News Article: Kentucky Clerk Is Due In Federal Court For Contempt Hearing

[crimsonaudio]

and this just went up in Davis's hometown.

That's hilarious!

 

[bamabelle1991]

The liberal judges behind this decision have no concern for morality, judicial ethics or the institution of marriage (as it has been defined in this country).

I am concerned that the govt would require someone to abandon certain religious beliefs to be able to hold a government job. Will this make this elected position only available to people without religion? How would the wording be on this job description? I do not have strong feelings about what is happening in KY. There is still a lot to play out there on both sides. The notion that we would throw someone in jail because they stand up for their religious beliefs is not a path we should be exploring as a nation. She took the job under a established job description and it changes into something that goes against her religious beliefs. There were several different ways this could have played out but jail should not have been one of them. This 5 judge ruling has/will cause much harm to the religious freedoms and state's authority provided by our constitution.

I'm guessing hundreds of gay people will probably get married this weekend and it isn't going to negatively affect my life in anyway, whatsoever. In fact, I bet a gay couple just said "I Do", and guess what? The world is still rotating and revolving, I'm still sitting on my couch in my pj's watching SEC Network, and Bama is still going to dine on delicious cupcakes today.

So, tell me again how gay marriage negatively affects you personally?

 

[Tide1986]

I'm guessing hundreds of gay people will probably get married this weekend and it isn't going to negatively affect my life in anyway, whatsoever. In fact, I bet a gay couple just said "I Do", and guess what? The world is still rotating and revolving, I'm still sitting on my couch in my pj's watching SEC Network, and Bama is still going to dine on delicious cupcakes today.

So, tell me again how gay marriage negatively affects you personally?

I get the sentiment that you are expressing. Nevertheless, if we applied your comments to everything in life, we would tolerate a lot of very evil things.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I get the sentiment that you are expressing. Nevertheless, if we applied your comments to everything in life, we would tolerate a lot of very evil things.

Who's defining "evil?"

 

[Jon]

I'm guessing hundreds of gay people will probably get married this weekend and it isn't going to negatively affect my life in anyway, whatsoever. In fact, I bet a gay couple just said "I Do", and guess what? The world is still rotating and revolving, I'm still sitting on my couch in my pj's watching SEC Network, and Bama is still going to dine on delicious cupcakes today.

So, tell me again how gay marriage negatively affects you personally?

but it's inviting God's wrath as the tv preachers keep saying. Course Gay Marriage has been legal in Canada for a decade but they seem to be immune to wrath

 

[GrayTide]

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/kim...sex-marriage-licenses-after-mother-is-jailed/

Knew I had seen this.

 

[Tide1986]

Who's defining "evil?"

You can.

 

[bamabelle1991]

I get the sentiment that you are expressing. Nevertheless, if we applied your comments to everything in life, we would tolerate a lot of very evil things.

I don't define gay marriage as "evil." I do, however, define someone who hates people because they are gay as "evil."

 

[TIDE-HSV]

You can.

I can't and I wouldn't. I leave it to the lawmakers and the courts, just as she should have. Look, why are you being so obscure? Hang it out. Do you think she should have been allowed to refuse her duties because of her personal beliefs? Should a Walmart clerk also be free to refuse to sell you condoms or an Islamic flight attendant alcohol? Where does this nonsensical individual right of nullification of laws end?

 

[Crimson1967]

but it's inviting God's wrath as the tv preachers keep saying. Course Gay Marriage has been legal in Canada for a decade but they seem to be immune to wrath

Canada's cold weather makes them immune to fire and brimstone raining down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[92tide]

I don't define gay marriage as "evil." I do, however, define someone who hates people because they are gay as "evil."

but don't you realize, its the sin that's being hated, the sinner is being loved

 

[Tide1986]

I don't define gay marriage as "evil."

I didn't define it that way either and never have to my knowledge. Nevertheless, there's a lot in this world we shouldn't care about if the standard is " the sun will come up tomorrow" and "my favorite shows are still on TV". There's a great deal of insensitivity in viewing the world through that lens.

