Kim Davis

[CC1]

Originally Posted by mfblume

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.

The ruling is absurd and you are correct that we are at the point of Sodom now. I would never have dreamed Western Civilization and in particular American culture and society would unravel so fast.

The speed at which immorality has become the norm is breathtaking. I used to think that in my children's llfetime we would see censorship and persecution of the church but if I live much longer I believe I will live to see biblical truth labeled as "hate speech" and outlawed. Freedom of speech is certainly at risk in a way I never dreamed possible in my lifetime.

But again the dire circumstances do not change the simple fact that she has no standing to not do her job because this ruling is forcing her to do something she doesn't want to do. You have to take the emotion out of the situation and look at it logically and when you do she is flat out wrong and does not bring anything positive to the conversation about the ruling.

[Barb]

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.

CC1, the SCOTUS can say whatever they want and make decisions based on their own bias, but it is NOT legal...they canNOT make a law.

[CC1]

Originally Posted by Barb

CC1, the SCOTUS can say whatever they want and make decisions based on their own bias, but it is NOT legal...they canNOT make a law.

Sadly they can as proven by how they have twisted so many parts of the constitution to support abortion and now gay marriage. Whether we like it or not in our form of federal government the Supreme Court is the final say in matters like these.

When I pointed out to a FB friend that it was amazing how something like marriage was defined by the court one way for over a hundred years and then suddenly radically changed they pointed out to me that at one point in history the Supreme Court used the constitution to support segregation and then changed on that view also.

It is indeed a slippery slope. Particularly when christians stay home and let liberal Democrats get elected President who appoint liberal justices. Republicans don't have a great track record with appointees but certainly much better than Dems.

When you have a majority of Justices who believe the constitution is a "living document" that changes with society any ruling is possible.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by CC1

The ruling is absurd and you are correct that we are at the point of Sodom now. I would never have dreamed Western Civilization and in particular American culture and society would unravel so fast.

The speed at which immorality has become the norm is breathtaking. I used to think that in my children's llfetime we would see censorship and persecution of the church but if I live much longer I believe I will live to see biblical truth labeled as "hate speech" and outlawed. Freedom of speech is certainly at risk in a way I never dreamed possible in my lifetime.

But again the dire circumstances do not change the simple fact that she has no standing to not do her job because this ruling is forcing her to do something she doesn't want to do. You have to take the emotion out of the situation and look at it logically and when you do she is flat out wrong and does not bring anything positive to the conversation about the ruling.

The easiest and most logical solution is to accommodate her. they spent the bucks to change laws to redefine marriage and they cannot spend the dollars to accommodate Christians? There are more Christians in the USA than homosexuals!

[Barb]

Originally Posted by CC1

Sadly they can as proven by how they have twisted so many parts of the constitution to support abortion and now gay marriage. Whether we like it or not in our form of federal government the Supreme Court is the final say in matters like these.

When I pointed out to a FB friend that it was amazing how something like marriage was defined by the court one way for over a hundred years and then suddenly radically changed they pointed out to me that at one point in history the Supreme Court used the constitution to support segregation and then changed on that view also.

It is indeed a slippery slope. Particularly when christians stay home and let liberal Democrats get elected President who appoint liberal justices. Republicans don't have a great track record with appointees but certainly much better than Dems.

When you have a majority of Justices who believe the constitution is a "living document" that changes with society any ruling is possible.

The fact that they are doing it does not mean they have that right...4th grade Civics. They may offer an opinion or rule on an existing law, but they are out of their depth in trying to create law.

But as you say, this is a moot point. When you have justices performing same-sex marriages BEFORE they even rule on the subject, it is outrageous! In a just world they would have recused themselves from the case because of conflict of interest.

[Sweet Pea]

Due to time constraints, I have neither the time nor the inclination to read all the comments on this thread. If this has already been posted, please forgive me for re-posting and admin can delete it. But this article pretty much sums up all the facts regarding the law in this case. A very good read, in my opinion.

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/soci...ous-conscience

[CC1]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The easiest and most logical solution is to accommodate her. they spent the bucks to change laws to redefine marriage and they cannot spend the dollars to accommodate Christians? There are more Christians in the USA than homosexuals!

You cannot set a precdent of allowing government employees to pick and choose what they will and will not do of the tasks required them in their job. You may want them to do it in this case but there are plenty of applications of the same principle you would not like. I can't believe if you really think it through you can think they should "accomomodate her". The numver of christians vs the number of homosexuals in the country has nothing to do with the matter. If you accommodate her you set the stage to accomodate every cottin pickin' Muslim who doesn't want to do their job based on their religion.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by CC1

You cannot set a precdent of allowing government employees to pick and choose what they will and will not do of the tasks required them in their job. You may want them to do it in this case but there are plenty of applications of the same principle you would not like. I can't believe if you really think it through you can think they should "accomomodate her". The numver of christians vs the number of homosexuals in the country has nothing to do with the matter. If you accommodate her you set the stage to accomodate every cottin pickin' Muslim who doesn't want to do their job based on their religion.

It's different story when the laws agreed with our views of marriage and then were changed. Our laws never agreed with obscure Muslim issues. Not the same at all.

[Esphes45]

I'm very late to this discussion but as I heard about this situation I was very sadden. First let me say that I do believe in marriage between a man and a woman.

What sadden me is after all her protest, going to jail and whatever, do you think anyone came to Christ because of her stand? Do you think those gay people were pricked in their heart and repented because of her stand? I don't think so. She didn't appear as Jesus to them she appeared as the devil. I just wish she would have done it in a way which glorified God more. I think her message got lost because of the way she went about it. The focus seems to be on her and not the message. The media is definitely the cause of that.

[Garbonzo]

Didn't see this one coming.

Pope meets with Kim Davis.

http://flip.it/DTJqJ

We may need to merge that Pope Nonsense thread with this one.