You said doctors cannot refuse…and then you described exactly *how *they can refuse.
Why should it be a way to specifically discourage Christians from holding office? Are Christians the only religion against same-sex marriage?
I trust there are Jews and Muslims…and Atheists…and people of varying beliefs and religions who are not in support of same-sex marriage.
They, too, would be wisely discouraged from applying or taking this specific job.
I think she should have resigned her position. If I had a state or federal government job that shifted it’s practices to something I did not agree with because of my religion, I would resign. I don’t think it was appropriate for her to defy SOCTUS. They are wrong, in the eyes of many, but they are the law of the land. Resigning in protest would have been the better move.
I did see an article about the town this clerk is from and the tension between long time residents and the new, much more liberal, residents due to the opening of a college. It sounded like the entire town was having issues before this happened. I think the town probably needs to find a way to mediate between the different people that live there. An ‘us’ versus ‘them’ attitude is not helping anything. It’s also not the best Christian example. I don’t know this person’s religion, but all Christians should aspire to love our neighbors, even if don’t agree with their lifestyle. The rhetoric is too much about ‘us’ versus ‘them’.
No, they are not. This is a huge misconception that Americans have about our system. Judicial Supremacy is a sham. It’s a political theory that has never existed, except when politically expedient for the faction controlling the court, and even then, requires enforcement from another branch. We heard the court’s opinion. The executive can just a easily ignore it, same for the legislature. I realize this can be a difficult subject for those who crave an infallible leader, but “Roma locuta est; causa finita est,” does not apply to American politics.
Exactly. It’s not even just Christians. You’re saying that no public discussion may continue on the topic, that all who disagree must kindly can it. You’re imposing a test that essentially bans every conservative/traditional person from holding office. You have created a sub-class of citizens.
This ^^^^^ As a classical Liberal, I totally agree!
As someone posted above, well, what if the Muslim guy doesn’t want his daughter/wife driving… The thing is that’s okay in my book. However, at the same time, I believe that we should encourage policies of integration and assimilation into Western society.
These days, there are way too many Westerners who actively HATE the West and Western values and encourage immigrants to hold too closely to their former culture (instead of fully integrating into our society).
(Personally, I’d insert America instead of Western, but I know that not CAF members are in America…so just trying to include everyone who considers themselves part of the Western world.)
Culture, language, borders. These things matter and if we teach people to disrespect the society they are in, guess what, they are going to do it. We are reaping what “progressives” have sown.
The expectation is that 2nd generation immigrants will be more integrated than their parents and that their parents came here because they wanted to live in a more liberal society.
However, in reality, that expectation falls short. It’s no wonder that the Muslim guy thinks that it’s okay to treat women badly when we won’t even say that we like and need Western values because of the implied threat of being labeled xenophobic and racist (or another “ist”).
Too many people like to play the “I’m being disrespected” card when in fact people are saying “I disagree with you, but I’m okay with you as a person.” It’s sad that people really don’t know the difference.
I don’t agree with gay marriage. You can have one - just don’t force me to participate in it.
I don’t see how that’s hateful, except for the fact that Progressives have decided that everyone must agree that gay marriage is good or else you will be threatened with the loss of business, reputation and possibly freedom.
Yeah…that’s not very liberal. In fact, that seems rather totalitarian to me, but hey…who am I too judge? right?
A lot of people really don’t know how to disagree without being disagreeable these days.
As a Canadian, I’m very familiar with the situation.
And I didn’t say “no public discussion” should continue on the topic. I’m having a public discussion right here, right now, am I not?
Not all conservative/traditional people have beliefs against same-sex marriage.
And…I’m not imposing a “test” that “bans” those people who do from holding office.
You are jumping to (erroneous) conclusions and over-generalizing, and that helps no one.
I’m simply saying that if someone wants to be a county clerk but only put their name on some marriage certificates and not others, and they want to choose which ones using their own personal judgement…and their choice goes against the law and keeps them from doing the job they are paid to do…they should choose a different job.
It’s as clear as night and day.
A sub-class of citizens?! LOL.
People do this all the time. They choose the jobs that suit them and they try not to break the law. My job of ten years changed and new tasks were added that I did not feel comfortable doing…so I switched jobs.
This is called LIFE and adapting to change.
You’d think so, but apparently not. While Mrs. Davis was in jail her deputy clerks were issuing licenses to gay and straight couples without the clerk’s signature. However, once she returns to her job they will want her signature on the licenses so it makes no sense. :shrug:
Hopefully, the state legislature will come up with a legal remedy so things like this don’t have to happen in the future.
Exactly. Why isn’t the liberal side even open to the idea of legal remedy and compromise so that one does not have to violate one’s convictions? It would be a win-win situation, but of course, anything less than full acceptance cannot be tolerated by the gay lobby.
I hear “human rights”, “discrimination”, “bigotry” etc — none of which applies in this case, but I guess if you parrot those words, enough people will buy into the false narrative of “injustice”.
So you disagree with Article VI section 3 of the constitution that says a religious test for public office is forbidden.
So you’ll be requiring people to adhere to doctrines as a test of getting a job.
Just Christians being thrown to the lions again.
So long as the First Amendment is part of the Constitution, conscience should remain supreme. But I am not confident it will. There is a progressive militancy that looks to abandon the Supreme Court’s ‘be-Progressive-but-still-play-nice’ decision in Obergefell. Calls have gone up to tax churches and schools. Anti-Christian polemics already circulate on Facebook and Buzzfeed (their recent video suggests the only “good” Christian is either a liberal “cafeteria Christian,” or a silent one). Christian groups are required to pay for contraceptives and abortifacients in their insurance plans. Catholics have already given up their adoption agency because they’d be forced to serve those who don’t share their views.
Christianophobia is one of the last remaining acceptable bigotries.
Basically, the Zeitgeist’s order for Christians is: conform or shut up, especially if you work a government job. Essentially, no traditionalist may be a county clerk. That’s got a legal name. It’s called a discriminatory test. It’s like making voters take a “literacy test” at the polls, or teachers swear an oath to the party and the Fuhrer. I fear traditionalists, including the religious, Classical Liberals, and others will become second-class, sub-citizens to the ruling Progressive Machine.
Or a religious test in violation of Article VI section 3 of the constitution.
It’s not a religious test, it’s performing the job. Her job is simply that of the county clerk signing off that the couple presenting themselves for a license meet the states criteria, not hers, the states.
Yes, I agree. People are trying too hard to act as though the State should support her rights. The State already passed law to issue gay marriage lisence. She had no legal right to refuse them. So in order to uphold her conscience to God, she must suffer while NOT breaking the law.
If it is God’s will that she be an instrument for his justice, then He will see it through, but not by breaking the law.
Let’s find a comparable situation. What if the Rowan County clerk was a Muslim and a heterosexual couple came to her to get married and the woman was Muslim but the man was Christian. So could this Muslim clerk legitimately refuse to issue a marriage license because according to Islam which is her religion, a Muslim woman cannot marry a non-Muslim man? And BTW, I do know of Muslim born women in the US who have married non-Muslim men even though it is against traditional Islam and their families have objected. Would it be the business of such a county clerk who was a Muslim to impose her own religious beliefs on such a couple seeking a license? (and there are liberal Muslims, too, so Muslim women seeking to marry a non-Muslim do exist).