Mingle2 apple store icon
Try Mingle2 app for better experience
Community Recent My Topics
Community > Politics, Current News & Events
Topic: Clerk in Kentucky Chooses Jail Over Deal on Same-Sex Marriag
Reply
Rock's photo

Rock

Sat 09/05/15 07:43 AM

The circus side-show, has overrun the village.
no photo

alleoops

Sat 09/05/15 09:02 AM

Who knows, maybe she'll find herself a "mate" in prison.
Sileia's photo

Sileia

Sat 09/05/15 10:05 AM

I do not mean laugh at her. I do not agree with her. It kinda liked she telling people who they can married. She did not perform cermony that is.Or say things. If she dTid not give the license out to a people she should not taken the job simple put as the clerk. There plenty other people who would do her job she neglect to a do with the license.That is what I think if she did not want to a do there plenty jobs she could taken that is.
Lpdon's photo

Lpdon

Sat 09/05/15 11:50 AM






I respect this woman's desire to stand up for her convictions, but she should have just quit. I wouldn't work at a meat factory where they butcher animals, and she shouldn't work for the clerk's office where she is required to give licenses for gay marriages. Leaving her job is the only legal (and imo honorable) way for her to stay true to her convictions.


Actually her lawyers offered a compromise, her name being removed from the marriage certificate. I love how almost all of the mainstream media ignore that one big point.


Was this offer rejected by the opposite side, or by the judge? It sounded to me like the judge was being needlessly heavy handed. I honestly don't know if such certificates would be equally valid, or if she would be properly executing her duties under that kind of compromise.


The judge.


Seems like maybe this judge took personal offense at some things, and might not have been interested in a reasonable compromise.


Yea he did, and she is not helping her matters by baiting the judge through her attorney's saying the certificate's issued while she is in jail are invalid because they don't have her signature.
no photo

SassyEuro2

Sat 09/05/15 11:52 AM


I note that for many of you the solution seems to be "Well if she doesn't like it she should quit." is your mantra. Well a couple of points.

1) The clerks position, and handing out marriages licenses was taking place looong before the decision by the Supreme Court. So arguably, she can say her job description has changed, and she doesn't like the change. Let's say next week your boss comes to you and says you are now doing the work of another employee plus your own for no increase in pay or benefits. Don't like it? Think it's unfair to you? Then live your opinion, and just quit your job the next day. Explain to the bank taking back your car and house in 4 months how you are making a statement.
2) Much has been made that she can't just claim her belief system as justification for denying people service, and how she needs to just suck it up and do it. Ok, no problem. YOU own a coffee shop. You notice the same group of 4-5 guys come in every Saturday morning and talk about their fantasy of molesting kids. Seems they belong to NAMBLA, an organization that believes men and underage boys should be allowed romantic relationships without fear of legal or moral punishment. This is a 10 out of 10 on the 'ewww gross' scale. The law says people can talk about whatever they want. Free speech right? However the conversations are offensive to your staff and surrounding customers. You gonna ask them to leave and not come back because the conversation is morally offensive to you and others? Can you in good faith continue to provide them a place to meet and by doing so tacitly encourage their conversations and behaviors? Your moral compass has no right to decide to whom you will provide your services?
3) Same problem again, if you owned the infamous 'Christian bakery' and a pedophile comes in wanting you to bake a cake saying "Molest Kids!". You gonna say 'Nope. Sorry. That's where I draw the line.'? Go ahead, have a conscience, but based on recent legal case law, be prepared to lay out a 6 figure settlement cheque, because you don't get to refuse anyone, anymore.

I'm not saying I agree with her defying the court, however there's no provision for her supervisor to step in? Appoint another employee the duty of handling the 'gay people'? What happens when she's sick or goes on vacation? Do they just stop handing out licenses until she comes back to the office? I'm sure some other arrangement could have been made instead of forcing her to go to jail for her beliefs.

