Nipate
Forum => Controversial => Topic started by: Real P on September 06, 2015, 02:03:11 PM
-
ASHLAND, Ky. — A federal judge here on Thursday ordered a Kentucky clerk jailed for contempt of court because of her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The clerk, Kim Davis of Rowan County, was ordered to jail after a hearing here before Judge David L. Bunning of the Federal District Court. The decision represented another legal defeat for Ms. Davis, who has argued that she should not be forced to issue licenses that conflict with her religious beliefs.
“The court cannot condone the willful disobedience of its lawfully issued order,” Judge Bunning said. “If you give people the opportunity to choose which orders they follow, that’s what potentially causes problems.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html (ftp://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html)
I hate to see someone go to jail for on what they believe in. She is exercising her first amendment law.
I am glad that her hometown are giving her some support.
-
I think sending her to jail was rather drastic.... why not just fire her for not doing her job? Now with a jail sentence, she may be ruined fro the long term.
-
I hate to see someone go to jail for on what they believe in. She is exercising her first amendment law.
It's hard to see how her refusal to follow the law, with respect to public position---in a country that is nominally secular and which supposedly espouses a separation of church and state---is related to her 1st Amendment rights. Why should non-Christians and others who do not share her personal religious beliefs have to deal with them when it comes to a public office?
There was a time in the USA when some people believed that the black person was not fully man; some people even claimed to have got that from the Bible and made it part of their "core" religious beliefs. Some of those people then acted on such beliefs, to the grave detriment of numerous black people. There is not so much of that sort of thing these days. The law has helped, and bot just in the USA. These days the law, where it is sensible, tends to make that rather difficult and insists that on certain things:
(a) People are free, or should be free, to believe in whatever they choose, and they must not be victimized for their choices. ("Bill of Rights" things are usually about that).
(b) Nevertheless, people must not then use their personal beliefs, religious or otherwise, to unlawfully victimize others. (Places that have "Bill of Rights" things will also have penalties for such victimization.)
The lady is in trouble because of (b), not (a). And it's hard to see this ending in any other way but tears for her.
The "what they believe in" line generally runs into problems once it is extended beyond the lone "hero/heroine" who's "bravely" fighting the "military-industrial complex" or whatever "nasty" group is at hand: Any extension would have to permit anything from individual nutjobs to ISIS.
(Historically, of course, the connection between "belief" and the "action on belief", regardless of the implications or consequences, is very much a "Christian" thing: for centuries individual "Christian" prelates and their "churches" terrorized humanity and committed numerous atrocities and crimes against humanity on the basis of "what I believe in", "what the Bible tells me", etc. These days civilized places prefer the law.
-
I think sending her to jail was rather drastic.... why not just fire her for not doing her job? Now with a jail sentence, she may be ruined fro the long term.
A judge would not have the legal power to fire her but would have have the power and obligation to ensure (or at least try to ensure) that laws are adhered to. No other options.
And if she is smart, she need not be ruined: the USA has plenty of elements who will happily donate money, offer opportunities, etc. for someone who is "heroically standing up for Christianity and against immorality". Especially in her neck of the woods. And they are real woods. But she would have to make the most of her 15 minutes.
-
Jesus clearly says in the Bible do your job. If something offends you then gauge your eye out. She should exercise her zealot right and gauge her eye out as per declared in the bible since she finds the homo couple offensive.
Nothing in the bible says you can be two-faced double standards towards the vulnerable, poor etc. condemning actions maybe a religious right, but not doing your job is another matter. Quit or gauge your eye out.
'...And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast itfrom thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.' Matthew 5:29 (KJV)
-
RP, thanks for bringing this up. This case shows why the SCOTUS should have carefully weighed the matter of gay marriage and only made a ruling on matters pertinent (e.g. equality) and not intruded into personal liberties. Those who do not subscribe to the gay agenda have been boxed into a corner and now have to act against conscience. Knowing thesocial background of the US and having accepted to intrude into matters not pertinent, SCOTUS should have then gone ahead and made provision to not perform such ceremonies if it's against your conscience. It's not like there are no alternatives for gay couples. This may up new dilemmas on how to effect the equality principle, and the question of whether courts interpret or make laws but that would solve some problems. Dissenting justices hinted on this (I think Clarence Thomas).
MoonKi's argument that Kim should not bring personal beliefs to public office is unfair. The question to MoonKi is, are individual liberties subservient to the requirements of public office? Does taking up public office require dropping first amendment rights? Can Kim Davis sue for unfair treatment and succeed in this atmosphere? From a spiritual angle, believers know a battle is going on between good and evil. In this matter, evil powers have summoned state power to deny believers like Kim Davis their individual liberties in the name of defending "public office". It is not extraordinary.
-
SCOTUS should have then gone ahead and made provision to not perform such ceremonies if it's against your conscience.
My example earlier was black and civil rights. And remember that especially in the South some of those who meted out the worst treatment to blacks claimed that they had Biblical support. When courts enacted laws against discrimination should they also have enacted laws to "satisfy" those whose "conscience" told them it was fine (and demanded by the Bible) to discriminate?
MoonKi's argument that Kim should not bring personal beliefs to public office is unfair.
That wasn't my argument; please read it again. Let me put it in two parts:
* People are free to take their personal beliefs to public office. Many do, and it's not always just religious beliefs.
* What they are not free to do is to use such personal beliefs to unlawfully infringe on others' rights.
Which part of that do you find problematic?
The question to MoonKi is, are individual liberties subservient to the requirements of public office? Does taking up public office require dropping first amendment rights?
The lady doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. If you insist otherwise, please state:
(a) What First Amendment right of hers has been violated.
(b) Exactly how that has been done.
Anyways it appears that a few days in jail have clarified her mind: as long as her office issues licenses, then all is well; nobody cares whether or not she is personally involved.
Please note the underlined word: the key issue here is one of people going to a public office to get what they are entitled to as a legal right.
-
It's not a stretch to say she would have been at the forefront against interracial marriage in the 50's, defending her Christian conscience, by equating it to bestiality. She is hideous.
-
She is no matyr and should not adopt an Adventist persecution complex.
She should rot in jail for not using her head. That's a public office. It's like a stripper seeing the light and refusing to grind because it is against her faith yet she insists on being on your paycheck. Doing what? :lolz:
In other news, there is a lesbian judge who refused to wed heteros
(https://pbs-0.twimg.com/media/COWU_QyUsAEJJq-.jpg)
But I think the story is not adding up (http://m.snopes.com/tonya-parker/)
-
It's not a stretch to say she would have been at the forefront against interracial marriage in the 50's, defending her Christian conscience ....
Well into the 1960s; and not long before that, the mere suspicion that, say, a black man might be diddling a white woman could well have got the latter a prompt lynching. It took a Supreme Court ruling in 1967 for places like this Kentucky to do away with laws against black-white marriage, and even then there remained the same funny ideas. Well into our times. This is in 2009:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/03/louisiana.interracial.marriage/index.html?iref=24hours
So it is somewhat "amusing" that Real Pokots will happily (on another thread) tell us about his "White/Latino wife" but also still manage to weep for people with unreformed thinking .... supposedly on the grounds of what they believe in and some fuzzy understanding of the US Bill of Rights.
-
It's not a stretch to say she would have been at the forefront against interracial marriage in the 50's, defending her Christian conscience, by equating it to bestiality. She is hideous.
Im sorry but that is in fact quite the stretch if not insulting to nearly every sincerely religious person on the planet. Are you honestly saying that being against gay marriage is equivalent to being against interracial marriage? So that myself, Daily Bread, (I dont know about vooke who apparently supports people being jailed for not performing an action that is against unambiguous Christian principles so I will not speak for him here) along with the vast majority of human beings ought to consider ourselves "hideous" because we think that men were made to have sex with women and not other men and that govt should not be creating institutions around the behaviour? That is hideous? Good grief.
The comparison with a stripper is way out there. The stripper takes the job knowing what it entails. This woman did not really sign up for this, plus I understand she just stopped issuing marriage licences altogether, whether hetero or gay, to avoid contravening the new law. Plus there was a judge in the county who offered to issue the licences in the mean time. Lastly, as Mya alludes to, sending her to jail was not the only option available to reprimand her for refusing to issue marriage licences with her name on the certificates (to all in the county, hetero or gay).
Was I in her position, I would change jobs. But I still don't agree with jailing her and with how very little accomodation is being given to religious believers who are sincerely opposed to personally participating in acts that clearly violate their conscience. Now the mantra is "it's a public office" but of course the same crowd rejoicing over her jailing is all for going after private business people in the wedding business for decades who simply don't want to cater to gay weddings. It doesn't matter if it is a public office or private one, that is a ruse.
-
It's not a stretch to say she would have been at the forefront against interracial marriage in the 50's, defending her Christian conscience, by equating it to bestiality. She is hideous.
Im sorry but that is in fact quite the stretch if not insulting to nearly every sincerely religious person on the planet. Are you honestly saying that being against gay marriage is equivalent to being against interracial marriage? So that myself, Daily Bread, (I dont know about vooke who apparently supports people being jailed for not performing an action that is against unambiguous Christian principles so I will not speak for him here) along with the vast majority of human beings ought to consider ourselves "hideous" because we think that men were made to have sex with women and not other men and that govt should not be creating institutions around the behaviour? That is hideous? Good grief.
The comparison with a stripper is way out there. The stripper takes the job knowing what it entails. This woman did not really sign up for this, plus I understand she just stopped issuing marriage licences altogether, whether hetero or gay, to avoid contravening the new law. Plus there was a judge in the county who offered to issue the licences in the mean time. Lastly, as Mya alludes to, sending her to jail was not the only option available to reprimand her for refusing to issue marriage licences with her name on the certificates (to all in the county, hetero or gay).
Was I in her position, I would change jobs. But I still don't agree with jailing her and with how very little accomodation is being given to religious believers who are sincerely opposed to personally participating in acts that clearly violate their conscience. Now the mantra is "it's a public office" but of course the same crowd rejoicing over her jailing is all for going after private business people in the wedding business for decades who simply don't want to cater to gay weddings. It doesn't matter if it is a public office or private one, that is a ruse.
Kim Davis is hideous because she is willing to refuse to perform a service out of prejudice. Not because of her religious beliefs. Or conscience.
When she signed up, she knew Kentucky is not a theocracy. At least she should have known that. She should not be able to refuse to perform a service she is getting paid to perform and get away with it.
You don't want a situation where a Muslim can refuse to serve a couple because his conscience tells him a Muslim should not marry a Catholic.
-
Terminator, How do you distinguish someone who refuses to perform a service out of prejudice and someone who refuses to do so out of her conscience formed by her religious beliefs? Or if you let your behaviour be guided by your beliefs on right or wrong that is prejudice and hideous? I'm just trying to understand why you discount the notion that a person could actually refuse to do something simply because his religion tells him it's an evil thing. Why us it assumed that it just gas to be "hate" or prejudice. That in itself seems like a brand of prejudice and intolerance to me. The idea that nobody can sincerely act on his religious beliefs in the gay issue.
Religious accomodation to conscientious objectors is part of American legal system. It is crazy to equate that to an alleged theocracy as if public servants lose their own personal rights as human beings simply by virtue of working in public service. In this case, there were other options besides jailing her. If a Muslim had to do something against his religion that he did not forsee when he took office, he could be moved elsewhere and someone else take his place. I can't imagine jailing him because he won't do something that he did not sign up to do when he assumed the job if the thing violates his religion. That is tyranny.
-
Lastly, as Mya alludes to, sending her to jail was not the only option available to reprimand her for refusing to issue marriage licences with her name on the certificates (to all in the county, hetero or gay).
There was a court order in place. She refused to obey it. In such cases, jail for contempt of court is standard practice. What other options do you have in mind for the judge?
Sending her to jail for contempt had the desired effect, as is always the intent of such jailing: As soon as the person sees the light, he or she is free to go, which is what has happened in that case.
Was I in her position, I would change jobs. But I still don't agree with jailing her and with how very little accomodation is being given to religious believers who are sincerely opposed to personally participating in acts that clearly violate their conscience. Now the mantra is "it's a public office" but of course the same crowd rejoicing over her jailing is all for going after private business people in the wedding business for decades who simply don't want to cater to gay weddings. It doesn't matter if it is a public office or private one, that is a ruse.
There is no ruse given the clear differences.
First, being able to get married (or register a marriage) in a public office is a legal right. That cannot be said of a private arrangement.
Second that is a very important right, which is why it is in the law. Registering a marriage in public office makes numerous practical differences, which is why even people who have private arrangements (in church or wherever) will still get that official piece of paper and why gays have been fighting for it.
Third, the word "office" is quite important. If it was just a matter of being "opposed to personally participating in acts that clearly violate their conscience", then she could have let the deputy clerks do the job. Right now those deputies are doing that, and a condition of her release is she not interfere with them. Nobody is insisting that she personally issue the marriage licenses, so I don't see how it can be said that there is "very little accomodation is being given to religious believers".
-
Terminator, How do you distinguish someone who refuses to perform a service out of prejudice and someone who refuses to do so out of her conscience formed by her religious beliefs? Or if you let your behaviour be guided by your beliefs on right or wrong that is prejudice and hideous? I'm just trying to understand why you discount the notion that a person could actually refuse to do something simply because his religion tells him it's an evil thing. Why us it assumed that it just gas to be "hate" or prejudice. That in itself seems like a brand of prejudice and intolerance to me. The idea that nobody can sincerely act on his religious beliefs in the gay issue.
Religious accomodation to conscientious objectors is part of American legal system. It is crazy to equate that to an alleged theocracy as if public servants lose their own personal rights as human beings simply by virtue of working in public service. In this case, there were other options besides jailing her. If a Muslim had to do something against his religion that he did not forsee when he took office, he could be moved elsewhere and someone else take his place. I can't imagine jailing him because he won't do something that he did not sign up to do when he assumed the job if the thing violates his religion. That is tyranny.
Bella,
I have no doubt she did what she did out of her religious beliefs. There might even be no ill will in her actions. Discriminatory actions can be based entirely on a clean conscience. I am sure you can come up with examples of that.
I don't think her prejudices should be accommodated. Much the same way I want no part of the beliefs of a racist being accommodated while I continue to pay him. While she may find ways to avoid providing those particular services, maybe by dashing off to lunch or the bathroom, it should not be accommodated any other way.
-
It's not prejudice but descrimination. Descrimination against customers and clients particularly in a public office carry penalties and jail time.
Her position as a clerk doesn't entitle her to decide whom she gets to deliver the post to or not. The only option she has is to quit her job without causing further descriminatory assault and negligence.
Christians who use religion to justify their callous actions are not christians. WWJD ? If Jesus was with us today he'd probably preach peace and tolerance. I can't ever recall Jesus belittling people for their sexuality preference.
-
Re-reading articles such as these, and the numerous examples given, I'd be interested to know of views about "respecting religious beliefs":
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/26/3333161/religious-liberty-racist-anti-gay/
http://wakeforestlawreview.com/2012/04/a-unique-religious-exemption-from-antidiscrimination-laws-in-the-case-of-gays-putting-the-call-for-exemptions-for-those-who-discriminate-against-married-or-marrying-gays-in-context/
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
— Judge Leon M. Bazile, January 6, 1959
Senator Bilbo: “plurity of race is a gift of God . . . . And God, in his infinite wisdom, has so ordained it that when man destroys his racial purity, it can never be redeemed.”
Allowing “the blood of the races to mix,” according to Bilbo, was a direct attack on the “Divine plan of God.” There “is every reason to believe that miscengenation and amalgamation are sins of man in direct defiance to the will of God.”
-
Terminator, How do you distinguish someone who refuses to perform a service out of prejudice and someone who refuses to do so out of her conscience formed by her religious beliefs? Or if you let your behaviour be guided by your beliefs on right or wrong that is prejudice and hideous? I'm just trying to understand why you discount the notion that a person could actually refuse to do something simply because his religion tells him it's an evil thing. Why us it assumed that it just gas to be "hate" or prejudice. That in itself seems like a brand of prejudice and intolerance to me. The idea that nobody can sincerely act on his religious beliefs in the gay issue.
Religious accomodation to conscientious objectors is part of American legal system. It is crazy to equate that to an alleged theocracy as if public servants lose their own personal rights as human beings simply by virtue of working in public service. In this case, there were other options besides jailing her. If a Muslim had to do something against his religion that he did not forsee when he took office, he could be moved elsewhere and someone else take his place. I can't imagine jailing him because he won't do something that he did not sign up to do when he assumed the job if the thing violates his religion. That is tyranny.
