They Are Going After The Churches:

[JimL]

If someone else in her office could issue the licence then she should have the option to bow out, if not then she needs to do her job, or get another job.

Its her job seer, and if you agree that she should be forced do her job if no one else is there to do it, then there is no reason that she shouldn't be forced to do it period. What are you suggesting, that she be forced to violate her conscience, but only under certain circumstances?

Then we completely disagree, freedom is paramount, never mind the fact there is no Constitutional grounding for this insidious power grab.

What exactly do you mean by freedom is paramount? Do you mean to imply that there should be no laws?

One can understand, on an emotional level, anti-discrimination laws for African Americans but when you bring a Christian bakery to law for not wanting to participate in a Gay wedding, or fine a Church for not having transgender bathrooms or showers then that clearly violates religious conscience and just about every definition or concept of freedom as the Framers envisioned. Argue as you will Thinker - that is totalitarian in nature and practice.

Why do you understand anti-discrimination laws on an emotional level with respect to African Americans, but not with respect to gays?

[Tassman]

If someone else in her office could issue the licence then she should have the option to bow out, if not then she needs to do her job, or get another job.

She's paid to do her job; end of story.

Then we completely disagree, freedom is paramount, never mind the fact there is no Constitutional grounding for this insidious power grab.

Freedom for ALL citizens is what's paramount including the right under law for same-sex couples to marry.

One can understand, on an emotional level, anti-discrimination laws for African Americans but when you bring a Christian bakery to law for not wanting to participate in a Gay wedding, or fine a Church for not having transgender bathrooms or showers then that clearly violates religious conscience and just about every definition or concept of freedom as the Framers envisioned.

Argue as you will Thinker - that is totalitarian in nature and practice.

[NorrinRadd]

Tass, you're coming at this from the wrong angle to Norin. Remember that, as an elected official, Kim Davis IS "The Gubmint" when she's acting in her official position

I fully understand that view, and I flatly reject the ridiculous notion that a citizen in effect ceases to BE a citizen when she becomes an agent of da gubmint. She retains her rights, including but not limited to the right guaranteed under the Constitution to not be forced to be even an indirect participant in an activity she finds sinful.

And if you retort that she should therefore not hold that job, that is tantamount to applying the "religious test" that Article VI Clause 3 of the Constitution proscribes.

[NorrinRadd]

The Constitution does not guarantee freedom of "conscience," which of course could easily construed to be the entirely private matter YOU WISH the Constitution limited us to. Instead what it guarantees is free EXERCISE, IOW the liberty to actually LIVE OUT the dictates of our consciences. As with speech, there would be no need for an explicit guarantee of protection of that right if it were not something that sometimes caused offense.

Why should the newly-invented right of gays to marry supersede the right of an employee to not be forced, as part of her job, to participate in activity she finds incompatible with her faith?

[seer]

Why do you understand anti-discrimination laws on an emotional level with respect to African Americans, but not with respect to gays?

Yes, no single group in this nation has had more ill treatment than Blacks. Not that I support anti-discrimination in general.

[seer]

This is completely stupid Tass, the whole tenor of the idea of freedom of association is that we can not be forced in to associations - business or private. You will find no support for the ideal of anti-discrimination laws in the writings of any Founder. If you think otherwise please reference it.


That is a lie - I'm not the one FORCING a Christian dating site into taking non-christians, just as I would not force an atheist dating site to take people of faith. It is the left that is forcing people into associations that they object to under thread of the law.

[Tassman]

The Constitution does not guarantee freedom of "conscience," which of course could easily construed to be the entirely private matter YOU WISH the Constitution limited us to. Instead what it guarantees is free EXERCISE, IOW the liberty to actually LIVE OUT the dictates of our consciences. As with speech, there would be no need for an explicit guarantee of protection of that right if it were not something that sometimes caused offense.

Christians are not entitled to special treatment. If living out "the dictates of your conscience" conflicts with the rights of other citizens, as per the Christian cake shop owners regarding same-sex marriages, the federal courts are called upon to resolve such conflicts, with the Supreme Court being the ultimate arbiter. This was the case with cake-shop owners, who were ruled against by the Colorado Appellate Court.

Why should the newly-invented right of gays to marry supersede the right of an employee to not be forced, as part of her job, to participate in activity she finds incompatible with her faith?

All citizens are entitled to freedom from discrimination in US law; this takes precedence over the personal beliefs of some. Such discrimination is a violation of The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlaws discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin.

[Psychic Missile]

Why? Civil servants are still citizens. They have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to exercise their religion without interference from da gubmint. Why should her rights be subordinated to those of other citizens? In the case at hand, the onus is on da gubmint to create "reasonable accommodations" forthwith.

