Kim Davis - even Fox News thinks her case is fruityloopy

[jimmybobby]

wolves_wanderer said:

We've already established her Christian principles don't extend to honouring a promise she made to god in her own life (twice) so I'm inclined to view her current attitude as bigotry and I'm not even gay or owt

While i agree that she is a hypocrite as she seems to be picking and choosing the aspects of her faith she wishes to follow or not i believe she still has a point. She is making a point for anyone who is christian that they have rights just like anyone else.

[jimmybobby]

Lucas CAV said:

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...

and there is the problem - should his employer take account of his belief in the tooth fairy, the easter bunny or santa too?

A fair question. The reality is religious beliefs are regarded as a freedom or right all over the world and are as such required to be considered by employers when employing someone.

[anonymous-user]

You miss the point that Davis' right to be a Christian is not being impaired. The right is not even engaged here. She can believe what she likes, and she can go to her church and so on. Her belief system cannot trump her obligation to obey the law, and in particular to uphold the law, as she is an elected officer of the State of Kentucky. If every state officer and employee could choose not to follow any law that they do not agree with, or any law that post dates the commencement of their office or employment, there would be chaos.

Jesus himself told his followers to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, thus laying the foundation for a separation of church and State that is now enshrined in the US Constitution. No advanced western nation is a theocracy.

[anonymous-user]

Here is the great Lord Justice Laws explaining how a civilised legal system deals with these matters, in McFarlane v Relate [2010] EWCA Civ 771. Mcfarlane, a relationship counsellor who refused to counsel same sex couples, later took his case to the European court of Human Rights, and lost there as he had in the domestic Courts. So too did Ladele, a Registrar who refused to conduct same sex partnership ceremonies.

Over to John Laws. jimmybobby may dismiss what follows as mere legalese. To my eyes, and perhaps to the eyes of others (who are not lawyers), it may appear to be rather beautifully expressed and crystal clear English prose:-

22. In a free constitution such as ours there is an important distinction to be drawn between the law's protection of the right to hold and express a belief and the law's protection of that belief's substance or content. The common law and ECHR Article 9 offer vigorous protection of the Christian's right (and every other person's right) to hold and express his or her beliefs. And so they should. By contrast they do not, and should not, offer any protection whatever of the substance or content of those beliefs on the ground only that they are based on religious precepts. These are twin conditions of a free society.

23. The first of these conditions is largely uncontentious. I should say a little more, however, about the second. The general law may of course protect a particular social or moral position which is espoused by Christianity, not because of its religious imprimatur, but on the footing that in reason its merits commend themselves. So it is with core provisions of the criminal law: the prohibition of violence and dishonesty. The Judaeo-Christian tradition, stretching over many centuries, has no doubt exerted a profound influence upon the judgment of lawmakers as to the objective merits of this or that social policy. And the liturgy and practice of the established Church are to some extent prescribed by law. But the conferment of any legal protection or preference upon a particular substantive moral position on the ground only that it is espoused by the adherents of a particular faith, however long its tradition, however rich its culture, is deeply unprincipled. It imposes compulsory law, not to advance the general good on objective grounds, but to give effect to the force of subjective opinion. This must be so, since in the eye of everyone save the believer religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence. It may of course be true; but the ascertainment of such a truth lies beyond the means by which laws are made in a reasonable society. Therefore it lies only in the heart of the believer, who is alone bound by it. No one else is or can be so bound, unless by his own free choice he accepts its claims.

24. The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified. It is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective. But it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary. We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion – any belief system – cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens; and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic. The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments. The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law; but the State, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself.

25. So it is that the law must firmly safeguard the right to hold and express religious belief; equally firmly, it must eschew any protection of such a belief's content in the name only of its religious credentials. Both principles are necessary conditions of a free and rational regime.

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 3rd October 10:36

[anonymous-user]

http://www.employmentcasesupdate.co.uk/site.aspx?i...

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"itemid":...

[anonymous-user]

jimmybobby said:

A fair question. The reality is religious beliefs are regarded as a freedom or right all over the world and are as such required to be considered by employers when employing someone.

