ZX Gun

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

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!

    • Register Log in
    jamil

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    62,321
    113
    Gtown-ish
    GodFearinGunTotin said:
    Looks like there is a second nullifier...

    Another KY clerk vows to not issue same sex marriage licenses - wave3.com-Louisville News, Weather & Sports
    Click to expand...


    This shows there's enough fail on both sides.
    "Is this what you want to remember?” yelled David Moore, one of the gay men trying to get a marriage license from Kim Davis Tuesday. “That you stood up for this? That your children have to look at you and realize that you’re a bigot, and you discriminated against people?”
    ​

    Both sides are looking at the other through the lens of their own beliefs. The religious side of it isn't bigotry, and if you think so, you're not trying to understand them. You're just interpreting the events within your own bias. And that's what this guy is doing. That doesn't help the situation at all.
     
    IndyDave1776

    IndyDave1776

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jan 12, 2012
    27,286
    113
    jamil said:
    The categories you mention don't really address the problem, which is, we have a clerk using the power of government to enforce her personal, subjective, religious views.

    Look, I get that y'all are angry about gay marriage being accepted at all, and the efficiency and impunity with which the "gaystopo" has mob-shamed their desires into being made law. I fully understand that. But your anger over that has seemed to make you conflate the things you're really angry about, with the supposed right of a clerk to enforce her religion. You favor it as a middle finger at the mob-shamers.

    Fine, be angry about the former. Vehemently voice your displeasure over the SCOTUS ruling, and scream to hell with the ****ty mob-shamers. But find a different middle finger besides government. Just because you like her religion does not justify using the force of government to execute it.

    Given the many discussions we've had about the role of government, and the limitations the constitution places on government, I am astonished what some of you are saying. The use of that power for that purpose is blatantly unconstitutional and you guys know it. And under different circumstances I know that you would say it.

    And I want to specifically mention one very unreasonable argument some of you are using to justify the result you want. You want her to be able to continue to foist her middle finger at the law, I understand that. But justifying it by saying the law changed after she swore her oath is ridiculous on its face. And I know that under different circumstances you'd rightly reject that. The failure to imagine new laws that might offend one's conscience is not protected in the wording of the oath of office. Laws change, sometimes by legislation, and sometimes because the old law is declared unconstitutional. You can't possibly think that every office holder is only bound to execute the laws in place at the time of their oath. And I know you don't really believe that. So for the people trying to seriously use that argument, please stop lest I'm convinced you're battling cognitive dissonance.
    Click to expand...

    Let me clarify. My sympathies with Mrs. Davis are very limited. My primary issue is that had the sides been opposite she would have been publicly commended and politically untouchable right now, or in other words, the situation and how it is handled depends almost exclusively on the views of the participants rather than the rule of law. Had she thumbed her nose at the law by writing marriage certificates for homosexuals when it was illegal, she would have become Rosa Parks 2.0 rather than sitting in a cage. I have more sympathy for someone having a problem with a conflict imposed AFTER accepting the terms of the job rather than simply deciding that they don't like it. I do not necessarily consider that a justification, but I do have a problem with most people acting like she just went stupid one morning. I can see some merit to her argument that the legislature as yet has not produced a revised law for her to carry out. I should have been more clear on things which generate sympathy from me as opposed to considering them iron-clad defenses. Part of my motivation is that she is generally being treated like a Manchurian candidate, which I do not believe to be the case. Most of my concerns are more mitigating circumstances than defenses, but then again, if there were anything approaching a balanced discussion on the matter, I would not find myself making some of the arguments I am making. My basic point is that this is being presented as a 100%/0% split with right and wrong with not even a slight pretense being made of establishing what her personal responsibilities are, which they most certainly are not to be an extension of a federal court kibitzing in a state law. As for that matter, she is not issuing ANY marriage certificates. Regardless of how one may wish to argue, the court is either legislating state law from the federal bench which is doubly wrong constitutionally, or if you make the reverse argument that the court did not create but rather strike down a state law, then the responsibility falls to the legislature to form a replacement.
     
    jamil

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    62,321
    113
    Gtown-ish
    IndyDave1776 said:
    Let me clarify. My sympathies with Mrs. Davis are very limited. My primary issue is that had the sides been opposite she would have been publicly commended and politically untouchable right now, or in other words, the situation and how it is handled depends almost exclusively on the views of the participants rather than the rule of law. Had she thumbed her nose at the law by writing marriage certificates for homosexuals when it was illegal, she would have become Rosa Parks 2.0 rather than sitting in a cage.
    Click to expand...

    Thanks for the clarification. This is more understandable. And I think you're right about that. I'm not real happy about the politics of it either and I'm not at all a fan of the mob-shaming gaystopo.

    IndyDave1776 said:
    I have more sympathy for someone having a problem with a conflict imposed AFTER accepting the terms of the job rather than simply deciding that they don't like it. I do not necessarily consider that a justification, but I do have a problem with most people acting like she just went stupid one morning.
    Click to expand...

    I think the progressives in the press are trolling the religious right over this. But it's not that she went stupid one morning. With all the support from the religious right that she's getting, especially from people like Huckaboom, it seems to me that there may be more to it than just a simple matter of conviction, especially considering the points she's made most public.

    IndyDave1776 said:
    I can see some merit to her argument that the legislature as yet has not produced a revised law for her to carry out. I should have been more clear on things which generate sympathy from me as opposed to considering them iron-clad defenses. Part of my motivation is that she is generally being treated like a Manchurian candidate, which I do not believe to be the case.
    Click to expand...


    Speaking of those points she's made most public, yeah, she's discussed that. And I can see the logic behind an argument she were doing this because there's a dubious nature to the SCUTUS ruling, or because of some procedural thing, like the legislature not yet passing a law. And a judge has ruled on those issues, and the SCOTUS has refused to hear an appeal, it's over.