The government should work for the citizens, not the other way around. Nobody should be granted special privilege, outside of practical necessity, because they are a member of the government group.

[Tassman]

This is completely stupid Tass, the whole tenor of the idea of freedom of association is that we can not be forced in to associations - business or private. You will find no support for the ideal of anti-discrimination laws in the writings of any Founder. If you think otherwise please reference it.

The Fourteenth Amendment addresses equal citizenship rights and equal protection under the law for all citizens.

That is a lie - I'm not the one FORCING a Christian dating site into taking non-christians, just as I would not force an atheist dating site to take people of faith. It is the left that is forcing people into associations that they object to under thread of the law.

The argument is that what's (to use your phrase) is your demand that Christian values, as YOU perceive them, override all other values...even those of other Christians who think differently.

[seer]

The Fourteenth Amendment addresses equal citizenship rights and equal protection under the law for all citizens.

You are completely clueless. This has nothing to do with what a private business can do or who he must serve. It has to do with how the law is applied. Another words the law can not be applied differently or abridged.

The argument is that what's (to use your phrase) is your demand that Christian values, as YOU perceive them, override all other values...even those of other Christians who think differently.

Another outright lie. Am I forcing an atheist dating service into take believers? Whether a Christian Bakery, a Christian photographer, a Christian dating site, etc... It is your side that is doing ALL the forcing under threat of law. And that is totalitarian in nature and practice no matter how you cut it.

[NorrinRadd]

The government should work for the citizens, not the other way around. Nobody should be granted special privilege, outside of practical necessity, because they are a member of the government group.

Why should a citizen be required to surrender Constitutionally guaranteed rights in order to work for the government? Why is it considered "special privilege" to be allowed to hold on to the rights guaranteed to all citizens, and still work for the government?

[NorrinRadd]

Christians are not entitled to special treatment. If living out "the dictates of your conscience" conflicts with the rights of other citizens, as per the Christian cake shop owners regarding same-sex marriages, the federal courts are called upon to resolve such conflicts, with the Supreme Court being the ultimate arbiter. This was the case with cake-shop owners, who were ruled against by the Colorado Appellate Court.



All citizens are entitled to freedom from discrimination in US law; this takes precedence over the personal beliefs of some. Such discrimination is a violation of The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlaws discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin.

Yes, I'm well aware that all three branches of da gubmint have long since abandoned the Constitution, and I fully understand that Xianity is on its way to being outlawed, de facto if not formally de jure.

[JimL]

Yes, no single group in this nation has had more ill treatment than Blacks. Not that I support anti-discrimination in general.

Seer, gays have been discriminated against, ill treated, from time immemorial, to the point where they've had to live their entire lives as though they are something they are not in some instances under threat of death by religious fanatics. If you can understand anti-discrimination laws on an emotional level with respect to the discrimination suffered by black people, you should understand it just the same with respect to the discrimination suffered of gay people. This is why we've adopted anti-discrimination laws, not just for black or gay people, but for everyone. Discrimination is a crime not because of the beliefs of the perpetrater, you're free to believe what you want, you can even believe that stoning gays to death or lynching blacks is the moral thing to do, but its a crime because discrimination injures the victim whether physically, financially or emotionally.

[seer]

Seer, gays have been discriminated against, ill treated, from time immemorial, to the point where they've had to live their entire lives as though they are something they are not in some instances under threat of death by religious fanatics. If you can understand anti-discrimination laws on an emotional level with respect to the discrimination suffered by black people, you should understand it just the same with respect to the discrimination suffered of gay people. This is why we've adopted anti-discrimination laws, not just for black or gay people, but for everyone. Discrimination is a crime not because of the beliefs of the perpetrater, you're free to believe what you want, you can even believe that stoning gays to death or lynching blacks is the moral thing to do, but its a crime because discrimination injures the victim whether physically, financially or emotionally.

Sorry Jim, I don't buy the whole anti-discrimination argument, especially when you try and force a Christian dating site to admit non-believers. This unconstitutional loss of freedom out weights any possible merits. And skin color is not the same as behavior. I man can not help being black, but homosexuals can refrain from their immoral acts. And if a gay or black is physically harmed the offender needs to be prosecuted, so I don't know why you took a cheap shot by mentioning lynching or stoning...

[JimL]

Sorry Jim, I don't buy the whole anti-discrimination argument, especially when you try and force a Christian dating site to admit non-believers.

Whether purposely or not you're accussation is misleading. The christian dating site was forced to admit homosexuals, not non-believers. Like it or not, there are many homosexual christians.