You are extraordinarily ill informed. In many areas of the world there is no religious freedom. Try being religiously free in Saudi Arabia, Iran, parts of Nigeria, China, North Korea, and so on. Try also being gay in Saudi Arabia, Iran, many African states, Russia, and so on. Try asserting employment rights of any kind in many of those places. Your understanding of the world is astonishingly limited.

[jimmybobby]

Breadvan72 said:

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.

Actually my response in regards are you gay was in response to you making a stand out question which you have asked me and i have answered before. Feel free to continue trying to make me out to be the bad guy for responding in kind though.

As to my response to the law scenario. Last time i checked police officers and people employed in the UK have religious rights and beliefs they have to be taken into consideration by their employers. Try making a Sikh turn up for work without their turban after they have worked for you for a period of time under the understanding they could and you will likely find yourself in court rather rapidly at the wrong end of a discrimination claim.

As to civil society . Really? Another who thinks kids should not be free to make up their own minds and should instead be brainwashed to weed out those who may have the audacity to think for themselves and form their own personal beliefs and opinions.

And finally in answer AGAIN to your question on why am i against gay marriage. I do not know. It simply does not sit right with me for some reason i cannot figure out. This does not mean i have an issue with people being gay nor does it mean that if my brother decided to get married that i would be angry, upset or against him doing so as it would be legal and would make him happy and would not in any real way affect my life.

[jimmybobby]

Breadvan72 said:

jimmybobby said:

A fair question. The reality is religious beliefs are regarded as a freedom or right all over the world and are as such required to be considered by employers when employing someone.

You are extraordinarily ill informed. In many areas of the world there is no religious freedom. Try being religiously free in Saudi Arabia, Iran, parts of Nigeria, China, North Korea, and so on. Try also being gay in Saudi Arabia, Iran, many African states, Russia, and so on. Try asserting employment rights of any kind in many of those places. Your understanding of the world is astonishingly limited.

Ok fine if you want to be specific in future i will not use simple broad statements. In countries such as France, Germany, England, America, Australia, New Zealand etc peoples right to religious choice, beliefs and freedoms are required to be considered by employers. Please note the above list of countries does not include all countries where this general rule applies nor is it implying all countries in the world regard religious freedoms as a right. It is also worth noting these are not the only countries in the work with these rights.

Edited by jimmybobby on Saturday 3rd October 10:50

[anonymous-user]

jimmybobby said:

Actually my response in regards are you gay was in response to you making a stand out question which you have asked me and i have answered before. Feel free to continue trying to make me out to be the bad guy for responding in kind though.

As to my response to the law scenario. Last time i checked police officers and people employed in the UK have religious rights and beliefs they have to be taken into consideration by their employers. Try making a Sikh turn up for work without their turban after they have worked for you for a period of time under the understanding they could and you will likely find yourself in court rather rapidly at the wrong end of a discrimination claim.

As to civil society . Really? Another who thinks kids should not be free to make up their own minds and should instead be brainwashed to weed out those who may have the audacity to think for themselves and form their own personal beliefs and opinions.
Actually my response in regards are you gay was in response to you making a stand out question which you have asked me and i have answered before. Feel free to continue trying to make me out to be the bad guy for responding in kind though.

As to my response to the law scenario. Last time i checked police officers and people employed in the UK have religious rights and beliefs they have to be taken into consideration by their employers. Try making a Sikh turn up for work without their turban after they have worked for you for a period

And finally in answer AGAIN to your question on why am i against gay marriage. I do not know. It simply does not sit right with me for some reason i cannot figure out. This does not mean i have an issue with people being gay nor does it mean that if my brother decided to get married that i would be angry, upset or against him doing so as it would be legal and would make him happy and would not in any real way affect my life.

Your tit for tat ad hominem is as risible as every other thing that you write. I do not suggest that you are a bad guy. I suggest that you have bad ideas. These bad ideas appear to stem from a lack of information.

I have dealt with the point about Sikhs etc above. It is hilarious that you seek to lecture me about anti-discrimination law. You ought to look up what I do for a living, and, yes, that is one of my specialist practice areas. Your continued failure to grasp the very basics of how a system of laws works is lamentable, but horses cannot be made to drink.

