Ever heard of separation of church and state? It doesn't matter whether I'm Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, or Sikh. Church matters are separate from those of the state, and marriage is a matter of the state by law
Muslim flight attendant suspended over serving alcohol
- Thread starter So many gays!
- Start date
Ever heard of separation of church and state? It doesn't matter whether I'm Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, or Sikh. Church matters are separate from those of the state, and marriage is a matter of the state by law
Caledvwlch
New member
Too bad.
I must learn your secrets
In reality, neither have been fired. Kim and this woman should have stepped down. Don't you think?
GuySmiley
Well-known member
No, Kim Davis should do what she thinks is right, and the government should make accommodations. The alternative is to have elected officials agree to a government approved set of beliefs before someone can be elected. I don't like that alternative.
What? Why should the government make accommodations if a private enterprise shouldn't?
I think Aimiel and doser are right there. You moved the goalposts from 'serving out marriage licenses when there was no legal right to marry queers' to 'serving out marriage licenses to whomever legally applied'.
Having said all that, I am not sure this is the central issue here. Whilst religious convictions are necessarily personal, this doesn't mean that anyone can go around refusing to work because of some supposedly religious issue. If there was evidence that it was common in that religion to act in a certain way, then I say fine, uphold the religious conviction. But in this case I am not so sure. I don't think there is any particular prohibition on Muslims from serving alcohol to another person. The prohibition is on drinking it yourself. Similarly, I don't see anything in the Christian religion which prohibits performing an administrative function relating to marriage of perverts, even though the Bible is quite clear that they are exactly that.
In other words, I tend to the view that if you really have such convictions, then you should leave the job and not cry about it. It is your voluntary sacrifice as a religious person, not your right to be treated differently to others. Being religious should not give you more rights than everyone else.
GuySmiley
Well-known member
I didn't say a private enterprise shouldn't. But they can do whatever they feel is best within the law. The government can't tell people who to vote for. Kim Davis can be impeached but Kentucky apparently doesn't have the collective will to do that.
Caledvwlch
New member
Did everybody forget she was jailed for contempt of court?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
why shouldn't Christians be contemptuous of the current "justice" system?
Caledvwlch
New member
Or anyone else for that matter. But still. That's what happens.
Regardless of what Kentucky says, the Supreme Court ruled on this matter. She is an employee of the government, and as such she is subject to their whims. If she doesn't like it, guess what? She can quit. That's her right. And nothing would be held against her in that case. However, she decided to defy the Supreme Court, and in doing such dug her own grave.
As an employee, she is subject to the same rules as any other employee of any other employer. Her right to "religious freedom (despite her disregarding laws about divorce in the Bible)" ends when it infringes upon the civil liberties of other people
Nope ... she should simply resign and find a job where the only skill required is her religious beliefs ...
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
she is an employee of the state government responsible for adhering to state law
what state law did she violate?
I'm not sure if she did, but Supreme Court trumps state court as it has throughout history, no? As someone else mentioned, South Carolina and Alabama had interracial marriage as illegal up until the late 1990s. Is interracial marriage in 1998 good with you?
GuySmiley
Well-known member
It appears she isn't subject to their whims as she is still following her own whims. She isn't an employee, she's an elected official. She can't be fired. The only recourse against her is impeachment.
Do you feel the same way about the police chief in Washington DC who will only give out concealed carry licenses to people who demonstrate a need beyond self defense? A court ordered her to issue licenses without people demonstrating that need but she still isn't. She hasn't spent time in jail. There are two sheriffs in California doing the same thing against court orders.
Or she steps down. It's pretty simple.
A. What is a need beyond self-defense?
B. She has to do what her job requires her to do. Her personal qualms should be set aside or she should resign. Again, it's pretty simple.
GuySmiley
Well-known member
What if she (in either case) doesn't? There's no provision to make her, and making her step down by definition isn't stepping down, its being fired, which cant happen. So what do we do now?
I suppose beyond self defense might be private investigators, or bounty hunters, security guards.
Then she defies the Supreme Court and goes to jail. See: reality.
While I agree that these specific individuals should have exemption, if the law says otherwise than no one has the right to violate that. However, I'm fairly certain that all of the above mentioned have the ability to purchase firearms and licenses
GuySmiley
Well-known member
Another part of reality is that she went to jail and it didn't change her mind.
Yes, those types of people are getting concealed carry licenses, but others who legally should be able to are not.