Kim Davis... Gay Marriage... Religious Freedom Restoration Act... Reasonable Accommodations...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes, really! And no it isn't the law.

Okay. There is no first amendment... there is no Title VII... there is no RFRA... golly gee I don't know where I got those crazy ideas!

Except I do. And so do you. We both know that. And while I have serious problems with how all this is playing out, and many questions regarding same, the one thing I know is that if we don't respect and follow the rule of law for EVERYONE -- even those who we don't like for whatever reason -- then we're all screwed.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes, really! And no it isn't the law.

Okay. There is no first amendment... there is no Title VII... there is no RFRA... golly gee I don't know where I got those crazy ideas!

First Amendment doesn't give the right to discriminate against someone. Your rights aren't more important than my rights. Try again.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't care about your history ma'am. I just care about what you are saying to me. It's nice that you are tolerant enough to go to other sources in cases of intolerance against you or your husband, but that shouldn't be something expected of people. That is why we passed the Civil Rights Acts.

And yet you are trying to tell me "the reality" that I have lived? Okay.

And it's not tolerance. It's respect. Respect for everyone's God-given NATURAL rights, as established in the Declaration of Independence and our organic law.

And, incidentally, we were married long after the Civil Rights Act was passed and -- GASP! -- the racial hate is still alive and well. We didn't fix a damn thing... we just made it punishable by the long arm of the law. Then we wonder why the police state is out of control.

Big sigh...

(And just for the record, neither my in-laws nor my husband and I nor our many friends and family needed a law to see past race, religion or any other "divider.")

a reply to: Krazysh0t

But that is my point. Even drivel like Fox News is agreeing with me. That should tell you something. I mean, if you can't even get the flagship for hypocrisy, fearmongering, and strawmans to agree with you, you PROBABLY have a lost cause.

Well, it is true that even a stopped clock is right twice a day... but that doesn't mean they're right this time. In any given situation, we can find someone that agrees and someone that disagrees.

a reply to: amicktd

We could have this circular argument all day, so let me put what she did into perspective since you don't see whats wrong with what she did.[/quote

Let me return the favor...

Congress passed legal rights for religious beliefs and objections. Not me. Congress gave Ms. Davis -- and all of us -- the right to object on religious grounds and provided legal remedies, aka reasonable accommodations. You don't have to like it... I don't have to like it... but that's the reality.

Denying Ms. Davis her rights under the law is no more or less virtuous than Ms. Davis denying others their legal rights under the law. Yeah, it's a big fustercluck. We all get that. But -- as Ms. Davis' opposition have so rightly maintained -- it's the law and must be respected.

It's not about Ms. Davis... it's about due process and equal application of the law.

a reply to: amicktd

Unless they're gay right?

Man proposes to his boyfriend in Texas Methodist Church that prohibits gay marriage - and gets a standing ovation from the congregation

Mr Harper said the support they have received has been a huge blessing to their relationship, especially as a gay couple in Texas. 'That church has been, for us, really the first time we have really been able to live out loud as a couple,' he told BuzzFeed News.

The Episcopal Church approves religious weddings for gay couples after controversial debate

Presbyterian Church formally approves gay marriage in church constitution

LGBT-affirming Christian denominations

originally posted by: Boadicea
And yet you are trying to tell me "the reality" that I have lived? Okay.

Um... No... I haven't dictated to you YOUR reality. I've dictated how the laws are supposed to work in the country. Stop trying to make this issue about you. I'm not talking about you.

And it's not tolerance. It's respect. Respect for everyone's God-given NATURAL rights, as established in the Declaration of Independence and our organic law.

Forcing Davis to sign those certificates or resign IS respecting everyone's natural rights.

And, incidentally, we were married long after the Civil Rights Act was passed and -- GASP! -- the racial hate is still alive and well. We didn't fix a damn thing... we just made it punishable by the long arm of the law. Then we wonder why the police state is out of control.

Big sigh...

Of course we didn't fix everything... If that had happened we wouldn't be having this discussion today...

(And just for the record, neither my in-laws nor my husband and I nor our many friends and family needed a law to see past race, religion or any other "divider.")

I'm glad. I don't need one either.

a reply to: CryHavoc

Many people have tried to hide behind 'Freedom of Religion' as an excuse to be a bigot.

I am not hiding behind anything. Nor am I bigot.

I neither wrote nor voted on the Bill of Rights and the 1st Amendment contained therein. I neither wrote nor voted on the Title VII statutes. I neither wrote nor voted on the RFRA. No one even asked me. However, all of the above were passed by the duly elected representatives of the people, and are in effect.

As long as this is the law, as long as these are Ms. Davis' rights, then I will support Ms. Davis in her efforts to exercise and protect her rights under the law. Not because I agree with Ms. Davis or her position, but because I support due process and equal application of the law.

For the same reasons I fully support the rights of gay couples under the laws.

a reply to: Boadicea

Well how about reading what they say and determining if it is true or not? *hint: they are spot on with what they are saying*

Go look up the article in the Constitution that they referenced. Everything they are saying is true. (I know, I'm surprised too)

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Boadicea

Absolute no point from now on conversing with you on the topic is there.
People have explained to you the law and the situation many times over but you just ignore it.
Goodbye.