Your point about civil society is bizarre. Civil society is the free society that we live in. Where on Earth do you get your nonsense about preventing children from thinking freely? Religion is good at that, by the way, and often good at teaching children to be homophobic.

Your inability to articulate why you are uncomfortable about gay marriage suggests to me that your discomfort is based on nothing more than some atavistic reaction to a change in social norms. A view that cannot be explained cannot be a rational view. Therefore your discomfort cannot be rational. Also, this discomfort causes you to cast about for increasingly ludicrous and illogical arguments to support Davis, whose position is not supportable on any rational or principled basis. Not exactly a position of intellectual honesty, but, hey, prejudices are never big on that.

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 3rd October 11:12

[anonymous-user]

jimmybobby said:

Breadvan72 said:

jimmybobby said:

A fair question. The reality is religious beliefs are regarded as a freedom or right all over the world and are as such required to be considered by employers when employing someone.

You are extraordinarily ill informed. In many areas of the world there is no religious freedom. Try being religiously free in Saudi Arabia, Iran, parts of Nigeria, China, North Korea, and so on. Try also being gay in Saudi Arabia, Iran, many African states, Russia, and so on. Try asserting employment rights of any kind in many of those places. Your understanding of the world is astonishingly limited.

Ok fine if you want to be specific in future i will not use simple broad statements. In countries such as France, Germany, England, America, Australia, New Zealand etc peoples right to religious choice, beliefs and freedoms are required to be considered by employers. Please note the above list of countries does not include all countries where this general rule applies nor is it implying all countries in the world regard religious freedoms as a right. It is also worth noting these are not the only countries in the work with these rights.

Edited by jimmybobby on Saturday 3rd October 10:50

If you use inaccurate language and thereby say things that are incorrect, expect to be pulled up on this. You said "all over the World". That does not mean "in the countries that we regard as civilised".

You may notice, by the way, that in most civilised countries, where religious freedom is protected (but, NB, not always in the context of employment law - you are generalising far too broadly and I suspect that you are no better informed as to comparative law than you are as to the law of the UK or the US), there tend also to be protections against discrimination on grounds such as gender, ethnicity, disability and sexual orientation. Sometimes various protections come into conflict one with another and have to be ascribed priorities. Sometimes the conflict is more apparent than real, as with Davis, whose right to religious freedom is in no way impaired by being called on to do her job.

[EskimoArapaho]

jimmybobby said:

And finally in answer AGAIN to your question on why am i against gay marriage. I do not know. It simply does not sit right with me for some reason i cannot figure out.

So it's irrational. That would be fine, if you/Davis/etc didn't seek to force your irrational/religious judgement on the lives of other people. Feel free to keep taking whatever medication (prayer, whatever) helps you deal with the uneasiness, because your solution is to push what you admit is your own problem on to other people.

[voyds9]

jimmybobby said:

A fair question. The reality is religious beliefs are regarded as a freedom or right all over the world and are as such required to be considered by employers when employing someone.

I agree with the wording but probably not the sentiment.

Yes an employer has to take in to account the employees religion and make adjustments (such as allowing them not to handle alcohol) when they employ them

However, they are not allowed to refuse employment because they would have to make these adjustments.

[Timsta]

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

No they didn't. Her job was to ensure that applicants meet the legal requirements for marriage. That's still her job.

[jimmybobby]

voyds9 said:

jimmybobby said:

A fair question. The reality is religious beliefs are regarded as a freedom or right all over the world and are as such required to be considered by employers when employing someone.

I agree with the wording but probably not the sentiment.

Yes an employer has to take in to account the employees religion and make adjustments (such as allowing them not to handle alcohol) when they employ them

However, they are not allowed to refuse employment because they would have to make these adjustments.

?

What i have argued from the start is that Davis when she started doing her job and her department were not required to hand out marriage licenses to gay couples and as such she was as she sees it in compliance with her religious beliefs.

Her employer or the state have changed the rules around an aspect of her job and that of those she manages who are an extension of herself. It is her job to direct them in their roles and make sure they do their jobs correctly as set out by her employer which in turn means she would need to make sure they hand out marriage licenses to gay couples and do the paperwork correctly.

