Nepotism and Hate: A Democrat Story

[AshevilleApp]

Meanwhile in North Carolina, the State Legislature adopted a measure (and overrode the Governors veto) that allows magistrates to opt out of marrying gay couples. They just can't marry anyone for six months if they choose the option.

And we're in mid-August, and they still haven't adopted a budget. One party controls both the House and Senate, and the Governorship, and can't agree on a budget. And they have a $500 million dollar surplus this year.

[Gil Dobie]

This lady is practicing her politics at work, and using religion as an excuse. My understanding of what Jesus teaches, is live and let live. You live your life and let others live theirs. By not signing the document, the government worker is showing lack of faith in letting God be in control, and more faith in her political beliefs.

[Ibanez]

[quote="Gil Dobie"]This lady is practicing her politics at work, and using religion as an excuse. My understanding of what Jesus teaches, is live and let live. You live your life and let others live theirs. By not signing the document, the government worker is showing lack of faith in letting God be in control, and more faith in her political beliefs.[/quote
Wrong. Fags are evil and it's the job of civil servants to interject theology into their duties. It's what the founding fathers fought for.


Right?

[LeadBolt]

Clerk is an elected office in North Carolina. It would be interesting to know what the oath was that she took when she assumed office. Here is what I found on-line:

""I, . . . . . . . . . . . ., do solemnly and sincerely swear that I
will support the Constitution of the United States; that I will be
faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of North Carolina, and
to the constitutional powers and authorities which are or may be
established for the government thereof; and that I will endeavor to
support, maintain and defend the Constitution of said State, not
inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, to the best
of my knowledge and ability; so help me God.”(1781, c. 342, s. 1,
P.R.; R.C., c. 76, s. 4; Code, s. 3312; Rev., s. 2358; C.S., s. 3194;
1985, c. 756, s. 5.)"

I wonder if she could be disqualified from office by her action? Since gay marriage is not a part of the Constitution, but has been found to be "Constitutional", it would be an interesting case.

[AshevilleApp]

Clerk is an elected office in North Carolina. It would be interesting to know what the oath was that she took when she assumed office. Here is what I found on-line:

""I, . . . . . . . . . . . ., do solemnly and sincerely swear that I
will support the Constitution of the United States; that I will be
faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of North Carolina, and
to the constitutional powers and authorities which are or may be
established for the government thereof; and that I will endeavor to
support, maintain and defend the Constitution of said State, not
inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, to the best
of my knowledge and ability; so help me God.”(1781, c. 342, s. 1,
P.R.; R.C., c. 76, s. 4; Code, s. 3312; Rev., s. 2358; C.S., s. 3194;
1985, c. 756, s. 5.)"

I wonder if she could be disqualified from office by her action? Since gay marriage is not a part of the Constitution, but has been found to be "Constitutional", it would be an interesting case.

If you are referring to my post, it was about Magistrates, not Clerks. In NC, Magistrates are appointed. The original post was concerning Kentucky.

[LeadBolt]

Clerk is an elected office in North Carolina. It would be interesting to know what the oath was that she took when she assumed office. Here is what I found on-line:

""I, . . . . . . . . . . . ., do solemnly and sincerely swear that I
will support the Constitution of the United States; that I will be
faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of North Carolina, and
to the constitutional powers and authorities which are or may be
established for the government thereof; and that I will endeavor to
support, maintain and defend the Constitution of said State, not
inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, to the best
of my knowledge and ability; so help me God.”(1781, c. 342, s. 1,
P.R.; R.C., c. 76, s. 4; Code, s. 3312; Rev., s. 2358; C.S., s. 3194;
1985, c. 756, s. 5.)"

I wonder if she could be disqualified from office by her action? Since gay marriage is not a part of the Constitution, but has been found to be "Constitutional", it would be an interesting case.

If you are referring to my post, it was about Magistrates, not Clerks. In NC, Magistrates are appointed. The original post was concerning Kentucky.

Sorry, I knew there was a Rowan County in NC, but didn't realize there was one in KY as well. I was referring to Ms. Davis, Clerk of Rowan Co., KY

[Gil Dobie]

This lady is practicing her politics at work, and using religion as an excuse. My understanding of what Jesus teaches, is live and let live. You live your life and let others live theirs. By not signing the document, the government worker is showing lack of faith in letting God be in control, and more faith in her political beliefs.