 

[TRUTIDE]

I didn't define it that way either and never have to my knowledge. Nevertheless, there's a lot in this world we shouldn't care about if the standard is " the sun will come up tomorrow" and "my favorite shows are still on TV". There's a great deal of insensitivity in viewing the world through that lens.

Good post.

 

[chanson78]

I didn't define it that way either and never have to my knowledge. Nevertheless, there's a lot in this world we shouldn't care about if the standard is " the sun will come up tomorrow" and "my favorite shows are still on TV". There's a great deal of insensitivity in viewing the world through that lens.

Now you are just being pedantic. Pretty much nothing matters if that is truly the only yardstick.

I would tend to flip it around.

What religious laws and conventions have made life or the world better for humanity?

1. Do unto others? Check
2. Turn the other cheek? Check
3 Keep two gay people from getting married? Seriously?

If you are attempting to use the christian religion as the moral arbiter for all that is goodly in this world, you automatically accept into the argument all the bad that has been done directly in its name. I am cool going there, but how about instead of resorting to the "its for the good of humanity" argument lets just focus either on Kim Davis, or at least try and keep this in the realm of legal argument.

 

[81usaf92]

If you are attempting to use the christian religion as the moral arbiter for all that is goodly in this world, you automatically accept into the argument all the bad that has been done directly in its name. I am cool going there, but how about instead of resorting to the "its for the good of humanity" argument lets just focus either on Kim Davis, or at least try and keep this in the realm of legal argument.

Because no thread concerning religion ever stays with strictly the source material on this site, and it always goes to either "I believe or don't believe in god", what the constitution is, how bad Christian fundamentals are, and what not.

 

[Tide1986]

Now you are just being pedantic. Pretty much nothing matters if that is truly the only yardstick.

I would tend to flip it around.

What religious laws and conventions have made life or the world better for humanity?

1. Do unto others? Check
2. Turn the other cheek? Check
3 Keep two gay people from getting married? Seriously?

If you are attempting to use the christian religion as the moral arbiter for all that is goodly in this world, you automatically accept into the argument all the bad that has been done directly in its name. I am cool going there, but how about instead of resorting to the "its for the good of humanity" argument lets just focus either on Kim Davis, or at least try and keep this in the realm of legal argument.

Sigh...

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I guess here's the part I don't get (but perhaps I'm burdened with a seminary education that examines things a little more deeply than mere dogmatism) - let's BUY INTO all of the evangelical or even fundamenalist assumptions solely for the sake of argument.

Let's assume the abomination of homosexuality, that God is upset about gay marriage (God's wrath, etc), blah blah blah blah blah.

How does Kim Davis refusing to do her job accomplish anything at all? Some of you probably remember me telling about the Catholic doctor who would not prescribe birth control pills to single women. Like or hate that all you want, but he'd simply have another doctor issue it. Patient cared for, doctor's conscience clear.

Why couldn't Davis merely do that, which is what I'm reading now she will do?

I mean, I just don't get the religious freedom aspect of this at all. If the government were mandating that I as a minister MUST perform gay weddings I think we'd all agree here that THAT would constitute a violation of my own religious freedom. But that isn't what we have here.

Perhaps the problem is that Kim Davis is another Christian who thinks it is her job to block a sinner in pursuit of sin. What I find ironic about all of that is the self-appointed theism it embodies. Think of the arrogance - "I can stop the wrath of God by refusing to give gay people licenses."

Doesn't sound like much of a god to me.

As far as the 'evil' argument goes, we have plenty of evil that isn't illegal and shouldn't be. Technically, asking for a higher price for your Bama tickets than you paid for them could be considered 'evil,' but oh well.

And yet I'll also bet that if Kim Davis were questioned on her religious views, she'd insist on a Pelagian form of 'free will.' More irony if you ask me.

I'm done.

 

[Go Bama]

I guess here's the part I don't get (but perhaps I'm burdened with a seminary education that examines things a little more deeply than mere dogmatism) - let's BUY INTO all of the evangelical or even fundamenalist assumptions solely for the sake of argument.

