The Question
Eternal
(I'm evil 'cause I won't hop on the bandwagon. 
)
)A gay marriage proposal...
- Thread starter Volpone
- Start date
The Question
Eternal
Jesus Christ, you're boring.
Sarek
Vuhlkansu Wihs
Which happened to have exactly dick to do with the Kim Davis case under discussion. Thus, it was righteously ignored.
You have decided that the question is not pertinent to the conversation based on nothing more than your inability to answer it. My question in fact, digs to the very foundation of the gay marriage issue.
Kim Davis is nothing more than a redneck homopbob who is using religion as a shield to cover her bigotry and hate. This woman has done more in her life to harm the institution of marriage than any gay couple could ever do. But, she justifies her actions with the old career sinner ploy of "Jesus saved me! I"m born again!"
Give me a fucking break.
The Question
Eternal
Then to turn it around, how does that affect you? Did she ruin your plans to go to a county you don't live in and get gay married?
The Question
Eternal
Seriously.
"Gay people are getting married and I don't like it!"
"Well, that's none of your business, you homophobebigotracistsexistevilBADBADBAD person who doesn't think THE WAY I WANT YOU TO THINK! NOW, THINK THE WAY I SAY YOU HAVE TO THINK!!!"
"This dumb Christer bitch is refusing to sign marriage licenses for anybody 'cause she doesn't want to sign 'em for gay couples, and I don't like it!"
Guess what the response ought to be to that.
Yep. That's right, kids. You're the new evangelicals. Enjoy that.
"Gay people are getting married and I don't like it!"
"Well, that's none of your business, you homophobebigotracistsexistevilBADBADBAD person who doesn't think THE WAY I WANT YOU TO THINK! NOW, THINK THE WAY I SAY YOU HAVE TO THINK!!!"
"This dumb Christer bitch is refusing to sign marriage licenses for anybody 'cause she doesn't want to sign 'em for gay couples, and I don't like it!"
Guess what the response ought to be to that.
Yep. That's right, kids. You're the new evangelicals. Enjoy that.
The Question
Eternal
no u
The Question
Eternal
Oh, hey! Since all this swearing is about 'tolerance', show everybody what you think tolerance looks like.
...
Yeah, good job.
...
Yeah, good job.
Volpone
Zombie Hunter
Ah, the dangers of using the whole broadside in one post. I'll dial it back to smaller bites.
So 5-10 years ago, if a heterosexual man wanted to marry another man, that was legal? Yes or no? If no, then how is it that a gay man has any less rights than a straight man?
Sarek
Vuhlkansu Wihs
That's just it, it doesn't affect me at all. Ad that's the whole point. If it doesn't affect you, it doesn't concern you. And if it doesn't concern you, keep your nose out of it.
But you people on the right can't do that.
Sarek
Vuhlkansu Wihs
If she doesn't like or want to do her job, there's NOTHING preventing her from leaving.
jack
The Legendary Troll Kingdom
So 100 years ago if a black man wanted to be free if he was a slave, was that legal? Yes or no? If no, then how is it that a black man has any less rights that a white man?
So 100 years ago, if a woman wanted to vote, was that legal? Yes or no? If no, than how is it that a woman has any less rights than a man?
Same thing. That's how the Constitution works. Equal rights for all, regardless of their color, gender, or sexual orientation.
Volpone
Zombie Hunter
I like fish patties too!
Talk about someone trying to confuse the issue. Could a two heterosexual men marry each other before same sex marriage was legalized? If not, how were gays being somehow discriminated against?
jack
The Legendary Troll Kingdom
Are you nuts? Gays are still being discriminated against.
Lets stick with the discussion, shall we?
