Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 3-09-06-25" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A clerk's office turned away gay couples who sought marriage licenses on Thursday, defying a federal judge's order that said deeply held Christian beliefs don't excuse officials from following the law.

Davis argued that issuing a same-sex marriage license that contains her signature is the same as her approving the marriage, which she said violates her Christian beliefs.

Davis, elected last November as a Democrat, took over the office from her mother, Jean Bailey, who served as county clerk for 37 years, according to the Morehead News. Davis worked under her mother as a deputy clerk for 26 years. Deputy clerk Nathan Davis refused to say if he is related to Kim Davis.

It's not your job to be a religious authority. It's your job to follow the law.

Agreed. She's just signing a form that the people being married are legally allowed to be married. Basically like a notary. She's more than welcome to disapprove of the concept of them being married, people are allowed to believe whatever they want to believe. But she's putting too much importance on their own positions - a clerk isn't a moral arbiter, she's just a clerk.

Religion... Where Joy and Love know no bounds (as a selling feature)
But: fear and hate are its default characteristics

Ibanez wrote:http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 3-09-06-25

A clerk's office turned away gay couples who sought marriage licenses on Thursday, defying a federal judge's order that said deeply held Christian beliefs don't excuse officials from following the law.

Davis argued that issuing a same-sex marriage license that contains her signature is the same as her approving the marriage, which she said violates her Christian beliefs.

Davis, elected last November as a Democrat, took over the office from her mother, Jean Bailey, who served as county clerk for 37 years, according to the Morehead News. Davis worked under her mother as a deputy clerk for 26 years. Deputy clerk Nathan Davis refused to say if he is related to Kim Davis.

It's not your job to be a religious authority. It's your job to follow the law.

I agree. It's the law of the land. Obey it. I understand the whole separation of church and state. And how it's not the law, but it's intentions are. For hundreds of years now.

My Church doesn't acknowledge my little brothers marriage. Why does it matter for to gay guys or women??

My Catholic religion shouldn't demand others to conform to their standards. Although I do.

This is simple

A public official, a representative of the government - cannot refuse to obey the law. If you want to get right with Jesus then quit your job.

On the other hand, way too many people will confuse this with (and see as equivalent with) a church refusing to perform a guy wedding or a private baker refusing to bake a cake for it.

She's more than welcome to disapprove of the concept of them being married, people are allowed to believe whatever they want to believe.

As noted the fact that she works for government is significant. But the principle reflected in the first Amendment goes farther than just saying that people are free to believe what they want. It protects "the free exercise" of religion. By any reasonable interpretation free exercise goes way beyond just being able to believe what you want and extends into being able to live your life according to your religion.

I think that any employer has the right to set the conditions of employment. If you want to work for me, this is what you have to do. And if you don't want to do that you can't work for me. Here her employer ultimately is the public.

It's a lot different than a case where someone owns their own business. In that case it's pretty obvious that if government forces them to do business they don't want to do because it violates their religious belief system government is infringing upon the free exercise of religion. And I think it's a shame that we've gotten so isolated from what this country was supposed to be about that we would even consider trampling on religious liberty as we do much less actually do it.

BTW, I'm not seeing any evidence of hate on anybody's part in this story. That is unless you define "hate" as disagreeing with liberals. I realize that's how liberals define it. But it's not a correct definition.

JohnStOnge wrote:BTW, I'm not seeing any evidence of hate on anybody's part in this story. That is unless you define "hate" as disagreeing with liberals. I realize that's how liberals define it. But it's not a correct definition.

John, we all know God Hates Fags
Jesus even said so

The nepotism is obvious where is the "hate" in this story?

BDKJMU wrote:The nepotism is obvious where is the "hate" in this story?

Where's the love..?

JohnStOnge wrote:BTW, I'm not seeing any evidence of hate on anybody's part in this story. That is unless you define "hate" as disagreeing with liberals. I realize that's how liberals define it. But it's not a correct definition.

