Jump to content

The Kentucky Licence discussion II


Stubby

Recommended Posts

 

Entirely irrelevant, you asked for a quote showing she was refusing to issue marriage licenses based on her religious beliefs.

 

No I didn't.   I asked for proof that she was trying to impose her beliefs upon others, in a manner that justifies legal punishment.  The only "proof" offered seems to define any expression of religious beliefs as "imposing beliefs on others", and take the attitude that such expressions are punishable by law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She is not trying to stop anyone from issuing licenses, she is just refusing to authorize them on her own authority.

 

 

This is false. She was stopping other county clerks in her office from issuing licenses, as well.

 

 

Also, by your reasoning, then nobody can ever be accused of enforcing their religious beliefs onto others by refusing them services owed to them as a result of said person's religious beliefs. 

 

 

ETA:

 

Incidentally, you're also dropping multiple lines of argument people made against your posts. That's just poor form in argument. While we already know that, I feel compelled to ensure that you know it, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

This is false. She was stopping other county clerks in her office from issuing licenses, as well.

 

She was stopping her DEPUTIES from doing so.  Her "deputy" by definition, acts under her authority.

 

Judge Bunning has now directly ordered the Deputies to issue the licenses, and they have complied, not under her authority, but under Judge Bunning's authority.   It is dubious if such licenses would technically be considered legally valid (and the ACLU is taking the position that they are not).

 

She has not interfered with this at all.  She has just insisted that the Deputies make clear, on the licenses they issue, that they are being issued under Judge Bunning's authority and not hers.  Which is no more than the honest truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No I didn't.  

 

You know this isn't a spoken conversation we can go back and check.

 

This is what you responded too (emphasis yours)

 

 

Again, Polly is arguing a line that even Ms Davis herself agrees is simply not the facts of the case. Ms Davis has been utterly clear about the fact that she is attempting to impose her religious beliefs on gay couples and that this is why she is refusing to issue marriage licenses. This being so, the rest of Polly's argument is, not for the first time, bunk.

 

You responded with.

 

 

Do you have a specific quote in mind?  Or do you really think that if only 3 out of 120 County Clerks in Kentucky refuse to "recognize" gay marriages (with the other 117 duly issuing them), then that is an serious imposition on gays?  More serious than 5 days in jail?  She is the one being required to "recognize" gay marriages; so who is the one who having other people's beliefs imposed on them?  

 

And if Judge Bunning does not want this done on HER specific authority, then why is she involved at all?  He can issue the licenses himself, or order anyone in the County to do so.  I'm sure lots of people are more than willing.

 

We can ignore the blather about what other people are doing. Since it doesn't matter to the bolded at all, or anything else mormont wrote for that matter.

 

So yes you asked for a specific quote on whether her religious beliefs were why she was refusing to issue marriage licenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You know this isn't a spoken conversation we can go back and check.

 

I asked Mormont if he had a specific quote in mind, not because I necessarily denied what he was saying, but because I wanted to know what precisely he meant by what he was saying.  Context (which are determined to ignore and call "blather") makes that clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I asked Mormont if he had a specific quote in mind, not because I necessarily denied what he was saying, but because I wanted to know what precisely he meant by what he was saying.  Context (which are determined to ignore and call "blather") makes that clear.

 

Oh no it fucking doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This is abusive troll talk, bullying and ugly.  

 

[MOD]
 

If you think someone is trolling, use the report function.

 

If we agree we will take action.

 

If we do not agree we will likely not take action.

 

For the record, pointing out flaws in an argument or debating style is not trolling, bullying or any other -ing.

 

[/MOD]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I am outnumbered 20 to 1, and you're arguing that I owe you even more of my time.  

 

Maybe there is a reason that you are outnumbered.  Maybe that reason is that you are, you know, wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CP,

 

 

It is EXPRESSING her religious belief, in response to a direct question on the subject.  An honest answer to a direct question.

 

It is very creepy that you think such should be subject to penalties. 

 

Evidently you are no civil libertarian.  Whatever happened to those folks who used to say things like "I disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it"?  Are they all gone?   

