Kentucky clerk refused have same sex marriages license!

[whatdidyousay!]

 

[hoichi]

Ok, I get your point from a general point-of view.

But that brings me to another dilemma, that if anyone can refuse a service, and especially in public service, because of their own personal dilemma or opinion, should they be in public service then? That sounds discriminatory on my part, but I would hate to be refused service because someone had an issue with me and I have to go elsewhere, even its just to another counter and have to start all over again, whereas the person behind me in line doesn't.

Right. But freedom has that edge..if freedom of both the individual is respected...(to refuse), and the freedom of a given group is respected. (to marry or what ever)
Inclusion is both ways. Its the very idea of tolerance. Authoritarian behavour is rejected by both the individual, (in this case refusing the entire office to issue), and by the group (the forcing an individual to do something contrary their consiounce, by fear of losing their job, or actually incarceration in this case, and there are cases of authoritarian behavoire by lgbtqa in other cases too, such as the pizza place owners of last year..so on. )
People go into public service for all kinds of reasons,
I think its fair, if society makes accomadations foe minoriiets (lgbtqa as an example) then society if its wise must make accomdations for the majority...the millionw and millions and millions of pople who hold a faith that for what ever the issie has grave plms accepting it..
Its foolish to ignore numbers, and be unaware of the danger of povioking people long term in the millions and millions who hold a faith.to resist overtly. Right now they have been rather easy to deal with, but i see a number of mis steps and blunders by the lgbtqa (which is understandible given the euphoria of victory), in really understanding what could be a very real future foe.
We shouldnt undeerstimate anyone..just because the momentum..at this time and moment is swinging a certain way, we certainly shouldnt underestimate those willingly jailed for their faith. I personally think that would be very dangerous for long term stability and gains.
Thus it makes better sense to both respect the freedom of all involved.if hqving an inconvience of a linger wait for thwt is what is required. I think its worth it really.

 

[hoichi]

[

I understand the point of view too but here's the thing...

If PART of the job duties is to issue marriage licenses (or any kind of licenses)... yet the person will refuse to do so because of some belief-

People in history have willingly been fed to lions, and torched alive over just some belief. And we need to understand, "just some belief" can be very potent motivators for people. To many its impossible to have a compartmentalized idea of where their belifes belong or not..at home, in.wofk place, in a park, on the net. So on..just as im sure its very hard for those who support lgbtqa rights to be able at one point to lock those beliefs neatly up.
Beliefs should not be underestimanted. They need to be respected.

isn't that abandonment of job duties? If I were working as a QA Tester and refused to test applications that were say connected to military or something because I don't believe that the military deserves such things (hypothetical people.. hypothetical- I support the military) I'd get my ass fired on the spot- even if there are other testers in the department that can test it all. With this woman, she isn't fired and nothing is being done partly because she is a public servant and was elected to her position.

Right.but if you had that job, and a change came in. For instance your working for a non nuke company, a non weapon company..and it gets bought, and your told its time to test some nukes, or kill some cats or what ever...and your against kiling cats or nuking people...you can quit and lose your income, or refuse on certain grounds..i suppose..but the idea is your there before the change...a change comes in...and you need to make a choice.
But thats a private sector not public.
But using the military idea.
Can solders refuse to fire on unarmed americans on american soil if ordered?
Freedom really isnt just the right to something..(ie marry), its also the right not to do something...

As for 'her name not being on the licenses'- I find it interesting that if the county does bend to this and changes everything just for her that seems a bit extreme too.

Its not just about or for her. Nor was the supreme courts decision just and only about the perticular individuls that case was about. More is involled here.

I don't know what every other county clerk office and their marriage license looks like across the US but seriously it seems like Ms Davis wants to have things HER way rather than for the people of the county she was sworn to serve. Her beliefs are HERS and shouldn't affect how she serves the county.

Well lets be fair here. The lgbtqa wanted things their way too. And went all the way to the supeme court to get it. And thats fine. Thats what freedom is about..but so what if she does want things her way? As long as that way doesnt prevent others from their way...so what?
Her freedom is just as important as any one elses, gay or not.

 

[AlleyCat]

[













People in history have wilkingly been.fed to lions, and toeched alive over just some belief. And we need to undeestand, "just some belief" can be very potent motivators for people. To many its impossoble to.hwve a compartmentalized idea of where their bekifes belong or not..at home, in.woek place, in a pwrk, on rhe net. So on..just as im sure its very hwrd for those who supporr lgbtqa rights to be able at one point to lock those bekifs nestly up.

