This Kentucky Clerk Business...

[AbominableDro-Man]

So yeah, this Kentucky clerk that isn't doing the issuing of marriage licenses because of her religious views, this is what I'd call a pretty clear cut case of why religion and state should be 100% separated.

 

Hiding behind your religion as a shield for your bigotry and discriminatory mindset is one thing, but attempting to FORCE that upon other people when you're suppose to be doing your job as an authority figure?

 

If there were a Muslim man refusing to give drivers licenses to women at a DMV because of his religious views, the people would have the poor bugger tied up to a post before he could bow east.

 

Pretty disgusting people out there, and I'm not talking about the people who only want to be happy and accepted as they are. Whatever happened to that not discriminating based on sexual orientation thing?

 

All in all, this hate machine is wrong and these people claiming to worship a religion which purportedly "accepts anybody" and has an "all loving" cosmic deity should really consider...y'know..following that mantra.

Edited September 14, 2015 by AbominableDro-Man

[GregS]

The Court ruled rightly. There is a legal mechanism to remove her from office, but I expect fines and incarceration will be enough. She might just sit in jail until the KY legislature reconvenes and brings that state's laws into conformance with the Constitution, and quite possibly impeach and fire her. Arguments that she is somehow deprived of her religion are silly. She can carry her bible everywhere she goes. She can send it to school in her kids' backpacks or to work with any and all of her four husbands. She can shout her belief from her rooftop or her nearest street corner. She can mutter silent prayers to herself any time and anywhere. She can feed the hungry and comfort the afflicted. She can help the poor. She can love all others. She can practice live animal sacrifice. She can wear funny magical underpants. Those are all protected religious practice. What she cannot do is to discriminate in the public sphere, demanding that anyone comply with her newly found religion, without consequence as a matter of civil rights law

[Highlander]

Does she analyze every divorce decree she processes - to see if the divorce is in-line with the Christian Bible's very few reasons for a divorce?  Does she quiz new couples applying for a marriage license as to whether one or the other has had per-marital sex?  Does she ask every prospective groom if he ever committed the "sin of Onan?"

 

I remember watching an interview with a conservative politician (I wish I could remember who it was), who was adamant that the role of our limited federal government is to only negotiate treaties with foreign governments, declare/undeclare war, and provide for enforcement of private contracts.

 

If Adam and Steve want to enter into a civil union (a private contract), which this country calls "marriage," such that if Adam gets his brains scrambled, Steve has the authority say "do not resuscitate," who is anyone else to question that agreement between parties?  And of course, you can't expect medical personnel to be in a role where they interpret any private contract between individuals - so make it easy on the medical staff.  If Adam and Steve are married, this gives the ER Doc a clear precedent as to who the first decision-maker is.  So calling them "married" makes it easy on everyone else involved, because there is an established protocol for the decision-making.

 

I'm kinda OK with a private business choosing who to do business with for whatever reason they wish.  If I owned a bakery and don't want to sell a cake to a gay couple, a republican, a christian, a muslim, a guy with dirty fingernails, my weird uncle Bob, a convicted child molester, a union boss, a union member, a child - whatever, that should be my right.  The free market will sort-it-out. 

 

But it isn't the role of government, or government employees, to deny rights or privileges to people based on their own beliefs.  God knows that if I had to pass the test of Levitican law before I got married, not only would I have never gotten a marriage license, but 99+% of other people would have suffered the same fate.

 

If you can't fulfill a government job without trying to trump rules/laws with your own religious beliefs, then don't work for the government.  It's pretty simple.

[AbominableDro-Man]

high-school civics.

When discussing the religious freedom portion of the First Amendment, there are not one but two clauses we must consider. The commonly understood and cited part, and the one Ms. Davis trumpets, is the Freedom to Worship guarantee. Under that clause, the government isn’t allowed to pass any law, or take any action, “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. 

 

Simply put, the government can’t do anything to stop you or anyone else from worshiping God or Buddha or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, if that’s what your conscience or faith tells you. In her view, the government (via a federal court) has overstepped its power by forcing her to act against her religious beliefs, and therefore has trodden upon her right of free exercise.

 

This argument falls apart, however, once you take into account the other, less commonly understood clause. The “Establishment Clause” prohibits the government from aiding or assisting any religion, or religious viewpoint, over any others.

 

This was a key point for the founders of our country, who were of diverse faiths and did not want a state religion, or even any state-endorsed religions. When people talk about “separation of church and state,” this is the part of the Constitution that embodies it. The separation has worked well over the past two and a quarter centuries; today, the Baptists have no more right to have their particular beliefs elevated over the Methodists, or the Druids for that matter, by any government official.

 

She is a government employee charged with performing a clerical task (issuing a marriage license). As an employee of the government, the moment she imposed her own personal religious beliefs (that only straight couples should be married), she raised an Establishment Clause problem. By insisting on applying God’s law (or at least her interpretation of it) over the civil law, she gave greater weight by the government to a particular religious viewpoint, namely her own brand of Christianity. This was a plain violation of the Establishment Clause.
 

Edited September 15, 2015 by AbominableDro-Man

[Highlander]

high-school civics.

When discussing the religious freedom portion of the First Amendment, there are not one but two clauses we must consider. The commonly understood and cited part, and the one Ms. Davis trumpets, is the Freedom to Worship guarantee. Under that clause, the government isn’t allowed to pass any law, or take any action, “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. 

 

Simply put, the government can’t do anything to stop you or anyone else from worshiping God or Buddha or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, if that’s what your conscience or faith tells you. In her view, the government (via a federal court) has overstepped its power by forcing her to act against her religious beliefs, and therefore has trodden upon her right of free exercise.

