Zakuska Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 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. Two different things here. Her being derelict does not = pushing her religious beliefs on others. Her religious beliefs causes her to be derelict.
CA Steve Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 Two different things here. Her being derelict does not = pushing her religious beliefs on others. Her religious beliefs causes her to be derelict.Is a gay couple holding hands or kissing in public "pushing" their sexual orientation on others?
Zakuska Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 (edited) Is a gay couple holding hands or kissing in public "pushing" their sexual orientation on others?Good question. TSS? Edited September 8, 2015 by Zakuska
CA Steve Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 Good question. TSS?What is your response to my question?
Zakuska Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 (edited) What is your response to my question? Pushing on. No. Pushing in their face Yes. Personally don't like PDA. Edited September 8, 2015 by Zakuska
cinepro Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 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, I'm pretty sure conscientious objectors don't join the military. They are occasionally drafted into the military, in which case it is my understanding that they are given non-combat roles. Another thing I can't figure out is why some religious people have chosen to focus on this one thing like it's the end of the world. I served part of my mission in the American south, and it seemed to me that they had long ago given up on keeping the Sabbath day holy. Say what you will, but God's opinion on the Sabbath is far clearer than anything he has said against Gay marriage. And that's true for many other things as well. But for some reason, this is the hill Kim Davis and others have chosen to (metaphorically) die on. If I found out that Davis regularly shopped or went to movies on Sundays, I would classify her as a hypocrite of the highest order (if there isn't enough there already).
Thinking Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 Two different things here. Her being derelict does not = pushing her religious beliefs on others. Her religious beliefs causes her to be derelict. If her religious beliefs cause her to be derelict, and that dereliction delays the issuance of a marriage license to a couple who has met all the requirements required by the state, then her religious beliefs are delaying the issuance of the marriage license (Law of Syllogism). She is, therefore, pushing her religious beliefs on others.
Zakuska Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 (edited) If her religious beliefs cause her to be derelict, and that dereliction delays the issuance of a marriage license to a couple who has met all the requirements required by the state, then her religious beliefs are delaying the issuance of the marriage license (Law of Syllogism). She is, therefore, pushing her religious beliefs on others.Not in the least... because her religious beliefs compels her to not act. Which she hasn't. Others can still act. Her disallowing her clerks from doing it that does equate to pushing her beliefs on others. And not just the couples wanting to get married. Edited September 8, 2015 by Zakuska
Ahab 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.You seem to think there should be a distinction. That she should think and act differently when doing her job than she thinks and acts when not doing her job. That SHE shouldn't think SHE is doing that job based on her own values and principles, but that SHE should act as if SHE should do only what some other government official wants her to do and essentially take her own mind and her own values and principles OUT of the situation when doing something SHE was elected to doby those who elected HER to do that job.2 distinct Kim Davis personalities, basically.One that has her own values and principles and another version of her that does whatever a higher government official wants her to do even when that version of herself is at odds with her other self. A Kim at her job and another Kim when not doing that job. A Kim that says to herself No I didn't approve of that marriage as my regular ole personal self. That isn't the real me. That's just the version of me that is doing that job based on what somebody else wanted me to do. I just did it as him, or her. Not me. No, just that other version of me that doesn't do things based on my own principles and values, acting instead as if I was somebody else.That's a very strange way of thinking about how you seem to think we should be when we are working for somebody else, whether that other person is a government official or whatever else he or she is. I see Kim as Kim as she tries to be consistent eith how she thinks she should be whatever she is doing.
The Nehor Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 Never say never. Okay, I can think of three cases where a religious minister might have to marry someone: 1) They made a contract to do so with a specific person or persons to marry them in exchange for something. 2) Ministers become legal employees of the state. Unless this was mandatory it would not influence the LDS Church. If it were mandatory the First Amendment is dead. 3) Slavery is legalized in some form and ministers are now compelled to perform government functions for the state. Number 1 may already happen but most ministers do not enter into such contractual agreement. Number 2 would be a move towards theocracy which I do not see as likely. Number 3 would require a form of legal slavery where the government owns the labor of ministers. This could theoretically happen but if this kind of thing happens it will more likely be phased in by privatized prisons and rehabilitation centers trying to make money off the now legally defenseless. No need to worry about that unless they are successfully lobbying for increased incarceration rates that exceed those of say China or even Stalin's Russia. Oh wait......oh. In any case if this did happen that abuse of the law would be the least of our worries. It is already run off to the wilderness time. Saying that it might happen is like saying there might be a fascist coup in America. Yes, it is theoretically possible but it is unlikely and it is not part of some slippery slope furthered by a deranged woman refusing to do her job.
