View Full Version : people don't make sense, really
i have this old friend who i haven't talked to in a long time. i still had her on facebook which i totally forgot about, i keep some people who i disagree with but i might want to hear about their kids or life on my facebook. i can handle seeing things i disagree with after all. But she really exemplifies people who don't make sense! (in teh sense that they are contradicting, maybe just to join a group mentality?)
She has been posting many of the support the police posts, she was physically abused quite badly by her ex who is a police officer and still has his job and still is jerking her around in many ways (she has a severely disabled son so she can't 100% get out of it when kids are older). they had counseling and the counselor was aware of the beatings, but her posts are supportive of the police.
She has always been politically conservative but her sister is gay and in a long term relationship and i have never heard a bad word there, and now she is posting support for the clerk in the marriage license deal and other things related to that. Her sister is her best supporter through issues with her son and cancer.
i know this is not unusual, but i am turning off the feed now that she is posting more and it isn't about her kids or life.
I think gay people should get married if they want to. On the other hand I don't think someone should be sitting in jail for refusing to to marry them. She should be fired or have someone else perform the ceremony. This is not a violent criminal just someone who refuses to do her job.
Many people are not consistent in their viewpoints. Logic is often the last thing to influence our belief systems.
iris lilies
9-9-15, 1:42pm
I learned just this week to change some of the settings on Facebook to now get the important stuff at the top of my Newsfeed.
i would ignore much of Facebook bUt for the fact that one of the groups for which I volunteer sends out all messages via Facebook. That sucks, wish they would use regular email. But then, they also send out photos and updates of Bulldogs in our care, so that's a big plus and Facebook makes that easy.
another plant society to which I belong has started up a Facebook page so yet another obligation to read, that is if they post useful stuff. They have no web site and will be dead as a society in 5 years.
iris lilies
9-9-15, 1:49pm
OP, it seems to me that YOU are the one being logically inconsistent.
I would, and do, support police officers in doing their job out there in the tough world of bad-nicks. That would have nothing to do with my home life.
I could have a relative who is gay and could love that relative but could still be opposed to promoting what i might view as a gay agenda.
you are conflating issues, seems like you are looking at the world in black and white.
OP, it seems to me that YOU are the one being logically inconsistent.
I would, and do, support police officers in doing their job out there in the tough world of bad-nicks. That would have nothing to do with my home life.
I could have a relative who is gay and could love that relative but could still be opposed to promoting what i might view as a gay agenda.
you are conflating issues, seems like you are looking at the world in black and white.
What is a gay agenda?
iris lilies
9-9-15, 2:41pm
What is a gay agenda?
One plank on the platform would be to require my friend, Al, a conservative Lutheran minister, to marry two gay men in his church.
For the record I think that Kim Davis' temper tantrum is ridiculous. Shut up woman and do the job, or allow your underlings to do it if you can't bring yourself to touch the pen that gives official gubmnt approval of this marriage certificate.
For the record I think that my friend Al should not be required to marry two gay men in his church; there should be no consequences for that choice.
Ultralite, do you think that there is no chance at all that this issue will come up for Al?
iris lilies
9-9-15, 2:45pm
I think gay people should get married if they want to. On the other hand I don't think someone should be sitting in jail for refusing to to marry them. She should be fired or have someone else perform the ceremony. This is not a violent criminal just someone who refuses to do her job.
She's an elected official, margene. She can't be "fired."
OP, it seems to me that YOU are the one being logically inconsistent.
I would, and do, support police officers in doing their job out there in the tough world of bad-nicks. That would have nothing to do with my home life.
I could have a relative who is gay and could love that relative but could still be opposed to promoting what i might view as a gay agenda.
you are conflating issues, seems like you are looking at the world in black and white.
I agree..
If you have a husband who beats you and happens to be a police officer, do you turn against all police officers? (IMHO, no)
If you have a friend or relative whom you love and who happens to be gay can you still oppose gay marriage? (IMHO, yes)
I personally see no contradiction.
One plank on the platform would be to require my friend, Al, a conservative Lutheran minister, to marry two gay men in his church.
For the record I think that Kim Davis' temper tantrum is ridiculous. Shut up woman and do the job, or allow your underlings to do it if you can't bring yourself to touch the pen that gives the approval of this marriage certificate.
For the record I think that my friend Al should not be required to marry two gay men in his church; there should be no consequences for that choice.
Ultralite, do you think that there is no chance at all that this issue will come up for Al?