Wrong. Fags are evil and it's the job of civil servants to interject theology into their duties. It's what the founding fathers fought for.


Right?

Washington was one of the few that fought. Many of them, the ones with money, are considered the founding fathers.

[JohnStOnge]

This lady is practicing her politics at work, and using religion as an excuse. My understanding of what Jesus teaches, is live and let live. You live your life and let others live theirs. By not signing the document, the government worker is showing lack of faith in letting God be in control, and more faith in her political beliefs.

No she's not. The Jesus Character did not suggest facilitating sin. He suggested forgiving sin. He suggested not doing stuff like stoning people to death if they sinned. But he did not suggest facilitating sin. And by Christian theology homosexuality is sin.

[BDKJMU]

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

It's pretty **** obvious.


And sensational. You should be familiar with it.

No its not

Disagreeing with something doesn't = hate. She is failing to do her job as the law describes but that doesn't = hate.

Typical of the left. Anytime someone says they disagree with gays or gay marriage, the left claims hate..

[Gil Dobie]

This lady is practicing her politics at work, and using religion as an excuse. My understanding of what Jesus teaches, is live and let live. You live your life and let others live theirs. By not signing the document, the government worker is showing lack of faith in letting God be in control, and more faith in her political beliefs.

No she's not. The Jesus Character did not suggest facilitating sin. He suggested forgiving sin. He suggested not doing stuff like stoning people to death if they sinned. But he did not suggest facilitating sin. And by Christian theology homosexuality is sin.

John, you are trying to spin what I said in the first part of your response. Live and let live does not have anything to do with facilitating sin. Please open your mind.

Where in the new testament does it say that 2 men in a loving relationship is a sin?

[kalm]

It's pretty **** obvious.


And sensational. You should be familiar with it.

No its not

Disagreeing with something doesn't = hate. She is failing to do her job as the law describes but that doesn't = hate.

Typical of the left. Anytime someone says they disagree with gays or gay marriage, the left claims hate..

I thought you were supposed to "hate the sin"?

[AshevilleApp]

If you are referring to my post, it was about Magistrates, not Clerks. In NC, Magistrates are appointed. The original post was concerning Kentucky.

Sorry, I knew there was a Rowan County in NC, but didn't realize there was one in KY as well. I was referring to Ms. Davis, Clerk of Rowan Co., KY

No sweat!

[AshevilleApp]

It's pretty **** obvious.


And sensational. You should be familiar with it.

No its not

Disagreeing with something doesn't = hate. She is failing to do her job as the law describes but that doesn't = hate.

Typical of the left. Anytime someone says they disagree with gays or gay marriage, the left claims hate..

But she is failing to do her job as the law describes. And her job is to enforce the law. Therefore she should either be removed or willingly find other employment.

[BDKJMU]

No its not

Disagreeing with something doesn't = hate. She is failing to do her job as the law describes but that doesn't = hate.

Typical of the left. Anytime someone says they disagree with gays or gay marriage, the left claims hate..

But she is failing to do her job as the law describes. And her job is to enforce the law. Therefore she should either be removed or willingly find other employment.

No argument there. I'm just saying that disagreeing with something doesn't automatically equate to hating it. Disagreeing with "X" doesn't mean you hate "X".

[JohnStOnge]

John, you are trying to spin what I said in the first part of your response. Live and let live does not have anything to do with facilitating sin.

I interpreted what you wrote as suggesting that "live and let live" includes actually performing a function that results in stamping a homosexual relationship as marriage. To me, that's not "live and let live." That's facilitating.

Where in the new testament does it say that 2 men in a loving relationship is a sin?

1 Corinthians 6:9-10New International Version (NIV)"

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Now, I will tell you that you can find stuff on the internet where people try to parse translations and claim that it doesn't really say that. But I think what you have there is people who want to support homosexuality searching for some way to say that Christianity doesn't really say it's sin.

And then there's Romans 1:27:

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Look man, there are some "fringe" Christian groups which try to justify accepting homosexuality. But "fringe" is what they are. The overwhelming majority of Christians practice in Churches with theology that says homosexual behavior is sinful. For one thing, the Catholic Church says homosexual behavior is sinful.

If you don't agree with their theology, fine. But that doesn't change the fact that we are in a situation where people are being forced to either do things that are contrary to their religion or give up their livelihoods. That is CLEARLY an infringement on the free exercise of religion.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW, this is a good place to talk about the distinction between actually infringing upon someone else because of your religion and choosing not to interact with someone else because of your religion.

