Quantcast
Kentucky Clerk Denies Marriage Licenses | Update: Clerk Freed w/Warning!

Forums - Politics Discussion - Kentucky Clerk Denies Marriage Licenses | Update: Clerk Freed w/Warning!

Should Someone's Religious Beliefs Circumvent Another's Legal Rights

Yes 47 14.33%
 
No 251 76.52%
 
See Results 30 9.15%
 
Total:328
CosmicSex said:
VGPolyglot said:
How is this even legally allowed?


It isn't.  Its illeagal.  And she is in contempt of court.  But she refuses to examine the requirements of people seeking a marriage liscense  (her actual job) in her state because her religious beliefs allow her (according to herself) to  ignore the law and directly impact other people negatively as a public servent. 

Then shouldn't her boss have fired her immedately and issued the licenses him/herself? I know I would have.



Around the Network

Can't wait until she's in hand cuffs.



Ask stefl1504 for a sig, even if you don't need one.

The second someone can't do their job because of their religious believes they should be removed from their position, and if they do something illegal and harm others with it they should be prosecuted, like this woman.
This also leads me to the the following question: how the fuck is it even possible that people like this woman can get in such position? THAT should be illegal by itself.



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.



Try to do at least ONE good deed everyday....

Moonhero said:
Can't wait until she's in hand cuffs.


Wow, truly a bright shining example aren't you? People like you scare me far more than this woman does.



Try to do at least ONE good deed everyday....

Around the Network
poklane said:

The second someone can't do their job because of their religious believes they should be removed from their position, and if they do something illegal and harm others with it they should be prosecuted, like this woman.
This also leads me to the the following question: how the fuck is it even possible that people like this woman can get in such position? THAT should be illegal by itself.

Do you think about what you are saying before you post? So you a perfectly fine with religious persecution?



Try to do at least ONE good deed everyday....

She has two options: 1) Do her job, or 2) Seek employment elsewhere. Same-sex couples are legally allowed to get married in all of America now, therefore she's legally obliged to issue marriage licenses to these couples. She shouldn't get a religious exemption to issuing those licenses. Would we allow a government official in charge of issuing business licenses and who is a practicing Hindu to refuse to issue a license to someone trying to open a burger joint simply because they believe cows are sacred? Probably not. Freedom of religion is not unrestricted and unqualified any more than freedom of speech is. It does not recuse one from their responsibilities if they are a public official. If she doesn't want to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, then she doesn't need to be in a job position where she's required to issue marriage licenses to qualified couples (which is now any consenting couple over the age of consent, regardless of race, religion, or sexual orientation).



Amen.

Ms. Davis, you have my prayers and support as you continue to ignore those who would seek to undermine and subvert our faith. Please; don't stop.



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.

She has acted unilaterally in an effort to deny others  the rights that exist for all of us because of some existential truth that we cannot see.  This truth she believes gives her an overriding veto on those she does not agree with.  In the capacity that she has been charged to fulfill as a public servant that everyone is paying for,  she must choose to do her duties or step aside.  My beliefs about you should not prevent you from a peaceful exercise of your rights.  If you decide to exercise  you rights in opposition to my opinion,  I have no standing against you.



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.