Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Case against Kim Davis dismissed
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1 of 103 (790384)
08-30-2016 1:23 AM


Hadn't been keeping up with the news about these things but am very happy to hear that three lawsuits against Kim Davis have been dismissed and she is back at work, free from any requirement to sign her name to a gay marriage license. A victory for freedom, truth and sanity.
That and other heartening stories can be found at The Liberty Council

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Genomicus, posted 08-30-2016 5:38 AM Faith has replied
 Message 26 by Theodoric, posted 08-30-2016 10:37 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 3 of 103 (790388)
08-30-2016 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Genomicus
08-30-2016 5:38 AM


She had the job before the Supreme Court put her in a corner regarding her Christian faith.
Yes this is a victory for religious freedom. Gay marriage is a violation of God's Law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Genomicus, posted 08-30-2016 5:38 AM Genomicus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by vimesey, posted 08-30-2016 7:33 AM Faith has replied
 Message 66 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-31-2016 10:47 AM Faith has replied
 Message 82 by LamarkNewAge, posted 10-07-2016 6:24 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 5 of 103 (790399)
08-30-2016 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by vimesey
08-30-2016 7:33 AM


Is it not possible to have your opinion and let us have ours?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by vimesey, posted 08-30-2016 7:33 AM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 08-30-2016 8:05 AM Faith has replied
 Message 7 by vimesey, posted 08-30-2016 8:10 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 8 of 103 (790402)
08-30-2016 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by jar
08-30-2016 8:05 AM


Re: You are free to have your opinion
There is of course no freedom of opinion if it can't be acted on. Your attitude is the perfect noncompromising hatred of free speech for anyone you disagree with that would put Christians in jail regularly for refusing to violate their conscience. There should be no "trumping," but the whole LGBT attitude seems to be to force their views on those who refuse to accept them, to drive Christians out of business who won't accept gay marriage for instance, simply reject any form of compromise in favor of tyranny.
I think I read at that website though I don't remember for sure if that's where I read it, Kim Davis is no longer forced to have her signature on marriage licenses because of a law made since all this began that changed how the forms are designed. So gays can get their licenses and she isn't forced to do something that violates her Christian conscience. I think it may be that deputies issue the licenses rather than Davis herself as well. I'm not SURE I read this right, but it seems like a reasonable solution to me.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 08-30-2016 8:05 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by vimesey, posted 08-30-2016 8:35 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 9 of 103 (790404)
08-30-2016 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by vimesey
08-30-2016 8:10 AM


Sounds good but it's really just a form of tyranny that denies freedom of belief to those you disagree with, because there is no way to have freedom of opinion if you are forbidden to act on it. The solution it seems to me is to avoid situations where there is sure to be a clash. Don't ask a Christian bakery to design a wedding cake for a gay marriage and so on. Have some Danish and coffee and order your cake elsewhere. Common sense it seems to me. It's the confrontational attitude that is determined to vilify someone for "discrimination" who is acting on their conscience that is the problem.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by vimesey, posted 08-30-2016 8:10 AM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by vimesey, posted 08-30-2016 8:38 AM Faith has replied
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-30-2016 10:03 AM Faith has replied
 Message 65 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-31-2016 10:44 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 12 of 103 (790408)
08-30-2016 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by vimesey
08-30-2016 8:35 AM


Re: You are free to have your opinion
Refusing to accept gay marriage is not "doing harm" to anyone. That's a totally bogus bit of political correctness. Refusing to sign a marriage license, refusing to make a wedding cake, refusing to take photos for a gay wedding, to call that "doing harm" is to make a mockery of law and speech. The harm that is done is on the other side against people whose conscience is violated by their demands. The harm is done by sending someone like Kim Davis to prision for refusing to sign marriage licenses; harm is done to the Christian business owners whose store was vandalized and they forced to leave it.
You need a major rethink here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by vimesey, posted 08-30-2016 8:35 AM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by vimesey, posted 08-30-2016 8:53 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 15 by jar, posted 08-30-2016 8:54 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 13 of 103 (790410)
08-30-2016 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by vimesey
08-30-2016 8:38 AM


And when it comes to suggestions that gay people should seek services elsewhere, is that not the same as saying that Rosa Parks should have sat elsewhere ?
Why should the person being discriminated against, have to make concessions?
No., that's utterly disgusting PC. Gays are not a race, they aren't really even a legitimate class at all that deserves any concession from society. The world has gone loony however and now we recognize them as a special class, ridiculous though that is, so I'm for some kind of compromise. I'm certainly not for treating them as equal to a race of people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by vimesey, posted 08-30-2016 8:38 AM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by vimesey, posted 08-30-2016 8:56 AM Faith has replied
 Message 77 by saab93f, posted 08-31-2016 1:26 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 17 of 103 (790416)
08-30-2016 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by vimesey
08-30-2016 8:56 AM