As such she would be in conflict with her religious beliefs. The fact that she is taking everything so literally to the extreme point like BV is her choice i suppose.

[jimmybobby]

EskimoArapaho said:

jimmybobby said:

And finally in answer AGAIN to your question on why am i against gay marriage. I do not know. It simply does not sit right with me for some reason i cannot figure out.

So it's irrational. That would be fine, if you/Davis/etc didn't seek to force your irrational/religious judgement on the lives of other people. Feel free to keep taking whatever medication (prayer, whatever) helps you deal with the uneasiness, because your solution is to push what you admit is your own problem on to other people.

Wrong. I personally would not stop gay couples getting married as marriage is such a fking farce these days anyway what does it matter if gays are allowed to get married. The difference here is i can see both sides of the argument. Davis and the christians have their view the gay community and its supporters have theirs.

I wasn't given a choice or say in the matter so i have no idea how you can claim i am out to oppress anyone else's rights. In fact if you were to look at it differently it is the gay community forcing their beliefs and opinions on the religious community. The problem is that you/the lgbt community/liberals are incapable of considering that issue.

There are hundreds of millions of people of faith in fact i think probably billions who don't believe in homosexuality nevermind gay marriage. In comparison the gay community is a drop in the ocean tens of millions maybe. It offends/upsets a large proportion of those of faith that same sex couples will be allowed to marry. Were they asked? Have their rights or feelings been taken into consideration? How does the perceived "right" to a word allow the gay community a much smaller community, a greater right than that of religious?

It is like those posters on here who mock people of faith as believing in magic sky fairies. Just because you do not believe in religion does not mean they are not entitled and neither does it mean you or they are right in your belief or lack of. Its a distorted view of fairness.

Edited by jimmybobby on Saturday 3rd October 15:40

[rscott]

jimmybobby said:

Wrong. I personally would not stop gay couples getting married as marriage is such a fking farce these days anyway what does it matter if gays are allowed to get married. The difference here is i can see both sides of the argument. Davis and the christians have their view the gay community and its supporters have theirs.

I wasn't given a choice or say in the matter so i have no idea how you can claim i am out to oppress anyone else's rights. In fact if you were to look at it differently it is the gay community forcing their beliefs and opinions on the religious community. The problem is that you/the lgbt community/liberals are incapable of considering that issue.

There are hundreds of millions of people of faith in fact i think probably billions who don't believe in homosexuality nevermind gay marriage. In comparison the gay community is a drop in the ocean tens of millions maybe. It offends/upsets a large proportion of those of faith that same sex couples will be allowed to marry. Were they asked? Have their rights or feelings been taken into consideration? How does the perceived "right" to a word allow the gay community a much smaller community, a greater right than that of religious?

It is like those posters on here who mock people of faith as believing in magic sky fairies. Just because you do not believe in religion does not mean they are not entitled and neither does it mean you or they are right in your belief or lack of. Its a distorted view of fairness.

Edited by jimmybobby on Saturday 3rd October 15:40

Wow. So now you're saying that the majority of Christians don't believe in gay marriage? In fact you seem to be suggesting that ONLY the 'gay community' support it. Sorry to disillusion you, but the vast majority of heterosexuals I know are in favour of gay marriage. That includes many members of both the local Methodist and Anglican churches.

As had been said before on this thread, what's the difference between those who refused to process mixed race marriage license applications and her behaviour ? Religious beliefs were used in the former case too.

I don't understand how you can support her hypocrisy in her selective application of her faith to her job. Were she to be truly following the Bible, then she wouldn't have issued marriage licenses to any divorcées, for example.

[Mr_B]

As if just in time, gay Vatican priest comes out. Lets hope he doesn't want to get married.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34435087

[EskimoArapaho]

jimmybobby said:

There are hundreds of millions of people of faith in fact i think probably billions who don't believe in homosexuality nevermind gay marriage. In comparison the gay community is a drop in the ocean tens of millions maybe. It offends/upsets a large proportion of those of faith that same sex couples will be allowed to marry. Were they asked? Have their rights or feelings been taken into consideration? How does the perceived "right" to a word allow the gay community a much smaller community, a greater right than that of religious?

