Govt workers have right to refuse gay marriage licenses -pope

Disagree. Just because someone's decisions (religious or otherwise) impact others, that is not forcing those belief onto others. She was not trying to convert them....that is forcing one's beliefs onto others. Yes, their work was effected, but again, effecting others is not forcing one's beliefs onto them.

 

The 10 commandments are a copy from chapter 125 in the Egyptian book of the dead. Moses was privileged/learned of all this information as a yoot.

 

Nope. I believe marriage has always been a male and female in civilization. That definition has always excluded homosexuals since civilization instituted marriage.

- - - Updated - - -

That's possible, I suppose.

 

No it doesn't, her beliefs are hers, and do not over ride anybody elses. If the job doesn't fit her beliefs, then she is free to find employment elsewhere. In the mean time she took an oath to do the job, not dictate what the law is or should be.

 

Free exercise thereof. No problem until a new law overstepped her beliefs. Her constitutional protected beliefs don't disappear when a law is passed that conflicts with her constitutional rights. Everything was fine until the new law was forced upon her.

 

It's documented, except for the first two commandments which deal with one God, the rest is from that other book. What ever keeps the peasants in line, which is all religion is and has been throughout time. A tool for controlling the masses.

Since the first man said to another, see that ball of fire in the sky, that is God and he tells me that you should do as I say, or else.

 

If the law said she had to marry another woman against her beliefs, you might have a point, but her right to believe what she wants has not been altered. The laws she took an oath to follow became more inclusive, but she would rather discriminate, and make the feeble attempt to use her beliefs as a right to overthrow the law of the land.

Well it doesn't and shouldn't work like that.

 

No but, what difference does it make to the ideas of the enlightenment that are the foundation of our system ?

Hammurabi (and the law code is Older than him) lived around 1800 BC. Moses (supposed author of "the Laws of Moses" is not said to have left Egypt sometime between 1450-1200 BC depending on who you ask.

Abraham is thought to have lived around the time of Hammurabi ( one of names of the Kings given in Abraham's time is thought to be that of Hammurabi)

Interesting historical insight aside. This has zero to do with the modern and secular derivation for legitimacy of authority and individual rights and freedoms.

Hammurabi also had "The Golden Rule" - do unto others. What is interesting is that this rule arises naturally out of the social contract.

Kind of a cool meeting of the Secular and what Jesus called the Rule that sums up the law and the prophets.

Moral of the story - Both the founders and Jesus wanted separation of Church and State and both rely heavily on 'The Golden Rule".

Why some folks want to go back to theocracy (given the nasty history of this unholy union) is a strange thing.

Some folks today have perhaps forgotten the horrors of this past union. For the founders it was like yesterday.

The founders, and the enlightenment thinkers were trying to come up with a system that avoided these past horrors.

 

She never took an oath to follow laws that violated her religious beliefs. The new law is the problem, not her beliefs.

 

The founders wanted limited government, not limited religion. The constitution limits government. The constitution doesn't give rights. Rights are inherent. The constitution is an instruction on government rights.

 

She doesn't get to pick and chose what is and what is not Constitutional when she took an oath to uphold the Constitution.

The Catholic John F. Kennedy has some advice for her:

"But if the time should ever come ...when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same." - John F. Kennedy

 

I already went through this. It is the Declaration that puts individual rights and freedoms "Above" the power of Government.

The founders did not seek to limit religion? Freedom of Religion is in the First amendment. What they did was limit the power of Government such that it was not to force religion on people (through law in particular)

As has been stated earlier ... " natural authority of the people alone" as opposed to divine right.

The whole point was to get away from religious justification for the authority of Government and the founders a made this abundantly clear.

Are you seriously arguing for theocracy ?

 

I'm arguing that the founders were mostly God-fearing men who believed the Scriptures to be the Word of God.

- - - Updated - - -

First amendment, "free exercise thereof".

 

That's not the definition of marriage, that's who is allowed to have one. The fact that one was male and the other was female does not alter anything about the rights and benefits that legal marriage comes with. Can you cite some actual parts of marriage law, outside of the now prohibited restrictions on gender combination, that have now changed because of the lifting of those restrictions?

 

The definition of marriage has always been a male and female in the United States until recently.

 

Her free exercise of religion?

What do you think that means? You think she can just pop out of her office and run down to church to pray whenever she feels like it? You think she can adorn the courthouse with religious statues and have a big ole jesus cross at her clerk counter?

Look, it's simple: She was violating the U.S. Constitution's protection against the establishment of a religion - because she is adopting a policy that promotes her own religious convictions at the expenses of others.

This isn't very difficult to understand.

 

The ability to avoid the law because of your professed beliefs are not limitless, or every murderer out there who gets caught would claim they had to do it because of their beliefs and those laws that make murder illegal would not apply to them.

Your rights end where another person's rights begin. And when there's a conflict and your religious beliefs cause other people's rights to suffer, it's time to bow out. Religious people don't actually have special rights to be allowed to do or not do what other people don't get to make choices about, some just like to think they do. In the private sector, this woman refusing to do her job would have led to her being fired for refusing to do her job. The fact that she holds public office does not give her the authority to decide she's just not going to do what she was elected, paid by the taxpayers, and swore an oath to do.

 

It means she can live her life freely believing her religion. Everything was fine until a corrupt law was passed that violated her religious beliefs. She never established any religion. How absurd.

 

She has the right to believe marriage is a male and female like she did before the corrupt law was passed.

 

Right ... That's why they said things like:

Jefferson took the Bible so literally "as the word of God" that he created a new Bible "The Jefferson Bible" and eliminated all the stuff he thought was nonsense.

Regardless - Being religious does not mean that one thinks Church and State should be united.

Many of the founders were religious man (if not most -albeit Deists)

Deism: The belief that God has created the universe but remains apart from it and permits his creation to administer itself through natural laws. Deism thus rejects the supernatural aspects of religion, such as belief in revelation in the Bible, and stresses the importance of ethical conduct.

These men all signed off that they did not want a theocracy.

Once again ... are you seriously arguing for theocracy ?

 

I think it would be a much better forr those of the same sex who wanted to get married would be to find county clerks who agree with same-sex marriage.

 

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755

 

Nothing is stopping her from practicing her religion.

Davis, acting as the government agent, validating the legality of marriage licenses -- is not a religious act. If it is, she should quit.

Your response to the JFK quote seems you entirely missed the point. Utterly. Entirely.

That would be the law the denied same sex couples the fundamental right to marriage -- the law SCOTUS struck down.

You lost that one. Get over it.

Are you having trouble reading?

To repeat: Look, it's simple: She was violating the U.S. Constitution's protection against the establishment of a religion - because she is adopting a policy that promotes her own religious convictions at the expenses of others.

She is - as government agent - using her office to promote her version of Christianity religion as superior to deny rights to others.

You are basically arguing in favor of the Xtian version of Sharia law.

 

The new corrupt law violates her beliefs. She has the right to her religious beliefs while working on her job. The new corrupt law violates her beliefs. The corrupt law is the problem, not the county clerk. Go find a county clerk that agrees with the new corrupt law.

- - - Updated - - -

She hasn't established a religion in government. How absurd. Marriage was defined as a male and female in the United States since day one and that wasn't "Christian Sharia Law". However, it's a useful propaganda term to demonize Christians.