Kentucky clerk refused have same sex marriages license!

[Zeo]

I don't get why (they gay girl/woman in general/black girl) just simply can't resign the job and let someone else take over... she'd rather stay to try and force her beliefs onto the law.

Hmm one slight change... and maybe you can understand...
What is wrong with her having beliefs that she is willing to stand for? What is wrong with allowing others sign the licenses? Why jail her? If it was for forcing the license to go through her, knowing full well that she would not sign them, then alright... but... if it is for her refusal... I ask why...

Like I said, there's the difference in standing your beliefs, and using your beliefs as an excuse to discriminate against certain group... It's like from about 200 years ago when people used religion to justify the black slavery and things related to that when religion doesn't even mention anything against black people.

And they didn't have anyone else in the area to sign the license in the area because the same clerk basically directed them to not give the licenses to same-sex couples... However, I mentioned recently in one of my previous posts that the LGBT equality and same-sex couple marriage was legalized in law and they're required to service the LGBT whether they like it or not

Now I am asking you... Do you know what does discrimination mean? Refusing to service you, treating you with equality, and more because you're something (such as woman, black, homosexual, deaf, and/or the list goes on). If the clerk stood up for her bigoted belief and refuse to service the LGBT couple because she think it's wrong, it is STILL a discrimination because of a service refusal to those just because they're LGBT. It's why the clerk got in trouble, just simply because she refuse to do any marriage service to the LGBT people. It doesn't matter if your beliefs say the LGBT are wrong, you still have to treat them with equality because the civil law require you to do so.

And no, anyone (including me) in here who want her thrown in jail or fined because she used her beliefs as an excuse to discriminate against LGBT people, are not using the ad hominem method.

Don't try to pull out the ad hominem card just because some of us does not support the clerk for discriminating the LGBT due to her bigoted beliefs.

 

[DeafDucky]

Hmm one slight change... and maybe you can understand...
What is wrong with her having beliefs that she is willing to stand for? What is wrong with allowing others sign the licenses? Why jail her? If it was for forcing the license to go through her, knowing full well that she would not sign them, then alright... but... if it is for her refusal... I ask why...

She herself wouldn't let any of the deputies in her office do it. She also rejected a proposal to allow them to do it though right now 5 of the 6 will do so, some reluctantly (I am not sure why though). The lone holdout? Her son.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0

 

[Jezie]

Like I said, there's the difference in standing your beliefs, and using your beliefs as an excuse to discriminate against certain group... It's funny because the religion doesn't even mention anything about the homosexuality yet some religious people decided to make it up and it got around. It's like from about 200 years ago when people used religion to justify the black slavery and things related to that when religion doesn't even mention anything against black people.

Throughout history religion has been used to control people... slaves, women, men, childern, governments...so on... however... yes, the bible and churches have a lot about homosexuality in it...

And they didn't have anyone else in the area to sign the license in the area because the same clerk basically directed them to not give the licenses to same-sex couples...

I have stated if she did this then yes she was wrong... for it closes the door on it being truly tolerant.

However, I mentioned recently in one of my previous posts that the LGBT equality and same-sex couple marriage was legalized in law and they're required to service the LGBT whether they like it or not

My personal beliefs are my own... at no time have I satiate where I stood on it... it does not matter... people are comming out of the woodworks hollering thier support for the LGBT community... yet if they truly supported then where where they through the beatings and killings...bulling and the like... it is not until now that everyone feels the need to say they support it... before it was just considered an act of kindness and bravery to shake an openly gay man's hand... please... spare me... I do not find truth nor sincerity in it... I find it the person's being over their words any day..

Now I am asking you... Do you know what does discrimination mean? Refusing to service you, treating you with equality, and more because you're something (such as woman, black, homosexual, deaf, and/or the list goes on). If the clerk stood up for her bigoted belief and refuse to service the LGBT couple because she think it's wrong, it is STILL a discrimination because of a service refusal to those just because they're LGBT.

Yes I do know the definition ... you did an alright job of defining discrimination.... but I wonder... do you understand the meaning of bigotry?

 

[whatdidyousay!]

Government corruption in action.

This bitch needs to be terminated from her job, period. Just any companies one works for has policy to follow. If one can't follow policy, whats point of paying them doing their job without following policy?

I remembered days of my employment where I have to follow company policy at all times, many of them were against my beliefs BUT since I do not own the company, and I was paid to do the job for a company so therefore I have to do what my employer ask me to whether I like it or not.

(Donald Trump's voice) YOUR FIRED, BITCH!