Funny though how we have to conform to other religious beliefs in the workplace. Some companies prohibit ham sandwiches or other pork products so as not to offend Muslims or Jews on staff. Many companies provide rooms in offices for Muslim prayer. Funny how they are referred to as multi-faith rooms, like anyone can go at any time and pray. Since Christian faiths don't have a 5 times a day rule like Islam, can you really tell your boss you want 5 prayer breaks a day for Jesus? We have companies that must allow hijabs and burkas in the workplace, regardless if they present a safety hazard. So a Muslim woman working a machine with exposed running gear can wear her hijab even though it might strangle her if it gets caught.

We've had cases in Canada where Sikhs didn't want to wear motorcycle helmets over their headgear. Where they didn't want to wear helmets during military training on a grenade range. Where they insisted they be allowed to carry knives called kirpans since it is used to defend their religion from those who would insult it or them. Our police departments came up with colour co-ordinated turbans for those wanting to serve. So the blue turban for being in uniform, and the white one for working undercover?

In the end I applaud this woman for living her morals and values, even though it has cost her some freedom. How this comes to a conclusion for her (and other Christians) is going to be interesting.



surprised




:banana:
no photo

SassyEuro2

Sat 09/05/15 11:48 AM


The circus side-show, has overrun the village.
:thumbsup:



rofl
no photo

SassyEuro2

Sat 09/05/15 12:03 PM






I respect this woman's desire to stand up for her convictions, but she should have just quit. I wouldn't work at a meat factory where they butcher animals, and she shouldn't work for the clerk's office where she is required to give licenses for gay marriages. Leaving her job is the only legal (and imo honorable) way for her to stay true to her convictions.


Actually her lawyers offered a compromise, her name being removed from the marriage certificate. I love how almost all of the mainstream media ignore that one big point.


Was this offer rejected by the opposite side, or by the judge? It sounded to me like the judge was being needlessly heavy handed. I honestly don't know if such certificates would be equally valid, or if she would be properly executing her duties under that kind of compromise.


The judge.


Seems like maybe this judge took personal offense at some things, and might not have been interested in a reasonable compromise.


He was NOT offended, he was doing his AGENDA job.
* Answering to HIS higher authority....
guess who? devil *
Just like the media NOT giving airtime & few articles on ALL the people in the country who object, including Senators & people refused to issue certificates or the judges who refused to perform the ceremony.... before her.


Well.. we know who wins in the end. :wink:
And this woman sitting in jail is one for HIM :angel:
The stars in her crown are looking good... :thumbsup:
germanchoclate1981's photo

germanchoclate1981

Sat 09/05/15 02:25 PM


I note that for many of you the solution seems to be "Well if she doesn't like it she should quit." is your mantra. Well a couple of points.

1) The clerks position, and handing out marriages licenses was taking place looong before the decision by the Supreme Court. So arguably, she can say her job description has changed, and she doesn't like the change. Let's say next week your boss comes to you and says you are now doing the work of another employee plus your own for no increase in pay or benefits. Don't like it? Think it's unfair to you? Then live your opinion, and just quit your job the next day. Explain to the bank taking back your car and house in 4 months how you are making a statement.
2) Much has been made that she can't just claim her belief system as justification for denying people service, and how she needs to just suck it up and do it. Ok, no problem. YOU own a coffee shop. You notice the same group of 4-5 guys come in every Saturday morning and talk about their fantasy of molesting kids. Seems they belong to NAMBLA, an organization that believes men and underage boys should be allowed romantic relationships without fear of legal or moral punishment. This is a 10 out of 10 on the 'ewww gross' scale. The law says people can talk about whatever they want. Free speech right? However the conversations are offensive to your staff and surrounding customers. You gonna ask them to leave and not come back because the conversation is morally offensive to you and others? Can you in good faith continue to provide them a place to meet and by doing so tacitly encourage their conversations and behaviors? Your moral compass has no right to decide to whom you will provide your services?
3) Same problem again, if you owned the infamous 'Christian bakery' and a pedophile comes in wanting you to bake a cake saying "Molest Kids!". You gonna say 'Nope. Sorry. That's where I draw the line.'? Go ahead, have a conscience, but based on recent legal case law, be prepared to lay out a 6 figure settlement cheque, because you don't get to refuse anyone, anymore.

