It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pointing out the double standard

page: 9
19
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 05:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boscowashisnamo
a reply to: xuenchen

I understand the intent of the OP, and though this thread has been through the grinder on procedural jurisprudence, I found an article that echos his position:
thefederalist.com...

Some of the content echos posts in this thread:

Davis’s arrest was met with cheers by same-sex marriage advocates who for some reason did not demand imprisonment of officials who lawlessly issued gay marriage licenses in clear contravention of state and federal laws. Take, for example, Democrat Gavin Newsom, who is currently the California lieutenant governor. Back in 2004, when gay marriage was banned under California state law, Newsom openly defied the law and used his power as the mayor of San Francisco to force taxpayer-funded government clerks to issue gay marriage licenses:


And:

Just like Kim Davis, who is an elected Democrat, Newsom justified his lawlessness by citing his own conscience and beliefs about right and wrong rather than deferring to the actual laws of his state. If you look for evidence of gay rights advocates chastising Newsom for his blatant lawlessness, you won’t find it. Because it doesn’t exist. You similarly won’t find any evidence of these principled law enforcement purists chastising California state officials for refusing to enforce or defend the Prop 8 ballot initiative in California, which was passed overwhelmingly by California voters.


My personal favorite:

When you really think about it, though, this whole kerfuffle is obviously the fault of Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refuses to issue gay marriage licenses. She should’ve known better. She should’ve thought this whole thing through. If Kim Davis really wanted to avoid the ire and attention of progressives and their media allies, she should’ve just videotaped herself killing babies and then selling their organs. Then she could operate with total impunity.


That's what I love about the threads here. Reasonable discourse without devolving into derogatory name calling.


Lol that last part IS epic, and thankyou for that link, it pretty much encompasses the point i was making..only it did it far better lol




posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 05:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Khaleesi

There isn't an intrinsic double standard in the OP's example. I assume he used that example because he saw a double standard in the LGBT community and how their supporters react and how the religious right and their supporters react.

I don't see it. That doesn't mean that I don't think that double standards don't ever exist. For example, the woman in question, Kim, is operating on a double standard by refusing to licence LGBT couples, but has no test for adultery. Now that's a double standard.



ive noticed you keep reffering to me as a "he" or "him" lol...im female just to clarify

the double standard has been made clear countless times in this discussion, those comments are still there and available for your perusal



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: kellyjay




the double standard has been made clear countless times in this discussion


No it hasn't. But, you've tried, unsuccessfully, to make so.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boscowashisnamo

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Boscowashisnamo

I don't see how equal marriage rights are a left or a right issue. There's just "for" and "agin".



You're seeking a debate that isn't there. My stance on marriage rights or LGBT issues wasn't the focus of my post, as much as you're trying to make it that. BTW, the "for" and "again" thing--only Siths deal in absolutes. Find someone else to argue with.


I'm asking you for nothing. I merely reject your premise. And, Kim Davis is certainly dealing in absolutes, as in she absolutely believes that equal marriage rights are "agin" God's Law.


edit on 7-9-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   
the ultimate in double standards....

we all know that quite a bit of money to to different groups both religious and non-religious that are aimed at helping various social issues. these groups are called contractors and well one of those strings it that they aren't supposed to discriminate in their hiring practices.




When the George W. Bush administration allowed an evangelical organization in 2007 to hire only members of its own religion to work on a government contract, Sen. Barack Obama criticized the decision, saying taxpayers shouldn’t subsidize discrimination in hiring, and that he would end it if elected president. But Obama’s Justice Department has followed the same policy, and it is now being invoked by religious organizations that have applied for federal funds while refusing to hire gays or lesbians, offer accommodations to transgender employees, or provide information to minors about abortion or contraception. Groups promoting civil rights for minorities, women and the LGBT community say it’s time for the president to act.

www.sfchronicle.com...


so, on the one hand they seem to be saying that the gov't is overstepping their bounds by not allowing christians employers to tell their employees that they have to have the same beliefs as themselves, but on the other, they are saying that as the employer, the gov't shouldn't be able to demand a person to do their job, regardless of their personal belief.
one could say that well if the employee doesn't want to accept the beliefs of the employer, then they can find another job, but wasn't that an option open to the country clerk? and isn't it also an option to the christian organization to just bypass the gov't funding and well, be allowed to hire whom they wish?

and then well, at every turn you hear how the poor poor christians are being persecuted, thrown in jail for their beliefs!!
heck the gov't bends over backwards to coddle them and they cry persecution!