Bella,
I have no doubt she did what she did out of her religious beliefs. There might even be no ill will in her actions. Discriminatory actions can be based entirely on a clean conscience. I am sure you can come up with examples of that.
I don't think her prejudices should be accommodated. Much the same way I want no part of the beliefs of a racist being accommodated while I continue to pay him. While she may find ways to avoid providing those particular services, maybe by dashing off to lunch or the bathroom, it should not be accommodated any other way.
Just a bit earlier you said she acted out of prejudice and NOT out of her religious beliefs or conscience, pure or otherwise. For that reason she was deemed hideous. Just putting that out there for anyone reading. In other words, theres no principle at play here, you were simply insulting religious people.
-
Terminator, How do you distinguish someone who refuses to perform a service out of prejudice and someone who refuses to do so out of her conscience formed by her religious beliefs? Or if you let your behaviour be guided by your beliefs on right or wrong that is prejudice and hideous? I'm just trying to understand why you discount the notion that a person could actually refuse to do something simply because his religion tells him it's an evil thing. Why us it assumed that it just gas to be "hate" or prejudice. That in itself seems like a brand of prejudice and intolerance to me. The idea that nobody can sincerely act on his religious beliefs in the gay issue.
Religious accomodation to conscientious objectors is part of American legal system. It is crazy to equate that to an alleged theocracy as if public servants lose their own personal rights as human beings simply by virtue of working in public service. In this case, there were other options besides jailing her. If a Muslim had to do something against his religion that he did not forsee when he took office, he could be moved elsewhere and someone else take his place. I can't imagine jailing him because he won't do something that he did not sign up to do when he assumed the job if the thing violates his religion. That is tyranny.
Bella,
I have no doubt she did what she did out of her religious beliefs. There might even be no ill will in her actions. Discriminatory actions can be based entirely on a clean conscience. I am sure you can come up with examples of that.
I don't think her prejudices should be accommodated. Much the same way I want no part of the beliefs of a racist being accommodated while I continue to pay him. While she may find ways to avoid providing those particular services, maybe by dashing off to lunch or the bathroom, it should not be accommodated any other way.
Just a bit earlier you said she acted out of prejudice and NOT out of her religious beliefs or conscience, pure or otherwise. For that reason she was deemed hideous. Just putting that out there for anyone reading. In other words, theres no principle at play here, you were simply insulting religious people.
Bella,
Yes, I did say she acted out of prejudice. And religious beliefs can lead to prejudice. It is the actions on her prejudice that I am calling hideous. Not her religious beliefs. I am not trying to cover up what I said. I have no need to insult religious people.
-
Re-reading articles such as these, and the numerous examples given, I'd be interested to know of views about "respecting religious beliefs":
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/26/3333161/religious-liberty-racist-anti-gay/ (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/26/3333161/religious-liberty-racist-anti-gay/)
http://wakeforestlawreview.com/2012/04/a-unique-religious-exemption-from-antidiscrimination-laws-in-the-case-of-gays-putting-the-call-for-exemptions-for-those-who-discriminate-against-married-or-marrying-gays-in-context/ (http://wakeforestlawreview.com/2012/04/a-unique-religious-exemption-from-antidiscrimination-laws-in-the-case-of-gays-putting-the-call-for-exemptions-for-those-who-discriminate-against-married-or-marrying-gays-in-context/)
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
— Judge Leon M. Bazile, January 6, 1959
Senator Bilbo: “plurity of race is a gift of God . . . . And God, in his infinite wisdom, has so ordained it that when man destroys his racial purity, it can never be redeemed.”
Allowing “the blood of the races to mix,” according to Bilbo, was a direct attack on the “Divine plan of God.” There “is every reason to believe that miscengenation and amalgamation are sins of man in direct defiance to the will of God.”
We tend to look down on the intelligence of the people from the colonial period in the new world. But the guy who came up with separation of state and church, in a country that was at the time more or less 100% Christian, had some pretty serious foresight.
-
We tend to look down on the intelligence of the people from the colonial period in the new world. But the guy who came up with separation of state and church, in a country that was at the time more or less 100% Christian, had some pretty serious foresight.
A quick look at European history and the nasty excesses that took place when religion and state power overlapped would have been more than enough evidence of the need for change.
The origin of that foresight was Christ himself: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's".
One of the "amusing things" in this case is that this lady some people are complaining in terms of her "rights"---1st Amendment rights and whatever---while forgetting that those rights are set in place and guaranteed by the state, which has now extended such rights to others. They would like to choose which rights should apply, when, and to whom; they believe that the exercise of what they claim are their rights.
Even more incredible here is a "little" matter that this lady's supporters overlook and which the judge had serious problems with: she apparently considered that her office is a mini-theocracy, with herself as some sort of pope, and that her "conscience" and "religious beliefs" extend to all who serve under her. From the judge's order releasing her:
On September 3, 2015, the Court held Defendant Kim Davis in contempt and jailed her for her refusal to issue marriage licenses, directly or through her deputy clerks, in accordance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges and this Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order of August 12, 2015.
After remanding Defendant Davis to the custody of the U.S. Marshal, five of her six deputy clerks stated under oath that they would comply with the Court’s Order and issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples.
This is about the public office, not the lady:
On September 8, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Status Report at the Court’s behest. According to the Report, Plaintiffs have obtained marriage licenses from the Rowan County Clerk’s Office. The Court is therefore satisfied that the Rowan County Clerk’s Office is fulfilling its obligation to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples, consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Obergefell and this Court’s August 12, 2015 Order. For these reasons, the Court’s prior contempt sanction against Defendant Davis is hereby lifted.
And all she has to do is not impose her beliefs on others; otherwise it's back to jail:
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendant Davis shall be released from the custody of the U.S. Marshal forthwith. Defendant Davis shall not interfere in any way, directly or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples. If Defendant Davis should interfere in any way with their issuance, that will be considered a violation of this Order and appropriate sanctions will be considered.
But wait! Now that her supporters are running out of wet gunpowder, they are instead calling for her to fire the deputies who have been issuing licenses! So much for "her conscience" and "her religious beliefs" and personal whatever ..... if it really had anything to do with those to start with.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/09/us-usa-gaymarriage-kentucky-idUSKCN0R91RC20150909
-
RP, thanks for bringing this up. This case shows why the SCOTUS should have carefully weighed the matter of gay marriage and only made a ruling on matters pertinent (e.g. equality) and not intruded into personal liberties. Those who do not subscribe to the gay agenda have been boxed into a corner and now have to act against conscience. Knowing thesocial background of the US and having accepted to intrude into matters not pertinent, SCOTUS should have then gone ahead and made provision to not perform such ceremonies if it's against your conscience. It's not like there are no alternatives for gay couples. This may up new dilemmas on how to effect the equality principle, and the question of whether courts interpret or make laws but that would solve some problems. Dissenting justices hinted on this (I think Clarence Thomas).
MoonKi's argument that Kim should not bring personal beliefs to public office is unfair. The question to MoonKi is, are individual liberties subservient to the requirements of public office? Does taking up public office require dropping first amendment rights? Can Kim Davis sue for unfair treatment and succeed in this atmosphere? From a spiritual angle, believers know a battle is going on between good and evil. In this matter, evil powers have summoned state power to deny believers like Kim Davis their individual liberties in the name of defending "public office". It is not extraordinary.
Thanks Daily Bread.
-
SCOTUS should have then gone ahead and made provision to not perform such ceremonies if it's against your conscience.
My example earlier was black and civil rights. And remember that especially in the South some of those who meted out the worst treatment to blacks claimed that they had Biblical support. When courts enacted laws against discrimination should they also have enacted laws to "satisfy" those whose "conscience" told them it was fine (and demanded by the Bible) to discriminate?
MoonKi's argument that Kim should not bring personal beliefs to public office is unfair.
That wasn't my argument; please read it again. Let me put it in two parts:
* People are free to take their personal beliefs to public office. Many do, and it's not always just religious beliefs.
* What they are not free to do is to use such personal beliefs to unlawfully infringe on others' rights.
Which part of that do you find problematic?
The question to MoonKi is, are individual liberties subservient to the requirements of public office? Does taking up public office require dropping first amendment rights?
The lady doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. If you insist otherwise, please state:
(a) What First Amendment right of hers has been violated.
(b) Exactly how that has been done.
Anyways it appears that a few days in jail have clarified her mind: as long as her office issues licenses, then all is well; nobody cares whether or not she is personally involved.
Please note the underlined word: the key issue here is one of people going to a public office to get what they are entitled to as a legal right.
Breh, arap Kiprotich (MOON Ki). I am going straight to your jugular.
Comparing Black civil rights to gay rights is like comparing apples to oranges. Or what the Canadian French say comparer des pommes avec des oranges form. African Americans take strong exception to this comparison. You are probably one of the few black folks who think “Gay is the New Black.” Have you ever thought of the public lynchings of blacks. Blacks hosed down with fire hoses. Attacked by police dogs. Families having to spend the night sleeping on the streets because the hotels wouldn’t serve them. Water fountains marked “No coloreds” excetera excetera.
I think your comparison of Blacks to gays is preposterous or laughable. Did you know that the financial situation of the average gay or lesbian in America today is far better than the average situation of an African American during the days of segregation (or even today, for that matter). Kiprotich, there is a big difference between being able to enjoy a civil union with the same sex partner of your choice and not being able to drink out of a water fountain, eat at a lunch counter, or use a rest room because you don’t have the right skin color.
Breh, smart folks have their limits.
-
Comparing Black civil rights to gay rights is like comparing apples to oranges.
...
<additional blah blah blah deleted>
Once again, you have missed the point. Quite badly too.
I was not comparing "black civil rights" to "gay rights", except in the secondary sense that all "rights" are about equality. The similarity that I noted, and which is rather obvious, is in the use of religion as a tool to justify unlawful discrimination. It appears that you did not notice that my comments were intended to be specific to some things that were said about inter-racial marriages and some things which are now being said about gay marriages.
Religion was for many years used to justify laws against inter-racial marriage, and when those laws were finally chucked out by the Supreme Court, the reaction was not very different from what we have today. And what do we have today? Our Pokot brother happily announcing in public that he is diddling what he refers to as a "white/latino". Smack in the middle of America, where thet sais both Law and God would never permit that! Surely, the 21st is a great place .... mostly. Back then they would have said a lot of nasty stuff and then lynched him. And they have would held bibles aloft while they did it---"conscience", "religious rights", and "this is what God demands", blah blah blah.
Just in case that wasn't clear, here it is again: an observation to the effect that something (religion here) is used in similar (or even the same) ways in both X and Y is not the same as equating X and Y. Logic 101. Or maybe you have some understanding of elementary mathematics, in which case I would put it thus:
f(X)= f(Y)
is not necessarily equivalent to
X = Y
(In fact, "off the top of my head", I'd say it generally doesn't hold for non-trivial functions.)
The other point I was trying to comment on was your opening statement that
She is exercising her first amendment law.
(I take it that you meant "right" rather than "law", but Nipate is Nipate.) I have read and heard endless comments to that end. The lady actually did file all sorts of paperwork, claiming all sorts of rights (not laws) to behave as she did. Judge Bunning carefully went through all that---"right by right", as it were---and explained why none of it would fly. I have yet to see or hear of any of her supporters go through that decision and point out why (and where) the judge was wrong.
The legal paperwork that has been filed in this case---by the plaintiffs, by the lady, and including the judge's decisions---are now public. (The exception would be for the Supreme Court, which simply tossed out the lady's request without even "a single word".) I encourage people to go through it before they get too excited about laws, or rights, or whatever it is they think it is.
-
MK has made it pretty clear. f(x) = f(y) is not the same as x = y.
Let me expound on that for the literary types:
rights (civil) = rights (gay) is not the same as civil = gay
Henry Thoreau in Civil Disobedience quote "That government is best which governs least" civil disobedience is a necessary precursor for change. His writings are the reason why protests are systematically written into law today, numerous Bills have been passed to recognise the universal right to protest.
There are avenues Christians can take to voice their concerns- just like gays and blacks have done for decades. There are sufficient systematic checks put in place today for social activism. Like registering for a social mobilisation event.
Merely abstaining from doing your job without worker's union, checks and balances, approvals if you may from provisions set aside to cater for just that is illegal. Depending on the nature of the work you do, it can carry penalties to jail time.
Imagine if that lady was gay and black like that judge. It wouldn't have made the news and she would've been fired from her job. Christians perhaps think they are the status quo and are oblivious to the law. How does it feel like to be on the outside ? It's time to wear that thorny crown.
There's the right way to protest, and the wrong way to protest. What she did by today's standard, given the amount of liberties and provisions set aside for activism, is criminal, it's malicious and vindictive, most normal people just quit their job, what she did was no different to the hate crimes perpetrated towards the blacks back in the day.
I emphasise again, normal people don't sabotage other people's happy unions because of their personal belief system. If she can't do her job, then she should've told her boss so the boss can allocate that work to someone else. Simple as that. You don't go psycho and judge people. Characteristically she comes off as an entitled NAZI and should go see a therapist. In my opinion she's a menace to society and should be locked up.
-
SCOTUS should have then gone ahead and made provision to not perform such ceremonies if it's against your conscience.
My example earlier was black and civil rights. And remember that especially in the South some of those who meted out the worst treatment to blacks claimed that they had Biblical support. When courts enacted laws against discrimination should they also have enacted laws to "satisfy" those whose "conscience" told them it was fine (and demanded by the Bible) to discriminate?
MoonKi's argument that Kim should not bring personal beliefs to public office is unfair.
That wasn't my argument; please read it again. Let me put it in two parts:
* People are free to take their personal beliefs to public office. Many do, and it's not always just religious beliefs.
* What they are not free to do is to use such personal beliefs to unlawfully infringe on others' rights.
Which part of that do you find problematic?
The question to MoonKi is, are individual liberties subservient to the requirements of public office? Does taking up public office require dropping first amendment rights?
The lady doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. If you insist otherwise, please state:
(a) What First Amendment right of hers has been violated.
(b) Exactly how that has been done.
Anyways it appears that a few days in jail have clarified her mind: as long as her office issues licenses, then all is well; nobody cares whether or not she is personally involved.
Please note the underlined word: the key issue here is one of people going to a public office to get what they are entitled to as a legal right.
Breh, arap Kiprotich (MOON Ki). I am going straight to your jugular.
Comparing Black civil rights to gay rights is like comparing apples to oranges. Or what the Canadian French say comparer des pommes avec des oranges form. African Americans take strong exception to this comparison. You are probably one of the few black folks who think “Gay is the New Black.” Have you ever thought of the public lynchings of blacks. Blacks hosed down with fire hoses. Attacked by police dogs. Families having to spend the night sleeping on the streets because the hotels wouldn’t serve them. Water fountains marked “No coloreds” excetera excetera.
I think your comparison of Blacks to gays is preposterous or laughable. Did you know that the financial situation of the average gay or lesbian in America today is far better than the average situation of an African American during the days of segregation (or even today, for that matter). Kiprotich, there is a big difference between being able to enjoy a civil union with the same sex partner of your choice and not being able to drink out of a water fountain, eat at a lunch counter, or use a rest room because you don’t have the right skin color.
Breh, smart folks have their limits.
RP, dont know why you're going for my jugular as I mostly agree with you..... The comparison between a physical trait you cannot hide and that you cannot dissociate from in any way and how people prefer to have sex is preposterous in the extreme. But no one should be killing hurting or otherwise going after either of those groups of course. I think everyone agrees on that. With this woman, the issue for me is really how much people are allowed to refuse personal participation in activities they believe celebrate sin. For her, being in a public office complicates things but jailing her was not the only option here for the judge. But like I said before, the same crowd orgasming over seeing a Christian go to jail for refusing to support the agenda in public office totally support the same kind of attacks on private business people running their businesses for years because they simply won't be part of gay weddings. So forgive me if I don't take seriously the "public office" pretense; What they really want is for the whole world to pretend that they believe gay sex is normal.
-
The comparison between a physical trait you cannot hide and that you cannot dissociate from in any way and how people prefer to have sex is preposterous in the extreme.
