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

[Traditio]

You appear to be saying that religious beliefs can be protected only if it's a widely held belief with a long history. Why does philosophy, western tradition, or what you think about its intrinsic evil matter to the JW who holds that belief? Religious beliefs are religious beliefs. Are only the majority to be protected? Freedoms are supposed to protect the minorities as well. And I doubt religious freedom laws mention philosophers and western traditions.

I'm not exactly sure how to answer your question, but I do think that the following points are worth noting:

If you tell the Jehovah's witness that, if he takes a certain job, he must administer blood transfusions, then you are inconveniencing a member of a tiny, insignificant very modern cult. [Note, of course, that I am not speaking in this way simply insofar as I am a Christian, Catholic, or anything else. This is just true. There's roughly 8 million of them. They were founded in the 1870s. I don't think that anyone who is even vaguely familiar with the sect would deny that they are, in at least some real sense of the word, a cult.] And you are only inconveniencing members of said tiny cult.

I can't think of anyone else who has a religious objection to this, or even a general moral objection to this. The JW are literally, as far as I am aware, the only people who would object. A tiny sect with an average membership, even recently, of roughly 8 million people, a tiny sect who believe nonsense that nobody before the 1870 believed.

And you know what? You probably aren't inconveniencing the JW that much. Chances are, he wouldn't want to be in those fields anyway.

If, however, you say: "You must formally cooperate with a gay 'marriage,'" you have literally just alienated the entire western tradition and not just the Judeo-Christian tradition, either.

I don't know how to express this in first amendment terms. But there is a real difference that nobody seems to care about or be talking about.

 

[kmoney]

are you okay with same sex marriage?

I already answered you.

 

[Traditio]

In this case, Kim Davis is a County Clerk, and we know one of the primary duties of that position is to issue marriage licenses to citizens of the county. Thus, she cannot argue that she had no idea that as county clerk, she would be asked to issue marriage licenses.

Again, this sounds good in the abstract, when you are being nice and vague. But you are being nice and vague. This reminds me of a bit from the Posterior Analytics:

"Did you know that all triangles have interior angles, the sum of which is 180 degrees?"

"Yes."

"Did you know that this triangle has interior angles, the sum of which is 180 degrees?"

"I didn't even know that triangle existed until you literally just drew it."

Sure, the county clerk has to issue marriage licenses. Nobody has a serious problem with that in general. That's not what the argument is about. And the fact that you are putting it in those terms is just flat out disingenuous on your part. :idunno:

Your examples are too vague. Is the Catholic doctor working at a clinic that performs abortions? And what kind of doctor is he? Is he a dermatologist?

This point isn't even worth answering.

Probably not in states that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Then just say what you mean: "Catholics should not be in the adoption profession."

If they take the same course as Kim Davis and not only refuse to issue the licenses, but also demand that no one else in the office issue them either, then no, they cannot hold the position.

Her contention is that even if someone else issues the license, she still has to sign it (and so herself cooperate).

Yes, in our society you are expected to follow the law. Imagine that.

This is a silly answer that liberals only make when the law is on their side.

"I don't care what your beliefs are, Rosa Parks. The law is the law." Nope. Don't hear liberals saying things like that.

Just as when a Muslim says "My religion dictates that I behead the person who disgraced my family", we say "No, your religion is not an excuse to break the law", when a Christian says "My religion dictates that I discriminate against gays", we say "No, your religion is not an excuse to break the law".

A. You insist on using "discriminate," which you and I both know is a legally and emotionally charged term. Why not more neutral language?

B. Again, there's no comparison. The difference is between doing and not doing something. The Muslim wants to do something, and the State says: "You can't do that." The Christian, Muslim or Jew, in my case, doesn't want to do something. He wants not to do something (e.g., commit an abortion, sign over a child to homosexual foster parents or cooperate in a gay "marriage").

But then, you social liberals apparently can't distinguish between acting and not acting. :idunno:

Um.....what? I never used that phrase.

Are you serious? Your rebuttal to the obvious (pointing out that if we allow one faith to be exempt from the law, we have to allow the same for others) is "but those aren't serious beliefs"?

