bring suit against their elected officials (as happened in this case).

And in none of those cases (as far as I can tell) were any citizens being denied their legal rights, which is the precise reason for the widespread uproar in this case.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19114
  • Gender: Male
Re: Kentucky Clerk...how far can government go?
« Reply #182 on: September 08, 2015, 08:01:29 AM »
Ugh. Fuckin' Ted Cruz.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/08/ted-cruz-travels-to-kentucky-to-support-kim-davis/

Quote
"It is important to Sen. Cruz for Kim Davis to know that he supports her and will do everything in his power to ensure her situation is resolved and that no other Americans who strive to live out their faith fall victim to religious persecution by the government," Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said in a statement.

"The First Amendment - the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech and expression - is foundational to all other freedoms and Sen. Cruz is committed to defending it," the statement said.

I don't know whose worse here, Cruz or Huckabee. It blows my mind how the second someone even so much as hints that they want gun reform, copies of the constitution get pulled out of every orifice and cited. Yet when it comes to this, the constitution appears to be completely open to interpretation. If I made a Youtube video addressed to Ted Cruz and said on camera "Ted Cruz. If I were you, I would keep a very close eye on your wife and daughters. I'm coming for them", you're telling me he wouldn't have me locked up? The hypocrisy in this case escapes me.  What about my freedom of of speech and expression? I too can argue that it is foundational to all my other freedoms.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2015, 08:54:54 AM by Chino »

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9128
  • Gender: Male
Re: Kentucky Clerk...how far can government go?
« Reply #183 on: September 08, 2015, 08:41:39 AM »
Ugh. Fuckin' Ted Cruz.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/08/ted-cruz-travels-to-kentucky-to-support-kim-davis/

Quote
"It is important to Sen. Cruz for Kim Davis to know that he supports her and will do everything in his power to ensure her situation is resolved and that no other Americans who strive to live out their faith fall victim to religious persecution by the government," Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said in a statement.

"The First Amendment - the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech and expression - is foundational to all other freedoms and Sen. Cruz is committed to defending it," the statement said.

I don't know whose worse here, Cruz or Huckabee. It blows my mind how the second someone even so much as hints that they want gun reform, copies of the constitution get pulled out of ever orifice and cited. Yet when it comes to this, the constitution appears to be completely open to interpretation. If I made a Youtube video addressed to Ted Cruz and said on camera "Ted Cruz. If I were you, I would keep a very close eye on your wife and daughters. I'm coming for them", you're telling me he wouldn't have me locked up? The hypocrisy in this case escapes me.  What about my freedom of of speech and expression? I too can argue that it is foundational to all my other freedoms.

It's less hypocrisy and just simply lack of understanding.  Or grandstanding; it is an election cycle, after all.   

I think it is being missed that at the end of the day, whether Cruz or Huckabee is right or wrong (I think, for what it's worth, wrong, and I'm disappointed in Huckabee, because he is smart and this demeans him) come November whatever, 2016, those that agree with Kim Davis will remember that. 

But look at this thread:  smart, well-informed people here have made fundamental errors in what actually happened.   Yes, I understand that if you're going to run the most powerful country on the planet that you can't make fundamental errors in what actually happened, but notwithstanding that, it's not the first time that a politician will take advantage of a vote from an under- and/or un-informed voter.   I didn't see Obama giving back those votes from people who thought we were all getting free gasoline when he was elected. 

The good thing is, Cruz has no and Huckabee little shot to be President.  Cruz is a panderer and political prostitute.


Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4843
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Kentucky Clerk...how far can government go?
« Reply #184 on: September 08, 2015, 05:10:38 PM »
They should go where one person can't claim her "religious beliefs" in denying another citizen's legal rights.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19114
  • Gender: Male
Re: Kentucky Clerk...how far can government go?
« Reply #185 on: September 10, 2015, 09:38:42 AM »

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40263
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Kentucky Clerk...how far can government go?
« Reply #186 on: September 10, 2015, 10:50:37 AM »
And in none of those cases (as far as I can tell) were any citizens being denied their legal rights, which is the precise reason for the widespread uproar in this case.