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar




But Obama’s Justice Department has followed the same policy, and it is now being invoked by religious organizations that have applied for federal funds while refusing to hire gays or lesbians, offer accommodations to transgender employees, or provide information to minors about abortion or contraception. Groups promoting civil rights for minorities, women and the LGBT community say it’s time for the president to act.


I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that the Obama Administration has pissed off a lot of faith based organizations when he did this:

Obama Issues Order Forcing Church Agencies to Hire Homosexuals or Give Up Federal Funding
No exemptions for conscience are to be allowed.



President Barack Obama will sign an executive order on Monday barring federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, senior administration officials said.

www.newsmax.com...



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   
I don't know, but according to the newsmax article there were religious exemptions included in it. and well the article I posted was dated yesterday, so it's newer and it sounds as though they presently have them.




But in April 2014, Obama’s Justice Department relied on the 2007 memo in saying that religious organizations with federal contracts to combat violence against women could choose to hire only members of their own faith. Now, some Christian organizations are seeking a broader exemption in grants for programs to combat sexual abuse and trafficking of immigrant minors entering the United States.

The February 2015 letter from Catholic and evangelical Protestant organizations objected to the contracting rules that require contractors to provide access to emergency contraception. The groups also objected to requirements that information and access to all legal medical services, including abortion, be offered if a girl becomes pregnant. Both requirements would violate their religious freedom, the groups said.

A March 2015 letter from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops also sought exemptions from rules banning employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 10:13 AM
link   
from the newsmax article:




A religious organization would be barred from making hiring decisions based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Exceptions would be allowed for ministers, and groups would be allowed to favor individuals of a particular religion when hiring.

www.newsmax.com...


so well, what I said appears to be true, a christian organizaton can still get gov't money if they demand all their employees adhere to their beliefs, but well, the christian seem to think a county gov't can demand one of it's employees do their job citing their beliefs.
kind of like wanting you cake and eating it too, isn't it?



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: kellyjay

but again , how you feel shouldnt trump the law, the double standard is that both were in the same situation, both broke the law based on their personal beliefs and one was hailed a hero and the other is villanized...THAT is the double standard


Actually both are hailed as a hero and villainized. Not everyone from any group is all on one side or the other.

This woman is being both loved and hated for this.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Boscowashisnamo

I don't see how equal marriage rights are a left or a right issue. There's just "for" and "agin".



Other than the "Religious Right" being used at will for a scratching post.




posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: kellyjay

Now, I will say this only for Kim Davis, and I have stayed more or less out of this so far.

I think the SCOTUS found a right that does not exist in the COTUS. There is not right to marriage for anyone. If there was, I could demand that Gryphn66, Buzzywigs, Trapped Princess and several other posters who definitely are not fond of me marry me and marry me now, and when they say no, I could sue them for denying me a basic right.

And when I get chided for not loving in a Christian way for saying I follow what Christ said a marriage is ... Then I will say, when I want these people to marry me ... I am just expanding my definition of love to be in line with what they want. So they better marry me and do it now. Or I sue for denying me my right.

What Kim Davis has done is expose just how far the government is willing to go to carry out their tyranny if enforcing their new "right." Whether or not you think she's chosen a ground she should have (I don't; the state license is not a sacred one like a church wedding is being a contract issued through the agency of man), you should be troubled at how far the state has decided to go to attempt to force her to compromise her personal principles.

Comply with the state and what the state has decided your personal morals and ethics and principles should be or the state will jail you until you change your mind and comply is the lesson here.



Now, I understand that most people think this is absolutely great and wonderful, but I want you to try on a mental exercise:

Think of one of your deeply held personal beliefs, one that makes up part of your core, essential being. Now imagine that the state decides it will force you to act in ways that run counter to that ethic and will now go so far as to put you in jail to force you to change your personal convictions.