The comparison was not about that; it was about the manner in which religion has been used. I can see that some people---the "religious" types---might find it "helpful" to avoid dealing with the issue of how religion has been and is used to victimize people, but there it is.
For her, being in a public office complicates things but jailing her was not the only option here for the judge.
If you are aware of other options that he had but did not consider, let's "hear" them.
So forgive me if I don't take seriously the "public office" pretense.
The judge carefully explained the matter in his decision. What would be helpful would be for you to point out the flaws in his reasoning. Simply calling it a "pretense" won't do, especially when higher courts appear to support him.
What they really want is for the whole world to pretend that they believe gay sex is normal.
As far as I can tell, what the courts really want is for people to follow the law.
-
I was not talking to you Moonki, get some reading glasses please. Neither was I referring to the judge with the pretense comment, it's pretty obvious I am referring to those orgasming over the woman's jailing using the public office argument when they will turn around and forget this argument the very moment it becomes a baker, photographer or florist being fined for refusing to cater for a gay wedding. I have zero interest in those non-arguments about what religion has been used to do, when I know religion was used far more to fight those very segregations you mention on behalf of the victims, just as atheism has been used in the past to wreak havoc, so give me a break if i dont simply swallow your favourite regurgitations as gospel. That ideas have been used to harm society in the past is saying absolutely nothing about this issue, but nice attempt at a side-track. Just an excuse to repeat the same "Christianity is evil" nonsense I've grown accustomed to seeing from you. A judge offered to issue those licences so that they wouldn't have to have Davis' name/ signature, which was really her objectiob, not that rhey were going to be issued at all. That combined with fines would have sufficed both to accommodate her conscientious objections at least until her local legislative body met and to give the citizens of her county the licences they required immediately.
-
RP, dont know why you're going for my jugular as I mostly agree with you..... The comparison between a physical trait you cannot hide and that you cannot dissociate from in any way and how people prefer to have sex is preposterous in the extreme. But no one should be killing hurting or otherwise going after either of those groups of course. I think everyone agrees on that. With this woman, the issue for me is really how much people are allowed to refuse personal participation in activities they believe celebrate sin. For her, being in a public office complicates things but jailing her was not the only option here for the judge. But like I said before, the same crowd orgasming over seeing a Christian go to jail for refusing to support the agenda in public office totally support the same kind of attacks on private business people running their businesses for years because they simply won't be part of gay weddings. So forgive me if I don't take seriously the "public office" pretense; What they really want is for the whole world to pretend that they believe gay sex is normal.
Bella,
I didn't think RP he "went after your jugular" but rather MOON Ki's. Something I think MOON Ki clarified effectively.
But I am responding mainly to say that I do not hate religious people, Christians or Catholics merely for their religious beliefs. I find that the overall impact of Christianity has been good, both in the US and Africa. Islam I judge at best to have mixed results, but generally not a positive view. I think Christianity as practiced today is for the better, as far as I can tell. I think you mistake my disagreement with their underlying beliefs to be disagreement with Christian ideals. That's not the case.
If I feel satisfied that she should go to jail, it is because I think she was breaking a good law.
-
Terminator, you may not hate Christians but Moonki certainly does. I believe the right thing to do would be to resign like st Thomas Moore resigned when he had to choose between recognizing the acts of his King (Henry VIII) and his conscience. But she is not Catholic so may see things differently. Still, jail? That strikes me as very harsh.
-
Terminator, you may not hate Christians but Moonki certainly does. I believe the right thing to do would be to resign like st Thomas Moore resigned when he had to choose between recognizing the acts of his King (Henry VIII) and his conscience. But she is not Catholic so may see things differently. Still, jail? That strikes me as very harsh.
MOON Ki is a Christian from the little I have gathered. I think he hates how it can be used to perpetrate something unfair; I know you don't see it as unfair to gays; but my point is to explain his beef with Christianity. As a minority, I like to think I have learned to be a little more sensitive to issues that I may otherwise easily choose to ignore.
-
Moonki certainly calls himself a Christian sure. I agree with that absolutely. I also think as a minority just as you are trying to understand the gays, you should also try to understand the minority believing religious who truly believe doing such things contradicts their faith. Don't just assume they are being disingenuous, people generally don't stick their neck outs for something unless it cuts deep. Most Christians who go by the name will be just fine with the new state of affairs because they agree, but a minority truly will be violating their deeply held beliefs. A just society accommodates both, it doesn't just substitute the rights of one minority for another. Gays can get married and have all thatthe laws give them, but this shouldnt necessarily mean the very few Christians or Muslims or Jews who will not take part in that should now be targeted for punishment. A fairer balance should be met here. Fair not just for gays but for religious too.
-
Oops! RealP, apologies for my first post to you. For some reason I quickly read "Breh, Moonki" as Bella and Moonki and thought you were talking to us both. I would not have posted otherwise.
-
That ideas have been used to harm society in the past is saying absolutely nothing about this issue.
The lady made her cause around religion, and her supporters have jumped onto that bandwagon, to the extent of trying to turn a few days in "remand" into a Daniel-in-the-lion's-den story. So religion is very much at the heart of it. If people don't like the pointers about religion, then we should all stick to the simple matter of what the law says, which is what the judge tried to enforce.
A judge offered to issue those licences so that they wouldn't have to have Davis' name/ signature, which was really her objectiob, not that rhey were going to be issued at all. That combined with fines would have sufficed both to accommodate her conscientious objections at least until her local legislative body met and to give the citizens of her county the licences they required immediately.
Once again, I would actually urge you actually read Judge Bunning's decision and consider all the matters that he went into. He considered the matter of this other judge issuing the licenses, the plaintiffs going elsewhere for their marriage licenses etc. (Basically the judge in question would have exceeded his authority: the relevant law allows him to issues licenses when the county clerk is unable to do so, not when he/she is unwilling to do so.) Elsewhere, Bunning also explained why he skipped the issue of fines.
The other thing Bunning pointed out is that Davis misunderstands her role. She repeatedly claimed that her name appearing on anything would indicate that she approves of the marriage. As the judge pointed out, she does not get to "approve" anything: the job of that office is actually to merely check that certain information on the relevant form are accurate.
The idea that some legislative body is going to meet in order to tinker with things so as to help someone break the law is a non-starter and a bizarre one at that. Here is what the governor of that state had to say a few months ago:
Dear Kentucky County Clerks:
Today, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision regarding the constitutionality of states' bans on same-sex marriage. The Court struck down those laws, finding that they were invalid under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
As elected officials, each of us has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Kentucky. The Obergefell decision makes plain that the Constitution requires that Kentucky -- and all states -- must license and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples. Neither your oath nor the Supreme Court dictates what you must believe. But as elected officials, they do prescribe how we must act.
Effective today, Kentucky will recognize as valid all same sex marriages performed in other states and in Kentucky. In accordance with my instruction, all executive branch agencies are already working to make any operational changes that will be necessary to implement the Supreme Court decision. Now that same-sex couples are entitled to the issuance of a marriage license, the Department of Libraries and Archives will be sending a gender-neutral form to you today, along with instructions for its use.
and
“When you voluntarily decide to run for office, and you win, and you raise your hand and you take the oath to uphold the Constitutions of the United States… that oath doesn’t say ‘I will uphold the parts of the Constitution that I agree with and won’t with the parts I don’t agree with.'”
“You can continue to have your own personal beliefs but, you’re also taking an oath to fulfill the duties prescribed by law, and if you are at that point to where your personal convictions tell you that you simply cannot fulfill your duties that you were elected to do, than obviously an honorable course to take is to resign and let someone else step-in who feels that they can fulfill those duties.”
You also state that:
Just an excuse to repeat the same "Christianity is evil" nonsense I've grown accustomed to seeing from you.
...
Terminator, you may not hate Christians but Moonki certainly does.
I don't believe Christianity is evil, nor do I hate Christians. But I feel strongly about is the use of "Christianity" in ways that are harmful. As an example, I have not made up the history of the "Catholic Church", which involved the "church" and popes leading the way in committing numerous crimes against humanity, mostly in the name of God.
Also: I consider myself a Christian in so far as I try to live my life according to what I see as the essence of Christ's teachings. (I just don't go for everything that has been done or is done in the name of "Christianity.)
-
but this shouldnt necessarily mean the very few Christians or Muslims or Jews who will not take part in that should now be targeted for punishment. A fairer balance should be met here. Fair not just for gays but for religious too.
The lady has been out of jail since she agreed to stop interfering with her deputy clerks issuing licenses. That was a key point that her supporters wish to overlook. As long as her office issues licenses, she does not have to get personally involved and also gets to stay out of jail. What "fairer balance" do people want? I think the judge has been very accommodating.
-
But I am responding mainly to say that I do not hate religious people, Christians or Catholics merely for their religious beliefs. I find that the overall impact of Christianity has been good, both in the US and Africa. Islam I judge at best to have mixed results, but generally not a positive view.
Most religions probably do more harm that good: man/woman is generally a dangerous animal who should not be left to his/her own devices, and both law and religion---"jail for years" or "burn in eternal flames"---appear to be have good taming effects.
Nevertheless, those who have carefully looked at the history of what happens when state power coincides with religious power have come to the conclusion that it is better to separate the two. That needs to be understood and respected.
-
Moonki, The county legislature's meeting would allow others besides the county clerk herself to issue the licences validly without the clerk's name necessaroly on the certificates. That you think this the same as helping people disobey the law only shows the kind of dictatorship you relish to see inflicted on those Christians who see gay marriage as wrong. And i would have to be a fool to believe anything you say about history, my foot. You know less than 10% and thats being truly generous, bits selectively chosen to paint as totally evil the object of your contempt. You've proven that very well, on this very board. What you know are talking points regurgitated from some anti Christian manifesto, calling it history is truly insulting. A bit like referring to 9-11 to paint Islam as terrorist in its entirety and then calling this "history".
-
The county legislature's meeting would allow others besides the county clerk herself to issue the licences validly without the clerk's name necessaroly on the certificates.
The deputy clerks in that office are already issuing certificates.
And i would have to be a fool to believe anything you say about history, my foot.
Oh, you don't have to believe it; in fact, you being a "true believer", I'd be surprised if you did. But the history of the Catholic Church is widely available, and I leave it people to find and read it for themselves.
You know less than 10% ...
I won't argue about that; you could well be right. I am simply noting some historical facts, and I haven't stopped to consider whether they make up 0.00000001% or 101%.
What you know are talking points regurgitated from some anti Christian manifesto.
No, no; that won't do. We have some fairly accurate historical texts. In fact, I note that your earlier comments about the worst of the worst of the popes was not to deny anything; instead you wanted to argue that they were some sort of "exception".
-
And i would have to be a fool to believe anything you say about history, my foot.
Oh, you don't have to believe it; in fact, you being a "true believer", I'd be surprised if you did. But the history of the Catholic Church is widely available, and I leave it people to find and read it for themselves.
You know less than 10% ...
I won't argue about that; you could well be right. I am simply noting some historical facts, and I haven't stopped to consider whether they make up 0.00000001% or 101%.
of course you didn't consider whether you were looking at the whole truth, for that you would have to be fundamentally fair and not driven by animus. And of course I did not and will not deny here what some Christians, popes or bishops or laymen did that were bad, any more than I think a Muslim would deny 9-11. When you care about truth it is not hard to admit it. It's when you have an agenda such as painting the group you hate as evil as a whole, that you suddenly manage to miss large chunks of history if they don't fit the beloved narrative. Demonizers always use truth, they just make sure to skew it by totally ignoring the rest of it.
-
But I am responding mainly to say that I do not hate religious people, Christians or Catholics merely for their religious beliefs. I find that the overall impact of Christianity has been good, both in the US and Africa. Islam I judge at best to have mixed results, but generally not a positive view.
Most religions probably do more harm that good: man/woman is generally a dangerous animal who should not be left to his/her own devices, and both law and religion---"jail for years" or "burn in eternal flames"---appear to be have good taming effects.
Nevertheless, those who have carefully looked at the history of what happens when state power coincides with religious power have come to the conclusion that it is better to separate the two. That needs to be understood and respected.
That should read:
Most religions probably do more good than harm.
"Islam" is probably no different. They are (relatively) late starters and are only now getting into what "Christianity" already covered and moved on.
-
How To Extend 15 Minutes To 16 (OR How To Establish A Mini Theocracy At Work):
The original claim by the lady and her supporters was that this was all about "conscience" and "personal religious beliefs". All they wanted was "accommodation", a "fairer balance", "respect for religious whatever", etc. So they said. The thin end of the wedge.
At the end of last week, we thought this was all over: Judge Bunning stated as long as someone in her office is issuing licenses, that will do; she doesn't have to get involved ... just stay out of it. Apparently that's not good enough for her. She's back at it.
She has just made an application with the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals asking that everyone in her office be stopped from issuing marriage licenses to gays. (Yes, that is the same court that a few weeks ago took all of one short paragraph to throw out her last request.)
Obviously, the "all we want is accommodation/fairer balance/blah blah blah" angle has been exhausted. But she needs a few more minutes---even though "I am no hero", as she modestly put it---and lawyers must run up billable hours. So, she now has what is truly a bizarre claim. (This time it's not about her, as she says; it's now about her office.) According to her, previous court decisions dealt with just the specific couples who sued her office and not with any others. (Not what Judge Bunning thinks and "clarified".) Therefore, now that those couples have got satisfaction, that's it; nobody else! She wants all others in that office stopped from issuing licenses.
-
The responses to this post surprise me in many ways. Of all the people, an avowed Catholic has come to the defense of religious liberty. Without sounding patronizing, this is highly commendable given the history of the church, a fact that she openly admits in the post.
Second surprise, which is not really surprising, is that the resident false prophet has defended the right of the courts to jail people who exercise their right to uphold certain religious values. So for example, in Kenya, if you were working at the Lands office and somebody showed up with all the 'right' papers purporting to own Langata Primary School playgrounds, asking for a title deed, and your conscience tells you something is wrong, you cannot refuse to serve them (in this case, serving them means processing the title), you should go to jail. That's the resident false prophet for you.
Third surprise comes from MoonKi, who says from the same mouth that he respects Christianity and understands the law. He has defended the jailing of the county clerk and dismissed her claims to first amendment rights by virtue of the fact that she is an elected official in a public office. He has also compared gay rights to black civil rights (an assertion that Bella has rightfully and adequately dismissed). MoonKi claims he did not compare gay rights to black civil rights and only used it as an example to show how erroneous religious belief can be used to defend irrational decisions. Quite surprising from a lawyer.
Back to the Kim Davis story. A small line has escaped the attention of some on this thread. The judge has attempted to use jail (as opposed to the option of fine, which was perfectly applicable in such circumstances) in an attempt to break Mrs Davis down. In other words, he wants her to accept to issue marriage certificates to gay couples against her conscience or be jailed. Somehow it escapes MoonKi's mind that the judge in an attempt to punish Mrs Davis for allegedly abusing public office has abused the privilege of public judicial office. Some things only happen in America and in Nipate.
.
-
.....
I really don't know what you have been reading, but it looks like too much "holiness" has affected you. I will skip on most of the products of that "holiness", such as the continuation of the funny one about gay/black rights, but a few comments on a couple of paragraphs:
So for example, in Kenya, if you were working at the Lands office and somebody showed up with all the 'right' papers purporting to own Langata Primary School playgrounds, asking for a title deed, and your conscience tells you something is wrong, you cannot refuse to serve them (in this case, serving them means processing the title), you should go to jail. That's the resident false prophet for you.
This is an odd example for the point you are trying to argue, but it presents an opportunity for you to learn a few things. Please pay careful attention.
When Kim Davis filed papers claiming that her name and signature would indicate her approval, the judge pointed to her that:
(a) There is nothing like her "approval" involved in such matters.
(b) All that the law requires of her office iss a check of the accuracy of information given on the form filled to apply for the marriage certificate and that the people were eligible to be married in the state. If that is confirmed, then the law requires that the certificate be issued; otherwise not.
(c) Nothing in that check for accuracy involves anyone's conscience or religious beliefs.
In your absurd example, you have taken the same path as Kim Davis and injected "conscience" where none need be involved: If the person responsible for issuing titled deeds considers that there is something improper with the papers given, then he or she may refuse to issue the title deed. In fact the law requires it, and he or she could get sued for issuing a title deed on the basis of faulty papers. The matter would then dealt with in a court of law, with forensic tests and whatever else is applicable, and the basis would be the accuracy of the papers submitted. But no court will accept "my conscience says these papers are not right" as an argument; so people not better go around using their "conscience" to evaluate the accuracy of legal documents.
