Ser Pounce FTW Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 States have the option of figuring out how to obey the Supreme Court decision without requiring individuals to violate her their consciences. This has nothing to do with what the "taxpayers" want. If it were, the Feds would leave Ms. Davis alone, and let Kentucky and Rowan County deal with the problem. CP, stop! Please stop! You have no idea how painful what you are saying is. It was only a few years ago that this line of thinking (going against God's law) was being used in the worst ways. In some places it is still used. I am a Black male and I say please stop. What this clerk is doing is not ok and she is not being bullied - she is doing the bullying. She insists the public must conform to her not her to the law of the land. This most definitely should not be left to the states. If things like this were left to them, there'd still be some very ugly laws on the books. You should have absolutely no doubts of that but if you do: Yes, Paul said, “God… hath made of one blood all nations of men…” All men, to whatever race they may belong, have immortal souls; but all men have mortal bodies, and God fixes the boundaries of the races of the world. Let me repeat that it is no accident that most Chinese live in China. It is not an accident that most Japanese live in Japan; and the Africans should have been left in Africa, and the Gospel should have been taken to them as God commanded His people to do. Wherever we have the races mixed up in large numbers, we have trouble. They have trouble in New York. They have trouble in San Francisco. They have had trouble all over California. . . . Let me tell you something. When it comes to the quality of races, all these races have quality. They have good qualities and bad qualities. If we would just listen to the Word of God and not try to overthrow God’s established order, we would not have any trouble. God never meant for American to be a melting pot to rub out the line between the nations. That was not God’s purpose for this nation. When someone goes to overthrowing His established order and goes around preaching pious sermons about it, that makes me sick – for a man to stand up and preach pious sermons in this country and talk about rubbing out the line between the races – I say it makes me sick. I have had the sweetest fellowship with colored Christians, with yellow Christians, with red Christians, with all sorts of Christians – the sweetest fellowship anybody has ever had, we have had. Christians have always had it. We have never had any trouble about that. The trouble today is a Satanic agitation striking back at God’s established order. That is what is making trouble for us. Bob Jones, Easter Sunday, 1960 And how this thinking affects law: “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 And of course to support the greatest denial of rights in America: Titus 2:9-10 New International Version (NIV) 9 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, 10 and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive. Please stop, CP. The bible has been used too often by those who wish to deny people. Please think of how all of this has played out in the past before seeing Ms. Davis as the victim in this situation. No one can force someone to accept something in their heart that they truly do not believe (which is why so many people still oppressive others) but their acceptance has no bearing on what the law demands of them. People will believe what is truly in their hearts and they are free to refuse to comply with the law if they feel they must but should expect punishment, if caught. That punishment is not bullying. Please stop with this argument. She is breaking a law. A new law. Just like the voting and desegregation laws were in the 60s. There were quite a few clerks who were against those but the law was clear: an employee doesn't get to decide which counties will comply and which won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Sounds vaguely inquisitorial. What is wrong with addressing the opinions I actually express? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt - undeserved, at this point, because I think you know exactly what you're doing and achieving exactly the result that you want to achieve - and answer you seriously. You're not actually discussing anything with anybody on any level that matters. You're all just throwing around moral (and legal) conclusions. (And for the record, nothing could be more of a giant waste of time than reading the vast majority of the "legal arguments" being thrown around in this thread. It's like watching plumbers give TED talks on heart surgery.) If you want to have a conversation that matters, and actually advances a mutual understanding of both your position and the positions of those who are arguing against you, you're going to have to discuss your premises. Because it's pretty clear, to me at least, that you aren't operating from the same premises as most of the others in this thread. And unless this is acknowledged, and premises exposed, you're not even having the same conversation - you're just talking past each other. But my suspicion is that your primary interest is in riling people up. And if that's the case, you're doing an okay job of it. But it's not a feat - it's an easy crowd to rile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt - undeserved ... FYI, I stopped reading at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 FYI, I stopped reading at this point. No you didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Pounce FTW Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Actually, she is. Or more precisely, the Supreme Court and District Court has made it impossible for her to do the job that she was elected to do and has unilaterally revised her job description. She is, at least, obeying the order not to discriminate. Right. Like this: In September 1958 several schools in Warren County, Charlottesville, and Norfolk were about to integrate under court under. They were seized and closed, but the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals overturned the school-closing law. Simultaneously, a federal court issued a verdict against the law based on the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment. Rather than refuse to let the schools desegregate, they closed the schools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsc Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Gee. Dunno. Maybe she's got bills to pay? Maybe she feels she has a responsibility towards - you know - the people who elected her? You seem so eager for her to lose her job. As though that does not matter. But it is SUCH A HUGE BURDEN to go to another clerk for a marriage license. Why is it SUCH A HUGE BURDEN for her to get another job or just do her own? