He did his job. He defended the constitutional amendment.

 

I disagree, he had an obligation to appeal the decision, he opted not to and made some very nice tears for the camera when he opted not to base on his beliefs as well as costing the state money when they had to hire outside council. He's no different then the people you now want fired.

Why did he have an obligation to appeal? I'm confused?

I disagree, he had an obligation to appeal the decision, he opted not to and made some very nice tears for the camera when he opted not to base on his beliefs as well as costing the state money when they had to hire outside council. He's no different then the people you now want fired.

He doesn't have a job obligation to appeal every decision...

Why did he have an obligation to appeal? I'm confused?

 

It wasn't his call to make or it wouldn't have been appealed in the first place. Once the Governor decided to appeal it then as the State's attorney it was his obligation to lead the appeal. He flat out said he couldn't do it because of his personal beliefs, just like the clerks and very theatrically shed a few tears for the camera.

He doesn't have a job obligation to appeal every decision...

 

But the Governor decided to appeal so apparently it wasn't his call to make. Once that happened he was obligated to lead the appeal.

The more I thought about your response the more it ticked me off. I'm not ashamed, my being a Christian has nothing to do with my responses. I am in fact a Christian. I also believe that it is not my place to judge others and try to impose my personal beliefs on them. Gay marriage does not affect my standing as a Christian or my place in this world. I'm not going to judge them as wrong or right. I do feel as though these clerks are in the wrong however. The way I look at it is this: I am able to worship as a Christian in my own way because I live in America. Without the protection afforded me by the Constitution and other laws and enforced by the government then I would not have that ability. Since it is the government that allows and enforces that right I feel compelled to obey those laws and give those that want to worship differently or not at all the freedom to do so without judgment. With that being the case I feel as though these clerks, who are agents of that government, are in the wrong and should be fired or resign. It is not their place, it is not your place, it is not my place to judge the couples that are applying for these licenses (whether gay or straight). If we want the freedom to worship as we see fit we have to be tolerant enough to allow others to do so even if their beliefs are in direct conflict with our own. Gay marriage may not jibe with Christian values but it has no effect on Christians ability to worship as they see fit. A courthouse is not a place of worship.

 

That I agree with. I said I could not do it. But that's just me. The clerks have a decision to make and if its a job requirement for them to do something that's against their belief then they need to get out. I would never take a job that required me to do something I didn't believe in to begin with. And I am glad you are not ashamed.:thumb:

 

I was told today that the majority of the clerks were not for this and were trying to get the state to make all marriage licenses online so that no clerks office in the state had to issue them. Now that was told to me by someone who worked in a courthouse and had some knowledge of whats going on behind the scenes. Said it may not happen but there is a big push behind the scenes and a meeting of the Clerks is supposed to be taking place soon. Taylor County Clerk decided today to stop also. Thats not me saying its right or wrong just reporting that it happened. Oh and by the way I didnt work at the Taylor County Courthouse today.

Fair point.

 

Was President Lincoln wrong to use the Bible in his efforts to abolish slavery?

 

Again not the same. His Emancipation Proclamation made only a passing reference to God and was issued under powers granted him in time of war. It was not done under the guise or religion. The 13th Amendment was legally voted on and ratified by Congress. I have no problem with that however they came to it.

 

Let me give you a better comparison. What if a court clerk that was Catholic decided to quit issuing marriage licenses to couples that had been divorced? (I know that is not the exact stance of the Catholic Church) Would that be okay?

Is this any different than a Pharmacist having to dispense the Abortion Pill to someone if it's against their beliefs?

 

A Federal Court has ruled that they can not be forced to sell the "Morning After" Abortion Pill.

Is this any different than a Pharmacist having to dispense the Abortion Pill to someone if it's against their beliefs?

 

A Federal Court has ruled that they can not be forced to sell the "Morning After" Abortion Pill.

 

 

No different. Or at least not in my opinion.

Is this any different than a Pharmacist having to dispense the Abortion Pill to someone if it's against their beliefs?

 

A Federal Court has ruled that they can not be forced to sell the "Morning After" Abortion Pill.

 

Good question. However, they don't give the pill to some and not others, correct?

Is this any different than a Pharmacist having to dispense the Abortion Pill to someone if it's against their beliefs?

 

A Federal Court has ruled that they can not be forced to sell the "Morning After" Abortion Pill.

 

The County Clerk is an elected official, the pharmacist runs a private business. If they don't want to carry a product I don't see how they can be forced to carry it. They also wouldn't have to carry birth control pills or over the counter birth control if they didn't want to--though I'm betting that they wouldn't be in business long if they took that stance. The County Clerk's Office is required to issue marriage licenses. It is currently the only outlet for that document that is legally required. A person miffed at a pharmacy for not carrying the morning after pill can go somewhere else, a person wanting to legally get married has to go to the Clerk.

Good question. However, they don't give the pill to some and not others, correct?

True about that specific pill, but they do give contraceptives to some (un-pregnant) and not others (pregnant).

The County Clerk is an elected official, the pharmacist runs a private business. If they don't want to carry a product I don't see how they can be forced to carry it. They also wouldn't have to carry birth control pills or over the counter birth control if they didn't want to--though I'm betting that they wouldn't be in business long if they took that stance. The County Clerk's Office is required to issue marriage licenses.

 

Agreed, that would be the difference. My only point was that if a court has ruled that a service can be denied based on ethical objection, it could very well open the door to this also.

Again not the same. His Emancipation Proclamation made only a passing reference to God and was issued under powers granted him in time of war. It was not done under the guise or religion. The 13th Amendment was legally voted on and ratified by Congress. I have no problem with that however they came to it.

 

I wasn't speaking of the Emancipation Proclamation. But during his Presidency, Lincoln often quoted Scripture or his faith in God to support his correct belief that slavery should be abolished.

 

To your last comment, I believe the clerks are breaking the law, though I join them in disagreeing with that law. They have the right to do what they have done, but their employer also has the right to fire them.

 

What I am speaking about is the statement people have made since this ruling came down--that people should not attempt to impose their beliefs on others. That has happened and still happens all the time.

I wasn't speaking of the Emancipation Proclamation. But during his Presidency, Lincoln often quoted Scripture or his faith in God to support his correct belief that slavery should be abolished.

 

To your last comment, I believe the clerks are breaking the law, though I join them in disagreeing with that law. They have the right to do what they have done, but their employer also has the right to fire them.

 

What I am speaking about is the statement people have made since this ruling came down--that people should not attempt to impose their beliefs on others. That has happened and still happens all the time.

 

I've got no problem with Lincoln, or any elected official, using their religious beliefs to support or rally against a proposed law as long as the proper procedures are followed to bring that law in to place. Lincoln did not use his religious convictions to force the law in to place--simply to garner support for it. These clerks are denying service to taxpaying citizens that are legally entitled to that service. If they continue they should be fired.