When I was health aide I had to care for people that were racist they called Black people the 'N' words and other names, it really upset me b/c my daughter is Black and my brother in laws are too. People had a right to say thing they wanted in their own house and my company policy was to 'not say anything!' When you work with the public you'll always run into people that have difference beliefs or views than you.

 

[Zeo]

Throughout history religion has been used to control people... slaves, women, men, childern, governments...so on... however... yes, the bible and churches have a lot about homosexuality in it...

Like I said, people often twist and change what religion actually follow, which is why there's so much hate for everyone nowadays.

My personal beliefs are my own... at no time have I satiate where I stood on it... it does not matter... people are comming out of the woodworks hollering thier support for the LGBT community... yet if they truly supported then where where they through the beatings and killings...bulling and the like... it is not until now that everyone feels the need to say they support it... before it was just considered an act of kindness and bravery to shake an openly gay man's hand... please... spare me... I do not find truth nor sincerity in it... I find it the person's being over their words any day..

It's bit difficult to understand this paragraph so I apologize in advance if I got the wrong idea from this.

However, I am not against anyone for having their own beliefs but when they try to cross someone else's line just because they don't agree with it. THAT is WHEN it is NOT OKAY to use your own beliefs for this kind of things... especially when it comes to discriminating the homosexuality.

While everybody has the 1st Amendment right to believe in and practice a religion of their choice (or no religion at all), nobody has the right to violate another person’s civil rights in service of their religion.

In accordance with the protections of the 1st Amendment, the government is severely restricted in its ability to interfere with the internal workings of religious institutions and has no ability to exert control over religious dogma. Any religious organization can preach hatred towards homosexuals without fear of interference (case in point: the Westborough Baptist Church), but this protection has its limits.

Yes I do know the definition ... you did an alright job of defining discrimination.... but I wonder... do you understand the meaning of bigotry?

Easy. Being intolerant of opinions from the other that doesn't match your opinion/lifestyle... Are you going to pull the bigot card on the LGBT folks because we were upset that this woman discriminated the LGBT folks due to her religious beliefs which caused us to not accept the discrimination? I'm sorry but equality would win any days over the discrimination and if you're going to pull the religion card to go against the LGBT... Well, that's where we would call this situation bigotry because we are in a very irrational situation right now where we have several bigoted religion people that are trying to force their religion down our throat just like with this clerk.

You have to realize that in reality, homosexuality (and similar sexualities) are morally identical to heterosexual.

When all religious and social biases are taken out of the equation, we are left with the simple fact that homosexuality and heterosexuality are both morally neutral; they involve two consenting adults interacting in a way that has no effect on the wellbeing of other people. Regardless of the combination of genders involved, these relationships are only the business of those involved and there is no legitimate reason why they should be labeled as immoral.

Edited: I use this website for some of my information in this post. You can take a look at this if you're interested!

http://theprogressivecynic.com/debu...ng-points/refuting-anti-gay-rights-arguments/

 

[Reba]

Like I said, there's the difference in standing your beliefs, and using your beliefs as an excuse to discriminate against certain group... It's funny because the religion doesn't even mention anything about the homosexuality yet some religious people decided to make it up and it got around....

We can't debate religion at AD so it's not fair for you to post inaccuracies about a religion when it can't be defended in this forum.

 

[Zeo]

We can't debate religion at AD so it's not fair for you to post inaccuracies about a religion when it can't be defended in this forum.

Ah right. I forgot about this because some of us have been getting into a debate about religion in term of LGBT. I can go ahead and remove that part if needed.

 

[whatdidyousay!]

We can't debate religion at AD so it's not fair for you to post inaccuracies about a religion when it can't be defended in this forum.

I am surprise the thread is still open b/c of this.

 

[Reba]

I am surprise the thread is still open b/c of this.

Maybe it will change direction and be able to continue.

 

[Zeo]

I am surprise the thread is still open b/c of this.

To be honest, I am quite surprised the people are allowed to defend the person that are basically discriminating the LGBT folks due to her beliefs, ESPECIALLY when we have a sticky thread in top of the GLBT section telling the users that disagree with the LGBT lifestyle and stuffs like that to not offend/insult the LGBT folks or using their beliefs to go against LGBT.

I guess that's what it lead to have some debate about religion. We'll see how this goes like Reba stated recently.

 

[Jezie]

Like I said, people often twist and change what religion actually follow, which is why there's so much hate for everyone nowadays.



It's bit difficult to understand this paragraph so I apologize in advance if I got the wrong idea from this.

