Uh, Zethor, that's not how the Supreme Court works. They ruled that marriage is a right due everyone, not only straight men and women. In doing so, they executed their power of judicial review, granted them in Marbury v Madison. The federal court that held Kim Davis in contempt did so not for her beliefs, but because she felt compelled to use her beliefs to keep 5 deputy clerks who had no issues with signing the licenses from signing said licenses. If Kim Davis was a Muslim woman who refused to sign licenses for any woman not wearing a burqa, would you still be supporting her?
Zeth you keep saying she's been punished for some unconstitutional law which she's not. No bill was passed no law was written by the Supreme Court. It simple said that you have to give the same rights to marry to any pair of consenting adults. You can't discriminate based on sexuality.
You keep forgetting that she offered a compromise. And if she was a Muslim woman who refused to sign the license for a woman not wearing a burqa, I wouldn't support her. That is an entirely different circumstance. Try, if a Muslim woman refused to sign a license for a Christian woman, or infidel, perhaps?
Uh huh. It's unconstitutional because it directly interferes with most religions. But yeah, totally. No law. Totally legal. Somebody, somebody answer my questions.
Zeth. Just stop my man. :lol: I love you but I'm not gonna tear into your beliefs here because I respect you as a forumer. Just note that the difference between a Christian and a Muslim in this case is nil. Both have a right to religious freedom and you can't pick and choose which rights to disregard. Gay Marriage has been supplemented by the 14th amendment. It is now a constitutional right, just like its a right to not ever be a slave. Thank you 14th amendment. So if you have a problem, start with a movement to abolish that amendment.
A few more things. SCOTUS is not government? They are the law of the land, at least they enforce with what they view constitutional and unconstitutional. This isn't about religious freedom as it's about personal rights. The bible condones slavery but the 14th amendment forbids that, remember the civil war? This isn't the first time religious individuals have taken offense when the Court rules in the favor of individual rights over religious freedoms. As much as I hate a logical fallacy, or straw man, it seems to be the only way I can ever have a conversation with a devout believer, so answer this for me. Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest sister into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that can I ask another? My coworker, Leo, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important, because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean, Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side-by-side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you. If you want to argue religious freedom, you've gotta get all of those approved to effectively take away gay marriage. You can't pick and choose what you can and can't follow.
Zeth, we've answered your questions again and again. The problem is you have a problem with how the proper process worked. You have a problem with the Constitution. You have a problem with gays. You have a problem with the Supreme Court and their judgements. You have a problem with not being able to deny other citizens their rights based on religious precursors. You flat out said you we're against gay marriage. We know. That doesn't excuse you from hindering their individual rights, nor does it excuse anyone else from doing so. You may go to your Church but you can not force others to adhere to your moralities whether you like it or not.
Zeth the Supreme Court judge it unconstitutional to prohibit gay marriage that's the ruling of the highest court in the land the very arbiter of the constitution. It's how the US set up it's government. This isn't " big " government it's pretty small government it's a core value of the USA and part of the original intentions of the founding fathers. You don't like it that's fine people don't always get what they want but there's no constitutional reasons to attack it. Aside from your posts I've not seen a single mention of Mrs Davis asking for the comprise you kept mentioning and several sources stating she refused other offers to avoid jail time.
You can't force others to violate their beliefs or quit either. And also, no. Nobody has told me why big government is a good thing. But yeah, you've answered all of my questions.
Look, you are a republican who already hates big government. We can't possibly get you to believe they are good when you mix your secular and political beliefs together. It's like super double reinforced :lol:
It looks like you quoted one of the answers that you have neen seeking. And if you look around this thread you will find answers to all your misinformation. For example: We discussed that Ms. Davies is free to practice her religion, and nobody is infringing on that right, especially as she is not being forced to stay at a job whose functions may personally distress her. We discussed that her job as a government agent is a privilege, and when she accepted that job, she agreed to perform as a givernment agent within the confines of the law. Otherwise, she is acting improperly, outside of the law. We discussed that by refusing to grant marriage licenses, and refusing to let anyone in her office grant them, she was acting as a government agent oppressing people's Constitutional rights. We discussed that no matter how often you rant and rave like a maniac, you cannot suddenly change the Constitutionality of the Supreme Court's ruling on marriage equality. We even discussed how instead of reading and learning, you keep repeating the same crazy stuff over and over again like a lunatic, including asking questions that have been sufficiently answered several times before
Zeth big government isn't always a good thing I'll not argue that point however I don't see how a " big government " argument relates to this question. The ruling simple says people have to be allowed to enjoy the same marriage rights as everyone else regardless of orientation. That's equality at it's core values. You can enjoy your faith and all it's values that's your faith your concern. But you can't use your faith to decide someone else's rights. That's forcing your faith onto others. Even more so you can't use your faith to discriminate against someone. It's saying government or it's employees can't tell consenting adults that they aren't allowed to express their love in the same manner as everyone else.
didnt wanna quote any of ur other long paragraphs but look in my next post i dont care what happens on either side , i merely said both sides stood up for what they believed in , if the clerk didnt wanna do it she couldve said im not doing it and stepped down this story got bigger than it needed to be , and alot of goverment officials could be brought up for not doing their jobs the way they are suppose to and nothing happens to them long story short life goes on not the end of the world , and overall get over it
She's an elected official of the United States. :lol: No one forced her to take that job. No one forced her to take the Oath to do the job properly. No one forced her to do anything. She chose to be there. She has to do her job in whatever it's boundaries may be within legal limits. To answer your big government fears (this isn't big government, this was all a long legal process that didn't just happen overnight) big government has it's pros and cons. Some of you think tyranny when you hear big government but choose to ignore we have had big government and have had it work for the better of America in our history. WW2, the New Deal and through the Republicans "golden era" of most of the 50s and 60s was a lot due to Big government involvement in our economy and etc. You guys have reimagined that history though.
She shouldn't of picked a job that could be against her believes, just like a vegan gets a job at a stake house, she believes eating meat is wrong but should she be forced to do her Job she signed up for? Yes, and if she doesn't do the job she signed up for be fired.