As a long time gay sympathizer I can say I do not think that any gay or gay's representative will ever make (or seriously want to make) Minister Al marry gays in his church.
Now, if Al works part-time for the government in the marryin' capacity Al may be asked as part of his job to issue marriage licenses to my friends Adam and Steve. He could do his job, pull a Kim Davis, or simply resign and focus more on his preaching.
I do think that churches like the Lutherans or the Methodists or whichever flavor might have internal struggles where the Team Hippie-commie-pinko and Team Right Wing Nutjob duke it out for church policy (dag nabbit, where is The Man Upstairs when you really need him?). And when the dust clears Al's church leaders might say: "Okay, Al. The new rules are that you have to marry Adam and Steve or be defrocked."
At that point though, Al can quit that church, join another church, blame his colleagues and/or superiors, blame god, become a scientologist, or just roll with it.
But if a "gay agenda" sweeps his church, then many, many people more than the gays support that "gay agenda." So one might then just call it that church's "agenda."
ApatheticNoMore
9-9-15, 3:01pm
If you have a husband who beats you and happens to be a police officer, do you turn against all police officers? (IMHO, no)
yes it doesn't make sense to generalize, now if you oppose the police for other reasons there is that, but it doesn't make sense to generalize from one bad husband to everyone in the profession (although it might be easy to if you suspect he went into police work because he likes dominating people as shown in the marriage - then you start speculation on psychology and ... :laff: ).
If you have a friend or relative whom you love and who happens to be gay can you still oppose gay marriage? (IMHO, yes)
I think this one requires A LOT more contortions than not opposing all police because of one bad husband. Because you love your gay relative but if it's very much their wish to get married and you can't sympathize with it ... yes I think that is a lot harder to do ...
One plank on the platform would be to require my friend, Al, a conservative Lutheran minister, to marry two gay men in his church.
Who,is suggesting this? Apparently I haven't been keeping up with my agenda because I've not heard about it.
If you have a friend or relative whom you love and who happens to be gay can you still oppose gay marriage? (IMHO, yes)
If you have a friend or relative whom you love and who happens to want to marry someone of a different race can you still oppose interracial marriage? IMHO no.
If you have a friend or relative whom you love and who happens to want to marry someone of a different race can you still oppose interracial marriage? IMHO no.
Sure you can. I'm sure it happens all the time. You're not a good friend IMO, but it's certainly possible to feel that way. (Same with marrying someone of the same sex, different social class, wrong career, etc.) People have these types of opinions. And then you can get into grey areas, such as what is controlling vs. acceptable in a relationship. What may appear completely wrong to me may be okay for someone else. I tend to stay out of the affairs of other adults, but if I advised someone to not have kids just because their partner wants them (for example) is my viewpoint any better than someone who advises a friend not to marry someone with a much lower income level? I think that many people who are concerned about marriage between a same-sex couple, or a biracial couple, also just feel that they are sharing their concerns about seriously adverse consequences for the people involved. Not that I think that makes it right at all. Just playing devil's advocate here.
If you have a friend or relative whom you love and who happens to want to marry someone of a different race can you still oppose interracial marriage? IMHO no.
You can, it just makes you a racist friend.
An aside that probably fits better in the Grouse Thread, but I hate the term "gay-marriage". I try to avoid ever using it. It's just Marriage. Unless we start saying straight-marriage and gay-marriage (which I highly don't recommend) the modifier is unnecessary.
An aside that probably fits better in the Grouse Thread, but I hate the term "gay-marriage". I try to avoid ever using it. It's just Marriage. Unless we start saying straight-marriage and gay-marriage (which I highly don't recommend) the modifier is unnecessary.
I like to say "GAY-marriage" because it ticks off right wingers. ;)
I like to say "GAY-marriage" because it ticks off right wingers. ;)
Nice. :D The right-wingers are scared of me, as I don't fit in a proper box, and refuse to say what they want to hear. And I managed to escape the right-wing family connections.
Nice. :D The right-wingers are scared of me, as I don't fit in a proper box, and refuse to say what they want to hear. And I managed to escape the right-wing family connections.
Right-wingers dislike me because I shatter their illusions. But left-wingers dislike me because I won't vote for their lesser-of-two-evils nimrods.
Nice. :D The right-wingers are scared of me, as I don't fit in a proper box, and refuse to say what they want to hear. And I managed to escape the right-wing family connections.
Why would I be afraid of you?
I like to say "GAY-marriage" because it ticks off right wingers. ;)
I think you're taking too much credit.
Why would I be afraid of you?