I'm not saying I agree with her defying the court, however there's no provision for her supervisor to step in? Appoint another employee the duty of handling the 'gay people'? What happens when she's sick or goes on vacation? Do they just stop handing out licenses until she comes back to the office? I'm sure some other arrangement could have been made instead of forcing her to go to jail for her beliefs.

Funny though how we have to conform to other religious beliefs in the workplace. Some companies prohibit ham sandwiches or other pork products so as not to offend Muslims or Jews on staff. Many companies provide rooms in offices for Muslim prayer. Funny how they are referred to as multi-faith rooms, like anyone can go at any time and pray. Since Christian faiths don't have a 5 times a day rule like Islam, can you really tell your boss you want 5 prayer breaks a day for Jesus? We have companies that must allow hijabs and burkas in the workplace, regardless if they present a safety hazard. So a Muslim woman working a machine with exposed running gear can wear her hijab even though it might strangle her if it gets caught.

We've had cases in Canada where Sikhs didn't want to wear motorcycle helmets over their headgear. Where they didn't want to wear helmets during military training on a grenade range. Where they insisted they be allowed to carry knives called kirpans since it is used to defend their religion from those who would insult it or them. Our police departments came up with colour co-ordinated turbans for those wanting to serve. So the blue turban for being in uniform, and the white one for working undercover?

In the end I applaud this woman for living her morals and values, even though it has cost her some freedom. How this comes to a conclusion for her (and other Christians) is going to be interesting.


1 This has been in legal action for a few years. At least over a year ago Magistrates that perform the ceremonies have been ordered to step down for refusing to perform their LEGAL duties. She had plenty of time to request an alternative solution that didn't infringe on anyone else's rights. No one is LEGALLY required to adhere to her RELIGIOUS beliefs.
2 Discussion of criminal activities that are offensive and actually posing a danger to children is very different from peacefully seeking a supreme court compelled LEGAL document which it was the clerks LEGAL duty to provide.

† the couples were not seeking RELIGIOUS action or practice.
* the couples were seeking a LEGAL document.
? the clerk refused to perform her LEGAL duty of her Public Office for a RELIGIOUS reason. She must have forgotten the \\Separation of Church and State// being part of why the U.S. broke ties with England declaring US as a new Nation.
* the U.S. Supreme Court made quite clear that she was breaking the law in a public office by imposing her RELIGIOUS beliefs in a LEGAL process in a LEGAL capacity and issued a LEGAL order she CHOSE to disobey.
* she broke the law anyway. Openly defiant to the highest Court as an elected public servant operating in an ILLEGAL capacity in the public spolight.
msharmony's photo

msharmony

Sat 09/05/15 03:09 PM

passive resistance has changed many things

I respect her stand and her values, I believe she is being made an example of (judges have options in their decisions, there is rarely a one size fits all that a Judge HAS to hand down)


I too believe it unrealistic and kind of asinine to tell people for any reason who have worked honestly in a position that pays their bills that if something changes they should just 'quit',,,


both sides stood their ground, the female has less power than the judge or the current laws,, but in numbers, sometimes laws can be adjusted,,,,

a lesson well learned from the droves of same sex supporters who had marriage redefined

or the legions of human and decent people who fought for slaves to be treated in the law as something more than just property,,,,
no photo

alleoops

Sat 09/05/15 03:12 PM

Let's stone her!pitchfork
germanchoclate1981's photo

germanchoclate1981

Sat 09/05/15 04:09 PM


passive resistance has changed many things

I respect her stand and her values, I believe she is being made an example of (judges have options in their decisions, there is rarely a one size fits all that a Judge HAS to hand down)


I too believe it unrealistic and kind of asinine to tell people for any reason who have worked honestly in a position that pays their bills that if something changes they should just 'quit',,,


both sides stood their ground, the female has less power than the judge or the current laws,, but in numbers, sometimes laws can be adjusted,,,,

a lesson well learned from the droves of same sex supporters who had marriage redefined

or the legions of human and decent people who fought for slaves to be treated in the law as something more than just property,,,,

