Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Take-down of the "cafeteria Christianity" of Kim Davis (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Take-down of the "cafeteria Christianity" of Kim Davis
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
By Time magazine journalist Kurt Eichenwald, delivered in a very acerbic, biting tone, but interesting content in a link below (13 minutes)

quote:
Davis is the kind of Christian who drives me nuts. A hypocrite who thinks that a deity who created an infinite universe filled with billions of stars and untold numbers of planets and moons spends his days worrying about whose genitals are going where. It takes a lot to convince the unread that the Bible is not a sex book on par with the Karma Sutra, but I'm taking a shot.

As she sits in jail - a bogus martyr for bogus Christians -- Davis seems to have no idea that the Bible says nothing about gay marriage, and has only a few passing lines that can be construed as being about homosexuality. Of course, the parts she misses? Things like Romans 13, which says that governmental authorities are appointed by God and if you ignore what they say, you're going straight to hell. Kind of makes that "I answer to God, not to governmental authorities" bit of hers a laugh riot - it shows her conviction is built on quicksand of ignorance.

Christians can't sue Christians - but she's doing it. She claims her three divorces and four marriages were events that took place before her conversion. Oops - the sin, according to Jesus in the Bible, isn't divorce, it's remarriage after divorce. And that remarriage constitutes adultery - which Davis happily engages in every day.

As someone who actually knows the Bible and its history, I have been endlessly annoyed by "Christians" who invoke it to condemn other people while ignoring all the things it says about what they are supposed to do. Like I say in the video, they can ignore all the rules, but use them to condemn other people or take away other people's rights, they need to follow all of the rules. And of course, none of these people ever do.

Check out the whole thing
link

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
By Time magazine journalist Kurt Eichenwald, delivered in a very acerbic, biting tone, but interesting content in a link below (13 minutes)

quote:
Davis is the kind of Christian who drives me nuts. A hypocrite who thinks that a deity who created an infinite universe filled with billions of stars and untold numbers of planets and moons spends his days worrying about whose genitals are going where. It takes a lot to convince the unread that the Bible is not a sex book on par with the Karma Sutra, but I'm taking a shot.

As she sits in jail - a bogus martyr for bogus Christians -- Davis seems to have no idea that the Bible says nothing about gay marriage, and has only a few passing lines that can be construed as being about homosexuality. Of course, the parts she misses? Things like Romans 13, which says that governmental authorities are appointed by God and if you ignore what they say, you're going straight to hell. Kind of makes that "I answer to God, not to governmental authorities" bit of hers a laugh riot - it shows her conviction is built on quicksand of ignorance.

Christians can't sue Christians - but she's doing it. She claims her three divorces and four marriages were events that took place before her conversion. Oops - the sin, according to Jesus in the Bible, isn't divorce, it's remarriage after divorce. And that remarriage constitutes adultery - which Davis happily engages in every day.

As someone who actually knows the Bible and its history, I have been endlessly annoyed by "Christians" who invoke it to condemn other people while ignoring all the things it says about what they are supposed to do. Like I say in the video, they can ignore all the rules, but use them to condemn other people or take away other people's rights, they need to follow all of the rules. And of course, none of these people ever do.

Check out the whole thing
link

So much for the first amendment.

I can accept that a government clerk has no right to arbitrarily withold a marriage license from a couple based on religious objections.

What I find unacceptable, putrecent, and beneath contempt, is Court imposed interpretations of Christianity or any other religion. for a United States Court to make a ruling as to whether Ca6tholic dogma re divorce is more central to Christianity than Christ's description of marriag. is a usurpation as vile as th. court ordered rape in India and Pakistan. I'm sorry, your honor, but get off my leg. The constitution doesnt allow you to rule on the correctness or incorectness of sectarian issues that Christians have argued for millenia.

As I predicted, ssm used gay couples as a sideshow. The intent and agenda was always to destroy the wall between church and state and to allow Judges to rule on matters of religion.

The ruling is deplorable because Kim Davis had agreed offered to allow the marriage certs to be filled without Kim Davis' name on the form. Scotus had ruled that states had t. "let same sex couples marry": they said nothing about needing Kim Davis' personal approval. Thi. ruling is about the court telling America that we shall have no God before the court. The court has become our intercessor before God. And your halfwitted out of context rendering of THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT (where divorce is likened to adultery ONLY INASMUCH AS BEING ANGRY IS LIKENED UNTO MURDER) has become law of the land.

