Is Kim Davis wrong? Or is the Supreme Ct wrong about requiring acceptance of same-sex "marriage"?

[Seawytch]

So if a

If a Muslim clerk refused to give a permit for 2 gay men to marry, would the federal govt put that clerk in jail for refusing to do their job? Hmmmmm....

Yes.

Christian walked into a Muslim Bakery and asked them to bake a cake and write with icing the words upon it that said, 'Jesus is the son of the ONLY God', the govt would step in and FORCE them to do so if they refused?!

Hmmm....you certainly have more faith in the federal government that is waging war on Christianity than I do.

You obviously have no understanding of Public Accommodation laws. You can't compel speech and a message on a cake is speech. Here's how it works.

Person A walks in to store and buys cake #123 out of the catalogue. If person B is refused that same cake because they are (insert protected class here), you are in violation of the PA law for that locale. Get it?

 

[easyt65]

Oh look, I found the link:

"Our investigation revealed that Star could have readily avoided assigning these employees to alcohol delivery without any undue hardship, but chose to force the issue despite the employees' Islamic religion."

Kim Davis's office could have issued licenses without her doing a thing. She objected to the license being issued from her office and ordered her employees (some of whom were willing) not to issue the licenses. The couples wanting to marry would have been perfectly happy to give Davis a reasonable accommodation for her religious beliefs. She refused such an accommodation.

Davis was still put in jail for refusing to do her job...was the Muslim truck driver? No, and of course you're right - he is not an elected official.

If a Muslim clerk refused to give a permit for 2 gay men to marry, would the federal govt put that clerk in jail for refusing to do their job? Hmmmmm....

Absolutely. Why not.

Because prayer is not allowed in schools...but there are schools in NYC that have built special rooms, rugs included, specifically designed for Muslim Prayer... just one example.

 

[MisterBeale]

Kids of divorced parents are allowed to say, “Hey, mom and dad, I love you, but the divorce crushed me and has been so hard. It shattered my trust and made me feel like it was my fault. It is so hard living in two different houses.” Kids of adoption are allowed to say, “Hey, adoptive parents, I love you. But this is really hard for me. I suffer because my relationship with my first parents was broken. I’m confused and I miss them even though I’ve never met them.”

But children of same-sex parents haven’t been given the same voice. It’s not just me. There are so many of us. Many of us are too scared to speak up and tell you about our hurt and pain, because for whatever reason it feels like you’re not listening. That you don’t want to hear. If we say we are hurting because we were raised by same-sex parents, we are either ignored or labeled a hater.

i think if you are over 18 and still whining about your parents, you need to get over yourself.

There are a lot of straight couples that are lousy parents, and a lot of gay couples who are great parents.

And this particular whiney 18 year old was the product of divorced parents. Her mother was married to her father when she was born. She has daddy issues she's blaming her mother for.

Yup, it was her mother's fault. Maybe her daddy hating moms should have done a better job. Oh well. Thanks Aunt Sammy.

 

[easyt65]

So if a

If a Muslim clerk refused to give a permit for 2 gay men to marry, would the federal govt put that clerk in jail for refusing to do their job? Hmmmmm....

Yes.

Christian walked into a Muslim Bakery and asked them to bake a cake and write with icing the words upon it that said, 'Jesus is the son of the ONLY God', the govt would step in and FORCE them to do so if they refused?!

Hmmm....you certainly have more faith in the federal government that is waging war on Christianity than I do.

You obviously have no understanding of Public Accommodation laws. You can't compel speech and a message on a cake is speech. Here's how it works.

Person A walks in to store and buys cake #123 out of the catalogue. If person B is refused that same cake because they are (insert protected class here), you are in violation of the PA law for that locale. Get it?

After the owners of a cake shop was attacked for refusing to cater a same-sex wedding a GLBT Group came forward and scolded the couple, and the media, for making such a big deal about the issue. They pointed out that there was more than 1 bakery they could have gone to, more than one who would have catered without question. They pointed out that simply having their event catered was NOT their only agenda - they wanted to FORCE people who did not hold the same beliefs they did to comply with THEIR wishes. They finally pointed out that THIS type of behavior is why so many people dislike GLBTs and their determination to make everyone else comply.

Personally, I would have made the cake, delivered it, then said, "Go ahead...eat it..I DARE YOU!" ...then drove off.

 

[BlindBoo]

Religionist have been losing power over people for centuries. Thank God, so to speak........

 

[Seawytch]

Davis was still put in jail for refusing to do her job...was the Muslim truck driver? No, and of course you're right - he is not an elected official.