Let's assume the abomination of homosexuality, that God is upset about gay marriage (God's wrath, etc), blah blah blah blah blah.

How does Kim Davis refusing to do her job accomplish anything at all? Some of you probably remember me telling about the Catholic doctor who would not prescribe birth control pills to single women. Like or hate that all you want, but he'd simply have another doctor issue it. Patient cared for, doctor's conscience clear.

Why couldn't Davis merely do that, which is what I'm reading now she will do?

I mean, I just don't get the religious freedom aspect of this at all. If the government were mandating that I as a minister MUST perform gay weddings I think we'd all agree here that THAT would constitute a violation of my own religious freedom. But that isn't what we have here.

Perhaps the problem is that Kim Davis is another Christian who thinks it is her job to block a sinner in pursuit of sin. What I find ironic about all of that is the self-appointed theism it embodies. Think of the arrogance - "I can stop the wrath of God by refusing to give gay people licenses."

Doesn't sound like much of a god to me.

As far as the 'evil' argument goes, we have plenty of evil that isn't illegal and shouldn't be. Technically, asking for a higher price for your Bama tickets than you paid for them could be considered 'evil,' but oh well.

And yet I'll also bet that if Kim Davis were questioned on her religious views, she'd insist on a Pelagian form of 'free will.' More irony if you ask me.

I'm done.

Very well stated.

I had to look up "Pelagian" though.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Very well stated.

I had to look up "Pelagian" though.

Raised as a Baptist, I was always stunned by the absolute ignorance of so-called Sunday School teachers regarding the whole free will/predestination argument. The SBC of the 1970s and 1980s has really abandoned its primarily Calvinistic roots and has a radical form of free will that was rejected 1500 years ago at the Council of Orange. People are so clueless on the actual history of Christian theological views that they don't realize that both the Augustinian-Calvinist side AND the Wesleyan-Arminian side would not even recognize the people flying their banners today. I had a Calvinist professor make the observation that John Wesley was 'stronger' on the doctrine of 'original sin' than any Reformed Calvinist writer of the similar time frame.

Yet everyone makes it a simple argument of 'free will' or 'predestination,' one side or the other, and gets both sides wrong.

Most theistic folks think God is under some obligation to either save, offer salvation, or be 'fair' in human terms. To do otherwise is to be an 'unloving God.' My problem with that assumption is that it assumes that God loves everyone equally. I've never understood why anyone thinks that - operating from a biblical worldview. If man is made in the image of God and man does not love everyone equally, why do we assume God cannot make distinctions in HIS love?

(Keep in mind at this point the existence of God is assumed; this isn't a problem for a skeptic, but it is for Kim Davis and the like).

 

[chanson78]

Raised as a Baptist, I was always stunned by the absolute ignorance of so-called Sunday School teachers regarding the whole free will/predestination argument. The SBC of the 1970s and 1980s has really abandoned its primarily Calvinistic roots and has a radical form of free will that was rejected 1500 years ago at the Council of Orange. People are so clueless on the actual history of Christian theological views that they don't realize that both the Augustinian-Calvinist side AND the Wesleyan-Arminian side would not even recognize the people flying their banners today. I had a Calvinist professor make the observation that John Wesley was 'stronger' on the doctrine of 'original sin' than any Reformed Calvinist writer of the similar time frame.

Yet everyone makes it a simple argument of 'free will' or 'predestination,' one side or the other, and gets both sides wrong.

Most theistic folks think God is under some obligation to either save, offer salvation, or be 'fair' in human terms. To do otherwise is to be an 'unloving God.' My problem with that assumption is that it assumes that God loves everyone equally. I've never understood why anyone thinks that - operating from a biblical worldview. If man is made in the image of God and man does not love everyone equally, why do we assume God cannot make distinctions in HIS love?

(Keep in mind at this point the existence of God is assumed; this isn't a problem for a skeptic, but it is for Kim Davis and the like).

I am continually reminded how much I enjoy your posts.