New Rule: If Your Religious Beliefs Prevent You From Doing Your Job – Get a New Job September 8,
2015 By Allen Clifton
Words cannot express how absolutely sick and tired I am of people trying to force their religion into places it does not belong. The way I view faith and religion is simple: Keep it private, at church or other places of worship. There’s a reason why this nation was founded on the principle of freedom of (or from) religion. That way no person would ever have someone else’s beliefs shoved down their throat. Now, in instances like what’s going on with Kim Davis in Kentucky, it’s fairly straight forward. She’s an elected official who’s refusing to do her job in defiance of a Supreme Court ruling and our Constitution. There’s no gray area with the situation in Kentucky. She’s completely in the wrong and has absolutely no legal right to deny gay couples their marriage licenses. The bottom line is, she either needs to resign or be removed from office. But when it comes to the private sector, things do get slightly more complicated. Take for instance a story that’s been going around concerning a Muslim flight attendant, Charee Stanley, who’s been suspended by ExpressJet for refusing to serve customers alcohol, claiming it goes against her religious beliefs. She has since filed a discrimination complaint against the company. While I respect everyone’s right to have their own faith, I draw the line with stuff such as this. Her job requires her to fulfill certain duties, one of which is to serve passengers alcohol if they request it. If she doesn’t want to do that requirement of her job, then find a new job. What’s next, Hindu servers refusing to allow customers to order beef products? What if a Muslim male working at the DMV starts refusing to issue driver’s licenses to women because he doesn’t believe women should drive? Should that be allowed? Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for people being allowed days off to celebrate certain religious holidays, or even garments such as a hijab being allowed to be worn by women. But when it starts reaching a point where employees are refusing to carry out required tasks of their job, claiming it’s “against their religion,” then I think we’ve got a problem. Now, I know what some of you might be saying: Who cares, it’s just alcohol – what’s the big deal? Well, where do you draw the line? Take for instance a Florida nurse who sued a clinic that wouldn’t hire her because she opposed all forms of birth control and informed them during her interview that she would not prescribe it to anyone, even if they specifically asked for it. She claimed her “religious freedom” was violated when they didn’t hire her. Are we now going to argue that doctors and medical professionals should be allowed to ignore medical science when it contradicts their religious beliefs? What if someone dies because they weren’t given proper treatment due to a doctor’s “religious beliefs”? While serving alcohol and prescribing birth control are two completely different things, both individuals believe that they are within their rights to tell their employers (or potential employer) that they’re not going to carry out certain tasks a job requires because it went against their religion. Let me reiterate, I’m all for respecting the religious beliefs of other people. But I absolutely disagree with these folks who claim that they should be exempt from carrying out certain duties of a job that are required by an employer. This isn’t a matter of asking someone to “choose between their career and their religion.” It’s about people voluntarily choosing to work for a company, who are then deciding that they shouldn’t have to carry our specific tasks because it’s against their religion. Then, in cases like the nurse in Florida, businesses are being sued because they don’t want to hire employees who admit during an interview that they won’t perform certain tasks that are a requirement for employment. If you ask me, we just need to keep religion out of government, school and work. Religion should be something that’s personal and practiced in the appropriate places. If you come across a job that requires you to do things that go against your religion – then get a different job.
Lets stick with the discussion, shall we?
New Rule: If Your Religious Beliefs Prevent You From Doing Your Job – Get a New Job September 8,
2015 By Allen Clifton
Words cannot express how absolutely sick and tired I am of people trying to force their religion into places it does not belong. The way I view faith and religion is simple: Keep it private, at church or other places of worship. There’s a reason why this nation was founded on the principle of freedom of (or from) religion. That way no person would ever have someone else’s beliefs shoved down their throat. Now, in instances like what’s going on with Kim Davis in Kentucky, it’s fairly straight forward. She’s an elected official who’s refusing to do her job in defiance of a Supreme Court ruling and our Constitution. There’s no gray area with the situation in Kentucky. She’s completely in the wrong and has absolutely no legal right to deny gay couples their marriage licenses. The bottom line is, she either needs to resign or be removed from office. But when it comes to the private sector, things do get slightly more complicated. Take for instance a story that’s been going around concerning a Muslim flight attendant, Charee Stanley, who’s been suspended by ExpressJet for refusing to serve customers alcohol, claiming it goes against her religious beliefs. She has since filed a discrimination complaint against the company. While I respect everyone’s right to have their own faith, I draw the line with stuff such as this. Her job requires her to fulfill certain duties, one of which is to serve passengers alcohol if they request it. If she doesn’t want to do that requirement of her job, then find a new job. What’s next, Hindu servers refusing to allow customers to order beef products? What if a Muslim male working at the DMV starts refusing to issue driver’s licenses to women because he doesn’t believe women should drive? Should that be allowed? Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for people being allowed days off to celebrate certain religious holidays, or even garments such as a hijab being allowed to be worn by women. But when it starts reaching a point where employees are refusing to carry out required tasks of their job, claiming it’s “against their religion,” then I think we’ve got a problem. Now, I know what some of you might be saying: Who cares, it’s just alcohol – what’s the big deal? Well, where do you draw the line? Take for instance a Florida nurse who sued a clinic that wouldn’t hire her because she opposed all forms of birth control and informed them during her interview that she would not prescribe it to anyone, even if they specifically asked for it. She claimed her “religious freedom” was violated when they didn’t hire her. Are we now going to argue that doctors and medical professionals should be allowed to ignore medical science when it contradicts their religious beliefs? What if someone dies because they weren’t given proper treatment due to a doctor’s “religious beliefs”? While serving alcohol and prescribing birth control are two completely different things, both individuals believe that they are within their rights to tell their employers (or potential employer) that they’re not going to carry out certain tasks a job requires because it went against their religion. Let me reiterate, I’m all for respecting the religious beliefs of other people. But I absolutely disagree with these folks who claim that they should be exempt from carrying out certain duties of a job that are required by an employer. This isn’t a matter of asking someone to “choose between their career and their religion.” It’s about people voluntarily choosing to work for a company, who are then deciding that they shouldn’t have to carry our specific tasks because it’s against their religion. Then, in cases like the nurse in Florida, businesses are being sued because they don’t want to hire employees who admit during an interview that they won’t perform certain tasks that are a requirement for employment. If you ask me, we just need to keep religion out of government, school and work. Religion should be something that’s personal and practiced in the appropriate places. If you come across a job that requires you to do things that go against your religion – then get a different job.
