Kim Davis - even Fox News thinks her case is fruityloopy
Discussion
EskimoArapaho said:
Not really - the PR person's statement is very vague.
No 'endorsement' is claimed ... but no explanation of the reasons for meeting her, and no details on what Popey did actually say.
The only thing she's known for is her unalloyed opposition to same-sex marriage. Why else would His Popeliness meet her?No 'endorsement' is claimed ... but no explanation of the reasons for meeting her, and no details on what Popey did actually say.
I'd have more sympathy with these Christian 'martyrs' if it was about something that was clearly a basic tenet of their religion, you know like 'thou shalt not kill' or keeping the Sabbath - these were the ones their God carved in stone, not an obscure sub-section of Leviticus along with not wearing mixed fabrics or eating bats
Jesus tore up the churches because of moneylenders, not because of gays
why do these people always get uptight about the gays?
Jesus tore up the churches because of moneylenders, not because of gays
why do these people always get uptight about the gays?
Breadvan72 said:
Davis chose her job. In fact, she was elected to do that job. She was not placed in a difficult position by an unthinking employer. She placed herself there. Now she wants her job description to read "martyr". You would privilege her elective attribute (belief) above the non elective attributes of others (sexual orientation). The law (in the UK as well as in the US) disagrees with you, and places non elective attributes above elective attributes in the hierarchy of legal protection.
As for tinfoilery, the examples of the anarchist and the libertarian are real world examples, and the more extreme Satanist example is merely a further step along the path that the Pope, Huckabee and others propose that we should follow. If citizens can choose to disregard laws that they disagree with, then the law has no universality, and society reverts to the atomised state that Hobbes, Locke and others warn us against.
If someone says what of the racist laws of the Old South pre Civil Rights, of Nazi Germany, and of Apartheid South Africa, and what of the brutalities of Sharia law, those so called laws can be said to lack legitimacy, being instruments of tyranny, not of civil society. Locke guided the American Founding Fathers on lawful resistance to tyranny, but Locke did not advocate an opt in and opt out system of law, any more than his disciple Jefferson did.
Note the bold. You are wrong there. When she decided to take up her role gay marriage was not legal. The only legal type of marriage was woman to man or man to woman. Her employer changed the rules and her job requirementsAs for tinfoilery, the examples of the anarchist and the libertarian are real world examples, and the more extreme Satanist example is merely a further step along the path that the Pope, Huckabee and others propose that we should follow. If citizens can choose to disregard laws that they disagree with, then the law has no universality, and society reverts to the atomised state that Hobbes, Locke and others warn us against.
If someone says what of the racist laws of the Old South pre Civil Rights, of Nazi Germany, and of Apartheid South Africa, and what of the brutalities of Sharia law, those so called laws can be said to lack legitimacy, being instruments of tyranny, not of civil society. Locke guided the American Founding Fathers on lawful resistance to tyranny, but Locke did not advocate an opt in and opt out system of law, any more than his disciple Jefferson did.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Friday 2nd October 09:16
jimmybobby said:
Note the bold. You are wrong there. When she decided to take up her role gay marriage was not legal. The only legal type of marriage was woman to man or man to woman. Her employer changed the rules and her job requirements
Well, yes: to comply with changes in the law. Your employer does the same to you when HMG changes the law. jimmybobby said:
Note the bold. You are wrong there. When she decided to take up her role gay marriage was not legal. The only legal type of marriage was woman to man or man to woman. Her employer changed the rules and her job requirements
She would have still had to deal with divorcees remarrying. Did she never have a problem with that?
jimmybobby said:
Breadvan72 said:
Davis chose her job. In fact, she was elected to do that job. She was not placed in a difficult position by an unthinking employer. She placed herself there. Now she wants her job description to read "martyr". You would privilege her elective attribute (belief) above the non elective attributes of others (sexual orientation). The law (in the UK as well as in the US) disagrees with you, and places non elective attributes above elective attributes in the hierarchy of legal protection.