I thought you had established it was simply about doing your job.  Because if we get into rights, then it is again ... a collision of rights.

Goal posts ... where should they go?
Goal posts didn't move.  Her job IS granting certificates to those who have the right to get married.  Not doing her job infringes on their rights.  It's the same thing.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline kingshmegland

  • defender of the brew!
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 35694
  • Gender: Male
  • Take that Beethoven, you deaf bastard!!
Re: Kentucky Clerk...how far can government go?
« Reply #187 on: September 10, 2015, 03:19:59 PM »
And in none of those cases (as far as I can tell) were any citizens being denied their legal rights, which is the precise reason for the widespread uproar in this case.

I thought you had established it was simply about doing your job.  Because if we get into rights, then it is again ... a collision of rights.

Goal posts ... where should they go?
Goal posts didn't move.  Her job IS granting certificates to those who have the right to get married.  Not doing her job infringes on their rights.  It's the same thing.

Why is this so hard to understand for some?
“I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'.” - Bob Newhart

So wait, we're spelling it wrong and king is spelling it right? What is going on here? :lol -- BlobVanDam

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9128
  • Gender: Male
Re: Kentucky Clerk...how far can government go?
« Reply #188 on: September 10, 2015, 04:09:06 PM »
And in none of those cases (as far as I can tell) were any citizens being denied their legal rights, which is the precise reason for the widespread uproar in this case.

I thought you had established it was simply about doing your job.  Because if we get into rights, then it is again ... a collision of rights.

Goal posts ... where should they go?
Goal posts didn't move.  Her job IS granting certificates to those who have the right to get married.  Not doing her job infringes on their rights.  It's the same thing.

Why is this so hard to understand for some?

Why is ANYTHING like this "hard to understand for some"?   People think differently.  I find it baffling that people think the entire problem with police violence is "cops (all of them) are racist".   I find it baffling that people still think that banning guns will reduce the shootings (almost every jurisdiction that has banned guns has seen gun related crime INCREASE).  I find it baffling that people STILL sit in the left hand lane and when you flick your headlights at them, they flip you the bird in the rearview mirror.  I find it baffling that my wife cheated on me - at least twice, maybe three times - and yet I am the reason our marriage fell apart. 

People think differently. 

Offline kingshmegland

  • defender of the brew!
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 35694
  • Gender: Male
  • Take that Beethoven, you deaf bastard!!
Re: Kentucky Clerk...how far can government go?
« Reply #189 on: September 10, 2015, 04:58:20 PM »
Oh I certainly know that.  But for this instance,  your personal beliefs are secondary to a government job.  There's no wiggle room or opinions  on this.  Others you refrence,  are open ended though, my thought process is like yours.
“I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'.” - Bob Newhart

So wait, we're spelling it wrong and king is spelling it right? What is going on here? :lol -- BlobVanDam

Offline vtgrad

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Gender: Male
Re: Kentucky Clerk...how far can government go?
« Reply #190 on: September 11, 2015, 10:18:07 AM »
Without reading all seven pages and with the little that I've read about this situation... in my personal opinion, I think that she may have handled this situation in a way that glorifies her ideals and beliefs instead of a way that upholds her ideals and beliefs.

After thinking about the situation and placing myself in her shoes, I believe that I personally would have made it know of my disapproval of the new statue and refused to attach my own name to any licenses; I would NOT have forbidden my staff and other officials in my office that have the ability to issue the licenses in their own names (if that is truly what happened).  I also would like to think that I personally would have resigned if my name was required to be attached to the license.

IMO, she's trying to make a statement... which brings glory and recognition to her situation.  In my opinion, if she wanted to simply uphold her beliefs, she would have stated that she would not be a part of something that she does not agree with and when forced to comply she would have resigned.

