1
Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

It's Labor DayFollow

#27 Sep 08 2015 at 7:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Do we have a cite for all these people? How many? Where they're coming from? If they're getting married?

Personally, I think it's more "dickish" to refuse two people their lawful marriage license on the sole basis of their gender* even after the Supreme Court of the United States said you should do your job but, hey, some people are making her work so let's try to pretend it's all equal or she's the poor soul being put out.

*Yes, she stopped issuing licenses to anyone after the SCotUS SSM ruling. Doesn't change WHY she stopped.

Edited, Sep 8th 2015 8:20pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#28 Sep 08 2015 at 7:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Oh. And in case you're not keeping track, that's how this ties into the larger perception that religion in the US is under attack. When people of faith see an action like this, where it's clearly not about those taking the action getting what they want, but forcing the religious person to either participate or leave, they start asking question like "Ok, what's the next thing that will come under attack? What things do I care about on religious grounds that may be targeted?" People who might normally dismiss such things are paranoia start thinking that maybe there is something to this, and maybe I need to start paying more attention.

There are lots of things that religious people do and care about that employers (even government employers) allow for on the grounds that they have a right to practice their religion. Usually, a common sense approach is applied. But in this case? As I said, the judge could simply have directed those seeking licenses to a different office and solved the problem. So this isn't about ensuring that gay couples seeking marriage licenses are able to obtain them, but that there may be zero people who oppose providing them. IMO, that's a different way of approaching things, and implements an "all or nothing" approach. Everyone doesn't have to do something, just enough to provide for the need, right? But it seems like increasingly (and this goes beyond this one issue) there's an idea that no one is allowed to *not* do something someone might want.

As a conservative, it's that change in directionality that concerns me more. It's tied to a number of issues where the same theme appears. If you provide health care, you *must* provide the forms of health care the government mandates (for example). Used to be you could just offer a good or service for sale (like say health insurance) and customers could buy it or not. Now? Nope. One might be concerned at what other areas of society this sort of idea may be implemented. Can a vegan walk into a steak restaurant and demand a vegan meal? Same concept, right? That person could go to any of a number of restaurants that can provide for his needs, but he's chosen to go to the one that focuses on food that is specifically non-vegan instead. Why? To force the issue, right? Ok. But that's a private business versus a government service, right? But then explain health insurance.

This goes well beyond just the issue of granting marriage licenses. As our government expands its regulatory reach, more and more of our activities come under that regulation. And, as I've mentioned a few times, the more blatant it's shown to not be about people being able to do what they want to do but about forcing others to do what they don't want to do, the more concerned people become about it. She may not be the best case example, but she's still someone that other people look at and think "could this happen to me?".

Edited, Sep 8th 2015 6:41pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#29 Sep 08 2015 at 7:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Do we have a cite for all these people? How many? Where they're coming from? If they're getting married?


She's the clerk in Rowan County KY. Population 23k and change. We can assume that the initial couple may be residents, but it's a good bet that once this became "a thing" many others have jumped in just for the sake of making it "a bigger thing". It's not like this isn't a common tactic, right?

Point being that there were a host of alternative solutions here. The couple in question were denied 5 times over the course of 6 months. They could trivially have gone to a different county to get their license if they'd wanted to. Additionally, having read a bit more on the topic, apparently her issue wasn't with the office she worked for granting them, but her being forced to sign them and her name/signature being required by law to appear on the license for it to be legal. She had apparently repeatedly asked the state legislature to amend the law so that licenses could be granted without her being required to sign them personally.

Quote:
Personally, I think it's more "dickish" to refuse two people their lawful marriage license on the sole basis of their gender* even after the Supreme Court of the United States said you should do your job but, hey, some people are making her work so let's try to pretend it's all equal or she's the poor soul being put out.


In this case though, it appears that it was about her signature appearing on the documents. She was perfectly ok for others to approve them, but putting her own signature on them would effectively require her to participate in something she opposed on moral grounds. Ironically, in order for the licenses that her deputies have approved to be legal, the state will still have to amend the very law she asked them to amend months ago. So... Who's at fault here? Seems like there were a number of solutions to this situation that didn't have to resolve into "put her in jail for holding to her beliefs".

Which makes for terrible optics.

