Kim Davis - Page 37

CC1 · #**361** 09-29-2015, 09:18 AM

I have not read this thread but my two cents on Kim is that if you in good conscience can no longer do the job you are required to do by law then you need to quit. As opposed as I am to gay marriage and as much as I would love it to be overturned it has now gone to the highest court and been made law.

At this point I think Pentecostals should view it like working at Walmart. If you are a checker at Walmart you will be checking out people buying cigarettes and beer even though you may think it is a sin. Same thing with issuing a marriage license to a gay couple. Just know that despite their governmental standing it is not a marriage in Gods
mind.

kclee4jc · #**362** 09-29-2015, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CC1

I have not read this thread but my two cents on Kim is that if you in good conscience can no longer do the job you are required to do by law then you need to quit. As opposed as I am to gay marriage and as much as I would love it to be overturned it has now gone to the highest court and been made law.

At this point I think Pentecostals should view it like working at Walmart. If you are a checker at Walmart you will be checking out people buying cigarettes and beer even though you may think it is a sin. Same thing with issuing a marriage license to a gay couple. Just know that despite their governmental standing it is not a marriage in Gods
mind.

Does it matter not that this was not originally part of her job description but was imposed on her afterward by a court ruling?

CC1 · #**363** 09-29-2015, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kclee4jc

Does it matter not that this was not originally part of her job description but was imposed on her afterward by a court ruling?

Not at all. It is absurd to think that if the parameters of a job change because of legislation that a government employee doesn't have to comply. If you carry that logic out to the obvious conclusions the workplace would be crazy with people refusing to carry out any changes to the function of their job.

When I was hired by my company there was no restriction on talking on the phone while driving the company car. First they required us to only talk using a hands free method then later completely banned using the phone at all while driving. Should I be able to ignore the new rule because it was not in place when I was hired and it really aggravates me and makes me less productive?

mfblume · #**364** 09-29-2015, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CC1

Not at all. It is absurd to think that if the parameters of a job change because of legislation that a government employee doesn't have to comply. If you carry that logic out to the obvious conclusions the workplace would be crazy with people refusing to carry out any changes to the function of their job.

When I was hired by my company there was no restriction on talking on the phone while driving the company car. First they required us to only talk using a hands free method then later completely banned using the phone at all while driving. Should I be able to ignore the new rule because it was not in place when I was hired and it really aggravates me and makes me less productive?

It matters when there is a such ridiculous change like the redefining of a word that smacks at a Christian's most sacred beliefs in marriage. And marriage just happens to be the single most illustration in the bible that shows God's eternal purpose for mankind to begin with.

Barb · #**365** 09-29-2015, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CC1

I have not read this thread but my two cents on Kim is that if you in good conscience can no longer do the job you are required to do by law then you need to quit. As opposed as I am to gay marriage and as much as I would love it to be overturned it has now gone to the highest court and been made law.

At this point I think Pentecostals should view it like working at Walmart. If you are a checker at Walmart you will be checking out people buying cigarettes and beer even though you may think it is a sin. Same thing with issuing a marriage license to a gay couple. Just know that despite their governmental standing it is not a marriage in Gods
mind.

But the SCOTUS has NO right to MAKE a law...they only RULE on existing laws.

Barb · #**366** 09-29-2015, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

It matters when there is a such ridiculous change like the redefining of a word that smacks at a Christian's most sacred beliefs in marriage. And marriage just happens to be the single most illustration in the bible that shows God's eternal purpose for mankind to begin with.

mfblume · #**367** 09-29-2015, 09:52 AM

If we want to stop and think what crazy things might go in in public offices, think about what other words can be redefined and laws made to accommodate them.

CC1 · #**368** 09-29-2015, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

It matters when there is a such ridiculous change like the redefining of a word that smacks at a Christian's most sacred beliefs in marriage. And marriage just happens to be the single most illustration in the bible that shows God's eternal purpose for mankind to begin with.

I am not arguing that the Supreme Court ruling was right I am just saying it was made and gay marriage is now legal so we have to deal with it.

She can either carry out the duties of her office or get another job. She has no standing to refuse to obey the law. That the ruling she is refusing to comply with is so momentous and so agregious to christians has nothing to do with the situation.

Her office issuing marriage licences to gays is no different than a Pentecostal checking out a six pack of beer at Walmart when it comes to relationship to wrong doing. Each person has to decide for themselves whether facilitating those transactions makes them personally liable for the sin or not. If they decide so then they should quit their job if not they can continue working knowing they are not condoning what they disagree with.

mfblume · #**369** 09-29-2015, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CC1

I am not arguing that the Supreme Court ruling was right I am just saying it was made and gay marriage is now legal so we have to deal with it.

She can either carry out the duties of her office or get another job. She has no standing to refuse to obey the law. That the ruling she is refusing to comply with is so momentous and so agregious to christians has nothing to do with the situation.

Her office issuing marriage licences to gays is no different than a Pentecostal checking out a six pack of beer at Walmart when it comes to relationship to wrong doing. Each person has to decide for themselves whether facilitating those transactions makes them personally liable for the sin or not. If they decide so then they should quit their job if not they can continue working knowing they are not condoning what they disagree with.

I get your point, but the ruling was ridiculously based upon redefinition of a word. That is utterly nonsensical, so it's a bit more than a woman doing her job. But that is the insanity for the world for you. Imagine what might come NEXT? We're at the point of sodom now.

kclee4jc · #**370** 09-29-2015, 10:12 AM

I would not apply to work at a place that sold alcohol or tobacco. If I worked at an establishment that began selling those products after I was employed, I would not quit. I would refuse to sell them and let them fire me. I will not comply with something that violates my conscience nor will I be pushed out of a job because of it. If Kim Davis has no right to that job...then let them impeach her and let it be known that she was impeached because she refused to comply with an ungodly ruling.