I applaud her for standing up for her convictions... I simply think that she has done it in a way that is glorifying her situation (selfishly) instead of in a way that glorifies those convictions. 
"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter; Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man."  Ecclesiastes 12:13

Now with Twitler taking a high end steak of this caliber and insulting the cow that died for it by having it well done just shows zero respect for the product, which falls right in line with the amount of respect he shows for pretty much everything else.- Lonestar

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40263
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Kentucky Clerk...how far can government go?
« Reply #191 on: September 11, 2015, 11:38:03 AM »
I agree with all of that.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 7903
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: Kentucky Clerk...how far can government go?
« Reply #192 on: September 11, 2015, 06:43:36 PM »
Totally agreed on all points.
"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - http://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude

Online portnoy311

  • Posts: 752
Re: Kentucky Clerk...how far can government go?
« Reply #193 on: September 13, 2015, 12:37:20 AM »
Ugh. Fuckin' Ted Cruz.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/08/ted-cruz-travels-to-kentucky-to-support-kim-davis/

Quote
"It is important to Sen. Cruz for Kim Davis to know that he supports her and will do everything in his power to ensure her situation is resolved and that no other Americans who strive to live out their faith fall victim to religious persecution by the government," Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said in a statement.

"The First Amendment - the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech and expression - is foundational to all other freedoms and Sen. Cruz is committed to defending it," the statement said.

I don't know whose worse here, Cruz or Huckabee. It blows my mind how the second someone even so much as hints that they want gun reform, copies of the constitution get pulled out of ever orifice and cited. Yet when it comes to this, the constitution appears to be completely open to interpretation. If I made a Youtube video addressed to Ted Cruz and said on camera "Ted Cruz. If I were you, I would keep a very close eye on your wife and daughters. I'm coming for them", you're telling me he wouldn't have me locked up? The hypocrisy in this case escapes me.  What about my freedom of of speech and expression? I too can argue that it is foundational to all my other freedoms.

It's less hypocrisy and just simply lack of understanding.  Or grandstanding; it is an election cycle, after all.   

I think it is being missed that at the end of the day, whether Cruz or Huckabee is right or wrong (I think, for what it's worth, wrong, and I'm disappointed in Huckabee, because he is smart and this demeans him) come November whatever, 2016, those that agree with Kim Davis will remember that. 

But look at this thread:  smart, well-informed people here have made fundamental errors in what actually happened.   Yes, I understand that if you're going to run the most powerful country on the planet that you can't make fundamental errors in what actually happened, but notwithstanding that, it's not the first time that a politician will take advantage of a vote from an under- and/or un-informed voter.   I didn't see Obama giving back those votes from people who thought we were all getting free gasoline when he was elected. 

The good thing is, Cruz has no and Huckabee little shot to be President.  Cruz is a panderer and political prostitute.

I haven't checked in here in a while, but I'm genuinely upset about the reference to the free gasoline Obama voters. Stadler, first I'm sure you're well aware Obama never promised free gas. Second, that was such a small minority who actually thought that we might as well talk about those who thought the Book of Revelation was coming true when Obama / Bush / Clinton / Bush / Reagan , etc  etc was elected.


I voted for Romney. (And McCain.) Obama is not a good president.  But he did not promise free gasoline, and all these years later, I STILL don't know why you constantly bring that up as if he did.

Offline kingshmegland

  • defender of the brew!
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 35694
  • Gender: Male
  • Take that Beethoven, you deaf bastard!!
Re: Kentucky Clerk...how far can government go?
« Reply #194 on: September 13, 2015, 05:10:30 AM »
He referring to the voters who said statements like, "now that Obama is President I won't have to pay taxes".  No joke, I saw so many interviews on TV saying crazy statements like this.
“I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'.” - Bob Newhart

So wait, we're spelling it wrong and king is spelling it right? What is going on here? :lol -- BlobVanDam

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9128
  • Gender: Male
Re: Kentucky Clerk...how far can government go?
« Reply #195 on: September 14, 2015, 08:12:19 AM »
I haven't checked in here in a while, but I'm genuinely upset about the reference to the free gasoline Obama voters. Stadler, first I'm sure you're well aware Obama never promised free gas. Second, that was such a small minority who actually thought that we might as well talk about those who thought the Book of Revelation was coming true when Obama / Bush / Clinton / Bush / Reagan , etc  etc was elected.


