ttribe Posted September 7, 2015 Posted September 7, 2015 Wait... what? Basketball pool? Couldn't have been. I've never participated in a sports pool in my life. It must have been my evil twin. Weren't you part of the Final Four thing we did through this board a number of years ago in the Social Hall? Why do I have a memory of you winning? It wasn't for money; it was just bragging rights.
cinepro Posted September 7, 2015 Posted September 7, 2015 One thing I can't figure out. A local conservative radio station is playing a commercial about "five lawyers in Washington" (i.e. The Supreme Court) that have "hijacked the country" and "gone against the will of the people". I'm seeing postings on Facebook from conservative friends and family members about how terrible the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage is, and how great Kim Davis is. The thing is, I can see in the Constitution where the Supreme Court is mentioned and given power as the "supreme" authority to decide "all cases". It's pretty sweeping authority. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii What I can't find in the Constitution is where a clerk in a local jurisdiction has authority to go against the Supreme Court. That just doesn't seem to be in there. I can understand the idea that the government can't infringe upon someone'e religious freedom, but I think it's a pretty big stretch to say that it's against your religion to not sign a piece of paper recording a legal act (as I've pointed out, it happens every day with religious government workers all over the country "permitting" things they may not be personally thrilled about). So I can see how Kim Davis is a threat to the Constitution, but not in the way some conservatives seem to think. 2
thesometimesaint Posted September 7, 2015 Posted September 7, 2015 We use our government to limit freedom of religion all the time, and for good reason. My religious freedom to swing my fist ends at your nose. IE; Ms Davis is free to believe anything she likes. She is not free to use the government to force her beliefs on others. 1
Storm Rider Posted September 7, 2015 Posted September 7, 2015 One thing I can't figure out. A local conservative radio station is playing a commercial about "five lawyers in Washington" (i.e. The Supreme Court) that have "hijacked the country" and "gone against the will of the people". I'm seeing postings on Facebook from conservative friends and family members about how terrible the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage is, and how great Kim Davis is. The thing is, I can see in the Constitution where the Supreme Court is mentioned and given power as the "supreme" authority to decide "all cases". It's pretty sweeping authority. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii What I can't find in the Constitution is where a clerk in a local jurisdiction has authority to go against the Supreme Court. That just doesn't seem to be in there. I can understand the idea that the government can't infringe upon someone'e religious freedom, but I think it's a pretty big stretch to say that it's against your religion to not sign a piece of paper recording a legal act (as I've pointed out, it happens every day with religious government workers all over the country "permitting" things they may not be personally thrilled about). So I can see how Kim Davis is a threat to the Constitution, but not in the way some conservatives seem to think. I don't see any support for this clerk's position in the constitution;however, I have read the allegations that she follows the steps of several presidents and other members of government in following their own conscience rather than the law. If those allegations are correct it is strange that a lowly clerk is forced to pay the price while others get off without so much as a scolding.
cinepro Posted September 7, 2015 Posted September 7, 2015 I don't see any support for this clerk's position in the constitution;however, I have read the allegations that she follows the steps of several presidents and other members of government in following their own conscience rather than the law. If those allegations are correct it is strange that a lowly clerk is forced to pay the price while others get off without so much as a scolding. I think we need a little more detail on what situations are being alluded to. But since a "lowly clerk" has no governmental authority, whereas Presidents and other high-ranking members of government have a great deal of authority, I'd be skeptical of any direct analogies.