Congradulations, geniuses. You are ca court institution of religion. Roy Moore only displayed the ten commandments at the courthouse. He didnlt bloody enshrine his interpretations in his legal pronouncements from the bench. This ruling makes Moor look like a freaking secularist.

Greg, it's not your kitchen kitchen. Kindly do not presume to shoot fatwas out of your ass as what is or is not a "cafeteria Christian." How would you feel if I declared Lisa a Lcafeteria Jew" because she doesnt observe the Jubilees?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The sermon on the mount also tells us to be perfect. By these idiotic arguments, anyone who isnt perfect isnt a real christian. And yet ... Paul.says we all sin and fall short. Ergo Christianity does not exist. Bravo your honor. Coming right up, war is peace, good is evil, and freedom is slavery.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I believe that virtually everyone does picking and choosing of their religious practices. The higher burden comes when your religious practice puts a burden on the freedom of someone else. And if you are particularly selective about ignoring provisions that primarily impact yourself, but you are claiming that other people need to bear burdens because of your interpretation of the will of G-d, your argument is without merit.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If only that standard applied to Islam as well as Christianity.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've always figured that the fastest way to drive people away from religion was to actually make them follow it verbatim.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As I predicted, ssm used gay couples as a sideshow. The intent and agenda was always to destroy the wall between church and state and to allow Judges to rule on matters of religion.
Pete, stop being a whiny, paranoid baby. The court did not rule on the validity of Davis' belief at all.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rafi, I completely agree with you (!)
quote:
If only that standard applied to Islam as well as Christianity.
Let me start by saying that in the global scale of things, what Jan Davis is doing is far less harmful than what is done by religious extremists who kill, cause serious bodily injury, or who cow people into submission over the threat of taking such actions.

But there is a similarity between Davis and Islamic extremists in her ignorance of her ostensible religion combined with her cafeteria style of practice. This is seen where some isolated elements are inviolable principles while other elements are simply disregarded.

I don't blame or attribute her bigotry to Christianity; rather, I believe that she is exploiting narrow elements of Christianity to justify her hateful beliefs. And that has been my argument with respect to much of the violence committed by Islamic extremists.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Once again, I find that the opposition the religious right raises to completely miss the point of the SC ruling. Unless you're an administrator whose job it is, you don't have to give a marriage license to someone else. But if you are an administrator, you do. All the rest of you religious objectors just have to remember that you can't stop them from getting one for themselves. End of story, because it's not about you.

The cafeteria model assumes that all choices are displayed before your eyes. I don't like that metaphor because it implies that the choices are both hard (bounded) and real. It works better for me to think of Christians like Davis having in mind an image of a unicorn. Whereas even children know the unicorn is a storybook ideal, she imagines that she can climb on its back and ride it to work. Others like Huckabee and Cruz want to ride their own unicorns into the public discourse on government policy and, they hope, high office. From there they can dictate to everyone how they should act and what they can and cannot believe when they read from the same texts as they do. Morality is absolute (so they claim), except when it isn't.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The thing that bothers me most about this kerfluffle is that the GOP celebrities who are declaring their support for Kim Davis are doing so knowing that she's on the wrong side of the law. She should resign if she can't comply with the law; they ALL know that. But by declaring their support, they are trying to ensure she maintains her stance as long as possible, which doesn't benefit her and doesn't fix any problem.

And they're all using the Big Lie tactic of calling the court orders lawless.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Although I guess she will benefit in certain ways. She'll get a book deal, and Sarah Palin will invite her over for red white and blue pancakes.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
As I predicted, ssm used gay couples as a sideshow. The intent and agenda was always to destroy the wall between church and state and to allow Judges to rule on matters of religion.
Pete, stop being a whiny, paranoid baby. The court did not rule on the validity of Davis' belief at all.
Tom, prease stgop being an obtuse, evasive bitch. The Judge offered himself as an example of how achristian should resolve personal religious issues in day to day life. Effectively acting a. An expert witness as well as issuing a religious fatwa from the bench.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Although I guess she will benefit in certain ways. She'll get a book deal, and Sarah Palin will invite her over for red white and blue pancakes.

And at least one Christian "martye" of the third cejntury admitted she got off on the prospect of being eaten by lions and claimed it was her right as a Christian. One enthusiastic unsympathetic victim does not justify a capricious, destructive and inhumaane law.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kim Davis is the elected clerk. It is her job to issue marriage licenses to people who come in and ask for them9. Including gay people.

