Kentucky clerk who refused gay couples taken into federal custody; ordered jailed

[TracerBullet]

She refused that option as well. She ordered all her staff to not issue any marriage licenses to anyone at all. And now that she's in jail, the office has been issuing licenses and she's saying they aren't valid because they don't have her signature on them.

So she's even refusing reasonable compromises that would allow her to not violate her faith while allowing the taxpayers of the county to receive the legal services her office exists to provide.

I'm sure these decisions were encouraged by her lawyer. Davis is a huge cash cow for the Liberty Council and the more they keep her in the public eye the more money they are going to get.

 

[Jose Fly]

So if you don't care for that you'll have to change the Constitution itself. And there's just not the will or numbers to do it.

That's one of the conclusions I've taken from this issue....a lot of fundamentalist Christians simply do not like our system of government.

 

[TracerBullet]

I see a good rehashing of tired old arguments here. Indeed, the term "homosexual" did not exist in biblical times as it is a modern, social construct. The whole idea of sexual orientation is a social construct, but the gay rights lobby go around peddling it as scientific fact. The Bible does however prohibit sexual relations between two people of the same sex. There is no way around it other than obfuscation and intellectual dishonesty. The Bible is crystal clear on this, and only those with an anti biblical agenda would say otherwise.

I see you're currently banned, so this response is for anyone else who read your post.

The bible also prohibits divorce, wedding rings, Christmas trees, women wearing pants, cutting your hair and wearing poly-cotton blends.

 

[Jose Fly]

She is not ignorant!

She is being extremely ignorant of our system of government.

Does it occur to you that A4T is interpreting the facts of this situation according to her best abilities?

That's probably true....she's just doing the best she can.

She is being honest and open. No need to be insulting.

Funny how that sentiment never came after all the names she's called me.

Tribalism.

 

[TracerBullet]

She is not ignorant! You are being very unpleasant.
Does it occur to you that A4T is interpreting the facts of this situation according to her best abilities? She is being honest and open. No need to be insulting.

A4T routinely ignores facts not to her liking. The A4T statements Jose Fly quotes have been refuted many times here yet she she continues to present them.

 

[ok doser]

The bible also prohibits divorce, wedding rings, Christmas trees, women wearing pants, cutting your hair and wearing poly-cotton blends.

... and murder, and stealing, and adultery...


traci - who do you think you're fooling by calling yourself a Christian?

 

[TracerBullet]

No! Facts are rarely frustrating.
It is interpretation of facts that may become frustrating.

I providing a link to the congressional record showing that the 14th amendment really was ratified by Congress. Facts. what other way is there to interpret that?

 

[Traditio]

I don't care how it strikes you Trad. It's not an ad hom if it's true and with the least research you could ascertain that for yourself...or do this instead. It's of no particular matter to me how you paint yourself, so long as you know what you're doing.

Are you saying that x is false because A asserts that x is true? If that's your claim, then that's an ad hominem.

If your claim is that we do not have a compelling reason to believe that x is true because A asserts it, that that might be OK depending on the circumstances.

Either way, shouldn't we evaluate the claims on their own merit, and not based on who says it? :idunno:

I'm just not interested in playing this game with you. Look into it yourself. You'll find numerous examples like the following:

Your claim was that we should reject the source I cited because it was biased. Chances are, any source that you can cite that will tell me that Fox news is a bad news source is itself a biased, politically motivated source.

When it comes to political matters in the U.S., there is going to be bias. There is going to be political motivation. If you want less bias, we have to start looking at international news sources like the bbc news network.

And even there, I'm sure that someone is going to cry about bias.

So why not just skip the whining about bias and just look at the claims themselves which are being made? If it's true, it's going to be true regardless of who says it, and likewise the other way around.

Fox News has...formally apologized for an “expert” who claimed last week that large swaths of European cities have been taken over by Muslim extremists. The completely unsubstantiated assertion drew the ire of many Europeans, including British Prime Minister David Cameron, who called Fox News terrorism expert Steven Emerson “a complete idiot.”

This is a single instance of a single guy making bad claims. Fox news recognized and apologised for the error. What's your point? Your claim is that Fox news, in its entirety and on the whole, is more untrustworthy than other news sources.

I use it because here Fox is noting its own error. But you noted Fox looking at an allegation as though it somehow legitimized the concern. Not necessarily so.