Stargazer Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 Weren't you part of the Final Four thing we did through this board a number of years ago in the Social Hall? Why do I have a memory of you winning? It wasn't for money; it was just bragging rights. No, you definitely have me confused with someone else. I don't know enough about basketball, college or professional, to even care about doing a Final Four pool. Actually, I don't even know what the Final Four is. If you asked me how many teams I could come up with cold the best I could do is the LA Lakers -- but that's only because I mostly grew up in Southern California. Mind you, I've heard of most of the other teams, and recognize the names and could probably match them with cities, but basically, when it comes to basketball I am Sgt Schultz: "I know nothing!"
ttribe Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 No, you definitely have me confused with someone else. I don't know enough about basketball, college or professional, to even care about doing a Final Four pool. Actually, I don't even know what the Final Four is. If you asked me how many teams I could come up with cold the best I could do is the LA Lakers -- but that's only because I mostly grew up in Southern California. Mind you, I've heard of most of the other teams, and recognize the names and could probably match them with cities, but basically, when it comes to basketball I am Sgt Schultz: "I know nothing!" Dang it...sorry about that.
Thinking Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 the 7-eleven clerk's name does not appear on the receipt for the 12 pack. Her name appears on the marriage license as the person giving concent. Apples and Oranges comparison. Wrong. Both receive a paycheck for the service they provide. If an employee refuses to provide the service, the employer has the right to fire the employee. 2
sunstoned Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 Wrong. Both receive a paycheck for the service they provide. If an employee refuses to provide the service, the employer has the right to fire the employee.It is really this simple. I cannot understand the twenty one pages of debate. Ms. Davis is not having her religious freedom threatened at all. She is free to believe whatever she wants. What she if not free to do is to collect a government paycheck and not provide the services of her office. 2
HappyJackWagon Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 One thing I can't figure out. A local conservative radio station is playing a commercial about "five lawyers in Washington" (i.e. The Supreme Court) that have "hijacked the country" and "gone against the will of the people". I'm seeing postings on Facebook from conservative friends and family members about how terrible the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage is, and how great Kim Davis is. The thing is, I can see in the Constitution where the Supreme Court is mentioned and given power as the "supreme" authority to decide "all cases". It's pretty sweeping authority. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii What I can't find in the Constitution is where a clerk in a local jurisdiction has authority to go against the Supreme Court. That just doesn't seem to be in there. I can understand the idea that the government can't infringe upon someone'e religious freedom, but I think it's a pretty big stretch to say that it's against your religion to not sign a piece of paper recording a legal act (as I've pointed out, it happens every day with religious government workers all over the country "permitting" things they may not be personally thrilled about). So I can see how Kim Davis is a threat to the Constitution, but not in the way some conservatives seem to think.Yeah, this seems to turn everything on its head. I hear conservatives/libertarian assault our system of government and SCOTUS in particular as if they are some kind of interloper in our government. I'm also shocked by how many people have NO clue that SCOTUS rulings are final. I've seen numerous people on FB proclaim that the SCOTUS ruling doesn't matter because congress hasn't passed a law yet. Sigh.... Also, after the HPG lesson I endured Sunday, I'm shocked that more people can't distinguish between a political policy and a church teaching. Continuing to beat this anti-gay drum isn't going to help the church with the next generation.
thesometimesaint Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 When even FOX NEWS thinks they're stupid. They should know the game is over.
