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

[IMJerusha]

It was predictable that this issue would fade from the active news once the US tennis open began and the NFL season cranked up.

Oh? I was unaware of either. I guess it's all in what one chooses to pay attention to.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

There are no similarities: one is a woman who practices a false religion where the murder of infidels is justified and the other is a follower of Jesus Christ who loves her sinful neighbors so much that she won't be a party to their eternal damnation.

ACW, I wasn't drawing similarities between the faiths but rather between the cases.

One can't talk about the respective cases without bringing up the religions of the people involved.

Those similarities do not give credence to any faith over another.

If you can't give credence to a religion whose doctrine is eternal salvation through redemption which comes from repentance of sinful behavior over a religion that murders non-believers (including those who engage in homosexual behavior), you better look to the heavens for some answers to your confusion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
It's interesting how you compare the consumption of alcohol with homosexuality. From the Judeo/Christian perspective, one is only immoral if it is abused, the other one is sexual perversion which God abhors.

Back up your train, Brother, I am speaking of defense of the right to live (which includes when one is working) according to ones faith and am, in no way, comparing alcohol to homosexuality. There are times when you are so OCD (for lack of better descriptor) about homosexuality that you fail to actually absorb and comprehend the words of a poster.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but you want a Muslim woman who refused to serve alcoholic beverages to passengers on a airliner to get the same treatment as a Christian woman who refuses to issue marriage licenses to sexually confused perverts? What if she refused to serve ham sandwiches?

One person has a legitimate cause, the other doesn't.

 

[Arthur Brain]

By law of the State (capitalized) I'm talking about Federal law.

Soooo, your 14 states are outta luck.

And I don't spend my time speculating about what other people do in the privacy of their own homes.

If more of you spent less time thinking about other people's bedrooms, you'd have enough mental energy left over to figure out why civil protections are necessary.

Darn straight. The fixation that zealots have with other people's sex lives is something else...

 

[Traditio]

Excellent. And in our compact (where Kentucky remains) that's the ballgame.

As per my racists/mark of Cain note earlier, there's no conflict in right.

That's about it.

I think that we're basically in agreement on this point. Again, there may or may not be first amendment issues. That's ultimately for the Supreme Court to decide.

Maybe, maybe not...which fairly covers most of what follows. I don't know what the disposition of any man's soul will be and, thankfully, it isn't my job to speculate.

No, no. Necessarily, they will be in that situation. Note, I'm not claiming that God is going to render a "guilty" verdict. They might be guilty now, but might amend their lives and seek absolution later. There might be tons of mitigating circumstances that we simply do not and cannot know about.

God alone knows the heart (3 Kings 8:39 (1 Kings in modern editions)).

My only point is that "it was the law" or "I was just following orders" won't be an excuse. Obedience to the "law" of the State is not an excuse to violate the Natural or Divine Laws. "We ought to obey God, rather than men" (Acts 5:29).

There I think you're wrong. She chose to disobey. She could simply have resigned.

Either way, she was morally prohibited from issuing licenses to homosexual couples. Legally obligated to issue them or resign? Maybe. But she, and everyone else, for that matter, is morally prohibited from issuing them. In fact, I can state the case as follows:

The State is morally prohibited from making or recognizing such a law.

The judges are morally prohibited from recognizing such a law.

Lawyers are morally prohibited from arguing for such a law.

Individuals are morally prohibited from demanding such a law.

Homosexuals are morally prohibited from availing themselves of such a law.

You'll say: "But it's the law. It's a necessary consequence of our compact."

Maybe. But each and every individual is beholden to the same Natural Law, and that Natural Law forbids him from doing any of the above, regardless of what the human positive law says.

And saying: "But it was the law" won't be an excuse before God.

As St. Thomas says, even an erring conscience doesn't excuse.

No, degree and not difference.

Oh, I see. I read it the other way.

You have it backwards. And, more to the point, if the consequence of one is death and the consequence of sixty is death, then, well, back to my consequence for the sinner remark.

But there's still room for difference. Granted that both A and B are separated from God forever, A might "feel" the pain of separation much more than B. And when A and B get their bodies back, the sensible pains of A and B might be very different. Not to mention that the "worm" of regret, of remorse, etc. might be much worse for A than B.