If that's such a burden on her conscience, then she should have resigned. Unfortunately we got this sideshow instead. Even the ACLU was asking that she not go to jail, because they knew the Christosupremists would make an uproar about how people are being throw in jail for being Christian, and idiots would believe it.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Rafi, I completely agree with you (!)
quote:
If only that standard applied to Islam as well as Christianity.
Let me start by saying that in the global scale of things, what Jan Davis is doing is far less harmful than what is done by religious extremists who kill, cause serious bodily injury, or who cow people into submission over the threat of taking such actions.
How generous of you. But even putting her in that scale is as grotesque as the garden variety internet hitler comparison.


quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
But there is a similarity between Davis and Islamic extremists in her ignorance of her ostensible religion combined with her cafeteria style of practice. This is seen where some isolated elements are inviolable principles while other elements are simply disregarded.

I agree that what you described is a general trait of "fundamentalist" Christianity as well as "fundamentalist" Islam as well as every form of Judaism that I have ever seen described on this board or on Jewish internet sites.

quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
I don't blame or attribute her bigotry to Christianity; rather, I believe that she is exploiting narrow elements of Christianity to justify her hateful beliefs.

if you have any facts to justify any of those accusations (that she is a " bigot" that her beliefs are "hateful", or that being willing to submit to state punishment rather than submit state-enforced idolatry, is a "narrow element of Christianity" then shame for not being specific.

Is what you call her hateful belief is simply her refusal to have her name placed on a same-sex marriage license, or have you simply not followed the negotiations in this case?

Jesus defined marriage as a man and woman becoming "one flesh." Divorce and anger he described as sinful, but Christianity like Judaism describes most sins as fairly trivial compared to, say, blasphemy or idolatry.

"And that has been my argument with respect to much of the violence committed by Islamic extremists."

Really, Greg? I don't recall you ever saying anything about Islamic extremists that wast a lead up to an odious comparison to Republicans or Christians. If I'm mistaken, please cite me any post where you've condemned extremist Islam without using it as such a lead up.

[ September 05, 2015, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Once again, I find that the opposition the religious right raises to completely miss the point of the SC ruling. Unless you're an administrator whose job it is, you don't have to give a marriage license to someone else. But if you are an administrator, you do. All the rest of you religious objectors just have to remember that you can't stop them from getting one for themselves. End of story, because it's not about you.

The cafeteria model assumes that all choices are displayed before your eyes. I don't like that metaphor because it implies that the choices are both hard (bounded) and real. It works better for me to think of Christians like Davis having in mind an image of a unicorn. Whereas even children know the unicorn is a storybook ideal, she imagines that she can climb on its back and ride it to work. Others like Huckabee and Cruz want to ride their own unicorns into the public discourse on government policy and, they hope, high office. From there they can dictate to everyone how they should act and what they can and cannot believe when they read from the same texts as they do. Morality is absolute (so they claim), except when it isn't.

I agree that is a much more applicable metaphor than the arrogant and offensive "cafeteria" model.

But From what I read, Kim's offered to let ssm licenses go forward but simply to remove Kim's name from the form. Does anyone else actually see that as a problem worth imprisoning her over? simply removing Kim's name from a legally valid form does not impose Kim's beliefs on anyone. Does not prevent any couple from getting a valid license.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DJQuag:
Kim Davis is the elected clerk. It is her job to issue marriage licenses to people who come in and ask for them9. Including gay people.

If that's such a burden on her conscience, then she should have resigned. Unfortunately we got this sideshow instead.

Hold your horses there. Last I heard, you live in merry old England. To my knowledge.none of us here are Kim's constituents, ergo not my place or yours to say she should resign.

It may be that her protest perfectly represents her constituents' will. what Kim's elected duties are, and whether she has discharged them, is not your place to say.

Kino's request to remove her name from the licenses in no way interferes with a same sex couple's ability to marry. most of us on this board have been married at least once, and to my knowledge none of us had kim's name on our licenses. One may infer then that having Kim's name on your marriage license is not an essential part of the rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Although I guess she will benefit in certain ways. She'll get a book deal, and Sarah Palin will invite her over for red white and blue pancakes.