Ha ha. You would quite probably survive. We'd have to talk in person though. There are certain things I don't share freely on the internet.
And I don't see you as a person who is easily baited. So no fun for me in trying to shock you with anything I might say. Certain others in real life, are different, but I tend to avoid them.
What is a gay agenda?
You know, lunch at 11 followed by some antiquing and cocktails. Early dinner, then drinks on the patio to watch the sunset. Duh!
You know, lunch at 11 followed by some antiquing and cocktails. Early dinner, then drinks on the patio to watch the sunset. Duh!
In college the GLBTQ group had this annual event called "Live Homosexual Acts" and they'd set up a living room type thing on the lawn of the student union building. The GLBTQ students would just go there, hang out, do normal stuff -- play cards, have a guitar jam, order pizza, etc.
Freshman and visiting parents would freak out until they realized the whole thing was a joke! haha
ZG, why are you judging her? She can be as inconsistent (just your opinion anyway) as she wishes, whenever she wishes, for as long as she wishes. Let it go. Delete whatever you see as needing deleting and save what is worth saving and forget the rest. Life is way too short to get caught up in others' views unless they really impact yours.
Re the government clerk and her refusal - in my opinion, when you are an employee, you do the job or find a way to get it done if you are unable or unwilling to do it or get off the public payroll. All the taxpayers are paying towards her salary not just the heterosexuals so all the taxpayers should be served.
You know, lunch at 11 followed by some antiquing and cocktails. Early dinner, then drinks on the patio to watch the sunset. Duh!
I've obviously been getting the wrong agenda all these years. Maybe there's a seperate one for ordinary gay working dudes? Mine involves a lot more doing laundry, cleaning the litterbox, answering stupid emails from my boss, etc.
ZG, why are you judging her? She can be as inconsistent (just your opinion anyway) as she wishes, whenever she wishes, for as long as she wishes. Let it go. Delete whatever you see as needing deleting and save what is worth saving and forget the rest. Life is way too short to get caught up in others' views unless they really impact yours.
i didn't see what i said as a harsh judgement, and honestly i just like to have conversations here but it seems that sometimes it is taken as a really big deal because i posted it when really it was a pretty small thing. Just a conversation starter to possibly include that sometimes we don't make sense ourselves. i can see that i didn't express that part well, but i posted the thread and then kinda forgot about it.
i just don't put things out really publicly that would be hurtful to someone i care about. i really dislike country music, my sister and some friends love country music, i don't post negative things about country music or the problems a country music star may have on my FB page. if i disagree with some of my family in religious topics i post positives of my own point of view but not negative of theirs. i guess that is my idea of manners on that format.
So honestly didn't think it was that big of a deal or harsh, just chatting.
rodeosweetheart
9-10-15, 10:04am
I am so in, jp1, with your agenda, so long as we can add "procuring dog treats" and shredding junk mail.
on the police issue, it was that we had long conversations and work on how to make things more safe for her since based on her bringing up the issues of times when a bad police officer could be protected. So that was a conversation that was relevant to her life 10 years after her divorce, not just she married a jerk, he beat her and she left but was still hung up on it much too late. there was still a risk for her related to his position as a police officer. So that is what just threw me off. i can't say i judge her since i know a few don't make the majority at all, just so weird after those honest conversations about the blue wall to see that on her FB of all people.
the only time she upset me was after our kids were in the Aurora theater shooting and she starting posting that it would really mess up her rights to get an assault weapon. we disagree on that, fine, but our kids were almost killed! so i am not upset really just people and how we work make me curious
iris lilies
9-10-15, 11:47am
Ultralite and JP,
I am so glad that you both are confident that there will never be fall out for the Rev Als of the world.
if Al's church decides to marry gay couples at their alter and Al is out of step with his parishioners on that idea, that's an entirely different issue that Al will,recognize as such.
I suppose it is churlish of me to even think that some religious folks and religious institutions will have limitations placed on them due to this new societal standard of gay marriage.
Ultralight
9-10-15, 11:53am
Time will tell. And it has told in other nations with gay marriage. But obviously the US is unique. I still say time will tell. And Rev. Al will be pleasantly surprised that the gay agenda will not become a mandate for all churches to marry all gays.
Besides, why would gays go through so much trouble when they could have a Humanist Celebrant marry them or just trot into any UU church and get hitched with the grandest of ease? :)
Besides, why would gays go through so much trouble when they could have a Humanist Celebrant marry them or just trot into any UU church and get hitched with the grandest of ease? :)For the same reason that same-sex couples flocked to one county in KY to apply for a marriage license or ordered wedding cakes from the one establishment in town known to wish nothing to do with same sex marriages.
