(arguing with someone over the jailing of Kim Davis)
"Your religious freedoms don't extend to telling other people what they can or can't do."
My religious freedoms place limits on what I can do. I should not be fired or jailed for my religious freedoms, which are Constitutionally protected. It would seem you like the Constitution when it can be used to invent "rights" out of thin air, but dislike it when those rights are clearly spelled out. That seems backwards.
"Oh, WHAT are you talking about? Yes, she DID! She denied several gay and lesbian couples their RIGHT to get married. Over and over!"
Nope, she never once forced them to believe in traditional marriage.
"Why should it bother me that someone who broke the law went to jail? What else do you expect?"
Thank you for admitting to me where you would have been when Dr. MLK, Jr went to jail. :-)
It sounds as though you are against accommodating this woman's religious freedoms, which are in the Constitution, do I have you correct?
28 comments
"My religious freedoms place limits "
lmao
"It sounds as though you are against accommodating this woman's religious freedoms, which are in the Constitution, do I have you correct? "
"Freedom of religion" and "right to religious accommodations" are two entirely different things, sweetheart, and the Constitution doesn't say shit about the latter.
" I should not be fired or jailed for my religious freedoms,"
She wasn't jailed for her "freedoms". She was jailed for contempt of court, after having been given a choice of jail, resigning, or doing her fucking job.
If you think there's a "limit on what you can do", then you have the right to quit and go off and do that. You do not have the right to use your position to force those limits on others or to take $80k per year for refusing to do what your employer tells you to do.
It would seem you like the Constitution when it can be used to invent "rights" out of thin air, but dislike it when those rights are clearly spelled out.
Now that right there, is some weapons-grade irony.
Are you ready to defend the right of Muslim grocery clerks to refuse to handle pork products or Muslim drivers to refuse to transport alcohol?
More to the point, are you willing to wait in line while the Muslim clerk calls for someone else to ring up your package of bacon and praise them for maintaining their religious beliefs?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
She denied them a marriage license; preventing them from getting married.
Also, comparing a homophobe to MLK Jr? Classy.
It sounds as though you are against accommodating this woman's religious freedoms
Religious freedom has never meant the freedom to disobey civil law. You can't use crystal meth, conduct virgin sacrifices or have sex with 5-year-olds and claim it's part of your religion. If the law itself is found to violate the Free Exercise clause of the Constitution, then the law will be invalidated. That happened, for example, when an Adventist was denied unemployment benefits after being fired for refusing to work on Saturdays. That didn't happen when a Native American Church member was denied unemployment benefits after being fired for using peyote in a religious ceremony. Kim Davis has already exhausted her Supreme Court appeal on the issue.
Furthermore, Kim Davis's "religious beliefs" would appear to be simply an excuse for her personal prejudices against homosexuals. She has been divorced three times, and gave birth to another man's twins three months after her first divorce (no, they weren't 6 months premature ...). Is she going to refuse marriage licenses to divorcees? After all, Jesus said "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." (Matt. 5:32) Considering the Bible only forbids same-sex sex and not same-sex civil marriage contracts, she's worse than the people she's disparaging.
Davis has more in common with George Wallace, who blocked the door of the University of Alabama against two black students, declaring "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" in defiance of SCOTUS's Brown v. Board of Education desegregation decision than she has with MLK.
And they never forced her to believe in same sex marriage.
She was not arrested for refusing to sign same sex marriage licenses, she was arrested for using her power and authority to keep others from doing their jobs. She wouldn't let the deputy clerks sign licences if they wanted to, threatening to fire them if they did.
One's religious liberty does not cover the right to control other people with your beliefs. That is what Davis was doing.
She didn't "force them to believe".... What a sophomoric, asinine attempt at "gotcha". Fail, big time! That's like the annoying little kid holding the cookie jar who says "but I don't have my hand INSIDE the cookie jar, I'm just HOLDING it!"
If you're going to quibble about religious rights, how about addressing her assuming the religious rights of her other clerks? She didn't allow THEM to make their own decisions, did she?
> Nope, she never once forced them to believe in traditional marriage.
That's! Not! What! He! Said!
I'm not sure if WGC or Ray should get a dodging the question award...
Nope, she never once forced them to believe in traditional marriage.
Don't be a dipshit. We all know she had no problem issuing licenses to heterosexual couples until the Supreme Court decision, which she stopped issuing marriage licenses to anyone in a lame attempt to try to appear non-discriminatory. But that's not even the issue. The issue is that she refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples and also ordered her employees to do the same or be fired. She's the one making her own laws.
The simple fact is that if you're going to have a cushy job as a representative of the government, you have to treat everyone equally under the Constitution. If she has such a difficult time doing that then she should have resigned.
Kimmypoos being in Jail for Contempt of Court will hopefully make her realise the futility of having 'Convictions' that resulted in her being convicted .
And after that spell in clink, if she doesn't apologise most humbly to the judge, admit she - and her 'belie fs' - was wrong in her refusing to issue that marriage licence & thus will do so now & in the future, then she'll receive another spell in the cell for Contempt; then after that, if she doesn't apologise most humbly to the judge, admit she was wrong in her refusing to issue that marriage licence & thus will do so now & in the future, then she'll FAIL in jail for Contempt...!
...well, you get the picture. As Kim will realise that having 'Convictions' will result in her being more -than convicted: said 'Convictions' could theoretically result in a life sentence.
Good.