And at least one Christian "martye" of the third cejntury admitted she got off on the prospect of being eaten by lions and claimed it was her right as a Christian. One enthusiastic unsympathetic victim does not justify a capricious, destructive and inhumaane law.
Oh, I didn't say Kim Davis is being insincere. I just think it's (wilfully) destructive for GOP leaders to get behind her and push.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, have you read Eugene Volokh's analysis?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/04/when-does-your-religion-legally-excuse-you-from-doing-part-of-your-job/?tid=trending_strip_1

According to this, Kim Davis only raised the compromise of removing her name from the licenses in her petition to the federal court to stay the order of the lower court. She hasn't pressed this in a KY court which would, according to Volokh, be in a position to use the state's RFRA to order an accommodation such as this. The federal court may not be authorized to adjudicate a KY RFRA based claim.

So it does look like a potential solution, but one her attorneys haven't pressed in the right venue yet.

quote:
Indeed, Kim Davis has filed a federal complaint against state officials under, among other things, the Kentucky RFRA. And, as I noted, one of the proposed accommodations that she herself has suggested, albeit in the federal stay application, is the simple removal of her name. But that sort of accommodation based on the Kentucky state RFRA is not a remedy that’s likely to be available in federal court.

But if Davis sues in state court, seeking a declaration that she can issue licenses and certificates without her name — as a Kentucky RFRA-based exemption from the Kentucky statutory requirements for what must go on her license — I think she’d have a good case.

I still view it like this: elected officials shouldn't be religiously exempt from executing their duty under the law, full stop. But I would only grumble about this kind of accommodation, not be outraged.

[ September 06, 2015, 01:58 AM: Message edited by: scifibum ]

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, I can't quite understand the point you want me to address here, could you restate?

quote:

"And that has been my argument with respect to much of the violence committed by Islamic extremists."

Really, Greg? I don't recall you ever saying anything about Islamic extremists that wast a lead up to an odious comparison to Republicans or Christians. If I'm mistaken, please cite me any post where you've condemned extremist Islam without using it as such a lead up.


Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Obama is leading by example. If he as the top elected official can ignore the law on immigration then any other elected official has the same right to ignore whatever laws they don't agree with as well. And if he doesn't have to do his job then neither do they. As he observed so brutally, "Elections have consequences."

I don't really agree with public officials refusing to do their job but I don't understand how anyone who agrees with Obama refusing to obey or enforce the law (which is his job) can take issue with any other public official doing the same thing whenever they disagree with a law. Maybe since he is the top elected official he alone gets to choose which laws to obey and which ones to ignore? No. But he does get to inspire others to follow his lead.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You don't see a difference where Obama interprets a law in a way that he thinks lets him do something and Davis refuses to apply a law even after the SC has clearly ruled that she has to?

Religious conservatives sometimes say that atheism is a religion (because the statement of their beliefs uses the word God). If you believe that, could an atheist refuse service to someone who believes in God because that goes against their religion?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
You don't see a difference where Obama interprets a law in a way that he thinks lets him do something and Davis refuses to apply a law even after the SC has clearly ruled that she has to?

Big difference alright. One is from the politically connected ruling class that remains above the law. The other is an average person for whom such laws are created.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Would you group governors and legislators in the south who twist voting laws to suit their own viewpoints as being part of the "connected ruling class" like Obama, or are they more like ordinary people just trying to do their jobs?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I get the rather ham-handed point you're trying to make, Rafi, but it's actually a relevant difference. A clerk (unless it's some weird idiosyncratic American thing) isn't responsible for making decisions about the law. They just carry it out. They're a technician not an engineer.

The President, as the Executive, does get to make decisions about the law. While the legislature creates law, the executive has to figure how to make it work. As with engineers, sometimes it involves deciding which requirements get lower priority in order to make sure others are met. Granted, the executive isn't supposed to use that power to achieve political objectives they can't get the legislature to agree to, but compromises have to be made.

The thing that annoys me about these "religious objections" is the absolute dearth of theological support. There's two thousand years of writing on how to make christianity fit with secular concerns. Including how to square marriage with the morally superior state of celibacy. But no, these people just barge in like Shrek at a wedding: "I object!". *headdesk*

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryMod
Administrator
Member # 977

 - posted      Profile for OrneryMod   Email OrneryMod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom and Pete: Please do not call each other names.
Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The Judge offered himself as an example of how achristian should resolve personal religious issues in day to day life. Effectively acting a. An expert witness as well as issuing a religious fatwa from the bench.
But that's not the legal question at hand, is it? The issue was not "how should Christians behave," but whether someone had to comply with a court order. The latter was the point of the suit and the decision, no?