I know the cheap comeback is racism, but even racists in this country are still free to be racists. We still have the KKK. But apparently, we cannot tolerate people who hold differing views on marriage.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




I think the SCOTUS found a right that does not exist in the COTUS. There is not right to marriage for anyone. If there was, I could demand that Gryphn66, Buzzywigs, Trapped Princess and several other posters who definitely are not fond of me marry me and marry me now, and when they say no, I could sue them for denying me a basic right.


There several flaws in this argument.

First, this isn't about a new "right to marry" but equal rights for everyone, including government issued marriage licenses.

Secondly, your rights end where mine begin. Requiring someone to marry you because of your beliefs is imposing your beliefs on someone else.

Third, the constitution doesn't forbid racism or bigotry. It prevent the government from imposing racism and bigotry, or allow government regulated commerce to be dictated by racism or bigotry.


edit on 7-9-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko
what can't be tolerated is an entire county going without a service it's entitled to because someone doesn't want to do their job and is using religion as a reason.

edit on 7-9-2015 by dawnstar because: fixes a typo and turned a country into a county.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   
You guys do realize this is the only time in history that the religious reason to not issue licenses is valid right? When these people were elected or took the job, they didn't have to worry about this because it wasn't legal, the law changed and now their religious beliefs are being trampled badly. Maybe we just need to have an impromptu election/employee review where these people are given a choice and can be placed into a different job, or simply let go. Seems like the only way to fairly deal with it to me. How would some of you feel if all of the sudden tomorrow your job description changed and you were forced to do something you disagreed strongly with?



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: EverydayInVA

I'm sorry, but I really haven't had that many jobs where the employer felt they could change my duties on a day to day basis, and felt he had every right to his expectations that I would do whatever he wished for that day.



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: EverydayInVA




You guys do realize this is the only time in history that the religious reason to not issue licenses is valid right? When these people were elected or took the job, they didn't have to worry about this because it wasn't legal, the law changed and now their religious beliefs are being trampled badly.


The law hasn't changed. The Supreme Court ruled that the laws that these people were operating under were unconstitutional, therefore illegal, all along.

Just because they thought that they could defy the US Constitution when they took office, doesn't mean that they can continue to once the Supreme Court ruled their actions unconstitutional.

"Ignorance of the (constitutional) law is no excuse". Kim Davis swore to uphold the Constitution, not her religious beliefs, when she took office.


edit on 7-9-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: kellyjay I can only speak about what I heard about the case on Sirius' Progressive channel. So I only heard the far left radical slant and rant about it, no debate was offered and they seemed to like to attack imaginary opponents who might disagree with their views on the subject. They also seemed miffed that the conservatives didn't seem to be rallying around her but were more than satisfied attacking religion over it.
My take was that she should have been fired for not doing her job, not jailed. But I'll give her credit for standing up to the SC which is still not the highest court in the land. The highest court would be the people and what they will or will not allow. Reminding the SC and the federal government that the people are the final say on anything is good to have done now and again.


edit on 7-9-2015 by Dutchowl because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   
KIm DID uphold the law. Her state Constitution defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Not only that, but the Supreme Court is to interpret law, Congress makes the law! And as long as we stay silent and keep allowing 9 unelected people to overstep their bounds, this nonsense will continue! And it's time to get government BACK out of the marriage business.
edit on 7-9-2015 by Habit4ming because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Habit4ming

Not only that, but the Supreme Court is to interpret law, Congress makes the law!
Right. SCOTUS does not make laws. But not all laws are legal. It is the job of SCOTUS to make that determination. You know, like racial segregation laws? Illegal. Discrimination based on gender? Illegal. Discrimination based on sexual orientation? Illegal.



And as long as we stay silent and keep allowing 9 unelected people to overstep their bounds
Yeah. Like in 1964! Damned blacks got all uppity, didn't know their place. Or 1922, damned women, thought they should have the right to vote.


edit on 9/7/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: kellyjay
If you're guilty of breaking the law then you're guilty of breaking the law, doesn't mean that the law is right or wrong, but it will be right to many people and will also be wrong to many people. They are both guilty of breaking the law.

People who have been elected to high offices and others tend to be able break the law with less repercussion than most.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join