 

This argument falls apart, however, once you take into account the other, less commonly understood clause. The “Establishment Clause” prohibits the government from aiding or assisting any religion, or religious viewpoint, over any others.

 

This was a key point for the founders of our country, who were of diverse faiths and did not want a state religion, or even any state-endorsed religions. When people talk about “separation of church and state,” this is the part of the Constitution that embodies it. The separation has worked well over the past two and a quarter centuries; today, the Baptists have no more right to have their particular beliefs elevated over the Methodists, or the Druids for that matter, by any government official.

 

She is a government employee charged with performing a clerical task (issuing a marriage license). As an employee of the government, the moment she imposed her own personal religious beliefs (that only straight couples should be married), she raised an Establishment Clause problem. By insisting on applying God’s law (or at least her interpretation of it) over the civil law, she gave greater weight by the government to a particular religious viewpoint, namely her own brand of Christianity. This was a plain violation of the Establishment Clause.

 

 

Well said.

 

When I was a kid, my best friend was the son of a Methodist minister.  The family moved away from my small town, as Methodist families tend to do every two years or so.  Later in life, I found out that he was gay and married another gay guy, and his dad performed the ceremony at the local Methodist Church. 

 

There is so much hate in this world.  Myself, I have a hard time understanding why a guy might be attracted to another guy in a sexual way.  I like women, but I was taught not to judge, so I try not to.  To each his own, I believe.  Just love your brother, your neighbor, and your enemy.  That's what Jesus taught. 

 

I was brought up as a Christian and taught not to judge (although I wouldn't consider myself a Christian anymore.  I really identify with what the historical Jesus Christ taught, but I've never been in a church environment where the "flock" understands that it isn't up to the individual to judge, so I've had a hard time identifying myself as a "Christian".)  On second thought, I might very well be a Christian - I just don't think that hating on anyone is a  Christian value.

[GregS]

In instances of private business it is illegal to discriminate against any protected class of individuals. Businesses open to the public cannot refuse to sell goods or services to any homosexual couple any more than they can a black or bi-racial couple or Muslim couple. If a business owner expects to reap the rewards of providing goods or services to the public, it must necessarily include allll of the public who are ensured equal protection from discrimination under the Constitution.

[beourbud]

Can you imagine what the repubs would do if a Muslim official refused to issue gun permits.

[Wild Bill]

The educational system has been so bad for so,long now that many people have no idea what our government or their economic and social policies are all about. They are easily mislead by those who understand this.

 

The Christian nation myth is probably one of the most dangerous. Osama Bin Ladin mentality in different garb. A ready made herd of sheep leading us all to the slaughter.

 

Chomsky Warns Of Risk Of Fascism In America

 

Noam Chomsky, the leading leftwing intellectual, warned last week that fascism may be coming to the United States.
 
“I’m just old enough to have heard a number of Hitler’s speeches on the radio,” he said, “and I have a memory of the texture and the tone of the cheering mobs, and I have the dread sense of the dark clouds of fascism gathering” here at home.
 
Chomsky was speaking to more than 1,000 people at the Orpheum Theatre in Madison, Wisconsin, where he received the University of Wisconsin’s A.E. Havens Center’s award for lifetime contribution to critical scholarship. “The level of anger and fear is like nothing I can compare in my lifetime,” he said.
 
He cited a statistic from a recent poll showing that half the unaffiliated voters say the average tea party member is closer to them than anyone else. “Ridiculing the tea party shenanigans is a serious error,” Chomsky said.
 
Their attitudes “are understandable,” he said. “For over 30 years, real incomes have stagnated or declined. This is in large part the consequence of the decision in the 1970s to financialize the economy.”
 
There is class resentment, he noted. “The bankers, who are primarily responsible for the crisis, are now reveling in record bonuses while official unemployment is around 10 percent and unemployment in the manufacturing sector is at Depression-era levels,” he said. And Obama is linked to the bankers, Chomsky explained.
 
“The financial industry preferred Obama to McCain,” he said. “They expected to be rewarded and they were. Then Obama began to criticize greedy bankers and proposed measures to regulate them. And the punishment for this was very swift: They were going to shift their money to the Republicans. So Obama said bankers are “fine guys” and assured the business world: ‘I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free-market system.’
 
People see that and are not happy about it.” He said “the colossal toll of the institutional crimes of state capitalism” is what is fueling “the indignation and rage of those cast aside.” “People want some answers,” Chomsky said. “They are hearing answers from only one place: Fox, talk radio, and Sarah Palin.”
 
Chomsky invoked Germany during the Weimar Republic, and drew a parallel between it and the United States. “The Weimar Republic was the peak of Western civilization and was regarded as a model of democracy,” he said. And he stressed how quickly things deteriorated there.
 
“In 1928 the Nazis had less than 2 percent of the vote,” he said. “Two years later, millions supported them. The public got tired of the incessant wrangling, and the service to the powerful, and the failure of those in power to deal with their grievances.”
 
He said the German people were susceptible to appeals about “the greatness of the nation, and defending it against threats, and carrying out the will of eternal providence.” When farmers, the petit bourgeoisie, and Christian organizations joined forces with the Nazis, “the center very quickly collapsed,” Chomsky said. No analogy is perfect, he said, but the echoes of fascism are “reverberating” today, he said.
 
“These are lessons to keep in mind.”

[Willy]

she needs to go!!! she wont do her job... out she should go.. 

[trichcycler]

^^^ like any one else's job.... insubordinations will not be tolerated, employment ceases....Next

[suneday11]