They were fired for not doing their jobs. (Hence the lawsuit for not finding a reasonable accommodation)

Because prayer is not allowed in schools...but there are schools in NYC that have built special rooms, rugs included, specifically designed for Muslim Prayer... just one example.

Prayer is allowed in schools. What is not allowed is teacher led prayer. Kids can pray anytime they like...and if they demanded a prayer room to do it in, a reasonable accommodation should be made.

 

[Seawytch]

Kids of divorced parents are allowed to say, “Hey, mom and dad, I love you, but the divorce crushed me and has been so hard. It shattered my trust and made me feel like it was my fault. It is so hard living in two different houses.” Kids of adoption are allowed to say, “Hey, adoptive parents, I love you. But this is really hard for me. I suffer because my relationship with my first parents was broken. I’m confused and I miss them even though I’ve never met them.”

But children of same-sex parents haven’t been given the same voice. It’s not just me. There are so many of us. Many of us are too scared to speak up and tell you about our hurt and pain, because for whatever reason it feels like you’re not listening. That you don’t want to hear. If we say we are hurting because we were raised by same-sex parents, we are either ignored or labeled a hater.

i think if you are over 18 and still whining about your parents, you need to get over yourself.

There are a lot of straight couples that are lousy parents, and a lot of gay couples who are great parents.

And this particular whiney 18 year old was the product of divorced parents. Her mother was married to her father when she was born. She has daddy issues she's blaming her mother for.

Yup, it was her mother's fault. Maybe her daddy hating moms should have done a better job. Oh well. Thanks Aunt Sammy.

Daddy didn't have contact and she blames her mother. She's a product of divorce before she's the child of gay parents. That's what she's bitter about.

Gays can have children without marriage. Why don't you want the children of gays to have married parents?

 

[BlindBoo]

The Constitution (Amendment 1) says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

And the 14th amendment said that what applied to the Fed govt, now applies to state and local govts too. Meaning, no govt can make a law as described by the 1st amendment.

A basic tenet of many religions in this country is that homosexuality is a sin, and is forbidden. That was true in George Washington's time, and is just as true now.

If Congress makes a law saying that people (such as county clerks) must accept a homosexual same-sex "marriage", hasn't Congress (and/or the county govt of Rowan County, Kentucky) violated the 1st amendment?

Why did they jail Kim Davis? Sounds like they should have jailed the Congressmen (or county govt officials) who voted for the law instead, and possibly the affirming justices of the Supreme Court too.

Excellent post. I agree. Yes, they should be jailed and the justices of the Supreme Court should be in jail too. It is a wicked bunch and I am believing God for His judgment to fall on them and everyone else who was behind it. I pray God's judgment is swift and powerful and that all those who witness it depart from evil and begin to fear the LORD.

Let God do the discriminating in it's Heaven.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The Constitution (Amendment 1) says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

Congress hasn't passed such a law so no problem there.

On the other hand claim religion is not an exemption against having to comply with neutral, generally applicable laws.

And the 14th amendment said that what applied to the Fed govt, now applies to state and local govts too. Meaning, no govt can make a law as described by the 1st amendment.

Again true.

Again, religion is not a get-out-of-jail free card for not having to comply with generally applicable laws which do not target a particular religion.

A basic tenet of many religions in this country is that homosexuality is a sin, and is forbidden. That was true in George Washington's time, and is just as true now.

And there are many religions (or denominations within a religion) that have accepted same-sex marriage. Ms. Davis refusing to issue a marriage license to them, the same as she does to others, is actually her acting as a government agent to discriminate against the religion of others.

Something that the 1st Amendment prohibits (government discrimination based on religion).

If Congress makes a law saying that people (such as county clerks) must accept a homosexual same-sex "marriage", hasn't Congress (and/or the county govt of Rowan County, Kentucky) violated the 1st amendment?

Neither Congress nor the Kentucky legislature has made such a law. The role of the County Clerk is not to "accept" (as in moral approval), the County Clerks job is to review the qualifications of the applicants and determine if they meet the criteria under Kentucky law to be issued a Civil Marriage license.

She is under no obligation to "accept" (as in change her feels about what marriage should be) she is simply certifying they they meet the conditions of Civil Marriage under the law.

Why did they jail Kim Davis? Sounds like they should have jailed the Congressmen (or county govt officials) who voted for the law instead, and possibly the affirming justices of the Supreme Court too.

Ms. Davis was found in violation of 42 USC 1983 and a preliminary injunction issued in Federal court for not doing her job. She refused to comply with the courts order and was fund to be in contempt of court under 18 USC 401-402.