I voted for Romney. (And McCain.) Obama is not a good president.  But he did not promise free gasoline, and all these years later, I STILL don't know why you constantly bring that up as if he did.

Bruh, I have told this story many times:  I was living in Philly - corner of 2nd and Christian - at the time of the election, and watching the returns in my living room, with the French doors cracked open for a little air.   There was a rally going over at the Art Museum, about 20 block away, and at the moment it became "official", I could hear the "roar" from there.   Then in the hour or so after, there were multiple interviews, including from Mayor Michael Nutter ("we've been waiting 400 years for this moment!") and then from a young-ish (early 20's, maybe?) who - on air - said she was so thrilled for this day, and that she couldn't believe we were finally going to get "free gasoline".  I couldn't believe it, but it was on YouTube for a while; you might want to look.

I get that this is "one person", but we don't have any problem in assuming that all Republicans agree with Kim Davis, and while I don't think that all Democrats believed we were getting free gasoline, I do think (and it is also evidenced here) that Obama's election in 2008 went beyond just "we need more government assistance" or "I'm for national healthcare!" 

Offline TL

  • Posts: 2756
  • Gender: Male
Re: Kentucky Clerk...how far can government go?
« Reply #196 on: September 15, 2015, 01:52:24 PM »
Why is this so hard to understand for some?

I agree.  If you have a standard, then apply it properly, regardless of the violator.
This particular case involved someone attempting to impose their religious beliefs on private citizens from a position of government authority. In doing so, she was infringing on their religious freedom.
This isn't just someone not doing their job, or not agreeing with a law.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40263
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Kentucky Clerk...how far can government go?
« Reply #197 on: September 15, 2015, 02:17:42 PM »
Why is this so hard to understand for some?

I agree.  If you have a standard, then apply it properly, regardless of the violator.
This particular case involved someone attempting to impose their religious beliefs on private citizens from a position of government authority. In doing so, she was infringing on their religious freedom.
This isn't just someone not doing their job, or not agreeing with a law.
Agreed.  In this situation, she was the one violating the First Amendment.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: Kentucky Clerk...how far can government go?
« Reply #198 on: September 21, 2015, 02:13:59 PM »
Without reading all seven pages and with the little that I've read about this situation... in my personal opinion, I think that she may have handled this situation in a way that glorifies her ideals and beliefs instead of a way that upholds her ideals and beliefs.

After thinking about the situation and placing myself in her shoes, I believe that I personally would have made it know of my disapproval of the new statue and refused to attach my own name to any licenses; I would NOT have forbidden my staff and other officials in my office that have the ability to issue the licenses in their own names (if that is truly what happened).  I also would like to think that I personally would have resigned if my name was required to be attached to the license.

IMO, she's trying to make a statement... which brings glory and recognition to her situation.  In my opinion, if she wanted to simply uphold her beliefs, she would have stated that she would not be a part of something that she does not agree with and when forced to comply she would have resigned.

I applaud her for standing up for her convictions... I simply think that she has done it in a way that is glorifying her situation (selfishly) instead of in a way that glorifies those convictions.


This is an excellent post right here  :tup

Online portnoy311

  • Posts: 752
Re: Kentucky Clerk...how far can government go?
« Reply #199 on: April 14, 2016, 10:13:07 PM »
It's good that this happening.

My knee jerk is still that "without being forced to compromise their religious liberty" is a pretty bad precedent to have set. I don't think calling a person in a position of power over the public refusing to do their job at the detriment of others is standing up for "religious liberty." They should just do their job or resign.


The cynic in me finds it almost humorous "religious liberty" only means enforcing Christianity, and especially when it has an effect on others.

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 16587
  • Gender: Male
  • As above, so below
Re: Kentucky Clerk...how far can government go?
« Reply #200 on: April 14, 2016, 11:01:20 PM »
I haven't followed this story too much but I get the main idea. I see the state went and created executive orders to appease this woman. I'm probably echoing sentiments which have been already stated in the previous seven pages, so forgive me if this is redundant.

