TracerBullet
New member
Well said
Kentucky clerk who refused gay couples taken into federal custody; ordered jailed
- Thread starter GFR7
- Start date
Well said
TracerBullet
New member
I don't think you are in any way honest and your every post only serves to reinforce that opinion.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
:think: where have i heard that before?
Alate_One
Well-known member
There's also the similar issue you could say to a black person "well a colored lunch counter is only a 15 minute drive away."
The point isn't that services aren't available (you could go to certain states before the ruling). The point is making them equal for all. And this situation is worse than my example because we are dealing with a government office.
You should never have to pick and choose government offices because someone thinks you shouldn't get X or Y certificate for religious reasons. That's a bad precedent since it could be applied broadly.
We live in a pluralistic society and so we have to tolerate other belief systems. I believe sex outside of marriage or between two people of the same sex is morally wrong. However I also believe we should love all people and they have a right to live in our pluralistic society as they see fit, so long as they are consenting adults.
If she is so concerned about sexual sin, why not deny deeds of single family homes to two heterosexual people who are not married?
how do you refute arguments like this?
lovemeorhateme
Well-known member
I see a good rehashing of tired old arguments here. Indeed, the term "homosexual" did not exist in biblical times as it is a modern, social construct. The whole idea of sexual orientation is a social construct, but the gay rights lobby go around peddling it as scientific fact. The Bible does however prohibit sexual relations between two people of the same sex. There is no way around it other than obfuscation and intellectual dishonesty. The Bible is crystal clear on this, and only those with an anti biblical agenda would say otherwise.
I see you're currently banned, so this response is for anyone else who read your post.
exminister
Well-known member
Consent easily discounts these.
OCTOBER23
New member
MEN SHALL BE LOVERS OF THEMSELVES............
1 ¶ This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
1 ¶ This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
No, she took her position understanding both the nature of her job and the possibility of this particular crisis. She's imposing her beliefs on others by denying them their right under the law she agreed to administer and support when she took office. No homosexual is denying any right she possesses. But no one has a right to use their personal beliefs to discriminate in contravention of the law. That applies to the odious racist or the righteous adherent. That's not what the right to religious freedom entails.
Now were she a convert to Islam and were it Christians being denied a thing the law entitled them no one here would be talking about her heroic stand.
I don't know. Many good ones to be sure. Some not so.
Sort of...what I mean is that we have some fairly immutable principles, but time has a way of underscoring where we fail them and the law has had to correct from time to time on fairly important issues, like slavery and woman's suffrage. The down side of that is found in Roe.
But the uniform thing those laws have in common are the expansion of right to previously denied individuals. Even the grotesquely mistaken Roe was that sort of attempt. Sadly, the focus of right was so narrow in Roe it failed to account for half the rights involved and the unborn were denied the most fundamental of all, the right to their own existence.
That isn't what's happening here. Whatever we think of homosexuality, granting them rights only offends moral sensibility, doesn't deny anyone the exercise of any right to which they're entitled under law.
She's denying them something they have a legal right to in contravention of the duties of her office. Couch that any way you like. No one is denying her legal rights by insisting she uphold her office. She assumed the position voluntarily. She doesn't have a legal right to violate the order she was given by the federal judge.
If she doesn't want to follow a legal order she is free to resign the office and more power to her.
Jose Fly
New member
She refused that option as well. She ordered all her staff to not issue any marriage licenses to anyone at all. And now that she's in jail, the office has been issuing licenses and she's saying they aren't valid because they don't have her signature on them.
So she's even refusing reasonable compromises that would allow her to not violate her faith while allowing the taxpayers of the county to receive the legal services her office exists to provide.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
:thumb:
Seems like those who identify themselves as Christian would work toward applying those crystal clear prohibitions to modern law.
Good to see ya Pete! :wave2:
Jose Fly
New member
Let's take a look....
"In other words, when Davis goes to the office, she should check her identity at the door."
No. Kim Davis took an oath, swearing to uphold the law. She is now refusing to do so, thereby demonstrating that she is not an honorable person.
But that is not universal, where it would allow employees to break the law in the name of their religion. So a Muslim county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to Christian couples is not protected, just like Kim Davis is not protected when she breaks the law.
That's terrible. Yates and Smith are citizens of Rowan County, who pay county taxes that fund the county clerk's office including the county clerk's salary. So what this article is saying, is they should be content to have their tax dollars fund a government agency that illegally discriminates against them?
Does anyone here think for one second that if it was a Christian couple who was being discriminated against, they and all the Christians here would just be like "Oh well....guess we'll go somewhere else"? You don't think they would raise a fuss and claim persecution? You don't think the Christian media would be all over it? You don't think there'd be a thread here holding it up as an example of how our government treats Christians? Seriously?
Unbelievable. She's refusing to allow anyone in her office to issue the licenses, and now that they are, she's arguing that they aren't valid. Yet somehow the gay couple is the one trying to force things on her?
Bizarro world.
Jose Fly
New member
Again, your extreme ignorance of our system of government is noted.
TracerBullet
New member
Yes, facts can be frustrating things can't they?
She is not ignorant! You are being very unpleasant.
Does it occur to you that A4T is interpreting the facts of this situation according to her best abilities? She is being honest and open. No need to be insulting.
No! Facts are rarely frustrating.
It is interpretation of facts that may become frustrating.