Breaking: Per SCOTUS, Same-Sex Marriage is now law of the land.

[actaeon277]

https://www.yahoo.com/health/plan-targets-healthcare-bias-against-1249562754768950.html
Plan Targets Healthcare Bias Against Transgender People

Usually, I'm of the opinion a business should be able to serve who it wants.
But, I also think there should be exceptions, such as: healthcare, and monopolies such as electrical power.

So, when I saw the title, I thought "well, a person coming in for a broken leg or gunshot or whatever shouldn't be discriminated against".
Then I got to this part.

"...would ensure not only that trans citizens cannot be denied access to the same basic healthcare services as all other Americans because of who they are, but also may ultimately ensure that insurance companies must cover gender reassignment surgery for trans persons who desire it."
and
Once the proposed regulations are final, they should expand insurance coverage for gender transition and prohibit health care facilities from denying transgender people access to restrooms that match their individual gender identity.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Judge May Lose Job Over Gay Marriages | The Daily Caller

 

[jblomenberg16]

Admittedly I haven't followed the whole thread, but went back a few pages and hadn't seen this brought up...

The lady refused to issue license on her religious principles (assuming Christian, though I haven't seen it specified...)

However she's on her 4th (I believe) marriage, and got pregnant by her 3rd husband while she was still married to her 1st husband, husband #2 adopted the child... What is she up to now, 4 stonings? (three divorces and one adultry...)

Forget the principles, what about the hypocrisy?

This character attack was included in the actual hearing before the judge. The brief transcript I saw did show that she acknowledge that she had several flaws, and wasn't claiming to be perfect, just forgiven. It appears that after all of the divorce and problems that she had, she eventually found religion and was trying to legitimately turn away from those things and start a new life.

Something the left likes to throw at many religious people is that "they aren't perfect." You know what? They are 100% right. Most Christians acknowledge freely that they are far from perfect, and in fact some very sinful people that do things that they aren't proud of. Many of those sins are the same as those committed by folks that aren't religious. Many non-religious folks may in fact sin less frequently than Christians.

Something important things to understand about Christianity as it pertains to these dicussions:

1) Christians believe and confess that all humans are sinful and are very far from perfect
2) The only man that was perfect was Jesus
3) Jesus forgave the sins of those of us that aren't perfect
4) We should confess our sins and willingly try to sin less (all the while knowing #1 is still true)

Forgiveness isn't a blank check. As Christians we should strive to improve our lives and sin less. But ultimately we aren't perfect, we are going to sin, and we are going to succumb to some of the same things our fellow man does. The irony is that many'a atheist likes to call out hypocrisy and imperfection of a Christian, as if somehow that perfection was attainable by a mere mortal human being, when the Christian believes that every one is imperfect and therefore in need of a savior. I know a lot of people, Christian and non-Christian alike that probably live about as close to perfect as a person can. I know Christians and atheists alike that are also pretty darn sinful.

I'm not trying to turn the thread into an evangelism post. But what I'm trying to say is that I don't see where the Clerk claimed at any point to be perfect or blameless. She simply said that she did not agree with homosexual marriage given her religious convictions.

 

[Arthur Dent]

I'm not trying to turn the thread into an evangelism post. But what I'm trying to say is that I don't see where the Clerk claimed at any point to be perfect or blameless. She simply said that she did not agree with homosexual marriage given her religious convictions.

Religion shouldn't even be a part of it. She was elected to do a job, not to push her religion onto others.

 

[LP1]

I'd say a lot of us, actually. We know how this is going to end for her... but, she truly does stand by her convictions. Good for her on that regard. I assume there are other people working there that can issue the licenses... so she's not really completely impeding the marriages from happening?

This is her "Molon Labe". If they want her to stop, go and take her job away.

(However... equating firearm ownership to signing gay marriage licenses is a bit of a stretch, I admit :P )

She clearly has a firm belief in heterosexual marriage - she's tried it 4 times.

 

[cobber]

Historic day in Rowan County: Marriage licenses finally issued t - WDRB 41 Louisville News

Are we happy now? Or do we still want Mrs. Davis' head on a pike?