If my religion believes in human sacrifice and I grad you and put you on a slap and cut your heart out that is infringing upon you. That should not be allowed.

But if my religion says that homosexuality is immoral so I say I am not going to bake a cake for your wedding because that would be sanctioning a sinful act that is simply choosing not to interact with you. I am not infringing upon you at all. In fact, if you try to force me to bake a cake for you YOU are infringing upon me.

It's incredible to me that there are people can't see that.

[kalm]

BTW, this is a good place to talk about the distinction between actually infringing upon someone else because of your religion and choosing not to interact with someone else because of your religion.

If my religion believes in human sacrifice and I grad you and put you on a slap and cut your heart out that is infringing upon you. That should not be allowed.

But if my religion says that homosexuality is immoral so I say I am not going to bake a cake for your wedding because that would be sanctioning a sinful act that is simply choosing not to interact with you. I am not infringing upon you at all. In fact, if you try to force me to bake a cake for you YOU are infringing upon me.

It's incredible to me that there are people can't see that.

You've chosen to be in the cake making business. You're not forced to. You have a right to not make cakes.

[JohnStOnge]

You've chosen to be in the cake making business.

You should be able to choose to make cakes for a living. And you should NOT be forced to choose between doing that for a living and violating your religious beliefs.

Again: It's amazing to me that this is even a question. I cannot believe there are so man people who think you should be forced by government to choose between making a living in the way you want to make a living and following your religious beliefs. This in a country that was established with one of its first principles being the free exercise of religion.

[JohnStOnge]

You've chosen to be in the cake making business.

You should be able to choose to make cakes for a living. And you should NOT be forced to choose between doing that for a living and violating your religious beliefs.

Again: It's amazing to me that this is even a question. I cannot believe there are so many people who think you should be forced by government to choose between making a living in the way you want to make a living and following your religious beliefs. This in a country that was established with one of its first principles being the free exercise of religion.

[kalm]

You've chosen to be in the cake making business.

You should be able to choose to make cakes for a living. And you should NOT be forced to choose between doing that for a living and violating your religious beliefs.

Again: It's amazing to me that this is even a question. I cannot believe there are so man people who think you should be forced by government to choose between making a living in the way you want to make a living and following your religious beliefs. This in a country that was established with one of its first principles being the free exercise of religion.

You CAN choose to make cakes for a living.

[JohnStOnge]

You CAN choose to make cakes for a living.

You should be able to choose to make cakes for a living without being forced by government to do things that are contrary to your religious beliefs.

You know very well what I'm talking about. We are in a situation right now where people who have been in business are being told by government that if they want to continue to be in business they have to do things that violate their religious beliefs.

[AshevilleApp]

You CAN choose to make cakes for a living.

You should be able to choose to make cakes for a living without being forced by government to do things that are contrary to your religious beliefs.

You know very well what I'm talking about. We are in a situation right now where people who have been in business are being told by government that if they want to continue to be in business they have to do things that violate their religious beliefs.

I'm not aware of the government forcing business people to go against their beliefs in doing business with gay couples. But I don't follow too closely, so If you have specific examples, let me know. As a private individual/business I think they still have the right to do so. Misguided as it is.

And that is a different issue than the one this thread is about. The person in question is a government employee. As an employee she should uphold the rules of her employer. Or find other work.

[AshevilleApp]

But she is failing to do her job as the law describes. And her job is to enforce the law. Therefore she should either be removed or willingly find other employment.

No argument there. I'm just saying that disagreeing with something doesn't automatically equate to hating it. Disagreeing with "X" doesn't mean you hate "X".

Fair enough.

[Ibanez]

It's pretty **** obvious.


And sensational. You should be familiar with it.

No its not

Disagreeing with something doesn't = hate. She is failing to do her job as the law describes but that doesn't = hate.

Typical of the left. Anytime someone says they disagree with gays or gay marriage, the left claims hate..

I'm not left.


And you seriously need to relax. This is CS. Everything is sensationalized.

[Ibanez]

But she is failing to do her job as the law describes. And her job is to enforce the law. Therefore she should either be removed or willingly find other employment.

No argument there. I'm just saying that disagreeing with something doesn't automatically equate to hating it. Disagreeing with "X" doesn't mean you hate "X".

You're right. However, people on the right make the same assumptions. Everyone does it (doesn't make it right.)

Again, sensationalism on my part (aka trolling.)