Posted on 09/02/2015 7:04:56 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
It’s okay for mussies to go out and slaughter people, rape girls destroy history but handle alcohol - oh no’s.
The law only states that sodomite marriage is legal - it does not say that anyone is compelled to issue a certificate or perform the ceremony.
How do you feel about smokers? Tobacco is a legal product and smoking is a legal activity. But smokers can't buy them everywhere nor smoke them everywhere.
Not proposing a religious test. I don’t know the case law, so this is my opinion. On a side note, the rules of matrimony are governed by religious statutes, while the laws of marriage are decided by the state.
I believe if a person takes an oath to uphold the laws of the state, and the state says they allow “x,” then the person is obliged to operate in that environment.
An example: Atheists wish to marry civilly. Clerk thinks marriage is reserved to believers. Clerk must issue license anyway.
Another example: Shall issue statutes. Sheriffs don’t like the CCW, but shall issue.
That’s where I am coming from.
One was elected.
I believe if a person takes an oath to uphold the laws of the state, and the state says they allow “x,” then the person is obliged to operate in that environment.
An example: Atheists wish to marry civilly. Clerk thinks marriage is reserved to believers. Clerk must issue license anyway.
Another example: Shall issue statutes. Sheriffs don’t like the CCW, but shall issue.
That’s where I am coming from.
_____________
The clerk can uphold the law by having another person issue the license.
As for your examples. Christians do not judge the inward beliefs of others. Even so, if two atheists want to marry (and they are a man and a woman) they are still potential Christians.
But homosexuality is an abomination to God and marriage was, in fact, instituted by God to represent Christ and the Church. No Christian can or will condone sodomite marriage.
“Shall Issue” is not a religious issue. God never said don't buy weapons - the comparison is false.
How many years have their been commercial airline flights?
How many years have there been, that on record, flight attendants have served food, soda, coffee, tea, and hard drink?
I would believe that has been a record of fact, long before this moahmmedan tw(i)t was born!
For example, when i was transported by good old World Airways, to my Oriental destination, in 1971, they did all that.
Let’s see ... mmm 2015 minus 1971 ..mm THAT’S 44 YEARS AGO!!
HOW OLD IS THIS MOHAMMEDAN TW(I)T?
If the law changes to say she must supervise the killing of innocents, must she comply?
Yes or no.
I was hoping someone would pull these together situations together.
But this articles analysis is wrong.
“I think that in both cases, the job duties come first. Religious convictions should not be used to change the nature of the job that the incumbent, after all, sought. We have the liberty to worship as we wish, as we have the liberty to seek employment consistent with our religion. I do not think we have the liberty to impose our religionon others, including our employers.”
This analysis makes the mistake of not recognizing that secular humanism, paganism, is a religion. It also fails to recognize that all governments will by its nature impose morals and ethics upon a people. As a post Christian nation, our government is now forcing the religion of secular humanism upon us.
She was elected clerk last fall. You’d have had to be deaf and blind not to be aware that this was coming.
The Constitution applies to the Government.
Not one word of the Constitution would protect a private employee’s job if the employee refuses to comply with the Private Employer’s lawful instructions.
That’s the beginning and end of it. The Governent can’t oblige conduct if that conduct violates a reasonably held religious belief or value. Not so for private employers. If an employer needs employees to serve drinks to customers there isn’t any sane set of principles, certainly no Constitutional ones demanding that the employer hire people incabable of doing the work.
A clerk saying they won’t issue a marriage license in accordance with the law to gays is definitely a judgement. The clerk, of their own volition, had determined the duly passed law (which I disagree with) is not valid, and thus won’t issue a license. She is not within her authority to do so. If she disagrees with the issuance of licenses, then she needs to find a new job (easier said than done).
The shall issue comparison is valid, as it is a matter of law some disagree with.
No, and if that is the case, she is morally obliged to quit.
Can a Catholic County Clerk refuse to issue marriage licenses to people who have been divorced?
Can an Amish County Clerk refuse to issue drivers licenses?
Can a Quaker County Clerk refuse to issue gun licenses?
It is to Quakers. And gay marriage is not a religious issue to some Christian denominations (Episcopalians, United Methodists, etc.)
You're taking the beliefs of your denomination and saying the law must respect them as the word of God, but that the law should ignore the teachings off every other denomination.
Actually, if we are to take both Article VI paragraph 3 and the First Amendment at face value, the answer to all your questions should be “yes”. Of course this means there must be an alternative mechanism for accomplishing those government functions when someone with particular religious scruples is elected to such offices.
Just follow orders then?