I think she's completely wrong in this situation and it's for multiple reasons. First is the fact that I don't see where in the Bible Jesus says that same sex marriage is forbidden. It's as made up a rule as not eating meat on Friday's during Lent. She's Christian, if I am not mistaken, which means she would be more akin to follow the New Testament as opposed to the Old Testament. Christians should follow Christ. I know it's idealistic but, hey, there's his name right in the title of the religion. Anyways, before I get away from myself.

She's most likely being hypocritical about this and cherry picking her morals. Would she have the same reaction if she was asked to sign the marriage certificate of a known sex offender? Or is that alright in the eyes of an upstanding Christian as herself?

Lastly, someone stated this earlier I believe. If she doesn't want to work at a job that supports gay marriage, then go work somewhere else. Why do we have to cater to every person's last whim in this country?

Thoughts?

Offline Sir GuitarCozmo

  • Official Forum Sous Chef and broler5
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13773
  • Gender: Male
  • whahibrido pickingant in action...
Re: Kentucky Clerk...how far can government go?
« Reply #201 on: April 15, 2016, 10:07:36 AM »
The cynic in me finds it almost humorous "religious liberty" only means enforcing Christianity, and especially when it has an effect on others.

It is my opinion that if Kim Davis were a Muslim, and refused to do this on the grounds of her religious liberty, the outrage over this would have been a hundred times worse.

It shouldn't be, because religion = religion.  But I feel like it would have been.

Online portnoy311

  • Posts: 752
Re: Kentucky Clerk...how far can government go?
« Reply #202 on: April 15, 2016, 10:20:57 AM »
Not to mention a lot of the same politicians who publicly threw a fit over this (Cruz, for example) are the ones calling for different treatment of Muslims. Religious liberty my ass. That phrase has been so bastardized over the past few years.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40263
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Kentucky Clerk...how far can government go?
« Reply #203 on: April 15, 2016, 11:28:22 AM »
The cynic in me finds it almost humorous "religious liberty" only means enforcing Christianity, and especially when it has an effect on others.

It is my opinion that if Kim Davis were a Muslim, and refused to do this on the grounds of her religious liberty, the outrage over this would have been a hundred times worse.

It shouldn't be, because religion = religion.  But I feel like it would have been.
Agreed.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4843
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Kentucky Clerk...how far can government go?
« Reply #204 on: April 15, 2016, 02:57:42 PM »
Maybe not the thread for this thought, but these 'Religious Freedoms' laws are the biggest crock of shit. Why are so many states and municipalities suddenly passing bills on which crapper people can and cannot use? (that's a thought for another thread, but...) "It goes against my religion" should never be an excuse for anything. You have so many goddamn freedoms in the US, go to Sandland and see how long you last with Abdul telling you what you are allowed and not allowed to do.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Online portnoy311

  • Posts: 752
Re: Kentucky Clerk...how far can government go?
« Reply #205 on: April 16, 2016, 12:05:08 AM »
It is my opinion that if Kim Davis were a Muslim, and refused to do this on the grounds of her religious liberty, the outrage over this would have been a hundred times worse.

By that you mean the villain role would have been reversed and Muslim Kim Davis would have been the victim?  Oh, I'm sure of that.

That thought comes from fantasy land.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2016, 12:14:31 AM by portnoy311 »

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2267
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Kentucky Clerk...how far can government go?
« Reply #206 on: April 19, 2016, 08:50:51 PM »
In fact, I believe (and there is a scriptural basis for this) that being involved in politics, bars one from being a Christian.   

You keep saying this, but it is not true.  I mean, the part about you saying you believe Christians should not be involved in politics is fine.  If that is how you feel, I would not try to persuade you to disregard or go against your conscience.  But to say there is a Scriptural basis for it is not correct.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24882
Re: Kentucky Clerk...how far can government go?
« Reply #207 on: April 19, 2016, 09:14:59 PM »
But it does bring up an interesting dynamic.  If somebody goes into private bakery and asks for a cake that says ... let's go with the Skid Row controversy from way back when, Raid kills fags dead, should the company just do their job and provide the customer with the requested service and product?

