|
Post by ken on Sept 5, 2015 6:21:30 GMT -6
Ken, It all depends on what you consider checking your faith and what the job is. Christians are now severly limited as to how far they can let their religious biases affect other people's rights in the public sector. As we have all witnessed in life, everyone can be replaced. This court clerk was affecting the civil rights of people in her community, which is illegal. Her religious rights on the job are irrelevant now according to SCOTUS's interpretation of the Constitution. The Constitution no longer guarantees she keep her job while continuing her abhorrent and illegal behavior.As we have seen, there are good Christians in her office willing to take over her job and they don't have a problem serving god at the same time. So there are people willing to check their faith, or as I would prefer to say, not choose the bigoted path. She is free to quit her job, that's what the Constitution now guaratees her if she feels her interpretation of serving god is more important. Btw, the electrical engineer is free to walk away from the toilet cleaning job and search for other opportunities in his field, so can she. I have to believe you feel god will reward her in this life, unless of course, your faith in god's prosperity sharing ability has wavered. You missed the point, Steve. How many times has someone in a clerical position who would not fulfill his/her duties as outlined, been placed in jail for it? It remains as a testament of what the Supreme Court decision really means and where it is heading. You have a faith? We are going to persecute you! History repeats itself. My view is simply that the Court legislated from the Bench--the dissent was spot on.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Sept 7, 2015 10:38:51 GMT -6
Ken,
I think you've missed the point and the question.
I don't think any public servant has defied a SCOTUS decision on religious grounds to deny peoples' civil rights. I guess there always has to be a first, so here she is, the first to do it, and the first to go to jail. I have no sympathy, it was her decision, she has to live with tne consequences.
Consider this when answering the following question - she does not have the constitutional right on religious grounds to use her office to interfere with other people's civil rights. Did she willfully disregard the law and flagrantly try to prevent other public servants in her office, who were willing to issue the marriage licenses, from doing so?
That's the key here, and that's why she went to jail. You seem intent on forgetting the lengths to which she went to hurt people. She didn't go to jail because she had faith, she went to jail because she broke the law and tried to hurt people.
Are you trying to say those in her office, who were willing to issue the marraige licenses, don't have proper faith in god? That's what it looks like, Ken, so I would reconsider your arguments supporting her.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Sept 7, 2015 10:49:03 GMT -6
Ken,
Btw, dissenting SCOTUS decisions are irrelevant, and in this case probably only meant to be a bellwether of issues to come, rightly or wrongly.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Sept 7, 2015 11:52:08 GMT -6
Ken, I think you've missed the point and the question. I don't think any public servant has defied a SCOTUS decision on religious grounds to deny peoples' civil rights. I guess there always has to be a first, so here she is, the first to do it, and the first to go to jail. I have no sympathy, it was her decision, she has to live with tne consequences. Consider this when answering the following question - she does not have the constitutional right on religious grounds to use her office to interfere with other people's civil rights. Did she willfully disregard the law and flagrantly try to prevent other public servants in her office, who were willing to issue the marriage licenses, from doing so? That's the key here, and that's why she went to jail. You seem intent on forgetting the lengths to which she went to hurt people. She didn't go to jail because she had faith, she went to jail because she broke the law and tried to hurt people. Are you trying to say those in her office, who were willing to issue the marraige licenses, don't have proper faith in god? That's what it looks like, Ken, so I would reconsider your arguments supporting her. Actually, it happened during the US revolution. They defied what would amount to the SCOTUS of their times. I don't think she tried to hurt people. The Constitution of Kentucky approved a no-same-sex marriage amendment. She was hired on that basis. Since the Supreme Court legislated from the bench with no precedent on this issue and, at times in other cases, even with contrary precedent--she was placed in a position of having to make a decision. It is her right as a free will agent and in support of her Constitutional right of freedom of religion to make that decision. In North Carolina, you don't have to sign it--you just get someone who can. Your position here is an all or none position, yet I have a position of letting both have their desires. I think you should reconsider your stance of intolerance. If we have the choice, then everyone is happy. I'm happy.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Sept 7, 2015 17:37:30 GMT -6
Ken,
Again you missed my point, she used her position as manager of the department to prevent all the other deputy clerks from issuing the marriage licenses. She told them not to do it. Where was she respecting the other deputy clerks' choice to issue the marriage licenses? She went against even your recommendation, so she blew her chance for accommodation of her religious views. She could have walked away and let the other clerks issue the licenses. Isn't that what you recommended she do?