    But the point she's made most public is that her rights are being violated. That it is her right as a Christian to refuse to perform her duty AND STILL KEEP HER OFFICE! No one can tell her what to think or believe. And she is free to refuse to do her duty, but then she may not retain her office.

    And that's the part I have the most problem with the arguments I've heard in this thread, as if a government office has rights. How many times have we said, the government does not have rights, it has powers. And she does not have the power to use her own personal criteria for deciding who gets a license and who doesn't.

    IndyDave1776 said:
    Most of my concerns are more mitigating circumstances than defenses, but then again, if there were anything approaching a balanced discussion on the matter, I would not find myself making some of the arguments I am making. My basic point is that this is being presented as a 100%/0% split with right and wrong with not even a slight pretense being made of establishing what her personal responsibilities are, which they most certainly are not to be an extension of a federal court kibitzing in a state law. As for that matter, she is not issuing ANY marriage certificates. Regardless of how one may wish to argue, the court is either legislating state law from the federal bench which is doubly wrong constitutionally, or if you make the reverse argument that the court did not create but rather strike down a state law, then the responsibility falls to the legislature to form a replacement.
    Click to expand...

    The courts did in fact strike the law down as unconstitutional. Whether it is or isn't is certainly arguable. I can't wait to see which behavior creates the next new protected class in America. But SCOTUS ruled as they did. And in the mean time the states can't deny same sex marriage. And it seems the governor does have the power, with the backing of the SCOTUS ruling, to order county clerks to issue the licenses.

    I don't see this as a matter of being unbalanced. This is one of those legitimately binary kind of things, she's either justified or she's not. And the right side of it is not a matter of how many people are on one side or the other, or being outnumbered. Being on the right side of it isn't a vote. I'm defining the right side as the right thing for her to do, that would uphold her conscience and the law.

    Far be it from me to enter a theological discussion now, but with decades of Bible study and church participation, I'm not ignorant of Christian doctrines or matters of the heart. A Christian does not need to support this clerk's defiance to retain his state of salvation. Rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's is not a violation of Christian principles. The paper that Caesar issues is not marriage in the Christian sense regardless of the sex of the couple. Obtaining a marriage license from the government does not make people married in God's eyes. It only entitles a couple to the various benefits that the secular government grants to couples. And though I am not a religious person, when the government imposes upon churches to perform same sex marriages, I'll be standing right there with you against it because that is an encroachment on religious freedom.
     
    mrjarrell

    mrjarrell

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 18, 2009
    19,986
    63
    Hamilton County
    She really needs new, real lawyers. The one's she currently has apparently never went to law school if they didn't know that she could be jailed for contempt and failed to tell her. Hell, I never went to law school and I am damned sure cognizant of the fact that if a judge finds you in contempt they can jail your ass for as long as they want.

    Jailed Kentucky Clerk Appeals Contempt Of Court Ruling
     
    IndyDave1776

    IndyDave1776

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jan 12, 2012
    27,286
    113
    I have to admit that I hadn't anticipated Westboro jumping in, especially not this way, but in retrospect, it really isn't surprising:

    1. They are a pack of grifters, almost all lawyers, whose primary source of income is lawsuits against assorted others for 'violating their rights'. They are master manipulators of the law of man. They aren't about to attack the very foundation of their own worldly fortunes. As we are frequently reminded, follow the money.

    2. Their theology essentially says that they are the only ones who have it right. A few years ago, one of Fred Phelp's granddaughters was being interviewed in her early teens, old enough to understand the theology and young enough not to put even the very small modicum of varnish on it that the older family/members do, and was asked if anyone outside their church could be saved. Her answer was that she supposed it was possible, but she hopes not. She didn't come up with that on her own. Davis represents a threat in their perspective because she demonstrates that they are not the only one's who are not participants or enablers in the increased political position of homosexuality.

    3. So, now in addition to having to defend the foundation of following (i.e., manipulating) the law of government, Mrs. Davis is stealing the thunder from their 'brand' in taking a public stand for her beliefs, only in a self-injurious way rather than a way engineered to provoke someone into a response which could be actionable in court so that the Westboro crew can sue them for this year's income. I previously addressed the threat to their perceived theological position. Now she is attacking their pocketbooks by encroaching on their trademark issue.

    4. Westboro, of course, attacked Mrs. Davis's multiple marriages and divorces. This stands in evidence of the fact that they are extremely legalistic, far more so than conventional fundamentalist standards, as they do not accept the doctrine of repentance, conveniently failing to address the fact that the divorces came BEFORE she came to faith and embraced Christ. This stands in direct opposition of everything Christ taught and is just as bad as churches which essentially condone sin, only in the opposite direction. Christ taught that you come as you are, and repent. That means change your ways, and become right in His sight because of coming to Him, not because you personally are righteous, and then you stop sinning (or at least do so to the best of your ability) and repent as needed. Their way would require that a person be righteous according to his own merit, which, again, is contrary to the teaching of Christ.
     
    MisterChester

    MisterChester

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 25, 2013
    3,383
    48
    The Compound
    terrehautian said:
    To me, it is not a government job, it is a private business job. A little different then what is going on in Rowan County, KY.
    Click to expand...

    The principle of getting fired for not doing your job is universal. Not different at all. The clerk and this Muslim woman know the requirements of the job, and if they can't do it then find something else where you can do your job without issue.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Site Supporter

    INGO Supporter

    Latest posts

    Members online

    ... and 195 more.
    Total: 10,383 (members: 245, guests: 10,138)

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    530,783
    Messages
    9,959,447
    Members
    54,936
    Latest member
    oliverscottiii
    Top Bottom