Zakuska Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 (edited) We use our government to limit freedom of religion all the time, and for good reason. My religious freedom to swing my fist ends at your nose. IE; Ms Davis is free to believe anything she likes. She is not free to use the government to force her beliefs on others. How is she "forcing her beliefs on others" by simply refusing to sign a piece of paper? Being derelict in her duty yes. Edited September 8, 2015 by Zakuska
The Nehor Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 The reason I feel so strongly is that this hysteria over stupid stuff is creating a "boy who cried wolf" atmosphere."They are forcing us to sell cakes to people we do not like in our bakery.""Okay.....""They are forcing us to do our job and sign marriage licenses.""You people are a bunch of whiners.""They want us to ride in a gay parade as part of our job.""Yeah, not interested.""They are creating a culture where we are utterly marginalized and our rights to practice our faith are actually being threatened now.""Yeah, not listening.""Help! They are dragging us off to secular reeducation camps to cure our religious inclinations.""Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz"
Ahab Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 The line for some seems to be where beliefs are put into action. It's as if some are saying: Sure she can "believe" it is wrong and sinful to approve of marriage between people of the same sex, she can "believe" whatever she wants to believe, but No she can NOT put her belief into practice when doing what she has been elected to do. She can't put her beliefs into practice. She was elected to be the one who approves marriage licenses when the government tells her she can approve them and she must abide by only what the government approves of when she gives licenses for marriage.Trouble is that when government officials can take away someone else's right to whether they approve of marriages then that someone can only approve of what those government officials approve of, instead of approving only when it meets with their own approval.Sure it would be nice if citizens and government officials agreed on the same things and both approved of only good things, and it would also be nice if government officials (including Kim Davis) agreed with other government officials and citizens and approved of only good things, but if there is any disagreement then supposedly only the highest government officials win along with whoever agrees with them. People with religious views and beliefs are thereby limited to only what the highest government officials allow and come out as the losers when those government officials rule against them. 1
rockpond Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 The line for some seems to be where beliefs are put into action.It's as if some are saying: Sure she can "believe" it is wrong and sinful to approve of marriage between people of the same sex, she can "believe" whatever she wants to believe, but No she can NOT put her belief into practice when doing what she has been elected to do. She can't put her beliefs into practice. She was elected to be the one who approves marriage licenses when the government tells her she can approve them and she must abide by only what the government approves of when she gives licenses for marriage.Trouble is that when government officials can take away someone else's right to whether they approve of marriages then that someone can only approve of what those government officials approve of, instead of approving only when it meets with their own approval.Sure it would be nice if citizens and government officials agreed on the same things and both approved of only good things, and it would also be nice if government officials (including Kim Davis) agreed with other government officials and citizens and approved of only good things, but if there is any disagreement then supposedly only the highest government officials win along with whoever agrees with them.People with religious views and beliefs are thereby limited to only what the highest government officials allow and come out as the losers when those government officials rule against them. Davis' job is not to sign a document showing her personal approval of a marriage. Her job is to sign showing approval of the municipality. She can still disapprove personally and hold to her religious beliefs. She seems to have missed that distinction. 1
halconero Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 Well yeah. That's how organizations work.Imagine the following scenarios:A conscientious objector joins the military. A sergeant (the higher authority) orders him to fire upon the enemy. The conscientious objector refuses. This disrupts the military chain of command,Or one maybe a bit closer to home:A man accepts a calling as a Bishop. A few months later Salt Lake City reveals that the priesthood should be extended to all men, including blacks. The Bishop refuses. The Bishop is then relieved of his position.If she wants to defy the court order as a conscientious objector, fine. But let's not everyone act surprised or upset that the current system fires her/arrests her/whatever. It's how laws and organizations work.
danielwoods Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 Davis' job is not to sign a document showing her personal approval of a marriage. Her job is to sign showing approval of the municipality. She can still disapprove personally and hold to her religious beliefs. She seems to have missed that distinction. Where does it stop? Churches (specifically licensed ministers) are given the authority of the State to marry people. When a gay couple comes to a church that opposes gay marriage, what then? Is that church allowed to retain that authority, and yet refuse to marry that gay couple? If we can force someone to either be fired or do something against their personal beliefs, we aren't far from forcing churches or removing their authority to marry. 1
rockpond Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 Where does it stop? Churches (specifically licensed ministers) are given the authority of the State to marry people. When a gay couple comes to a church that opposes gay marriage, what then? Is that church allowed to retain that authority, and yet refuse to marry that gay couple? If we can force someone to either be fired or do something against their personal beliefs, we aren't far from forcing churches or removing their authority to marry. Yes, the church is allowed to refuse to marry the gay couple per their beliefs. The 1st Amendment is what protects us (at least here in the U.S.). I understand the concern you're expressing but if someone's personal beliefs dictate that they cannot perform the duties required by their job, how would you suggest we handle that?