Remember, your contention here is that same-sex marriage is a Trojan horse designed to invite legal rulings that tear down the foundations of the Christian religion. But at no point did any part of this legal ruling do that. Agreed?

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
A clerk (unless it's some weird idiosyncratic American thing) isn't responsible for making decisions about the law. They just carry it out. They're a technician not an engineer.
They are functionaries with no discretionary authority. Davis' $80,000/yr job is just a cog in the administrative machinery. Her actions are like a car blowing smoke out the tailpipe when it is going between 40-45MPH. If that happened it would be diagnosed as a cracked cylinder head and replaced with a cheaper commodity market part that worked just as well.

[ September 06, 2015, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If, on the basis of a religious obligation to pacifism, a Quaker Clerk refused to issue Gun Permits, would that equally be their "freedom of religion"? Or a Quaker Postmaster refusing to allow any military mail to be delivered or passed on?

Maybe a Jewish Health Department inspector could invoke their religious freedom and close any business in their jurisdiction that serves pork, shellfish, or meat and cheese in the same dish.

Using legal authority to hold others to your personal religious standards is completely out of line. Davis's job as Clerk was not to evaluate marriage papers according to her personal standards, or to personally support any given relationship, but only to verify that they conformed to the states standards, regardless of her personal opinions or convictions. This was a very clear "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" moment and she chose instead to refuse to do that while enjoying the benefits of using his coin in the first place.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm also curious if she refused to marry an interracial heterosexual couple based on claims of religious freedom if it would have similar support by those who are okay with refusing a gay couple.

Those who opposed interracial marriages, claimed the position was supported by the bible (see this discussion at religious tolerance - http://www.religioustolerance.org/marracbib.htm ).

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On TV yesterday, Huckabee distinguished between the SC ruling against miscegenation laws in Loving v Virginia and the ruling against same-sex marriage laws by arguing that the Loving ruling overturned legislation and the SS ruling was a blanket ruling that defined a new right. His reasoning was hard to follow, but was essentially that because marriage is not defined in the Constitution, the 14th Amendment supports inter-racial marriage, but that the same-sex ruling was invalid because it redefined what marriage is.

The SC ruling in Loving was based on the 14th Amendment (due process, equal protection), but I think it should have also cited the separation between church and state. Huckabee is wrong because he conflates his religious belief (unicorn warning) that prohibits same-sex marriage with laws about the secular (state) recognition of the union. He would be on safe ground if he stopped after arguing that his church didn't have to perform or accept marriages between same-sex couples.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
PYR
quote:
Maybe a Jewish Health Department inspector could invoke their religious freedom and close any business in their jurisdiction that serves pork, shellfish, or meat and cheese in the same dish.
Or even better make this individual Muslim. He is the head of the local DMV. No drivers licenses for women.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mynnion:
PYR
quote:
Maybe a Jewish Health Department inspector could invoke their religious freedom and close any business in their jurisdiction that serves pork, shellfish, or meat and cheese in the same dish.
Or even better make this individual Muslim. He is the head of the local DMV. No drivers licenses for women.
Er, I'm not sure that's a religious thing. Only Saudi Arabia does that, and something tells me it's probably not in the Qu'ran the way marriage is in the Bible.
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
JoshCrow,

how about refused to take drivers license photos if the womans head was uncovered and since drivers license photos must have the head uncovered is unwilling to do drivers license photos for women.

Also, the Koran can indeed be interpreted to prohibit woman driving,

quote:
Allaah commanded the wives of the Prophet and the believing women to stay in their houses, to observe hijab and to avoid showing their adornments to non-mahrams because of the permissiveness that all these things lead to, which spells doom for society. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And stay in your houses, and do not display yourselves like that of the times of ignorance, and perform As-Salaah (Iqamat-as-Salaah), and give Zakaah and obey Allaah and His Messenger. Allaah wishes only to remove Ar-Rijs (evil deeds and sins) from you, O members of the family (of the Prophet), and to purify you with a thorough purification”

[al-Ahzaab 33:33]

http://islamqa.info/en/45880

So it is a more defensible claim than Davis suggesting that the bible prohibits her signing a marriage license for homosexuals.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here you go:
quote:
A Muslim flight attendant says she was suspended by airline ExpressJet for refusing to serve alcohol, a practice she says is against her religious beliefs. Charee Stanley filed a discrimination complaint in Detroit with the Equal Employment Opportunity commission, in an effort to get reinstated to her job, CNN reported.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let's also not forget there is a huge difference between a business owner and an employee. If you own a business it's absolutely your right to decide what the business means to you, what purpose it should serve, and what sorts of operations it will conduct. There are some restrictions in this in the form of legal mandates and constraints, but by and large the owner's business can very much be made to be a reflection on their personal ethos. An employee, on the other hand, has only one task: to do what the employer hired them to do and what was stated in the contract. If the employee is hired to do something that's against their religion then they should quit. Certainly no one should have to do something that they don't believe in, which is why employment is voluntary.

