Posted on 09/03/2015 8:36:09 AM PDT by 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?
Don’t look for logical consistency here.
These days, Christians get f***ed, Moslems get a free pass.
That you for your gracious post (#39). I understand your passion; this is a critically important issue.
We do not have permission to be more generous than what God has allowed. He has permitted divorce, under certain limited circumstances. But He has done nothing that suggests we should cooperate with perversion. If a man and a goat wanted a marriage licence, and had the backing of the Supreme Court, what then? Where is our red line?
Peace,
SR
We have Indian students who are vegetarians who handle meat in the cafeterias. It’s part of the job. You do the job or you don’t take the job.
Exactly.
This foolish crusade this woman is on is exposing a split between those who believe in the Rule of Law and those who simply believe they should be able to live in a land that follows their "Christian" rules.
No counter-examples will they hear. It's all about them being sure they know what God wants and to hell with law and our due processes.
I'm a Christian, but I recognize that when placed in a situation like this, if one really feels that strongly, one needs to resign with honor. Have no part of it. Kick the dirt off your sandals.
RE: But He has done nothing that suggests we should cooperate with perversion.
The basic question is this — What is America today, is it a Christian nation? Or is it not?
If it is not, then what should Christians do if the majority of Americans allow same-sex marriage?
Some possible answers:
1) Tolerate it ( as in, cater for it in law for those who are homosexuals ) as long as it does not conflict with our faith.
2) Not tolerate it at all.
The problem with choice #1 is what you are seeing today as in the case of Kim Davis of Kentucky.
Christians will tolerate gay marriage but are NOT ALLOWED to NOT participate in their ceremonies. We are now learning that tolerance does NOT go both ways in this country.
So, the fact that we are where we are means we have to fight WITHIN the SYSTEM for our basic rights to free association, and this is where my proposal — a sort of religious right protection legislation — comes it.
The problem with #2 is this -— the way society is heading, gay marriage WILL STILL be eventually passed.
So, either way, the result will be the same (Unless God Himself miraculously acts with fire and brimstone ).
RE: I’m a Christian, but I recognize that when placed in a situation like this, if one really feels that strongly, one needs to resign with honor. Have no part of it. Kick the dirt off your sandals.
There is a third choice ( which this Woman has chosen ) — DEFY THE LAW AS UNJUST and like Martin Luther King Jr. and the Apostles and Christians during the Roman Empire, suffer the consequences for standing up to what you believe.
I disagree that what she did is foolish. She is making a PUBLIC STATEMENT and we as Christians should unite in supporting her courage.
If she wants to be fined and jailed for dereliction of duty, that is her choice. I see nothing noble in it.
The state is the state. It’s not holy. Issuing a license to declare two people joined for tax and inheritance purposes isn’t a holy thing.
She runs a state office that gives out pieces of paper. She's not "participating in their ceremonies."
I support the baker or photographer who doesn't want to work a gay wedding.
But this is a silly case.
I respect her for taking a stand and facing jail time over it, but I wouldn’t make the same stand. I will pray for her and the whole issue of gay marriage.
RE: She runs a state office that gives out pieces of paper. She’s not “participating in their ceremonies.”
She objects to her SIGNATURE being on the paper, which to her, means participation.
A reasonable compromise would be to allow someone else of authority to sign his/her name on the paper.
See, I don’t really support the baker. If they bake a cake, the customer can do with it what they like. The photographer must go to the ceremony and photograph it, that is tougher to do. The photographer should not have to attend a gay wedding if they don’t want to.
While I support the baker, I wouldn’t refuse to bake the cake. It is, however, a slippery slope.
RE: Issuing a license to declare two people joined for tax and inheritance purposes isn’t a holy thing.
If the main purpose is tax and inheritance, there are many ways to change the law to cater for this other than calling it a “marriage”.
I agree with reasonable accommodations when possible.
I don’t see how that is possible in this case. She is the boss. Head of the operation. If a license gets issued, it is under her authority.
Signature or no signature. The buck stops (and starts) with her. It’s her official power. If she delegates it, she is still using her power.
RE: I respect her for taking a stand and facing jail time over it, but I wouldn’t make the same stand.
As I said, there are many ways to respond to this tyrannical ruling. Kim Davis’ response is one of several.
Resignation is also a valid option. She chose the more difficult option ( and it is not to be treated with contempt by fellow Christians ).
True. But that is neither here nor there. Unless and until they try to force private persons or churches to participate, there is no reason to freak out.
RE: I don’t see how that is possible in this case. She is the boss. Head of the operation. If a license gets issued, it is under her authority.
Disagree. If she delegates it, it means she washes off all PERSONAL responsibility for the paper and it is the SATTES’ responsibility.
Bakers often have to go to the reception to deliver, prepare, touch up the cake, etc. But I see your point for simpler “pick up a cake” scenarios.
RE: The buck stops (and starts) with her
Nope, the buck stops with the State that chooses to implement the law.
She is making a statement saying that she WILL NOT PARTICIPATE in a law that is against her conscience.
The buck stops elsewhere?
No. Sorry. If you are head of the office, everything done in the office is your responsibility.
Does the deputy have power of his own apart from the sheriff? Does a priest possess licit power apart from operating as an agent of the bishop?
No.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.