Beliefs should not be underestimanted. They need to be respected.













Right.but if you had that job, and a change csme in. For instance your woeking foe a none nuke company, a non weaon conoany..and it gets bought, and your told its time to test some nukes, or kill some cats orbwhat ever...and your against kilking cats oe nuking people...you can quit and lose your income, or refuse on certsin grounds..i suppose..but the idea is your there before the change...a change comes in...and you need to make a choice.

But thats a private sector not public.

But using the military idea.

Can solders refuse to fire on unsrmed americans on americsn soil if ordered?

Freedom really isnt just the right to something..(ie marry), its also the right not to do something...









Its not just about or for her. Nor was the supreme courts decision just wnd onlyabout the perticular individuls that case was about. More is invokved here.







Well lets be fair here. The lgbtqa wanted things therie way too. Qnd went all the way to the suoreme court to get it. And thats fine. Thats what freedom is about..but so what if she does want things her way? As long as that way doesnt prevent others from their way...so what?

Her freedom is just as important as any one elses, gay or not.

For hoichi, sorry if I'm incorrect, but the sheer volume of spelling mistakes in your last few posts makes me think you're high again, as you've admitted, so I'm not going to respond to those posts.

Aside, this issue of GLBT marriage licenses and legality has been going on for a good while, long before this county clerk was elected last year. She had to have had an inkling this might be an issue for her when she would be in office, yet she ran anyway, and now that she's elected, puts up a stink. Hypocrisy at its finest.

 

[hoichi]

For hoichi, sorry if I'm incorrect, but the sheer volume of spelling mistakes in your last few posts makes me think you're high again, as you've admitted, so I'm not going to respond to those posts.

Aside, this issue of GLBT marriage licenses and legality has been going on for a good while, long before this county clerk was elected last year. She had to have had an inkling this might be an issue for her when she would be in office, yet she ran anyway, and now that she's elected, puts up a stink. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Sorry about that...i was more in a rush to class...(teaching asl), then stoned....but no excuse,

As for the women. Im not sure its hypocrisy. Even if it is, the issue here is seperate from her and her faults as a person. We need to look beyond her, as its actually not about her, nor is it soley about the actual names on the supreme court ruling.
If we are unable to discuss the issue without being trapped in her person, her faults, and failings then its kinda pointless really...
Im not interested in her...
Shes just some person.
Im looking beyond her to whats important here..
All cool

 

[VacationGuy234]

What is the plm with the freedom of the individual to refuse to do something, as long as that individual doesnt prevent others from doing it.?

There is no problem as long at the person doesn't get paid. In fact, there are plenty of people not doing things and not getting paid. I see no reason, no reason whatsoever, to break with this trend.

 

[hoichi]

Fixed the post.
Hope it helps.,...

 

[hoichi]

There is no problem as long at the person doesn't get paid. In fact, there are plenty of people not doing things and not getting paid. I see no reason, no reason whatsoever, to break with this trend.

Alright.

 

[Jane B.]

Sorry about that...i was more in a rush to class...(teaching asl), then stoned....but no excuse,


If the only thing you can muster is a critique of my english and bad spelling then indeed i stand guilty.
My ideas are seperate from me though..
For what its worth

I regards to the part I have left on as a quote.

My problem with your English and bad spelling is how much harder to read it makes your posts. Some simple proofreading for places where you have hit a key close to the correct one would make such a difference.

I see it making your efforts to persuade people to your point of view greatly hindered by people not reading all of what you post when it is so hard to read.

 

[hoichi]

I regards to the part I have left on as a quote.

My problem with your English and bad spelling is how much harder to read it makes your posts. Some simple proofreading for places where you have hit a key close to the correct one would make such a difference.

I see it making your efforts to persuade people to your point of view greatly hindered by people not reading all of what you post when it is so hard to read.

No argument with me...you and allycat are correct.
I edited my post as i dont want this to degenerate into some bickering or what ever and at first read i thought my post ending was a bit harsh and not conducive to helping explore the issue..
Thanks for including it anyway.

 

[Foxrac]

 

[Foxrac]

Hello... I'm not joking...

I'm Buddhist and I can't sell AR-15 because they violate my religious belief so please take to Register 14.

Oh wait... the cashier in Register 14 is socialist atheist so take it to Register 3.

Not again, nobody take AR-15 to complete the transaction so let me call my friend and he's hunter so he will happily to complete the transaction so he will be there in 1 hour and meet Register 5.