However, I am not against anyone for having their own beliefs but when they try to cross someone else's line just because they don't agree with it. THAT is WHEN it is NOT OKAY to use your own beliefs for this kind of things... especially when it comes to discriminating the homosexuality.

While everybody has the 1st Amendment right to believe in and practice a religion of their choice (or no religion at all), nobody has the right to violate another person’s civil rights in service of their religion.

In accordance with the protections of the 1st Amendment, the government is severely restricted in its ability to interfere with the internal workings of religious institutions and has no ability to exert control over religious dogma. Any religious organization can preach hatred towards homosexuals without fear of interference (case in point: the Westborough Baptist Church), but this protection has its limits.



Easy. Being intolerant of opinions from the other that doesn't match your opinion/lifestyle... Are you going to pull the bigot card on the LGBT folks because we were upset that this woman discriminated the LGBT folks due to her religious beliefs which caused us to not accept the discrimination? I'm sorry but equality would win any days over the discrimination and if you're going to pull the religion card to go against the LGBT... Well, that's where we would call this situation bigotry because we are in a very irrational situation right now where we have several bigoted religion people that are trying to force their religion down our throat just like with this clerk.

You have to realize that in reality, homosexuality (and similar sexualities) are morally identical to heterosexual.

When all religious and social biases are taken out of the equation, we are left with the simple fact that homosexuality and heterosexuality are both morally neutral; they involve two consenting adults interacting in a way that has no effect on the wellbeing of other people. Regardless of the combination of genders involved, these relationships are only the business of those involved and there is no legitimate reason why they should be labeled as immoral.

It is interesting to me that people can find bigotry in one person being against another, yet not find it in the reverse.
The paragraph that you had a hard time with may have had a few typos... hmm... but simply it states that I have never stated my thoughts nor standing on the LGBT community. Nor, am I liable to give them. The reason for me not disclosing my opinions is simply that everyone is ensuring that everyone else knows that they are all for the LGBT community. Yet, this rings false to me. If everyone was for the LGBT community, than the court would not have had to make a ruling that resulted in the media craze that followed. I listen to a person's actions, life is that simple for me.
Religion and the 1st amendment should protect one's beliefs, and basic civil rights and the same should protect the LGBT.

Maybe I am reading you wrong, if so I do apologize, but I get the sense that you think I am attacking or against the LGBT views. Seems easy to make that assumption, but it is only an assumption.

The bigotry card as you call it is simple... being intolerant of others view that are different from your own, yours definition was closer to the dictionary if I recall properly... her views are different from the one side.. so she is a bigot...
Yet, that sides views are differet than her's and yet it is not considered bigotry? No, instead she must be punished for her views and beliefs... why does this not seem wrong?
I will state again, that if she forced everyone to pass the license through her, then that is wrong. She had another option and closed it down. But why is what is good for one side, not good enough for the other?

 

[Zeo]

The bigotry card as you call it is simple... being intolerant of others view that are different from your own, yours definition was closer to the dictionary if I recall properly... her views are different from the one side.. so she is a bigot...
Yet, that sides views are differet than her's and yet it is not considered bigotry? No, instead she must be punished for her views and beliefs... why does this not seem wrong?
I will state again, that if she forced everyone to pass the license through her, then that is wrong. She had another option and closed it down. But why is what is good for one side, not good enough for the other?

I do apologize if it seem like I was attacking you because it seem like you were against the homosexuality... I have the tendency to be really blunt. We cool?

As for bigotry... I can see what you're saying but I'll repeat myself. It's okay to have your own beliefs... But as soon as you start to attack the person because your beliefs doesn't suit them... She would be the one to attack the LGBT folks and refuse to provide the licenses to the LGBT people (which would be a discrimination against LGBT) first and some of the people retaliated back in exchange.

Think about it... Who is the real bigot here... is it Kim Davis clerk, or the LGBT people? Remember, Kim Davis attacked, threw some insults, and discriminated the LGBT people first.

 

[Jezie]

I do apologize if it seem like I was attacking you because it seem like you were against the homosexuality... I have the tendency to be really blunt. We cool?

As for bigotry... I can see what you're saying but I'll repeat myself. It's okay to have your own beliefs... But as soon as you start to attack the person because your beliefs doesn't suit them... She would be the one to attack the LGBT folks and refuse to provide the licenses to the LGBT people (which would be a discrimination against LGBT) first and some of the people retaliated back in exchange.

Think about it... Who is the real bigot here... is it Kim Davis clerk, or the LGBT people? Remember, Kim Davis attacked the LGBT people first.