Ultralight
9-10-15, 12:05pm
For the same reason that same-sex couples flocked to one county in KY to apply for a marriage license or ordered wedding cakes from the one establishment in town known to wish nothing to do with same sex marriages.
1. That county issuing those licenses is governmental. Churches are not (yet...).
2. That homophobic establishment could simply decline all that business. Right?
1. That county issuing those licenses is governmental. Churches are not (yet...).
2. That homophobic establishment could simply decline all that business. Right?
You fail to see the point, so I'll elaborate. When you say "Why would gays go through so much trouble", the answer is that they must in order to change the institutions that offend them. Religious conviction and belief is the last barrier to be crossed, and therefore must be challenged.
Ultralight
9-10-15, 12:17pm
You fail to see the point, so I'll elaborate. When you say "Why would gays go through so much trouble", the answer is that they must in order to change the institutions that offend them. Religious conviction and belief is the last barrier to be crossed, and therefore must be challenged.
Ooh... That is an interesting point! Thanks for clarifying. I did indeed fail to see it.
I don't see gays going that far because they will thrive with far less committed resources -- they will have lots of places to go to marry. I think gays would rather crest the offenders than crush them. This is why I think Rev. Al and his type are fairly safe from "the gay agenda!"
I must say, as a prankster at heart, I dig that many gays went to that KY county for their marriage license and they ordered their cakes from a homophobic establishment. Cracks me up!
As an anti-theist (though a fairly polite one with a mostly live-and-let-live attitude) I would welcome an era when all religious conviction and belief is challenged comprehensively.
I would welcome an era when all religious conviction and belief is challenged comprehensively.That's fine, just don't use the force of government to achieve your goals.
Ultralight
9-10-15, 12:25pm
That's fine, just don't use the force of government to achieve your goals.
I would not do that! Wouldn't be right...
That's fine, just don't use the force of government to achieve your goals.
Oh the irony...
Ultralight
9-10-15, 12:42pm
Oh the irony...
...?
Oh the irony...
Hey Peg, long time-no see! What irony is that?
Ultralight
9-10-15, 12:47pm
Set up... and... spike!
I think the main problem here is that the clerk and her followers, along with many others including Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz (are these guys REALLY running for office? do they REALLY not understand how it works?) have confused Christian Privilege with religious Persecution.
These folks have enjoyed (religious) Christian privilege in this country for a very very long time and now that people are waking up to that and realizing this is anti-american and harmful for our nation, there is some push back. We see what living in a theocracy is like and we're saying 'no thanks'. No one is being jailed because they are Christian. (She was jailed because she broke the law) To even suggest that, which Huckabee did, is insanely stupid and horribly irresponsible. Yeah, what his followers don't know, or probably do is, he would just LOVE to appoint some of those 'un-elected lawyers' as he calls the Supreme Court. (Funny how righteous and just they were with the Hobby Lobby decision)
Christians (and I single them out only because they are the ones trying to push their agenda down our throats, using the force of government) are unhappy that the free, and special ride is coming to an end. No, you can't use the government to force everyone else to follow your religious beliefs...no you can't use government vehicles to broadcast your religious beliefs. No, you can't discriminate in your place of business (back of the bus, no lunch counter, pastry). The Hobby Lobby decision was wrong, and hopefully someday it will be reversed. ALL US businesses must adhere to US law. Period. We can not pick and choose which laws we will follow.
Churches are given some leeway (there's that religious privilege again) and I think most folks don't mind. Didn't mind until these arrogant chest thumpers started to push their way into politics to force their agenda on our schools, places of work, even the privacy of our dr.'s office. Enough is enough. They had a good thing going and they blew it. And this clerk is their poster child. Fine. Hold her up as a shining example of the 'Christian agenda.' The more she throws a tantrum like a child who had her candy (christian privilege) taken away , the less people are willing to continue this privilege.
Frankly, I hope this petulant 5 year old pisses and moans till we decide that maybe the tax exempt status should also be revoked. Any organization that holds her up as an example of their finest doesn't deserve our tax dollars. I believe it's about 70 billion a year now. Imagine how many poor we could feed and cloth and house for that. You know, actually do what many churches 'claim' they do.
For the same reason that same-sex couples flocked to one county in KY to apply for a marriage license or ordered wedding cakes from the one establishment in town known to wish nothing to do with same sex marriages.