 

[DeafDucky]

<insert Foxrac post #231 with the Wal-Mart meme- forgot to tick the "include post" box again>

was going to post this one.


On the other hand I can't help but wonder if this is what we will be seeing outside of the internet and all the memes- otherwise known as the real world- very very soon. I hope not.

 

[hoichi]

If one only looks at this issue from a product perspective then indeed. Fair enough.
But so what?
True tolerance, and respect for everyones freedom is maintained...you want a rubber buy or get one.
If you dont want to sell one, dont...

Want to marry who you want, get the paperwork , dont want to sign one, dont.

To me the individual right to refuse is as equel to any ones right to marry who they want and as many as they want....i believe in total freedom for people to make their own choices in every damn thing. Besides harming others.

That includes religion, that includes sexual orientation, so on. I dont see heavy handed (incarceration) of a women who was not violent and not a threat as something positive for those who wish for total freedom, from state intrusion into their lives, either the bedrom or their faith.

Its easy to mock this women, easy to create caricautures of her fat being offered healthy food from a skinny vegan chick...or mems about the inconvience of going to another cash register to buy a rubber, or ham, in the end individual freedom will always be a little more inconvienient, but worth it long term, for total inclusion and tolerance of everyones sexual orientation and faith.

I aslo know the above is a pipe dream, but a good one at least

 

[Jane B.]

If one only looks at this issue from a product perspective then indeed. Fair enough.
But so what?
True tolerance, and respect for everyone's freedom is maintained...you want a rubber buy or get one.
If you don't want to sell one, dont...

Want to marry who you want, get the paperwork , don't want to sign one, don't.

To me the individual right to refuse is as equal to any ones right to marry who they want and as many as they want....i believe in total freedom for people to make their own choices in every damn thing. Besides harming others.

That includes religion, that includes sexual orientation, so on. I don't see heavy handed (incarceration) of a women who was not violent and not a threat as something positive for those who wish for total freedom, from state intrusion into their lives, either the bedroom or their faith.

Its easy to mock this women, easy to create caricautures of her fat being offered healthy food from a skinny vegan chick...or mems about the inconvience of going to another cash register to buy a rubber, or ham, in the end individual freedom will always be a little more inconvienient, but worth it long term, for total inclusion and tolerance of everyone's sexual orientation and faith.

I also know the above is a pipe dream, but a good one at least

Hoichi
Thanks for the attention to detail you used in writing the post I just quoted! It is the easiest one to read that I have ever seen from you!!!!!!!!!! Thanks again.

 

[hoichi]

Hoichi
Thanks for the attention to detail you used in writing the post I just quoted! It is the easiest one to read that I have ever seen from you!!!!!!!!!! Thanks again.

Ahhh...your too kind janeB...."-)
Your welcome

 

[sara1981]

I'm really shocking on Kentucky clerk Kim Davis got out jail she have no rightful for discrimination on same sex couples few days ago you agree with me or not?!? she must obey with laws!! include federal,government,Supreme Court but she is god rightful to marry one woman and one man not pathetic same sex couples but president Obama and Supreme Court granted same sex couples to marry in fifty states but Kim Davis need kept her mouth shut up!! I'm raise Christian in my own rightful but I'm read articles she pleaded Kentucky governor for her out jails but her attorney says Kim Davis not belong in jail!! But our own former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee visit her in jail and he DID let her out jail because he supported her Christian!! Have to says?!?

 

[whatdidyousay!]

I am sure Mike Huckabee had something to do with getting her out of jail so fast .

 

[hoichi]

I am sure Mike Huckabee had something to do with getting her out of jail so fast .

She was in jail not for a crime but for contempt. Which is one way the courts can coherce you to do something in this case an action..

Once that action was done, paperwork issued, and her agreement not to interfere. The court really had no justification to keep her incarcerated. If it was to punish, then she must be chrged and given her day in court. But punishment was not the reason thus she was released when the action of issuing paperwork and her word was given and the judge felt it was sencere.

Keeping her in jail when the above had occured would be contrary to the spirit of justice and any semblence of an inpartial system. Incarcerating her to begin with has set a dangerous precedent.and plenty has alreadybeen written even by other judges in regards to it.
So here we are.
Why the lust to continue to punish this women?

 

[AlleyCat]

You've got to be kidding me. Lusting over punishing a woman who deliberately violates a Supreme Court ruling? One that is an elected public servant bound to follow laws? And deliberately prevents the rest of her office from following the law? Contempt is fitting. Maybe you don't see that in Canada.