 

 

I'm right here!!!!

 

Here we go:

 

Ms. Davis, I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it!

 

Now, get back to doing your job, or resign, or suffer the just consequences.

 

 

EDIT TO ADD.  But I also want to thank you for keeping it up.  I understand the frustration some have that you aren't responding to everyone, but I also get that you've given the thread a lot of attention and thought already.  I don't know if I agree with your points, but you've made me think a bit more about this issue than I'd have done otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder what Kim Davis would say if a future Kentucky Secretary of State refuses to register her as a candidate in the next County Clerk elections based on his religious beliefs (Titus 2:5) that it is against God's will for women to work outside the home...

Maybe she'd accept that decision and respect it. Or maybe she'd contradict herself just because the shoe is on the other hand. Whichever it is though, we have to admit that Kim Davis's hypothetical hypocrisy isn't all that relevant. Problem is what she does, not whether her stupid, wrong opinion is held consistently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have a specific quote in mind?

 
A specific quote? I can do you better than that. As I've said before, it's her entire defence. Her whole legal strategy is to assert her right to impose her religious beliefs on gay couples in her locality. This is simply not in dispute. The argument is over whether she has a right to do so, not whether she is doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder what Kim Davis would say if a future Kentucky Secretary of State refuses to register her as a candidate in the next County Clerk elections based on his

religious beliefs (Titus 2:5) that it is against God's will for women to work outside the home...

 

This is why I don't even understand how any of this Kim Davis silliness makes sense.

 

People can believe in anything, including the Prof Xavier religion I just made up in this thread. I don't know what is true or not in a definitive sense about the nature of reality, but I do think when it comes to government the maxim about only that which has evidence can be asserted applies.

 

(There's a lot of other stuff, like how we've known since Plato that no god can dictate morality, but it doesn't even matter for this.)

 

edit: On the subject of Natural Law, from what I've read it is basically a failure in philosophy to apply Hume's Is-Ought distinction. Even if we were to accept some kind of natural law, exactly what this entails would remain up for debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of my personal disbelief that Ms Davis is excercising a valid expression of religious belief (if we accepted that, a catholic official for example could on these grounds deny all marriages not performed according to Roman Catholic rites. It's ridiculous.):

To suggest that a poster someone is wrong, simply because he/she is outnumbered is one most pathetic arguments ever: there are so many of us thinking all the same, therefore we are right. What an illiberal and ridiculous argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To suggest that a poster someone is wrong, simply because he/she is outnumbered is one most pathetic arguments ever: there are so many of us thinking all the same, therefore we are right. What an illiberal and ridiculous argument.

 

That isn't the point Stubby is making. Stubby's point is that there is a reason so many people have offered up logical arguments against the position.

 

You are, however correct that IF Stubby had made the argument from popularity it would illogical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The religious liberty argument is indefensible. To allow this claim would be to allow any agent of the state to exercise religious discretion over any decision. A person may not bring their own religious views to bear when acting as an agent of the state. Such an act is exactly what the establishment clause is supposed to prevent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, Sci-2: what I read is this - Maybe there is a reason you are outnumbered. Maybe that reason is that you are, you know, wrong?

 

As you say, his point is that there is a reason for being outnumbered (1. sentence) and then the reason is suggested ("being wrong" - 2nd sentence).
 

To me, that's pretty close to: The reason why you are outnumbered is that you are wrong. Of course there is a "maybe" in there, so it's only a suggested possibility. Any poster who argues in good faith would reject the possibility as having nothing to do with the substance of the argument.

 

So why suggest it, especially when there is a very simple and obvious explanation as to why he/she is outnumbered: the reason why he/she is outnumbered is that many people on this forum disagree with the argument.

 

To summarize: I may not have your benevolent reading comprehension, English not being my first language. To me however, the comment very much sounds like an argument from popularity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I don't want to make this into a tangent, so I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

 

In any case it's not clear to me how anyone simply allowed to appeal to religious belief as a way of not doing their job and/or interfering with the jobs of others is acceptable in a society where Church and State are separated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...