For all "eternity," A will have to say, e.g., "I am separated from God forever because I murdered seven people. How horrible are my crimes!" B, on the other hand, will have to say: "I am separated from God forever because of that one time I fornicated with my girlfriend before we got married! How horrible are..."

You see how that's very different?

That's not scriptural, but it does hit on the problem of putting men in charge of deciding moral issues from foundations of faith and empowering them over other men. So it has objective value in that sense.

It's a demand of reason. Anything else wouldn't instantiate perfect justice.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Darn straight. The fixation that zealots have with other people's sex lives is something else...

It's a Christian thing that you and your fellow pagans and atheists can't relate to Art: Amongst other things attempting to save sexually confused people from eternal damnation.

 

[Traditio]

Darn straight. The fixation that zealots have with other people's sex lives is something else...

I would like to point out, with respect to the "gay marriage" debate, that we "religious zealots" aren't poking our noses into their private sex lives. They're forcing it upon us vis-a-vis their demand for public/legal recognition. This point, of course, doesn't strictly speaking apply to the post that you were answering.

It's still a point worth making, though. :idunno:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I would like to point out, with respect to the "gay marriage" debate, that we "religious zealots" aren't poking our noses into their private sex lives. They're forcing it upon us vis-a-vis their demand for public/legal recognition. This point, of course, doesn't strictly speaking apply to the post that you were answering.

It's still a point worth making, though. :idunno:

What happened to you and your Pope's saying:

"Who am I to judge?"
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4448116&postcount=1135

If you can't poke your noses into immoral sex lives, what gives you the supposed right to poke them into other matters?

 

[IMJerusha]

One can't talk about the respective cases without bringing up the religions of the people involved.

That wouldn't be unusual when one considers that it is their religious beliefs dictating their behavior.

If you can't give credence to a religion whose doctrine is eternal salvation through redemption which comes from repentance of sinful behavior over a religion that murders non-believers (including those who engage in homosexual behavior), you better look to the heavens for some answers to your confusion.

I do, and bear no confusion in that regard, but not everyone does; not everyone is Christian.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but you want a Muslim woman who refused to serve alcoholic beverages to passengers on a airliner to get the same treatment as a Christian woman who refuses to issue marriage licenses to sexually confused perverts?

What I want is for the law to apply equally across the board because right now, it appears that Christianity is being specifically targeted and persecuted against.

What if she refused to serve ham sandwiches?

There was no mention of her suspension for refusal to serve ham sandwiches but I suppose if ham was the subject of her refusal, the same would apply.

One person has a legitimate cause, the other doesn't.

Under the Constitution, both have legitimate cause. My point was that if the Muslim woman gets traction in a court of law, the Kentucky Christian clerk should get the same traction as should the baker and florist who refused to serve the gay weddings. Get my drift now?

 

[Arthur Brain]

It's a Christian thing that you and your fellow pagans and atheists can't relate to Art: Amongst other things attempting to save sexually confused people from eternal damnation.

Uh, yeah, okay Connie. I'm sure the only reason you started your WHMBR! bollocks was because of a genuine concern for "fags", as you've so often described people who are homosexual. Pull the other one and get a life you repressed crank.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I would like to point out, with respect to the "gay marriage" debate, that we "religious zealots" aren't poking our noses into their private sex lives. They're forcing it upon us vis-a-vis their demand for public/legal recognition. This point, of course, doesn't strictly speaking apply to the post that you were answering.

It's still a point worth making, though. :idunno:

You're right, it didn't apply.

lain:

 

[annabenedetti]

I would like to point out, with respect to the "gay marriage" debate, that we "religious zealots" aren't poking our noses into their private sex lives. They're forcing it upon us vis-a-vis their demand for public/legal recognition. This point, of course, doesn't strictly speaking apply to the post that you were answering.

It's still a point worth making, though. :idunno:

Actually, they're not "forcing it upon us." I was out and about most of the day today. Got the car serviced, went to the grocery store, gas station, bank and doctor's office. And like every day, there were no public/legal demands made on me by homosexuals.

 

[annabenedetti]

Darn straight. The fixation that zealots have with other people's sex lives is something else...