Edited, Sep 8th 2015 6:39pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#30 Sep 08 2015 at 8:39 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Um... You kinda don't get to tell other people what their faith/beliefs should be though.
Considering that's exactly what the woman in question was doing, I agree fully with you in that that she was wrong for not signing those marriage certificates. It was her job, and she had no business telling other people what their faith/belief should be.
gbaji wrote:
That's pretty much the entire point of a whole section of the first amendment.
That says that the civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, right? That section? I'm glad we both agree that this woman was wrong, both religiously and constitutionally. Her using her questionably religious belief to deny someone their civil rights is by definition against the first amendment. You're right, she is wrong.
gbaji wrote:
It's not an "all or nothing" situation.
Then it isn't religious. You're hiding your personal opinion behind what you think religion is.
gbaji wrote:
If we accept a methodology where we go out of our way to seek out those with religious beliefs we don't agree with, and put them in a situation where they are forced to either violate those beliefs, or lose their jobs, then we're basically chucking the first amendment out the window.
If we accept and allow people to break the law based on twisting a few passages in a book then we never cared about the first amendment in the first place. I mean, since you agree with me 100% about how she's not really a religious person, I think it's safe to assume you do care and you'd never argue that it's okay to use the constitution like toilet paper like this woman wants us to.
gbaji wrote:
And while they may have a legal right to do this, it's still quite dickish.
So? We as a country celebrate this type of behavior, and have for hundreds of years. Why would it be an issue now? I mean, unless you want to argue jumping a bunch of enemy soldiers after they were through celebrating Christmas somehow isn't a tactically brilliant but dickish move. But then I'd have to ask why you hate America so much.

Edited, Sep 8th 2015 10:42pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#31 Sep 08 2015 at 8:42 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
They could trivially have gone to a different county to get their license if they'd wanted to.
"Those darkies can use the water fountain out back".


gbaji wrote:
Seems like there were a number of solutions to this situation that didn't have to resolve into "put her in jail for holding to her beliefs".
Her quitting being the simplest solution. Or, her not being a hypocritical jerk in the first place.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#32 Sep 08 2015 at 8:56 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Seems like there were a number of solutions to this situation that didn't have to resolve into "put her in jail for holding to her beliefs".
Her quitting being the simplest solution. Or, her not being a hypocritical jerk in the first place.

In this political landscape, being a bigot and claiming Jesus made you do it is the pathway to publicity and free money.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#33 Sep 08 2015 at 9:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Do we have a cite for all these people? How many? Where they're coming from? If they're getting married?

She's the clerk in Rowan County KY. Population 23k and change. We can assume that the initial couple may be residents, but it's a good bet that once this became "a thing" many others have jumped in just for the sake of making it "a bigger thing". It's not like this isn't a common tactic, right?

Work with me: Don't just run your mouth but actually support something that you say. How many people?
Quote:
Point being that there were a host of alternative solutions here. The couple in question were denied 5 times over the course of 6 months. They could trivially have gone to a different county to get their license if they'd wanted to.

A host of alternative solutions besides asking a public servant to perform the job they were elected to do?
Quote:
Additionally, having read a bit more on the topic, apparently her issue wasn't with the office she worked for granting them, but her being forced to sign them and her name/signature being required by law to appear on the license for it to be legal. She had apparently repeatedly asked the state legislature to amend the law so that licenses could be granted without her being required to sign them personally.

Not her call. Her job is to issue marriage licenses and if she is unwilling or unable to do her job, she should resign it rather than insist that she gets to keep her position but doesn't have to perform the duties.
Quote:
So... Who's at fault here?

She is. 100%
Quote:
Seems like there were a number of solutions to this situation that didn't have to resolve into "put her in jail for holding to her beliefs".

No, she was in jail for contempt of court. Why she decided that she shouldn't have to obey the law or the courts is her own issue.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#34 Sep 09 2015 at 4:24 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
gbaji wrote:
I can't speak for this woman's reasons, but my point is that she entered into employment under a specific understanding of the duties involved, and those duties have changed in ways that directly violate her beliefs.
What a load of crap. If the government was instead, private businesses, you'd be arguing that they have the right to change employment duties of a worker and if the employee didn't like it, they can move off to the next silver mine.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#35 Sep 09 2015 at 5:55 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Yep, strangely, Gbaji has moved to pro-government inefficiency side of this issue. Never thought I'd see the day.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#36 Sep 09 2015 at 7:35 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Yep, strangely, Gbaji has moved to pro-government inefficiency side of this issue. Never thought I'd see the day.
That's the issue with being so ideologically bias that it borders contrarianism. Occasionally you cross that border. "Some people more than others," he says in a completely unsubtle manner.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#37 Sep 09 2015 at 7:41 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Did someone say border crossing? Let me get my gun.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#38 Sep 09 2015 at 9:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
She took an oath to faithfully execute the office to which she was elected. (Also not to fight duels; but that's probably not relevant here.)