Who in authority do you expect to rule on such a thing? What government official would you like to be in charge of deciding what is and isn't a serious belief?

See reply to Kmo.

What in the world are you talking about? Institutionalized racism was the norm in our country for the majority of its history.

Bolded the key words for you. You are welcome.

 

[chrysostom]

are you okay with same sex marriage?

I already answered you.

so you don't have the guts to answer it again?

 

[bybee]

So? I doubt they ever thought there would be a federal agency in charge of aviation either.



Man, but Christianity is taking a public beating over this. It is so entertaining to watch.

It does depend on one's vantage point?

 

[kmoney]

I'm not exactly sure how to answer your question, but I do think that the following points are worth noting:

If you tell the Jehovah's witness that, if he takes a certain job, he must administer blood transfusions, then you are inconveniencing a member of a tiny, insignificant very modern cult. [Note, of course, that I am not speaking in this way simply insofar as I am a Christian, Catholic, or anything else. This is just true. There's roughly 8 million of them. They were founded in the 1870s. I don't think that anyone who is even vaguely familiar with the sect would deny that they are, in at least some real sense of the word, a cult.] And you are only inconveniencing members of said tiny cult.

I can't think of anyone else who has a religious objection to this, or even a general moral objection to this. The JW are literally, as far as I am aware, the only people who would object. A tiny sect with an average membership, even recently, of roughly 8 million people, a tiny sect who believe nonsense that nobody before the 1870 believed.

And you know what? You probably aren't inconveniencing the JW that much. Chances are, he wouldn't want to be in those fields anyway.

If, however, you say: "You must formally cooperate with a gay 'marriage,'" you have literally just alienated the entire western tradition and not just the Judeo-Christian tradition, either.

I don't know how to express this in first amendment terms. But there is a real difference that nobody seems to care about or be talking about.

My questions still stand. You tie freedom of religion to how many hold the same beliefs. Minorities are supposed to be protected as well.

 

[kmoney]

so you don't have the guts to answer it again?

Oh, please.


http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4440099&postcount=414

 

[bybee]

So? I doubt they ever thought there would be a federal agency in charge of aviation either.



Man, but Christianity is taking a public beating over this. It is so entertaining to watch.

I am speaking of something society, up 'til now has regarded as aberrant behavior.
What science comes up with is something else entirely.
No doubt more and more behaviors once considered aberrant shall be considered normal and all shall be forced to accept it.
The accepting part is noxious to me.

 

[Traditio]

My questions still stand. You tie freedom of religion to how many hold the same beliefs. Minorities are supposed to be protected as well.

That's probably the purpose and intent of the 1st amendment. Again, I don't really know how to answer this point. It does not, however, I think, harm my point at all.

Your objection is: "What about the less popular ones? Shouldn't they get protection too?"

I'll reply: "Then a forteriori, the much more popular, historically entrenched, historically international and reasonable ones (i.e., those which hold positions which even philosophers of the non-Judeo-Christian tradition held) should be protected."

In other words:

You are saying: "The law should make allowance for the lesser."

I'll answer: "Then even more so, the law should make allowance for the greater."

No?

 

[Rusha]

If, however, you say: "You must formally cooperate with a gay 'marriage,'

How about stating the OBVIOUS ... "you must formally agree to do your job, which is subject to change without your approval".

Why exactly do you believe employees are hired? For their religion OR their experience and work ethic?

 

[kmoney]

That's probably the purpose and intent of the 1st amendment. Again, I don't really know how to answer this point. It does not, however, I think, harm my point at all.

Your objection is: "What about the less popular ones? Shouldn't they get protection too?"

I'll reply: "Then a forteriori, the much more popular, historically entrenched, historically international and reasonable ones (i.e., those which hold positions which even philosophers of the non-Judeo-Christian tradition held) should be protected."

In other words:

You are saying: "The law should make allowance for the lesser."

I'll answer: "Then even more so, the law should make allowance for the greater."

No?

I'm ok with giving certain allowances. And in this case I think a reasonable one was given which she didn't take.

 

[Traditio]

How about stating the OBVIOUS ... "you must formally agree to do your job, which is subject to change without your approval".