Yes.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9128
  • Gender: Male
Re: Kentucky Clerk...how far can government go?
« Reply #208 on: April 20, 2016, 07:24:47 AM »
I believe so.   But that isn't really the problem, is it?  When it's between two parties, the seller and the buyer?  The problem when it gets twatted all over the universe, and the Seller is shamed into behaving in a way that is not true to their beliefs.   That's where all this comes from.   The Kentucky Clerk thing is a red herring, because she forgot her context, but absent a government intervention (and the recognition that perhaps "choice" at one point in the process negates a choice later on) at the end of the day, as odious as it may be to some of us (myself included), there is no such animal as "intolerance for intolerance".   Denying someone their rights because they are a homophobe is exactly no different than denying someone their rights because they are a homosexual.

Offline jammindude

  • Posts: 7903
  • Gender: Male
    • The Jammin Dude Show
Re: Kentucky Clerk...how far can government go?
« Reply #209 on: April 20, 2016, 09:30:38 PM »
In fact, I believe (and there is a scriptural basis for this) that being involved in politics, bars one from being a Christian.   

You keep saying this, but it is not true.  I mean, the part about you saying you believe Christians should not be involved in politics is fine.  If that is how you feel, I would not try to persuade you to disregard or go against your conscience.  But to say there is a Scriptural basis for it is not correct.

Revelation shows that God's Kingdom is a heavenly government with Jesus as its King.

Jeremiah 10:23 conveys the idea that we were never meant to guide our own steps

Jesus stated that his followers should be "no part of the world" (John 15:19)

The scriptures teach that Satan is "the God of this world" (2 Cor 4:4 see also 1 John 5:19, John 12:31, Rev 12:9)

Jesus is going to bring an end to all rulership.  (1 Cor 15:24, Dan 2:44)

Apparently, these ideas put together were enough for the first century Christians...

"Early Christianity was little understood and was regarded with little favor by those who ruled the pagan world...Christians refused to share certain duties of Roman Citizen.  They would not hold political office."  - "On the Road to Civilization, A World History" - A. Heckel and J. Sigman

"Christians refused to sacrifice to the emperor's genius - roughly equivalent today to refusing to salute the flag or repeat the oath of allegiance...all a prisoner had to do was scatter a pinch of incense on the flame and he was given a Certificate of Sacrifice and turned free.  It was also carefully explained to him that he was not worshipping the emperor; merely acknowledging the divine character of the emperor as head of the Roman state.  Still, almost no Christians availed themselves of the chance to escape." - "Those About to Die" - D.P. Mannix

“The act of emperor worship consisted in sprinkling a few grains of incense or a few drops of wine on an altar which stood before an image of the emperor. Perhaps at our long remove from the situation we see in the act nothing different from . . . lifting the hand in salute to the flag or to some distinguished ruler of state, an expression of courtesy, respect, and patriotism. Possibly a good many people in the first century felt just that way about it but not so the Christians. They viewed the whole matter as one of religious worship, acknowledging the emperor as a deity and therefore being disloyal to God and Christ, and they refused to do it.”—The Beginnings of the Christian Religion - M. F. Eller

1 Cor 10:14 - Flee from idolatry
1 John 5:21 - Little children, guard yourselves from idols
 

I've cited a dozen Scriptures here.... I could go on, but I trust my point is clear.   You may not agree with my conclusions, but don't say my beliefs are not based in Scripture.   That is incorrect. 


EDIT:   I've only touched on a few highlights....so if it seems incomplete, it is.   I was only trying to make the point that what I believe *IS* based in scripture...these and many many others. 

"Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world.
Than the pride that divides when a colorful rag is unfurled." - Neil Peart

The Jammin Dude Show - http://www.youtube.com/user/jammindude