In the case of the gay couple a special authorization was conveyed to the register and recorders assistant that allowed the assistant to sign off on the license despite the fact that the actual register and recorder the one with the official duty and responsibility to issue the license who ran for the office under the pretense that she would uphold the law and carry out the duties of the office got off without losing her job despite her willful discrimination and dereliction of duty. She knew even before she ran for the job that she couldn't discriminate and from time to time have to perform tasks that might be contrary to her beliefs yet by means of her willful discrimination she lied to the people whose vote and support she asked for. What's so Christian about that type of behavior.? So why did she run for the office? Simple. It was the secure well paid employment. The money honey. Why did Van continue to deliver packages to people whose lifestyle was an affront to his religious beliefs?.........Again......It was the money.
Future Speculation
- Thread starter Serf
- Start date
I doubt it ever entered her mind when running for office that she'd be required to hand out marriage licenses to gays. As for me delivering packages to whomever, so? As I pointed out earlier the various businesses that were attacked were all willing to serve gays in various capacities. The pizza restaurant for example would have no problem serving a meal to gays. They just asked that they not be forced to participate in a ceremony that they disagreed with on religious grounds. The Christian voting block was energized to turn out in the last two elections primarily because of things like this. The Left won some battles, we won the war, at least for now. All because folks like you don't respect our beliefs and want to cram things down our throats.
I knew a courier in Seattle that had a porn warehouse on her rt. She wasn't religious, but felt very uncomfortable going there. Management would tell dispatch to give pup to another courier when she got one. Accommodations are made and life goes on.
Coercion doesn't mean turning someone gay. It means being forced to go along to get along. You're arguing from your perspective that being gay is no big deal. Thus if it's ok to you then everyone else should accept it also. You're not making any allowances for those who do feel it's wrong. And that's the crux of the matter. I'm not saying being gay should be illegal. I'm not saying they should be attacked or be harmed or any such thing. I'm just saying that there's a line in my beliefs that I don't want to cross, and some gays are trying to force those who feel like I do to either cross that line or pay the consequences. It's not a matter of there's plenty of Christians to support a business, it's a matter of being sued by the State and levied severe penalties to close down that business. And that's where electing officials that will make sure that kind of retribution doesn't happen comes in. No one is stopping a gay couple from having a wedding, but targeting a business owner that doesn't want to participate instead of going to others that have no problem with it needs to stop.
Again, no one is asking to do harm to gays or prevent them from living their lifestyle. Just asking to not be forced to go along with aspects of that lifestyle that conflicts with our religious views. And again, folks like you are saying we must go along, our views don't matter, we must accept everyone no matter if it conflicts with our religious beliefs. Essentially you're saying everyone's rights matter except ours. And comparing our views to racism is a red herring. Not to mention Sharia Law. I find it ironic that many on the Left are willing to go to extremes to run over Christians on minor matters, technicalities, yet are very supportive of Muslims when in many Muslim countries they enforce Sharia Law to the point of executing gays.
Again it still comes down to the money. When an employer offer someone a job what they are simply saying is, "Here's the job.here's the money. It something about it conflicts with your beliefs then don't take the job"! To your credit you stuffed your beliefs in your back pocket and did the job. Why? Because you needed the money.The same holds true in the public sector. If you don't like the fact that the job involves tasks that conflict with you beliefs then don't take the job. If a taxpayer funded program involves terms and conditions that are contrary to the views and beliefs of a religious organization then don't take the money regardless of how badly they need it. It's not a question of Christians being trampled by the LGBT community but rather that segment beginning standing up for themselves after being shunned by society for the past decades. Whether I support or condemn the LGBT lifestyle is not the issue. As long as you work hard , pay taxes and LGBT's pay in a reservoir full of them , speak English and obey the law, I don't care who you sleep with as long as your are not damaging the our collective gene pool.
And saying I violated my beliefs by delivering packages to whomever because I wanted money is another of your very odd ideas. We all work for money sir. We have to exist. If I deliver a package to someone I'm just performing a service. Has absolutely nothing to do with who they are. Now if I knew that package was full of illegal drugs I would refuse to deliver it. There have been several times in my "career" that I refused to do things because I believed the manager was being unfair. When they said do it or get fired I said firing me was their prerogative but I wasn't going to, they backed down. I'm willing to stand up for what I believe, even if it means losing my job. You want to make doing my job a compromise of my beliefs. That's silly.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Your right to discriminate?
Your right to discriminate?
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Oh yes, we have that right. A county clerk, however, does not have that right in her capacity as an agent of the government.
You seem to be of the opinion that the Bill of Rights is a list of individual freedoms. While you're welcome to that interpretation, I would suggest that a more accurate description, from a conservative viewpoint, would be that the Bill of Rights is actually a list of limitations on the power of government.
You want to talk about the clerk's religious freedom, but Kim Davis was an agent of the government. The Bill of Rights limits her powers in that occupation. She cannot force her religious beliefs on citizens, whether it be actively or passively.
Serf
Well-Known Member
Not bad. However, when I see gays at the pride parade spit on Priests and take flaming, flamboyant selfies in front of Saint Statues I do feel an ill pit in my stomach. Spartan Nobles would cringe.
She wasn't forcing anything on anyone. She was just refusing to compromise her beliefs.
And I agree with you. But under our system they do have the right to act that way. Which makes it important to me to never give in when they insist on getting their way in everything.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
No, she was refusing to do her job because of her religion, and in doing so was passively using the government to force her beliefs on other people. She should have resigned and let someone who was willing to do their job take over.
That's the same argument used to say we're worrying they'll turn us gay. Again, accommodate or see us at the ballot box. Your choice.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Accommodate? You obviously aren't familiar with this case AT ALL. She did everything she possibly could to stand in the way of licenses being issued without her approval.
Her lawyers actually went so far as to argue in court that any marriage license issued in her absence would be invalid. She was trying to use the government for her religious agenda.
Good for her!(couldn't resist)
She lost
No, she won by not giving in. And the Church won.
