Badmovies.org Forum

aka I stir the pot on a too-quiet weekend in BMDO land.  :teddyr:

The other night when I was out I got accused of a having a double standard on this issue when I said the clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue same-sex couples marriage licenses was wrong.

A public official has a duty (probably a sworn duty) to uphold the law of the land, whether it offends her personal convictions or not.  If we give clerks the right to sift through laws, imagine where that could lead! She doesn't have to agree with the recent re-definition of marriage, only do the job she's paid to do.

I also have certain libertarian-like views about private property (as opposed to public property) and have said the owners of private businesses, such as the bakeries that recently refused service to homosexual couples, should have that right, as one should have the liberty to choose with whom one does business, at all times, under all conditions. If someone wants to lose money by not providing goods and services, it's his loss. It's said even prostitutes can refuse service, after all.

A gay wedding cake maker isn't hard to find, and the ridiculous bullies on a witch hunt who went around asking pizza parlors if they'd cater a non-hetero wedding was not one of gay culture's proudest moments.

Personally if the baker had said something like, "Sure I'll make your cake, and I'm going to donate all profits to a group trying to overturn gay rights, for in effect by hiring me you're funding them, too, now go see how Moslem bakery down the road will handle your request---I dare you." The outcome might've been less fun for the chip-on-their-shoulder activists out to stir up trouble under the guise of civil rights protection. Especially since nowadays persecuting Christians for a Biblical stance has become about as hard as a porn star after a long day on the job.

But as for the clerk from Kentucky who has made news, I don't see her as a hero, I see her as a self-important someone failing in her duty and seeking martyrdom for a bad cause. I've no doubt she'll get some Facebook page set up and people will give her lots of money for the fact she's going to lose her source of income, but she's really not a hero.

OK, that's my bit today to put some life back in our too-quiet hangout.  :cheers:

ER,

Let me start out by saying that I'm a conservative, and I vote fairly far right.

That said, I couldn't agree with you more. The baker that refused to make a gay wedding cake should have that right. The clerk who refuses to do her, public service, job is just wrong. She's trying to use her faith to avoid doing a job she swore to do. Good for her to trying to follow her faith, but she's using it more like a weapon. I think she should have left her job to find something that is more inline with er beliefs

I've been trying to avoid this like the plague, mainly because it seems to be that the internet wants to keep making stupid people famous. It gets tiresome after the upteemth time when someone wants to beat on the dead horse because someone "offended" them, which I reply "If you cant control your own emotions for something menial, then get off the internet!" Of course, this being marriage, it's a bit bigger. But it seems that the lbgt movement has gotten smugger since SCOTUS, from my perspective. Keep in mind that I support the LBGT, but dammit if they don't stop being so damn smug.....Getting back on track, she was sworn in to do her job regardless of religious beliefs. Since she can't  seem to do it then she has to resign.

I agree with you all in regards to the clerk. Legally, I don't think she has a leg to stand on. Nor does she morally. If she doesn't approve of the law, her remedy is to resign from a job she thinks violates her conscience.

I don't even see the issue of conscience. No church is required to recognize gay couples as "legitimately" married. Marriage as a civil institution and marriage as a religious sacrament are really two distinct concepts.

You are trying to stir the pot and all of us agree!  Frustrating, eh?

Civil servants are sworn to obey the law, and that does include the court's current interpretation thereof.
If she refuses to resign, then she can't complain about the legal consequences of defying a court order.

BUT . . .

How many of the people crying out for her head right now were singing the praises of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome when he defied state law to issue same-sex marriage licenses in California 11 years ago?

If he'd been jailed on contempt charges, they would have certainly branded him a martyr.


I'm a traditionalist on marriage, but I will say that many of the LBGT community are very sore winners.

I see the Westboro baptist church has decided to weigh into it, only as she has been married a few times they are not on her side.

For what it's worth, some of the very pro LGBT type peoples I know actually gave her props.  Saying that, even though they obviously strongly disagree with her views, that she was committing civil disobedience for something she strongly believes in and willingly paying the price for it.  Basically, that they respect that. 

I think most people think she's in the wrong for not doing her job properly.

Ironically I think some of the same people who approve her actions are also likely the same people who demand that immigrants need to 'love it or leave it' and integrate into society by following the laws and customs of their new home.   :lookingup:

I think this lady is doing an injustice... She was elected to do her job and swore to do her job, if its not to her ways, leave the damn job.  This is not heroic behavior on her part.   I've read analysis that her lawyers are pushing her to this to make a political point, and I think that is unethical behavior on their part.   I do feel they are making her a patsy.

