Regarding that clerk and marriage licenses for gays (vanity)

September 1, 2015 | me

[Leaning Right]

While reading about that clerk, a thought occurred to me. Suppose a devout Muslim was a cook at a government cafeteria. And suppose pork chops were on the menu that day. Would the muslim be forced to handle the pork chops, or would he be excused from that particular duty?

[DiogenesLamp]

Well, the cook is following what he believes to be 1000 years of societal behavior, so I’m not quite sure what your point is here.

My point here is that our society isn't based on Islam. It is based on Christianity. Now I know that has become a bad word nowadays, but I am not one to lie about what happens to be true just because it makes someone feel unhappy when I point it out.

Your contention that we have to be "fair" is also utter bullshit. No. WE DO NOT HAVE TO BE "FAIR".

The Muslims of the world look at us like we are Insane. They certainly feel no Obligation to be "Fair". As a matter of fact, they consider it their religious duty to be "Unfair."

The Nation was Founded as a Christian nation. Prohibitions against religious tests were not put in our Constitution to make our government secular, they were put in there to prevent religious wars between the differing dominant religions in the various states. They were intended to prevent the religious strife that was afflicting Europe, and encouraging various states with different official state religions from being suspicious of the Central government imposing a specific doctrine on them.

But that the nation was Non-Denominational "Christian" was axiomatic. Our Constitution itself acknowledges Jesus and exempts the President from having to work on Sundays.

It is not neutral regarding the question of religion. It is very pro-Christian, and was always intended to remain so.

Perhaps Abraham Lincoln can convey the concept better than I can.

This neutrality bullshit is a creation of the Kook Judges appointed by Roosevelt to the Federal courts. IT DID NOT EXIST prior to the loons getting onto the courts.

[Leaning Right]

Given they changed the definition of marriage after she was employed, one would think she could be grandfathered in.

That was my very first thought as well. But as Conscience of a Conservative pointed out, the clerk is in a position to prevent all gay marriage licenses in the country from being issued. I checked on that; Conscience is correct (trust, but verify).

So even a new hire cannot issue those licenses, and that muddies the water quite a bit.

So, to me anyway, this is now looking less like a religious exemption case, and more like a states rights case.

[DiogenesLamp]

Why can’t there be a compromise that allows somebody else to sign it?

Why are you interested in compromising with evil? There have been a near endless series of compromises with the GayStapo, but they will demand more no matter how many you give them.

They need to be told "No."

Kipling figured this out over a century ago.

[Leaning Right]

Why can’t there be a compromise that allows somebody else in the country office to sign it? It’s a simple solution that could avoid litigation. All we need is a simple act of legislation.

A most excellent suggestion. Sort of like giving the Muslim cook in my original hypothetical another duty on pork chop days.

But would the "gay" community be accepting of such a reasonable compromise?

[Leaning Right]

Your contention that we have to be "fair" is also utter bullshit.

Huh? Perhaps you misread my post. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I never said that we had to be "fair" to the Muslims. Instead I'm advocating that we have to be fair to the Christian clerk!

[ctdonath2]

Well, that’s basically an elected official understandably deciding that a law, which she and her office are otherwise obligated to follow, is illegal/immoral and that as administrator it is proper for her to refuse carrying it out via her subordinates.

Unfortunately, there isn’t a bright line dividing your drivers’ license example from, say, facilitating genocide (as a clear real-world extreme case).

[SeekAndFind]

RE: But would the “gay” community be accepting of such a reasonable compromise?

This will require COURAGE on the part of Kentucky’s legislature.

North Carolina has already done that.

See here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/06/11/north-carolina-okays-opt-out-for-officials-who-oppose-same-sex-marriage/

Why can’t Kentucky?

For that matter, why can’t each individual states do it?

[pgkdan]

Well said!