jack
The Legendary Troll Kingdom
Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis is the personification of religious idiocy. She has become a face for those in this country who honestly believe that their religion trumps our laws; those who think the Bible is more legally binding than our Constitution.
She’s someone who thinks her rights are being violated because she’s being ordered not to infringe on the Constitutional rights of others – as per our Supreme Court and our Constitution. It’s just lunacy. She has absolutely no legal leg on which to stand, yet she’s still trying to fight this in court – even though the highest court in the land already ruled on same-sex marriage months ago.
What she’s essentially trying to do is challenge the Supreme Court’s decision back to the very same Supreme Court that made the decision in the first place. This all centers around Ms. Davis’ belief that forcing her to issue marriage licenses to gay couples violates her “religious freedom” – a belief that is completely ridiculous. She’s a government employee, not a religious figure. She was elected to adhere to the laws of Kentucky which are bound to the Constitution, and she’s refusing to do that.
So, once again I find myself having to explain what “religious freedom” actually means. It’s a fairly simple concept, yet so many people seem incapable (or just unwilling) to grasp it. Religious freedom means that, on a personal level, every American is free to follow whatever religion they want. They’re also free to not follow any religion at all.
As Americans we are free to attend church seven days a week, 365 days a year – or not at all. If you want to be Christian one year, Muslim the next and an atheist after that, guess what? That’s your right. Heck, if you want to follow some weird hybrid of a whole bunch of different religions combined into one set of spiritual beliefs, go right ahead. Do you know what the best part is? This country is set up so that no law can ever force anyone to adhere to a certain set of religious beliefs or principles. In your private life, or your places of worship, you can be as religious as you want. However... Once you go into work, school or any number of public, non-religious places – your religious rights change.
While some are protected, such as observing certain religious holidays or even the right to organize hate-filled religious protests, others are not. For example, a member of the Westboro Baptist Church can protest all they want, but that same person couldn’t go to work at Home Depot wearing a “God Hates Fags” shirt claiming “religious freedom.” In other words, religious freedom is not without limits. Especially if you’re a government employee, like Ms. Davis. As an elected official for the State of Kentucky, she swore an oath not to govern based on biblical law, but to uphold the laws of the state – which, again, are bound by our Constitution. I couldn’t care less what she thinks of same-sex marriage, because her job isn’t to determine who should or shouldn’t get married based on her own personal feelings.
Just like a county clerk couldn’t have denied her the right to marry for the second, third or fourth time based on their personal religious beliefs concerning divorce – she can’t legally do that to gay couples. Her job is to issue marriage licenses in accordance with the State of Kentucky which is bound to the Constitution of the United States of America.
If she wants to become an anti-gay marriage advocate, she needs to quit her job and go join some hate group filled with knuckle-dragging fools like herself. She has no right (nor does any other business owner or government employee) to deny service to anyone based on religious beliefs. Using your religion to try to justify denying Americans their Constitutional rights isn’t “religious freedom” – it’s discrimination. And yes, it’s as simple as that.
She’s someone who thinks her rights are being violated because she’s being ordered not to infringe on the Constitutional rights of others – as per our Supreme Court and our Constitution. It’s just lunacy. She has absolutely no legal leg on which to stand, yet she’s still trying to fight this in court – even though the highest court in the land already ruled on same-sex marriage months ago.
What she’s essentially trying to do is challenge the Supreme Court’s decision back to the very same Supreme Court that made the decision in the first place. This all centers around Ms. Davis’ belief that forcing her to issue marriage licenses to gay couples violates her “religious freedom” – a belief that is completely ridiculous. She’s a government employee, not a religious figure. She was elected to adhere to the laws of Kentucky which are bound to the Constitution, and she’s refusing to do that.
So, once again I find myself having to explain what “religious freedom” actually means. It’s a fairly simple concept, yet so many people seem incapable (or just unwilling) to grasp it. Religious freedom means that, on a personal level, every American is free to follow whatever religion they want. They’re also free to not follow any religion at all.
