SCOTUS: Same Sex Marriage Legal Nationwide

[wopphil]

I don't think there should be such a thing as religious accommodation in employment. Do your job, or lose your job. That applies whether you are a Muslim who doesn't want to serve alcohol, or a "Christian" who doesn't want to issue marriage licenses.

This broad should be held in contempt until she starts issuing the licenses. She shouldn't be given an accommodation of her deputies being allowed to issue the licenses.

[Glen]

Another thing I learned about leftists is that they can't support people who cheat on their spouses. So:

Leftists hate:

1. Generalizations.

2. Assuming.

3. Breaking the law, no matter how unjust it seems.

4. People who cheat on their spouse.

Every one of your posts is like Trout staring at strike one right down the middle.

[Adam]

I don't think there should be such a thing as religious accommodation in employment. Do your job, or lose your job. That applies whether you are a Muslim who doesn't want to serve alcohol, or a "Christian" who doesn't want to issue marriage licenses.

This broad should be held in contempt until she starts issuing the licenses. She shouldn't be given an accommodation of her deputies being allowed to issue the licenses.

Exactly. She should have quit.

[Stradling]

Every one of your posts is like Trout staring at strike one right down the middle.

Followed by watching strike three down the middle.

[Rico]

Does George make his own memes? Who makes those things so fast?

Dude has an army of nerds.

[Rico]

 

Family values.

I don't think there has been anyone this year more on the wrong side of history than Huckabee.  First supporting the sister fiddler and now this.

[Rico]

 

4. People who cheat on their spouse. 

I think we can forgive cheating on a spouse.  (Bill Clinton)  I think it is more about those portraying themselves as "Family Values" but then it turns out they were cheating on their spouse the entire time.  It's the hypocrisy of it all.

[Crampknees]

Another thing I learned about leftists is that they can't support people who cheat on their spouses. So: 

 

Leftists hate: 

 

1. Generalizations. 

2. Assuming. 

3. Breaking the law, no matter how unjust it seems. 

4. People who cheat on their spouse. 

 

Another thing I learned about leftists is that they can't support people who cheat on their spouses. So: 

 

Leftists hate: 

 

1. Generalizations. 

2. Assuming. 

3. Breaking the law, no matter how unjust it seems. 

4. People who cheat on their spouse. 

Leftists love:

 

1. Reality

2. Knowing

3. Good deeds, no matter how just it seems.

4. Openness with their spouse on the way to a swingers club.

[juansavage1]

I think we can forgive cheating on a spouse.  (Bill Clinton)  I think it is more about those portraying themselves as "Family Values" but then it turns out they were cheating on their spouse the entire time.  It's the hypocrisy of it all.

Didn't she convert after the cheating? Besides, maybe she feels bad about the cheating, repentant. Do you know that she thinks her cheating was OK?

[juansavage1]

Can you expand on #3?

Yes. Most of the comments I've heard from people who do not support Davis are that the lady should follow the law, not her conscious, on this matter. That was the essence of the quote from Sulu. That tells me that those people primarily praise Law and Order. Am I wrong? 

 

The others, by the way, are mere restatements of positions explicitly articulated here on AW. First, we should not generalize. Nor should we assume the beliefs of others. All beliefs must be explicitly stated, as you have stated your belief in following the law.

 

I'll take back the cheating on the spouse one. I thought you guys thought it disqualified people from receiving support, but it seems it was just the hypocrisy, but then again,  in order to label one a hypocrite, would you need to assume that she thought it was OK? 

 

Maybe you heard a quote of hers that said that it was OK for her to cheat, but not anybody else. Is that the case? 

Edited September 10, 2015 by Juan Savage

[Stradling]

I don't see it as praising law and order, I see it as she was hired or appointed to do a job. If that job no longer aligns with her beliefs she should either realign her beliefs as it relates to work or she should resign.

[juansavage1]

I don't see it as praising law and order, I see it as she was hired or appointed to do a job. If that job no longer aligns with her beliefs she should either realign her beliefs as it relates to work or she should resign.

What's your position on Law and Order? Should we follow the law as written?

[Stradling]

No I prefer anarchy. That's such an open ended question. What's your position on whether or not someone doing the job they were hired/appointed to do?

[TobiasFunke]

So Juan, you're opinion is that personal beliefs should supersede your job duties? 

[red321]

looks like Juan is trying to set up one of his brilliant illogic traps...be careful

[Angelsjunky]

Juan, it is really quite simple. Kim Davis is free to practice her religion. But in her capacity as a county clerk she is bound by federal and state law. If she feels like her duty as county clerk goes against her religion, she should either suck it up or look for a different job.

 

In other words, separation of Church and State.

[Adam]

The whole presence of American Christianity in American Politics is terrible. Christians, like most other groups of people, are way more concerned with pounding their chests, proclaiming persecution and antagonizing those who don't see things their way, than actually being inviting. Kim Davis's actions aren't going to convert Mike Huckabee or Billy Glen Joe because they don't need converting. Christians, and any other collective with a specific set of views or principles, should be doing things that attract others to them not things that push them away. Kim Davis only created greater separation between non-believers and Christians. Well done, lady.