It wasn't a single anchor making a single claim in a single instance. The IRS thing is something that they pretty consistently latched on to for a while. They even, at one point, called in a bunch of people who had actually been targeted and interviewed them. It was kind of a scandal. :idunno:

Let me be clear. I'm not a particular fan of Fox news. That said, I think that people who tend to be extremely against Fox news only are against Fox news because of their own political biases.

Fox news are pretty much the only ones who dare to call a spade a spade, e.g., and call the terrorist organization 'ISIS." Everyone else is willing to perpetrate a possible deception and call the organization "ISIL" because that makes Obama look good. Right?

I don't know how objectively true the statement is on the whole, who was responsible to the extent it is true if it is, but I know that until there's actual proof of wrongdoing on the part of the President it doesn't amount to an indictment of him.

This is a fair point. Nonetheless, it does raise the question, doesn't it? It does raise some degree of suspicion. :idunno:

What things? It certainly invalidates it as much of a parallel to the current situation.

Would you only be insisting that Kim Davis either "do her job or resign" if she had been issued a court order?

Sorry, but I don't have the specifics on that in front of me. What law are you alleging he violated and what, if anything, has Congress done about whatever the outrage was?

See here and here.

He delayed the institution of the Obamacare employer mandate without congress changing the law or giving him the authority or mandate to do so.

It took me all of a minute to find the answer here. Maybe before you rest your hopes on it you might look into it as well. Mostly it's a question of funding. Congress said build it then failed to fund it sufficiently to finish it.

Oh. I didn't know that.

Either way, somebody failed to do their job, and I'm pretty sure they didn't resign. Whether that was a Republican congressman or a Democratic senator, someone failed to do his or job. :idunno:

Because despite your best lazy efforts this isn't about the President and what you've offered isn't standing up. Else and if something does I've already answered on the point, for him or anyone.

I'll address this in another posting.

 

[TracerBullet]

... and murder, and stealing, and adultery...

Unlike the examples i gave all of which involve intrinsic harm to others and none which would be covered by the New Covenant.

traci - who do you think you're fooling by calling yourself a Christian?

I don't need to fool anyone. You aren't an arbitrator of anyone's religion, that is something between the individual and God

You aren't the first to launch this particular personal attack so lets cut to the chase. What you are saying is I couldn't possibly be a Christian because i don't hate the same people that you do. So let's see your list - just how who do i have to hate to be a Christian in your eyes? We know gays are there, what about blacks? Jews? Buddhists? Hispanics? the handicapped? the poor? Just how big and perverse of a bigot does someone have to be to get a pass from you?

 

[TracerBullet]

This is a single instance of a single guy making bad claims. Fox news recognized and apologised for the error. What's your point? Your claim is that Fox news, in its entirety and on the whole, is more untrustworthy than other news sources.



It wasn't a single anchor making a single claim in a single instance. The IRS thing is something that they pretty consistently latched on to for a while. They even, at one point, called in a bunch of people who had actually been targeted and interviewed them. It was kind of a scandal. :idunno:

Let me be clear. I'm not a particular fan of Fox news. That said, I think that people who tend to be extremely against Fox news only are against Fox news because of their own political biases.

Fox news are pretty much the only ones who dare to call a spade a spade, e.g., and call the terrorist organization 'ISIS." Everyone else is willing to perpetrate a possible deception and call the organization "ISIL" because that makes Obama look good. Right?

NO, people are against Fox News because the majority of the claims presented there are false

 

[Traditio]

Here are my general thoughts on the case:

1. Kim Davis is a hypocrit. I find it positively amazing that she has religious or moral objections about who should or shouldn't be getting married.

2. Contempt of court is contempt of court. That said, this second view is opposed by the following considerations:

3. Is the court order itself constitutional? If it violates the first amendment, then the argument that contempt of court is contempt of court is not really a compelling argument.

4. The liberal cry of "do your job or resign" implies that there are some jobs which should be closed to faithful Jews, Muslims and Christians. I find this unacceptable. To which the liberal will say: "By all means, be a faithful Jew, Muslim or Christian, but still do your job." To which I'll answer that this is a contradiction: if I am a faithful Jew, Muslim or Christian, I cannot in good conscience "do my job" in the precise sense that the liberal insists.

This is a claim that the liberal makes about adoption agencies, medical staff, etc. Sorry, but the Catholic adoption agency isn't giving children to homosexuals. Sorry, but the Catholic hospital won't do abortions. (Presupposing, of course, that the Catholic adoption agency and hospital "stick to their religious convictions," so to speak. (It must be remembered, however, that the prohibition against abortion and sodomy is not primarily religious; these are natural law prohibitions)).