rockpond Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 You seem to think there should be a distinction. That she should think and act differently when doing her job than she thinks and acts when not doing her job. That SHE shouldn't think SHE is doing that job based on her own values and principles, but that SHE should act as if SHE should do only what some other government official wants her to do and essentially take her own mind and her own values and principles OUT of the situation when doing something SHE was elected to doby those who elected HER to do that job.2 distinct Kim Davis personalities, basically.One that has her own values and principles and another version of her that does whatever a higher government official wants her to do even when that version of herself is at odds with her other self.A Kim at her job and another Kim when not doing that job. A Kim that says to herself No I didn't approve of that marriage as my regular ole personal self. That isn't the real me. That's just the version of me that is doing that job based on what somebody else wanted me to do. I just did it as him, or her. Not me. No, just that other version of me that doesn't do things based on my own principles and values, acting instead as if I was somebody else.That's a very strange way of thinking about how you seem to think we should be when we are working for somebody else, whether that other person is a government official or whatever else he or she is. I see Kim as Kim as she tries to be consistent eith how she thinks she should be whatever she is doing. Nope, only ONE personality... a personality governed by integrity. She can and should hold to her beliefs, wherever she is. When she signs a marriage license on the "county clerk" line, she is signing AS the county clerk. She is verifying that the municipality she represents is granting the license. She, Kim Davis, personally, is not granting the license. The county is granting the license and she is signing, AS a clerk, to validate the license.
The Nehor Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 You seem to think there should be a distinction. That she should think and act differently when doing her job than she thinks and acts when not doing her job. That SHE shouldn't think SHE is doing that job based on her own values and principles, but that SHE should act as if SHE should do only what some other government official wants her to do and essentially take her own mind and her own values and principles OUT of the situation when doing something SHE was elected to doby those who elected HER to do that job.2 distinct Kim Davis personalities, basically.One that has her own values and principles and another version of her that does whatever a higher government official wants her to do even when that version of herself is at odds with her other self.A Kim at her job and another Kim when not doing that job. A Kim that says to herself No I didn't approve of that marriage as my regular ole personal self. That isn't the real me. That's just the version of me that is doing that job based on what somebody else wanted me to do. I just did it as him, or her. Not me. No, just that other version of me that doesn't do things based on my own principles and values, acting instead as if I was somebody else.That's a very strange way of thinking about how you seem to think we should be when we are working for somebody else, whether that other person is a government official or whatever else he or she is. I see Kim as Kim as she tries to be consistent eith how she thinks she should be whatever she is doing. Yes, and as everyone has distinct personalities in different circumstances this is normal. I present a different face when I am selling a product at work versus inviting a family I home teach to come to an activity and a different person when I am training a new user on a work product as opposed to when I teach Sunday School. Humans are adaptable. If she is that unadaptable she should get a new job.
Thinking Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 Not in the least... because her religious beliefs compels her to not act. Which she hasn't. Perhaps her religious beliefs should compel her to find a new job. Also, since you are getting so nit picky on the definition of act, did she just completely ignore the request? I'm guessing there was some dialog or at least a return to the petitioners of their application. In other words, her inaction required action.
Zakuska Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 (edited) Perhaps her religious beliefs should compel her to find a new job. I agree. I see this as no different a situation as Joseph Smith setting up a bar in the living room and selling Beer to weary travelers, in Navoo. Or an LDS member working in the Casinos in Vegas (All My Cousins). She really shouldn't have a problem with it. But apparently she does and I'm not compelled to force her to do it. Edited September 8, 2015 by Zakuska
Ahab Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 The government didn't force her to apply for and accept that position that she holds.No but SHE has that position now, a position which is a position in the government as an official government representative, and SHE should be who SHE is, true to herself and her own values and principles, as she acts in her official capacity.And if somw higher up government official doesn't want HER doing that job anymore, and can legally remove her from office, then that higher up government official should remove her from office by whatever legal means necessary rather than expect HER to act like somebody else inconsistent with her own values and principles. Just don't be surprised to see her continuing to act based on her own values and principles while SHE is doing that job.
The Nehor Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 And if somw higher up government official doesn't want HER doing that job anymore, and can legally remove her from office, then that higher up government official should remove her from office by whatever legal means necessary rather than expect HER to act like somebody else inconsistent with her own values and principles. Just don't be surprised to see her continuing to act based on her own values and principles while SHE is doing that job. They did. They put her in jail. If she keeps it up they will put her back.
Ahab Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 Nope, only ONE personality... a personality governed by integrity. She can and should hold to her beliefs, wherever she is. When she signs a marriage license on the "county clerk" line, she is signing AS the county clerk. She is verifying that the municipality she represents is granting the license. She, Kim Davis, personally, is not granting the license. The county is granting the license and she is signing, AS a clerk, to validate the license.At least you're being consistent. You still don't seem to realize that SHE is the county clerk and that SHE is doing that job based on HER own principles and values. Just stop expecting her to act as if she doesn't still have her own principles and values as she does whatever she is doing as a government official or otherwise.