As Americans we are free to attend church seven days a week, 365 days a year – or not at all. If you want to be Christian one year, Muslim the next and an atheist after that, guess what? That’s your right. Heck, if you want to follow some weird hybrid of a whole bunch of different religions combined into one set of spiritual beliefs, go right ahead. Do you know what the best part is? This country is set up so that no law can ever force anyone to adhere to a certain set of religious beliefs or principles. In your private life, or your places of worship, you can be as religious as you want. However... Once you go into work, school or any number of public, non-religious places – your religious rights change.
While some are protected, such as observing certain religious holidays or even the right to organize hate-filled religious protests, others are not. For example, a member of the Westboro Baptist Church can protest all they want, but that same person couldn’t go to work at Home Depot wearing a “God Hates Fags” shirt claiming “religious freedom.” In other words, religious freedom is not without limits. Especially if you’re a government employee, like Ms. Davis. As an elected official for the State of Kentucky, she swore an oath not to govern based on biblical law, but to uphold the laws of the state – which, again, are bound by our Constitution. I couldn’t care less what she thinks of same-sex marriage, because her job isn’t to determine who should or shouldn’t get married based on her own personal feelings.
Just like a county clerk couldn’t have denied her the right to marry for the second, third or fourth time based on their personal religious beliefs concerning divorce – she can’t legally do that to gay couples. Her job is to issue marriage licenses in accordance with the State of Kentucky which is bound to the Constitution of the United States of America.
If she wants to become an anti-gay marriage advocate, she needs to quit her job and go join some hate group filled with knuckle-dragging fools like herself. She has no right (nor does any other business owner or government employee) to deny service to anyone based on religious beliefs. Using your religion to try to justify denying Americans their Constitutional rights isn’t “religious freedom” – it’s discrimination. And yes, it’s as simple as that.
jack
The Legendary Troll Kingdom
Here's 10 questions for that right wing asshole Castle.
1. If you believe religion gives someone the right to violate Constitutional laws, do you believe there should be limits on that? And if so, what limits?
2. Do you believe a judge should have the right to deny a divorce if they believe that divorce goes against their religious beliefs?
3. Should a Muslim working at the Department of Motor Vehicles be able to deny a woman her driver’s license if they don’t believe women should have the right to drive?
4. If you were trying to order food at a restaurant, should a Hindu server have the right to not allow you to order anything made from beef because they believe cows are sacred?
5. Should a county clerk who doesn’t believe in divorce have the right to deny a marriage license to someone who’s been previously married?
6. Since adultery is punishable by death in the Bible, should cheating on your spouse be considered a felonious act that qualifies for the death penalty?
7. Should county clerks who believe “biblical marriage” is only allowed between a man and a woman be allowed to refuse marriage licenses to people who aren’t Christians?
8. Since bans on interracial marriage were overturned by the Supreme Court (the same way same-sex marriage bans were stricken down) do you now believe county clerks should have the right to deny marriage licenses to interracial couples citing their religious beliefs?
9. If someone said their religious beliefs allow them to marry women under the age of 18 without their parents’ permission, should that be allowed?
10. Unless you’re going to follow all the rules written in the Bible, how can you logically justify using it as a reference for “law” when you willfully ignore the parts that you, yourself, don’t want to follow?
1. If you believe religion gives someone the right to violate Constitutional laws, do you believe there should be limits on that? And if so, what limits?
2. Do you believe a judge should have the right to deny a divorce if they believe that divorce goes against their religious beliefs?
3. Should a Muslim working at the Department of Motor Vehicles be able to deny a woman her driver’s license if they don’t believe women should have the right to drive?
4. If you were trying to order food at a restaurant, should a Hindu server have the right to not allow you to order anything made from beef because they believe cows are sacred?
5. Should a county clerk who doesn’t believe in divorce have the right to deny a marriage license to someone who’s been previously married?
6. Since adultery is punishable by death in the Bible, should cheating on your spouse be considered a felonious act that qualifies for the death penalty?
7. Should county clerks who believe “biblical marriage” is only allowed between a man and a woman be allowed to refuse marriage licenses to people who aren’t Christians?
8. Since bans on interracial marriage were overturned by the Supreme Court (the same way same-sex marriage bans were stricken down) do you now believe county clerks should have the right to deny marriage licenses to interracial couples citing their religious beliefs?
9. If someone said their religious beliefs allow them to marry women under the age of 18 without their parents’ permission, should that be allowed?
10. Unless you’re going to follow all the rules written in the Bible, how can you logically justify using it as a reference for “law” when you willfully ignore the parts that you, yourself, don’t want to follow?
The Question
Eternal
If you're too good to give direct answers to questions I ask you, Gnome, I'm sure as hell too good to answer yours.