Gays should be treated like everybody else, not like a special class. They should not be fired for being gay unless they are being obnoxious about it, but they should not be protected on anti-discrimination grounds, just on the ground that there is no just cause to fire them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by vimesey, posted 08-30-2016 8:56 AM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by 1.61803, posted 08-30-2016 9:56 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 19 by vimesey, posted 08-30-2016 10:01 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 71 by ramoss, posted 08-31-2016 11:01 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 23 of 103 (790429)
08-30-2016 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Dr Adequate
08-30-2016 10:03 AM


Ah yes, now it's ANY opinion, right? Just any old opinion has a right if my opinion has a right. If someone thinks people should marry dogs that should be treated as an opinion to be respected. An opinion that has rights, that should be protected by law so that it can be acted upon. Of course. The opinion that men who are attracted to boys should be allowed to act on it is gaining favor in some quarters. Obviously since it's somebody's opinion it should be respected.
So now we have to argue about the grounds for treatin an opinion as worthy of protection, as having rights. There are no doubt many things that could be said. But all this nonsense wears me out. I'm just too tired. Go ahead, ruin the world, it's coming to that very soon anyay.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-30-2016 10:03 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 08-30-2016 10:33 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-30-2016 11:18 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 24 of 103 (790430)
08-30-2016 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by 1.61803
08-30-2016 10:03 AM


Do you want an employee that acts in an obnoxious manner? And of course I mean something REALLY obnoxious, not just ordinary gay mannerisms. Shouldn't you have a right to protect the public image of your business? Not to mention the morale of your employees if it's REALLY obnoxious.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by 1.61803, posted 08-30-2016 10:03 AM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 27 of 103 (790435)
08-30-2016 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Theodoric
08-30-2016 10:37 AM


She won in the sense that the other laws eliminated the requirement that she sign a marriage license against her conscience; also in the sense that the ACLU's demand that she pay for legal expenses was rejected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Theodoric, posted 08-30-2016 10:37 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Theodoric, posted 08-30-2016 10:54 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 29 of 103 (790437)
08-30-2016 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Theodoric
08-30-2016 10:54 AM


Ah yes, an illegal law of the land, imposed on the nation without any action of the legislature, just autocratic judicial tyranny as usual. You're right though, it is treated as the law of the land however criminally it was imposed on us, and a way was found for Davis to be off its hook for now. You're right about that. Too bad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Theodoric, posted 08-30-2016 10:54 AM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Genomicus, posted 08-30-2016 11:08 AM Faith has replied
 Message 31 by jar, posted 08-30-2016 11:16 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 33 of 103 (790444)
08-30-2016 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Genomicus
08-30-2016 11:08 AM


Perhaps questions could be asked about the legality of the Emancipation Proclamation but I'm not up on the issues. I believe, however, that Lincoln had given fair warning and reasons for his action in advance, and that he had constitutional power to do what he did in a time of war, which already makes it far more legal than the Supreme Court's actions. The Supreme Court also acted against laws passed by the people in many states, which to my mind is a horrific violation of democratic principles.
However, Theodoric's bringing this up did remind me that my first take on the dismissal wasn't as positive as I reported it in my OP. The OP reflects more of the opinion of the Liberty Counsel than my own first take. I'm back to my first take: the dismissal was not the great victory I wish it had been, but more of a compromise that at least set her free from the outrageous mistreatment of her. I can go with compromise though, as I've argued here already. It may be the best way of dealing with this inherently rotten legal situation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Genomicus, posted 08-30-2016 11:08 AM Genomicus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-30-2016 12:15 PM Faith has replied
 Message 37 by ooh-child, posted 08-30-2016 1:11 PM Faith has replied
 Message 39 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 08-30-2016 4:35 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 34 of 103 (790446)
08-30-2016 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Dr Adequate
08-30-2016 11:18 AM


For me it's not about people, or WHO has a right to an opinion, it's about the worthiness of the opinion; , but of course as I was saying in that post, for your side it's about people and any old opinion is fine if somebody holds it. That WAS my point. You didn't get it but of course you wouldn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-30-2016 11:18 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-30-2016 12:12 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 40 of 103 (790474)
08-30-2016 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by ooh-child
08-30-2016 1:11 PM


I've still never gotten an answer from you about this belief of yours. You keep saying that the people passed laws in several states, but what happens when the people vote to uphold gay marriage recognition - after voting against it? Then a few decades later, they vote again & this time they deny the rights of gays to marry? and then a couple of years later...you see where I'm going? When does it stop?
Have you thought that through? I'd appreciate a reply.
Sorry if I didn't reply. What can I say? Times change, people's minds change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by ooh-child, posted 08-30-2016 1:11 PM ooh-child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by ooh-child, posted 08-31-2016 12:03 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024