|
|
|
Post by ken on Sept 7, 2015 18:23:19 GMT -6
Ken, Again you missed my point, she used her position as manager of the department to prevent all the other deputy clerks from issuing the marriage licenses. She told them not to do it. Where was she respecting the other deputy clerks' choice to issue the marriage licenses? She went against even your recommendation, so she blew her chance for accommodation of her religious views. She could have walked away and let the other clerks issue the licenses. Isn't that what you recommended she do? No, her name is on all the certificates no matter who signs it (if I understand correctly). But don't sweat it... it will all work out. She will be fired. Maybe her point was, "If I don't draw a line then they will keep moving the line?".
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Sept 7, 2015 21:13:54 GMT -6
Ken, Again you missed my point, she used her position as manager of the department to prevent all the other deputy clerks from issuing the marriage licenses. She told them not to do it. Where was she respecting the other deputy clerks' choice to issue the marriage licenses? She went against even your recommendation, so she blew her chance for accommodation of her religious views. She could have walked away and let the other clerks issue the licenses. Isn't that what you recommended she do? No, her name is on all the certificates no matter who signs it (if I understand correctly). But don't sweat it... it will all work out. She will be fired. Maybe her point was, "If I don't draw a line then they will keep moving the line?". I don't know what you mean by, "If I don't draw a line then they will keep moving the line?".
|
|
|
Post by ken on Sept 8, 2015 6:31:55 GMT -6
No, her name is on all the certificates no matter who signs it (if I understand correctly). But don't sweat it... it will all work out. She will be fired. Maybe her point was, "If I don't draw a line then they will keep moving the line?". I don't know what you mean by, "If I don't draw a line then they will keep moving the line?". Lines are moveable. The Supreme Court once made a decision that if you don't like to have the Bible in the public school for learning... start a private one without a Bible. Hundreds of years later, the lines were moved and now if you want to have a Bible in a school for learning, start a private school but the line was pushed even further. The result was "Don't even bring a Bible in a school and don't even talk about Jesus in your reports even if you are allowed to choose whatever subject you want". If someone hadn't drawn the line and said "no, that is a violation of my first amendment", then they would continue to draw the line until they pushed faith off the map. In this case, there are countries where if you say it is wrong to have a homosexual relation, it is classified as a hate crime even if you still love people in that type of relationship. If one doesn't draw a line that says "I'm not going backwards anymore" then they will keep pushing. I hope this is clearer than mud.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Sept 8, 2015 6:52:24 GMT -6
Ken,
If people didn't continually move the line between right and wrong, slavery would still be an institution here in the US, women would not be allowed to vote, children would still be working in factories, and gays would not be allowed to marry. It may take a long time for your god to do his magic, but he eventually gets the job done. From my perspective, humans understand misery and will eventually rise to the fix the problem.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Sept 8, 2015 8:15:11 GMT -6
I think this falls under that heading that we talked about. Now that the Supreme Court has come to their conclusion, what is next? Throw Christians in jail, of course. Hi Ken: The clerk can practice her religion on her own time of course, or she can get a job in the religious sector etc. As it is, she was elected by the people to implement the laws of Kentucky. She was not elected to favor her interpretation of laws over the Court's interpretation, the orders of the Governor etc. She is simply way out of line here. She has two choices: issue permits as required by law, or quit her position as clerk. There is no middle ground in a society based upon laws. She is wayyyyyyy out of line and her faith is no excuse. The job of county clerk is fairly well defined, ya know... Think about all of the laws you disapprove of. You personally don't think that you are exempt from the application of those laws, just because you disagree with them do you? Jim
|
|
|
Post by ken on Sept 8, 2015 8:35:54 GMT -6
