The best analogy about this is that of a firefighter. If she was a firefighter would she refuse to drag a member of the LGBT community or a member of the governing body for that matter out of a burning building? Of course not! She should just do her job.
If she doesn't comply an orange jumpsuit is in her future
by DJS 508 Replies latest social current
-
-
DJS
VIolas,
I haven't made any references to her personal life, but I believe rational people would disagree with you that 3 divorces wouldn't be more than a bit hypocritical for such a staunch x-tian. I have reviewed the posts and I didn't see anyone suggest that we gather around her house or courthouse and shout vulgarities. I may have missed it if it occurred. Please reference the exact quote.
My responses have avoided personal attacks on her, other than my belief her reasons haven't anything to do with Jesus and everything to do with her personal hatred. The hatred shown by anyone on this OP or forum towards the religious pales in comparison to the hatred shown by the religious towards those not in alignment with their personal beliefs. And I doubt if anyone on this site really hates x-tians; I certainly don't. I used to be one; I have many x-tian friends.
But I hate their hateful views and teachings, just as I hate what I used to be and what I used to believe when I was one of them.
-
kaik
I am for a legal proceeding having her removed from the position. Demonstrating at her driveway is a harassment and illegal. However, the SCOTUS ruled clearly, and she is violating federal laws. It is not up to her to decide if two consenting adults are getting married. Federal court will deal with her and she will have her 15 minute fame.
Her personal life is all over the news. She is a public figure and she should think prior digging in her bigotry what stain on her marriage(s) would be revealed by press. Considering that she is married four times and had children with a man who was not her husband and yet showing her fundamentalist beliefs into other face regarding other people marriage is nothing more than hypocrisy.
-
LisaRose
I don't hate this woman, I totally get why she is doing what she is doing because as a JW I believed homosexuality was a sin, but I think she is very wrong to make this about her religion. It's not her job to decide who gets to be married, that is defined by law, she was elected to do her duties in accordance with the law, she is failing in her duties. If, for religious reasons, she didn't believe in divorce and remarriage (obviously not a problem for her, but some religious people do believe that) she would not be allowed to deny divorced people a marriage license, it's just as wrong to deny a marriage license to two gay people. Her choice is to carry out her duties, as defined by the law, or resign from her position. She is completely wrong to do neither.
I believe they will seek financial sanctions against her, at which point I hope she will resign her position or change her stance. As a last resort they could send her to jail, but I think they will try to avoid that, and I hope she sees reason.
-
kaik
My guess, she would be sent to jail. Federal justice could try to make example of her case, and really sent her for some time to serve for contempt of court. Even in jail she can be still be county official, because KY has specific proceeding to remove someone from the office. Even fines would do nothing, because all the bills will be funded and paid by her supporters. Even KY state legislators are supporting her.
I do not hate the woman either, but she put her face into the public spot and her personal life with it. She does not have a life in order, yet she is deciding from her religious conviction what two adults should do. This is illegal and considering her private life, also hypocritical.
-
Fisherman
But I hate their hateful views and teachings, just as I hate what I used to be and what I used to believe when I was one of them.
How is not subscribing to same sex marriages a hateful view?
-
Viviane
Fishpersin, she was not appointed, He willingly ran for office knowing that laws can change. If she was in fact unaware of that, she was and is a moron and has no business failing at knowing what she signed up for.
-
Viviane
Fish thing, hating stupid isn't the same as being stupid -
Fisherman
knowing that laws can change.
She sure did! And you are no shrinking violet just like DJS. But whether she was elected or appointed does not change that she cannot be forced to trespass her religious beliefs. Neither does knowing that laws can change when she ran for public office mean that she will be required to violate her religious beliefs when they do just because you say so.
On the one hand as I stated in a prior post, she cannot claim religious freedom because it is her duty to issue the licenses, at least that is what the lower Court seemed to think when they ordered her to do so, but on the other hand, she did claim religious basis, she holds public office with powers of her own and she is not issuing any licenses to anyone and is not complying with the Court. It falls from the tree that some "catch-all" law will handle the situation and get all those KYers same sex marriage licenses endorsed and issued soon enough. I have no way of knowing her motive, but I think that she has a good reason for her case (claim.) I would be very interested in MS view on whether a public official is required to violate his religious beliefs when the law mandates it regardless of this woman's motive..
-
Fisherman
Vivian, just by way of a reminder to you: "Red Herring, READ ABOUT IT."- Marvin Shilmer