It should be legal to discriminate against our own citizens, right?

 

One would think not, but perhaps that's too much to ask in 2015.

There is a term "police discretion". At any given time (as there are humans involved) an officer makes a decision over what violations he/she will enforce. This concept exists at all levels of enforcing laws or legislation and often blows with the wind of media or popular opinion when politics are involved.

 

DWB ​*cough cough*

Bill would exempt clerks from issuing gay marriage licenses

 

If I understood the article and the article didn't leave out substantive information it seems like a rather modest proposal to me and one that should be supported. The bill proposed simply says that you can't prosecute a person or sue them into the poor house if they are put in a position to have to choose between their religious convictions or performing the duties of his/her office. The bill did not say they could not be fired or removed from office, which would be an appropriate action if the state feels compelled to do so. I assume there is already a mechanism in place to do that. Remember, this circumstance did not exist when these particular county clerks accepted their positions. In fact, there was a state law defining marriage as between one man and one woman in place that they could heartily agree with. The rug has been pulled out from under them. Surely in a pluralistic society that values diversity and political correctness, one would expect a bit of toleration when it goes the other way. All this bill proposes is that these individuals can't be prosecuted or sued for their action. They can be removed by the state. That is reasonable.

 

The slope continues to get more slippery. I hope it passes. Then I'll get my senators to propose a bill that says I can sleep and watch Netflix at work all day long because manual labor is against my religion.

 

Well, the difference between the county clerk's position and your's regarding sleeping and watching Netflix is that their conviction isn't a Johnny-come-lately belief for personal benefit. It is a time-honored tenant of their religious faith tradition that held this long before they even came along. It has also been affirmed by our society for the entire length of the history of our nation and for thousands of years prior, until a few weeks ago. Furthermore, it was the state law until the SCOTUS struck it down, again a few weeks ago. It was also the stated belief of the POTUS just three years ago. Now, we want to tell some ordinary citizen who stepped up to serve their county that they are criminal and can be sued until everything they have worked for and perhaps their parents before them have worked for just because 5 justices of the Supreme Court changed the whole nation's mind in an instant. Not fair. And if using the fictitious analogy of your new found religion, that's apples to oranges.

 

A slippery slope indeed, but not because some county clerk stood up for her/his convictions but because 5 justices of the Supreme Court decided they can change the definition of a word. Furthermore, apparently, the SCOTUS is now a legislative body. Yes, that may very well be the catalyst to a slippery slope into chaos.

If I understood the article and the article didn't leave out substantive information it seems like a rather modest proposal to me and one that should be supported. The bill proposed simply says that you can't prosecute a person or sue them into the poor house if they are put in a position to have to choose between their religious convictions or performing the duties of his/her office. The bill did not say they could not be fired or removed from office, which would be an appropriate action if the state feels compelled to do so. I assume there is already a mechanism in place to do that. Remember, this circumstance did not exist when these particular county clerks accepted their positions. In fact, there was a state law defining marriage as between one man and one woman in place that they could heartily agree with. The rug has been pulled out from under them. Surely in a pluralistic society that values diversity and political correctness, one would expect a bit of toleration when it goes the other way. All this bill proposes is that these individuals can't be prosecuted or sued for their action. They can be removed by the state. That is reasonable.

 

 

 

Well, the difference between the county clerk's position and your's regarding sleeping and watching Netflix is that their conviction isn't a Johnny-come-lately belief for personal benefit. It is a time-honored tenant of their religious faith tradition that held this long before they even came along. It has also been affirmed by our society for the entire length of the history of our nation and for thousands of years prior, until a few weeks ago. Furthermore, it was the state law until the SCOTUS struck it down, again a few weeks ago. It was also the stated belief of the POTUS just three years ago. Now, we want to tell some ordinary citizen who stepped up to serve their county that they are criminal and can be sued until everything they have worked for and perhaps their parents before them have worked for just because 5 justices of the Supreme Court changed the whole nation's mind in an instant. Not fair. And if using the fictitious analogy of your new found religion, that's apples to oranges.