The article states that one of the pairs was from the county but it's not clear about the others. I'm going out on a limb when I say I guess it wasn't too much of a hassle to go to a neighboring county to fulfill your wishes.

Whatever the merits of her position, I absolutely cannot stand the hypocrisy of the Left and their fellow-travellers on this issue. Hillary, Lerner, Holder, Cuomo, et al. where is the mewling outrage over their not following the laws?

Until the Left takes on its own, I am not listening to any more of their claptrap.

 

[Denny347]

Whatever the merits of her position, I absolutely cannot stand the hypocrisy of the Left and their fellow-travellers on this issue. Hillary, Lerner, Holder, Cuomo, et al. where is the mewling outrage over their not following the laws?

Until the Left takes on its own, I am not listening to any more of their claptrap.

I agree that we should NOT be listening to them, or use them as positive examples to model our behavior by. However, what does that have to do with this lady's actions? I appreciate her steadfastness, regardless if I agree with her or not, it seems a rare trait in this world. But this job she holds isn't for her. I tire of people supporting their actions by saying "well the other side does it". It's BS. Why do we choose to LOWER ourselves to the level of those we disagree with? Much like my job, while I may not agree with all laws, I swore an oath to uphold and enforce them. Now I do, at times, have the ability to CHOOSE to enforce some laws or not. But many laws I cannot CHOOSE to overlook them for if I do I will be derelict in my duties. If it comes to a point where I have serious conflict with a law of substantial consequence, then it is time for me to step down and quit. Same for her.

 

[jblomenberg16]

Religion shouldn't even be a part of it. She was elected to do a job, not to push her religion onto others.

I think we see it opposite from each other. She wasn't pushing anything. She said that based on her religion she couldn't in clear conscious do something that violated her religion.

 

[jblomenberg16]

I agree that we should NOT be listening to them, or use them as positive examples to model our behavior by. However, what does that have to do with this lady's actions? I appreciate her steadfastness, regardless if I agree with her or not, it seems a rare trait in this world. But this job she holds isn't for her. I tire of people supporting their actions by saying "well the other side does it". It's BS. Why do we choose to LOWER ourselves to the level of those we disagree with? Much like my job, while I may not agree with all laws, I swore an oath to uphold and enforce them. Now I do, at times, have the ability to CHOOSE to enforce some laws or not. But many laws I cannot CHOOSE to overlook them for if I do I will be derelict in my duties. If it comes to a point where I have serious conflict with a law of substantial consequence, then it is time for me to step down and quit. Same for her.

Very well said. Once she saw that she could not use her religion as a reasonable excuse, and was ordered to do so, she should have stepped down, or stepped aside.


The scary thing is that some may see this as a reason to say a religious person is unfit for public office, as their personal beliefs could conflict with the laws of the state. Until fairly recently there wasn't much in conflict.

I'm telling you fellas...it doesn't end here. This is a small stepping stone for a complete attack on organized religion. I suggest dusting off some books about Nazi Germany and Communist Russia and see how their religious persecution got its start.

 

[mrjarrell]

Very well said. Once she saw that she could not use her religion as a reasonable excuse, and was ordered to do so, she should have stepped down, or stepped aside.


The scary thing is that some may see this as a reason to say a religious person is unfit for public office, as their personal beliefs could conflict with the laws of the state. Until fairly recently there wasn't much in conflict.

I'm telling you fellas...it doesn't end here. This is a small stepping stone for a complete attack on organized religion. I suggest dusting off some books about Nazi Germany and Communist Russia and see how their religious persecution got its start.

Not exactly true. Many christians of the early church and even down to modern times eschew government work because of situations just like this that put them in conflict.

Ted Cruz is wrong. Kim Davis is not the first Christian woman jailed for taking a stand, and she should resign. - The Washington Post

 

[jblomenberg16]

Not exactly true. Many christians of the early church and even down to modern times eschew government work because of situations just like this that put them in conflict.