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 CP, stop! Please stop! You have no idea how painful what you are saying is. It was only a few years ago that this line of thinking (going against God's law) was being used in the worst ways. In some places it is still used. I am a Black male and I say please stop. What this clerk is doing is not ok and she is not being bullied - she is doing the bullying. I can see you feel extremely sorry for yourself. But Kim Davis is the one in jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 ChillyPolly, Mrs. Davis can leave that cell any time she wants to. All she has to do is her job, or resign from her job. She is the one keeping herself there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Pounce FTW Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 I can see you feel extremely sorry for yourself. But Kim Davis is the one in jail. Wow. Just wow. Well, you've just validated everything I said. Especially the part about still used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Mrs. Davis can leave that cell any time she wants to. All she has to do is her job, or resign from her job. She is the one keeping herself there. Okay. I'm not sure she should be required to do either of these things, except by her employers. And if her employer, the State of Kentucky, fails to provide sufficient marriage clerks to permit you to obtain a marriage certificate for yourself and your gay partner (or if any office that is actually available for such purpose does so in a discriminatory manner) then you will have a Federal Case against the State of Kentucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Rather than refuse to let the schools desegregate, they closed the schools. Why is everyone so eager to change the subject? Kim Davis is not standing in the way of desegregation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsc Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Why is everyone so eager to change the subject? Kim Davis is not standing in the way of desegregation. Only today's moral equivalent. Why was everyone so harsh on George Wallace he wasn't standing in the way of freeing slaves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Only today's moral equivalent. Why was everyone so harsh on George Wallace he wasn't standing in the way of freeing slaves. Segregation and Slavery are different things and should not be confused. I am against both. But that does not mean we should not stay on topic. The topic is neither Segregation nor is it Slavery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Nestor: But we already know a key concept that CP holds: as long as someone else in Kentucky (or maybe anyone else in the country?) is issuing marriage license to gay couples, Davis' action does not constitute discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsc Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Segregation and Slavery are different things and should not be confused. I am against both. But that does not mean we should not stay on topic. The topic is neither Segregation nor is it Slavery. Both were issues of civil rights that a segment of the populace stood up and tried to oppose. Similar to Kim Davis' efforts to oppose Gay Marriage yet another civil right issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Nestor: But we already know a key concept that CP holds: as long as someone else in Kentucky (or maybe anyone else in the country?) is issuing marriage license to gay couples, Davis' action does not constitute discrimination. Please do not presume speak for me. It is very rude. My position was that if Kentucky were to issue no marriage licenses at all, that would not be discriminating against gays, because heteros would receive similar treatment. It might however, violate the "fundamental right to marriage", since there is a right to marriage, regardless of discrimination. In that context, I expressed no opinion about precisely how many clerks would be sufficient. I never said a single clerk would be sufficient. I merely took the position that providing sufficient clerks should be a problem for Kentucky to solve, and should not lie on the shoulders of an individual employee faced with a dilemma of conscience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stubby Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Please do not presume speak for me. It is very rude. My position was that if Kentucky were to issue no marriage licenses at all, that would not be discriminating against gays, because heteros would receive similar treatment. It might however, violate the "fundamental right to marriage", since there is a right to marriage, regardless of discrimination. In that context, I expressed no opinion about precisely how many clerks would be sufficient. Merely that it is a problem for Kentucky to solve, and should not lie on the shoulders of an individual employee faced with a dilemma of conscience. Please do not ignore valid criticisms of your argument and ignore requests for clarification. It is very rude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Please do not ignore valid criticisms of your argument and ignore requests for clarification. It is very rude. TerraPrime misrepresented my position. If he is honest he will acknowledge that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stubby Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 TerraPrime misrepresented my position. If he is honest he will acknowledge that. You accused me of doing the same thing. I asked you to point out where I misrepresented your position. You have refused. I ask you again to point out to me where my summary was incorrect - with something more substantial than "all of it" - so I can attempt to address the issues reasonably. Continued refusal will lead me to conclude that you are not interested in reasoned discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChillyPolly Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 You accused me of doing the same thing. I asked you to point out where I misrepresented your position. You have refused. I ask you again to point out to me where my summary was incorrect - with something more substantial than "all of it" - so I can attempt to address the issues reasonably. Continued refusal will lead me to conclude that you are not interested in reasoned discussion. Is that some kind of Mod Warning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.