It's kind of like them running down the sidewalk after someone saying "you're forcing yourself on us! You're forcing yourself on us!"

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
One can't talk about the respective cases without bringing up the religions of the people involved.

That would be somewhat difficult when one considers that it is their religious beliefs dictating their behavior.

Yet when it comes to legitimate moral doctrine, there are no similarities between a Christian woman denying a faux marriage license and a Muslim denying alcohol beverage service.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
If you can't give credence to a religion whose doctrine is eternal salvation through redemption which comes from repentance of sinful behavior over a religion that murders non-believers (including those who engage in homosexual behavior), you better look to the heavens for some answers to your confusion.

I do, and bear no confusion in that regard, but not everyone does.

When it comes to righteous government legislation, it appears that you do.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but you want a Muslim woman who refused to serve alcoholic beverages to passengers on a airliner to get the same treatment as a Christian woman who refuses to issue marriage licenses to sexually confused perverts?

What I want is for the law to apply equally across the board because right now, it appears that Christianity is being specifically targeted.

It is, but that doesn't mean that there are any similarities between the two cases. The Muslim woman isn't dealing with an issue that according to Judeo/Christian doctrine (which our laws were based on) is inherently immoral.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
What if she refused to serve ham sandwiches?

There was no mention of her suspension for refusal to serve ham sandwiches but I suppose if ham was the subject of her refusal, the same would apply.

There was a case where a Muslim fast food worker refused to put bacon on a sandwich for a customer. Again, there are no similarities between food laws and the institution of marriage.


Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
One person has a legitimate cause, the other doesn't.

Under the Constitution, both have legitimate cause.

Written by Christian men with Judeo/Christian doctrine in mind.

My point was that if the Muslim woman gets traction in a court of law, the Kentucky Christian clerk should get the same traction as should the baker and florist who refused to serve the gay weddings. Get my drift now?

Again, there are no similarities between the cases. The Muslim woman has no grounds to stand on, the Christian woman does.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It's kind of like them running down the sidewalk after someone saying "you're forcing yourself on us! You're forcing yourself on us!"

Pretty much. The next time my DVD player breaks down or the freezer conks out I'm gonna blame it all on the gays...

Zombie apocalypse?

The gays fault! And possibly the republicans as well...

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
It's a Christian thing that you and your fellow pagans and atheists can't relate to Art: Amongst other things attempting to save sexually confused people from eternal damnation

Uh, yeah, okay Connie. I'm sure the only reason you started your WHMBR! bollocks was because of a genuine concern for "fags", as you've so often described people who are homosexual. Pull the other one and get a life you repressed crank.

I must say I enjoy the thought of you and anna b cringing when I use that word in an appropriate context.

Speaking of genuine concern: Are you still ardently against helping sexually confused youth receive therapy to leave homosexual behavior and often times desires behind, a behavior that frequently leads to early death and without repentance and salvation, eternal damnation?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Actually, they're not "forcing it upon us." I was out and about most of the day today. Got the car serviced, went to the grocery store, gas station, bank and doctor's office. And like every day, there were no public/legal demands made on me by homosexuals.

No, no...

They are forcing it on us, by simply having the right to walk about and hold down jobs instead of being incarcerated or stoned, beheaded, shot etc. Damn inconsiderate these fags are...

They should just lock themselves in a closet of their own accord!

 

[Town Heretic]

...My only point is that "it was the law" or "I was just following orders" won't be an excuse. Obedience to the "law" of the State is not an excuse to violate the Natural or Divine Laws. "We ought to obey God, rather than men" (Acts 5:29).

What sin do you imagine the judge is guilty of? I don't believe he's publicly stated that he agrees with the decisions these people are free to make. A Klan parade down your main street may be legal and authorized without anyone who filled in the permit agreeing with or endorsing the use of speech.

Either way, she was morally prohibited from issuing licenses to homosexual couples.

I don't actually agree with you on the point, but my objection in that particular was to the notion that she had to do what she did within the limited context. She clearly chose to, but she didn't have to.

The State is morally prohibited from making or recognizing such a law.