Ken, If people didn't continually move the line between right and wrong, slavery would still be an institution here in the US, women would not be allowed to vote, children would still be working in factories, and gays would not be allowed to marry. It may take a long time for your god to do his magic, but he eventually gets the job done. From my perspective, humans understand misery and will eventually rise to the fix the problem. Not disagreeing here in principle. But the pendulum swings both ways. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_personhoodThe pendulum can swing to making gorillas a person. If not one ever places a line, the obvious next step is to marry the person of the ape. At some point there is a line that says "this is wrong". However, there are those who would disagree with them and say you are infringing on their rights. The whole principle of unions was because business owners were abusing the employees. The pendulum swung to the other side and now there are unions abusing businesses. For many people, calling two of the same sex as a marriage is the pendulum swinging to far to the other side. However, at some point, it will probably be a minority (less that 50%) that believes that.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Sept 8, 2015 8:38:23 GMT -6
I think this falls under that heading that we talked about. Now that the Supreme Court has come to their conclusion, what is next? Throw Christians in jail, of course. Hi Ken: The clerk can practice her religion on her own time of course, or she can get a job in the religious sector etc. As it is, she was elected by the people to implement the laws of Kentucky. She was not elected to favor her interpretation of laws over the Court's interpretation, the orders of the Governor etc. She is simply way out of line here. She has two choices: issue permits as required by law, or quit her position as clerk. There is no middle ground in a society based upon laws. She is wayyyyyyy out of line and her faith is no excuse. The job of county clerk is fairly well defined, ya know... Think about all of the laws you disapprove of. You personally don't think that you are exempt from the application of those laws, just because you disagree with them do you? Jim there is a third option... those in charge can fire her.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Sept 8, 2015 9:10:00 GMT -6
Hi Ken: The clerk can practice her religion on her own time of course, or she can get a job in the religious sector etc. As it is, she was elected by the people to implement the laws of Kentucky. She was not elected to favor her interpretation of laws over the Court's interpretation, the orders of the Governor etc. She is simply way out of line here. She has two choices: issue permits as required by law, or quit her position as clerk. There is no middle ground in a society based upon laws. She is wayyyyyyy out of line and her faith is no excuse. The job of county clerk is fairly well defined, ya know... Think about all of the laws you disapprove of. You personally don't think that you are exempt from the application of those laws, just because you disagree with them do you? Jim there is a third option... those in charge can fire her. Yes. Hopefully they will be very clear that they are firing her for dereliction of duty. Any follow-up claim that she is being fired for her beliefs would be a sham. Jim
|
|
|
Post by ken on Sept 8, 2015 9:28:27 GMT -6
there is a third option... those in charge can fire her. Yes. Hopefully they will be very clear that they are firing her for dereliction of duty. Any follow-up claim that she is being fired for her beliefs would be a sham. Jim That won't matter IMO. Perception is everything and the die has been cast. It will be interpreted as an infringement of Freedom of Religion.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Sept 8, 2015 10:33:08 GMT -6
Yes. Hopefully they will be very clear that they are firing her for dereliction of duty. Any follow-up claim that she is being fired for her beliefs would be a sham. Jim That won't matter IMO. Perception is everything and the die has been cast. It will be interpreted as an infringement of Freedom of Religion. I suppose, but those who would interpret this deal that way are being silly. I am confident that most people, even those who passionately defend their beliefs, don't want the county clerk injecting her beliefs into the most clearly defined of administrative jobs. Imagine if every county clerk felt free to inject her (for example) Christian, Atheist, Muslim, Jewish, feminist, Nazi, ISIS, Racist, Black Lives Matter, Republican, Democrat, Anarchist, pro-choice, pro-life etc. etc. etc. personal beliefs into their administrative jobs! Why even have laws if the county clerk can veto them? Good grief! Most people get this. Jim
|
|