Hang on. There was a group of people denied a fundamental human right by a majority. Some of the majority are religious, by which we mean that they have given up significant areas of freedom of thought after joining a cult. Some just get angry at the idea of men getting jiggy with men (though they are, curiously, delighted to watch videos of women with women). There are also those who are - by their own admission - simply irrational, and some who aren't that bothered but prefer to keep their heads down and go with the flow.

You say "were they asked", this mass alliance of billions against gay marriage? The answer is that they were, by way of democratically elected government.

As for the feelings of bigots and their right to be bigotted, well nothing has changed ... except that they may break the law, and they may be punished for it. Same for the rest of us.

[jimmybobby]

rscott said:

jimmybobby said:

Wrong. I personally would not stop gay couples getting married as marriage is such a fking farce these days anyway what does it matter if gays are allowed to get married. The difference here is i can see both sides of the argument. Davis and the christians have their view the gay community and its supporters have theirs.

I wasn't given a choice or say in the matter so i have no idea how you can claim i am out to oppress anyone else's rights. In fact if you were to look at it differently it is the gay community forcing their beliefs and opinions on the religious community. The problem is that you/the lgbt community/liberals are incapable of considering that issue.

There are hundreds of millions of people of faith in fact i think probably billions who don't believe in homosexuality nevermind gay marriage. In comparison the gay community is a drop in the ocean tens of millions maybe. It offends/upsets a large proportion of those of faith that same sex couples will be allowed to marry. Were they asked? Have their rights or feelings been taken into consideration? How does the perceived "right" to a word allow the gay community a much smaller community, a greater right than that of religious?

It is like those posters on here who mock people of faith as believing in magic sky fairies. Just because you do not believe in religion does not mean they are not entitled and neither does it mean you or they are right in your belief or lack of. Its a distorted view of fairness.

Edited by jimmybobby on Saturday 3rd October 15:40

Wow. So now you're saying that the majority of Christians don't believe in gay marriage? In fact you seem to be suggesting that ONLY the 'gay community' support it. Sorry to disillusion you, but the vast majority of heterosexuals I know are in favour of gay marriage. That includes many members of both the local Methodist and Anglican churches.

As had been said before on this thread, what's the difference between those who refused to process mixed race marriage license applications and her behaviour ? Religious beliefs were used in the former case too.

I don't understand how you can support her hypocrisy in her selective application of her faith to her job. Were she to be truly following the Bible, then she wouldn't have issued marriage licenses to any divorcées, for example.

Not arguing her spectacular hypocracy. Many times married and divorced but wants to argue the toss over marriage licenses but if it wasnt her then it would be someone else.

I am not saying the majority of christians dont believe in gay marriage. I am saying there are more religions than just christianity and collectively between christianity, islam, Judaism etc etc there are billions of followers of those faiths.

While there will be a fair few of those followers of faith who are OK with gay marriage (certain sections of faith are ok with gays and gay marriage as a religious group such as methodists) there is also going to be a huge percentage of those who will not. In likelihood more against than for.

There is also going to be a huge proportion of those who are not even of faith who are against gay marriage or even homeosexuality as a whole.

The ideology that its just accepted as being OK by the majority is naive. In western society those in favour "may" be in the majority I dont know the numbers. Informal polls have been done I think albeit by I expect by those with an agenda to push either for or against.

[rscott]

Well 10 seconds on Google seems to suggest that the majority of those polled in the UK by Gallup support gay marriage - http://www.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx .
Majority of US citizens polled http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graphics-slides... support it - http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2902533 and http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graphics-slides...

I think it's safe to assume that were our countries to ask all their citizens, it's quite likely that the majority would vote in favour of gay marriage.

We're getting away from the key issue though - Davis is required to perform a clerical activity. That of issuing marriage licences to those who meet the criteria laid down in law. She wasn't being asked to perform any marriage service or even give consent for a marriage to occur in church. She is simply tasked with issuing paperwork to allow a marriage (as a legal act, not a religious one).