We should try to remember this important distinction when discussing these issues. Someone at a county clerk's office doesn't have the same right to dictate business procedures as a private business owner, and so I hope it's clear that the Davis case bears no resemblance to the notorious case with the baker who refused to bake a speciality cake.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mynnion
Member
Member # 5287

 - posted      Profile for Mynnion   Email Mynnion   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In the case of the flight attendant the airline is required to take reasonable steps to accommodate her. That might mean putting her on short flights that do not have beverage service or giving her a job aat the ticket counter. If those are not possible or are not to her satisfaction the airline is within its rights to let her go. It is very unlikely that she will win her case.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DJQuag
Member
Member # 3582

 - posted      Profile for DJQuag   Email DJQuag       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The same beliefs that make me reject the idea of Kim Davis getting special treatment makes me reject the idea of this flight attendant getting the same.

Flight attendants serve alcohol. It is legal to sell and drink alcohol. It's part of her job. If she doesn't want to do that, she should look into a different job

Posts: 476 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The range of religious objections above are all somewhat plausible, but if the objection is based on a moral code, any moral code should have equal standing:
quote:
Employers do not need to provide insurance coverage for contraception even if their objections are moral rather than religious, a federal judge here ruled on Monday.
Davis' objection goes beyond just practicing her own beliefs, because she runs an office where other people perform the same duties under her direction. She won't allow them to exercise their own religious views on this issue if they don't object to gay marriage. If that "logic" holds, then why can't a governor announce his/her objection to gay marriage (or anything else) on religious or moral grounds and instruct the entire executive in the state to behave according to his/her beliefs?

In these extended scenarios a person with authority who objects is not only actively refusing to act, but is passively refusing to allow others to act. They would very likely be fired if they disobeyed, even if their moral code required them to act against their boss's wishes.

The Muslim flight attendant refused to serve alcohol, but the religious tenet she followed actually is a prohibition against consuming it:
quote:
In Islam, consumption of any intoxicants (specifically, alcoholic beverages) is generally forbidden in the Qur'an through several separate verses revealed at different times over a period of years.
She objected to non-Muslims consuming alcohol that she served, even though their moral beliefs allow it. In a direct parallel to Davis' actions, if she were the head flight attendant she could refuse to allow any flight attendant to serve alcohol or any passenger to have a beer.

Rand Paul raised objections to the Civil Rights Act because he doesn't believe that a business should have to serve blacks. They can always eat elsewhere. Perhaps businesses and government offices should be required to post a list of their current set of moral objections to physical characteristics (e.g., one drop or more) and personal practices they don't approve of (even if they don't occur on their premises). I'm sure someone will write a cell phone app to help the rest of us find a place where we can get what we need.

[ September 08, 2015, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think she's in the wrong here, I can't for the life of me construct a cogent religious objection that would prevent her from issuing marriage licenses in this context and not require her to consider other circumstances. For example, she's explained her repeated marriages as being before her conversion, and hence not inconsistent. Okay, so why wasn't she refusing to issue marriage licenses to other divorced people seeking to remarry?

That said, I'm not sure I understand the remedy that has been applied here. If she's refusing to issue any licenses - not just ones for homosexual couples - she's actually not acting in a discriminatory manner, she's just utterly failing to perform her duties. Aren't the appropriate (and only appropriate) remedies to go to state court to force her action, or to have her impeached? How do we get a federal judge asserting an authority to order an elected state official to not only perform an action under the authority of a state government but do so as mandated by a federal court? Even if she was acting discriminatorily (ie issuing licenses to some but not other couples) isn't the limit of the federal remedy to order her to cease and desist the discriminatory conduct?

My problem with court ordered marriage equality stems from the crafting of inappropriate remedies. The courts from the beginning should have struck down the discriminatory marriage laws, not recrafted them. If they had, this controversy would have ended in the next following legislative session.

Again, it seems like we ignore the rule of law because we're interested in a remedy of convenience, without regard to how such corruption once it takes root can be used for less noble purposes.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1