 

A slippery slope indeed, but not because some county clerk stood up for her/his convictions but because 5 justices of the Supreme Court decided they can change the definition of a word. Furthermore, apparently, the SCOTUS is now a legislative body. Yes, that may very well be the catalyst to a slippery slope into chaos.

 

So before homosexuals wanted to get married they denied people who weren't virgins marriage certificates and they denied people who had been divorced marriage certificates? Those sins go against the same beliefs they use to discriminate against homosexuals.

It's not tolerance towards someone when it involves discrimination.

 

 

That's dumb. I'm not being intolerant towards someone by not allowing them to be intolerant.

 

That's the argument of a 5 year old who doesn't want to take a nap, not a rational member of society.

 

There were people issuing marriage licenses in 1967 Virginia when the Loving v. Virginia case was decided. There were people in office before that was issued who then had to stop refusing inter-racial marriages even though it had previously been a law.

 

Clerks aren't the victims of anything. At all.

If I understood the article and the article didn't leave out substantive information it seems like a rather modest proposal to me and one that should be supported. The bill proposed simply says that you can't prosecute a person or sue them into the poor house if they are put in a position to have to choose between their religious convictions or performing the duties of his/her office. The bill did not say they could not be fired or removed from office, which would be an appropriate action if the state feels compelled to do so. I assume there is already a mechanism in place to do that. Remember, this circumstance did not exist when these particular county clerks accepted their positions. In fact, there was a state law defining marriage as between one man and one woman in place that they could heartily agree with. The rug has been pulled out from under them. Surely in a pluralistic society that values diversity and political correctness, one would expect a bit of toleration when it goes the other way. All this bill proposes is that these individuals can't be prosecuted or sued for their action. They can be removed by the state. That is reasonable.

 

 

 

Well, the difference between the county clerk's position and your's regarding sleeping and watching Netflix is that their conviction isn't a Johnny-come-lately belief for personal benefit. It is a time-honored tenant of their religious faith tradition that held this long before they even came along. It has also been affirmed by our society for the entire length of the history of our nation and for thousands of years prior, until a few weeks ago. Furthermore, it was the state law until the SCOTUS struck it down, again a few weeks ago. It was also the stated belief of the POTUS just three years ago. Now, we want to tell some ordinary citizen who stepped up to serve their county that they are criminal and can be sued until everything they have worked for and perhaps their parents before them have worked for just because 5 justices of the Supreme Court changed the whole nation's mind in an instant. Not fair. And if using the fictitious analogy of your new found religion, that's apples to oranges.

 

A slippery slope indeed, but not because some county clerk stood up for her/his convictions but because 5 justices of the Supreme Court decided they can change the definition of a word. Furthermore, apparently, the SCOTUS is now a legislative body. Yes, that may very well be the catalyst to a slippery slope into chaos.

 

So you're saying you don't think people intentionally disregarding federal law should be prosecuted?

It's not tolerance towards someone when it involves discrimination.

 

 

That's dumb. I'm not being intolerant towards someone by not allowing them to be intolerant.

 

That's the argument of a 5 year old who doesn't want to take a nap, not a rational member of society.

 

There were people issuing marriage licenses in 1967 Virginia when the Loving v. Virginia case was decided. There were people in office before that was issued who then had to stop refusing inter-racial marriages even though it had previously been a law.

 

 

Clerks aren't the victims of anything. At all.

 

False. They are victims of ignorance. They are too stupid to realize their ignorance.

If I understood the article and the article didn't leave out substantive information it seems like a rather modest proposal to me and one that should be supported. The bill proposed simply says that you can't prosecute a person or sue them into the poor house if they are put in a position to have to choose between their religious convictions or performing the duties of his/her office. The bill did not say they could not be fired or removed from office, which would be an appropriate action if the state feels compelled to do so. I assume there is already a mechanism in place to do that. Remember, this circumstance did not exist when these particular county clerks accepted their positions. In fact, there was a state law defining marriage as between one man and one woman in place that they could heartily agree with. The rug has been pulled out from under them. Surely in a pluralistic society that values diversity and political correctness, one would expect a bit of toleration when it goes the other way. All this bill proposes is that these individuals can't be prosecuted or sued for their action. They can be removed by the state. That is reasonable.