The cake people... Yes your business can refuse service in a case, and they did.  Thats fine, and they took their loss of income to support their views.  But they took stuff a bit farther.  They publically declaimed against one specific group in print and live interviews, which is against a specific law in Oregon.   They basically put up a "No Colored Allowed" sign.  


And as for political trolling on both sides... All of them need to be staked on anthills, that does nothing good for anyone.  Its not activism; its being an ass.  
-Ed

I'm a public / civil servant and have been one (a proud one, I might add) for twenty six years.

I could not (and will not ever) refuse service to anyone, irrespective of race, gender, sexual orientation or religious beliefs and what my views on those may be. If I did refuse service to anyone, I would most likely get my butt seriously kicked and kicked out of here.  :buggedout: :buggedout:

The difference between this lady and myself is that she is an elected official and I applied for and was given the job. She can only be voted out: I can be booted out very quickly and easily, so I serve anyone and everyone happily.

My question is... Why don't this gay couple go somewhere else for the Marriage Licenses?

Just like the cake argument, sure if somebody don't want to make a cake based on their believe doesn't mean they are the only baker in town.

Yeah, but the fact that you're an exceptionally nice man radiates every day across thousands of miles of internet, Trevor, while this clerk strikes me as a jerk, and probably something of a homophobe in that rare literal meaning of the word.

Aww....thanks  :smile:

I'm assuming that this women is sincere in her belief that issuing a license to a same sex couple is against the law of God and a violation of her religious and moral principles. I have a friend who is a Christian fundamentalist and we have had some very lively discussions about this very subject, we both enjoyed  good philosophical/moral debates. I have also had to make real life decisions where reality came up and slapped me and my religious/moral principles in the face, in these situations making any decision is tougher than you can imagine. All you can do is allow your conscience and heart to guide you and make a decision based on that. In this lady's case I believe that right now people and organizations on both sides of this issue are using her to further their own agendas. My decision, if I was in her position and shared her beliefs, would be to refuse to issue the license and then resign my position as county clerk, although I have to add that it's a very easy choice for me because I'm not really in her position.
 

I have no issue with gay marriage... the only issue I have with it was how it became law. All I know that 5 non-elected people have the right to make up laws. This started with Abortion. Then turning the Healthcare law into a tax (even though the healthcare law was NOT pushed as a new tax on the American People). What's next, the 5 judges will say "Americans cannot own guns?" Sure it says we do but the words on the constitution is s**t as long as the people in control are not binded to the document. [I think it's freaking annoying how this Iran Treaty is not treated as a Treaty... Therefore, I don't see what is going to keep 5 judges from saying "Americans cannot own guns."

So in a way I can understand why this woman is having issues on gay marriage thing.

Sorry, I do find it hard to consider it as a law of the land because the 5 judges are using their opinions and not was written in the constitution. Truth be told, the Supreme Court should had given the issue back to the state because this was a state issue.

Again, the annoying thing I had noticed that the Gays (I hate to say most of them - but it sure seems that way) are using this marriage issue to purge religious belief.

Once again, if the gay couple really wanted to get married then why don't they go somewhere else to get married. It makes no sense to me that they NEED to keep coming to Rowan County to get married.

Yes!  That is one huge issue.  The Supreme Court shouldn't be making laws only interpreting them and making a decision of if a law is constitutional or not.  They made laws this year which is wrong.

I think the decision was indeed flawed, however, you can make an argument that this was a decision as to whether or not the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applied to State marriage laws - which is interpreting the Constitution, a legitimate function of the court.

The Fourteenth Amendment which was intended to make all slaves American Citizens (because the democrat owned states didn't want the slaves to be citizens and somehow the amendment was bastardized into an anchor baby law)... That's Fourteenth Amendment?

It was a bit more than that . . . "No state shall deny the equal protection of the laws to any citizen" is a pretty sweeping ruling.

It's cute how they pick and choose parts of the law. The fourteenth Amendment also says...

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

Which means that those pregnant Mexican mothers must enter the USA Legally First.


Also I find it odd... that we had all the Segregation Bulls**t in the early part of the 19th century when the 14th Amendment say's otherwise.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I'm reading this 50 times and I don't see how a state was allowed to have 'colored people signs' or make 'black people sit in back of the bus'

Yet, we got the supreme court seeing that this clause as equal rights for gay marriage... Nice...