If she can't, in good conscience, fulfill her sworn oath - an oath taken "so help me God", no less - then she really has no recourse but to resign. Simple as that.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#39 Sep 09 2015 at 9:41 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Yep, strangely, Gbaji has moved to pro-government inefficiency side of this issue. Never thought I'd see the day.
That's the issue with being so ideologically bias that it borders contrarianism. Occasionally you cross that border. "Some people more than others," he says in a completely unsubtle manner.

Previously stated that he argues as the Devil's Advocate, just to give a counter-point to the ultra-leftist bias the rest of this forum holds. He doesn't have an opinion of his own, only the opposite of anyone else.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#40 Sep 09 2015 at 9:43 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
If she's so concerned about her religion, then why is she so okay with adultery and bearing false witness? That's two of the ten right there.
Debalic wrote:
He doesn't have an opinion of his own, only the opposite of anyone else.
But Debalic! Maybe we just don't understand Christianity as well as and haven't put as much thought into it as our agnostic friend here!

Edited, Sep 9th 2015 11:57am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#42 Sep 09 2015 at 5:31 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
If she's so concerned about her religion, then why is she so okay with adultery and bearing false witness? That's two of the ten right there.
Edited, Sep 9th 2015 11:57am by lolgaxe


Dude, she found Christ ( each time ) and was forgiven ( each time ) starting with a clean slate ( each time ). I thought everyone that knew about anything about Christianity knew that.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#43 Sep 09 2015 at 5:37 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
She found religion, it was in the hall where you left it! Smiley: mad
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#44 Sep 09 2015 at 5:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I read a review of the Bible that says otherwise.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#45 Sep 09 2015 at 6:08 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Crain's reports that Eye of the tiger was used without the permission during the rally for Kim. Copyrights used for good? My mind was pre-blown.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#46 Sep 09 2015 at 6:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Conservatives have a weird problem with respecting copyright when it comes to political events.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#47 Sep 09 2015 at 9:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They could trivially have gone to a different county to get their license if they'd wanted to.
"Those darkies can use the water fountain out back".


"Anyone with a set of religious beliefs we don't agree with need not apply". Surely you see that civil rights don't just apply to the identity groups you like?


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
Seems like there were a number of solutions to this situation that didn't have to resolve into "put her in jail for holding to her beliefs".
Her quitting being the simplest solution. Or, her not being a hypocritical jerk in the first place.


So if I want to eliminate religion from society all I have to do is pass laws mandating that they must engage in activities in violation of their faith as a prerequisite for employment? Or maybe just some religions? Or some tenants of faith? Where does that process end though? As I've pointed out many many times on this forum, it's the process involved, not necessarily the specifics of the action being taken. You always use the easiest target to establish precedent. And the precedent being established here is that the government can change the law to require an action of government employees that was not required of them previously, and if they have a moral or religious objection to it, the government need not work around their objection, but must present them with a "comply or quit" choice.

So if we pass a law tomorrow requiring all food banks/kitchens to provide ham as part of their food options for recipients who desire ham (cause it would be discrimination to deny ham lovers their favorite food!), and further demand that every employee working at said publicly funded charities may not refuse to handle ham for religious reasons, does that mean that you'd be ok with devout Jews and Muslims having to quit their jobs if they refuse to violate their beliefs against handling ham? After all, they chose to work there, and their job is to handle food. And we think their issues with ham are silly, so why not?

You'd be ok with that? Or would you think a more sensible approach would be to work around people's religious beliefs, no matter how silly we may think them to be? As long as their are sufficient numbers of people willing to handle the ham, there should be no problem with some refusing to do so. Similarly, as long as there are sufficient numbers of people willing to sign marriage licenses for gay couples, there should be no problem with some refusing to do so.

Except, of course, in this case, you are ok with infringing that religious belief. The problem though, as I mentioned above, the law doesn't make such distinctions. When you erode the right of one person to refuse to engage in an activity in violation of their religious beliefs, you erode that right for all people and all religious beliefs. The precedent is that if your job is to do X, you must do X for all cases of X, even for a subset that you may have religious issues with. So you're ok with handling food, but not pork products, but since your job is to handle food, you can't refuse to handle pork products. That's what this does. And it's a foolish society that engages in this sort of targeted infringement, because eventually it will choose to target something *you* care about.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#48 Sep 09 2015 at 9:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
"Anyone with a set of religious beliefs we don't agree with need not apply". Surely you see that civil rights don't just apply to the identity groups you like?

"Anyone who refuses to do the job they were elected to do need not apply". You keep trying to make this about something more than a public servant who refused to do her job, was taken to court, was found guilty of not doing her job and then lost at the appellate and Supreme Court level.
Quote:
So if I want to eliminate religion from society all I have to do is pass laws mandating that they must engage in activities in violation of their faith as a prerequisite for employment?

