Calm 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...You think her breaking her election promise is being true to her own principles and values?
Ahab Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 You think her breaking her election promise is being true to her own principles and values?I saw where you posted what she said so fortunately I think I know a liitle about what you are talking about. I explain it to myself by thinking that maybe she changed her mind after further reflection and that now she wants to follow her ideas of what God wants her to do more than she did when she made that earlier statement. That seems to jive with what she is saying now, at least.
Ahab Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 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.Exactly. I respect all people who stand up and make a stand for their own values and principles, whatever they value and believe.Not that everybody is right or doing the right thing but at least they think they are right and are sticking to their own values and principles regardless of any peer pressure.
Brian 2.0 Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 I saw where you posted what she said so fortunately I think I know a liitle about what you are talking about. I explain it to myself by thinking that maybe she changed her mind after further reflection and that now she wants to follow her ideas of what God wants her to do more than she did when she made that earlier statement. That seems to jive with what she is saying now, at least. She said she won't let others in her office issue the licenses because it still has her name on the license. I don't know what she plans on doing when she gets back to work because the legislature in her state that could take off the listing of names on the licenses doesn't meet until January. 1
The Nehor Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 Exactly. I respect all people who stand up and make a stand for their own values and principles, whatever they value and believe.Not that everybody is right or doing the right thing but at least they think they are right and are sticking to their own values and principles regardless of any peer pressure. 1
Brian 2.0 Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 Exactly.I respect all people who stand up and make a stand for their own values and principles, whatever they value and believe.Not that everybody is right or doing the right thing but at least they think they are right and are sticking to their own values and principles regardless of any peer pressure. I'm not sure Nehor is agreeing with you, Ahab. You can stand up for you principles all you want, but you can't stand ANYWHERE when doing so. In this instance standing up for your principles means standing down from your post. 1
Russell C McGregor Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 I'm not sure Nehor is agreeing with you, Ahab. You can stand up for you principles all you want, but you can't stand ANYWHERE when doing so. In this instance standing up for your principles means standing down from your post. That's right. We can't possibly have people who believe in authentic marriage working in any government capacity.
rockpond Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 That's right. We can't possibly have people who believe in authentic marriage working in any government capacity. We can, should, and DO! But it doesn't excuse them from fulfilling the legal responsibilities for which they are paid.
Ahab Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 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.I'm sure both sides in any fight would rather see someone on the other side just give up. Think about it as if she thinks she is holding down her position against her opposition and with her thinking she is on the right side and doing what she should be doing. 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?Yes I would still support her right to oppose and refuse to approve of any marriage she didn't feel she should approve based on her own principles and values and ideas regarding what God approves of.She would be wrong about what God approves of but she would be acting correctly based on her own perspective, not intending to be or do anything wrong.
ttribe Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 Exactly.I respect all people who stand up and make a stand for their own values and principles, whatever they value and believe.Not that everybody is right or doing the right thing but at least they think they are right and are sticking to their own values and principles regardless of any peer pressure. You respect a (hypothetical) ant-semite for "standing-up" for anti-semitism based solely on the fact that they are "sticking to their own values and principles regardless of any peer pressure"? Seriously? That's just...insane. 2
Thinking Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 She is free to choose, but she is not free to alter the consequences of her choice. 1
Brian 2.0 Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 That's right. We can't possibly have people who believe in authentic marriage working in any government capacity. I believe in "authentic marriage"! And my view of authentic marriage is that humans should only be allowed to marry cats, not other humans. I'll be running for county clerk in your district and I vow to never issue a marriage license to two humans wanting to get married... and I'm glad I have your support Russell! Care you join my campaign? I don't pay much, but I have some fantastic cats I could set you up with. 2
rockpond Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 (edited) I'm sure both sides in any fight would rather see someone on the other side just give up. Think about it as if she thinks she is holding down her position against her opposition and with her thinking she is on the right side and doing what she should be doing.Yes I would still support her right to oppose and refuse to approve of any marriage she didn't feel she should approve based on her own principles and values and ideas regarding what God approves of.She would be wrong about what God approves of but she would be acting correctly based on her own perspective, not intending to be or do anything wrong. So in both cases (denying gay couple marriage licenses and denying LDS couple marriage licenses) do you also believe that the individual should be able to stay in their position, indefinitely, and continue to get paid even though their beliefs prohibit them from fulfilling the responsibilities of their employment? And, if so - what should the employer (in this case, the county government) do to make sure that legally required services are still provided? Edited September 8, 2015 by rockpond
The Nehor Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 I believe in "authentic marriage"! And my view of authentic marriage is that humans should only be allowed to marry cats, not other humans. I'll be running for county clerk in your district and I vow to never issue a marriage license to two humans wanting to get married... and I'm glad I have your support Russell! Care you join my campaign? I don't pay much, but I have some fantastic cats I could set you up with.How do your cats feel about plural marriage?