Actually at least some of those couples lived in Rowan county and chose to force the issue specifically because they live there and pay taxes there.
Hey Peg, long time-no see! What irony is that?
Hello Alan. The irony of you saying don't try to use the force of government to push your agenda. Isn't that exactly what that clerk is doing? Trying to use her government position to force everyone else to follow her religious beliefs? isn't that what that cop is doing with the police cars? She wasn't jailed for being Christian. She was jailed for disobeying a direct court order. last i heard, we still follow rule of law in this country.
Ultralight
9-10-15, 1:14pm
I think the main problem here is that the clerk and her followers, along with many others including Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz (are these guys REALLY running for office? do they REALLY not understand how it works?) have confused Christian Privilege with religious Persecution.
These folks have enjoyed (religious) Christian privilege in this country for a very very long time and now that people are waking up to that and realizing this is anti-american and harmful for our nation, there is some push back. We see what living in a theocracy is like and we're saying 'no thanks'. No one is being jailed because they are Christian. (She was jailed because she broke the law) To even suggest that, which Huckabee did, is insanely stupid and horribly irresponsible. Yeah, what his followers don't know, or probably do is, he would just LOVE to appoint some of those 'un-elected lawyers' as he calls the Supreme Court. (Funny how righteous and just they were with the Hobby Lobby decision)
Christians (and I single them out only because they are the ones trying to push their agenda down our throats, using the force of government) are unhappy that the free, and special ride is coming to an end. No, you can't use the government to force everyone else to follow your religious beliefs...no you can't use government vehicles to broadcast your religious beliefs. No, you can't discriminate in your place of business (back of the bus, no lunch counter, pastry). The Hobby Lobby decision was wrong, and hopefully someday it will be reversed. ALL US businesses must adhere to US law. Period. We can not pick and choose which laws we will follow.
Churches are given some leeway (there's that religious privilege again) and I think most folks don't mind. Didn't mind until these arrogant chest thumpers started to push their way into politics to force their agenda on our schools, places of work, even the privacy of our dr.'s office. Enough is enough. They had a good thing going and they blew it. And this clerk is their poster child. Fine. Hold her up as a shining example of the 'Christian agenda.' The more she throws a tantrum like a child who had her candy (christian privilege) taken away , the less people are willing to continue this privilege.
Frankly, I hope this petulant 5 year old pisses and moans till we decide that maybe the tax exempt status should also be revoked. Any organization that holds her up as an example of their finest doesn't deserve our tax dollars. I believe it's about 70 billion a year now. Imagine how many poor we could feed and cloth and house for that. You know, actually do what many churches 'claim' they do.
Amen to that!
Actually at least some of those couples lived in Rowan county and chose to force the issue specifically because they live there and pay taxes there.I'm sure you're correct. What I found interesting in that case was the fact she was sent to jail for failing to issue licenses to same-sex couples, when in fact she failed to issue licenses to all couples.
But, the important thing is that she was sent to jail, without bail, for failing to disregard the laws of her state. The Feds made sure to send a message that marriage laws are no longer a function of the individual states and that pesky part of the Constitution which reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" was really just wishful thinking.
Ultralight
9-10-15, 1:32pm
But, the important thing is that she was sent to jail, without bail, for failing to disregard the laws of her state. The Feds made sure to send a message that marriage laws are no longer a function of the individual states and that pesky part of the Constitution which reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" was really just wishful thinking.
Can you explain this a little more?
Hello Alan. The irony of you saying don't try to use the force of government to push your agenda. Isn't that exactly what that clerk is doing? Trying to use her government position to force everyone else to follow her religious beliefs?
I suppose you could see it that way, if you overlooked the possibility that she didn't actually keep anyone from marrying whoever they wished as they could receive a license anywhere. What she did was refuse to put her name and seal on a license which violated her religious conscience, and in order to be fair, she refused to put her name and seal on any marriage licenses, not just same-sex requests. Personally, I think she should have resigned her position, but that's her choice, not mine.
She was jailed for disobeying a direct court order. last i heard, we still follow rule of law in this country.
But she was following Kentucky State Law. Does a Federal Court decision always automatically nullify existing State Laws? I can think of quite a few examples of State laws trumping Federal laws in the respective states which do not result in anyone being jailed without bail.
Can you explain this a little more?
Sure, the conditions required for issuance of marriage licenses are a function of the individual states. The Federal Government has no authority in that area. If an elected official of a State is following State law in a matter reserved to the States, even one that is unpopular with a segment of society, by what authority does a Federal Judge jail that official?