I'd start with mandating that they must perform the actual duties of their job. I mean "issuing marriage licenses" is part of the county clerk job description. We're not feeding pulled pork sandwiches to Muslim IRS auditors just for shits and giggles here. On the other hand, Muslims probably shouldn't run for city dog catcher and then say that they refuse to touch dogs on account of religious practices.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#49 Sep 09 2015 at 9:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
She's the clerk in Rowan County KY. Population 23k and change. We can assume that the initial couple may be residents, but it's a good bet that once this became "a thing" many others have jumped in just for the sake of making it "a bigger thing". It's not like this isn't a common tactic, right?

Work with me: Don't just run your mouth but actually support something that you say. How many people?


I don't know. Does it matter? More than one couple, probably less than a thousand. Several articles I read alluded to there being multiple gay couples demanding licenses from her. None of them mentioned how many. I'm assuming that once the news of the first couple got out, some gay rights groups started suggesting that people go to her office to request their licenses. That could be an incorrect assumption, but it's a reasonable one since this is a very very common tactic used to create pressure on issues just like this one.

Are you saying that the only license requests came from locals living in the town? How many gay couples get married in a town of 23k people in one 6 month period of time?

Quote:
A host of alternative solutions besides asking a public servant to perform the job they were elected to do?


She wasn't elected to do that job though. When she was elected it was illegal for gay couples to obtain marriage licenses in her state. That's the job she was elected to perform Joph. She's doing exactly what she was elected to do. The fact that 5 unelected judges decided to ignore the voters in nearly every state in the nation and declare those voters to be wrong, and them to be right is what created the conflict for her.


Quote:
Not her call. Her job is to issue marriage licenses and if she is unwilling or unable to do her job, she should resign it rather than insist that she gets to keep her position but doesn't have to perform the duties.


She made the quite reasonable request that the requirements for handling marriage licenses be changed slightly so that she could both keep her job and not have to violate her religious beliefs. All she asked was that the state change the requirement that only the elected clerk could sign marriage licenses for a county office. She was more than willing to allow any of her deputies to do so. She just didn't want to have to personally sign the licenses herself. She was trying to find a way to resolve this in a way where everyone wins. But apparently, that's just not good enough. She must give up her beliefs, or quit.

That's straight up religious persecution for the sake of religious persecution. The bigger point is that it shows how hollow the court's claim that people with religious objections would not be required to participate in gay marriages as a result of their ruling was. Clearly, that's not true, right? You can say "but she's a government employee" all you want, but how is that different than a priest who is licensed by the state to perform weddings and sign licenses? He's granted that authority by the state, and is operating as an agent of the state when doing that (they're entering into a contract in which the state is a third party). I assume you'd argue that since a gay couple has other avenues to get married than going to a priest, that this doesn't apply, but they had other avenues than going to that one clerk too. Somehow that's not sufficient (and got equated to black people having to use different fountains just upthread a bit).

Why is one acceptable, but the other not? I'm honestly curious to see people's opinions on what should happen if a gay couple walk up to a church and demand that the priest/minister/rabbi/whatever must marry them. Does it represent an constitutional violation for that person to refuse? Why (or why not)? If you can't clearly state why one is legally different than the other, then we've got a bit of a problem.

Quote:
Quote:
Seems like there were a number of solutions to this situation that didn't have to resolve into "put her in jail for holding to her beliefs".

No, she was in jail for contempt of court. Why she decided that she shouldn't have to obey the law or the courts is her own issue.


Because the court demanded that she violate her beliefs. You're not really this dense.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#50 Sep 09 2015 at 9:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I don't know. Does it matter?

Of course it does. You're trying to use these couples to make some greater point and the strength of that point relies on how many people we're talking about. One couple coming over on a lark? A million couples swarming the state?
Quote:
She wasn't elected to do that job though.

Issue marriage licenses? I'm pretty sure she was. You realize that there's just "marriage licenses", right? Not "Christian Hetero Licenses" and "Heathen Homo Licenses"?
Quote:
She made the quite reasonable request that the requirements for handling marriage licenses be changed slightly so that she could both keep her job and not have to violate her religious beliefs.

Again, not her call.
Quote:
Why is one acceptable, but the other not? I'm honestly curious to see people's opinions on what should happen if a *** couple walk up to a church and demand that the priest/minister/rabbi/whatever must marry them.

Is this a government church?
Quote:
Because the court demanded that she violate her beliefs. You're not really this dense.

Apparently you are.

Edited, Sep 9th 2015 10:57pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#51 Sep 09 2015 at 10:05 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
"Anyone with a set of religious beliefs we don't agree with need not apply".
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in exertion of that original right of self-defense."
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 337 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (337)