What part of "religious freedom does not include denying someone else their rights" do you not understand?
She's allowed to defer issuing licenses to her deputies, five of which are willing to do so. But she insists on stopping them as well so this goes way beyond her personal religious freedom.
Kim Davies is no MLK. Christians are not being persecuted. All that has happened is that they have lost the special privileges that they have once had and they are essentially throwing a huge tantrum over it.
If she had just resigned, people would have disagreed with her stance on gay marriage but would have been able to respect her decision. However she chose to impose her religious beliefs on others by refusing to do her job and refusing to let other people do the same job.
"Nope, she never once forced them to believe in traditional marriage."
What the fuck is wrong with you? This isn't a question of belief. She denied several gay and lesbian couples their right to get married . She doesn't have to send them to fucking conversion therapy before it will count as discrimination.
"Thank you for admitting to me where you would have been when Dr. MLK, Jr went to jail. :-)"
You do know which side Dr. King was on, right? There's a wee bit of a difference between refusing to follow laws that decree someone "inferior" to someone else by virtue of some aspect of their body or life, and refusing to follow laws that decree that, no, actually, that isn't true.
There's also the difference in positions here. Dr. King was an activist trying to repeal unjust laws. Davis is a government employee who just thinks the laws of her government don't apply to her because she's a Christian (I notice a lot of you fundies seem to ignore the whole "render unto Caesar" bit). I can guarantee you if a Muslim government employee refused service to a customer who had just ate pork or something, you would be saying the exact same things we are now that they would need to be fired or jailed for breaking the law - why the double standard?
Martin Luther King, Jr. would have opposed Kim Davis. Also, you missed the little part where she told the other officers in her office not to give the marriage licenses .
If that isn't restricting their religious freedom, then neither is forcing Kim's hand in the matter.
For the millionth time: Your religious beliefs do not entitle or give you the right to walk over those who don't share them. If you are going to bring up Constitutional rights and protections, read and try to comprehend the Constitution.
And STOP comparing yourselves to Dr. King. He fought against laws that oppressed, you are trying to fight against laws that granted freedom. Not to mention that it was people with your mindset that he fought against (and no few of you still can't stand that he won).
Think about this: the sum and substance of her argument that her religious freedom is being violated is that she equates placing her signature on the marriage license, with her approval of the union. That's not what her signature represents, though. All signing the license or certificate represents, is that the marriage meets the legal standards for state recognition.
Her argument is basically the equivalent to saying that, because her monthly cable bill provides for 100 stations, that the act of paying the bill means that she regularly watches all hundred stations.
"Nope, she never once forced them to believe in traditional marriage."
And nobody forced Davis to believe in "real" marriage. All she has to do is fill out the forms.
Try thinking things through before you post. You'll look like less of a dumbass.
Well, at least he didn't bring up ice cream this time.
If she doesn't want to do her job, what the hell ever. But she was also preventing the rest of her office from doing THEIR jobs. No matter how you cut it, this woman was forcing her beliefs on someone else from a position of government authority. That violates the first amendment, which she is using as her defense.
After the court order, every clerk in the office except her son agreed to start issuing the marriage licenses, and her son showed enough sense to agree that, while he wouldn't issue same-sex licenses, he wouldn't interfere with the other clerks doing their jobs. Even her son knows better than she does...
I love how the only way WorldGoneCrazy can keep the argument going is to blatantly lie about what was said. Someone points out that Kim Davis denied gay people their right to marry, he responds that she never forced them to believe in "traditional" marriage, something that wasn't even discussed.
In other words, WGC is a dishonest debater who should be hanged by the neck until dead and no-one should give his soul any mercy.
So if I were a Muslim, say from Saudi Arabia, and worked at the DMV, would you be OK with me denying women driver's licenses, license plates, and registration because my "sincerely held religious beliefs" do not permit women to drive? Women driving, after all, "undermines social values" according to my religious beliefs. You OK with that? Oh, and if the woman showed up alone at the DMV, are you ok with me detaining her until her chaperone shows up? My religious beliefs also do not permit women to travel in public without a chaperone. You OK with all of that?
What's that? You say I shouldn't force my religious beliefs onto this woman? I have no right to expect her to follow my religious beliefs? Wow, what a surprise. It sounds like you're against accommodating my religious freedoms, which are in the Constitution. Why are you persecuting me for my religious beliefs? Why does Kim Davis get to force her religious beliefs onto the gays while I don't get to force my religious beliefs onto women?
Kim Il-Davis now has that Damocles Sword over her head if she so much as thinks in any way other than doing her fucking job . [/Thoughtcrime]
If anything, that's far worse than her initial canning for Contempt of Court; in itself a mere taster of what could happen: that Conservative Christian judge has now forced her to submit to modern secular Rule of Law, accept that it is superior to that of her 'God's, and she doesn't even have the right to so much as think of having an 'Opinion' to the contrary. She is now forced to conform to the Dominant Paradigm. Good .
Political Correctness is good. Political Correctness works . [/Gordon Gekko]
Remember, fundies: Romans 13:1-5. You will be forced to obey superior secular Rule of Law - as appointed by your 'God', as per that part of your 'Word of God' - willingly, if you're the Christians you claim to be, or with the threat of custodial sentences: that Damocles Sword.
Kimmy's been forced to obey; so much for her granite-solid 'Convictions' crumbling to powder via her potentially being convicted . The precedent has been set. Let the Persecution begin. >:D
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