 

 

 

Well, the difference between the county clerk's position and your's regarding sleeping and watching Netflix is that their conviction isn't a Johnny-come-lately belief for personal benefit. It is a time-honored tenant of their religious faith tradition that held this long before they even came along. It has also been affirmed by our society for the entire length of the history of our nation and for thousands of years prior, until a few weeks ago. Furthermore, it was the state law until the SCOTUS struck it down, again a few weeks ago. It was also the stated belief of the POTUS just three years ago. Now, we want to tell some ordinary citizen who stepped up to serve their county that they are criminal and can be sued until everything they have worked for and perhaps their parents before them have worked for just because 5 justices of the Supreme Court changed the whole nation's mind in an instant. Not fair. And if using the fictitious analogy of your new found religion, that's apples to oranges.

 

A slippery slope indeed, but not because some county clerk stood up for her/his convictions but because 5 justices of the Supreme Court decided they can change the definition of a word. Furthermore, apparently, the SCOTUS is now a legislative body. Yes, that may very well be the catalyst to a slippery slope into chaos.

 

The point is that the Clerk shouldn't be picking and choosing who can receive a license. We can't allow state officials to allow their religious convictions to discriminate. If you don't like the law, and feel that it violates your convictions to their very core, then why are you still drawing a paycheck from that entity? Moral convictions weren't strong enough to refuse that paycheck. They should receive the same exact punishment that any state employee gets for disregarding federal (and now state) law when it comes to official capacity. Again, you don't have to be a clerk.

I said somebody at the state level had to do something in reaction to the opinions handed down and re-instated. But this was not the right reaction.

 

The legislature needs to nullify the laws struck down in the original opinions that were re-instated by the SCOTUS opinion. Then the AG needs to re-issue the procedures to the clerks. But giving the clerks a legal out to the current chaos is not the way to go and even perpetuates the confusion.

 

Hopefully Kentucky does not do what it did during the Civil War and not get the state laws together to match the prevailing actions nationwide. Having the distinction to be the last state to have legal slavery is not good. Behing the hold out on this is almost as bad.

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. You act as if there's not numerous reasons why some federal laws aren't enforced.

You're right about that. If Obama doesn't like them, he chooses not to enforce them.

Had a visiting Pastor at Church this past Sunday night...his thoughts on this were pretty spot on and I think most of you will agree with him.

 

He is originally from Casey County and was called and asked if he would come to the rally and stand with the Casey Co Clerk (a life long friend). He said that he was pretty busy and they pressed him that he needed to come over there. His answer was well I've got members that need food to eat that I'm working on, I've got homeless members that I'm trying to help, we have shut ins that we visit and take meals to...who of those people, do I tell I don't have time for you because I am needed for a "Photo Op". When he said he couldn't make it many in his home town were upset with him. Some have attacked him on Facebook, via PM's, Email and with phone calls.

 

His response to us was, Can you imagine how many people we could feed, clothe and reach if everyone put as much horsepower into doing that as they do over being upset over same sex marriage. He then reminded us of Jesus' two commandments.

When the federal government chooses what powers to use. In this case, they are using their power to prevent discrimination. They are not using their power to pursue pot laws or immigration policies.

 

I think I've solved your issue.

How did you solve anything? What you said they are doing is exactly the problem.

So before homosexuals wanted to get married they denied people who weren't virgins marriage certificates and they denied people who had been divorced marriage certificates? Those sins go against the same beliefs they use to discriminate against homosexuals.

 

How would they know the status of an individual who comes to ask for a marriage license? I was not asked if I was a virgin, though I was, and I was not asked if I had been divorced or the circumstances of the divorce if one had occurred, which it had not, when I got my marriage license. Neither was I asked if I was a homosexual nor had the countless numbers of those who were homosexual and asked for a marriage license. No one was discriminated against. All were treated equally. Your two analogies do not apply to the circumstance today.