And yet... in practice, the state of Kentucky has done exactly what I have said the law requires... to provide reasonable accommodations for Ms. Davis' religious objections.

But I'm the one ignoring the real situation? Okay.

Thank you for your input. I'm sorry we couldn't find some common ground. But such is the reason we are all in the huge mess we are today.

Good bye

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Forcing Davis to sign those certificates or resign IS respecting everyone's natural rights.

Forcing anyone to do anything respects no one's natural rights. Ignoring the legal rights of some to entitle others respects no one's rights.

I can think of half a dozen ways off the top of my head that the laws can provide for and promote and reward non-discrimination without violating anyone's rights. The fact that no one (here or elsewhere) seems interested in doing so only tells me that this isn't about respect or even tolerance for anyone's rights. It's all about using force to deny rights to some and entitle others.

And in the end, that will only continue to hurt us all.

As appose to Christians trying non-stop to shove their religious morality down everyone else's throat?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And you are wanting everyone to conform to what you think is right. In other words, you are shoving your morality down everyone else's throat.

Isn't that something no one should do?

Either we respect that people can have their own beliefs and accommodate that or we become a tyranny that has no respect for the individual beliefs a person holds. You cannot have it to ways and pay lip service to it when it suits you to do so because it fits with what you believe and then ignore your statements when the person in question goes against what YOU think is right.

And in order to respect the beliefs and rights of the individual, it means you have to both side with people you do not agree with on occasion and respect that others can do things you also do not agree with. In this case, the gay couple should be able to get their license and a way should be found around forcing Kim Davis to participate in it.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Forcing Davis to sign those certificates or resign IS respecting everyone's natural rights.

Forcing anyone to do anything respects no one's natural rights. Ignoring the legal rights of some to entitle others respects no one's rights.

No the "forcing" is making her apply the law equally to everyone as well as do her job in full. She NEVER had a right to discriminate against someone based on religious reasons.

I can think of half a dozen ways off the top of my head that the laws can provide for and promote and reward non-discrimination without violating anyone's rights. The fact that no one (here or elsewhere) seems interested in doing so only tells me that this isn't about respect or even tolerance for anyone's rights. It's all about using force to deny rights to some and entitle others.

And in the end, that will only continue to hurt us all.

Funny that most people around the country disagree with Davis and her ideas of what rights she thinks she has isn't it (including the judge presiding over her case)?

She hasn't at all. She has just been prevented from discriminating against people on the grounds of sexual orientation while holding public office. I read somewhere, the real problem is. Christians have been so used to privilege that equality, to them seems like persecution and oppression. I know this is not the case with all Christians, but there certainly is a large chunk of them that this applies too. You can spot them on here on other websites, screaming oppression and persecution. NO ONE is taking away their freedoms, they are just levelling the playing field for everyone else.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
Can anyone tell me when she lost her Freedom of Belief? because that is what Religion is, not a way to govern Other people

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Boadicea

Well how about reading what they say and determining if it is true or not? *hint: they are spot on with what they are saying*

Go look up the article in the Constitution that they referenced. Everything they are saying is true. (I know, I'm surprised too)

LOL! ^^^

I did re-read the Fox article and I did look up the pertinent section in the Constitution. That's not my problem with this whole debacle.

Under the RFRA, Ms. Davis does have a legal right to request reasonable accommodations. As I see it, her requests for reasonable accommodations were ignored by the proper state authorities and by the courts. If the Governor had done his duty and responded IN A TIMELY MANNER (i.e., changed the forms as she requested for a reasonable accommodation), rather than waiting until she had been slammed by the Court, none of this would have happened.

And -- you may want to sit down for this -- if the courts had considered reasonable accommodations and ruled against it as too cumbersome (or whatever), then slapped a restraining order on her instead of throwing her ass in jail, I would be totally supportive. In that situation, I would be satisfied that Ms. Davis' rights under the law had been considered and respected, and therefore everyone's rights had been honored and respected.

But that's just it... Kentucky did EXACTLY what Ms. Davis requested as a reasonable accommodation, in accordance with her rights under the law. So why didn't they just do that in the first place? Why didn't the Governor step in and put a stop to all of this? Why was Ms. Davis thrown to the wolves when her requests were obviously acceptable to the state???

No good reason I can think of...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Funny that most people around the country disagree with Davis and her ideas of what rights she thinks she has isn't it (including the judge presiding over her case)?

Only in a very sad way... and it doesn't bode well for anyone. Neither Kim Davis nor I made up this stuff -- specifically, our rights under the RFRA.

As I've said, I am happy to consider challenges to those "reasonable accommodation" rights... but as long as it's the law, as long as she does in fact have those rights... they must be respected.

Due process and equal application of the law. Exactly what the gay marriage fight was all about.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: BlackboxInquiry

Are you saying this isn't an important issue?

Priorities. There are much bigger issues that need resolution, solving that affects all of us, not just a portion of us.

a reply to: Boadicea

Did you ever answer my question and i missed it? or did you not see it? about Separation of Church and State

a reply to: BlackboxInquiry

What are you doing here then If it isa such a non issue?.
A none issue for you but for many it is not.
You do not decide which issues are important.

a reply to: Boadicea

She was thrown in jail for being in contempt of court, NOT for not issuing licenses. Please get that correct for once.