I don't think that 'same sex supporters redefined marriage'.
I know the Supreme Court amended a LEGAL law for LEGAL purposes to provide EQUAL RIGHTS to HUMANS who are tax paying citizens.
I don't think the 'woman has less power than the judge or current laws'.
I know the Elected official purposely denied to produce a LEGAL document for RELIGIOUS reasons which was made quite clear to her was ILLEGAL. It's not about it being a woman. Several male magistrates have stepped down before this happened because they understood that their RELIGIOUS beliefs do not overrule their LEGAL obligation to their constituents. She does not have LEGAL AUTHORITY to deny anyone LEGAL documents for RELIGIOUS reasons.
It's not about sex, it's not about power. It's about LEGAL AUTHORITY.
No County Clerks have LEGAL AUTHORITY to tell the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT to stuff it, not for PERSONAL RELIGIOUS beliefs or any other reason.
msharmony's photo

msharmony

Sat 09/05/15 04:15 PM

a truly 'equal' right has no qualifiers

I believe relatives still have no 'right' to marriage, so marriage has simply been redefined to include same sex, but not made an 'equal right' for all citizens at all


she should not have the power to deny a legal document, but she should be able to choose what her name goes onto if it conflicts with her religious values and if that documents nature has changed,,,


in any case, people have been willing to break 'laws' before to stand up for a principle,,,sometimes if enough people do, others take note and amend or at least compromise

sometimes they don't


I have a feeling the LGBT community has too much power for the latter to be the case here, but I respect a fellow Christian for not wishing to take part in participating in signing her name, and therefore her consent to, that particular 'contractual' agreement..

she will not have this job when she is done, but she will earn enough respect to have another waiting somewhere

this will happen, everything that changes will be changed in the name of not allowing 'religion' to rule our laws


I have accepted that knowledge at this point,,,but respect those strong enough not to live in it or of it,,, themselves,,,
Edited by msharmony on Sat 09/05/15 04:20 PM
no photo

ShaggyMotorMan

Sat 09/05/15 04:22 PM

There are a large number of things getting confused here, perhaps deliberately.

There is the law of the land, and the law of (some) God. They are not the same.

There is what is just and what is legal. They are not necessarily the same either.

In this particular case, the elected official swore an oath to uphold the law of the land. The law of her God, be it Amun, Ra, or Ba'al, is entirely irrelevant.

S.
msharmony's photo

msharmony

Sat 09/05/15 05:37 PM


There are a large number of things getting confused here, perhaps deliberately.

There is the law of the land, and the law of (some) God. They are not the same.

There is what is just and what is legal. They are not necessarily the same either.

In this particular case, the elected official swore an oath to uphold the law of the land. The law of her God, be it Amun, Ra, or Ba'al, is entirely irrelevant.

S.



not entirely,, the law of the land is in many cases also the law of God

in fact, I would argue most law is also included in 'Gods law' but we only call them 'religious' when we no longer wish to abide anymore,, than God gets all the blame/responsibility for us having them at all,,

not stealing, not killing, not committing adultery,, all offesnes that MAN also has consequences for


what is just and what is legal are different, I agree

when the law of the land conflicts with religous beliefs, it conflicts with the constituion that declares that congress shall make no law supporting or PROHIBITING free exercise of

in the law, if I sign something, I am giving my CONSENT

if there is a document that requires me to consent to something that is against my religious exercise,,, its imposing to force my consent anyway

or at least its not as simplistic as religion being 'irrelevant;
Edited by msharmony on Sat 09/05/15 05:38 PM
metalwing's photo

metalwing

Sat 09/05/15 05:45 PM

And how many thousands of felons got turned out into the streets?
no photo

Pansytilly

Sat 09/05/15 07:40 PM


I note that for many of you the solution seems to be "Well if she doesn't like it she should quit." is your mantra. Well a couple of points.