There is nothing "unconstitutional" about Congress enacting laws that say if you are a government agent acting an official capacity that you cannot discriminate against the citizens of this country.

As a matter of fact that is within the scope of the 14th Amendment where it says that Congress has the power to pass legislation to ensure the people receive due process and equal protection under the law.


>>>>

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

I am disappointed that Kim Davis did not break out in glossolalia when she left the jail house..............

 

[IsaacNewton]

I am disappointed that Kim Davis did not break out in glossolalia when she left the jail house..............

I was waiting for Huckabee to wrap himself and her in a confederate flag and have her drag an 8 foot cross over her back back to her workplace.

You know like Jeezus did.

 

[mudwhistle]

The 1st Amendment only prevents the federal government from making laws for or against religious freedom. The decision to use the 14th Amendment to allow same-sex marriage was unconstitutional because it didn't allow complete freedom for everyone, the freedom for anyone to marry anyone or anything. This decision is a complete sham.

Throwing somebody in jail for not accepting this unconstitutional decision should be prohibited as well. But our court system has been taken over by the gay agenda.

My civil marriage license doesn't infringe on your religion in any way shape or form. Kim Davis was actually trying to impose her religious views on her secular office...you're down with that kind of Sharia law shit?

As long as any person is unable to marry whomever they wish....this is basically a law that was written by the Supreme Court, which is unconstitutional.

The only reason it made it this far is because the Gay Agenda had to lie and claim that they weren't being discriminatory. Discriminatory against marrying inside your own family or marrying regardless of the age or species of the parties.

So Loving was also unconstitutional. Have you told all the interracial couples?

Look, if you think there is no demonstrable harm in marrying your sibling, your dog (can't consent), a child (can't consent), a dead person (can't consent) or more than one person, you are free to do just as gay and interracial couples did and petition the courts. Somehow I don't think you'll fare as well with many of your hyperbolic nonsense...but have fun storming the castle.

One can argue that same-sex couples have drawbacks as well. You want to say that your situation is totally different from everyone else's. Whose the real bigot here?

Wow...just wow. See, here's the thing...that's what the court cases were about. I'll make it really simple for you...gays petitioned the courts. Those like you that oppose gays civilly marrying had the opportunity to lay out for everyone to see, your ideas of those "drawbacks". Your side could not come up with a compelling reason to keep gays from civilly marrying. Understand? You had your chance, but could not come up with a single reason gays cannot civilly marry. Do you think you could do better than the cadre of lawyers the anti gay folks hired? Go for it. List the societal harms in allowing gays to marry the consenting adult partner of their choice. Go.

My mother told me that I wouldn't be happy marrying my wife, who is 18 years older and African-American, but I didn't listen. We've been married for over 37 years. Used to be everyone stared at us, but not any more. We still have to tell cashiers and waitresses we're together.

That has to do with what? According to you, your marriage is unconstitutional because the SCOTUS didn't make all marriages legal.

False.

The compelling argument that usually wins legal arguments is the slippery-slope issue this creates. The leftist court Obama and Bush created totally disregarded that issue.....and it was clearly stated in the rebuttal.

No matter. Two lesbians on the court was all it took for them to rewrite the constitution.

 

[bodecea]

Oh look, I found the link:

"Our investigation revealed that Star could have readily avoided assigning these employees to alcohol delivery without any undue hardship, but chose to force the issue despite the employees' Islamic religion."

Kim Davis's office could have issued licenses without her doing a thing. She objected to the license being issued from her office and ordered her employees (some of whom were willing) not to issue the licenses. The couples wanting to marry would have been perfectly happy to give Davis a reasonable accommodation for her religious beliefs. She refused such an accommodation.

Davis was still put in jail for refusing to do her job...was the Muslim truck driver? No, and of course you're right - he is not an elected official.

If a Muslim clerk refused to give a permit for 2 gay men to marry, would the federal govt put that clerk in jail for refusing to do their job? Hmmmmm....

Absolutely. Why not.

Because prayer is not allowed in schools...but there are schools in NYC that have built special rooms, rugs included, specifically designed for Muslim Prayer... just one example.

Um...Prayer IS allowed in school. What is not allowed is teachers/administrators directing (forcing) kids to pray. There are many many schools that have Rally around the Flagpole prayer events....student led.

So, your example fails from the first 7 words.

 

[bodecea]

Davis was still put in jail for refusing to do her job...was the Muslim truck driver? No, and of course you're right - he is not an elected official.