Alan Alan Alan..it may say simpleton above your picture, but I know you are not one. You know, as well as everyone else here, that state law cannot trump US law. (we settled that about 150 years ago)
Why oh why do you persist in asserting that allowing each state to make up their own laws would somehow be a good thing? Do you think allowing slavery in 'just some' states is ok? I mean, really. If people don't like it they can just move, right?
How about women's vote? Ok in some states, not in others? Which states would you be living in?
Equal protection under the law is also in the constitution isn't it? So you think each state should be allowed to decide what equal protection means?
Child labor laws, minimum wage, workers protections, air, food and water standards? All decided by each state? Look what Brownback has already done to Brownbackistan...er, Kansas while sort of staying within the law. Can you imagine what he'd do if given free control?
Just some thoughts to ponder. I sometimes wonder if those who keep wanting to 'take our country back' (to what I can't figure out, nor will anyone describe) and do away with a strong central government, regulations and protections that have been hard won to put in place to protect us all, don't really know what they are asking for. I wonder if they actually "think it out" as to what exactly would happen if these things went away.
People need to think deeper than a bumper sticker and have the ability to understand consequence of action that is more than 5 minutes out. I wonder if these 'Patriots" have that ability. Many do not I'm afraid. What's more troubling is that many of those who DO understand consequence are using the ignorance of the base to get what they want, which is far far different than what these folks think they are signing up for.
... as they could receive a license anywhere.
I can think of quite a few examples of State laws trumping Federal laws in the respective states which do not result in anyone being jailed without bail.
Well no, no they couldn't. They couldn't get a license in their home county now could they. Isn't this kind of like saying "You don't need to drink from this fountain. Why would you want to drink from this fountain when we don't want you to. You can simply drink somewhere else. That fountain labeled colored over there is plenty good. And open."
Now, as to state law trumping federal law, give me an example. I'd be interested to see that.
ToomuchStuff
9-10-15, 2:08pm
She's an elected official, margene. She can't be "fired." Actually, yes, she can, but we call them things like a RECALL election. (the people who put her there, have to do it)
Sure, the conditions required for issuance of marriage licenses are a function of the individual states. The Federal Government has no authority in that area. If an elected official of a State is following State law in a matter reserved to the States, even one that is unpopular with a segment of society, by what authority does a Federal Judge jail that official?
This is something that makes me wish I had more time to read and understand the SCOTUS decision that started this all. What was reported HERE, was the court said that the marriages were legal. (had to be recognized) That means if one state issues them, a neighboring state, agency, etc. has to recognize them as valid.
That IS NOT the same thing as saying the states have to issue licenses. Two different points of law and actually should require two different cases.
As I have said, I haven't read the courts pdf's, but to put it in terms that have also been in the news.....
It would be the same as Kansas, being told they had to accept it was legal for Colorado residents to carry their pot into Kansas, BUT to ALSO have to SELL to Colorado residents.
One more question Alan and then I must run. What if a Quaker clerk refused to sell gun license? would you (or Huckabee) be marching in protest volunteering to go to jail for their religious rights? What about a Muslim DMV clerk refusing to issue your wife or daughter a drivers license, or insist they cover their heads and face when addressing them? What if a court judge required all women to cover their heads while in their court? All these possible 'religious freedom' issues.
It IS a slippery slope, and the sooner Christians admit what they call persecution is really the necessary erosion of their privilege, the sooner we can stop this before it gets to ridiculous proportions. As my mother-in-law used to say, 'the cat can sit in the rocker only until it starts to tear up the cushion. Then it loses both"
Alan Alan Alan..it may say simpleton above your picture, but I know you are not one. You know, as well as everyone else here, that state law cannot trump US law. (we settled that about 150 years ago)
Well that seems to depend. How do you reconcile Sanctuary Cities or legalized marijuana? Both violate Federal law.
Why oh why do you persist in asserting that allowing each state to make up their own laws would somehow be a good thing? I referenced it in an earlier post, it begins with "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution..", it comes from that same Constitution which restrains the power of the Federal Government. Without restraint, anything is possible.
Ultralight
9-10-15, 2:17pm
One more question Alan and then I must run. What if a Quaker clerk refused to sell gun license? would you (or Huckabee) be marching in protest volunteering to go to jail for their religious rights? What about a Muslim DMV clerk refusing to issue your wife or daughter a drivers license, or insist they cover their heads and face when addressing them? What if a court judge required all women to cover their heads while in their court? All these possible 'religious freedom' issues.