1) The clerks position, and handing out marriages licenses was taking place looong before the decision by the Supreme Court. So arguably, she can say her job description has changed, and she doesn't like the change. Let's say next week your boss comes to you and says you are now doing the work of another employee plus your own for no increase in pay or benefits. Don't like it? Think it's unfair to you? Then live your opinion, and just quit your job the next day. Explain to the bank taking back your car and house in 4 months how you are making a statement.
2) Much has been made that she can't just claim her belief system as justification for denying people service, and how she needs to just suck it up and do it. Ok, no problem. YOU own a coffee shop. You notice the same group of 4-5 guys come in every Saturday morning and talk about their fantasy of molesting kids. Seems they belong to NAMBLA, an organization that believes men and underage boys should be allowed romantic relationships without fear of legal or moral punishment. This is a 10 out of 10 on the 'ewww gross' scale. The law says people can talk about whatever they want. Free speech right? However the conversations are offensive to your staff and surrounding customers. You gonna ask them to leave and not come back because the conversation is morally offensive to you and others? Can you in good faith continue to provide them a place to meet and by doing so tacitly encourage their conversations and behaviors? Your moral compass has no right to decide to whom you will provide your services?
3) Same problem again, if you owned the infamous 'Christian bakery' and a pedophile comes in wanting you to bake a cake saying "Molest Kids!". You gonna say 'Nope. Sorry. That's where I draw the line.'? Go ahead, have a conscience, but based on recent legal case law, be prepared to lay out a 6 figure settlement cheque, because you don't get to refuse anyone, anymore.

I'm not saying I agree with her defying the court, however there's no provision for her supervisor to step in? Appoint another employee the duty of handling the 'gay people'? What happens when she's sick or goes on vacation? Do they just stop handing out licenses until she comes back to the office? I'm sure some other arrangement could have been made instead of forcing her to go to jail for her beliefs.

Funny though how we have to conform to other religious beliefs in the workplace. Some companies prohibit ham sandwiches or other pork products so as not to offend Muslims or Jews on staff. Many companies provide rooms in offices for Muslim prayer. Funny how they are referred to as multi-faith rooms, like anyone can go at any time and pray. Since Christian faiths don't have a 5 times a day rule like Islam, can you really tell your boss you want 5 prayer breaks a day for Jesus? We have companies that must allow hijabs and burkas in the workplace, regardless if they present a safety hazard. So a Muslim woman working a machine with exposed running gear can wear her hijab even though it might strangle her if it gets caught.

We've had cases in Canada where Sikhs didn't want to wear motorcycle helmets over their headgear. Where they didn't want to wear helmets during military training on a grenade range. Where they insisted they be allowed to carry knives called kirpans since it is used to defend their religion from those who would insult it or them. Our police departments came up with colour co-ordinated turbans for those wanting to serve. So the blue turban for being in uniform, and the white one for working undercover?

In the end I applaud this woman for living her morals and values, even though it has cost her some freedom. How this comes to a conclusion for her (and other Christians) is going to be interesting.



This is a very good argument.

I work in healthcare and many issues on differences in belief crop up.

Ex. Some beliefs to not allow blood transfusion.
Whether this be a patient or a doctor belief, medical systems dictate that there are cases requiring blood transfusion. And should things go out of hand, medical malpractice or neglect can always take effect. And this goes for both private institutes and government employed doctors.

I agree with the fact that a superior officer or personnel should've stepped in and smoothed things out one way or another before things got out of hand. Or she could've requested for someone else to process the paper. Or a separate queue can be made for these circumstances that will not encroach on personal beliefs. This may not be easy to do under the circumstances, but that is how working for the government is sometimes. Being a public servant means that you look out for the public's welfare, and this would include not only the rights and legal personality of private citizens but also of civil employees.

There is a fine line between separation of church and state. But that line still exists in many countries. It is not hard to see that line and not intentionally step over it if mutual respect between both is observed.
Edited by Pansytilly on Sat 09/05/15 07:45 PM
germanchoclate1981's photo

germanchoclate1981

Sat 09/05/15 11:53 PM


a truly 'equal' right has no qualifiers

I believe relatives still have no 'right' to marriage, so marriage has simply been redefined to include same sex, but not made an 'equal right' for all citizens at all


she should not have the power to deny a legal document, but she should be able to choose what her name goes onto if it conflicts with her religious values and if that documents nature has changed,,,


in any case, people have been willing to break 'laws' before to stand up for a principle,,,sometimes if enough people do, others take note and amend or at least compromise

sometimes they don't


I have a feeling the LGBT community has too much power for the latter to be the case here, but I respect a fellow Christian for not wishing to take part in participating in signing her name, and therefore her consent to, that particular 'contractual' agreement..

