Kim Davis - even Fox News thinks her case is fruityloopy

[jimmybobby]

rscott said:

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).

The polls above appear fair and accurate albeit i have only looked into gallup briefly.
Whether it is legal or religious without her granting the license they cannot get married and as such she is advocating/permitting gay marriage. It seems people on this thread simply fail to grasp that simple concept. No marriage license no marriage. Her job is to grant marriage licenses to allow people to get married.

The other people handing out licenses are her staff. It is her job to see that they follow the laws and rules as set out by her employer and as such she is obliged to make sure they provide marriage licenses to gay couples. Yet again in effect advocating or supporting gay marriage by extension.

[AW111]

jimmybobby said:

The polls above appear fair and accurate albeit i have only looked into gallup briefly.
Whether it is legal or religious without her granting the license they cannot get married and as such she is advocating/permitting gay marriage. It seems people on this thread simply fail to grasp that simple concept. No marriage license no marriage. Her job is to grant marriage licenses to allow people to get married.

The other people handing out licenses are her staff. It is her job to see that they follow the laws and rules as set out by her employer and as such she is obliged to make sure they provide marriage licenses to gay couples. Yet again in effect advocating or supporting gay marriage by extension.

Point of order : in no sense is she being asked to advocate gay marriage. That would mean she is promoting or encouraging gay marriage.
You could try facilitate, as she is part of the sysyem that allows gay marriage.

BTW : although I have no issues with gay marriage, I think Breadvan et al are ovestating the case in one particular : there is always a case for refusing to do something on moral / religious / ethical grounds., but be prepared to lose your job.
The consequences of such refusal may include dismissal, but it would be a sad world if no-one could refuse to obey an order (from an employer - military service is different).
I have in the past refused to do something at work that I thought was dodgy : when the bos realized how seriously I took it, he rethought the whole issue. Had he fired me, so be it.


BTW Saying that Nazi Germany / Stalinist Russia were "illigitemate" governments, and thus disobedience to them is justified, is a very slippery slope - who decides what a "legitimate" government is?

[Mrr T]

jimmybobby said:

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.

Except in the US gay marriage was not voted on by the individual states. It was imposed on them by 5-4 majority verdict in the supreme court using the 14th amendment in a way those who originally voted for it would never have envisaged it being used for. When Judges decide to over rule the electoral process they overrule democracy.

[anonymous-user]

That observation suggests to me a misunderstanding of how democracy and the rule of law work, particularly in the US system. For a discussion of this stuff in the UK context, see -

http://www.theguardian.com/law/interactive/2011/no...

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n04/stephen-sedley/judici...

TL/DR? Summary here -

http://publiclawforeveryone.com/2012/10/15/sumptio...

[anonymous-user]

Mr_B said:

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

So, be a persistent child abuser and you get moved to another job and maybe even promoted, with lots of hush hush about your recreational pursuits. Be a gay man in a loving relationship and you get fired. Way to go, Catholic Church!

[Mrr T]

Breadvan72 said:

Mr_B said:

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

So, be a persistent child abuser and you get moved to another job and maybe even promoted, with lots of hush hush about your recreational pursuits. Be a gay man in a loving relationship and you get fired. Way to go, Catholic Church!

True but better than being Muslin where I believe stoning is the prescribed punishment

[longblackcoat]

Mrr T said:

Breadvan72 said:

Mr_B said:

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

So, be a persistent child abuser and you get moved to another job and maybe even promoted, with lots of hush hush about your recreational pursuits. Be a gay man in a loving relationship and you get fired. Way to go, Catholic Church!

True but better than being Muslin where I believe stoning is the prescribed punishment

Is this a strained attempt at humour?

[Hugo a Gogo]

longblackcoat said:

Mrr T said:

Breadvan72 said:

Mr_B said:

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

So, be a persistent child abuser and you get moved to another job and maybe even promoted, with lots of hush hush about your recreational pursuits. Be a gay man in a loving relationship and you get fired. Way to go, Catholic Church!

True but better than being Muslin where I believe stoning is the prescribed punishment

Is this a strained attempt at humour?

I'm not a man of the cloth, but it's straining the very fabric of our society

[Sir Humphrey]

Breadvan72 said:

So, be a persistent child abuser and you get moved to another job and maybe even promoted, with lots of hush hush about your recreational pursuits. Be a gay man in a loving relationship and you get fired. Way to go, Catholic Church!

Being a gay Catholic priest does make his job rather untenable IMO.

[EskimoArapaho]

Sir Humphrey said:

Breadvan72 said:

So, be a persistent child abuser and you get moved to another job and maybe even promoted, with lots of hush hush about your recreational pursuits. Be a gay man in a loving relationship and you get fired. Way to go, Catholic Church!

Being a gay Catholic priest does make his job rather untenable IMO.

Yes. Whereas being a paedophile Catholic priest is simply an administrative issue.

[Mrr T]

Hugo a Gogo said:

longblackcoat said:

Mrr T said:

Breadvan72 said:

Mr_B said:

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

So, be a persistent child abuser and you get moved to another job and maybe even promoted, with lots of hush hush about your recreational pursuits. Be a gay man in a loving relationship and you get fired. Way to go, Catholic Church!

True but better than being Muslin where I believe stoning is the prescribed punishment

Is this a strained attempt at humour?

I'm not a man of the cloth, but it's straining the very fabric of our society

Wooops

[anonymous-user]

Wibble:

http://www.advocate.com/politics/2015/10/05/tennes...

[mko9]

The issue is not whether or not her religious rights have been impinged. The issue is that in her position, she IS the government. The government cannot pick and choose it's customers based upon religious preferences. She needs to choose between doing her job, or quitting her job. Injecting her personal religious beliefs into the government's business is not an option.

[Martin4x4]

Breadvan72 said:

Wibble:

http://www.advocate.com/politics/2015/10/05/tennes...

Given these legislators expect God to obey their law not to destroy Tennessee, I wonder how our resident fruitloop can explain away why can't they cannot be expected to obey they law?

--- edit ---

After a little digging, it seems the fuitloops lost 10-5 but are going to try again on the 16th

https://www.facebook.com/events/697027027063491/

Edited by Martin4x4 on Wednesday 7th October 18:21