As for tinfoilery, the examples of the anarchist and the libertarian are real world examples, and the more extreme Satanist example is merely a further step along the path that the Pope, Huckabee and others propose that we should follow. If citizens can choose to disregard laws that they disagree with, then the law has no universality, and society reverts to the atomised state that Hobbes, Locke and others warn us against.
If someone says what of the racist laws of the Old South pre Civil Rights, of Nazi Germany, and of Apartheid South Africa, and what of the brutalities of Sharia law, those so called laws can be said to lack legitimacy, being instruments of tyranny, not of civil society. Locke guided the American Founding Fathers on lawful resistance to tyranny, but Locke did not advocate an opt in and opt out system of law, any more than his disciple Jefferson did.
Note the bold. You are wrong there. When she decided to take up her role gay marriage was not legal. The only legal type of marriage was woman to man or man to woman. Her employer changed the rules and her job requirementsAs for tinfoilery, the examples of the anarchist and the libertarian are real world examples, and the more extreme Satanist example is merely a further step along the path that the Pope, Huckabee and others propose that we should follow. If citizens can choose to disregard laws that they disagree with, then the law has no universality, and society reverts to the atomised state that Hobbes, Locke and others warn us against.
If someone says what of the racist laws of the Old South pre Civil Rights, of Nazi Germany, and of Apartheid South Africa, and what of the brutalities of Sharia law, those so called laws can be said to lack legitimacy, being instruments of tyranny, not of civil society. Locke guided the American Founding Fathers on lawful resistance to tyranny, but Locke did not advocate an opt in and opt out system of law, any more than his disciple Jefferson did.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 2nd October 09:16
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 2nd October 19:09
EskimoArapaho said:
jimmybobby said:
Note the bold. You are wrong there. When she decided to take up her role gay marriage was not legal. The only legal type of marriage was woman to man or man to woman. Her employer changed the rules and her job requirements
Well, yes: to comply with changes in the law. Your employer does the same to you when HMG changes the law. It is you who are incorrect, apparently because of your lack of understanding of the relevant facts and of how constitutional law works in the USA. It appears that your support for Davis is causing you to adopt convoluted arguments unrelated to the facts and the law.
Why does same sex marriage bother you?
Why does same sex marriage bother you?
Breadvan72 said:
jimmybobby said:
Breadvan72 said:
Davis chose her job. In fact, she was elected to do that job. She was not placed in a difficult position by an unthinking employer. She placed herself there. Now she wants her job description to read "martyr". You would privilege her elective attribute (belief) above the non elective attributes of others (sexual orientation). The law (in the UK as well as in the US) disagrees with you, and places non elective attributes above elective attributes in the hierarchy of legal protection.
As for tinfoilery, the examples of the anarchist and the libertarian are real world examples, and the more extreme Satanist example is merely a further step along the path that the Pope, Huckabee and others propose that we should follow. If citizens can choose to disregard laws that they disagree with, then the law has no universality, and society reverts to the atomised state that Hobbes, Locke and others warn us against.
If someone says what of the racist laws of the Old South pre Civil Rights, of Nazi Germany, and of Apartheid South Africa, and what of the brutalities of Sharia law, those so called laws can be said to lack legitimacy, being instruments of tyranny, not of civil society. Locke guided the American Founding Fathers on lawful resistance to tyranny, but Locke did not advocate an opt in and opt out system of law, any more than his disciple Jefferson did.
Note the bold. You are wrong there. When she decided to take up her role gay marriage was not legal. The only legal type of marriage was woman to man or man to woman. Her employer changed the rules and her job requirementsAs for tinfoilery, the examples of the anarchist and the libertarian are real world examples, and the more extreme Satanist example is merely a further step along the path that the Pope, Huckabee and others propose that we should follow. If citizens can choose to disregard laws that they disagree with, then the law has no universality, and society reverts to the atomised state that Hobbes, Locke and others warn us against.