she will not have this job when she is done, but she will earn enough respect to have another waiting somewhere

this will happen, everything that changes will be changed in the name of not allowing 'religion' to rule our laws


I have accepted that knowledge at this point,,,but respect those strong enough not to live in it or of it,,, themselves,,,


a truly 'equal' right has no qualifiers

I believe relatives still have no 'right' to marriage, so marriage has simply been redefined to include same sex, but not made an 'equal right' for all citizens at all

--- The opposite is true and I'll tell you why.
'Rights' without qualifiers, as proven by several Supreme Court rulings have pointed out, lead only to lawlessness and inequality. 'We the People' applied to all citizens but certain rights were limited to protect the People from a dictatorship such as checks and balances. If the President wants to declare war on Uruguay but the people don't and the congress has no interest or cause to declare war, 1 PERSON cannot declare war. 2 PEOPLE can't. It has to be ratified in the house and the senate. If our next President has a grudge with a drug Lord or cartel there he or she can't make a decision that applies to everyone.

Now, replace the drug cartel for the Pope and his country, the Vatican. In short RELIGION. Let's say the new Pres is Baptist and wants to take out the Pope and the Vatican. The military would have to go through Italy to get to the Vatican. This would obviously be troubling to military and civilians who are Catholic. Pres would be ORDERING ( a legal written order) them to wipe out their own religion. BUT... They would be denied their freedom of religion in the process. This would be terrible. Dissention, desertion, treason, mayhem, martial law, assassination attempts, succession, possible civil war 2.0, possible anarchy and total destruction. This is why our Clerks and magistrates ALONE do not have the LEGAL AUTHORITY to deny LEGAL action for RELIGIOUS reasons. LEGAL. procedure takes place in a LEGAL capacity in a LEGAL facility. It's not religious. It's not non religious. It's LEGAL, and sad that there has to be qualifiers for those rights to be protected and recognized by the State LEGALLY (not condoned religiously) but the qualifiers ensure that the States recognize these HUMAN BEINGS as such and do not allow any Clerk Judge or Magistrates to discriminate against them for their PERSONAL RELIGIOUS beliefs.

Churches who wish to deny to do Religious ceremonies are not affected. They differ from one denomination to the next their acceptance of polygamy, divorce..... None of that has changed.


Note: even people who have a ceremony in a church temple, home, other location performed by a religious authority is not recognized LEGALLY by the State unless they are issued a Marriage License, a LEGAL document.
mikeybgood1's photo

mikeybgood1

Sun 09/06/15 07:35 AM

Well I laughed my a$$ off when the White House press secretary commented that no one in America is above the law including the President. We all have to follow the law.

Wow. Really? So how come Hillary is still out on the street? Eric Holder for Fast and Furious? Lois Lerner for IRS-gate? All the underlings who were complicit in helping to hide documents/behaviors/audio/video of numerous suspected transgressions?

Obama should be in jail for treason by supplying weapons to ISIS, and former general Patraeus for suggesting publicly that the U.S. arm al-Qaeda so that THEY can beat ISIS?

These are not quibbling around the edges of political philosophy and trying to smear someone, this is the government being complicit in providing deadly weapons to drug cartels and terrorists. This is a government employee deciding that political opponents do not deserve the benefits of the tax code her own party utilizes, and attempts to affect the outcomes of elections in the process. It's about directing others to engage in this behavior as well, and lie about it.

So before the government wants to publicly berate a single woman (war against Christian women anyone?) for exercising her belief system, maybe it should clean up it's act first?

*drops mic*
no photo

JOHNN111

Sun 09/06/15 08:50 AM

There is nothing commendable about her self serving ways.

The judge gave her a week in jail for going against the law of the land. Let's give her time to reflect on this, holding the gay community hostage is her choice. When they let her out, she should be given the same choices, sign the damn documents, resign or face 2 years in jail with a record... I don't think county clerks can serve the community with a criminal record. There should be no compromises to deter other religious heroes out there.

She's under the authority of God she says... pffft what a joke
no photo

alleoops

Sun 09/06/15 09:49 AM

Maybe the government should get out of the marriage license business.
just saying...