Posted on 09/03/2015 2:18:48 PM PDT by z taxman
Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina offered her take on the growing controversy of the Kentucky county clerk who is refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses because it violates her religious conscience.
Fiorina spoke on Hugh Hewitt's radio show Thursday saying that religious liberty is clearly under attack but that rights of religious conscience is less clear when an individual is an "arm of the government."
"First, I think that we must protect religious liberties with great passion and be willing to expend a lot of political capital to do so now because it's clear religious liberty is under assault in many, many ways," Fiorina declared.
"Having said that, when you are a government employee, I think you take on a different role," she added. "When you are a government employee as opposed to say, an employee of another kind of organization, then in essence, you are agreeing to act as an arm of the government."
Fiorina, who has risen in the polls after a strong debate performance, is expected to be in CNN's Sept. 16 debate featuring top tier candidates, which is determined by polling.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianpost.com ...
You are right; and I stand with you.
“Are you going to stand up for the rights of a Muslim county clerk...?”
And what about you, Alberta’s Child?
Are you going to stand up for some lawyers to make up fake rights out of whole cloth while exceeding all authority to do so? Are you going to stand up for mindless “law” over morality, judgment and common law?
Look, one doesn’t have to like *how* this lady is handling her personal situation. But one ought to respect the fact she is trying to DO something that is lawful in Kentucky about an unlawful (and immoral!) dictate from the higher court.
“The stay request offers several options such as removing Davis’s name from the marriage license, thus removing the personal nature of the authorization,” Staver pointed out. “Another accommodation would be to allow licenses to be issued by the chief executive of Rowan County or developing a statewide, online marriage license process,” Staver suggested. “There is absolutely no reason that this case has gone so far without reasonable people respecting and accommodating Kim Davis’s First Amendment rights,” Staver concluded.
I’m partly leaning towards agreeing with you that perhaps government ought not to be involved in marriage licenses, BUT you do realize that in practical terms that there would still be divorce lawsuits and related legal matters put before the courts, right?
(And that assumes the liberal and LGBTABCDEFG movements would let matters proceed without causing as much heartache and mischief as possible.)
Me, I’m guessing if we don’t fight this tooth-and-nail, that the Left may well succeed in destroying societal norms and viciously savage the youth even more than today.
But I’m willing to be persuaded: how do you see with working on a practical level, recognizing that not everyone operates on Christian principles?
Is this really how your mother taught you to speak, Alberta’s Child?
James 1
26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.
Let's be brutally honest, though ... at the end of the day this is all just a circus. Even Davis' own lawyer is proposing a whole bunch of options that would allow his client to extricate herself from the marriage licensing process but wouldn't do anything to stop it from moving forward. This does nothing to alter the reality of what is going on here. The real issue at hand is not -- and never should have been -- a question of whether Kim Davis should be allowed to keep her job while refraining from taking part in any "same-sex marriage" formalities. The real issue is whether the State has any moral or legal ground to stand on when it licenses these things in the first place.
What is there to fight? There really is no battle here, because the heart of the issue is not state recognition of "gay marriage" at all. Two males can get "married" under the law even if they are nothing more than drinking buddies who want to file joint tax returns and get a family medical insurance plan. And (sorry to be crude) two other males can sodomize each other all the live-long day without ever getting "married" under the law. Which of these two cases is more destructive from a social and moral standpoint?
But I’m willing to be persuaded: how do you see with working on a practical level, recognizing that not everyone operates on Christian principles?
That's the whole point. It's not going to work. What you're witnessing is a complete breakdown of all social norms, which reflects the silly delusions we've had for years about multi-cultural, secular governance.
You're watching something of historic proportions unfold here. You're witnessing the Tower of Babel version 2.0.
It’s the Irish in me, I guess. Read up on John Hughes of New York City, who was the Archbishop of New York from 1842 to 1864. His legacy includes the establishment of Fordham University and St. Patrick’s Cathedral. He was known as “Dagger John” because of his abrasive personality. Sometimes you gotta be like that to get things done, eh? :-)
She is un-electable just for that. The Democrats are saving that one to savage her with if she even gets close to or gets the nomination, or becomes a running mate.
Get the state out of the marriage business.
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.