Back to the Kim Davis story. A small line has escaped the attention of some on this thread. The judge has attempted to use jail (as opposed to the option of fine, which was perfectly applicable in such circumstances) in an attempt to break Mrs Davis down. In other words, he wants her to accept to issue marriage certificates to gay couples against her conscience or be jailed. Somehow it escapes MoonKi's mind that the judge in an attempt to punish Mrs Davis for allegedly abusing public office has abused the privilege of public judicial office. Some things only happen in America and in Nipate.
* What the judge wants is that her office issue the papers.
* As long as that office---not her personally---is issuing the papers, nobody has any problems with her. In fact, the judges orders are that she stay away from those issuing the papers.
* Although now free and not required to issues the papers, she seemingly insists that her "conscience" extend to other people, and she wants to stop them!
* Those who think that the judge "public office has abused the privilege of public judicial office" are free to take up the matter with the relevant higher courts. That's going to be a mission-impossible, given the stances taken by relevant Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court that support his position, but your are equally free to argue that it has escaped the minds of all those judges too.
As I have pointed out elsewhere on this thread, if you want to argue such things as the blue (and things about "rights"), then the proper way to do it is to go through his decision and point out where the judge erred. Arguments based on your "conscience" will not do.
-
correction. It's Real Pokots who dismissed the gay-is-new-black example MoonKi attempted to use as a camouflage.
MoonKi why is reliance on conscience not useful in your opinion? Why is it absurd to rely on conscience over private ownership of school playgrounds but nothing absurd two men claiming a marriage certificate from a Bible believer? The argument that Mrs Davis should quit public office is a violation of her right as a taxpaying US citizen to run for public office and to hold such office with her conscience and all of her person.
You must have read stories of Kenyans in sham marriages who have been busted simply because the marriage officers got a hunch something was not right just by observing the couples behavior.
-
correction. It's Real Pokots who dismissed the gay-is-new-black example MoonKi attempted to use as a camouflage.
MoonKi why is reliance on conscience not useful in your opinion? Why is it absurd to rely on conscience over private ownership of school playgrounds but nothing absurd two men claiming a marriage certificate from a Bible believer? The argument that Mrs Davis should quit public office is a violation of her right as a taxpaying US citizen to run for public office and to hold such office with her conscience and all of her person.
You must have read stories of Kenyans in sham marriages who have been busted simply because the marriage officers got a hunch something was not right just by observing the couples behavior.
Daily Bread, you sure are a funny guy! I can readily see why vooke is so fond of you. What's your brand of "holy water"?
-
correction. It's Real Pokots who dismissed the gay-is-new-black example MoonKi attempted to use as a camouflage.
MoonKi why is reliance on conscience not useful in your opinion? Why is it absurd to rely on conscience over private ownership of school playgrounds but nothing absurd two men claiming a marriage certificate from a Bible believer? The argument that Mrs Davis should quit public office is a violation of her right as a taxpaying US citizen to run for public office and to hold such office with her conscience and all of her person.
You must have read stories of Kenyans in sham marriages who have been busted simply because the marriage officers got a hunch something was not right just by observing the couples behavior.
Daily Bread, you sure are a funny guy! I can readily see why vooke is so fond of you. What's your brand of "holy water"?
Lol, I quite enjoy how he likes to take the pastor in circles to nowhere. DB is tryin to get apple juice out of oranges.....hawesmake.
-
Nuff Sed,
You are a retard and you confuse your obstinacy and stupidity for faith. This is a Negro/IQ thing not SDA.
Philippians 3:8 King James Version (KJV)
8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
Paul was a Pharisee, part of the world. He persecuted and oversaw their deaths for a living. Then when Christ called him, and counted it it SHIT. He could not remain part of the world and serve Christ and throw tantrums about his 'rights' or 'conscience'; he said 'keep your SHIT, am now serving Christ'
If she 'felt' issuing the certificates is 'not right', she ought to have enough neurons to remind her that she was not hired to consult her conscience but to issue them. This is exactly why she got paid; issuing licences regardless of her convictions. The Saudis were the other day hirin executioners. If the executioner has no cojones to whack a neck, he is fired pronto, or he resigns pap!
This woman is not helping the Christian cause by bitching she is just addicted to cameras, and she is making Christianity look like Adventism; a faith of retards with a mega-persecution complex. She badly needs some crash course on lesbianism as only American jails can give
-
This woman is not helping the Christian cause by bitching she is just addicted to cameras,
Ah. I saw one of her TV performances, in which she stated that:
"I just want to serve my neighbors quietly, without violating my conscience,”
So "quietly" that some of her paperwork in the courts had been forgotten by most folks. Among is a pending case, before the Court of Appeal (6th Circuit), to the effect that the governor of Kentucky done her wrong by insisting that all county clerks in the state issue marriage licenses to all who qualify. She has been asking that the office not be forced to issue licenses until that case is settled, i.e. for an injunction against orders given by a lower court. (This is quite different from the most recent paperwork asking that that folks in that office be stopped because of ...)
Three judges of the Court of Appeal have just ruled that they will not stop the issuing of licenses, because that appeal, which they will not stop, is not likely to go anywhere. (Issuing an injunction was a matter of discretion.) It took the judges all of 3 pages to do that.
http://www.startribune.com/court-again-denies-kim-davis-bid-to-delay-marriage-licenses/327792821/
I found something else quite interesting in reading the actual court papers: The lady's argument has been that her name or signature somehow indicates or suggests or she implies that she approves or condones or supports marriage. That is what she is, essentially, putting to the Court of Appeal.
Here is the interesting part: the name and signature at the end of the latest ruling is that of the clerk who "entered" it into the record; the three judges are "involved" only in the "before ... circuit judges" preamble, below the names of the plaintiffs and defendants . So, 1+1=? (I randomly went through the paperwork in just one court and wondered what would happen if clerks or others were to exercise their "conscience".)
-
I think it's either you or Omorlo who said Matsanga was dangerously close to being declared a vexatious litigant for his many frivolous applications.
There are better cases of suppression of 'right of following one's conscience' such as the cake shop, and she is formenting the public attitude against Christians as petty. Then there is the fact that the boot may be on the other foot,and a faggot couple sues TD Jakes for comments on a YouTube clip that really wrecked them emotionally to the extent of losing their jobs and developing suicidal thoughts.
It could be worse; it could be satanists pushing their agenda just a aggresively and forcing Nuff Sed kids within her SDA school to take a class in Wicca and astrology.
-
I think it's either you or Omorlo who said Matsanga was dangerously close to being declared a vexatious litigant for his many frivolous applications.
There are better cases of suppression of 'right of following one's conscience' such as the cake shop, and she is formenting the public attitude against Christians as petty. Then there is the fact that the boot may be on the other foot,and a faggot couple sues TD Jakes for comments on a YouTube clip that really wrecked them emotionally to the extent of losing their jobs and developing suicidal thoughts.
It could be worse; it could be satanists pushing their agenda just a aggresively and forcing Nuff Sed kids within her SDA school to take a class in Wicca and astrology.
The cake shop refused to make them a cake because they are gay. I am against that behavior. Bigots everywhere should be made to feel uncomfortable. Gone are the times they stood proudly and announced that they hate Niggers and be applauded for their conscience.
-
The cake shop refused to make them a cake because they are gay. I am against that behavior. Bigots everywhere should be made to feel uncomfortable. Gone are the times they stood proudly and announced that they hate Niggers and be applauded for their conscience.
Next they will be suing churches for preaching against faggotry. That is not bigotry, that's US aggressively forcing its citizenry to accept and celebrate faggotry and when they complain they are reminded of Luther King. Shame
-
The cake shop refused to make them a cake because they are gay. I am against that behavior. Bigots everywhere should be made to feel uncomfortable. Gone are the times they stood proudly and announced that they hate Niggers and be applauded for their conscience.
Next they will be suing churches for prfrig against faggotry. That is not bigotry, that's US aggressively forcing its citizenry to accept and celebrate faggotry and when they complain they are reminded of Luther King. Shame
Like I said before, the "public office" mantra is a ruse. People like Terminator would like to see Christians lose their right to not sin in their own businesses. It has nothing to do with so called fears of theocracies and other such claims.
Terminator you are telling bald faced lies about bakers refusing to serve people "because they are gay". The particular old lady who was fined had served and HIRED gay customers and employees for YEARS fully knowing them to be gay. She had no problem "serving gay people" she had always done it happily. What she did not want to do was take part in a gay wedding. Something I myself would not do any more than I can willingly take part in a ceremony inducting my friend into prostitution or celebrating it or anything like that, even though I now have more than just one gay friend who I genuinely love and would happily serve in any other way that did not involve me helping them celebrate what I believe to be sin.
-
Terminator you are telling bald faced lies about bakers refusing to serve people "because they are gay". The particular old lady who was fined had served and HIRED gay customers and employees for YEARS fully knowing them to be gay. She had no problem "serving gay people" she had always done it happily. What she did not want to do was take part in a gay wedding. Something I myself would not do any more than I can willingly take part in a ceremony inducting my friend into prostitution or celebrating it or anything like that, even though I now have more than just one gay friend who I genuinely love and would happily serve in any other way that did not involve me helping them celebrate what I believe to be sin.
Bella:
It is you, the "Good & Devout Christian", who is peddling "bald faced lies". The people refused to sell a cake to those they consider gay. The idea that the issue was about the fact that "what she did not want to do was take part in a gay wedding" is just something you have made up. The legal rulings (and any accurate reporting) make that clear.
And breaking the law is never excused on the basis of "some of my best friends are ..." and "I've even hired some of the good ones ...".
The first-level decisions (Colorado Civil Rights Division and Judge Robert N. Spencer of the Colorado Office of Administrative Courts):
On May 30, 2014, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission determined that Masterpiece Cakeshop unlawfully discriminated against David Mullins and Charlie Craig by refusing to sell them a wedding cake.?
David Mullins and Charlie Craig visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in July 2012, with Craig’s mother, to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception. Mullins and Craig planned to marry in Massachusetts and then celebrate with family and friends back home in Colorado. Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips informed them that because of his religious beliefs the store’s policy was to deny service to customers who wished to order baked goods to celebrate a same-sex couple’s wedding.
Please carefully read the bit in red. "Deny service" = "Refuse to serve" and "same sex" = "gay".
This presented a legal problem because of a very important point:
Longstanding Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.
http://aclu-co.org/court-cases/masterpiece-cakeshop/
The bakers went on to launch a legal appeal. In the "background" part of the appellate court's decision, you will find this:
In July 2012, Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, and requested that Phillips design and create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding. Phillips declined, telling them that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs.
Again, please careful note what the bakers refused to do, and note that the bakers cheerfully admitted this as one of the "material facts" they agreed was correct.
That is a long, long way from your statement that:
she did not want to do was take part in a gay wedding. Something I myself would not do any more than I can willingly take part in a ceremony inducting my friend into prostitution or celebrating it or anything like that
There is no record of anyone even asking her to take part in a wedding or any ceremony. All they were asked to do was to bake cake. That's it.
The appellate court, in a unanimous decision, explained why it threw out the baker's case and confirmed the earlier decision that the baker had contravened Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act.
Court decisions tend to make for dull reading, but I sometimes urge people to read them for three reasons:
(1) A very important one is to get the basic facts right; relying on some of the fly-by-night media is fraught with risks.
(2) If one wishes to argue that the courts are wrong, one can take a "blow-by-blow" approach to the courts decisions and explain how.
(3) In serious matters, I hope to discourage people from simply making up and peddling stories that suit their views but have nothing to do with the facts. (That is also good for some of them: Good & Devout Christians should leave the lying to Satan & His Spawn.)
The appellate court's decision will be found here:
https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2015/14CA1351-PD.pdf
And here's another thing:
There seems to be some misunderstanding about "public" vs. "private". Anti-discrimination laws actually make a finer distinction. If for example, Walmart refused to serve a black person on the basis of race, or IBM fired an Indian on the basis of race, they would have good grounds to sue. And so on and so forth. The idea that if it's not a government institution, then discrimination is just fine was buried (one hopes) ages ago. In Colorado, the issue is one of public accommodations. As the first decision put it:
"Masterpiece remains free to continue espousing its religious beliefs, including its opposition to same-sex marriage. However, if it wishes to operate as a public accommodation and conduct business within the State of Colorado, CADA prohibits it from picking and choosing customers based on their sexual orientation."
-
In 1846, Gogol wrote this:
"It is sad not to see any good in goodness".
The context was a commentary on what the "Christian Church" had done and was doing in the name of "Christian goodness" and "saving souls". In particular, the "Catholic Church" had an especially colourful history in that regard, e.g. tying people to a stake and burning them alive "for their own good". One pope even complained about the quality of the torturers he had hired for "personal use"! He used to listen while they worked on some of his cardinals---naturally, for their own good and to help them see the real meaning of something---and stated that the "low quality" screaming indicated a certain lack of proficiency.
And there's still plenty of "Christian good" going around these days. A bit more "constrained", but it is evident on words.
Jesus noted this of the Pharisees: They had read and memorized every word that had been written, in certain places, on such matters. They could argue and sustain all sorts of argument with "chapter and verse" quotations off the top of their heads. But they didn't have the foggiest ideas of what it really meant. A bit like those who, in commercials or graffiti or suchlike, write things like E= MC^2: they put the letters and number in the right places; they know who "said" it; they know there's something "deep" there; and they know there is some one who will be impressed with the "learning" or whatever. But that's about it.
So it is that if you want to read of some of the vilest actions that human has carried out on human, the history of the "Christian Church" is better than fiction. And if, today, you want to read truly foul language that humans have of other humans, the "good & devout" Christians will provide as good material and any of "Satan's spawn". But, of course, the former are more loving .... just as nasty, though.
Christ himself was much more "mellow" than those who would "lead" us in the "Christian" way. Hookers, thieves, whatever ... the "profession" never seemed to have cause him much "excitement".
To my mind, the essence of Christ's message is actually quite straightforward:
* Love they neighbor as thyself.
* Love God above all else.
That's pretty much it. Can't go wrong with those as the guides.
Still, here we are. Plenty of "Christianity" around, but very little of Christ in it. 100+ years after Gogol.
Fortunately, the law is better (and better enforced) these days than when the "Church" was supreme.
-
Seems like the overarching theory is some things taught by churches before was bad like slavery, inferiority of the Negro, so Christians ought not to have their way just because they 'feel' so. Nuff Sed' sect of retards actively taught against interracial marriages until 1991 I doubt Adventism has ever had any biracial married minister at ANY level. Unless of course if they joined after marrying. It's only a matter of time before anti-Homosexuality stance is vilified and criminalized.
If sexual orientation is a right, preaching against it is bigotry. The next frontier will be targeting those against homosexuality for suits. Expressing the mere opinion will be criminal.
Larry King: Are you gay?
Joel Osteen: no sir, am hetero and happily married for the last xxxx years
Larry King: is God indifferent to sexual orientation?
Joel Osteen: No sir, He is very particular on this matter. He only approves sexual union between adult male and female
Larry King: so.....so you saying God will NEVER bless a gay Union?
Joel Osteen: very true, Sodom from which we got the word sodomy was destroyed for the sin this very sin
Larry King: say what?
Joel Osteen: homosexuality is a sin and God is displeased with it
23 minutes later
CNN headlines
'Popular mega church minister slapped with a mega hate crimes suit'
Christians need to study how racists have thrived all these years
-
Terminator you are telling bald faced lies about bakers refusing to serve people "because they are gay". The particular old lady who was fined had served and HIRED gay customers and employees for YEARS fully knowing them to be gay. She had no problem "serving gay people" she had always done it happily. What she did not want to do was take part in a gay wedding. Something I myself would not do any more than I can willingly take part in a ceremony inducting my friend into prostitution or celebrating it or anything like that, even though I now have more than just one gay friend who I genuinely love and would happily serve in any other way that did not involve me helping them celebrate what I believe to be sin.
Bella:
It is you, the "Good & Devout Christian", who is peddling "bald faced lies". The people refused to sell a cake to those they consider gay. The idea that the issue was about the fact that "what she did not want to do was take part in a gay wedding" is just something you have made up. The legal rulings (and any accurate reporting) make that clear.