thesometimesaint Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 How is she "forcing her beliefs on others" by simply refusing to sign a piece of paper? Being derelict in her duty yes. She is an agent of the government. She is refusing to certify, or allow her deputy's to certify, that certain couples can be certified for a governmental program(license to marry), based on her personal religious beliefs. The USSC has already determined that her personal religious beliefs can not override the federal government. She is simply trying to receive the benefits of her beliefs while violating the law she agreed to support and defend. She had a direct Court Order to issue marriages license. She willfully violated that Court Order. When even FOX NEWS thinks her lawyers are stupid it is time to get out of the game. Would you be fine with a Muslim clerk at the DMV refusing you a Drivers License based on his/her religious beliefs? This just in Ms Davis has been ordered released from jail as long as she permits her deputy's to issue marriage licenses.
The Nehor Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 Where does it stop? Churches (specifically licensed ministers) are given the authority of the State to marry people. When a gay couple comes to a church that opposes gay marriage, what then? Is that church allowed to retain that authority, and yet refuse to marry that gay couple? If we can force someone to either be fired or do something against their personal beliefs, we aren't far from forcing churches or removing their authority to marry.Yes, ministers have the authority to marry but they are not required to use it. A clerk or justice of the peace is required to use their authority for anyone who asks (assuming all laws are followed).If tomorrow I were to form the Church of the Holy Bundt Cake and got licensed to marry I cannot be compelled to marry anyone. You cannot sue to force a Mormon Bishop or Catholic Priest to marry you and it is not a dereliction of any duty. Forcing them to marry anyone who asks would turn them into government employees and you would have to pay them so this is never going to happen. 3
Thinking Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 Where does it stop? Churches (specifically licensed ministers) are given the authority of the State to marry people. When a gay couple comes to a church that opposes gay marriage, what then? Is that church allowed to retain that authority, and yet refuse to marry that gay couple? If we can force someone to either be fired or do something against their personal beliefs, we aren't far from forcing churches or removing their authority to marry. It is a privilege afforded to churches to perform marriages for the government. It's possible that churches may lose that privilege if they refuse to marry gay couples. If that happens, LDS couples who want to marry in the temple will need to have two ceremonies.
ERayR Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 Yes, ministers have the authority to marry but they are not required to use it. A clerk or justice of the peace is required to use their authority for anyone who asks (assuming all laws are followed).If tomorrow I were to form the Church of the Holy Bundt Cake and got licensed to marry I cannot be compelled to marry anyone. You cannot sue to force a Mormon Bishop or Catholic Priest to marry you and it is not a dereliction of any duty. Forcing them to marry anyone who asks would turn them into government employees and you would have to pay them so this is never going to happen. Never say never. 1
CA Steve Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 She has been released but ordered by the judge to not interfere with her deputy clerks issuing licenses. 1
Thinking Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 I understand the concern you're expressing but if someone's personal beliefs dictate that they cannot perform the duties required by their job, how would you suggest we handle that? Get a new job? 1
Thinking Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 The line for some seems to be where beliefs are put into action.It's as if some are saying: Sure she can "believe" it is wrong and sinful to approve of marriage between people of the same sex, she can "believe" whatever she wants to believe, but No she can NOT put her belief into practice when doing what she has been elected to do. She can't put her beliefs into practice. She was elected to be the one who approves marriage licenses when the government tells her she can approve them and she must abide by only what the government approves of when she gives licenses for marriage.Trouble is that when government officials can take away someone else's right to whether they approve of marriages then that someone can only approve of what those government officials approve of, instead of approving only when it meets with their own approval.Sure it would be nice if citizens and government officials agreed on the same things and both approved of only good things, and it would also be nice if government officials (including Kim Davis) agreed with other government officials and citizens and approved of only good things, but if there is any disagreement then supposedly only the highest government officials win along with whoever agrees with them.People with religious views and beliefs are thereby limited to only what the highest government officials allow and come out as the losers when those government officials rule against them. The government didn't force her to apply for and accept that position that she holds. 2
Recommended Posts