[hondact200]

There it is again - a compromise has to be made to what accommodate something that is unnatural. a man has a penis and a woman has a vagina that is what is natural. God intended humans to procreate. Society states more to the fact that sex is recreation and it does matter whom you have sex with as long as you have fun. America - hedonism on display with gay marriage.

[mrsmith]

Failed analogy.

The muslim manager takes the job selling products he is supposed to which doesn’t include pork products.
Then the Supreme Court rules he must sell pork products.

“Civil disobedience” is a valid and useful strategy. Of course it can go too far, and as the courts stray further and further from their job it will.

[Leaning Right]

The muslim manager takes the job selling products he is supposed to which doesn’t include pork products. Then the Supreme Court rules he must sell pork products.

That is a very valid point! Kindly see my post #22.

[fwdude]

Here’s another thought. Suppose this country had hard and fast LAWS against immigrating to this country without permission, using fraudulent documentation in order to work and receive tax benefits, and demanding that others speak the foreign language of the immigrant. Do you suppose that the chief administrator of the law enforcement function should be able to unilaterally opt out of obeying and enforcing these numerous federal laws? Oh, wait....

[pacobell]

She is what I consider a true radical as the left used to consider a radical, ie. stand up for principal. I have an old lefty buddy (68 yrs. old) who still considers himself a “radical”. I tell him he’s just another “kneepad establishment follower”, towing the MSNBC line. Really does rankle him.

[mrsmith]

The manager manages, he/she must supervise the employees. So allowing someone else to do it is shirking their responsibility.

The Supreme Court ruled the Constitution requires something that all it’s authors and ratifiers would deny that it does.
There is no legal challenge to that.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: There it is again - a compromise has to be made to what accommodate something that is unnatural. a man has a penis and a woman has a vagina that is what is natural. God intended humans to procreate.

I agree. That really is a problem because whether we like it or not ( and I do not like it ), America has CHANGED.

No matter, even if we badly want to , we cannot MAKE MEN MORAL, even by passing laws. It has to come by inner change and persuasion.

Let’s take God Himself as an example. The Bible clearly tells us that He hates divorce (see: Malachi 2:16 )

Jesus even taught: “Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Knowing this, Someone once asked Jesus (in Matthew 19:7 ):

“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.”

So, if Moses and Jesus recognizes this reality of the HARDNESS OF MEN’s hearts and allowed laws that catered to this, I guess we as Christians have no choice but to recognize this same reality today when it comes to homosexuality.

We cannot change people other than to exemplify morality ourselves and courageously tell the truth.

But we cannot do the latter if we are being persecuted in a supposedly free country whose founding document PROTECTS the free exercise of religion.

So, we can compromise, just as Moses did in regards to divorce laws, while at the same time PROTECTING our own rights NOT to condone it in word and deed.

[SuzyQue]

Isn’t the County Clerk’s name which goes on each license? In that case, it really isn’t an issue of having someone else in the department do it for her.

[LambSlave]

Would he get an exemption, because otherwise no devout Muslim could ever become a manager there. Or would he be forced to resign?

He would get a promotion. Seriously. It is way cheaper than the litigation, and everyone is happy.

[Leaning Right]

He (the devout Muslim) would get a promotion. Seriously. It is way cheaper than the litigation, and everyone is happy.

You're absolutely right, and I'm a bit disappointed in myself that I didn't consider that option originally. I've seen that happen so many times; promote the troublemaker as a means of avoiding a lawsuit.

And everybody is happy, except perhaps the poor soul who should have gotten the promotion. But if it's done cleverly enough, that poor soul won't even realize he's been passed over.

[DiogenesLamp]

Huh? Perhaps you misread my post. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I never said that we had to be "fair" to the Muslims. Instead I'm advocating that we have to be fair to the Christian clerk!

If that is your position then I did indeed misread your post. My apologies.

[NorthstarMom]

I’ve had muslim clerks ring up sausage and bacon at WalMart. For awhile there were several working at the checkouts, now they all work elsewhere in the store. Perhaps to avoid that situation?