And breaking the law is never excused on the basis of "some of my best friends are ..." and "I've even hired some of the good ones ...".
The first-level decisions (Colorado Civil Rights Division and Judge Robert N. Spencer of the Colorado Office of Administrative Courts):
On May 30, 2014, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission determined that Masterpiece Cakeshop unlawfully discriminated against David Mullins and Charlie Craig by refusing to sell them a wedding cake.?
David Mullins and Charlie Craig visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in July 2012, with Craig’s mother, to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception. Mullins and Craig planned to marry in Massachusetts and then celebrate with family and friends back home in Colorado. Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips informed them that because of his religious beliefs the store’s policy was to deny service to customers who wished to order baked goods to celebrate a same-sex couple’s wedding.
Please carefully read the bit in red. "Deny service" = "Refuse to serve" and "same sex" = "gay".
This presented a legal problem because of a very important point:
Longstanding Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.
http://aclu-co.org/court-cases/masterpiece-cakeshop/
The bakers went on to launch a legal appeal. In the "background" part of the appellate court's decision, you will find this:
In July 2012, Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, and requested that Phillips design and create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding. Phillips declined, telling them that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs.
Again, please careful note what the bakers refused to do, and note that the bakers cheerfully admitted this as one of the "material facts" they agreed was correct.
That is a long, long way from your statement that:
she did not want to do was take part in a gay wedding. Something I myself would not do any more than I can willingly take part in a ceremony inducting my friend into prostitution or celebrating it or anything like that
There is no record of anyone even asking her to take part in a wedding or any ceremony. All they were asked to do was to bake cake. That's it.
The appellate court, in a unanimous decision, explained why it threw out the baker's case and confirmed the earlier decision that the baker had contravened Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act.
Court decisions tend to make for dull reading, but I sometimes urge people to read them for three reasons:
(1) A very important one is to get the basic facts right; relying on some of the fly-by-night media is fraught with risks.
(2) If one wishes to argue that the courts are wrong, one can take a "blow-by-blow" approach to the courts decisions and explain how.
(3) In serious matters, I hope to discourage people from simply making up and peddling stories that suit their views but have nothing to do with the facts. (That is also good for some of them: Good & Devout Christians should leave the lying to Satan & His Spawn.)
The appellate court's decision will be found here:
https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2015/14CA1351-PD.pdf
And here's another thing:
There seems to be some misunderstanding about "public" vs. "private". Anti-discrimination laws actually make a finer distinction. If for example, Walmart refused to serve a black person on the basis of race, or IBM fired an Indian on the basis of race, they would have good grounds to sue. And so on and so forth. The idea that if it's not a government institution, then discrimination is just fine was buried (one hopes) ages ago. In Colorado, the issue is one of public accommodations. As the first decision put it:
"Masterpiece remains free to continue espousing its religious beliefs, including its opposition to same-sex marriage. However, if it wishes to operate as a public accommodation and conduct business within the State of Colorado, CADA prohibits it from picking and choosing customers based on their sexual orientation."
Nonsense. What you are doing is substituting your own understanding of what it means to take part in a sinful activity for the Christians involved and their religion. There is no way that performing a service material to the celebration of a wedding cannot be viewed as taking part in that wedding from the point of view of the Christian. It's basically a statement that this is a good thing happening (celebration) just like baking a cake celebrating the anniversary of the founding of KKK would be offensive to any black baker or the celenration of a nazi group anniversary would be offensive to a Jewish baker (or any baker of a good conscience, for that matter... I certainly wouldnt want to be involved with that, Jewish or not). He would see his involvement as helping people celebrate what he sees as offensive. His problem is the event NOT the PEOPLE involved in the event.
The old lady who was basically ruined after fined for 150 thousand dollars for not performing a service for a gay wedding HAD infact served that EXACT same couple suing her for TEN years! The claim here is that refusal of service is because the people hear are GAY. That is nonsense and a lie when there's ample evidence that their being gay in no way impeded services being rendered to them by her before. It was a specific EVENT that is considered sinful in almost all religions but certainly her own, for which she considered that her own involvement would be problematic. What is a lie is comparing this to "my best friend is gay" as an excuse. Talk about straw-men! Another classic obfuscation from you, as usual! The claim here is that the woman does not want to serve gay people in her BUSINESS.... FALSE! How do you figure that when SERVING GAY PEOPLE in her business both as customers and employees is exacyly what she has been doing and continues to do?
That is the lie here, and the fact that you quote the judgment that refused to make the distinction between serving gay people in any ordinary event verses serving at events that EXPLICITLY celebrate the sexual union of two men and two women which the baker/photographer/caterers religion cobsiders gravely sinful, does not itself make your argument. Tell me how you can "refuse" serving people "because they are gay" when you in fact serve people knowing them to be gay for years? Conginitive dissonance.
-
Bella, we should have a cuppa some time.
(http://st.depositphotos.com/2317051/2629/v/950/depositphotos_26291667-Vector-cartoon-of-two-women-talking-over-cup-of-coffee..jpg)
-
MoonKi and the false prophet may defend this gross violation of the religious right of Mrs Kim Davis from a legal standpoint which even then is on shaky ground. However, it is morally indefensible to throw a christian in to jail for refusing to be party to a gay marriage. Just because the SCOTUS thinks its ok for two men to sleep with one another does not make it right. Again, asking Kim Davis to reign is unfair because it amounts to tyranny by the gay lobby and the judiciary. It's not different from the Weston example. Just because Jubilee is in power and the high priest can get all the legal documents does not make it right to grab a school playground.
-
Bella,
Her problem was not making the cake for a gay wedding as clarified by MOON Ki. There are laws that protect minorities against discrimination that their bakery broke.
I don't think they were needed to be present at that wedding as a casual reading of your claim might imply. This is just another case of people using religion to limit the legitimate rights of others.
I understand your views on conscience, sin etc. Obviously I think in these instances they are misplaced. Some religious business person could decide not serve a certain wedding for a couple that promotes oral sex because of conscience and we are down the rabbit hole.
-
Seems like the overarching theory is some things taught by churches before was bad like slavery, inferiority of the Negro, so Christians ought not to have their way just because they 'feel' so. Nuff Sed' sect of retards actively taught against interracial marriages until 1991 I doubt Adventism has ever had any biracial married minister at ANY level. Unless of course if they joined after marrying. It's only a matter of time before anti-Homosexuality stance is vilified and criminalized.
If sexual orientation is a right, preaching against it is bigotry. The next frontier will be targeting those against homosexuality for suits. Expressing the mere opinion will be criminal.
Larry King: Are you gay?
Joel Osteen: no sir, am hetero and happily married for the last xxxx years
Larry King: is God indifferent to sexual orientation?
Joel Osteen: No sir, He is very particular on this matter. He only approves sexual union between adult male and female
Larry King: so.....so you saying God will NEVER bless a gay Union?
Joel Osteen: very true, Sodom from which we got the word sodomy was destroyed for the sin this very sin
Larry King: say what?
Joel Osteen: homosexuality is a sin and God is displeased with it
23 minutes later
CNN headlines
'Popular mega church minister slapped with a mega hate crimes suit'
Christians need to study how racists have thrived all these years
If I were a Christian, I would rely on Christ's greatest commandment. I would use it to guide my conscience and leave the judgment to God. These bigots' religion allows them to show their better side, yet they choose the hideous judgmental side.
SDA has an interesting history. More interesting than I would have thought. I wonder if Ben Carson felt he had no choice in that sense about the wife.
-
MoonKi and the false prophet may defend this gross violation of the religious right of Mrs Kim Davis from a legal standpoint which even then is on shaky ground. However, it is morally indefensible to throw a christian in to jail for refusing to be party to a gay marriage. Just because the SCOTUS thinks its ok for two men to sleep with one another does not make it right. Again, asking Kim Davis to reign is unfair because it amounts to tyranny by the gay lobby and the judiciary. It's not different from the Weston example. Just because Jubilee is in power and the high priest can get all the legal documents does not make it right to grab a school playground.
Nuff Sed,
Her 'rights' ended the moment she took up the job with the government. Imagine an SDA buffoon not too different from you refusing to sell you beef because it's against their conscience seeing they are vegans according to Saint Ellen White inspired BS yet they work in a butchery.
-
Seems like the overarching theory is some things taught by churches before was bad like slavery, inferiority of the Negro, so Christians ought not to have their way just because they 'feel' so. Nuff Sed' sect of retards actively taught against interracial marriages until 1991 I doubt Adventism has ever had any biracial married minister at ANY level. Unless of course if they joined after marrying. It's only a matter of time before anti-Homosexuality stance is vilified and criminalized.
If sexual orientation is a right, preaching against it is bigotry. The next frontier will be targeting those against homosexuality for suits. Expressing the mere opinion will be criminal.
Larry King: Are you gay?
Joel Osteen: no sir, am hetero and happily married for the last xxxx years
Larry King: is God indifferent to sexual orientation?
Joel Osteen: No sir, He is very particular on this matter. He only approves sexual union between adult male and female
Larry King: so.....so you saying God will NEVER bless a gay Union?
Joel Osteen: very true, Sodom from which we got the word sodomy was destroyed for the sin this very sin
Larry King: say what?
Joel Osteen: homosexuality is a sin and God is displeased with it
23 minutes later
CNN headlines
'Popular mega church minister slapped with a mega hate crimes suit'
Christians need to study how racists have thrived all these years
If I were a Christian, I would rely on Christ's greatest commandment. I would use it to guide my conscience and leave the judgment to God. These bigots' religion allows them to show their better side, yet they choose the hideous judgmental side.
SDA has an interesting history. More interesting than I would have thought. I wonder if Ben Carson felt he had no choice in that sense about the wife.
homosexuality is condemned in the scriptures alongside murder. Should the hypothetical Christian Termie 'leave the judgement to God' for murderers?
Of course the answer is no. Why is that, because murder is more intuitively wrong and already criminalized? Should Christians condemn sensational and criminalized sins more than the rest? If that is so, why do they need the scriptures in the first place? Why not memorize the penal code instead?
-
Seems like the overarching theory is some things taught by churches before was bad like slavery, inferiority of the Negro, so Christians ought not to have their way just because they 'feel' so. Nuff Sed' sect of retards actively taught against interracial marriages until 1991 I doubt Adventism has ever had any biracial married minister at ANY level. Unless of course if they joined after marrying. It's only a matter of time before anti-Homosexuality stance is vilified and criminalized.
If sexual orientation is a right, preaching against it is bigotry. The next frontier will be targeting those against homosexuality for suits. Expressing the mere opinion will be criminal.
Larry King: Are you gay?
Joel Osteen: no sir, am hetero and happily married for the last xxxx years
Larry King: is God indifferent to sexual orientation?
Joel Osteen: No sir, He is very particular on this matter. He only approves sexual union between adult male and female
Larry King: so.....so you saying God will NEVER bless a gay Union?
Joel Osteen: very true, Sodom from which we got the word sodomy was destroyed for the sin this very sin
Larry King: say what?
Joel Osteen: homosexuality is a sin and God is displeased with it
23 minutes later
CNN headlines
'Popular mega church minister slapped with a mega hate crimes suit'
Christians need to study how racists have thrived all these years
If I were a Christian, I would rely on Christ's greatest commandment. I would use it to guide my conscience and leave the judgment to God. These bigots' religion allows them to show their better side, yet they choose the hideous judgmental side.
SDA has an interesting history. More interesting than I would have thought. I wonder if Ben Carson felt he had no choice in that sense about the wife.
homosexuality is condemned in the scriptures alongside murder. Should the hypothetical Christian Termie 'leave the judgement to God' for murderers?
Of course the answer is no. Why is that, because murder is more intuitively wrong and already criminalized? Should Christians condemn sensational and criminalized sins more than the rest? If that is so, why do they need the scriptures in the first place? Why not memorize the penal code instead?
If you consider Christ's greatest commandment. You see that the religion gives her choices. She just has to serve them with love. They are not asking her to participate.
If her conscience is harmed by obeying the law she can ask for forgiveness or go for confession. The law does not forbid her from doing that.
-
Nonsense. What you are doing is substituting your own understanding of what it means to take part in a sinful activity for the Christians involved and their religion.
The quotations are not my "understanding"; they belong to those who determined that she had broken Colorado law. Given some of the great evils that have been carried out has been done on the basis of what some "Christians understand to be a sinful activity"---and I have noted that the "Catholic Church" has been a "leader", with popes personally committing truly heinous evils---I am not going to buy general arguments about what blah blah blah means to blah blah blah.
You also confuse your own views with those of all who call themselves "Christians" when you write such things as "what it means for ... Christians". As examples:
* The Presbyterian Church (USA) last year changed its definition of marriage to allow its pastors to marry same-sex couples.
* United Church of Canada, the largest Protestant Christian denomination in Canada, is led by an openly gay person who is married to another gay person.
* Take a look at the Anglicans.
And so on, and so forth.
Clearly there are other "Christians" with different views of what anything means for "Christians".
His problem is the event NOT the PEOPLE involved in the event.
Unfortunately for the bakers, the law does not say that people may unlawfully discriminate in instances of their choosing.
Here is what the first judge said:
The salient feature distinguishing same-sex weddings from heterosexual ones is the sexual orientation of its participants. Only same-sex couples engage in same-sex weddings. Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not “because of” their sexual orientation.
That seems clear enough. Which part of it do you find problematic?
Far from the idea that they were treated unfairly, some excellent requirements were also made of them---orders to
(1) take remedial measures, including comprehensive staff training and alteration to the company’s policies to ensure compliance with CADA; and
(2) file quarterly compliance reports for two years with the Division describing the remedial measures taken to comply with CADA and documenting all patrons who are denied service and the reasons for the denial.
I think it is good for them to be trained to understand and obey the law. In the long run, they will probably be grateful for that.
Here it is:
There are laws that are in place to deal with discrimination on the basis of race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation, and the courts seem determined to enforce such laws. That can only be good. People can yell and scream and gnash their teeth that they be permitted exceptions to break those laws, but it doesn't look their efforts will yield much fruit. That too can only be good.
-
Seems like the overarching theory is some things taught by churches before was bad like slavery, inferiority of the Negro, so Christians ought not to have their way just because they 'feel' so. Nuff Sed' sect of retards actively taught against interracial marriages until 1991 I doubt Adventism has ever had any biracial married minister at ANY level. Unless of course if they joined after marrying. It's only a matter of time before anti-Homosexuality stance is vilified and criminalized.
If sexual orientation is a right, preaching against it is bigotry. The next frontier will be targeting those against homosexuality for suits. Expressing the mere opinion will be criminal.
Larry King: Are you gay?
Joel Osteen: no sir, am hetero and happily married for the last xxxx years
Larry King: is God indifferent to sexual orientation?
Joel Osteen: No sir, He is very particular on this matter. He only approves sexual union between adult male and female
Larry King: so.....so you saying God will NEVER bless a gay Union?
Joel Osteen: very true, Sodom from which we got the word sodomy was destroyed for the sin this very sin
Larry King: say what?
Joel Osteen: homosexuality is a sin and God is displeased with it
23 minutes later
CNN headlines
'Popular mega church minister slapped with a mega hate crimes suit'
Christians need to study how racists have thrived all these years
If I were a Christian, I would rely on Christ's greatest commandment. I would use it to guide my conscience and leave the judgment to God. These bigots' religion allows them to show their better side, yet they choose the hideous judgmental side.
SDA has an interesting history. More interesting than I would have thought. I wonder if Ben Carson felt he had no choice in that sense about the wife.
homosexuality is condemned in the scriptures alongside murder. Should the hypothetical Christian Termie 'leave the judgement to God' for murderers?
Of course the answer is no. Why is that, because murder is more intuitively wrong and already criminalized? Should Christians condemn sensational and criminalized sins more than the rest? If that is so, why do they need the scriptures in the first place? Why not memorize the penal code instead?
If you consider Christ's greatest commandment. You see that the religion gives her choices. She just has to serve them with love. They are not asking her to participate.
If her conscience is harmed by obeying the law she can ask for forgiveness or go for confession. The law does not forbid her from doing that.
Her reaction has nothing to do with love or hate however you spin it.
Love condemns the sin and warns the sinner of the consequences of sin. That's why we evangelize. She was not hired to evangelize, but to issue certificates. If she feels issuing certificates is participating in unions contrary to her convictions, quit would have been it.