They "won't do their jobs" in the way that you want them to. Either you have to accept that, or else, you'll demand that they "resign."

So what you are saying is that Jews, Muslims and Christians, if they actually believe what they believe, shouldn't be in the adoption, medical or clerk of court professions. That's unreasonable. That's sheer bigotry on the part of the social liberal.

5. And finally, this expectation is simply unreasonable. The issue of "gay marriage" is extremely controversial. A large portion of the U.S. is Christian, Jewish or Muslim.

 

[chrysostom]

Here are my general thoughts on the case:

1. Kim Davis is a hypocrit.

whoa!

no need to read any further

I won't even ask you to explain that

she has my respect

you don't

 

[Traditio]

whoa!

no need to read any further

I won't even ask you to explain that

she has my respect

you don't

Kim Davis has been "married" four times. I read somewhere that she got pregnant for "husband" number 3 while still married to husband number 1.

She has religious objections? Really?

 

[chrysostom]

Kim Davis has been "married" four times. I read somewhere that she got pregnant for "husband" number 3 while still married to husband number 1.

is that why she is in jail?
you really are an idiot

she is in jail because her name is on the license
and
she does not approve of same sex marriage

what part of that don't you understand

you idiot

 

[Traditio]

is that why she is in jail?
you really are an idiot

she is in jail because her name is on the license
and
she does not approve of same sex marriage

what part of that don't you understand

you idiot

With all due respect, Chrysostom, read the rest of what I wrote.

 

[chrysostom]

With all due respect, Chrysostom, read the rest of what I wrote.

no

because I have sinned
and
I have no right to call you an idiot
but
I am still a sinner

you are an idiot

 

[kmoney]

Kim Davis has been "married" four times. I read somewhere that she got pregnant for "husband" number 3 while still married to husband number 1.

She has religious objections? Really?

A4T posted about this earlier and if I recall correctly she only became a Christian during this last marriage. Or before this last marriage. Something like that.

 

[Town Heretic]

Are you saying that x is false because A asserts that x is true? If that's your claim, then that's an ad hominem.

No. That wasn't what I was saying. I was speaking to whether it is reasonable to believe someone who you know has gotten things wrong and more than once on important matters, to nutshell.

If your claim is that we do not have a compelling reason to believe that x is true because A asserts it, that that might be OK depending on the circumstances.

My claim was there's no substantive reason to believe the charge and that absent substantive reason, which would likely lead to some sort of action on the part of those with an interest to act, it's just an allegation.

Either way, shouldn't we evaluate the claims on their own merit, and not based on who says it? :idunno:

Part of the evaluation is in looking at who says what and with what foundation. An eyewitness, by way of, presents a form of evidence.

Your claim was that we should reject the source I cited because it was biased.

Not precisely, no. But there's no good reason to credit it absent corroboration.

When it comes to political matters in the U.S., there is going to be bias. There is going to be political motivation. If you want less bias, we have to start looking at international news sources like the bbc news network.

No, those are just different biases in play. Best to weed fact from speculation and allegation.

So why not just skip the whining

Only a man without a leg to stand on calls a man standing on two of them "stumpy".

This is a single instance of a single guy making bad claims.

It's more than that. It's an example where Fox admits to making the error. Do you believe it was the only error of a substantive nature they've made? And if so, did Fox News tell you that?

Like I said, look into it. That's how informed opinions are fashioned.

Fox news recognized and apologised for the error. What's your point? Your claim is that Fox news, in its entirety and on the whole, is more untrustworthy than other news sources.

I don't believe you'll find I compared them to anyone. I noted a problem and an example that should lead a reasonable man to mistrust taking their discussing a thing or even spinning a general belief from it at face value. Before that I made the reasonable assertion that allegation absent proof is just that.

The IRS thing is something that they pretty consistently latched on to for a while.

I didn't say the IRS didn't behave improperly. The point of the dubious listing was to point an unproven finger of guilt at the President.

Let me be clear. I'm not a particular fan of Fox news.

It's entertaining. Smith is a hoot, but I'd hope anyone interested in a truth, politically involved, would look across a variety of sources for both fact and perspective before forming their own.

That said, I think that people who tend to be extremely against Fox news only are against Fox news because of their own political biases.

That would be your own bias operating. First, who decides what constitutes "extremely"? Then what is the nature of that other bias? Is it a bias against a political philosophy or against a perception of unvarnished partisanship? So, depending on the objective basis for the bias it might or might not be a reasonable one. The proof is in what passes for pudding.