Ted Cruz is wrong. Kim Davis is not the first Christian woman jailed for taking a stand, and she should resign. - The Washington Post

I didn't say she was the first...only that I think this will be a common rally cry of the left in current and future elections stating that candidate XYZ is not fit for office due to their religious beliefs.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I agree that we should NOT be listening to them, or use them as positive examples to model our behavior by. However, what does that have to do with this lady's actions? I appreciate her steadfastness, regardless if I agree with her or not, it seems a rare trait in this world. But this job she holds isn't for her. I tire of people supporting their actions by saying "well the other side does it". It's BS. Why do we choose to LOWER ourselves to the level of those we disagree with? Much like my job, while I may not agree with all laws, I swore an oath to uphold and enforce them. Now I do, at times, have the ability to CHOOSE to enforce some laws or not. But many laws I cannot CHOOSE to overlook them for if I do I will be derelict in my duties. If it comes to a point where I have serious conflict with a law of substantial consequence, then it is time for me to step down and quit. Same for her.

You raise a very good point that leaves me with a sense of conflict. As a matter of principle, it is a truly horrible position. The practical problem I see is that when one scrupulously follows the rules while the other side does not, the side not following the rules is predestined to win. So far, I have not found a satisfactory resolution other than to make both sides follow the rules, which just isn't going to happen.

 

[Arthur Dent]

I think we see it opposite from each other. She wasn't pushing anything. She said that based on her religion she couldn't in clear conscious do something that violated her religion.

She is trying to force her religious beliefs on someone else. Want a marriage license? Then you need to agree with/follow what she believes in. If she wants a clear conscience then she should find a different line of work.

 

[IndyDave1776]

She is trying to force her religious beliefs on someone else. Want a marriage license? Then you need to agree with/follow what she believes in. If she wants a clear conscience then she should find a different line of work.

If you really believe this, then you should be alright with her serving out her present term since the terms were change while she is in office. Of course, she does have a valid point so far as that there has not yet been legislation authorizing her to do any such thing, just a federal judge kibitzing in state law.

 

[cobber]

If you really believe this, then you should be alright with her serving out her present term since the terms were change while she is in office. Of course, she does have a valid point so far as that there has not yet been legislation authorizing her to do any such thing, just a federal judge kibitzing in state law.

Federal judges now view State law as their playground, and nothing much is standing in their way. This is not something that we as Americans should take lightly.

Whatever the merits of her position.

 

[Arthur Dent]

If you really believe this, then you should be alright with her serving out her present term since the terms were change while she is in office. Of course, she does have a valid point so far as that there has not yet been legislation authorizing her to do any such thing, just a federal judge kibitzing in state law.

If she can not or will not fulfill her duties she should resign.

 

[jblomenberg16]

She is trying to force her religious beliefs on someone else. Want a marriage license? Then you need to agree with/follow what she believes in. If she wants a clear conscience then she should find a different line of work.

So are they not also trying to force their religious beliefs on her? Remember that she was elected prior to the SCOTUS ruling. I still think there was plenty of reasonable solutions for both sides to solve it peacefully out of court. But saying she was forcing her religion on them is very near sighted.

 

[Arthur Dent]

So are they not also trying to force their religious beliefs on her? Remember that she was elected prior to the SCOTUS ruling. I still think there was plenty of reasonable solutions for both sides to solve it peacefully out of court. But saying she was forcing her religion on them is very near sighted.

They aren't forcing their beliefs on her, they are asking that she just do her job. Because things changed after she was elected doesn't mean she shouldn't do her job. If your job description was changed to include something new do you simply sit down, pout, and refuse to work? Or do you just get on with the job? Or would you resign? You'll do what all adults do and get on with business, or if it really gets your goat you'll resign.

 

[KLB]

They aren't forcing their beliefs on her, they are asking that she just do her job. Because things changed after she was elected doesn't mean she shouldn't do her job. If your job description was changed to include something new do you simply sit down, pout, and refuse to work? Or do you just get on with the job? Or would you resign? You'll do what all adults do and get on with business, or if it really gets your goat you'll resign.

The thing is, her job did not change. It was and is to provide a marriage license to anyone legally eligible to attain one. It isn't to approve of the marriages. Just because the definition of who was eligible changed, does not mean the job changed.

I wonder if she refused to give licenses to people who had been divorced. Shouldn't that be disallowed as well?

 

[jblomenberg16]

Time to leave the thread. Adult discussion is no longer possible.