They were fired for not doing their jobs. (Hence the lawsuit for not finding a reasonable accommodation)

Because prayer is not allowed in schools...but there are schools in NYC that have built special rooms, rugs included, specifically designed for Muslim Prayer... just one example.

Prayer is allowed in schools. What is not allowed is teacher led prayer. Kids can pray anytime they like...and if they demanded a prayer room to do it in, a reasonable accommodation should be made.

The unique thing about islam is the requirement for praying at a set time. Give them a space and nothing more. Used to be, when catholics didn't eat meat on Fridays, our PUBLIC school districts accommodated them by providing meatless Friday cafeteria food.

 

[g5000]

A basic tenet of many religions in this country is that homosexuality is a sin, and is forbidden. That was true in George Washington's time, and is just as true now.

A basic tenet of many religions is that adultery is a sin, and is forbidden. That was true in George Washington's time, and is just as true now.

In fact, adultery is so bad, it made the Top Ten list of sins. Adultery is so bad, it is mentioned in the bible more than homosexuality. Adultery is so bad, Jesus himself spoke out against it and never even mentioned homosexuality.


Jesus said in Matthew 19:9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.




And yet Kim Davis will give a marriage license to a man so he can marry his fourth wife, but won't give one to a woman who wants to marry her first.

Do you think a man would have been allowed to marry his fourth wife in George Washington's time?

So don't give me this bible-compliance bullshit. It's a gigantic hoax.

 

[g5000]

Why did they jail Kim Davis?

Because she is a hypocritical **** who is not upholding the duties of her government office.

Next!

 

[Freewill]

The reason for Davis' opinion is immaterial. Much like it is immaterial if a person thinks that gay marriage is a right, doesn't make it a right. Even the SCOTUS ruling does not make it a right it just forces the states to do something that is beyond their laws.

I swear you are the most ignorant people on the planet. The SCOTUS protects rights AGAINST state legislation that denies those rights.

I don't disagree but once again you slap me with a red herring. THIS is not what the SCOTUS did, they MADE law. Will you agree that there are states that changed their laws for accommodate gay marriage? Thus that is proof enough that existing law did not accommodate gay marriage. It is one thing for the SCOTUS to strike down a law, but to say a law says something it does not and redefine the word marriage, as used in all existing law is just not constitutional, in my opinion.

So let's get into a discussion on how the SCOTUS thinks corporations are people.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The reason for Davis' opinion is immaterial. Much like it is immaterial if a person thinks that gay marriage is a right, doesn't make it a right. Even the SCOTUS ruling does not make it a right it just forces the states to do something that is beyond their laws.

I swear you are the most ignorant people on the planet. The SCOTUS protects rights AGAINST state legislation that denies those rights.

I don't disagree but once again you slap me with a red herring. THIS is not what the SCOTUS did, they MADE law. Will you agree that there are states that changed their laws for accommodate gay marriage? Thus that is proof enough that existing law did not accommodate gay marriage. It is one thing for the SCOTUS to strike down a law, but to say a law says something it does not and redefine the word marriage, as used in all existing law is just not constitutional, in my opinion.

So let's get into a discussion on how the SCOTUS thinks corporations are people.

The Court told the states you cannot define marriage under your laws as only one man one woman. The Court has every right to do that.

 

[Syriusly]

Why did they jail Kim Davis? Sounds like they should have jailed the Congressmen (or county govt officials) who voted for the law instead, and possibly the affirming justices of the Supreme Court too.

Because she was in contempt of court- i.e. she broke the law.

You can't jail Supreme Court justices for making a decision- perhaps you should read the Constitution?

And as far as Christians obeying what their faith tells them to do? The New Testament says obey the law.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13:1-5&version=ESV
Romans 13:1-5
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

 

[Syriusly]

The reason for Davis' opinion is immaterial. Much like it is immaterial if a person thinks that gay marriage is a right, doesn't make it a right. Even the SCOTUS ruling does not make it a right it just forces the states to do something that is beyond their laws.

I swear you are the most ignorant people on the planet. The SCOTUS protects rights AGAINST state legislation that denies those rights.

I don't disagree but once again you slap me with a red herring. THIS is not what the SCOTUS did, they MADE law. Will you agree that there are states that changed their laws for accommodate gay marriage? Thus that is proof enough that existing law did not accommodate gay marriage. It is one thing for the SCOTUS to strike down a law, but to say a law says something it does not and redefine the word marriage, as used in all existing law is just not constitutional, in my opinion.
.

The Supreme Court made no law- it recognized that laws which prohibited same gender marriage were as unconstitutional as laws which prohibited mixed race marriages.

They nullified unconstitutional laws.