The fact that one is forgiveness is no license to sin more. That's impunity especially when one knows it is sin. There is no forgiveness for abusing the grace of God but a fearful judgement
-
If you consider Christ's greatest commandment. You see that the religion gives her choices. She just has to serve them with love. They are not asking her to participate.
I chuckled when Kim Davis, without the slightest sense of irony, asked:
“Are we not big enough, loving enough, and tolerant enough to find a way to accommodate my deeply held religious convictions?”
and then promptly went to ask the Court of Appeal to stop others from issuing marriage licenses.
-
Nonsense. What you are doing is substituting your own understanding of what it means to take part in a sinful activity for the Christians involved and their religion.
The quotations are not my "understanding"; they belong to those who determined that she had broken Colorado law. Given some of the great evils that have been carried out has been done on the basis of what some "Christians understand to be a sinful activity"---and I have noted that the "Catholic Church" has been a "leader", with popes personally committing tru ly heinous evils---I am not going to buy general arguments about what blah blah blah means to blah blah blah.
Nonsense is nonsense, even if it is said by a judge. And considering that my critique is of that very reasoning, it is hardly a response to come back with "I'm not saying it, the judge is". Why are you quoting him unless you want to associate his words with your own views? Citing him to support your views and then claiming "its not me" is rather childish. What a cop out. If you can't defend your own arguments on the basis of their own merits, best not to make them, unless your sole argument is that anything courts say is right, including that owning slaves is "a civil right. " And you are arguing with me, not the Catholic church, enough with the side shows already.
You also confuse your own views with those of all who call themselves "Christians" when you write such things as "what it means for ... Christians". As examples:
* The Presbyterian Church (USA) last year changed its definition of marriage to allow its pastors to marry same-sex couples.
* United Church of Canada, the largest Protestant Christian denomination in Canada, is led by an openly gay person who is married to another gay person.
* Take a look at the Anglicans.
And so on, and so forth.
Clearly there are other "Christians" with different views of what anything means for "Christians".
I believe reading glasses are in order. I said you were substituting your own views for that of the Christians INVOLVED and their religion. How about you find me a member of these irrelevant (to this discussion) groups you've mentioned who is forced to support what his religion forbids, before you add more irrelevancies to this discussion? You might as well tell a Jew that Judaism allows pork by pointing at Christian churches that teach pork is OK to eat. Why on earth would groups who teach totally different things matter in a discussion about the consciences of people belonging to groups that teach different?
His problem is the event NOT the PEOPLE involved in the event.
Unfortunately for the bakers, the law does not say that people may unlawfully discriminate in instances of their choosing.
Here is what the first judge said:
The salient feature distinguishing same-sex weddings from heterosexual ones is the sexual orientation of its participants. Only same-sex couples engage in same-sex weddings. Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not “because of” their sexual orientation.
That seems clear enough. Which part of it do you find problematic?
Far from the idea that they were treated unfairly, some excellent requirements were also made of them---orders to
(1) take remedial measures, including comprehensive staff training and alteration to the company’s policies to ensure compliance with CADA; and
(2) file quarterly compliance reports for two years with the Division describing the remedial measures taken to comply with CADA and documenting all patrons who are denied service and the reasons for the denial.
I think it is good for them to be trained to understand and obey the law. In the long run, they will probably be grateful for that.
Here it is:
There are laws that are in place to deal with discrimination on the basis of race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation, and the courts seem determined to enforce such laws. That can only be good. People can yell and scream and gnash their teeth that they be permitted exceptions to break those laws, but it doesn't look their efforts will yield much fruit. That too can only be good.
More of the same "it's true because some judge says it is true." You and this judge think that the person no longer has a right to view the sexual union of two men as sinful, so that he would refuse to be part of that event in any capacity. It is pure nonsense to say that someone discriminates against gay people for being gay on one occasion only. When I meet people who dislike me for being black, it is not events they object to but ME, and guess what? It does NOT "jump occasions", it is there all around, as long as the person is black. They wont serve them, the event notwithstanding. If someone discriminates against people simply for being gay then they discriminate them for being gay, they wont want them in their premises, as customers or employees. The idea that the refusal to be part of the celebration of a sinful event is the same as rejecting the person as a person is false. I can love my drug-addicted relative and refuse to support his drug parties. According to you, that is discrimination towards him as a person and not simply my refusal to support what I regard as harmful/bad/sinful behavior. According to you, the only way to love my drug-addicted relative is to agree with his use of drugs. Like RP says, thinking people have their limits!
-
Seems like the overarching theory is some things taught by churches before was bad like slavery, inferiority of the Negro, so Christians ought not to have their way just because they 'feel' so. Nuff Sed' sect of retards actively taught against interracial marriages until 1991 I doubt Adventism has ever had any biracial married minister at ANY level. Unless of course if they joined after marrying. It's only a matter of time before anti-Homosexuality stance is vilified and criminalized.
If sexual orientation is a right, preaching against it is bigotry. The next frontier will be targeting those against homosexuality for suits. Expressing the mere opinion will be criminal.
Larry King: Are you gay?
Joel Osteen: no sir, am hetero and happily married for the last xxxx years
Larry King: is God indifferent to sexual orientation?
Joel Osteen: No sir, He is very particular on this matter. He only approves sexual union between adult male and female
Larry King: so.....so you saying God will NEVER bless a gay Union?
Joel Osteen: very true, Sodom from which we got the word sodomy was destroyed for the sin this very sin
Larry King: say what?
Joel Osteen: homosexuality is a sin and God is displeased with it
23 minutes later
CNN headlines
'Popular mega church minister slapped with a mega hate crimes suit'
Christians need to study how racists have thrived all these years
If I were a Christian, I would rely on Christ's greatest commandment. I would use it to guide my conscience and leave the judgment to God. These bigots' religion allows them to show their better side, yet they choose the hideous judgmental side.
SDA has an interesting history. More interesting than I would have thought. I wonder if Ben Carson felt he had no choice in that sense about the wife.
homosexuality is condemned in the scriptures alongside murder. Should the hypothetical Christian Termie 'leave the judgement to God' for murderers?
Of course the answer is no. Why is that, because murder is more intuitively wrong and already criminalized? Should Christians condemn sensational and criminalized sins more than the rest? If that is so, why do they need the scriptures in the first place? Why not memorize the penal code instead?
If you consider Christ's greatest commandment. You see that the religion gives her choices. She just has to serve them with love. They are not asking her to participate.
If her conscience is harmed by obeying the law she can ask for forgiveness or go for confession. The law does not forbid her from doing that.
Her reaction has nothing to do with love or hate however you spin it.
Love condemns the sin and warns the sinner of the consequences of sin. That's why we evangelize. She was not hired to evangelize, but to issue certificates. If she feels issuing certificates is participating in unions contrary to her convictions, quit would have been it.
The fact that one is forgiveness is no license to sin more. That's impunity especially when one knows it is sin. There is no forgiveness for abusing the grace of God but a fearful judgement
I think she can still do her job and reconcile it with Christ's teaching. He said love your neighbor as you love yourself. I interpret it to mean just that. If he wanted you you to judge others, he would have said so.
-
Terminator, since it's her conscience and not yours that is on the line, why does what you THINK is in line with christian morality matter AT ALL?
-
Bella:
Here is a summary:
Here is what the first judge said:
The salient feature distinguishing same-sex weddings from heterosexual ones is the sexual orientation of its participants. Only same-sex couples engage in same-sex weddings. Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not “because of” their sexual orientation.
That seems clear enough. Which part of it do you find problematic?
Here it is:
There are laws that are in place to deal with discrimination on the basis of race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation, and the courts seem determined to enforce such laws. That can only be good. People can yell and scream and gnash their teeth that they be permitted exceptions to break those laws, but it doesn't look their efforts will yield much fruit.
That's pretty much it.
-
Terminator, since it's her conscience and not yours that is on the line, why does what you THINK is in line with christian morality matter AT ALL?
Bella,
I am just going by what I understand about Christianity. If she were something else like maybe Muslim, then she might really not be able to reconcile with the job.
The issue is really about tolerance. Tolerance does not equate to endorsement. If I sell fireworks for Diwali, I can choose to see it as endorsing or supporting Hindu beliefs. But I can also choose to see it as tolerance for the same. Christianity, as practiced today is for the most part, tolerant. That is something I consider to be going for it. She has chosen the bad and the ugly of her religion over the good.
To consider an extreme example. For argument's purpose, suppose an Inca or Aztec immigrant is prevented from sacrificing the neighbor's daughter to the sun God. Would you consider that a violation of his beliefs/conscience etc? Probably not. And in this case, he'd just have to bite the bullet.
It's really about tolerance and a recognition of the limits of religion in a secular state.
-
Bella:
Here is a summary:
Here is what the first judge said:
The salient feature distinguishing same-sex weddings from heterosexual ones is the sexual orientation of its participants. Only same-sex couples engage in same-sex weddings. Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not “because of” their sexual orientation.
That seems clear enough. Which part of it do you find problematic?
Here it is:
There are laws that are in place to deal with discrimination on the basis of race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation, and the courts seem determined to enforce such laws. That can only be good. People can yell and scream and gnash their teeth that they be permitted exceptions to break those laws, but it doesn't look their efforts will yield much fruit.
That's pretty much it.
Moon Ki, here it is: Refusal to participate in an event celebrating an anti-value is not the same as refusing to serve gay people as people. Seems clear enough! What part of that do you find problematic?
-
Moon Ki, here it is: Refusal to participate in an event celebrating an anti-value is not the same as refusing to serve gay people as people. Seems clear enough! What part of that do you find problematic?
The part where he was supposedly asked to participate in a wedding or celebration.
-
Terminator, since it's her conscience and not yours that is on the line, why does what you THINK is in line with christian morality matter AT ALL?
Bella,
I am just going by what I understand about Christianity. If she were something else like maybe Muslim, then she might really not be able to reconcile with the job.
The issue is really about tolerance. Tolerance does not equate to endorsement. If I sell fireworks for Diwali, I can choose to see it as endorsing or supporting Hindu beliefs. But I can also choose to see it as tolerance for the same. Christianity, as practiced today is for the most part, tolerant. That is something I consider to be going for it. She has chosen the bad and the ugly of her religion over the good.
To consider an extreme example. For argument's purpose, suppose an Inca or Aztec immigrant is prevented from sacrificing the neighbor's daughter to the sun God. Would you consider that a violation of his beliefs/conscience etc? Probably not. And in this case, he'd just have to bite the bullet.
It's really about tolerance and a recognition of the limits of religion in a secular state.
No it is not. Tolerance would be this: The gay person gets their wedding, the religious person gets to not take part. No one here loses their rights. What you think is tolerance instead looks like this: The state determines for everyone that gay marriage is moral, and then the religious person loses their right to consider it immoral and not take part in it themselves. Now, THAT looks like a state religion to me, not limits to religion. The human sacrifice involves taking away another's right to life, it's more like abortion than what the baker is asking for. No one has any entitlement to another person's labour, unless we want to endorse slavery here. Instead, what seems like a balance is that unless the service here can be found nowhere else, the gay couple can find the gazillion other bakers happy to take their money, and leave the one christian woman who does not want to help celebrate sin alone. That is the limits of religion. Not just running roughshod over people's moral objections in the name of protecting others whose so-called rights aren't even in danger.
-
Moon Ki, here it is: Refusal to participate in an event celebrating an anti-value is not the same as refusing to serve gay people as people. Seems clear enough! What part of that do you find problematic?
The part where he was supposedly asked to participate in a wedding or celebration.
They were asked to support a gay wedding with their own labour. Is that false?
-
No one has any entitlement to another person's labour, unless we want to endorse slavery here.
Not really. If, for example, you go to renew your driver's license, you are actually entitled to the labour of the people who work in that office.
They were asked to support a gay wedding with their own labour. Is that false?
Unfortunately for the bakers, "my own labour"----or my own anything, for that matter---is not considered an acceptable excuse for unlawful discrimination.
More importantly, the idea that by baking a cake they would, as you put it, "participate in an event celebrating an anti-value" doesn't get very far. You might as well argue that who sell things that are then used to commit crimes are participating in the crimes and should be held liable. Similarly, if you were to buy some whips and chains for a session of S & M with your loved one, it could hardly be said that the maker or the seller of the whips and chains would be participating in your "anti-value event".
I know that it "pains" many, but I have to repeat it:
There are laws that are in place to deal with discrimination on the basis of race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation, and the courts seem determined to enforce such laws. That can only be good. People can yell and scream and gnash their teeth that they be permitted exceptions to break those laws, but it doesn't look their efforts will yield much fruit.
-
Terminator, since it's her conscience and not yours that is on the line, why does what you THINK is in line with christian morality matter AT ALL?
Bella,
I am just going by what I understand about Christianity. If she were something else like maybe Muslim, then she might really not be able to reconcile with the job.
The issue is really about tolerance. Tolerance does not equate to endorsement. If I sell fireworks for Diwali, I can choose to see it as endorsing or supporting Hindu beliefs. But I can also choose to see it as tolerance for the same. Christianity, as practiced today is for the most part, tolerant. That is something I consider to be going for it. She has chosen the bad and the ugly of her religion over the good.
To consider an extreme example. For argument's purpose, suppose an Inca or Aztec immigrant is prevented from sacrificing the neighbor's daughter to the sun God. Would you consider that a violation of his beliefs/conscience etc? Probably not. And in this case, he'd just have to bite the bullet.
It's really about tolerance and a recognition of the limits of religion in a secular state.
No it is not. Tolerance would be this: The gay person gets their wedding, the religious person gets to not take part. No one here loses their rights. What you think is tolerance instead looks like this: The state determines for everyone that gay marriage is moral, and then the religious person loses their right to consider it immoral and not take part in it themselves. Now, THAT looks like a state religion to me, not limits to religion. The human sacrifice involves taking away another's right to life, it's more like abortion than what the baker is asking for. No one has any entitlement to another person's labour, unless we want to endorse slavery here. Instead, what seems like a balance is that unless the service here can be found nowhere else, the gay couple can find the gazillion other bakers happy to take their money, and leave the one christian woman who does not want to help celebrate sin alone. That is the limits of religion. Not just running roughshod over people's moral objections in the name of protecting others whose so-called rights aren't even in danger.
The morality of the wedding is up to the individual to decide. I think the state is just ensuring that people are served equally within those constraints of the law; don't pick out gays, blacks, immigrants etc for different treatment on the basis of those attributes.
In other words, the bakery is free to find other excuses not serve them. Maybe they are closed for lunch break every time the couple shows up. Or there is just no one to take their order. Something legitimate. Sexual orientation of the customer is not a legitimate reason.
The baker was asking to be allowed to limit the rights of the gay couple, illegally. I think that is what the judgement was based on. It was not a judgment on their rights to hold their beliefs, except in so far as they infringe on what the court determined was a more important right. It's a tough call for the judge to make, but I think they made the right one.
-
No one has any entitlement to another person's labour, unless we want to endorse slavery here.
Not really. If, for example, you go to renew your driver's license, you are actually entitled to the labour of the people who work in that office.
They were asked to support a gay wedding with their own labour. Is that false?
Unfortunately for the bakers, "my own labour"----or my own anything, for that matter---is not considered an acceptable excuse for unlawful discrimination.
More importantly, the idea that by baking a cake they would, as you put it, "participate in an event celebrating an anti-value" doesn't get very far. You might as well argue that who sell things that are then used to commit crimes are participating in the crimes and should be held liable.
I know that it "pains" many, but I have to repeat it:
There are laws that are in place to deal with discrimination on the basis of race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation, and the courts seem determined to enforce such laws. That can only be good. People can yell and scream and gnash their teeth that they be permitted exceptions to break those laws, but it doesn't look their efforts will yield much fruit.
Silly analogies. The person who issues licences has already FREELY contracted to carry out the Labour. You are supporting FORCING people into contracts. The weapons can be used for good, not just crimes. Selling them when KNOWING they are to be used for a specific crime IS supporting that crime, way to shoot yourself in the foot with examples not fully thought through!!!
-
Terminator, since it's her conscience and not yours that is on the line, why does what you THINK is in line with christian morality matter AT ALL?
Bella,
I am just going by what I understand about Christianity. If she were something else like maybe Muslim, then she might really not be able to reconcile with the job.
