NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
The ignored member does not realize that he is less tolerant than most radical muslims.
Sanders explains what democratic socialism is
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Tyranny of the majority has exactly nothing to do with one county clerk clearly overstepping her official position. Again, no one forced her to take the job. If she wants to exercise her freedom of religion, she can DO IT ON HER OWN TIME, NOT ON THE TAXPAYER'S.
I have a personal problem with selling things I don't believe in. Therefore, I won't sell tobacco. That's why I don't have a job as a tobacconist.
If this clerk thinks gay marriage is wrong, she should resign her position and go on protest; she's absolutely free to do so. She can even keep the job and protest against gay marriage on her free time. She took an oath to uphold the law when she accepted the position. If she won't live up to that oath, she has no right to hold the office.
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
It is exactly this very issue. The courts will be forced to rule on this one way or the other meaning she will either be forced to or not. Thereby potentially implementing said tyranny by majority. This is what always happens when the government oversteps.
She is a taxpayer too as are many others who disagree with this law. If she wins in court she could potentially grab a bunch of them to work under h er and no gays will be getting married in her county. They will have to go elsewhere. If she loses then she will be forced to quit or do something against her religious beliefs. She was never asked to do this prior in her job. The government isn't supposed to be infringing upon your religious rights either. Regardless of where you work or what you do.
The constitution doesn't end when government work begins.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
You're confusing yourself. She won't be 'forced' to do anything but choose between doing her job as the voting citizens of her county want it done, or quitting and doing whatever she wants.
You're the one shitcanning the Constitution in favor of a cheap publicity stunt.
Could not of said it better.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
So your ok with government workers in unions
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
What you are asking isn't reasonable though. Law must be reasonable. That's a pretty severe change in lifestyle especially since jobs are difficult to come by. The court is going to be forced to rule on this. That court decision will set precedent. You're basically saying that any serious Christian should just say nope I'm not gonna be part of the County Clerk's office now because they're doing what I disagree with and in fact believe to be unconstitutional as you cannot opt out of government and I'll sit on the sidelines and fight it - with what? She'd give up her job. She going to pay for her lawyers with charity? I mean, maybe - but that's not something everyone can count on.
Both parties have legitimate claims but now one party is going to be punished. This is an inevitable consequence of the government putting it's nose where it doesn't belong (the business of marriage).
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
They can associate how they feel fit. I'm not ok with government workers in general though. Government should be very small. If those within it want to Unionize that is their right.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
No, because it's not any Christians obligation to judge people, according to Christian dogma, that's God's job
If Christians simply followed their own scripture, this wouldn't be an issue
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
LMFAO, SERIOUSLY?
You're going to use her potential economic hardship as an excuse to allow her to deny other people their civil rights?!
Dude. Stick to growing. Your opinions make sense there.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Her lawyers volunteered pro bono.
They are religious nutters just like her.
If she can't do her job she needs to go
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Fixed it for ya!
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
It doesn't matter what her beliefs are. This is the whole problem with giving government monopolies. So far you guys haven't argued against my point. It's going to be decided in court and someone is going to win and someone is going to be upset. You all basically just don't like what she's done. That's your right, but it's her right to challenge this if she feels her other rights are being violated. It's a no win situation that wouldn't exist if government hadn't stuck it's nose into this problem in the first place.
My opinion makes perfect sense. You don't like her so you feel like she should do something that she feels violates a religious belief, right or wrong it is irrelevant - the court isn't really there to judge religious beliefs, especially ones that do no harm. You can only really argue harm because the government has setup tax law to benefit the married (another overstep which caused this overstep in the first place).
By the way, it's more than economic.
The issue of marriage is in large part an economic one as well you know. The gains from being married. There is of course something more fundamental at stake here which is the right to freely practice ones beliefs without the threat of coercion or force. And the fact that government takes stuff by force makes this one that is fundamental in nature. A government who takes things by force cannot equally apply the law to everyone ever. If the government weren't in the business she could be doing a similar job at a legal desk and hold her beliefs just the same and another person could hold different beliefs and marry this couple no problem. As it stands both parties feel legitimately persecuted.
Not relevant or that simple.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
No, it really IS that simple; she swore an oath to uphold the law. It is exactly her position as a government employee that obligates her to follow the law, not her own morality play.
Her rights are not being violated, nevermind those of ordinary citizens of all types, by expecting her to follow her oath on pain of dismissal.
She and her rights do not have superiority over anyone else's. This is the part the right wing nuts don't get; they do not have the right to force their morality on others! To allow otherwise is tyranny!
Either she does THE JOB, not her version of it, or she leaves. No constitutional violation anywhere in sight. If I hire a roofer, do I expect him to show up and decide to paint my house instead? ...and then tell me that I can't get my roof fixed in his county?
You're confusing a cynical play on your morals with civil rights. You're getting this one badly wrong and no amount of maneuvering is going to magically change the logical arguments presented.
Now stay the Fuck away from my civil rights, you moron - you're as dangerous as you are stupid because you'll happily throw them all away for a party trick.
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
If there was no constitutional violation in sight the court would never have heard it. Again, you just don't like her. And apparently don't like the path your ideology takes you either. Freedom of religion is protected in the 1st amendment. It's for good reason - because people hold these beliefs deeply and often major conflict erupts from them when they are not respected. This is why most of the Founding Fathers were staunch liberals (actual liberals, not authoritarian socialists). They knew the conflicts that would arise if the government got too involved in things. They saw it themselves in their own lifetimes.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
No. You can have a court case over tying your shoes- and it's happened. The court heard the case because it was the citizens who were being denied their right to marry whose rights were being violated and that's what the case was about.
Clown shoes.
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
AFAIK she is not legally obligated to sign but she is legally obligated to not block others from doing so. There may very well have been a legitimate reason for a lawsuit over tying your shoes. Courts do not hear every case. People laugh about the hot coffee lawsuit but it was way more than legitimate.
I already stated she went too far with her case, but it doesn't change the fact she still has a point. I haven't done anything but be respectful to you. So you know, the same would be appreciated.
It isn't much different than Niqab case in Canada. A lot of people think it's wrong to wear it in a number of settings. The court opted to protect the minorities rights to religious freedom - even though you can actually make a reasonable case that it isn't that appropriate for all settings or jobs.
I could use the same argument you're using against the Niqab case in Canada... that they should just suck it up and deal with it because it's the way we want to do things now. But the courts protected their right to wear it in all situations.
Last edited:
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
Also, as far as not judging others as a Christian goes - there is a pretty large difference between not judging and actively endorsing with a signature.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
I literally cannot agree with a single one of your opinions.
The woman was refusing to sign marriage certificates not only for homosexual couples but for heterosexual couples too, she was in gross dereliction of her sworn duties because of her "feels".
You go to work to trade labour for payment, not to have an opinion while you're there.