Fox news are pretty much the only ones who dare to call a spade a spade, e.g., and call the terrorist organization 'ISIS."

You're looking less like someone who isn't a particular fan with that sort of statement. What do the folks at CBS call ISIS? A fraternity?

Everyone else is willing to perpetrate a possible deception and call the organization "ISIL" because that makes Obama look good. Right?

See what I mean about bias? Everyone else, eh? And more, you know what everyone else's motivation is too. God knows what you would sound like were you a "particular fan". It's frightening to contemplate.

This is a fair point. Nonetheless, it does raise the question, doesn't it? It does raise some degree of suspicion. :idunno:

Some people find it unreasonable that Oliver North was held singularly responsible for what they believed was an effort by Reagan to circumvent the law and Congress. Where politics is concerned there is rarely an unreasonable question. So it raised a question that warranted investigation. It doesn't follow that without any additional fact or proof we should lay it at the feet of the President, no matter what we think of him. True of Reagan and true of Obama.

Would you only be insisting that Kim Davis either "do her job or resign" if she had been issued a court order?

I'm not sure of your question. As opposed to?

He delayed the institution of the Obamacare employer mandate without congress changing the law or giving him the authority or mandate to do so.

I know there's opinion on the point. Has he been charged or convicted of any legal wrongdoing? If not, why do you think that is...consider how strongly the right dislikes him and would love at any point to discredit him when you give your answer.

Oh. I didn't know that.

I gathered that, which goes back to my point about bias. Why wasn't your first impulse to say, "That's a serious charge. I should take a few seconds at least to look into it before resting any part of my opinion on it."

Because it literally took me less than 30 seconds to find the answer.

Either way, somebody failed to do their job, and I'm pretty sure they didn't resign. Whether that was a Republican congressman or a Democratic senator, someone failed to do his or job. :idunno:

Or a bunch of them, but that's not the point. The point made by the listing was to do what, again? And there you have it and why, as with Fox, it will take a great deal more than allegation to move me.

I'll address this in another posting.

:thumb:

 

[chrysostom]

A4T posted about this earlier and if I recall correctly she only became a Christian during this last marriage. Or before this last marriage. Something like that.

does that make a difference?

you can't be against same sex marriage
if
you are a sinner

what can you be against?

 

[Town Heretic]

Here are my general thoughts on the case:

1. Kim Davis is a hypocrit. I find it positively amazing that she has religious or moral objections about who should or shouldn't be getting married.

We differ. She's as entitled to her beliefs as anyone else. We're likely all hypocrites about something or at some point, but my understanding is that she converted after her latest marriage.

2. Contempt of court is contempt of court. That said, this second view is opposed by the following considerations:

You should have stopped at the first bit.

3. Is the court order itself constitutional? If it violates the first amendment, then the argument that contempt of court is contempt of court is not really a compelling argument.

It doesn't violate her rights. She has no right to deny anyone their legal right to a thing because she really, really believes she should. It's on par with a racist denying service to a black over the mark of Cain nonsense that some racists paraded back in the day. The judiciary, which decides constitutional questions, has rendered their holding. Now it's either a convention and amendment or it's done. And there simply aren't the numbers for that recourse, with no reasonable expectation that there will be, given how younger generations respond on the point.

4. The liberal cry of "do your job or resign" implies that there are some jobs which should be closed to faithful Jews, Muslims and Christians.

Wrong on both counts. First, it isn't a liberal thing to believe an officer of the court shouldn't obstruct justice and must perform the duties of her office. Many a conservative has said as much about others, including the President. Second, no one is suggesting a person of faith can't hold any position, elected or otherwise. Rather, if they hold that position they are as obligated as anyone else to do their job.

I find this unacceptable. To which the liberal will say: "By all means, be a faithful Jew, Muslim or Christian, but still do your job." To which I'll answer that this is a contradiction: if I am a faithful Jew, Muslim or Christian, I cannot in good conscience "do my job" in the precise sense that the liberal insists.

Then the same answer meets you that would meet a man to whom racism was a religious creed. Your right to believe is not an instrument to abridge or deny any contrary holder of moral or other view their rights.

5. And finally, this expectation is simply unreasonable. The issue of "gay marriage" is extremely controversial. A large portion of the U.S. is Christian, Jewish or Muslim

Popularity doesn't enter into right. When the Civil Rights movement won the field in the South and elsewhere do you believe there weren't significant portions of the population who were opposed to it, who firmly believed the law to be wrong?