 

And AJ is right. Either perform your job duties or get a new job.

[Stradling]

The whole presence of American Christianity in American Politics is terrible. Christians, like most other groups of people, are way more concerned with pounding their chests, proclaiming persecution and antagonizing those who don't see things their way, than actually being inviting. Kim Davis's actions aren't going to convert Mike Huckabee or Billy Glen Joe because they don't need converting. Christians, and any other collective with a specific set of views or principles, should be doing things that attract others to them not things that push them away. Kim Davis only created greater separation between non-believers and Christians. Well done, lady.

And AJ is right. Either perform your job duties or get a new job.

Exactly. Sadly the middle of the country controls the Republican Party and they take an all or nothing approach to their political agenda. Huckabee just became unellectable (doubt that's a word), much like Trump but for different reasons.

[juansavage1]

The whole presence of American Christianity in American Politics is terrible. Christians, like most other groups of people, are way more concerned with pounding their chests, proclaiming persecution and antagonizing those who don't see things their way, than actually being inviting. Kim Davis's actions aren't going to convert Mike Huckabee or Billy Glen Joe because they don't need converting. Christians, and any other collective with a specific set of views or principles, should be doing things that attract others to them not things that push them away. Kim Davis only created greater separation between non-believers and Christians. Well done, lady.

 

And AJ is right. Either perform your job duties or get a new job.

1. You're generalizing. 

2. You're assuming to know what people are concerned about. 

[juansavage1]

Juan, it is really quite simple. Kim Davis is free to practice her religion. But in her capacity as a county clerk she is bound by federal and state law. If she feels like her duty as county clerk goes against her religion, she should either suck it up or look for a different job.

 

In other words, separation of Church and State.

There's nothing wrong with this opinion. I follow all orders, unless the order is immoral or outside of the requirements of the job. 

 

You can see it several ways: 

 

Contra Miss. Davis:

 

1. One should do their job, no matter what. 

2. One should do their job, with the stipulations I made above, but this doesn't fall under either of those stipulations. 

3. Ms. Davis is against my opinion and must be stopped. 

 

Pro Miss. Davis:

 

1. The government can't force people to do things that violate their conscious. This does. 

2. One should do their job, except for the stipulations. This falls under one of those stipulations either because it's inherently immoral or the directive is illegitimate. 

3. Miss Davis is on my side so I will support her. 

 

We could either: 

 

1. Force her and others to either do what they're told or fire them. 

2. Accommodate people with legitimate conscious concerns. 

3. Change the law. 

 

I think this decision, coming as it does from the personal, extra-legal opinion of five justices, shouldn't have the absolute power of force. In other words, if this decision forces this particular view of marriage on people, we can compromise by having the government recognize it, but allowing people to opt out of recognizing it. We shouldn't punish people for holding on to the natural definition of marriage. Kim Davis shouldn't be forced to sign things, but somebody else should sign it to make it legal. 

 

We can do this until the next president nominates other justices that will reverse this and other dumb intrusions into the political system. 

[Adam]

1. What gave it away? 

2. Assumptions are required if one is going to generalize. 

[Angelsjunky]

If Kim Davis's job is to "sign things" and she refuses to sign things, should she have that job? It is her job to enact legal marriages. Gay marriages are legal.

 

Clearly Davis was refusing to do something that was within the "requirements of the job." Whether it was moral or not is a personal opinion. Her job was not to pass moral judgment, but to enact law.

[red321]

Nobody was forcing Kim Davis to do the job she was elected, and paid handsomely, to do. She had the option to quit, or even take steps to allow her office to allow people to do something that is now legal in this country. She decided that her right to be a bigot

superseded the rights of everyone else...and insisted she continued to be paid to do so.

 

I look forward to Mike Huckabee and Juan Savage rushing to the aid of the county clerk who decides that people who are currently cohabitating can't get a license...or people who have been previously married.

[juansavage1]

1. What gave it away? 

2. Assumptions are required if one is going to generalize. 

You're going to get into big trouble here. 

[juansavage1]

Nobody was forcing Kim Davis to do the job she was elected, and paid handsomely, to do. She had the option to quit, or even take steps to allow her office to allow people to do something that is now legal in this country. She decided that her right to be a bigot

superseded the rights of everyone else...and insisted she continued to be paid to do so.

 

I look forward to Mike Huckabee and Juan Savage rushing to the aid of the county clerk who decides that people who are currently cohabitating can't get a license...or people who have been previously married.

Much of this is a consequence of the way this debate was settled. You can't have a few unaccountable people decide the ordering of the societal structure and then expect people to just acquiesce. Many leftists were expecting this to be like race because they (those who thought this) are too shallow to see differences between things, but it could end up being like abortion where a significant portion of the country disagrees on principle. Both the abortion and marriage decision were similar in that they had nothing to do with the constitution as written and as intended by the writers.