So, we can arrest Kim Davis now, right?

I think just acknowledging that there is such a thing as sin (without even delineating what such is) makes one suspect for many. Problem is, whether you use that terminology or not, we all have things we think are wrong things to think, say or do.
 
goldfly said:
i'm sure she does

that doesn't mean she gets to stand on her soapbox and preach down to others now though and treat them as 2nd class citizens.
Click to expand...

Well, she has that right regardless of whether she feels forgiven or not. Her and everyone else. Hell, I think that's Trump's platform.
 
goldfly said:
i'm sure she does

that doesn't mean she gets to stand on her soapbox and preach down to others now though and treat them as 2nd class citizens.
Click to expand...

Is that what you call asking to use your title instead of your name?

Are you standing on a soapbox preaching down to her and treating her as a 2nd class citizen? I think you are.
 
Dalyn said:
Well, she has that right regardless of whether she feels forgiven or not. Her and everyone else. Hell, I think that's Trump's platform.
Click to expand...

haha, word

she has the right to her dumb opinion

that's true and i have agreed with that

she doesn't have the right to her opinion above the law to treat everyone equal with marriage though. if she won't do the job, quit or keep going to jail

it's really simple
 
BedellBrave said:
Is that what you call asking to use your title instead of your name?

Are you standing on a soapbox preaching down to her and treating her as a 2nd class citizen? I think you are.
Click to expand...

quit then

cool. have that opinion.
 
BedellBrave said:
But I suspect that is not what she is saying or believing. It's a straw man.
Click to expand...

Did she not say she did not want her name on the certificate because God would send her to hell? Reality is if the Christian God is real 99.99999% of us are going to hell anyways. This is all over a government certificate. The Bible doesnt say a marriage is official in the eyes of God because its on a government piece of paper. If Pastors dont want to preside over gay weddings thats fine, thats where they have the right to object on religious grounds in my opinion.
 
she held a press conference where she has no plans to change any of her actions in the future

and she walked out to "Eye of the Tiger"

and people support this person. smh
 
goldfly said:
quit then

cool. have that opinion.
Click to expand...

Why, when our practice as a country is to recognize there are these types of things that come along where an employee (in the business world and in the government) has a conscientious objection to a part of their job and if there's a reasonable accommodation that can be made we give it? Why wouldn't we make an effort here?

The "just quit" argument hasn't held much water in previous practice.
 
cajunrevenge said:
Did she not say she did not want her name on the certificate because God would send her to hell? Reality is if the Christian God is real 99.99999% of us are going to hell anyways. This is all over a government certificate. The Bible doesnt say a marriage is official in the eyes of God because its on a government piece of paper. If Pastors dont want to preside over gay weddings thats fine, thats where they have the right to object on religious grounds in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Did she? I haven't read that. If you provide the quote I'll be happy to say I'm wrong.

Not according to my understanding of Christian theology.

I'm not an expert in her view of the Bible's teaching and how it applies to her life - and I really don't have to be. But I recognize that she believes she is conscience bound. That's the point. Much like, I don't have to agree or even understand another person's rationale for being a conscientious objector. But I do think I should support and we should support reasonable accommodations for such.

This isn't that hard.
 
BedellBrave said:
Why, when our practice as a country is to recognize there are these types of things that come along where an employee (in the business world and in the government) has a conscientious objection to a part of their job and if there's a reasonable accommodation that can be made we give it? Why wouldn't we make an effort here?

The "just quit" argument hasn't held much water in previous practice.
Click to expand...

i don't make exemptions for people that want to treat people not as equal. pretty clear cut

it's the law of the land and you put your hand on the bible and swore you would uphold that law. (we will overlook her swearing to God that she is breaking by not following her duty though)

if you don't like that law, fight in court (and continue to lose forever) or quit.

best way i have seen her described thus far:

"Kim Davis is NO MLK or Rosa Parks. She's the bus driver that refused to drive when Rosa sat in front"
 
goldfly said:
she held a press conference where she has no plans to change any of her actions in the future

and she walked out to "Eye of the Tiger"

and people support this person. smh
Click to expand...

I support providing reasonable accommodation, no matter my opinion of a person - Jew, Muslim, pacifist Buddhist, etc.
 
goldfly said:
i don't make exemptions for people that want to treat people not as equal. pretty clear cut

it's the law of the land and you put your hand on the bible and swore you would uphold that law. (we will overlook her swearing to God that she is breaking by not following her duty though)

if you don't like that law, fight in court (and continue to lose forever) or quit.

best way i have seen her described thus far:

"Kim Davis is NO MLK or Rosa Parks. She's the bus driver that refused to drive when Rosa sat in front"
Click to expand...

That's ironic, don't you think - your mentioning her having to swear on a Bible - the Bible which actually explains why she may view this issue the way she does?
 
Why am I the one arguing for the more traditional liberal view on this matter? And so many of the rest of you arguing for a very Statist view?
 
BedellBrave said:
That's ironic, don't you think - your mentioning her having to swear on a Bible - the Bible which actually explains why she may view this issue the way she does?
Click to expand...

no

it isn't ironic (that i mentioned it)

not that we for some reason still force the practice of doing so to get a gov't job
 
goldfly said:
no

it isn't ironic (that i mentioned it)

not that we for some reason still force the practice of doing so to get a gov't job
Click to expand...

You see our symbolism reveals the view of the magistrate still being subject to a higher authority than the State itself...

That's what her objection is all about.
 
BedellBrave said:
You see our symbolism reveals the view of the magistrate still being subject to a higher authority than the State itself...

That's what her objection is all about.
Click to expand...

you really love stressing the oh so scary "state" but the higher authority should be the people they are governing and elected to govern over.

but i think it is silly to do the swearing in at all (but old silly traditions of the past die hard obviously) but even more so that she swore on the bible to uphold the laws of the land and then did the opposite of that. she broke her oath that she swore to a higher power (that she seems to believe in) to do. I would think that would go against some type of belief, thus why i brought it up
 
god i ****ing hate this cunt. and the people rallying around her are pathetic. this whole thing is. yeah, god loves exclusion of certain people, i'm sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top