Ahab Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 They did. They put her in jail. If she keeps it up they will put her back.I just hope I don't see or hear of her not being true to herself and her own principles and values anymore.People can change how they are or behave when they want to, and if she sees a better way to be I hope she will embrace it if it is truly a better way for her to be, but for her to not be true to herself when she believes she is being as she should be is something I would rather not see or hear about.
Thinking Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 I just hope I don't see or hear of her not being true to herself and her own principles and values anymore. If she doesn't agree with the responsibilities required by her position AND she doesn't have the authority to change those requirements, then she should find a new job. 1
rockpond Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 At least you're being consistent. You still don't seem to realize that SHE is the county clerk and that SHE is doing that job based on HER own principles and values.Just stop expecting her to act as if she doesn't still have her own principles and values as she does whatever she is doing as a government official or otherwise. I absolutely do expect her to act as if she still has her own principles and values regardless of what she is doing and what job she is in. I expect that one of those values/principles is to uphold & follow the law in her elected position as county clerk. She should be doing the job based on her own principles and values (that's usually what makes for a great employee) but those values and principles cannot override the RESPONSIBILITIES OF HER JOB.
Bob Crockett Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 I question the fundamental wisdom of the State to require marriage licenses in the first place, and authorizing religious clerics to perform a licensed activity in the second place. Both violate the establishment clause. But, as long as such requirements exist, a clerk should function in the office to which she was elected, and if she can't, she should resign. For the same reason, if a department of motor vehicle employee refuses to issue a driver's license to a convicted felon, perhaps one with a heinous record, the employee should resign.
KevinG Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 I sued Coors for not accommodating me with a job that didn't promote the manufacture, distribution, and sales of alcoholic drinks. They paid the settlement in beer. 2
Ahab Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 I absolutely do expect her to act as if she still has her own principles and values regardless of what she is doing and what job she is in. I expect that one of those values/principles is to uphold & follow the law in her elected position as county clerk.Her primary value/principle seems to be to do only what God wants her to do, rather than just approve of whatever is legal. That seems to be why as county clerk she is being true to herself and her values/principles by not approving same sex marriages, because to her way of thinking God doesn't approve of that either. The laws you seem to think she should follow are not God's laws but instead are the laws/rules/permissions of some mortal men/women who are approving of something God doesn't approve of, so rather than just do what those people approve of she is sticking to her primary value/principle to do only what (in her view) God approves of.I really don't want to see her cave in to peer pressure. She should be doing the job based on her own principles and values (that's usually what makes for a great employee) but those values and principles cannot override the RESPONSIBILITIES OF HER JOB.Yes they can and apparently are right now.Why do you act as though a JOB is #1 in importance? Or that her values/judgements should be secondary to what somebody pays her to do? Or that she can't or shouldn't approve marriage license requests based primarily on her own valves/judgements? SHE is the CLERK!
The Nehor Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 Her primary value/principle seems to be to do only what God wants her to do, rather than just approve of whatever is legal. That seems to be why as county clerk she is being true to herself and her values/principles by not approving same sex marriages, because to her way of thinking God doesn't approve of that either. The laws you seem to think she should follow are not God's laws but instead are the laws/rules/permissions of some mortal men/women who are approving of something God doesn't approve of, so rather than just do what those people approve of she is sticking to her primary value/principle to do only what (in her view) God approves of.I really don't want to see her cave in to peer pressure. Yes they can and apparently are right now.Why do you act as though a JOB is #1 in importance? Or that her values/judgements should be secondary to what somebody pays her to do? Or that she can't or shouldn't approve marriage license requests based primarily on her own valves/judgements? SHE is the CLERK!These arguments work equally well for a racist fast food cashier or an anti Semitic hotel check in desk attendant refusing service. They are staying true to their PRINCIPLES!And if the manager tells them to knock it off that would be wrong. That would be applying peer pressure.
rockpond Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 Her primary value/principle seems to be to do only what God wants her to do, rather than just approve of whatever is legal. That seems to be why as county clerk she is being true to herself and her values/principles by not approving same sex marriages, because to her way of thinking God doesn't approve of that either. The laws you seem to think she should follow are not God's laws but instead are the laws/rules/permissions of some mortal men/women who are approving of something God doesn't approve of, so rather than just do what those people approve of she is sticking to her primary value/principle to do only what (in her view) God approves of.I really don't want to see her cave in to peer pressure.Yes they can and apparently are right now.Why do you act as though a JOB is #1 in importance? Or that her values/judgements should be secondary to what somebody pays her to do? Or that she can't or shouldn't approve marriage license requests based primarily on her own valves/judgements? SHE is the CLERK! Why? Because she was elected to perform a job for the people of the county. Her job is to issue marriage licenses that fit within the laws of the county/state/nation. If her religious beliefs prevent her from fulfilling the responsibilities of her job, she needs to step down. If an Evangelical Christian was in Davis' position and refused to grant marriage licenses to LDS couples on the grounds that s/he felt God disapproved of our temple marriages, would you support that?
Recommended Posts