If someone says what of the racist laws of the Old South pre Civil Rights, of Nazi Germany, and of Apartheid South Africa, and what of the brutalities of Sharia law, those so called laws can be said to lack legitimacy, being instruments of tyranny, not of civil society. Locke guided the American Founding Fathers on lawful resistance to tyranny, but Locke did not advocate an opt in and opt out system of law, any more than his disciple Jefferson did.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Friday 2nd October 09:16
Edited by Breadvan72 on Friday 2nd October 19:09
You can reword it however you like and try use a legalese angle if you wish but you are simply wrong on a basic level.
If you apply for a job under the understanding that your role carries certain responsibilities and then once in that job your responsibilities are changed through no actions of yours then your employer has changed the role not you.
You show your vast ignorance of the Constitution. The US Supreme Court is a branch of the State (the Federal Republic called the USA), but it is not the executive branch. Davis is an officer of the executive branch of the State Government of Kentucky (a component State of the USA). She is not in any sense an employee of either the US Government or the US Supreme Court. Separation of powers is a basic principle of the Constitution. Furthermore, Davis agreed to uphold the Constitution. The Court, and not she, is the arbiter of what the Constitution means. It did not rewrite the Constitution, it declared what it means in relation to marriage. This is not legalese, it is basic stuff. If you are going to express firm views, please inform yourself first.
Anyway, why are you bothered by same sex marriage?
Anyway, why are you bothered by same sex marriage?
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 2nd October 20:15
In any event, test your whacky argument this way. Suppose that a police officer joins the police on Day 1, when parking sideways is not a crime. On Day 10, parking sideways is made a crime. If the police officer disagrees with arresting people for parking sideways, he should resign. He should not refuse to do his duty.
Breadvan72 said:
In any event, test your whacky argument this way. Suppose that a police officer joins the police on Day 1, when parking sideways is not a crime. On Day 10, parking sideways is made a crime. If the police officer disagrees with arresting people for parking sideways, he should resign. He should not refuse to do his duty.
If his religious belief is that parking sideways is perfectly reasonable and legitimate then it is up to his employer to change his employment terms so that he should have no involvement directly or indirectly with fining people who have parked sideways. Or are we sticking to the view that gay rights supercede and overrule the rights of all others unhindered?Are you Gay BV? Is that why you are so hellbent on your singular view that gay marriage is right and anyone who disagrees with gay marriage is an idiot, bigot, homophobe etc etc...
jimmybobby said:
Breadvan72 said:
In any event, test your whacky argument this way. Suppose that a police officer joins the police on Day 1, when parking sideways is not a crime. On Day 10, parking sideways is made a crime. If the police officer disagrees with arresting people for parking sideways, he should resign. He should not refuse to do his duty.
If his religious belief is that parking sideways is perfectly reasonable and legitimate then it is up to his employer to change his employment terms so that he should have no involvement directly or indirectly with fining people who have parked sideways. Or are we sticking to the view that gay rights supercede and overrule the rights of all others unhindered?Are you Gay BV? Is that why you are so hellbent on your singular view that gay marriage is right and anyone who disagrees with gay marriage is an idiot, bigot, homophobe etc etc...
I see that jimmybobby is now down to playing the "you must be gay" card. Most people are probably somewhere on a spectrum of sexual orientation, but it so happens that I am at the straight end of the spectrum (stubble on men puts me off snogging them). This is irrelevant. The notion that only a person who might himself or herself be affected by an injustice should care about that injustice is a strange one, albeit consistent with jimmybobby's apparent "Republic of ME" view of society, of which more below.
Jimmybobby's response on the police officer and sideways parking is utterly absurd. Jimmybobby seriously suggests that a police officer, obliged to uphold the law in general, should be permitted to opt out of enforcing particular laws that he disagrees with. His commanders should take care not to deploy him to situations where he might have to enforce such laws. Thus if the police officer, for example, thinks that the speed limit on a road is too low, he can let motorists ignore it. More seriously, if the officer thinks that it should be lawful for a man to beat his wife (say the cop is a member of a very trad Biblical sect), he should be able to decline to arrest a man for domestic abuse.