Why exactly do you believe employees are hired? For their religion OR their experience and work ethic?

That has limitations. There are certain parts of a "job description" that simply are not and cannot be considered acceptable in certain historical and social contexts. And note, I am not even making a religious or moral point, here.

Go to Iran and try to hire a female secretary who won't wear a veil. Just try.

 

[Traditio]

I'm ok with giving certain allowances. And in this case I think a reasonable one was given which she didn't take.

I don't know the specific laws in question. Do you?

If her contention is that, even if her deputies issue them, she still has to sign them, then I can see how that would be problematic for her.

 

[Rusha]

That has limitations. There are certain parts of a "job description" that simply are not and cannot be considered acceptable in certain historical and social contexts. And note, I am not even making a religious or moral point, here.

Go to Iran and try to hire a female secretary who won't wear a veil. Just try.

Your own argument defeats you.

I wouldn't go there because I know how children and women are treated in Iran. Just as I wouldn't take a job as a guard or doctor in a prison because I wouldn't wish to be responsible for the health and well being of murderers and rapists.

Conflict.Of.Interest.

 

[Foxfire]

I don't know the specific laws in question. Do you?

If her contention is that, even if her deputies issue them, she still has to sign them, then I can see how that would be problematic for her.

(c) The date and place the license is issued, and the signature of the county clerk or deputy clerk issuing the license.

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=36475

 

[kmoney]

I don't know the specific laws in question. Do you?

If her contention is that, even if her deputies issue them, she still has to sign them, then I can see how that would be problematic for her.

Apparently she doesn't have to sign but her name still appears somewhere on it.

 

[Jose Fly]

Again, this sounds good in the abstract, when you are being nice and vague.

No, that is reality. She's a county clerk and one of the primary duties of that position is to issue marriage licenses to citizens of the county.

Nothing abstract there at all, nor any need to analogize. Deal with the facts as they are.

Sure, the county clerk has to issue marriage licenses. Nobody has a serious problem with that in general. That's not what the argument is about.

So you agree that your earlier objection regarding "important aspects of the job" was meaningless. Good.

This point isn't even worth answering.

Dodge.

Then just say what you mean: "Catholics should not be in the adoption profession."

If they cannot run adoption agencies without breaking the law, then no.

Her contention is that even if someone else issues the license, she still has to sign it (and so herself cooperate).

It seems that's not true either.

This is a silly answer that liberals only make when the law is on their side.

So "we all should follow the law" is "silly" to you. Noted.

"I don't care what your beliefs are, Rosa Parks. The law is the law." Nope. Don't hear liberals saying things like that.

So you're trying to analogize between Parks, who was fighting against discrimination, and Davis who is fighting for discrimination?

Likely the better person to compare her to would be George Wallace as he blocked the schoolhouse door.

A. You insist on using "discriminate," which you and I both know is a legally and emotionally charged term. Why not more neutral language?

Because it's reality. Davis is fighting to be able to discriminate against the county taxpayers.

B. Again, there's no comparison. The difference is between doing and not doing something.

And that "something" is one of the primary duties of her position.

See reply to Kmo.

So basically your answer is "There's only 8 million of 'em, and they've only been around for about 140 years, so they don't get the same rights"?

Try that in court and let me know how it goes. :chuckle:

 

[Foxfire]

Apparently she doesn't have to sign but her name still appears somewhere on it.

No, her name does not appear on the license except in the form of her signature (if so signed).

 

[Jose Fly]

It does depend on one's vantage point?

Of course. But I can't see how, in the long run, Davis' actions and the ensuing rhetoric from conservative Christians are doing any favors for the public image of the faith.

If you think it is, well.....good luck with that.

 

[Jose Fly]

I am speaking of something society, up 'til now has regarded as aberrant behavior.
What science comes up with is something else entirely.
No doubt more and more behaviors once considered aberrant shall be considered normal and all shall be forced to accept it.
The accepting part is noxious to me.

Again, no one is demanding you accept anything. Just as there are still people who refuse to accept interracial marriages, or interfaith marriages, there are still people who refuse to accept same sex marriages. And you're all perfectly free to do so.