 

The situation now is different. The government now calls something a marriage that was not so before. Does government have this right? I don't think so. This has created a moral dilemma for some people.

 

I am simply saying that the SCOTUS got it wrong. That has occurred in the past, Dred Scott was one. And in this case the court has taken under its authority to change the definition of a well-established term. This change has no precedence. The court invented it. My only proposal is do not prosecute, or sue those who find they cannot do what they are now forced to do. Remove them from office, sure. But to prosecute or allow law suits against them as individuals is extreme heavy-handedness.

 

I think that is a rather modest proposal.

 

It's not tolerance towards someone when it involves discrimination.

 

 

That's dumb. I'm not being intolerant towards someone by not allowing them to be intolerant.

 

That's the argument of a 5 year old who doesn't want to take a nap, not a rational member of society.

 

There were people issuing marriage licenses in 1967 Virginia when the Loving v. Virginia case was decided. There were people in office before that was issued who then had to stop refusing inter-racial marriages even though it had previously been a law.

 

Clerks aren't the victims of anything. At all.

 

ad hominem fallacies don't deserve a response, but let me go ahead and stand up for myself a little bit. My response is well-thought out. The conclusion follows from the premises. It is not above debate, modification, or reversal if stronger arguments are shown on the other side. I did follow a modicum of logic in my proposal. You are invited to do the same in response.

 

So you're saying you don't think people intentionally disregarding federal law should be prosecuted?

 

I could ask the same question regarding the POTUS or the AG?

 

But a better answer is that in this case when there has been a "sea change" regarding societal more's one does not need prosecute or sue the county clerk when there are other remedies available. Removal from the position is available. That is my point. I see that as more just and more humane. I see nothing in your argument to change my opinion and it is only an opinion. Again, I am making a rather modest proposal, or rather the state senators who are proposing this bill are doing so and I agree.

 

False. They are victims of ignorance. They are too stupid to realize their ignorance.

 

ad hominem fallacy

 

The point is that the Clerk shouldn't be picking and choosing who can receive a license. We can't allow state officials to allow their religious convictions to discriminate. If you don't like the law, and feel that it violates your convictions to their very core, then why are you still drawing a paycheck from that entity? Moral convictions weren't strong enough to refuse that paycheck. They should receive the same exact punishment that any state employee gets for disregarding federal (and now state) law when it comes to official capacity. Again, you don't have to be a clerk.

 

And the state could remove them without prosecution and also without exposing them to law suit. Prosecution or law suit is a bully move, IMO. Take them from office. Warn others that if they now take this position they will be required to issue the licenses so don't apply if you can't do the job.

Had a visiting Pastor at Church this past Sunday night...his thoughts on this were pretty spot on and I think most of you will agree with him.

 

He is originally from Casey County and was called and asked if he would come to the rally and stand with the Casey Co Clerk (a life long friend). He said that he was pretty busy and they pressed him that he needed to come over there. His answer was well I've got members that need food to eat that I'm working on, I've got homeless members that I'm trying to help, we have shut ins that we visit and take meals to...who of those people, do I tell I don't have time for you because I am needed for a "Photo Op". When he said he couldn't make it many in his home town were upset with him. Some have attacked him on Facebook, via PM's, Email and with phone calls.

 

His response to us was, Can you imagine how many people we could feed, clothe and reach if everyone put as much horsepower into doing that as they do over being upset over same sex marriage. He then reminded us of Jesus' two commandments.

 

So, does he believe same-sex marriage violates the Biblical definition of marriage or does he think the new law is in line with Christ's teaching? Seems like a cop-out on one of the most volatile issues of the day. I don't mean that he had to go to the side of his friend, but that as a minister he cannot side-step the issue and truly provide pastoral guidance to his flock. They are looking to him as a leader to help them understand what the Bible teaches.

^I don't find it to be a reasonable proposal at all.

 

I would consider a reasonable course of action to allow the clerks the opportunity to resign from their positions voluntarily or face removal and prosecution.