It IS a slippery slope, and the sooner Christians admit what they call persecution is really the necessary erosion of their privilege, the sooner we can stop this before it gets to ridiculous proportions. As my mother-in-law used to say, 'the cat can sit in the rocker only until it starts to tear up the cushion. Then it loses both"
"Christian privilege" is a term I am going to start using! Very apt!
I'm sure you're correct. What I found interesting in that case was the fact she was sent to jail for failing to issue licenses to same-sex couples, when in fact she failed to issue licenses to all couples.
But, the important thing is that she was sent to jail, without bail, for failing to disregard the laws of her state. The Feds made sure to send a message that marriage laws are no longer a function of the individual states and that pesky part of the Constitution which reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" was really just wishful thinking.
Actually the courts made the decision that states cNt discriminate with their marriage laws when they decided Loving v Virginia. The current decision just extends the inability to discriminate to include gender discrimination.
You may wish that the federal supreme court not have any hurisdiction over state laws, but that would require a fairly significant change in the way we have viewed that court for quite a long time.
ApatheticNoMore
9-10-15, 2:36pm
When you say "Why would gays go through so much trouble", the answer is that they must in order to change the institutions that offend them. Religious conviction and belief is the last barrier to be crossed, and therefore must be challenged
I think the real reason gays would go to such trouble is because it is the tradition they identify with. Yes fine if one is an agnostic one may be fine with a marriage license from the county, if one wants a church wedding and loves the Unitarian Universalists, then one will have a fine wedding there (and they will be happy to have gays).
But if one identifies as Catholic and is gay, they have a hard time of it, if they take issue with gay marriage right? I think this deliberately going to make a church one doesn't identify with marry you as a gay just because they are opposed to gay marriage, has little to do with what is most likely to motivate human behavior. One wants acceptance in that one identifies with (just like some will spend forever trying to get their parents to understand them when they simply aren't capable of doing so etc.), it won't always be forthcoming.
I'm in complete agreement with Jesus' admonition:
"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 6 "But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you."...(Matthew 6:6)
In time, I hope all religions are marginalized, frankly. I'm tired of hypocrites waving Bibles and trying to govern as if we were a theocracy. We're not a Christian nation, and never have been. I don't follow the Old Testament and its silly dietary and social laws--that may have had some relevance at the time. but certainly don't now--I don't see Huckabee, Cruz, and Santorum walking around with beards and sidelocks, and I bet they don't eschew blended fibers either. They and their ilk can believe anything they like, as long as they do it privately, and don't try to force their views on the rest of us.
They and their ilk can believe anything they like, as long as they do it privately, and don't try to force their views on the rest of us.But is it OK to force your views on others?
Ultralight
9-10-15, 3:06pm
But is it OK to force your views on others?
What do you mean by force?
What do you mean by force?Whatever the previous poster meant. I'm guessing in the sense of ensuring that others adhere to, respect and honor specific beliefs.
But is it OK to force your views on others?
Certainly not in the name of religion. You could argue that any given law is forcing your will on someone who doesn't agree with it, but citing some ancient tome as justification is beyond the pale, IMO. Laws are, and should be, made in a deliberative process that shouldn't rely on defunct mythology.
Ultralight
9-10-15, 3:13pm
Certainly not in the name of religion. You could argue that any given law is forcing your will on someone who doesn't agree with it, but citing some ancient tome as justification is beyond the pale, IMO. Laws are, and should be, made in a deliberative process that shouldn't rely on defunct mythology.
"Defunct mythology!" Another great term I am going to start saying!
Certainly not in the name of religion.
But forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs would be good, right?
Ultralight
9-10-15, 3:22pm
One more question Alan and then I must run. What if a Quaker clerk refused to sell gun license? would you (or Huckabee) be marching in protest volunteering to go to jail for their religious rights? What about a Muslim DMV clerk refusing to issue your wife or daughter a drivers license, or insist they cover their heads and face when addressing them? What if a court judge required all women to cover their heads while in their court? All these possible 'religious freedom' issues.
It IS a slippery slope, and the sooner Christians admit what they call persecution is really the necessary erosion of their privilege, the sooner we can stop this before it gets to ridiculous proportions. As my mother-in-law used to say, 'the cat can sit in the rocker only until it starts to tear up the cushion. Then it loses both"
Alan: When will you address the above points?
Alan: When will you address the above points?Is it a requirement to refute every point or will one good generalization do?