She took an oath to uphold the law. We aren't a religious country. She can't impose her morals and beliefs in people. Her job is to issue licenses in accordance with the law.
She's wrong.

BDKJMU wrote:The nepotism is obvious where is the "hate" in this story?

It's pretty fucking obvious.


And sensational. You should be familiar with it.

It's pretty **** obvious.

No it's not.

We aren't a religious country.

We area country such that one of our "first principles" upon establishment was the free exercise of religion. If you tell people that they either have to do things that they consider to be immoral due to their religious beliefs or else they cannot work in certain jobs, own businesses, etc., you are infringing upon the free exercise of religion. And you're not imposing your morals on someone else by refusing to do what they want you to do. Rather, if you ARE forced to do something contrary to YOUR morals THEIR morals are being imposed on YOU.

JohnStOnge wrote:

We aren't a religious country.

We area country such that one of our "first principles" upon establishment was the free exercise of religion. If you tell people that they either have to do things that they consider to be immoral due to their religious beliefs or else they cannot work in certain jobs, own businesses, etc., you are infringing upon the free exercise of religion. And you're not imposing your morals on someone else by refusing to do what they want you to do. Rather, if you ARE forced to do something contrary to YOUR morals THEIR morals are being imposed on YOU.

John- I think you are intentionally overlooking the central point here - this is not just an "employee". This is a government official - and not just any government official, but someone whose job is upholding and enforcing the law of the land.

The law, the government, Caesar, anyone? Im pretty sure Ive seen Caesar in the Bible before. Something about rendering unto Caesar? I know that has to do specifically with taxation, but it has a wider meaning the recognizes that there is mans law and also gods law, and the two dont always jibe

but when you are a judge, you ARE Caesar - if you cannot do your primary duty - enforce and follow the law- then you should absolutely be looking for a new job

now, if you want to apply that to bakers not wanting to bake fir gay weddings, or churches refusing to perform gay marriage ceremonies, i would agree with you. but this isnt an example of government overreach

JohnStOnge wrote:

It's pretty **** obvious.

No it's not.

Sure it is. Having that kind of issue with someone else's sexuality means you really must have a screw loose.

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
No it's not.

Sure it is. Having that kind of issue with someone else's sexuality means you really must have a screw loose.

Having that kind of issue with someone else's moral beliefs means you really must have a screw loose.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Sure it is. Having that kind of issue with someone else's sexuality means you really must have a screw loose.

Having that kind of issue with someone else's moral beliefs means you really must have a screw loose.

Good point. I wouldn't want to to be judgemental.

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
No it's not.

Sure it is. Having that kind of issue with someone else's sexuality means you really must have a screw loose.

Or maybe thinking that somebody having a screw loose just because they have an opinion is......................

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Sure it is. Having that kind of issue with someone else's sexuality means you really must have a screw loose.

Or maybe thinking that somebody having a screw loose just because they have an opinion is......................

I wouldn't trust them around my kids.

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Having that kind of issue with someone else's moral beliefs means you really must have a screw loose.

Good point. I wouldn't want to to be judgemental.

Precisely. Watch that nuance....it's a bitch.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Good point. I wouldn't want to to be judgemental.

Precisely. Watch that nuance....it's a bitch.

kalm wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:
Or maybe thinking that somebody having a screw loose just because they have an opinion is......................

I wouldn't trust them around my kids.

I have never trusted your judgement about kids since you let your son hang out with me & Sam......................

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:

kalm wrote:
I wouldn't trust them around my kids.

I have never trusted your judgement about kids since you let your son hang out with me & Sam......................

Great point.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:

kalm wrote:
Sure it is. Having that kind of issue with someone else's sexuality means you really must have a screw loose.

Or maybe thinking that somebody having a screw loose just because they have an opinion is......................

She isn't voicing an opinion. She's using her job be act as a moral authority. She's not. She wasn't elected to be a religious crusader.