At this point you're veering into a subjective value system and there's no point in arguing those. Every man has his own best understanding and so many of those differ. I say follow your conscience and that best understanding. You're free to do so, right up to the point where your understanding insists on taking my own from me (without an argument that rises to standard within the compact's law and framing).

You'll say: "But it's the law. It's a necessary consequence of our compact."

No, I'll say what I just did and welcome you to think and feel as you like, within the constraints of the law. I'd say and have said that our compact avoided the horrors perpetrated by the last incarnations of Christendom with political power to do more than argue differing exegesis.

As St. Thomas says, even an erring conscience doesn't excuse.

Then I'd say he's a gasbag on the point and had better hope he's lucky enough to be right, following his own charge.

But there's still room for difference. Granted that both A and B are separated from God forever, A might "feel" the pain of separation much more than B.

I don't know. I don't know what a creature cut off from the good would resemble in any particular. If there is no good in us but God then in judgment I suspect we will bear a resemblance to our will and not to ourselves as we live, taking in the light of God even in our disobedience. But it's all speculation. I'm not sure of the value in any of it.

For all "eternity," A will have to say, e.g., "I am separated from God forever because I murdered seven people. How horrible are my crimes!" B, on the other hand, will have to say: "I am separated from God forever because of that one time I fornicated with my girlfriend before we got married! How horrible are..."

You see how that's very different?

No. It strikes me that the distinctions are cosmetic and the consequence overwhelming. But that's my way of seeing it and, again, I'm not sure about what a life absent the root and meaning of the good would resemble.

It's a demand of reason.

No, it's the demand within a context reflecting many a shade and difference and choice. It isn't inevitable.

Anything else wouldn't instantiate perfect justice.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess which of us gets to define the thing we've never seen and can only speculate as to.

But it's a good conversation. :cheers:

 

[Arthur Brain]

I must say I enjoy the thought of you and anna b cringing when I use that word in an appropriate context.

Speaking of genuine concern: Are you still ardently against helping sexually confused youth receive therapy to leave homosexual behavior and often times desires behind, a behavior that frequently leads to early death and without repentance and salvation, eternal damnation?

The only time you'd be using the word in an "appropriate context" would be in regards to cigarettes Connie.

As you're aware, I'm ardently against quack "therapy" and crackpots who advocate it. If you truly cared and thought the end result for people was eternal suffering you'd refrain from using any such term(s) at all, but you don't. Funny how often fundie zealots believe in such cruel torment but don't really care about it themselves eh?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I must say I enjoy the thought of you and anna b cringing when I use that word in an appropriate context.

The only time you'd be using the word in an "appropriate context" would be in regards to cigarettes Connie.

Speaking of cigarettes, I'm sure you're aware that those who engage in homosexual behavior disproportionately partake in that unhealthy habit?

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

Speaking of genuine concern: Are you still ardently against helping sexually confused youth receive therapy to leave homosexual behavior and often times desires behind, a behavior that frequently leads to early death and without repentance and salvation, eternal damnation?

As you're aware, I'm ardently against quack "therapy" and crackpots who advocate it.

As are all legitimate organizations that help sexually and gender confused youth with their sexual and gender confusion.

Since you're only against "quack therapy", that must mean that you're for the vast majority of other psychological and spiritual therapy for sexually confused youth, who without it very well might spend eternity in Hell (as well as having a very miserable life here on earth)?

If you truly cared and thought the end result for people was eternal suffering you'd refrain from using any such term(s) at all, but you don't. Funny how often fundie zealots believe in such cruel torment but don't really care about it themselves eh?

(It's my...."method").

Tell me Art, where did these Christians (I don't know if they're "fundie zealots") go wrong with their....

"method"?

Chased out of the Castro

 

[TracerBullet]

No, no...

They are forcing it on us, by simply having the right to walk about and hold down jobs instead of being incarcerated or stoned, beheaded, shot etc. Damn inconsiderate these fags are...

They should just lock themselves in a closet of their own accord!

No that just isn't true. Faggots force it on us by existing. The insult of their existence is just the half of it - the really bad part is that they all choose to be gay...even though no one else chooses their orientation...But that fact isn't important, homosexual orientation is 100% a choice and that is true even though I have make up an entirely new meaning for orientation just so i can play pretend.