The issue is really about tolerance. Tolerance does not equate to endorsement. If I sell fireworks for Diwali, I can choose to see it as endorsing or supporting Hindu beliefs. But I can also choose to see it as tolerance for the same. Christianity, as practiced today is for the most part, tolerant. That is something I consider to be going for it. She has chosen the bad and the ugly of her religion over the good.
To consider an extreme example. For argument's purpose, suppose an Inca or Aztec immigrant is prevented from sacrificing the neighbor's daughter to the sun God. Would you consider that a violation of his beliefs/conscience etc? Probably not. And in this case, he'd just have to bite the bullet.
It's really about tolerance and a recognition of the limits of religion in a secular state.
No it is not. Tolerance would be this: The gay person gets their wedding, the religious person gets to not take part. No one here loses their rights. What you think is tolerance instead looks like this: The state determines for everyone that gay marriage is moral, and then the religious person loses their right to consider it immoral and not take part in it themselves. Now, THAT looks like a state religion to me, not limits to religion. The human sacrifice involves taking away another's right to life, it's more like abortion than what the baker is asking for. No one has any entitlement to another person's labour, unless we want to endorse slavery here. Instead, what seems like a balance is that unless the service here can be found nowhere else, the gay couple can find the gazillion other bakers happy to take their money, and leave the one christian woman who does not want to help celebrate sin alone. That is the limits of religion. Not just running roughshod over people's moral objections in the name of protecting others whose so-called rights aren't even in danger.
The morality of the wedding is up to the individual to decide. I think the state is just ensuring that people are served equally within those constraints of the law; don't pick out gays, blacks, immigrants etc for different treatment on the basis of those attributes.
In other words, the bakery is free to find other excuses not serve them. Maybe they are closed for lunch break every time the couple shows up. Or there is just no one to take their order. Something legitimate. Sexual orientation of the customer is not a legitimate reason.
The baker was asking to be allowed to limit the rights of the gay couple, illegally. I think that is what the judgement was based on. It was not a judgment on their rights to hold their beliefs, except in so far as they infringe on what the court determined was a more important right. It's a tough call for the judge to make, but I think they made the right one.
The baker did not refuse to serve them on the basis of their orientation. If that was true, she would have shut them out of her business years ago. What she refused to do was play a part in a wedding that is sinful.
-
Silly analogies. The person who issues licences has already FREELY contracted to carry out the Labour. You are supporting FORCING people into contracts.
Not really. There is no contract they are being forced into. They are simply being required to obey the law, which says that they cannot discriminate on certain grounds if they run a certain type of business. The fact that it is their labour or their privately owned business does not give them exceptions.
-
Terminator, since it's her conscience and not yours that is on the line, why does what you THINK is in line with christian morality matter AT ALL?
Bella,
I am just going by what I understand about Christianity. If she were something else like maybe Muslim, then she might really not be able to reconcile with the job.
The issue is really about tolerance. Tolerance does not equate to endorsement. If I sell fireworks for Diwali, I can choose to see it as endorsing or supporting Hindu beliefs. But I can also choose to see it as tolerance for the same. Christianity, as practiced today is for the most part, tolerant. That is something I consider to be going for it. She has chosen the bad and the ugly of her religion over the good.
To consider an extreme example. For argument's purpose, suppose an Inca or Aztec immigrant is prevented from sacrificing the neighbor's daughter to the sun God. Would you consider that a violation of his beliefs/conscience etc? Probably not. And in this case, he'd just have to bite the bullet.
It's really about tolerance and a recognition of the limits of religion in a secular state.
No it is not. Tolerance would be this: The gay person gets their wedding, the religious person gets to not take part. No one here loses their rights. What you think is tolerance instead looks like this: The state determines for everyone that gay marriage is moral, and then the religious person loses their right to consider it immoral and not take part in it themselves. Now, THAT looks like a state religion to me, not limits to religion. The human sacrifice involves taking away another's right to life, it's more like abortion than what the baker is asking for. No one has any entitlement to another person's labour, unless we want to endorse slavery here. Instead, what seems like a balance is that unless the service here can be found nowhere else, the gay couple can find the gazillion other bakers happy to take their money, and leave the one christian woman who does not want to help celebrate sin alone. That is the limits of religion. Not just running roughshod over people's moral objections in the name of protecting others whose so-called rights aren't even in danger.
The morality of the wedding is up to the individual to decide. I think the state is just ensuring that people are served equally within those constraints of the law; don't pick out gays, blacks, immigrants etc for different treatment on the basis of those attributes.
In other words, the bakery is free to find other excuses not serve them. Maybe they are closed for lunch break every time the couple shows up. Or there is just no one to take their order. Something legitimate. Sexual orientation of the customer is not a legitimate reason.
The baker was asking to be allowed to limit the rights of the gay couple, illegally. I think that is what the judgement was based on. It was not a judgment on their rights to hold their beliefs, except in so far as they infringe on what the court determined was a more important right. It's a tough call for the judge to make, but I think they made the right one.
The baker did not refuse to serve them on the basis of their orientation. If that was true, she would have shut them out of her business years ago. What she refused to do was play a part in a wedding that is sinful.
Ok. That might have been the baker's view. But can't you see how it boils down to the same thing?
-
The baker did not refuse to serve them on the basis of their orientation.
So said the bakers. The line they tried to sell reminded me of racists who "have no problems with blacks" and will "work with them" just as long as they don't get up to certain things---such as fuck white women. Fortunately, the law tries to look at unlawful discrimination in a "uniform" way.
I actually found it quite funny: they said "we have no problem with gays" and then followed up with "we will not give them a cake because they are gay and will use it to celebrate a wedding".
One more time, what the judge said:
The salient feature distinguishing same-sex weddings from heterosexual ones is the sexual orientation of its participants. Only same-sex couples engage in same-sex weddings. Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not “because of” their sexual orientation.
Really quite simple. Doesn't leave much wiggle-room, as far as I can see.
-
The baker did not refuse to serve them on the basis of their orientation.
So said the bakers. The line they tried to sell reminded me of racists who "have no problems with blacks" and will "work with them" just as long as they don't get up to certain things---such as fuck white women. Fortunately, the law tries to look at unlawful discrimination in a "uniform" way.
I actually found it quite funny: they said "we have no problem with gays" and then followed up with "we will not give them a cake because they are gay and will use it to celebrate a wedding".
One more time, what the judge said:
The salient feature distinguishing same-sex weddings from heterosexual ones is the sexual orientation of its participants. Only same-sex couples engage in same-sex weddings. Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not “because of” their sexual orientation.
Really quite simple. Doesn't leave much wiggle-room, as far as I can see.
I think the judge figured that their definition of sinful wedding unfairly singled out gays. In the early days after slavery, states in the South passed laws that made it difficult for blacks to vote, without once mentioning race. They just picked out attributes that disproportionately affected recently freed slaves. I have noticed a tendency for good judges to look past such arguments and instead look at the overall effect of permitting certain actions to determine if they are discriminatory or not.
-
The baker did not refuse to serve them on the basis of their orientation.
So said the bakers. The line they tried to sell reminded me of racists who "have no problems with blacks" and will "work with them" just as long as they don't get up to certain things---such as fuck white women. Fortunately, the law tries to look at unlawful discrimination in a "uniform" way.
I actually found it quite funny: they said "we have no problem with gays" and then followed up with "we will not give them a cake because they are gay and will use it to celebrate a wedding".
One more time, what the judge said:
The salient feature distinguishing same-sex weddings from heterosexual ones is the sexual orientation of its participants. Only same-sex couples engage in same-sex weddings. Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not “because of” their sexual orientation.
Really quite simple. Doesn't leave much wiggle-room, as far as I can see.
Judge - pure ignorence.
Christians honor marriage for Yahweh. Marriage was written into Western law in respect to Christian monagomy. Paul's writing i.e. his letter to the Corinthians. In Islam they have the sharia laws - they also honor marriage for Allah.
Homosexual marriages are not the same as heterosexual marriages. Marriage for legal rights is not the same as religious honor.
Marriage is more than just two couples coming together. It's age old ritual ceremonies in preparation for life i.e. produce life- baby.
Homosexual marriages not only bring into law and practice what isn't natural, its repercussions permeate into producing life via artificial means. It's sowing seeds for a destructive future for humanity as a whole.
-
Marriage for legal rights is not the same as religious honor.
That is an excellent point. The law and courts are not concerned with "religious honor"; their primary concern is with certain procedures that guarantee certain rights to certain people. In regard to that concern, the courts have issues with people injecting religion where it has no place and its use is forbidden.
-
An interesting point. I am not sure if the judges use it. But it seems to me that you have to give order of precedence to rights. For when they come into conflict.
First are what I consider primary rights. Those related to things we have no choice about. Life. Gender. Sexual orientation(Ben Carson begs to differ). Race. Birthplace etc.
Below those are rights related to choices. Religion. Political affiliations. Conscience etc. These rights are or should be subordinate to the primary ones.
-
I think the judge figured that their definition of sinful wedding unfairly singled out gays.
It was more that that. And note that at the time this happened Colorado did not allow or recognize gay marriage, and the Supreme Court had not made its major ruling. In fact, when their "conscience" got stretched, the bakers happily trotted the former into court.
The bakers stated that they did not make cakes for weddings by gays, and in court proceedings they confirmed that as their position. They then went on to argue that their refusal had nothing to do with sexual orientation; they just didn't care for gays getting married. That's a funny one to try and sell.
In addition to the original decision, here is how the appellate court, somewhat dryly, put it:
25 Masterpiece contends that the ALJ erred in concluding that its refusal to create a wedding cake for Craig and Mullins was “because of” their sexual orientation. Specifically, Masterpiece asserts that its refusal to create the cake was “because of” its opposition to same-sex marriage, not because of its opposition to their sexual orientation. We conclude that the act of same-sex marriage is closely correlated to Craig’s and Mullins’ sexual orientation, and therefore, the ALJ did not err when he found that Masterpiece’s refusal to create a wedding cake for Craig and Mullins was “because of” their sexual orientation, in violation of CADA.
The courts also pointed out a couple of things, which are significant for those who wish to argue that by baking the cake the bakers would somehow be supporting or approving or participating in whatever:
(a) First, as a matter of simple common sense, people do not think that those who supply materials for weddings and suchlike are "supporting or approving or participating". Not those involved in the marriage or even those merely attending. People see it as no more than a business transaction.
(b) Second, if the bakers have their doubts in regard to (a), then what they can do is put up signs and so forth stating that by supplying cakes they are not necessarily "supporting or approving or participating".
Finally a note to those who do not wish to see such cases connected to the struggle by blacks for rights: The courts which finally acted in regard to that struggle see it differently and have repeatedly made the connection clear. In the bakers' case, the appellate court cited this from 1964:
Undoubtedly defendant . . . has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing, however, he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens. This Court refuses to lend credence or support to his position that he has a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of the Negro race in his business establishment upon the ground that to do so would violate his sacred religious beliefs.
A major issue in the discussion of these cases has to do with the fact that quite a few people do not understand "public accommodation laws" and seem to think that "if it's their labour or their business or whatever, then they may freely indulge in unlawful discrimination". Not so.
-
The baker did not refuse to serve them on the basis of their orientation.
I actually found it quite funny: they said "we have no problem with gays" and then followed up with "we will not give them a cake because they are gay and will use it to celebrate a wedding".
That is what YOU say they said..... because they are gay, my foot. We will not bake a cake to celebrate the sexual union of two men. We will bake a cake for the couple for their birthday any day, but not for a celebration of gay sex. You can't argue against that so you insert "because they are gay" to falsely equivocate it to racial discrimination. You have dodged the question I asked before, if the baker's issue was not to serve people "because they are gay" explain then how it is that she DOES in fact serve gay people for years before all this meddling. If she has problems with gay people, she would not be serving gay people, which she happily does as well as employ them. The "because they are gay" is a motive artificially imposed by you and this judge, because you have no other way of stepping on her freedom of conscience except by lies.
One more time, what the judge said:
The salient feature distinguishing same-sex weddings from heterosexual ones is the sexual orientation of its participants. Only same-sex couples engage in same-sex weddings. Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not “because of” their sexual orientation.
Really quite simple. Doesn't leave much wiggle-room, as far as I can see.
One more time: it is nonsense even if the person who says it is a judge. If arguments from authority are all you have then what a pity. Being gay and having gay sex or engaging in gay marriage are not equivalent. Being gay is just an interior predisposition/attraction. A characteristic of the person. Engaging in gay sex is a behaviour many believe to be morally problematic to say the least. The baker refuses to support the behaviour! He has no problem serving the persons whatever their orientations. No matter how many times you keep quoting someone, if what he says isn't true, or logically consistent, it will remain nonsense. Now, try again.
-
The old lady who was basically ruined after fined for 150 thousand dollars for not performing a service for a gay wedding
There you go again, a "Good & Devout Christian" making up stories that would embarrass even Satan & His Evil Spawn.
First, there is no "old lady". The woman is relatively young and would even look semi-attractive is she exercised and stopped eating some of her own products.
(http://cdn.gospelherald.com/data/images/full/9382/sweet-cakes-by-melissa.jpg)
Second, nobody was "basically ruined". They were fined $150K but their supporters quickly raised $352K for them. So they actually did quite well out of it. They are in fact doing quite well: you can confirm this, as I did, by asking the "old lady" at melissa@sweetcakesweb.com
Third, she did refuse to sell a wedding cake on the basis that the people were gay. The fact that she was willing to sell, or had been selling, other products to any number of gays does not change the fact that she broke the law in that refusal. One more time: the law-breaking was not a generic 'we won't serve gays"; it was that particular case.
How do you figure that when SERVING GAY PEOPLE in her business both as customers and employees is exactly what she has been doing and continues to do?
She had been selling wedding cakes to gays? If so, then someone forgot to bring it to the court's attention. But I certainly hope that she is no longer engaged in unlawful discrimination.
-
That is what YOU say they said..... because they are gay, my foot.
No, no, no. It's what they cheerfully admitted to in court. Go look at the court documents.
she DOES in fact serve gay people for years before all this meddling. If she has problems with gay people, she would not be serving gay people, which she happily does as well as employ them.
Once again the importance of getting facts right: you have thoroughly confused your bakers. The Colorado one---which is the one discussed in the court document---is in fact a guy and quite different from the Oregon one you claim is a "ruined old lady". In any case, neither involves an old lady, nor has anyone been ruined.
Now, try again.
Try what? The court is dealing with them, and all I am doing is stating my vigorous support and encouragement.
-
Good for those who raised the money! I read this woman's letter of appeal to the AG who wished to ruin her by imposing the exorbitant fines explaining that she would be ruined. If Christians felt the same amount of pity I felt for her and raised the money, then more power to them (and her! ) Still doesn't take away the fact that they tried to ruin her completely, only that others intervened. There are still enough sensible people after all.
-
And you just keep roboticalky saying it is because they were gay, actually showing that is apparently a mountainous task to you. Explain to me how anyone who allegedly refuses to serve people "because they are gay" serves people who are gay.... for the gazillionth time?
-
That is what YOU say they said..... because they are gay, my foot.
No, no, no. It's what they cheerfully admitted to in court. Go look at the court documents.
she DOES in fact serve gay people for years before all this meddling. If she has problems with gay people, she would not be serving gay people, which she happily does as well as employ them.
Once again the importance of getting facts right: you have thoroughly confused your bakers. The Colorado one---which is the one discussed in the court document---is in fact a guy and quite different from the Oregon one you claim is a "ruined old lady".
Now, try again.
Try what? The court is dealing with them, and all I am doing is stating my vigorous support and encouragement.
You are the one who brought up the Colorado case after I started talking about the woman who employed and served gaynpeople for years, includingthe ccouple that tried to ruin her when they decided she should bake a cake for their wedding and she said "that one, hapana". Besides, it doesn't really matter which case it is, the bakers were all refusing to bake for a gay wedding, not simply to serve gay couples as people, which is what you desperately want to impose on them just because a judge shares your confusion.
-
You are the one who brought up the Colorado case after
There is no excuse for your making up lies and stories about old ladies that have supposedly been ruined.
the bakers were all refusing to bake for a gay wedding, not simply to serve gay couples as people,
That one is funny. So when gays get married it is not as people?
which is what you desperately want to impose on them just because a judge shares your confusion.
I'm not imposing anything on anyone; it is the judges---not just one!---who insist on imposing the law. You may consider those judges confused, but I'm pretty sure they will succeed.
