By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
bouzane on 01 September 2015
Edit Thread
bobfulci said:
bouzane said:
At first glance I read this as "Clark Kent Denies Same-Sex Marriage Licenses" and though about his previous bouts of Super Dickery. On topic, if this clerk is failing to uphold the law she shouldn't be allowed to work for the government, simple as that. Also, if it is true that she has been divorced four times then she is a disgusting hypocrite.


I don't see any of you attacking the government for failing to enforce a huge number of laws on a daily basis, but yes, by all means let's crucify this woman. And I guess anyone with any religious conviction at all should not be allowed to work for the government in the event that in the future, there might be a situation where your beliefs and a law might clash. Incidentally that's known as religious persecution as well as discrimination.

So because you don't see me criticizing the government for failures not related to the topic at hand means that I am permissive of these transgressions? Great logic there friend, real bullet-proof stuff.

Let's establish a few things here:

The clerk failed to perform her duties and systematically broke the law. When your beliefs (religious or otherwise), core values or personal convictions cause you to break the law or infringe upon other peoples' rights these actions are going to have consequences and rightfully so. If you are incapable of doing your job (or better yet, upholding the damn law) you have no business serving the public and you should be replaced with somebody who can and will. What's so hard to understand about that? If you can't fulfill your reponsibilities you shouldn't have these reponsibilities. We shouldn't make special exceptions for people on religious grounds just as we shouldn't make special exceptions for any other reason.

You act like this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the clerk failed to perform her duties. You act like this has nothing to do with the fact that she disobeyed authority. Surely those can't be the reasons why I took this stance can they? You can't just use religion as a blanket defense for unlawful or disobedient acts. I'm not singling out faith, I feel this way about everything.

You know what the absolute best part about this is? This woman divorced three times (twice in the last decade) making her a massive hypocrite. This is forbidden by the traditional Judeo-Christian definition of marriage. Even in cases where you are justified in using religious customs as justification for your actions you don't really get these privileges when you don't actually adhere to said customs. If you don't uphold the values of a religion you don't get to use that religion as to excuse your actions, a rather simple concept.

Now pay attention here because this is vital. Do not pretend I said or insinuated anything that I never actutally did. Got that straight? You acted like I'm the thought police and I want to prevent hypothetical (imaginary) conflicts by forbidding all religious individuals from holding government jobs. My comments clearly addresses individuals who actually break existing laws and you can drop this little narrative because it never happened. Discuss the comments I actually make and don't invent nonsense, understood?

Alright, so remember to come back with something a bit more well thought out and on point or don't bother responding at all.