We are
You will not like my answer to that question... and for that I apologize... but I will try to explain my answer enstead of just throwing it out.
I do not look at this as who attack who first, I look at actions as a whole... to me it does not matter who hit first, last, or hardest... it is all of a matter who swung.
To me, both sides are being a bit of a bigot.
She for refusing to sign documents, and making them go through her.
The LGBT for trying to either make her, punish her, or fire her for her views.
Media and society as well seem ready to hang her.
To me, tolerance goes both ways, not just one.

 

[Zeo]

We are
You will not like my answer to that question... and for that I apologize... but I will try to explain my answer enstead of just throwing it out.
I do not look at this as who attack who first, I look at actions as a whole... to me it does not matter who hit first, last, or hardest... it is all of a matter who swung.
To me, both sides are being a bit of a bigot.
She for refusing to sign documents, and making them go through her.
The LGBT for trying to either make her, punish her, or fire her for her views.
Media and society as well seem ready to hang her.
To me, tolerance goes both ways, not just one.

I really appreciate you being respectful and honest. I can agree with you to some extent on that that both side are bit bigoted. As one of my friends told me... We all are a bigot in a way(s) technically.

Some LGBT folks are throwing threats at her such as death threat which can make LGBT have a quite bad name but from what I said, Kim Davis is wrong in some ways too, especially on the part where she forcefully directed all the staffs to not issue the marriage license to any same-sex couples and making some hate remarks on the homosexuality... Unfortunately for her, she is still required to hand out the marriage license to anyone regardless of who they are because it's required in the civil law and the Supreme Court ordered her to issue the licenses as well... She defied the law and the courtwhich is why she charged with contempt and got thrown into jail for now.

 

[Jezie]

I really appreciate you being respectful and honest. I can agree with you to some extent on that that both side are bit bigoted. As one of my friends told me... We all are a bigot in a way(s) technically.

Some LGBT folks are throwing threats at her such as death threat which can make LGBT have a quite bad name but from what I said, Kim Davis is wrong in some ways too, especially on the part where she forcefully directed all the staffs to not issue the marriage license to any same-sex couples and making some hate remarks on the homosexuality... Unfortunately for her, she is still required to hand out the marriage license to anyone regardless of who they are because it's required in the civil law and the Supreme Court ordered her to issue the licenses as well... She defied the law and the courtwhich is why she charged with contempt and got thrown into jail for now.

Smart friend have to agree there... well in truth in most of what you say for the rest.
Yet, why is the option not avaible that she can get out of jail and return to her job with the understanding that she never again impede licensing?
Does this not show tolerance all around?

 

[Zeo]

Smart friend have to agree there... well in truth in most of what you say for the rest.
Yet, why is the option not avaible that she can get out of jail and return to her job with the understanding that she never again impede licensing?
Does this not show tolerance all around?

I believe she can get out of the jail when she's willing to provide the license to anyone regardless of who they are... Or well, that's what the news say.

Unfortunately, throwing her into jail seem to have made her even more of a martyr and now she is refusing to give the marriage license to both heterosexual and homosexual couples... She refuse to provide the marriage license to everyone now after she got thrown into jail.

 

[Jezie]

I believe she can get out of the jail when she's willing to provide the license to anyone regardless of who they are... Or well, that's what the news say.

Unfortunately, throwing her into jail seem to have made her even more of a martyr and now she is refusing to give the marriage license to both heterosexual and homosexual couples... She refuse to provide the marriage license to everyone now after she got thrown into jail.

Yes, once she agrees she can get out of jail.
Yet, is there not someone else that can sign these licenses?

 

[Zeo]

Yes, once she agrees she can get out of jail.
Yet, is there not someone else that can sign these licenses?

I think we should have marriage licenses being handed out starting tomorrow, according to the news, so I presume yes.

 

[Jezie]

I think we should have marriage licenses being handed out starting tomorrow, according to the news, so I presume yes.

Ah, wow. So all marriages have been impeded by everyone's actions?
How is it that there was no one before, if she forced everyone to put the licenses through her? It implies that other people in her department could sign them as well.

 

[DeafDucky]

Yes, once she agrees she can get out of jail.
Yet, is there not someone else that can sign these licenses?

There is- five of the six deputies in her office have now agreed to issue the licenses. I almost suspect they did because they don't want to have the same fate befall them and/or they actually don't agree with her actions... who knows.

Though I don't know how exactly that works if THEIR signature would appear on the license instead of hers or that hers is the one that by default is the one that appears on ALL licenses...