Russell C McGregor Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 I believe in "authentic marriage"! And my view of authentic marriage is that humans should only be allowed to marry cats, not other humans. I'll be running for county clerk in your district and I vow to never issue a marriage license to two humans wanting to get married... and I'm glad I have your support Russell! Care you join my campaign? I don't pay much, but I have some fantastic cats I could set you up with. As everyone knows, every authentic marriage consists of a man and a woman.
Brian 2.0 Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 How do your cats feel about plural marriage? Get thee hence, Satan! How dare you desecrate authentic cat marriage with that heresy.
Brian 2.0 Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 (edited) As everyone knows, every authentic marriage consists of a man and a woman. Everyone? Everyone? Do the Supreme Court justices not count as people now? Hopefully not and you think they are cats... because I have crush on one of them. Edited September 8, 2015 by Brian 2.0
The Nehor Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 Get thee hence, Satan! How dare you desecrate authentic cat marriage with that heresy.I am just a simple satanic sorcerer who has signed away his soul in a pact for power and wealth and I want to marry all my feline demon familiars. Don't be such a prude.
Brian 2.0 Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 I am just a simple satanic sorcerer who has signed away his soul in a pact for power and wealth and I want to marry all my feline demon familiars. Don't be such a prude. Well... I'm not one to get in the way of anyone standing up for their beliefs in public office... so I support your run for County Clerk if you choose to do so.
Ahab Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 You respect a (hypothetical) ant-semite for "standing-up" for anti-semitism based solely on the fact that they are "sticking to their own values and principles regardless of any peer pressure"? Seriously? That's just...insane.It probably qualifies as an "extreme" example but the point is that anybody and everybody should make their own stand on whatever they/each person thinks is right and better yet what each person truly believes God approves of. Not merely on whatever is "legal" as determined by fallible mortal men/women, whether they are government officials or not.All of this talk about her making her stand, or giving up in her stand, based on what is "legal" don't seem to be putting whatever "legal" is in its proper perspective. Legal is tiddlywinks. God's approval should be our benchmark.
Ahab Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 So in both cases (denying gay couple marriage licenses and denying LDS couple marriage licenses) do you also believe that the individual should be able to stay in their position, indefinitely, and continue to get paid even though their beliefs prohibit them from fulfilling the responsibilities of their employment?And, if so - what should the employer (in this case, the county government) do to make sure that legally required services are still provided?I don't know all the specifics but I'm fairly confident that government officials have their own ways of getting rid of other governnent officials they want to get rid of, somehow, someday, whether it involves propaganda and innuendo to stir other people up and make them the ones to somehow get rid of her or remove her from office, legally or otherwise.I'd mainly just like to see her stick to her idea that she should do only what she believes God approves of. There are still plenty of places where all kinds of people can legally marry.
Brian 2.0 Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 (edited) It probably qualifies as an "extreme" example but the point is that anybody and everybody should make their own stand on whatever they/each person thinks is right and better yet what each person truly believes God approves of.Not merely on whatever is "legal" as determined by fallible mortal men/women, whether they are government officials or not.All of this talk about her making her stand, or giving up in her stand, based on what is "legal" don't seem to be putting whatever "legal" is in its proper perspective.Legal is tiddlywinks. God's approval should be our benchmark. Fine. But let the rubber met the road here. What is your solution? She should be able to be in office and have her entire office not issue licenses to people because that's her right? Edited September 8, 2015 by Brian 2.0
ttribe Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 (edited) It probably qualifies as an "extreme" example but the point is that anybody and everybody should make their own stand on whatever they/each person thinks is right and better yet what each person truly believes God approves of.Not merely on whatever is "legal" as determined by fallible mortal men/women, whether they are government officials or not.All of this talk about her making her stand, or giving up in her stand, based on what is "legal" don't seem to be putting whatever "legal" is in its proper perspective.Legal is tiddlywinks. God's approval should be our benchmark. No, Ahab. Some things are just wrong and we shouldn't "respect" people for standing up for wrong things. We shouldn't "respect" the KKK for "standing up for their beliefs." We shouldn't "respect" ISIS for "standing up for their beliefs." We shouldn't "respect" NAMBLA for "standing up for their beliefs." Edited September 8, 2015 by ttribe 1
rockpond Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 I don't know all the specifics but I'm fairly confident that government officials have their own ways of getting rid of other governnent officials they want to get rid of, somehow, someday, whether it involves propaganda and innuendo to stir other people up and make them the ones to somehow get rid of her or remove her from office, legally or otherwise.I'd mainly just like to see her stick to her idea that she should do only what she believes God approves of. There are still plenty of places where all kinds of people can legally marry. So you think the answer is to remove her from office?
Russell C McGregor Posted September 8, 2015 Posted September 8, 2015 Everyone? Everyone? Do the Supreme Court justices not count as people now?I fail to see that they had the slightest interest in authentic marriage.Like Pius IX, who exercised Infallibility before it was conferred upon him by Vatican I, SCOTUS found in Obergefell a convenient case to claim for themselves the power to legislate.
Recommended Posts