-
You are the one who brought up the Colorado case after
There is no excuse for your making up lies and stories about old ladies that have supposedly been ruined.
the bakers were all refusing to bake for a gay wedding, not simply to serve gay couples as people,
That one is funny. So when gays get married it is not as people?
I did not make up lies, I believed she was ruined. I am very glad she not only wasn't ruined but did better than her haters had planned for her. Now, Is that all you got after all your non arguments have failed?
So when addicts do drugs it's not as people? The depths you wont sink to..... that's not funny, tragic is more like it. Apparently if I serve these addicts as people in my pharmacy when they are sick but refuse to cater to their addictions otherwise, it'll be treating them as other than people. Some people actually swallow this emotional b.s. passing for arguments, I imagine. Youvwouldnt otherwise be making them.
-
I did not make up lies, I believed she was ruined.
Without any evidence. And you "believed" she was an old lady, without any evidence. Right? Lies is when people simply make up stuff. And you are so forceful about your stories! The poor liitle old lady ruined by evil anti-Christian powers! Weep, weep, weep.
-
I did not make up lies, I believed she was ruined.
Without any evidence. And you "believed" she was an old lady, without any evidence. Right? Lies is when people simply make up stuff.
She is an old lady who is at least 60, right? Why should I care what you think is old or not?
-
I did not make up lies, I believed she was ruined.
Without any evidence. And you "believed" she was an old lady, without any evidence. Right? Lies is when people simply make up stuff. And you are so forceful about your stories! The poor liitle old lady ruined by evil anti-Christian powers! Weep, weep, weep.
More emotional b.s. The woman was fined for an amount she said was IMPOSSIBLE for her to pay!!!! She would have to shut her business! That's what I call ruin. That other people apparently intervened doesn't change what you allude to in this poorly attempted sarcasm.... others stopped them from ruining her therefore they didn't try to ruin her???? Your big argument.....
-
She is an old lady who is at least 60, right? Why should I care what you think is old or not?
Really?
-
Silly analogies. The person who issues licences has already FREELY contracted to carry out the Labour. You are supporting FORCING people into contracts.
Not really. There is no contract they are being forced into. They are simply being required to obey the law, which says that they cannot discriminate on certain grounds if they run a certain type of business. The fact that it is their labour or their privately owned business does not give them exceptions.
I hadn't seen this other "gem" from before.... you are not being forced into a contract because a law exists that calls your being forced into a contract something else.... More from the great legal mind that is moon ki.
-
I hadn't seen this other "gem" from before.... you are not being forced into a contract because a law exists that calls your being forced into a contract something else.... More from the great legal mind that is moon ki.
That one too is definitely funny! Here's an idea: perhaps they could drop all the other stuff and go to court on the basis of being forced into contracts; it's definitely an angle that doesn't seem to have occurred to her lawyers.
-
More emotional b.s. The woman was fined for an amount she said was IMPOSSIBLE for her to pay!!!! She would have to shut her business! That's what I call ruin. That other people apparently intervened doesn't change what you allude to in this poorly attempted sarcasm.... others stopped them from ruining her therefore they didn't try to ruin her???? Your big argument.....
Perhaps it's just a matter of viewpoints.
I was commenting on this statement:
The old lady who was basically ruined after fined for 150 thousand dollars for not performing a service for a gay wedding.
They get fined $150K; they get $352K from supporters; and business continues to thrive. Most people would not consider her ruined (basically or otherwise); indeed, as you note,
others stopped them from ruining her ...
I hope you can see my "difficulty": (a) no old lady to be found anywhere, and (b) no ruin to be seen anywhere.
-
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/20/living/stutzman-florist-gay/
So, here goes: so the person I was thinking of is actually a florist who refused to decorate a gay wedding, not a baker and she IS a grandma, had indeed served this couple for years before they turned on her (plus hired gay staff in her business). This is what has moon ki orgasming that he caught me lying about a poor old lady ruined by his likes. To Moonki's dismay, she does exist, I just got the little detail of her role in the wedding mixed up, florist not baker. Of course, the principle is the same either way, florist/baker/caterer/photographer, doesn't really mater. She did write a letter to that hateful AG too, yep. Moon ki, did you have anything else you hoped to use or was this just it for you?
-
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/20/living/stutzman-florist-gay/
So, here goes: so the person I was thinking of is actually a florist who refused to decorate a gay wedding, not a baker and she IS a grandma, had indeed served this couple for years begore they turned on her (plus hired gay staff in her business). This is what has moon ki orgasming that he caught me lying about a poor old lady ruined by his likes.
He, he, he ...
Even Satan & Evil Spawn would definitely be impressed with all the wriggling. Here is what I was commenting on:
The old lady who was basically ruined after fined for 150 thousand dollars for not performing a service for a gay wedding.
Let's temporarily go with your new story, about the florist: Where did the "150 thousand dollars fine" come from?. That's a lot of change, and you really need to find a good place for it.
Once you answer that, we'll move on to the matter of ruin. And then we might even look at the legal aspects of your new-and-improved offering.
-
Moonki, i happily admit i got the facts mixed up. But anyone who has followed my arguments can very easily tell that I was talking about an old lady fined exorbitant fines that ruined her, as she herself explains in a letter, after she was sued by gay customers she had served for years, and who moreover hired gay employees in ger bysiness and had written a letter I read to the AG who went after her. It's pretty obvious I confused the details of the cases. But you were having this orgasm that you caught me lying..... lololol! You were all sarcastic too, about people going after an old lady as if such a thing couldn't happen and was all the figment of my imagination.. Then it turns out it did in fact happen. Nice one.
-
Bella:
That's a start. It appears that there is no old lady who was ruined (basically or otherwise) by a $150K fine. You made it up. That's normally called lying, but seeing as you are a "Good & Devout Christian", we'll accept that you merely "got the facts mixed up". Even after the forceful manner in which you argued your case ...
Anyways, now that you have settled on the florist, let's go with that story.
anyone who has followed my arguments can very easily tell that I was talking about an old lady fined exorbitant fines that ruined her
As far as I recall, she was fined $1K and order to pay $1 court fees and costs. A total of $1001 is hardly exorbitant, I think; but maybe the judge later sneaked in something. But more importantly, there's this:
People managed to raise $174K for her against a "fine" of $1.001 K.
Can you give us some more details on the new revision that:
old lady fined exorbitant fines that ruined her
Specifically:
(a) the nature of the "exorbitant fines"; and
(b) the details of the consequent "ruin".
This is what has moon ki orgasming
That's inappropriate here. But seeing as that you brought it up: I will be jerking off later, but to entirely different things ... maybe I'll think of you dressed as a nun and doing .. oh, never mind.
-
Moonki, I have consistently spoken of an old woman who served the couple that sued her and hired gay staff. Any honest person will see I confused the facts of these anti-Christian suits over gay weddings, moreover, the existence of a 150 thousand fine makes all the more obvious to any honest person that I merely confused these very similar cases. You can continue straining the "made it up" nonsense but I'm sure it is pretty clear to any honest reader what happened here. Feel free to jerk off with a baguette up your a***, I don't really care. The woman was being threatened witn ruin as I read her case, which the article I quoted made clear. If instead she got rich, more power to her (and her donors, of course). It might teach the mob to leave well alone next time.
-
the existence of a 150 thousand fine makes all the more obvious to any honest person that I merely
Forget the 150 thousand. Let's go with the florist of your new story, of whom you say
anyone who has followed my arguments can very easily tell that I was talking about an old lady fined exorbitant fines that ruined her
Yes, that certainly is true. You definitely have been talking "about an old lady fined exorbitant fines that ruined her". No argument about that. But who is said old lady; what were the fines; what was the ruin?
Please, tell us some more about the old lady, the exorbitant fines, and the ruin.
The woman was being threatened with ruin as I read her case, which the article I quoted made clear.
First, it was "fined exorbitant fines that ruined her". Then she was merely threatened but not ruined? Which exactly is it? I assume you now want to go with the latter. In that case, what was the exact nature of the threats?
Feel free to jerk off with a baguette up your a***, I don't really care.
Nah. I don't think I'd enjoy that, and that's even without considering the size of those things. It would actually be quite tricky, if you think of the baguette breaking up and shit. Too untidy and messy. Besides, I have a very strict rule: always stuffer, never stuffee.
For jerking off, I'd rather think of you in your nun outfit. Dripping wet, but still tight like a nun. If you like things up the a***, as you hint to, then my local Filthy Shop has some good stuff I could bring along; do both holes in what Americans might call a "twofer". (Do you prefer hard rubber or soft rubber?)
It might teach the mob to leave well alone next time.
I wouldn't think of it that way. The courts seemed to determined to enforce anti-discrimination laws, and I don't see them deciding to "leave well enough alone", as you put it.
-
If homosexuality is now protected by US constitution,speaking against it is bigotry regardless of your motivation; Bible,Quran....
There is nothing like, conscience, faith here; any partiality on the basis of sexual orientation is discrimination.
That most Christians are outspoken on thi makes them easy targets for suits. And they will get stupid by the day. I know sermons will be censured shortly
-
If homosexuality is now protected by US constitution,speaking against it is bigotry regardless of your motivation; Bible,Quran....
There is nothing like, conscience, faith here; any partiality on the basis of sexual orientation is discrimination.
That most Christians are outspoken on thi makes them easy targets for suits. And they will get stupid by the day. I know sermons will be censured shortly
Uongo mtupu. Gay marriage has been legal in a few states for some years. There has never been any censure on what people can preach or believe. In the US there is even no law against hate speech. You are free to wear a Halloween costume and burn a cross outside your house every night cussing niggas. It's just that you are likely to lose social capital in the process.
-
If homosexuality is now protected by US constitution,speaking against it is bigotry regardless of your motivation; Bible,Quran....
There is nothing like, conscience, faith here; any partiality on the basis of sexual orientation is discrimination.
That most Christians are outspoken on thi makes them easy targets for suits. And they will get stupid by the day. I know sermons will be censured shortly
Uongo mtupu. Gay marriage has been legal in a few states for some years. There has never been any censure on what people can preach or believe. In the US there is even no law against hate speech. You are free to wear a Halloween costume and burn a cross outside your house every night cussing niggas. It's just that you are likely to lose social capital in the process.
Churches are more than 'outside your house'. They buy properties, hold meetings,evangelize. They will be severely hindered from speaking out. The church will be intimidated into silence
-
Comparing Black civil rights to gay rights is like comparing apples to oranges.
...
<additional blah blah blah deleted>
Once again, you have missed the point. Quite badly too.
Flip-flopping is inevitable in “the art of the possible”.
On the first post, I meant first amendment rights not law (iPhone’s Goofy Autocorrect).
-
If homosexuality is now protected by US constitution,speaking against it is bigotry regardless of your motivation; Bible,Quran....
There is nothing like, conscience, faith here; any partiality on the basis of sexual orientation is discrimination.
That most Christians are outspoken on thi makes them easy targets for suits. And they will get stupid by the day. I know sermons will be censured shortly
Uongo mtupu. Gay marriage has been legal in a few states for some years. There has never been any censure on what people can preach or believe. In the US there is even no law against hate speech. You are free to wear a Halloween costume and burn a cross outside your house every night cussing niggas. It's just that you are likely to lose social capital in the process.
Churches are more than 'outside your house'. They buy properties, hold meetings,evangelize. They will be severely hindered from speaking out. The church will be intimidated into silence
Being hindered from speaking out can happen for many reasons, shame being one of them. Ostracization another. I call that the censorship by social norm. Technically they are going to remain free to speak out. That is good enough.
-
Looking at the list of the 50 most powerful gay Americans, and using 1964 as an end date for official segregation (with the passing of the Civil Rights Act), would someone please be kind enough to let me know who the pre-1964 African American equivalents were for the following gay leaders: Suze Orman, the national TV host and respected financial guru. Anderson Cooper, one of the most familiar faces on CNN, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, famous Annise Parker, mayor of Houston David Geffen. I don't think of any black mayors of major American cities prior to 1964 or any any of these popular people.
Surely you have a list of no black Americans or Asians or Latinos during the days of segregation who carried the clout that Geffen carried, right?
-
For jerking off, I'd rather think of you in your nun outfit. Dripping wet, but still tight like a nun. If you like things up the a***, as you hint to, then my local Filthy Shop has some good stuff I could bring along; do both holes in what Americans might call a "twofer". (Do you prefer hard rubber or soft rubber?)
Kadame is not your wife. Do you have an ignore button in your head? When a woman says sh^t. You don't have to physically, verbally, emotionally abuse her. Ignore her
-
MOON Ki, I am a bad boy too (according to women).
-
If homosexuality is now protected by US constitution,speaking against it is bigotry regardless of your motivation; Bible,Quran....
There is nothing like, conscience, faith here; any partiality on the basis of sexual orientation is discrimination.
That most Christians are outspoken on thi makes them easy targets for suits. And they will get stupid by the day. I know sermons will be censured shortly
Uongo mtupu. Gay marriage has been legal in a few states for some years. There has never been any censure on what people can preach or believe. In the US there is even no law against hate speech. You are free to wear a Halloween costume and burn a cross outside your house every night cussing niggas. It's just that you are likely to lose social capital in the process.
Churches are more than 'outside your house'. They buy properties, hold meetings,evangelize. They will be severely hindered from speaking out. The church will be intimidated into silence
Being hindered from speaking out can happen for many reasons, shame being one of them. Ostracization another. I call that the censorship by social norm. Technically they are going to remain free to speak out. That is good enough.
The boundaries for what amounts to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation will be pushed to the max. The cake is just the dessert, main course coming
-
Too many gays have been persecuted and killed throughout history. It's time the law is on their side. They have a right to get married like any other human being. My first serious boyfriend in high school came out of the closet. He initially told only me even though he knew I was christian. He was scared of his devout Catholic parents, family, friends etc. would disown him. I told him it was going to be ok and my mother and I had his back. He eventually told his parents. They eventually accepted his sexuality choice. I was with him throughout his journey of coming out. He'd been thinking of suicide and running away instead of telling those around him. I wouldn't want any teen to go through such pain in coming out.
(http://www.chicagonow.com/an-agnostic-in-wheaton/files/2013/04/gaysmurderedinIraq.jpg)
-
Maneno makali makali. veritas should create a coliseum forum, kind of like controversial. Maybe add a one on one subforum boxing-ring and a cess-pit for a melee.
Boxing-ring should be restricted to two antagonists, with no moderation. Cess-pit permits any-comers; it can morph from a boxing-ring that defies moderation. Accessing the coliseum should require a special effort; an inconspicuous link; maybe even subscription. That way we can continue keeping the main forum polite.
-
Windy, love it.
I have nominated you and Bella for this week. :D
-
Veritas,
The persecution of gays is an unacceptable practice to most conscientious Christians, and I can bet MoonKi and even the resident false prophet would agree. Homosexuals have the right to obey or to disobey God, just like Lucifer did with the evil angels that rebelled in heaven. The point Bella is making in reference to the Kim Davis case is that even if the homosexuals have the law on their side, they really have no business forcing those who conscientiously oppose homosexuality to endorse the practice. The Kim Davis case demonstrates the fallacy of your argument. If indeed homosexuals want to celebrate their newfound right to marry, the state should find registrars who have no objections and place them (even advertise) in public office. With the permissiveness of the American society today, there surely can't be any lack of liberal Christians and atheists willing to perform such ceremonies and append their signatures to certificates. Forcing persons like Kim Davis into the mix and jailing them for not complying is judicial tyranny. That is the irony. That homosexuals' freedom to marry is somehow made possible by jailing registrars like Kim Davis who object.
I do not like the pope but he apparently met Kim Davis and expressed solidarity with her.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/30/kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-in-secret-meeting-with-pope-francis-report-says?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2
Too many gays have been persecuted and killed throughout history. It's time the law is on their side. They have a right to get married like any other human being. My first serious boyfriend in high school came out of the closet. He initially told only me even though he knew I was christian. He was scared of his devout Catholic parents, family, friends etc. would disown him. I told him it was going to be ok and my mother and I had his back. He eventually told his parents. They eventually accepted his sexuality choice. I was with him throughout his journey of coming out. He'd been thinking of suicide and running away instead of telling those around him. I wouldn't want any teen to go through such pain in coming out.
(http://www.chicagonow.com/an-agnostic-in-wheaton/files/2013/04/gaysmurderedinIraq.jpg)
-
DB, I challenge you to a duel ! 8)
Do you accept?