Ultralight
9-10-15, 3:28pm
Is it a requirement to refute every point or will one good generalization do?
Whichever you prefer.
Whichever you prefer.
Thanks, it's good to have options. Please let me know if the following will satisfy your requirements or if I'll have to try again. ;)
What if a Quaker clerk refused to sell gun license? would you (or Huckabee) be marching in protest volunteering to go to jail for their religious rights?
Where do you buy a gun license? Does it come with a gun? If there were such a thing for sale, and someone didn't want to sell it to me, I'd find another seller and would allow them the same level of protest I do to all other religious matters....none.
What about a Muslim DMV clerk refusing to issue your wife or daughter a drivers license, or insist they cover their heads and face when addressing them? I would go to their supervisor and ask them to address the issue. If the Muslim DMV clerk refused to issue because they could not, in good conscience, affix their name and seal, I'd suggest they resign their position and then I'd move on to the next clerk.
What if a court judge required all women to cover their heads while in their court? I've been in courts where the Judge has required people to remove their hats as a sign of respect for the court. Is that the same thing?
.
I would go to their supervisor and ask them to address the issue. If the Muslim DMV clerk refused to issue because they could not, in good conscience, affix their name and seal, I'd suggest they resign their position and then I'd move on to the next clerk.
Which is exactly what should have happened in Kentucky. But not only was Kim unwilling to do the job she'd been elected to do, she forced her religious beliefs on everyone else who works there as well, not allowing them to do her job either.
But forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs would be good, right?
Compromises can be made--as for conscientious objectors. If your religious beliefs require virgin sacrifices, you may be out of luck.
I don't see any difference between a law that "violates" a religious belief and one at odds with a citizen's strongly held secular convictions. I think they should be treated exactly the same way. And then where does it end?
ApatheticNoMore
9-10-15, 4:25pm
not only was Kim unwilling to do the job she'd been elected to do, she forced her religious beliefs on everyone else who works there as well, not allowing them to do her job either.
They should have said they could not in good conscience refuse to issue marriage licenses to gays and thus continue issuing them. Freedom of conscience right? What's good for the goose ... right? Surely they should not be fired for such, right? If they were fired for following the law, surely they would be compensated for it or hired back right?
Otherwise well one might suspect she was abusing her unique privilege not to be fired (must be nice).
TVRodriguez
9-10-15, 4:31pm
What I found interesting in that case was the fact she was sent to jail for failing to issue licenses to same-sex couples, when in fact she failed to issue licenses to all couples.
But, the important thing is that she was sent to jail, without bail, for failing to disregard the laws of her state. The Feds made sure to send a message that marriage laws are no longer a function of the individual states and that pesky part of the Constitution which reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" was really just wishful thinking.
1. Kim Davis was not sent to jail for failing to issue licenses to same-sex couples. She was sent to jail for contempt of court when she refused to comply with a court order that she do her job, which is to issue licenses for marriage to any couple of legal age (where neither party is currently married).
2. She was was not sent to jail for failing to disregard the laws of her state.
3. The "pesky" part of the Constitution is the part that guarantees fundamental rights to all citizens (and residents), and marriage is a fundamental right.
4. She may disagree with a law, but she is not allowed to refuse to do her job. The judge ordered her to do her job. She refused. The judge cannot take her by the hand and make her sign licenses. The judge is limited to either fining her or jailing her for contempt of court. The judge chose jail. It is the judge's prerogative on how to enforce a contempt order.
I have read every Supreme Court case (and many many lower court cases) related to the right to marriage, including Loving v. Virginia and the Windsor and Obergefell cases. I've given talks on them. I'm happy to discuss them.
Thanks TVR, that knowledgeable info sorts out the arguments very nicely and clearly.
I have read every Supreme Court case (and many many lower court cases) related to the right to marriage, including Loving v. Virginia and the Windsor and Obergefell cases. I've given talks on them. I'm happy to discuss them.
Great! This Devils Advocating is hard work. >8)
... do y'all think this is really how it's going to work from here on in, then?
What I'm seeing is media coverage and spin that backs people who might ordinarily be more-or-less reasonable into a black and white corner. Aaagh, No Gay Pizza! Stone the crows ... and crow about getting stoned. Spectacle seems to be the order of the day. I'm having a hard time distinguishing between Kim Davis and Kim Kardashian. I think gay rights are important, don't get me wrong, I just don't think ongoing national news coverage and jail time was particularly appropriate in the world-breaking headline of the discipline of a county clerk on a power trip.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.