Sir, go out and read some Bonhoeffer. Start with “The Cost of Discipleship”. I will try to paraphrase him in my own poor way. Bonhoeffer talked of cheap grace, and of the tendency of people in the church to put God into a nice little box. One you bring out on nice Sunday’s, maybe on Christmas, but lock it back up when comes to the “real” world. He talked of those who believed that while belief is important, it shouldn’t interfere with what the State wants you to do. In other words, cheap grace which is no grace at all.
He then goes on to talk about the real cost. The fact that you need to stand for something, or you will find you did your upmost duty for the Devil. He talks that at the end, you will be judged not by what your employer or State did, but what you did.
If that doesn’t suit you, and you are true to your convictions, then return to England. The Founding Fathers violated much graver oath’s of office in their rebellion then this woman has. They took up arms against the King that many of them had sworn to protect. They did so because they had beliefs that went deeper than the surface of their oath.
Now, with your statement, you must accept that George Washington, Paul Revere, Benjamin Franklin should have just quit and went home. You would have told Bonhoeffer that he was evil for working against Hitler while he was part of military intelligence when he had the chance to go to New York and stay there.
Of course, you will say, that is different! All those mentioned were fighting for something better and truer than what this little clerk in Kentucky is. Of course Hancock resisted King George!
But that was over small taxes on tea and paper. Over the issue that those being governed should have the right of refusal to a government bent on ignoring them. Think about it. The Founding Fathers violated their holy oaths to King and Empire over a minor tax on goods they didn’t need to buy and a political theory. They started a rebellion against the greatest power on earth of the time and won.
Of course, you can just slink back and mumble that they should have just done their duty. Many did then. Even today many view Bonhoeffer not as a good example, but as a traitor to the German state. They say, as you say, he should have left rather than try to save the country he loved.
So join their ranks. Leave. Follow your standard back to Britain (or where ever). Demand the statues of Washington the Traitor to the Crown (which is something an Englishman I know calls him) be torn down because they offer bad examples to others who may have convictions that the State does not approve of. Burn the Stars and Stripes, as it represents a flag of anarchy against the rule of unelected Kings. Allow the chains to be fitted round you of just following orders as you walk on the path to perdition.
But, when the day comes they start marching us to camps for a final solution to the Christian problem (which in some quarters is being discussed), don’t say “That is to much! No more!” You are morally obligated to get on the train.
Sir, I have read history. I have also read what the other side wants. They are pretty open about it. The fight isn’t about a clerk in Kentucky, any more than it was about Tea.
Wow, you really put a lot of thought into that. However, for many reasons, your impassioned plea is misdirected. Let’s start with Bonhoffer.
I have great respect for him, but NAZIsm and what is happening in KY are not the same. “Gay marriage” has nothing to do with genocide. They are not morally equivalent. The clerk has the option to stay or go. The citizens of both the state and the US have the obligation to change the statute to overturn the Court or not. The clerk is not in a position to do so of her own power and claim to represent the state. That is not how our system of government works.
Secondly, the American Revolution wasn’t just about tea or stamps. Rather, it was about “... a long train of abuses and usurpations...” among other things. Key words include Despotism, inequality under the law, Tyranny, and the rest. Again, the American Revolution is not the moral equivalent of what is happening in KY.
You are correct we will all stand in front of the Almighty and account for our actions. And as I mentioned before, if the clerk finds the requirements of her job morally repellent, she is required to not only quit, but also take some action.
Now, let’s look at this from a different direction. People’s retirement assets are invested in 401(k)s and pension plans, generally speaking. The underlying assets likely include shares of tobacco, alcohol, pornography, fetal parts collectors, and other morally noxious companies. What, then, is the moral requirement of the individual? To what standard are they held?
Let us take another set of cases. China is the world’s largest abortionist, as well as very bad on human rights. What moral obligation does a person have when trying to buy a product? Or, oil. Oil in the US comes from many sources, including the horrific regimes of Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. What is your moral obligation when filling up?
To suggest I am guilty of any of the veiled accusations you made is absurd. It is equally absurd to suggest moral equivalency of the clerk and the cases you mentioned.
Is our government and nation tolerating the intolerable? You bet! Should those of good will work to change this? Absolutely! However, everything has a proper time, place, and method. In dealing with these challenging political circumstances, we need to be shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. We must be wise in what battles we fight, and how we fight them.
In my opinion, the clerk would make a bolder statement by quitting her job.
God said it, not a “denomination”.
Believe as you will.
This may come as a shock to you, but not everyone agrees on what "God said." Ask the Southern Baptists and the United Church of Christ how much they agree on. (Not to mention the Mormons, Buddhists and Scientologists.) That's why the Constitution prohibits an "Establishment of Religion."
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.