Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage To Be Law Of The Land

A lot of my personal opinions have been echoed in the posts of others for which I thank them. For me, the reason she SHOULD be jailed is that her avowed master, answering certain zealots, answered, "render under Caesar that which is Caesars and unto God that which is Gods". Her pastor, preacher or whatever should be in jail with her for not helping her understand the difference. I do not support Gay marriage, but her roll as a county clerk is to uphold the law of the land, not to enforce her religious beliefs or mine. If she were called to attest to a murder suspects identity, the fact that he was an accused murderer does not authorize her to not testify to his identity. His beliefs and actions do not have to be in accordance with her beliefs. Her signature on a government document does not mean she agrees with the marriage, but that, as part of her job to Caesar, she witnessed the filing. Upholding her beliefs by failing to do her sworn duty isn't just heresy, its oath breaking at its worst. And the lying tongue is one of the seven things the Lord doth hate.

ksandgren wrote:A lot of my personal opinions have been echoed in the posts of others for which I thank them. For me, the reason she SHOULD be jailed is that her avowed master, answering certain zealots, answered, "render under Caesar that which is Caesars and unto God that which is Gods". Her pastor, preacher or whatever should be in jail with her for not helping her understand the difference. I do not support Gay marriage, but her roll as a county clerk is to uphold the law of the land, not to enforce her religious beliefs or mine. If she were called to attest to a murder suspects identity, the fact that he was an accused murderer does not authorize her to not testify to his identity. His beliefs and actions do not have to be in accordance with her beliefs. Her signature on a government document does not mean she agrees with the marriage, but that, as part of her job to Caesar, she witnessed the filing. Upholding her beliefs by failing to do her sworn duty isn't just heresy, its oath breaking at its worst. And the lying tongue is one of the seven things the Lord doth hate.

I'm a South African, and our constitution entrenches a whole range of values and principles that essentially say: you are human, you are valued. But that ideal would never have been if not for America's example. Yes, America did not and does not always live up to her own ideals, but no nation is perfect, and she does so far more often than not - at least from my perspective.

But part of that ideal is that the powerful do not get to decide who is human and who isn't, and that is why America - and by extension, those that follow her example - adheres to the rule of law. The awful truth is that theocracies inevitably lead to oppression and persecution of those who are different or believe differently.

gcomeau wrote:Just ask any of the idiots supporting her if it would be ok for a government official to blockade the issuing of gun permits because they were a Quaker and had a religious belief in pacifism... watch how fast their stance on the issue of the religious freedom of government officials in the performance of their duties reverses.

(Or some conservative Muslim stopping the DMV from issuing drivers licenses to women... or etc etc...)

Now, in turn, ksandgren has made the argument that I
would make. "Render unto Caesar" indeed!
Mrs. Davis has accepted Caesar's job,
she has taken oath to do Caesar's work,
she has done Caesar's duties for many years,
she has taken Caesar's money as her pay.

Now she is denying that Caesar can add to the job,
in this particular matter.
If she can do the job no longer,
under the new conditions, then she may resign it.
Instead she presumes to define for Caesar what his job is.
This is disobedience, twice over.

HTM

ksandgren wrote:A lot of my personal opinions have been echoed in the posts of others for which I thank them. For me, the reason she (KY clerk Kim Davis) SHOULD be jailed is that her avowed master, answering certain zealots, answered, "render under Caesar that which is Caesars and unto God that which is Gods". Her pastor, preacher or whatever should be in jail with her for not helping her understand the difference. I do not support Gay marriage, but her roll as a county clerk is to uphold the law of the land, not to enforce her religious beliefs or mine. If she were called to attest to a murder suspects identity, the fact that he was an accused murderer does not authorize her to not testify to his identity. His beliefs and actions do not have to be in accordance with her beliefs. Her signature on a government document does not mean she agrees with the marriage, but that, as part of her job to Caesar, she witnessed the filing. Upholding her beliefs by failing to do her sworn duty isn't just heresy, its oath breaking at its worst. And the lying tongue is one of the seven things the Lord doth hate.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:Now, in turn, ksandgren has made the argument that I
would make. "Render unto Caesar" indeed!
Mrs. Davis has accepted Caesar's job,
she has taken oath to do Caesar's work,
she has done Caesar's duties for many years,
she has taken Caesar's money as her pay.

Now she is denying that Caesar can add to the job,
in this particular matter.
If she can do the job no longer,
under the new conditions, then she may resign it.
Instead she presumes to define for Caesar what his job is.
This is disobedience, twice over.

HTM

ksandgren wrote:A lot of my personal opinions have been echoed in the posts of others for which I thank them. For me, the reason she (KY clerk Kim Davis) SHOULD be jailed is that her avowed master, answering certain zealots, answered, "render under Caesar that which is Caesars and unto God that which is Gods". Her pastor, preacher or whatever should be in jail with her for not helping her understand the difference. I do not support Gay marriage, but her roll as a county clerk is to uphold the law of the land, not to enforce her religious beliefs or mine. If she were called to attest to a murder suspects identity, the fact that he was an accused murderer does not authorize her to not testify to his identity. His beliefs and actions do not have to be in accordance with her beliefs. Her signature on a government document does not mean she agrees with the marriage, but that, as part of her job to Caesar, she witnessed the filing. Upholding her beliefs by failing to do her sworn duty isn't just heresy, its oath breaking at its worst. And the lying tongue is one of the seven things the Lord doth hate.

The essence of the Establishment Clause, as I understand it. You can believe whatever you want, but the moment you accept a job with the government, you agree to follow the law as established by the government...

Jail? No. They should have just sacked her fat ass. Two written warnings, then out the door. Where does anybody get off refusing to do their job?

I'm still waiting for somebody to explain to me how this whole situation is diminishing their rights, or limiting their freedom. Exactly how is the fact that two people they don't even know are allowed to fill out a certain government form any of their business? What compels them to waste our time with their protests and demonstrations?

Unfortunately, for far too many "freedom of religion" somehow means "freedom to take away everybody else's freedom". If they are not allowed to oppress the pagans the way their Invisible Man In The Sky directs, why, they're the ones being oppressed. The outrage!

That damnable clerk was using the power of government to impose her prejudices on other people, plus forcing other employees to do the same. That is totally and utterly wrong.
-----------------------
The world is full of self-important self-righteous assholes, obsessed and tormented by the conviction that Somebody, Somewhere is Doing Something they don't approve of, and driven by a compulsion to Do Something About It at any cost.

Imaginos1892 wrote:Jail? No. They should have just sacked her fat ass. Two written warnings, then out the door. Where does anybody get off refusing to do their job?

Elected official... while she can be removed from office it's not as straightforward as just sacking an employee unfortunately.

Deuteronomy 17 12 pretty much says it all really.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

What does it say?

HTM

Annachie wrote:Deuteronomy 17 12 pretty much says it all really.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:What does it say?

HTM

Annachie wrote:Deuteronomy 17 12 pretty much says it all really.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

It doesn't matter what it says. In the USA, the Constitution trumps anybody's holy book.