Taking this approach atomises society and renders all Government ineffective. The law has to have universality if it is to be meaningful. Otherwise, every individual becomes a private State with his or her own personalised, bespoke legal code. That is no basis for an ordered society. The opposite approach is not about bland conformity and authoritarianism, but about the promotion of general freedom through application of a unifying principle of the State. To live in a State without Government and law is not to be free. It is to live in perpetual danger, as the experience of collapsed states show. Want to live without Government and law? Try Mogadishu in the 1990s. You might not like it.
Threads like this reinforce the need for schools to teach basic principles of civil society to all students, as jimmybobby's ignorance of how a civil society is constituted and functions is remarkable, but sadly not uncommon.
Jimmybobby's response on the police officer and sideways parking is utterly absurd. Jimmybobby seriously suggests that a police officer, obliged to uphold the law in general, should be permitted to opt out of enforcing particular laws that he disagrees with. His commanders should take care not to deploy him to situations where he might have to enforce such laws. Thus if the police officer, for example, thinks that the speed limit on a road is too low, he can let motorists ignore it. More seriously, if the officer thinks that it should be lawful for a man to beat his wife (say the cop is a member of a very trad Biblical sect), he should be able to decline to arrest a man for domestic abuse.
Taking this approach atomises society and renders all Government ineffective. The law has to have universality if it is to be meaningful. Otherwise, every individual becomes a private State with his or her own personalised, bespoke legal code. That is no basis for an ordered society. The opposite approach is not about bland conformity and authoritarianism, but about the promotion of general freedom through application of a unifying principle of the State. To live in a State without Government and law is not to be free. It is to live in perpetual danger, as the experience of collapsed states show. Want to live without Government and law? Try Mogadishu in the 1990s. You might not like it.
Threads like this reinforce the need for schools to teach basic principles of civil society to all students, as jimmybobby's ignorance of how a civil society is constituted and functions is remarkable, but sadly not uncommon.
Breadvan72 said:
Taking this approach atomises society and renders all Government ineffective. The law has to have universality if it is to be meaningful. Otherwise, every individual becomes a private State with his or her own personalised, bespoke legal code. That is no basis for an ordered society. The opposite approach is not about bland conformity and authoritarianism, but about the promotion of general freedom through application of a unifying principle of the State. To live in a State without Government and law is not to be free. It is to live in perpetual danger, as the experience of collapsed states show. Want to live without Government and law? Try Mogadishu in the 1990s. You might not like it.
I actually agree with your general point. I think if two men or two women want to get marries they should be able too. However what you are saying doesn't make sense to me. What about Sikhs not having to wear motorcycle helmets? What about certain religious practises allowing animal welfare abuse? Am I making those things up... Or did the whole world not fall apart because they changed the legislation to make it compatible with someones faith?
I thought that someone would make those points, but the answer to them is simple. The law applies particular rules to particular situations. That is not at all the same thing as an anarchic approach of people choosing their own rules on an individual basis. Safety helmet exemptions are legislated for, not made up ad hoc. They form part of the general system of laws that govern the nation. One of the things that the law does is protect rights to express religious beliefs and to conduct religious practices, but in appropriate contexts that protection must give place to other principles. Thus a person may not in most contexts use his or her religious belief as a basis for not providing a service to a person who has some attribute that the religious person disapproves of. There is a hierarchy of rights. In general, non elective attributes such as gender or disability trump elective attributes such as belief systems.
BTW, most animals killed under Halal rules in the UK are stunned before they are killed. I might rather that no religious practice was given special protection, but I accept that the commitment to liberty of belief means that some practices must be tolerated. Some must not. FGM is a good example of the latter.
BTW, most animals killed under Halal rules in the UK are stunned before they are killed. I might rather that no religious practice was given special protection, but I accept that the commitment to liberty of belief means that some practices must be tolerated. Some must not. FGM is a good example of the latter.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 3rd October 07:36
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff